Management Perspectives

How do you solve a R100 billion-problem with a whistle? By using the best framework. Managers, leaders—even ancient kings—can solve almost any problem
effectively, provided they know how. More on that whistle later.

When my IMD colleague Professor Albrecht Enders and I were researching our book Solvable: A simple solution to complex problems, we discovered an inconvenient truth: the trait most valued in executives is among the rarest.

World Economic Forum and McKinsey report that decisiveness often trumps other skills— even those deemed critical to business success, such as communication expertise or the ability to collaborate effectively.

What is rare is often precious. And so is the case with problem-solving. During our research, Professor Enders and I found that effective problem-solvers are uncommon in business and public service, right from senior management level to the very top.

Our instinctive responses—known by psychologists as System 1 thinking—might enable us to make snap decisions on everyday choices such as opting which sari, dress or suit to wear in the morning. Yet System 1 is inadequate for the sorts of problems the typical Indian business faces daily. We classify such conundrums as CIDNI (complex, ill-defined, and nonimmediate but important).

Complex, because the obstacles that prevent us from achieving our goal are diverse, unclear, or variable; ill-defined, because the goal itself might be unclear—and often different depending on whom you ask; non-immediate but important, because—unlike our daily wardrobe choice—the quality of the decisionmaking process is more crucial than its rapidity.

These are the challenges that, if not addressed effectively, cause executive stress, cripple efficiency, and in extreme cases, topple companies altogether.

Framing failure

Yet, if effective problem-solving is so highly valued and so critical to success, why do not many more senior managers and executives develop such expertise? The answer is that problem-solving does not come easy. Professor Enders and I found several factors that militated against problem-solving success, yet one overarching issue stood out: executives often struggle to define their problem properly at the outset. This framing failure often predicts poorer outcomes: if you are unclear whether gaining market share, improving profitability, or increasing revenues is your goal, it is less likely that you will be able to deploy your usually very limited resources to create the most impact for your organisation.

During a multi-year study at IMD, we asked more than 950 senior managers and professionals to share the key issues they observe in their organisations during problem-solving:  about 55 percent of them reported framing issues. The survey revealed that framing failures was consistent across all geographies, industries,  and seniority levels. Nor is an inability to frame decisions novel. History is littered with examples of even the most decorated leaders toiling with such complex decisions. This is where the whistle comes in!

French lesson 

In 1661, Louis XIV ruled France. The self-proclaimed Sun King set about celebrating the opulence and grandeur of the French royal family by commissioning Versailles, the lavish palace near Paris that remains one of Old  Europe’s finest châteaux.  

At the height of Louis’ power, Versailles was home to a scarcely imaginable 2,400 fountains.  The fountains were deliberately ostentatious—  designed to showcase to foreign dignitaries the glamour and allure of 17th century France. Yet,  for all his grand plans, the bombastic Louis had counted against something significant: the laws of physics.

Effective hydraulics were a distant dream in the  1660s. This was a problem, because Versailles,  like many royal palaces, was sited atop a hill: all  the potential sources of water were below it. Its topography was particularly taxing given that its  2,400 fountains consumed the equivalent of two  Olympic swimming pools of water every hour. 

For Louis’ engineers, one problem was particularly important: how can we deliver sufficient water to Versailles? With the problem so framed, they embarked on a multi-year journey that saw the ushering in of marvels of inventions and engineering, from the implementation of horse-activated pumps to the erection of windmills, and the digging of large reservoirs and irrigation canals. Yet, none of the measures ever brought enough water to satiate the king, who constantly asked for more.  

To placate him, his exasperated engineers sought ever grander cures. Rerouting the river  Bièvre and building a 1,500m long aqueduct enabled the fountains to operate for a few hours a day—albeit by consuming more water than the entire city of Paris.

Eventually, the French court devised the  Machine de Marly, an elephantine contraption that siphoned water from the River Seine.  It required damning the river at two points,  demanded 1,800 men to build, and cost the equivalent of ₹64 bn in today’s prices. A marvel of engineering, it was able to bring water 160 m  up! Yet, it served the fountains with only half the water that they needed. 

Finally, new lakes were dug and plans launched for an 80-km canal—a project that required the employment of 30,000 men. Louis’ vanity project left France near bankrupt. When war broke out with the League of Augsburg in 1689,  a diminished France found itself struggling for resources, and the canal project was shelved.

Yet the suspension of construction proved a  blessing—because it gave Louis’ demoralised  engineers pause for thought.

Recall how the engineers had, all those  years, costs, and labour ago, framed their  problem: “How can we deliver sufficient  water to Versailles?” By framing the problem that way, they prompted almost three decades of toil, misery, and destitution. Nobody stopped to consider a different frame: How can we deliver enough water to Versailles to keep the king happy?

The reframe helped them, as mentioned earlier, solve the problem by a whistle.  Working to a different frame, “How can we deliver enough water to Versailles to keep the king happy?” the fountaineers landed on a  solution that was as ingenious as it was simple.  Instead of running all the fountains continuously,  the fountaineers simply whistled whenever the king and his distinguished guests approached a fountain. Upon hearing the signal, the water operator turned on the fountain within the royal party’s sightline. Once the dignitaries were out of sight, he would whistle for the next fountaineer to open his water supply while turning off the fountain just visited. 

Meet FrED

Although poor framing can be disastrous for organisations like the French royal court, the opposite is also true. By learning to frame problems effectively, managers can be like the whistling fountaineer: bringing success,  efficiency, and satisfaction to their organisations.

Fr signifies ‘Frame’, one element of our FrED model (see graphic) – an invaluable tool for senior managers who want to learn the science of solving problems.

E stands for ‘Explore’. In Solvable we outline the techniques for  exploring innovative alternatives—  the viaduct, the canal…or the  whistle—as well as clarifying what is of value to the decision makers and the key stakeholders.

D represents ‘Decide’. If the framing is inadequate and the exploration insufficient, a decision might not be forthcoming. Our framework reveals how a poor decision making process can compromise executives’ confidence in their choice—leading some decisions never to be executed. And so we provide concrete ideas to sidestep this trap as well as suboptimal framing and deciding.

FrED can be applied to any CIDNI problem.  In fact, over the past twenty years, it has helped us coach hundreds of people to solve problems in disciplines as wide-ranging as management,  engineering, design, architecture, and even philosophy.

Consider this scenario from Indian Railways,  one of the world’s largest employers. Imagine that the railway’s managers are receiving regular complaints from passengers that the Vande Bharat  Express between New Delhi and Varanasi is too slow. The obvious Frame for the problem is, ‘How can we speed up the Vande Bharat Express?’.  One alternative frame is ‘How can we  make customers happy with the Vande Bharat  Express?’  

The first question, ‘How can we speed up the Vande Bharat Express?’ provokes us to  Explore solutions such as upgrading the track,  making fewer stops en route, or reducing safety standards so the locomotive can be driven at higher speeds. Yet, all these proposals have significant downsides: upgrading the track is disruptive and expensive; making fewer stops will be unpopular with customers who live near those stations; and reducing safety standards increases the likelihood of accidents.

Yet the second frame, ‘How can we make customers happy with the Vande Bharat  Express?’ frees us up to Explore a more innovative mix of solutions. A luxury restaurant car might be added to every service, so passengers enjoy the journey more and can use the time to eat well and socialise with their fellow travellers. The onboard wifi could be improved, making working online, and watching high-quality movies, easier. A sports carriage, on which passengers could watch live cricket while relaxing with a cold drink, could be installed.

If passengers could make better use of their time on board, perhaps their demands for expensive and disruptive mechanical upgrades might subside.  

Iterative process

The reality of good problem-solving is that our findings prompt us to review our earlier conclusions. As the diagram shows, problem solving need not begin with a frame. It can just as easily start as we explore potential solutions in our head to a challenge we face in our managerial work.

In Solvable, we demonstrate how managers can start anywhere on the FrED circle and move around the model in either direction.

All routes lead to greater business success.