Like Father Like Son

You'll enjoy this post better if you read yesterday's post "You Never Know Until You Try" first.

As a teenager dad flew an airplane. As a teenager I raced a stock car. In one of my first races, the car popped out of gear in turn three. Let me tell you that situation gets your attention real fast.

The track where I normally raced was very high-banked. You normally had the gas pedal to the floor on the straightaways, held it as long as you could, then slipped your foot off the gas pedal (back off) and cut the steering wheel hard as you entered the turn. Halfway through the turn and completely off the throttle, you did a tap on the brakes (spot brake) and then slammed the gas pedal to the floor to come off the turn.

That works very well assuming of course that the car is in gear. If not, the engine races to red line RPMs (and its hard to hear that above the noise as none of our race cars had mufflers), and the drivers behind you are already banging into you and pushing you. While the shift lever looked like it was in normal position, I gave it a quick slap, it moved slightly and I was back in gear. Soon I was driving that turn with back off, spot break, slap the gearshift, mash the gas. Not a particularly good way to go, but we did qualify for the feature (final) race.

Most short tracks (ours was 1/4 mile) do not have pit stops, so there is no pit area visible to the spectators. Unlike what you see on television at the larger tracks where the pits are parallel to the pit road, our pits were located behind the track and parking was perpendicular to pit road. As you came in to the pit you could nose in or back in. Normally I would back into our pit. This time, excited from being bumped around and having to slam the shift lever every lap, I nosed into the pit and advised the crew.

With little time until the feature race, the crew decided to wire the gearshift tightly in position to see if that might hold it in gear. What did we have to lose? We only ran in second gear anyway and if it didn't work I could always slap it back into gear as I did in the heat race. So wire it up they did, with no time, effort, or amount of wire spared. Rube Goldberg would have been proud.

Imagine our chagrin when they called the race cars for the feature race and thirty three cars fired up and headed out to the track. I climbed in, fastened the belts, fired the engine and went to shift into reverse so I could back out of my pit (remember I had nosed in). There was the shift lever solidly wired into second gear. While some crew members searched frantically for wire cutters, others simply pushed the car back out of the pit stall. And interestingly enough, the car stayed in gear through the entire feature race.

When it comes to problem solving "Ya never know until ya try."

About Pelleyblog. This blog covers topics of interest to managers, particularly those at the first-line supervisor level. Topics include handling difficult employees, leadership, counseling, coaching, problem solving, lean thinking, motivation and time management. We welcome your comments on this post.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

You Never Know Until You Try

I love creativity. Innovations. New ideas. And I love hearing about things people try to do to solve problems, things that range from the deceptively simple to the Rube Goldberg contraptions. Some that work. Some that don't. Here's one that seemed logically simple, but in practice didn't work out.

In 1929 my dad was the youngest person in New Jersey to earn a private pilot's license. He was just 16 years old. He wore a leather flying suit, snoopy hat and goggles as many of the planes were open cockpit. The mechanicals were fairly primitive and the instrumentation was minimal at best.

One difficulty in flying these primitive aircraft was to know the orientation of the plane to the ground, especially when landing. Was the nose up or down and by how much (Pitch)? Were the wings level or was one lower than the other (Roll)? Gyroscopes for aircraft were available, but not in widespread use. Someone at the airport decided that two carpenter's levels could be used as a simple and inexpensive substitute.

One level was placed on the floor of the cockpit lengthwise to show pitch, and one was placed crosswise to show roll. Great idea except it was dark on the floor of the cockpit and the level bubble was difficult to see. A flashlight solved the problem.

Dad said it was a great idea and worked well when cruising along. But not good at all for landing when needed most. On the first landing attempt using the levels, the pilot found he needed one hand on the control stick, one hand on the throttle and one hand on the flashlight. Oops! The quick thinking pilot put the flashlight in his mouth and when he tilted his head to see the levels the light would go that way as well.

Well everyone probably had a good laugh. But I don't believe the system got much use. Anyway, Dad said the gyroscope soon became widely available and solved the problem.

When it comes to solving problems, "ya never know until ya try."

About me: Dan Pelley teaches problem solving and continuous improvement techniques as part of his "Proactive Leadership" program. Click here to see the program learning objectives. You can learn more about all of Dan's program by clicking here to visit our website.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Too Much Checking?

I was called to a company to do a program in "Team-Oriented Problem Solving." The request for training in this subject area came about because of a quality error involving hundreds of thousands of parts and tens of thousands in dollars.

The eighteen hour problem solving program spans a nine week period with a two-hour class each week. Part of each class session is devoted to problem solving principles and practices and the other part of the class is devoted to discussion of real-world application problems. We also devoted some time attempting to diagnose the root cause of the quality problem that caused the company to have the program.

As we delved into the problem, failure to follow procedure was found pretty much every step of the way. But human error is a forbidden root cause because it is not a controllable or solvable condition that can be completely eliminated. Problem solvers confronting human error are encouraged to look for root causes in areas such as hiring practices, training, morale, motivation, and so forth.

The company had good people, many of whom had been with the company for years. It was a company that spent a lot of money on training. It was a good place to work and morale was high. There were well written procedures to cover everything. Quality was given high priority. So why did people fail to follow quality procedures virtually every step of the way?

As it turned out, the process had quality checks built in every step of the way with much redundancy including double and even triple checks. Since everyone was supposed to be checking, some people simply assumed that their checking role wasn't necessary, seemed to be redundant, and it wouldn't matter if they didn't check because the person before and after them would. While that may be true in a single instance, it certainly isn't true when it becomes widespread.

My advice was to reduce the number of checkpoints to a minimum, but enforce them to the maximum. People charged with checking needed to know that there wouldn't be others close by in the process to catch what they missed. That meant that mistakes would be costly and people who failed to perform required checks would be held accountable.

Moreover, these minimum checkpoints needed to be placed where work that could impact quality was performed, and the people performing that work had to be charged with responsibility for their quality (Quality at the Source).

Clearly my suggestion for less checking was not particularly well received. Indeed I hesitated to make it because it was unconventional. Yet the problem cause clearly seemed to point in the direction of too much checking.

I suspect the company "solved the problem" by hammering home the need for people to "do their jobs," and "follow procedures" and "pay attention" or else. And I believe that approach will work over the very short term. But I am still convinced that when everyone is made responsible for something (especially something redundant and boring), we ultimately end up with a system where some people leave the responsibility for actually performing the duty to someone else. If enough people do that, the system fails.

About me: Before becoming a full time educator, my career experiences included being vice president of a consulting firm, vice president - finance of a publishing company, vice president - sales support services for a manufacturing company and vice president - operations for a distribution company. As a full time educator working principally in Rhode Island (RI), Connecticut (CT) and Massachusetts (MA). I am pleased to share my experiences and business philosophies with managers at all levels.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

The Ideas of Others

I have a friend who is a jewelry designer. Her job is to study fashion trends and design product to meet those trends. She has many years experience as a designer, yet she knows that each design is a guess, and most initial designs will be abandoned as the market chooses the right guesses.

She also told me that she doesn't try to make all the guesses herself. Experience has taught that her employees have guesses too. And many of their guesses were designs that she initially believed wouldn't sell. But it turns out that the scorecard for her employees is similar to her own. Most employee design ideas (like her own design ideas) will be abandoned, but others will find market acceptance.

Any designer knows what she is talking about. It can take literally hundreds of ideas to yield just a handful of winners. The more ideas initiated and explored, the more winners to be had. Good designers listen to other people's ideas and suggestions, and incorporate them whenever they can. Just as we should do as managers. Often times, the people who work for us have good ideas; ideas that can be useful to us if we'll take the time to listen to them, explore them, and think about how we can use them.

Think about it this way: In a group of people such as department or work group, no one person in that group is smarter than all of the people in that group put together; because each person in the group has their own individual skills, talents, experiences, perspectives and points-of-view."

About me: Dan Pelley teaches a number of problem solving and continuous improvement techniques in his Proactive Leadership program. The program is offered on an open enrollment basis in Lincoln, RI and Danielson. CT. Click here to visit our website to learn more about this and other programs.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

It Works, But It Shouldn't

Uncle Mel was a skilled machinist and a master mechanic. One of those people who could build or fix most anything. The kind of person who, in his prime, experienced a rear axle failure in his rear wheel drive car on a country road. He hitched a ride to town, got the parts he needed and a ride back to his car. By the side of the road he jacked it up, replaced the axle and continued on his way.

Throughout his life, Mel was always tinkering with something. Even more so after his retirement, although his now advanced age has caused him to slow down - but just a little bit.

Each time I visited Mel he had some new project, or series of projects to show me. Everything from a simple part he manufactured himself rather than chasing around trying to buy one, to the miniature working single cylinder gasoline engine he designed and built totally from scratch. Mel approached his projects with enthusiasm, and the less he knew about something the more curious he became as he thought it through to figure out how it worked. He's a classic example of the person who faces a problem positively; truly believing every problem can be solved.

One day Mel needed a 6 volt automobile battery. Since virtually all automobiles had gone to 12 volt batteries decades before, Mel only had some old (but serviceable) 12 volt ones. No problem. Mel figured if he cut the 12 volt in half, he'd have a 6 volt battery. Simple to think about, but far more difficult to do. Used batteries tend to be messy. Battery acid is dangerous. So are the lead plates and posts. And then there's the technical issues where final result needs to have the specified working voltage and amperage while maintaing proper polarity as well. But not a problem for Mel. Of course he did it. Of course it worked. Of course he showed it to me with great enthusiasm and pride as it supplied 6 volt power to an actual motor.

Mel watched the battery supply the power. His face was its usual mix of happiness, wonderment, curiosity and amusement with which he watched things work. Then he looked up at me and said: "It works. But I don't know how. I can't figure it out. Based on everything I know about electricity and what I did, that battery shouldn't work! Isn't that just the darndest thing?"

Oh that we could all approach problems and challenges with the enthusiasm of Mel. A man undaunted in his quest to invent, to fix, to know how things work, and to adopt and adapt ideas and concepts that other people might say are impossible. A man who part way through a job thinks "why not try it? I don't think this is going to work. But I've gone this far; I can't think of any other way of doing it; so what do I have to lose except a little more time?"

About Pelleyblog. This blog covers topics of interest to managers, particularly those at the first-line supervisor level. Topics include handling difficult employees, leadership, counseling, coaching, problem solving, lean thinking, motivation and time management. We welcome your comments on this post.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

The Biggest Cop Out

What's the single biggest barrier to solving problems, making improvements, finding better ways and moving forward? Four words: "It can't be done." People who use this phrase are doomed to failure. If they believe something can't be done they certainly have no reason to try hard to do it.

Too many employees have also learned to use "it can't be done" to avoid difficult problem solving and continuous improvement assignments. This avoidance is fostered by bosses who accept that excuse out-of-hand with no supporting justification. And this creates the biggest cop out. They avoid the effort and miss out on the potential reward. Because it will be done. Some day. By somebody. A somebody who realizes that each passing day brings new experiences, new technologies, new ideas that move people down the road into a future where the problems of yesterday become the opportunities of today and the improvements of the future.

Commercial space travel is within reach. The flying car is here. Nanotechnology is creating materials that were inconceivable thirty years ago. The inventors, innovators, creators, problem solvers, enhancers and improvers know this. They stay alert for new things to help move things forward. The nay-sayers and negative thinkers cop out.

Our post today can be summed up in two examples. Nay-sayers think like Charles Duell, head of the U.S. Patent Office who declared "Everything that can be invented has been invented." He made his declaration in 1899!

Inventors, innovators, creators, problem solvers, enhancers and improvers think along these lines when it comes to something that most believe can't be done, such as time travel: "Don't believe anyone who tells you that humans will never have efficient technology for backward and forward time travel." (source: NOVA online)

About me: For 25 years, Dan Pelley has presented supervisory management development programs in Rhode Island (RI), Massachusetts (MA) and Connecticut (CT). He is the 2004 recipient of the Richard Fontaine Award for Teaching Excellence awarded by Quinebaug Valley Community College in Danielson, CT.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Why Not Let Them?

Sometimes employees come to us with an idea for solving a problem or making an improvement to the department. They ask us what we think of the idea, hoping of course that we think it's great and will use it. With credit to them of course.

But many managers find that accepting the suggestion out-of-hand is difficult to do. Sometimes the idea triggers a different approach to the situation in the mind of the manager who then tells the employee to do it that way. Worse, some managers even present their idea to the employee "as a better way of handling the situation." Some managers partially accept the employee's idea with revisions and modifications made by the manager without a meaningful discussion with the employee. Other managers flatly reject the employee's idea without due consideration and a solid rationale for dismissing the idea.

Often the end result of all three approaches is an employee who is discouraged, disgusted and has little enthusiasm or interest in this situation now, and similar situations in the future. Yet what did the manager really have to lose by letting the employee try the idea? If we stop to think about it, many ideas can be implemented with very little downside risk. But many managers do not stop to think about it. Instead they decide what to do and then tell the employee to get on with it.

If the employee's idea has merit, you determine that the risk of failure is small, and the cost of complete failure is not substantial (a little wasted time, a little wasted money), then why not let the employee simple try their idea so they can learn from the experience?

If the employee's idea has merit but you think that modifications will improve it, then why not suggest those modifications for consideration by the employee? Let them choose whether or not to incorporate the suggestions. If they do, great! If they don't, it's quite possible that the experience of implementing their unmodified ideas may show them that the suggestions were indeed worthwhile. At that point the employee may well include them, or at least may be receptive to your making those suggestions again, as well as other suggestions in the future.

If you see a somewhat more significant risk of failure and/or a somewhat more substantial cost associated with the failure, then see if you can negotiate changes to the idea to minimize those risks and consequences. If not, then you may want to let the employee go forward with the unmodified idea under strict limitations that will stop implementation if the actual experience shows the risks were real and before the costs and consequences become unacceptable. Why do that? Because sometimes people have to be allowed to learn from the "school of hard knocks." And the boss who creates a controlled environment that lets the employee learn from those experiences often finds that employees tend to be more receptive to the boss's critiques, suggestions and warnings in the future.

If the risks are significant and/or the consequences are substantial, you will have to say no to the idea. But don't reject it out of hand. Take the time to educate the employee on the specific reasons why the idea can't be used as presented and, if possible, what the employee might do to restructure and resubmit the idea so it can be accepted. And, of course, whether you accept the idea or not; whether the idea works perfectly or not; whether the idea even works at all, always congratulate the employee for trying to improve the situation.

About me: Dan Pelley teaches problem solving and continuous improvement techniques as part of his "Proactive Leadership" program. Click here to see the program learning objectives. You can learn more about all of Dan's program by clicking here to visit our website.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

The Importance of Payback

Ever have the disappointment of coming up with a great idea to solve a problem or make an improvement only to have your boss shoot you down because"it costs too much" or "we can't afford it." If you know how to do a payback analysis you'll have a pretty good understanding, even before you go to your boss, of the financial feasibility of your idea.

Payback is a financial tool that tells you how long it will take before the saving resulting from your improvement will pay back the cost of your improvement. The calculation is fairly straightforward once you gather detailed facts on just how much your improvement will cost along with a reasonable estimate of the monthly savings generated by the improvement.

Example: Suppose you have an improvement that reasonable people agree will save the company $250.00 per month. The cost of the improvement is $2,000.00. To calculate payback you simply divide the monthly savings ($250) into the cost of the improvement ($2000). The result of that division (in this case 8) is your payback period. In 8 months you will have saved enough money to pay back the $2,000.00 you invested.

Payback is very important when you are trying to get money to make an improvement because of a financial rule-of-thumb. Most financial managers will tell you that a payback of one year or less is a "no-brainer." That is, if the company has the funds available, a less than one year payback situation is a very good investment to make. If the payback is greater than one year, but is two years or less, it is still a fairly good investment to make. Beyond two years doesn't mean you won't get the money, but it does mean you'll probably need some pretty strong non-financial reasons why the improvement should be funded.

One last thought for today. The actual details that sum up to the two components of payback (cost of improvement and monthly savings) can be complex sometimes. My advice? If you are not familiar with the detailed mechanics of payback ask someone who is. Usually your company will have a financial person (controller, accountant, chief financial officer) who can show you what details you should include and how to perform the actual calculations. If you're lucky, the financial person may even check your work for you to make sure it's accurate.

About Pelleyblog. This blog is concerned with management topics. It is hosted by Dan Pelley, a management practitioner who offers a Certificate in Supervisory Management. The blog includes responses to questions and issues (posed by participants in Dan's seminars and classes, in their homework assignments, and by you via e-mail.); practical, hands-on, real-world advice (since Dan is still a practitioner); thoughts on how not to train (sharing some of the really stupid things that some companies do, and then they wonder why their “training” programs do not work); now and then a thought for the day (on any issue that strikes our fancy at the time); and occasionally a rant (although Dan's wife says he does far too many of them).

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Working With Suppliers

Everyone knows we should do our best to maintain good working relationships with our customers. I also believe we should do our best to maintain good working relationships with our suppliers and vendors as well.

Some people believe that because they are the customer they have the right to impose, to put upon, browbeat and persecute their suppliers. More often than not, they do that to make up for their own lack of planning, inefficiency and procrastination by pushing the problem onto the suppliers. In turn, most suppliers and vendors do their best under the most trying of circumstances because they are committed to satisfying their customers. The customer may not always be right, but the customer is always the customer.

I don't like to do business that way. I look for ways to help my suppliers service me better. When my instructions are not clear, I learn how to change them so my suppliers can better understand them. I also learn and try to respect my vendors lead times and try my best to give them as much time as possible to do my work. I am also very loyal to my suppliers and vendors; not that I don't change from time to time, but it does take a lot for me to terminate a business relationship.

Of course there's a very good reason for my approach to suppliers. Clear instructions help ensure the job will be done correctly. Respecting lead times helps ensure my jobs are not done in a crisis mode which often leads to problems. And when on those rare occasions a supplier asks if they can have a few extra days on my job because they have a lot of work to do, I try accommodate them whenever I can. And often times I can. But if I say I can't, they respect that and make sure my job gets done on time.

By not being a problem customer and by partnering with my suppliers and vendors to create a smooth and mutually beneficial working relationship, I find that when I make a mistake or I need to impose a very short delivery date, my suppliers and vendors will go out of their way to help me out in any way that they possibly can.

I'm sharing these thoughts because today I had to impose on one of my suppliers. One of my customers booked a program which gave me a very short lead time to produce books and other materials. I phoned ahead to let the supplier know I would be in the next day so they could plan for me. Wouldn't you know it? The person who normally does my work was on vacation. But they said "Come on in Dan and we'll take care of you." I arrived this morning to a quiet shop. With the primary person on vacation, they weren't in a production mode today -- -- except for me. Several people who normally work in other areas pitched in and did the job while I waited. Thanks gals and guys.

About me: Dan Pelley's career experiences range from the shipping room to the boardroom and the college classroom. He has worked in companies as diverse as metal stamping, foundries, pharmaceuticals, computers and electronic components, hospitals, nursing homes, motor carriers, distribution, retailers, social services, government, quasi-government agencies, a major art museum and an airline. He shares his experiences through programs and seminars for companies in New England and through this blog.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Do You Really Need Permission?

I frequently hear this comment from supervisors "My boss won't let me do my job." I frequently hear a much different comment from executives "Those supervisors don't take the bull by the horns." There's obviously a disconnect here.

In a pharmaceutical company in-house seminar a manager described a problem he was having with his boss. It seemed his boss would never respond to requests for permission to try something new or to do something differently. Very often the conversation ended with the boss saying something like "I'll think about it" or "I'll get back to you." On those rare occasions when the boss actually did respond the answer was ambiguous, not a clear yes or no.

Participants in the seminar offered many suggestions, but none seemed to be on target. Finally someone asked who the boss was since they all worked in the same company (although in different locations). When the boss was identified another participant said "That's funny, I used to work for him and I never had that problem."

Naturally the manager with the issue asked "How did you get him to give you permission?"

"I didn't," said the other. "I never asked him for permission because I learned early on that he didn't want to get involved in what I do as long as I delivered results. I kept keep him posted after the fact and he would acknowledge me with something like 'great' or 'that's good.' On major changes I would ask for his opinion instead of his permission. He was happy to give opinions rather than decisions. In light of the comments in his opinion I would then make a no go decision if I thought he wouldn't be happy with the idea going forward."

If you face a similar situation, think about what would happen if you went ahead and did something without permission. For a routine operating decision I'd guess most bosses would be just as glad if you went ahead and handled it yourself. But no need to take my guess on it. There's two ways to find out. The first is to ask your boss directly if it's okay to make some of the decisions that you usually seek permission for. A great time to do that is right after permission was sought and granted. At that time you could ask, "Would it have been okay with you if I had just gone ahead and done it without troubling you?"

The other way is to test the concept. Choose a small decision (not a major one) and try it without asking permission. What's the worst that could possibly happen? A small reprimand? If you get a small reprimand then you'll know you need permission for even the smallest things. If a small decision seems to work, try a slightly bigger decision next time. See what happens. Keep going until you reach a point where your boss starts to criticize or you start to get uncomfortable proceeding without permission. At that point you'll have some sense of the boundary line for proceeding on your own.

About this post: Dan Pelley works with managers at all levels to improve communications and working relationships in the process of solving problems and making improvements. He combines his experience as an operating manager and an educator to provide powerful, focused hands-on programs to solve real-world business problems.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Making Hazardous Waste Benign

A manufacturing process resulted in a hazardous waste byproduct which resulted in significant disposal costs. A process engineer was determined to reduce that cost. After several experiments, he found that adding certain chemicals in an additional processing step would render the byproduct benign. The byproduct could then be processed as non-hazardous waste at substantially reduced costs.

During a review of the proposed new process, the environmental officer flatly stated that EPA would not accept the new process. He contended that once material was considered hazardous it would always have to be treated as hazardous, even if the hazard were removed. The new process was rejected.

The process engineer could not believe the logic. The material was chemically changed. It was laboratory proven to be a different material. It simply wasn't the same. In essence, he had done what a waste water treatment plant does when it takes unclean water (hazardous) and processes it into drinkable water (non-hazardous). He contacted the local EPA office to make his case. Unfortunately they were set in their ways. They contended, as did the company environmental officer, that material once hazardous must always be treated as hazardous. They also made sure the process engineer understood they would be checking more frequently to make sure the byproduct material was disposed of properly by a licensed hazardous waste facility.

Undaunted, the engineer appealed this ruling all the way to Washington. Presenting a solid case loaded with factual evidence including independent lab tests, he won approval for his revised process. The resulting benign byproduct would be approved for disposal in the non-hazardous waste stream at significant savings to the company.

Some times in problem solving and continuous improvement efforts we run into roadblockers, negative thinkers, nay-sayers, and rigid thinkers. But if our proposed change has merits supported by substantial facts with benefits clearly calculated and spelled out, then the proactive manager is well advised to try every possible avenue to get the idea approved.



About me: Dan Pelley offers programs in proactive leadership, problem solving and continuous improvement in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. His team based problem solving program typically produces money-saving ideas that offset program costs many times over.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Use Every Idea

I saw a great show on the science channel titled "A World of Trash," part of the "Ecopolis Series". The program was a "contest" between four competing technologies for handling our waste stream. The judge was a Nobel prize-winning scientist.

The first technology, currently being used in Singapore, involved incineration of trash with a byproduct of hazardous ash. The ash is taken offshore and placed inside a four mile impervious barrier to create an island. Top-coated with clean soil, the island can support trees and vegetation. The impervious barrier combined with an on-going monitoring system prevents leakage.

The second technology, currently in limited use, involves using gas plasma to totally eliminate the trash while producing a residual gas. While expensive, it allows for the recovery of certain elements such as precious metals.

Third was a technology being tested in Australia using a process invented centuries ago in South America. Organic trash such as wood chips and food waste are incinerated to form biochar (similar to charcoal). The char is mixed into non-productive soil and the process eventually results in a dark soil that is very productive for farming.

The final technology was a process for extracting heat from raw sewerage and using that heat to generate electricity. Great idea, currently used somewhere in Scandinavia, but limited to only one area of the waste stream.

The contest was limited to one winner. The judge's assignment: "if we could only choose one of these technologies to deal with our rapidly increasing waste disposal problems, which would be best?"

The winner - Biochar for several reasons recited by the judge. However, as any good scientist should do, the judge also listed the advantages and disadvantages of each technology.

The show accomplished its mission. But it left something unsaid that every problem solver must consider: Each of the technologies had a use for certain applications. Indeed, for some applications, biochar was not the best answer. But the contest needed a winner as we often do when considering alternatives in our problem solving efforts. We evaluate our alternatives using the best data and logic available, and then choose the best alternative. The creators of the best alternative are congratulated and we get on to implementing the solution. In effect, our contest ends. We turn to other problems and issues. And often times leave behind some very good ideas in our less-than-best solutions for this particular problem.

If the Science Channel judge had the option, it seems to me that the best answer was to use all four technologies. Use heat from sewerage for electricity in areas where that is cost effective. Use plasma technology to extract precious resources such as platinum from that segment of the waste steam. Use biochar incineration for the organic waste stream. See if there are other technologies to handle other remaining segments of the trash stream. Then anything that remains can be conventionally incinerated into an ash that takes up far less space in landfills (or seafills if we want to add to the shoreline or build an island).

The Science Channel program chose the best alternative as we should do for our business problems. But as problem solvers we would be best advised to take an additional step. Once we've chosen our winner, we need to examine each of the other alternatives and ask ourselves, "Is there any way we can make use of this idea now or in the future?"

Tough to do when the problem is solved and we have to get back to work. And I think its safe to say that it won't get done unless we include that step in our action plan, budget the time to do it, and most importantly, commit to doing it so no good idea gets left behind.

By the way, the show was so good it prompted me to write this, my first attempt at a post, back in December. It's been in my draft folder ever since with the intention of telling you about the show so you could see it too. Unfortunately the series ended in early January and I couldn't find any re-runs scheduled when I checked a few days ago. But The Science Channel still has information and some short videos available on their website.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.