Individual Assignment Essay Example For Students

Individual Assignment Essay Compare and contrast two problem-solving methodologies, select one of these and apply it to a situation in your organisation. The latter should be written in a `case study` formatIntroduction ? What is a Problem?In an individuals professional and social life, they will have objectives or desired outcomes that they aim to reach. These may be in preparing to take a family holiday or meeting a high sales target at work. During the course of attaining that goal they will encounter either an occurrence or obstacle that prevents the person achieving the desired aim or objective. This circumstance or discrepancy is a problem. It is preventing the individual from achieving their desired state of affairs in the manner that they had planned or had perceived it would be achieved. The problem solving methodology that an organisation will choose to attempt to solve these problems will determine their strategy and general approach to problem solving. It will determine what tools and techniques they use to assist in their processes. The comparison between a hard systems approach to problem solving and a soft systems approach provides us with two very different outlooks and are based on differing fundamental assumptions on how human beings interact. Hard Systems Thinking OptimisationIn the years after the Second World War, when lessons from military operations were applied to industrial companies and Government agencies, an interest in systems ideas developed in many fields. This interest was signalled by the formation of the Society for General Systems Research in 1954, a group of people who were interested in applying systems thinking in traditional disciplines. The basic principle that a hard system thinking emphasises is the use of quantification and measurement to understand systems. This strategy is intended to reduce the level of uncertainty that is associated with confronting problems and the possible options that are available to attempt to solve the problems. The core belief of hard systems approaches are that rationalisation and systematisation of problem-solving processes will lead to the best decisions being made. Soft Systems Thinking ? AppreciationSoft systems thinking and the associated approaches to problem solving have developed primarily over the past two decades. The approaches are based on the belief that because individuals views are subjective experiences, there is no single reality. This means that individuals will view and interpret activities differently based on their own social, cultural and political experiences. As people view situations differently, it is not possible to accurately define a problem and as a result, there is no opportunity to produce a perfect solution. Soft systems thinking addresses organisational problem solving through the use of continuous learning and communication. These will increase an organisations` capacity for problem solving. The fundamental aim is to create a Learning Organisation whose` goals are not to solve problems instantly, but to consider problematic areas as the organisations` members of awareness of the issues related to the areas broaden and deepen. The Comparison between Hard and Soft Systems Problem Solving MethodologiesHard systems approaches are characterised by the fundamental assumption that a definitive problem statement can identify the problem solving process. This clearly defined problem forms for foundation for all the subsequent structured steps. The end point of the process is to change the system in a way that eliminates the problem. Once a problem has been clearly identified, the process that follows focuses on identifying and evaluating alternative solutions. By contrast, soft systems problem solvers believe there are no problems waiting to be solved because the problem is being enacted through an individuals conditioning and perception. As a result of this thinking they recognise that there are no permanent solutions, only improvements. These become a continuous series of on going improvements, which are regarded as accommodations. A useful way of comparing the two methodologies is to consider two different models that have been developed that use the alternative principles as discussed above. N. K. Kwak and S. A. DeLurglo have developed a seven stage problem solving process that is based on the principles of Operations Research (OR). OR is an application of hard systems thinking that uses different mathematical techniques to solve specific types of problems. It approaches problems by using the scientific method of inquiry. Peter Checkland`s soft system methodology as similarly a seven step sequential model. It is an example of a model that uses interactive planning. Interactive planning is participative. It requires the direct involvement of stakeholders. It asks stakeholders to make plans to achieve whatever they believe to be important.Stage1 of the OR process is the problem formulation. This includes defining the object of the study, measures of effectiveness and efficiency and the boundaries to the system. It identifies controllable variables and uncontrollable variables. This approach in itself does two things. It is immediately implying that we will come to a finite result at the end of the process. It is also acknowledging that it is not in a closed system. In other words, it is qualifying the process by stating that there are elements that may well effect the situation but are beyond the control of the systems capabilities. Candide - A Contrast To Optimism EssayStage 3 Forming Root DefinitionsThe major relationship between the stakeholders and their systems of operation is that they are working in a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year environment together. In certain respects, their survival is inter-dependant. If the baggage system is not performing as desired, the other interests will not be able to meet their objectives. The manager of the system will be given ownership of the situation and any change that will take place. It will be his responsibility to gather views and debate the alternative processes that could take place to enable improvement of the system. The major consideration will be how the operation of the airport can be maintained while the improvements to the system are implemented. Stage 4 ? Building Conceptual ModelsIt is the responsibility of all the stakeholders to consider what they believe are the problems that can be addressed with the system. The aim of this stage is to question and encourage the different parties to propose improvements that could be made. Emphasis must be placed on creativity and no ideas should be suppressed. The owner of the process must then analyse the ideas, sort them into simple categories and feed them back to all the stakeholders again for further consideration. The information can then be analysed by all the stakeholders and this in turn may ignite a new idea that the group could consider. At the end of this stage the owner of the process should be able to identifyseveral improvement proposals that have been mutually accepted by the group. This process enables stakeholders to understand one anothers views and values they place on the system. Stage 5 Comparing ideas with realityFollowing the creative thinking process, it is at this point that consideration is given to how realistic the ideas for improvement are. The perceived constraints that the team believes it is working around have to be challenged and discussions should centre on how the new ideas may be employed. Stage 6 Defining ChangesIt is only at this stage that the feasibility of the possible alternatives for changing the system can be determined. The two criteria that they must be based upon are systematic desirability and cultural acceptability. The systematic desirability examines the technical merits of the proposed accommodations and, in this case, will be the basis of for the greatest weighting of the selection. For example, the group will have constraints on the hall that the baggage system operates within and proposals for expansion of the existing system may be unachievable. The cultural acceptability of the ideas may also need consideration. If one of the proposed improvements involves a change in the level of manual handling of baggage, this could have an adverse effect to moral of the employees. Stage 7 Taking ActionThe implementation of the recommendations that were both acceptable and feasible to all requires action that is guided by the new awareness generated by the learning process that has been undertaken. The aim is that, as and when the improvements are undertaken, a new situation occurs and the cycle should begin again. The group, with all the stakeholders represented, must continue to discuss and propose now ideas for consideration with a goal to refine the system. BibliographyReferences N.K. Kwak and S. A. DeLurgio, Quantitative Models for Business Decisions (North Sciatuate, Mass. U.S.A; Duxbury Press, 1980) J. Rosenhead, Rational Analysis for a Problematic World (Chichester, England ; John Wiley and Sons, 1989) S. Cavaleri and K. Obloj, Management Systems (K Wadsworth,1993)