Copyright 2009 K. W. JablokowINCOSE 2009 Problem Solving Leadership in Systems Engineering Kathryn...

Problem Solving Leadership Problem Solving Leadership in Systems Engineeringin Systems Engineering

Kathryn Jablokow, Ph.D.Kathryn Jablokow, Ph.D.The Pennsylvania State UniversityThe Pennsylvania State UniversityMechanical Engineering and STSMechanical Engineering and STS

Engineers and SystemsEngineers and Systems

“Engineering is about systems…. Frontiers of engineering today are in tiny systems on the one hand and macro systems on the other.”

- Charles Vest, President, National Acad. of Engineering

“Activities at both extreme scales call for teams of people who will bring knowledge from different disciplines, and their contributions must be integrated into the final result.”

- H. Hutchinson, Mechanical Engineering Magazine

Systems Engineering = Complex Problem SolvingSystems Engineering = Complex Problem Solving

Systems and problems: diverse, complex, challenging

Diverse problem solvers(Problem B)

Problem AProblem A

Problem solving is more than a process. Problem solving is more than a process.

Process

Environment

People Product

Problem Solving LeadershipProblem Solving Leadership

We need systems engineers who:We need systems engineers who:

• Understand the Understand the problemsproblems they face (including the they face (including the desired desired productsproducts))

• Know how to Know how to collaboratecollaborate with other problem solvers with other problem solvers

• Can facilitate the problem solving Can facilitate the problem solving processprocess

• Create Create environmentsenvironments conducive to effective conducive to effective problem solvingproblem solving

The Path to Problem Solving LeadershipThe Path to Problem Solving Leadership

Individual Individual problem solversproblem solvers

ProblemProblemsolving teamssolving teamsProblem solvingProblem solving

leadershipleadership

A Cognitive Approach to Problem SolvingA Cognitive Approach to Problem Solving

Four Key Variables of Problem SolvingFour Key Variables of Problem Solving

• KirtonKirton (2003): – Key variables that

describe individual problem solvers

OpportunityOpportunity

MotiveMotive

LevelLevel

StyleStyle

LevelLevel: With whatWith what, how muchhow much, and how well how well I solve problems

StyleStyle: The wayThe way in which I preferprefer

to solve problems

The Level-Style DistinctionThe Level-Style Distinction

They areindependent

We tend to We tend to misinterpretmisinterpret

differences indifferences in stylestyle as as differences indifferences in level level

(and their owners as (and their owners as inferiorinferior).).

The result: We write off their contributions – which may be critical for success.

StructureStructure: A Key Concept: A Key Concept

• StructureStructure is …

– a key concept in problem solvingproblem solving and in understanding cognitivecognitive stylestyle

– a prerequisite for predictionprediction

StructureStructure (cont’d)(cont’d)

Tight structure: High predictability, Less flexibility

Loose structure: High flexibility, Less predictability

StructureStructure (cont’d) (cont’d)

• We need both predictabilitypredictability and flexibilityflexibility in order to succeed:

– Too muchmuch structure => too few options => no problem solvingno problem solving

– Too littlelittle structure => too many options => no problem solvingno problem solving

• The exact balancebalance neededneeded depends on what the problemproblem requiresrequires, not on what any one person prefers.

The Paradox Of StructureThe Paradox Of Structure

EnablingEnabling LimitingLimiting

AnyAny structurestructure is both enablingenabling and limitinglimiting at the same time.

StyleStyle and and StructureStructure

Cognitive style Cognitive style (Adaption-Innovation)(Adaption-Innovation)

defines a person’s defines a person’s stable preferred way stable preferred way

of managing of managing structure structure

when solving problems. when solving problems.

Kirton’s Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Adaption-Innovation ContinuumContinuum

More InnovativeInnovative

Prefer lesslessstructurestructure

More AdaptiveAdaptive

Prefer moremorestructurestructure

Problem Solving (Cognitive) StyleProblem Solving (Cognitive) Style

• Targeted ideasTargeted ideas• Change agents – improve the systemChange agents – improve the system• More prudent risk takersMore prudent risk takers

• Reliable, methodical, disciplined, Reliable, methodical, disciplined, consistentconsistent

• Masters of detailMasters of detail

• Prefer well-defined problem statementsPrefer well-defined problem statements

• Use rules to solve problemsUse rules to solve problems

• Seek consensus, value group cohesionSeek consensus, value group cohesion

AdaptionAdaption: Common Descriptions: Common Descriptions

Famous Famous AdaptorsAdaptors

Thomas Edison Alfred Butts

CAUTION:CAUTION: The sterling qualities of the The sterling qualities of the AdaptorAdaptor are are

often often overlookedoverlooked and and undervaluedundervalued!!

InnovationInnovation: Common Descriptions: Common Descriptions

• Overflowing ideasOverflowing ideas

• Change agents – replace the system Change agents – replace the system

• More daring risk takersMore daring risk takers

• Think in tangential, unexpected waysThink in tangential, unexpected ways

• Less constrained by past customsLess constrained by past customs

• Trade off details for overviewTrade off details for overview

• Often disregard rules, challenge Often disregard rules, challenge assumptionsassumptions

• May disturb settled groupsMay disturb settled groups

FamousFamous Innovators Innovators

Nikolai TeslaAkio Morita

CAUTION:CAUTION: The “blue sky” ideas of the The “blue sky” ideas of the InnovatorInnovator may may

be be misunderstood misunderstood and dismissed dismissed!!

Assessing Cognitive StyleAssessing Cognitive Style

• Probably genetically determined Probably genetically determined (a component of personality)(a component of personality)

• Cannot choose or change your styleCannot choose or change your style

• Can be measured atCan be measured atan early agean early age

• Remains stable with Remains stable with age, experienceage, experience

Style vs. BehaviorStyle vs. Behavior

Style is stableStyle is stable– I preferprefer to behave in accord

with my style– My “lowest cost” behavior

Behavior is flexibleBehavior is flexible– I can and docan and do behave away

from my preferred style– Coping behavior Coping behavior requires

extra energy and may be stressful

Assessing Cognitive Style: Assessing Cognitive Style: KAIKAI

• Cognitive styleCognitive style can be safely and reliably measured using KAIKAI, a highly-validated style inventory.

• 33 items, administered by certificated practitionerscertificated practitioners

• KAIKAI was developed by Dr. M. J. KirtonDr. M. J. Kirton, a British industrial psychologist, in 19761976.

• Researchers and practitioners have been testing and using KAIKAI in industry for over 30 yearsover 30 years.

General Population Sample 95

14516032

More Adaptive(prefer more structure)

More Innovative(prefer less structure)

Observed Mean = 95Standard deviation ≈ 17

Theoretical range: 32 - 160Observed range: 45 - 145

KAI Style DistributionKAI Style Distribution

Style and Systems Engineers

More MoreAdaptive Innovative

Diverse Diverse levelslevels andand stylesstyles are needed are needed to solve successfully to solve successfully

the vast the vast diversitydiversity of of problemsproblems with which we are currently faced.with which we are currently faced.

No “Best” Place on the Continuum

Teams (of any size) face Teams (of any size) face thethe Paradox of StructureParadox of Structure, ,

just as individuals do!just as individuals do!

• Every difference (in levellevel, stylestyle, or motivemotive) is both enablingenabling and limitinglimiting in solving the currentcurrent problemproblem.

• A cognitive advantageadvantage in one situation (or at one time) may be a disadvantagedisadvantage in another.

Teams and the Paradox of StructureTeams and the Paradox of Structure

Current problem = Problem A

Managing team diversity = Problem B

Successful teams spend Successful teams spend more time more time on on Problem AProblem A than on than on Problem BProblem B. .

The Economy of DiversityThe Economy of Diversity

Matching People to Problems

Lower Level

Problem A3

Problem A1

Higher Level

More InnovativeMore Adaptive

Problem A2

There is There is muchmuch more … more …

• Cognitive gapCognitive gap

• BridgingBridging

• Coping behaviorCoping behavior

• Agents of changeAgents of change

• Characterizing Problem A Characterizing Problem A

• Pendulum of Change vs. Spiral of Change …Pendulum of Change vs. Spiral of Change …

… … but we have to wrap things up! but we have to wrap things up!

The The MythMyth of “ of “IdealIdeal” ” LeadersLeaders

• Past trendPast trend: searching for the “ideal leaderideal leader”– Outstanding knowledge of the problem area– Dominating the problem solving process

• ProblemsProblems with this approach: – No one personone person can know everything needed to solve

today’s complex problems.

– Expectations and demands continue to increaseincrease.

Problem Solving LeadershipProblem Solving Leadership

Problem solving leaders Problem solving leaders understand and understand and facilitate: facilitate:

1. The problem problem (know enough to hold his/her own)

2. The problem solving process problem solving process (through coping, bridging, etc.)

3. The problem solverproblem solver (alone and in teams)

And how they IMPACT each other!

Practical ApplicationsPractical Applications

This problem solving framework problem solving framework is being used by:

• U.S. Military U.S. Military

• Defense contractors Defense contractors

• Research centers & labsResearch centers & labs

• Pharmaceutical industryPharmaceutical industry

• Manufacturing companiesManufacturing companies

• Leadership development orgs. Leadership development orgs.

PSU Problem Solving CurriculumPSU Problem Solving Curriculum

The Individual Problem Solver

(SYSEN 550)

Problem Solving Teams

(SYSEN 552)

Problem Solving Leadership (SYSEN 554)

Invention and Creative Design

(SYSEN 555)

Problem Solving Techniques

(proposed)

Problem Solving Ethics

(STS 589)

Foundation Courses

Supporting Courses & Special Topics

Problem Solving Research GroupProblem Solving Research Group

• AimsAims: – Collaboration on complex problems of interest

– Core of a proposed Problem Solving Institute

• MembersMembers: faculty (PSU & other), students (past & present), corporate & military partners

• Activities/outcomesActivities/outcomes: – Sponsored projects

– Problem Solving Handbook

– Papers, proposals, and reports

– Training & education programs

Questions and DiscussionQuestions and Discussion

Contact Info

Kathryn W. Jablokow, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and STS

Penn State University – Great Valley

30 E. Swedesford Road

Malvern, PA 19355

Tel: 610.648.3372

Fax: 610.648.3377

Email: KWL3@psu.edu

Copyright 2009 K. W. JablokowINCOSE 2009 Problem Solving Leadership in Systems Engineering Kathryn...

Documents

Transcript of Copyright 2009 K. W. JablokowINCOSE 2009 Problem Solving Leadership in Systems Engineering Kathryn...

2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey - PA.Gov

Picture Dictionary...© 2009 by Kathryn J. Davis 4 Picture Dictionary v ..... 43

Edema: Diagnosis and Management...Edema: Diagnosis and Management KATHRYN P. TRAYES, MD, and JAMES S. STUDDIFORD, MD, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Pathways, Partnerships & Perkins Conference November 3, 2009 Kathryn Rusch, Mary Messimer, Kelly Schlaak & Sandy Fabian.

HHS Appellate Decision on Pennsylvania Department of Public Works 2009

S upervised A griculture E xperience Pennsylvania Department of Education BCTE Pennsylvania SAE Guidelines July 2009.

Kathryn Eidmann Library Appoitnment Letterclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-0919_misc_08-16-16.pdf · Kathryn A. Eidmann education Yale Law School, New Haven, CT J.D., June 2009

Pennsylvania Group 2 - Jun 2009

Fireman’s Association of the State of Pennsylvania 2009 Convention September 23-26, 2009 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

JTWC Satellite Operations (SATOPS) Capt Kathryn Payne 27 April 2009 15W SINLAKU ATCF.

2009 Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania Inc. Proxy

Scouts with Disabilities and Special Needs Kathryn Chesley University of Scouting Jan 2009 WWSWd.

Pennsylvania History 1865-2009. Industrial Pennsylvania: 1865-1900 During the Second half of the 19 th century Pennsylvania became an industrial giant.

JTWC SATOPS Challenges Capt Kathryn Payne 28 April 2009.

Pennsylvania Title IV-E Audit 2009

Pennsylvania Group 2 - Jan 2009

Race to the Top An Historic Opportunity for Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Education December, 2009.

Legion College 2009 Pennsylvania American Legion.

Graphical Programming Languages Lecture 19: Supporting Material Dr Kathryn Merrick Thursday 21 st May, 2009.

1. Pennsylvania Department of Education September 2009.