Sunday, June 27, 2010

3rd Quarter Public Speaking Engagements

>I will be speaking at a 30 minute clinic at the ASQ monthly meeting on July 13 at 5pm. It is held in Sorrento Valley here. The topic is "Tips for Giving Feedback to the Boss". More information on the ASQ web site here. This meeting is FREE for all (unless you want dinner). Make sure to RSVP here.

>I will be speaking at the TechAmerica "Operations Roundtable"meeting on August 11 at 7:30 - 9:00 am. Details are here. Location is:

HM Electronics, Inc.
14110 Stowe Drive
Poway, CA 92064


>I will be at Inland Net in Poway on September 1 at 8am. Location and Details are here

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Evaluating a Proposed Course of Action

This is the last posting on the topic of “what questions should I ask?”. As you may remember, I started this thread on May 23 to cover the four kinds of claims people can make in a logical conversation and the kinds of questions to ask about each kind of claim in order to logically evaluate it. The fourth kind of claim is a Claim of Policy, and is what I’ll cover today.


A Claim of Policy is made when a person is prescribing a course of action. These claims usually contain statements like “we should” or “we ought” or “we need to”. You get the idea – the claim is describing something we should do.

As usual, we always ask “is it relevant?”, “what does the claim mean?”, and once we fully understand the meaning, we again ask “is it relevant?”. If we feel we need to explore the logic of the claim, we will need to ask questions in six categories. Policy claims have the most categories because determining a course of action has more variables than the three other types of claims (fact, definition, and value).

Question #1 - What is the problem?

We need to understand why we are changing or course of action, or adopting one. Ask questions about what the problem is; what are the symptoms, what makes them problematic. Do NOT begin discussing solutions until you have agreement on what the problem is. That is a very common mistake.


Question #2 - How big is the problem?

The answers to this category of questions will help us prioritize and frame discussions on just how much resource we should spend discussing, debating, and addressing the problem. You can see that a problem that inconveniences a few people should consume less time and effort than one than could potentially stop your business from providing important services. It is therefore important to have a general agreement on the impact of the problem and its eventual consequences.


Question #3 - What is causing the problem?

Knowing what causes the problem is very helpful in knowing what to do about it. Unfortunately, many times we can’t be sure what the exact cause because causation can be very difficult to determine. In fact, there are special logical tests for determining causation, and I will discuss those in a future series. For right now, just know that you DON’T have to agree on the cause, but you should all be AWARE that you don’t agree on the cause. As many classic logical missteps can be traced back to false certainty as to doing nothing WAITING to become certain. Both need to be watched carefully.


Question #4 - What should be done to correct the problem?

At last, we are ready to talk about what to do about the problem. Note that in many conversations, this is the first question people start with. In this model it is the fourth. The three that precede it are key agreements that we must reach if we are to determine a solution.


Question #5 - How well does the proposal solve the problem?

Is the proposed solution a quick fix? A certain fix? What if we are wrong about the cause; does it still work? What contingencies should we allow for?


Question #6 - Will the action create other benefits or harm?

Here we go! What are the potential side effects of the proposed solution, both positive and negative? Will we be able to parlay this into a bigger win if we do it in a different way? Will we be exposed to a different danger if we adopt the proposed solution? How can we monitor it so that it doesn’t surprise us?

In the last month we have covered the basics of questioning claims. When claims are questioned, the next thing that should happen is that the claimant offers evidence to support the claim. This in not “courtroom” evidence, because we managers don’t argue in courtrooms (I hope!).

In the next series, I’ll discuss evidence. Specifically, I’ll discuss what kinds of evidence there are (just 3 different kinds) and how to rate their strength. You’ll find it comes in handy when people question YOUR claims, that you have already done the work to make them as bullet proof as possible.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Speaking June 16 in San Diego

See you on Wednesday June 16 here. APICS in San Diego to talk a bit about THE SCORE.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Definitions and Value

Last time, we talked about Claims of Fact and the salient issues to raise to settle them. Claims of Definition and Claims of Value (or quality) are related, so I will cover them together this week.


Definitions are very important in face-to-face communication. The easiest way to slip something by someone is to use non-standard definitions, and business is full of them. Even though we work in the same industry and even at the same company for years, we may not share the same definition for even routine activities. Document release, product launch, manufacturing plan are examples of common terms that we may not have a shared meaning for and differences can become quite significant.

A Claim of Definition is one in which the PURPOSE of the claim is to define something. In politics, we have examples that have been around for a long time. For instance, “Capital punishment is murder.” The PURPOSE of the claim is to define capital punishment. The term used as the definition has a specific meaning (the unlawful taking of a human life). If we allow the definition to go unquestioned, we are allowing that capital punishment is illegal. Another example from the political world is “A fetus is a human being”. If we allow that definition to stand, then it is logical to extend rights and privileges due every human being to every fetus. I am not trying to test your political viewpoint here; just illustrating that definitions have weight and meaning and should be clarified and shared.

When we say in our business that “a document is ready to release” or “the product is ready to launch” what constitutes readiness? What is a release? A launch? Does it matter if there are different definitions for those terms in this conversation? We ask 3 questions to evaluate a Claim of Definition.

• The first question we ask about a claim of definition is “Is it relevant if the term is defined?” If it doesn’t matter, then let it pass. If we need to know what it means, then this is a CRITICALLY important question. Don’t miss it.

• The second question we ask is “Is the definition fair?” That is, does it represent a biased point of view or not? Sometimes we might not like the definition, but if it is unbiased we need to consider it. For instance, in the case of “the product is ready to launch”, we may be listening to an engineer who means that “the design is complete” or a marketing manager describing that “the campaign is designed”. Both of these could be true, but the bias may lead us to believe that more has been done than is true

• The third question we ask is “How do we choose between competing definitions?”. You say the product is ready to launch, and I say it’s not. How do we choose? We may suggest that we defer to an authoritative source like a Systems Engineering definition, or a Project Management definition, or just a dictionary if it applies. We may agree that we need some criteria that define what “product launch” means to us. We may defer to the definition that the company president uses. Maybe we’ll ask our customers what would constitute readiness “is the training ready yet?” Whatever method we use to make the choice, the choice needs to be made.

I can’t overemphasize the importance of clear and common definitions.

A Claim of Value (aka A Claim of Quality) is one in which the claim compares two or more things with respect to their value or quality. In the political world, they sound like “Democracy is better than Socialism”, or “City government is unsatisfactory”, or “The environment is more important than industry”. These are examples in which we are comparing something to another, or attributing a quality to something. Frequently, the speaker is capitalizing on a general sentiment. You may feel city government is unsatisfactory for some reason, and I might mean something totally different. As long as I don’t get into the details, you will think we are on the same side. Similarly, someone may make the claim that "eating organic is better than not". By what measure... health? expense? status?

Business examples for this kind of claim are many; “Quality is more important than on-time delivery”, “Function is more important than form”, “Our service is very good”. These kind of claims are made regularly and are often un questioned. There are three questions for a Claim of Value.

• The first question is – “Which value should be used to evaluate the subject?” When we say Quality is more important than on-time delivery, do we mean from a financial perspective? From a customer relations perspective? From a cycle time perspective? If we can determine the point of view from which this is being evaluated, we have a good chance of simplifying the claim.

• The second question is – “What standards are used to measure competing values?” This is similar to the first question we ask in a Claim of Fact. Are we comparing this to customer needs? Industry norms? Military Standards? Our own business restrictions?

• The third question is – “Have those standards been met?” Whatever standards we settled on at the second question must be measurable to the degree that we can settle the question.

Imagine that someone says that “Our quality is good enough” and, when asked, the person means that or product always passes our own final inspection. Wouldn’t it seem that we might want another perspective before we accept the claim?

You need to ask the questions…..

Next time, we’ll talk about the last of the four claims – Claims of Policy. These are the most difficult, and the one’s we deal with most often – “What should we do….”


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Come See Me June 16th

Please note that you are invites to come see me speak at the San Diego APICS meeting on June 16. Go here for more information.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Questions That Address Claims of Fact

We were talking about the inquiry model of communication, and how we use it to arrive at better decisions. I mentioned that one way this can start is with someone offering their perspective. We first ask ourselves if we see it as relevant to the topic under discussion. If we think it MIGHT be, we explore it further by asking questions about its meaning. Finally, once we are satisfied that we understand just what the other person means, we ask ourselves about its relevance AGAIN. If we find it relevant, then we move forward with more questions to understand our counterpart’s reasoning. That is, the reasons that they have for making the claim.


I mentioned the four types of claims last time (Claims of Fact, Claims of Definition, Claims of Value (or Quality), and Claims of Policy). The questions that we ask regarding our counterpart’s reasoning are specific to the type of claim they are so let’s start by learning to identify the types when we here them and then talk about the questions we develop.

Claims of Fact

This is just what it says; a speaker is claiming something is a fact. Examples in a business setting would be:

“Our sales slump seems to be over.”

“We are ready to start hiring again.”

“Despite what the competition is saying, our product is selling well and our customers are happy.”


A claim of fact may or may not end up being a fact, but we don’t know at this stage. We are going to investigate that. The defining characteristic for a claim of fact is that it is provable by fact or data. It is not an opinion, nor does it fall into any of the either 3 categories we shall discuss. These three statements are all presented as facts. The first two are very simple (more simple than most business statements) and the third has a bit more complexity.


As we mentioned, we would first determine if we thought the statement was relevant in context. Let’s say our context is this – we are trying to decide if we should postpone the expense of a new product launch and continue selling our current product, or if we should launch the new product to try to take market share from the competition. This is a complex topic, with lots of considerations. I am using it here as an example to illustrate how we would evaluate some of the claims that may come up.


We will say that all three of the above could be relevant, and will examine the “meaning” of them. I am pretty sure I understand the first one. I may ask “What do you mean by slump; was it just a minor drop off?”, but if I have been in the loop at the company I would probably already know that. I would want to be sure that those of us in the discussion had a common understanding of what the statement meant. After the speaker explains it, I would be satisfied that it is relevant and that I understand the meaning and would be ready to evaluate the logic behind the statement.


To evaluate the logic behind a Claim of Fact, the first questions one would ask would be based on “How would we know if the statement is true?” That is, what would be acceptable as data or facts to support it? I would ask a question like “What makes you say that?” indicating that I want some supporting data. The answer that comes back can vary wildly depending on many factors, but the important thing is for you to help the group come to an understanding of what they collectively are willing to accept as supporting data. Let’s say the response is “Our sales were at the forecast level until June of 2009, when they dropped off to only 85% of forecast. They have steadily risen back and have been at or above our forecast for the last quarter. I think that since we were running to forecast, dropped off but recovered, and have remained at expected values for a quarter, we can say that the slump is over.” If the speaker is credible, we may choose to accept that we have found the criteria that we all can accept and move on to the second question. But what if the response is “Our sales are tied to the economy, and the paper says the economy is turning around, so are sales will too.” This is a far more risky response, and one that not everyone might accept without further research. It borders on an opinion, pointing to some vague reference to “what the paper says”. It might not be enough for many of us, depending on the speaker’s credibility and the importance of the decision. If there are jobs on the line, I want more data.


Let’s say that the speaker’s reply is the first one – the one that described the drop and the subsequent steady increase, and that we choose to accept it as good criteria. Then it is time for the second questions, which are based on “Now that we agree on the criteria, can we agree that we have met it?” This set of questions would be posed about the forecasted values, (“Are the forecasted values we are now hitting the SAME values that were forecasted, or are we hitting some revised levels?”) and the recovery (“Is the recovery due to increased sales, or did we reduce price in order to increase volume and are now less profitable overall?).


You may be able to think of some other questions, but recognize that there are only TWO things you are trying to settle when addressing a claim of fact: 1) What criteria can we agree on to determine if the statement is true? and 2) Did we meet the criteria?


I know I said I would cover this is two parts, but I think it is going to take me 3 more.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication