I visited Clandon Park House this weekend, an early 18th century Palladian mansion which sadly burned down in April 2015. Fortunately, the National Trust which owns the property has determined to embark on the immense task of reconstructing the property which is entirely feasible because the brick structure largely withstood the flames and heat.
However, in order to do so they are having to work out exactly what the house consisted of before and then to rebuild the entire interior using where they can material and objects from the old building that survived the fire at least to some extent. It’s a bit like a massive jigsaw puzzle. In one room a state bedroom they have discovered that what they thought to be the original red wall paper covering has been revealed by the fire to mask the original and much earlier bright blue panelling, a completely unexpected and unknown decorative scheme which the restorers are now considering reinstating.
What they are in effect having to do is use root cause analysis to work out what was there before, however surprising, and then rebuild. This is a common technique used in the IT industry and can be defined as a systematic process for identifying “root causes” of problems or events and an approach for responding to them. RCA is based on the basic idea that effective management requires more than merely “putting out fires” for problems that develop, but finding a way to prevent them.
It was also no doubt used to trace the origins of the fire which apparently occurred because of a faulty electric component which started a fire in the basement that then spread up a lift shaft and around the building. They can even understand how the fire spread upwards and sideways and then back down into the basement.
This technique is in effect the application of scientific techniques to solving problems. As this article suggests it enables a deeper and more systematic approach: But what do you do when you have a problem at work? Do you jump straight in and treat the symptoms, or do you stop to consider whether there's actually a deeper problem that needs your attention? If you only fix the symptoms – what you see on the surface – the problem will almost certainly return, and need fixing over, and over again.
It is particularly used in the medical profession, but I suggest has a broader application to resolving practice, management and business issues in the professional world by drilling down and truly understanding the issue before trying to solve it. Aristotle suggests that “A prerequisite for knowing anything is understanding why it is as it is—in other words, grasping its primary cause."
It is too easy to jump in and reach a preliminary conclusion on a professional matter that on the surface looks right but on a deeper analysis is manifestly wrong. The assumption in my example that the wall covering was red when in fact the true historic reality was different.
I am not of course suggesting metaphorically as it were to have a fire to gain a deeper understanding, but to delve deeply into the facts to understand and resolve the true cause if the problem. And this means working to get to the simple essence of the issue as this Forbes article advises Are we sure we are working on the right problem? Are we really capturing the essence of it? Do we have all the background information we need to understand it fully? Do we all understand the problem the same way?
It also cites Albert Einstein who wisely said If I have an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about the solution. He also suggested "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." which I think is particularly apposite.
Henry Ford advised "Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than trying to solve them."The team rebuilding Clandon Park House are definitely trying to solve a series of challenges using in depth understanding as I suggest we all should in our professional lives when we encounter difficult and fundamental problems.
However, in order to do so they are having to work out exactly what the house consisted of before and then to rebuild the entire interior using where they can material and objects from the old building that survived the fire at least to some extent. It’s a bit like a massive jigsaw puzzle. In one room a state bedroom they have discovered that what they thought to be the original red wall paper covering has been revealed by the fire to mask the original and much earlier bright blue panelling, a completely unexpected and unknown decorative scheme which the restorers are now considering reinstating.
What they are in effect having to do is use root cause analysis to work out what was there before, however surprising, and then rebuild. This is a common technique used in the IT industry and can be defined as a systematic process for identifying “root causes” of problems or events and an approach for responding to them. RCA is based on the basic idea that effective management requires more than merely “putting out fires” for problems that develop, but finding a way to prevent them.
It was also no doubt used to trace the origins of the fire which apparently occurred because of a faulty electric component which started a fire in the basement that then spread up a lift shaft and around the building. They can even understand how the fire spread upwards and sideways and then back down into the basement.
This technique is in effect the application of scientific techniques to solving problems. As this article suggests it enables a deeper and more systematic approach: But what do you do when you have a problem at work? Do you jump straight in and treat the symptoms, or do you stop to consider whether there's actually a deeper problem that needs your attention? If you only fix the symptoms – what you see on the surface – the problem will almost certainly return, and need fixing over, and over again.
It is particularly used in the medical profession, but I suggest has a broader application to resolving practice, management and business issues in the professional world by drilling down and truly understanding the issue before trying to solve it. Aristotle suggests that “A prerequisite for knowing anything is understanding why it is as it is—in other words, grasping its primary cause."
It is too easy to jump in and reach a preliminary conclusion on a professional matter that on the surface looks right but on a deeper analysis is manifestly wrong. The assumption in my example that the wall covering was red when in fact the true historic reality was different.
I am not of course suggesting metaphorically as it were to have a fire to gain a deeper understanding, but to delve deeply into the facts to understand and resolve the true cause if the problem. And this means working to get to the simple essence of the issue as this Forbes article advises Are we sure we are working on the right problem? Are we really capturing the essence of it? Do we have all the background information we need to understand it fully? Do we all understand the problem the same way?
It also cites Albert Einstein who wisely said If I have an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about the solution. He also suggested "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." which I think is particularly apposite.
Henry Ford advised "Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than trying to solve them."The team rebuilding Clandon Park House are definitely trying to solve a series of challenges using in depth understanding as I suggest we all should in our professional lives when we encounter difficult and fundamental problems.
RSS Feed
