Thanks for the compliment. I just ask the questions… it’s these guys that have the great answers!

I don’t know what the article / book / column will be called yet.
I’ll let you know when I know more!

Regarding your question - advice about working with teams, and using flip=charts and post-its: There’s a whole book to be written on the subject, but for this technique, the two key elements are Preparation and Utilisation…

Preparation: If you’re facilitating an Issue Decomposition with a team, it’s a good idea to do your homework beforehand. In general, teams aren’t very good at this kind of ‘precision thinking’. So know where you want to push the discussion - it’s more about creating team alignment more than solving the issue decomposition - but it is a great way to get them thinking about the trade-offs and inter-dependencies (the ones Ania pointed out).

Utilisation: Use what you can find. I like to work using a laptop and a projector - the flexibility is unparallelled, and you have an automatic record of the work. But if you haven’t got this set-up, the next step down is a large whiteboard, and then post-it notes on wall, and then flip-charts (which are a bit tiny for this). Regarding software, you’re really just generating an indented list - so it’s possible to do ID with word processor, at a pinch!

Warm regards,
Philip Greenwood

Nice technique and well done for explaining it so well.

Like Ania I have an early background in Business Analysis and Systems Analysis. I use a similar technique akin to mind mapping which I find useful. What you have outlined here though is the rigour in terms of complete and discrete issues/questions which is not what I normally do. Pure mathematicians, like myself, would recognise this as the creation of a perfect partition of a given set of answers. No two answers the same. No overlaps. No gaps (complete). Simple idea but very powerful.

Ania makes a good point about it not addressing dependencies very well. But then, like all techniques, it is not meant to be perfect and it’s use is to decompose a problem rather than to highlight dependencies for a set of issues. I expect there a much better techniques that address that particular need.

As it stands the way you describe it, you’ve given me a new twist on what I normally do and, as I always have issues to think through, I’m going to use it myself in the next few weeks to try it. I imagine it would be good to do this in workshops with colleagues? Any advice on how to do this effectively without getting overwhelmed with flip charts, post-its, etc.?

Best regards,
Adrian.

Great tip

So simple, and i am sure that everyone who reads this knows they should have a descriptor - loinked to the old elevator pitch. But it is one of the things we forget about when we are busy - we forget to shine our badge!. I will also be starting to ask other people what they know my descriptor to be - just to check the congruency between perception and reality!

keep ‘em coming Jason

Sumeet

The Zachman Framework sprung into my mind because you were saying start with What? and then go into How? I am paraphrasing of course, but that was the impression I got. And as the first two question in Zachman’s are What? and How? I made the connection. Maybe I have been doing it too long and it become a second nature. Sorry.

You are absolutely right, there is no substitute for thinking, but that was not what I wrote about. It must be my fault, I have not explained well. My reaction did not come from looking at the generic issue of decomposition. Neither of us invented hierarchical decomposition. It is a very old and indeed a very good concept which does not need much advertising anymore. But life is messy and the decomposition alone is not enough. It is like giving a love making lesson in terms of pure anatomy. The main ingredient is missing. And the main ingredient in this case is the interconnections and interdependencies.

Many years ago someone spotted that the commonly practiced process modelling in functional vertical silos was not good enough and the end-to-end process design, crossing functional boundaries made smarter processes design possible. Because life is not what the finance department does and what the HR does and what the sales department does. It is what the company does as a whole and what the customer experiences. However in other areas the vertical thinking silos still persist and that is what made me react.

I am sorry, I do not mean to sound big headed. I am very interested in learning new techniques and I am looking forward to the other approaches you mentioned, particularly that I am not very creative by nature. I am not sure to which degree it can me learned, but every little helps and I am certainly willing and open minded.

Kind regards

Ania Pearce

I’m not sure where the Zachman framework comes into this - other than that, I agree with you wholeheartedly! It is absoluately a heirarchical decomposition. I’m not claiming authorship, or ownership - I just want to bring it to wider attention, because it’s phenomenally useful!

The Issue Decomposition approach doesn’t magically create a solution, but it does help you prime your mind to find one - it’s a thinkers tool, rather than a thinking replacement! In fact, it worked for you - your reactions came from looking at the generic Issue Decomposition I presented (though I suspect you’ve been there before).

We have lots of other approaches to support taking the creative step too!

Warm regards,
Philip Greenwood