The layered nature of a CSD project (a slippery concept)
The plan template that The Muddle Buster offers here has three phases. The plan starts with the recognition that a problem exists in the real world that calls for a solution. We call that PROBLEM A.
Phase 1: Booting up: gathering the project organization and assembling a process-development methodology for the next phase
Phase 2: Using the process development methodology from Phase 1 to design the Solution-Discovery process for Phase 3
Phase 3: Executing that Solution-Discovery process to solve the original problem
Keeping track of which phase of the project you are in at any moment, and sticking to that phase until it is complete, is difficult. Even The Muddle Buster gets confused about that. So, if the material here, and also in Quick Overview, seems excessively detailed and redundant, the purpose is to arm you against that confusion by marinating you in all that repetition.
The CSD project is initiated by the individual or small informal group that first apprehends the problem and decides to take it on. That initiating problem, the problem out there in the world that begs for a solution, is given the shorthand designation PROBLEM A.
However, you can’t solve PROBLEM A until you have a process, organization and plan in place to work PROBLEM A. So, what is the Solution-Discovery process to work PROBLEM A? Don’t even think of working on PROBLEM A until you’ve got the Solution-Discovery process, organization and plan to work PROBLEM A in place and ready to go.
Don’t attempt to shortcut this process sequence. Trying to solve PROBLEM A without setting up a competent Solution-Discovery process to do it will land you smack in the middle of FumbleMuddleWrangleBungle-Land where you will futilely spin wheels and run in circles.
So, you will need to develop the Solution-Discovery process for PROBLEM A. But that just backs the unknowns up by one step. Whence comes the process-development methodology, organization and plan to develop the Solution-Discovery process? Again, don’t try to shortcut the process. Don’t attempt to solve develop the Solution-Discovery process until you’ve set up the methodology to do that. Now we’ve reached the beginning of the process-development chain.
So now we have the sequence of problems.
- The problem in Phase 1 is setting up the process-development methodology for developing the Solution-Discovery process in Phase 2.
- The problem in Phase 2 is designing the Solution-Discovery process for PROBLEM A in Phase 3, using the process-development methodology created in Phase 1.
- The problem in Phase 3 is finding the solution to the initiating problem, PROBLEM A, by using the Solution-Discovery process developed in Phase 2.
The Three-Phase project task flow showing application of the Solution Search Path
Is This Multi-Phase Layering Necessary?
Can’t we just take a standard off-the-shelf version of the Solution-Discovery process and apply it to any PROBLEM A ? Wouldn’t this just simplify the project by going directly to Phase 3, skipping Phases 1 and 2. The answer to that is “Definitely, no.” Here’s’ why.
Every PROBLEM A is unique, with unique issues to be addressed. That unique problem requires a unique, custom-built Solution-Discovery process, tailored to the particular issues you will encounter. That custom-built Solution-Discovery process used in Phase 3 to work PROBLEM A is built in Phase 2 using a custom-built process development methodology. That custom-built development methodology comes from Phase 1. Fortunately, the ability to assemble that custom-built process development methodology in Phase 1 is common enough among process-oriented people with the necessary skills and experience, so we don’t need a Phase 0 to set that up.
To illustrate the uniqueness of the typical PROBLEM A, consider a couple of examples.
Example 1: A creek, originating in open space in an upland watershed, passes through densely developed urban area where it causes flood risk. What is to be done to control flooding? That’s a complex question, requiring a complex organization to discover a necessarily complex answer.
The creek is in a quasi-wild state over its entire length, hosting a seasonal run of steelhead and many other species. The upland watershed is mostly open space, some public and some private, with ecological, recreational and scenic value. Intrusive measures such as reservoirs to hold back potential flood waters would meet with considerable resistance. Where the creek descends into the urban area its corridor is confined to the stream banks and a narrow strip along each side. Here it encounters structures that impede flood water flow such as flood walls and bridges. Near its mouth it flows again through quasi-wild land of marshes that are being restored to natural state along the shores of the open water where the creek empties.
The creek flows through several political jurisdictions and the property of a large land owner.
Solving this problem requires the application of expertise in several areas: hydrology, ecology, civil engineering, risk assessment to determine whether measures to confine flood waters along one stretch of the creek make matters worse elsewhere, cost-benefit analysis of various proposed measures, and skill in mediating conflicts among the many powerful stakeholders.
Clearly this project is extremely fraught, and thorough groundwork at each of the three phases of the project, using customized process to produce customized answers, is necessary for success.
Example 2: The array of social services in a large urban community is fragmented, making it difficult for potential clients to get the services they need. Integration of social services into a system with a one-stop-shopping entry point is proposed. What would that look like?
Solving this problem requires assessing the entire range of needs of the potential client community. Those needs would include job training and placement, housing assistance, family and personal finance counseling, health issues, assistance to at-risk youth and programs to provide wholesome and life-skill-developing activities for youth, and many more. Clients would need help identifying what their needs are and assistance with accessing services.
The solution would also require an inventory of existing services to determine what is available, and whether gaps or overlap in the range of services requires a fix. Capabilities of service providers should be assessed regarding skills and numbers of personnel, adequacy of facilities, and funding. Areas of possible cooperation or conflict among agencies should be identified.
The desired solution would welcome clients into the system, help them assess their needs, and lay out a path through the various service providers that will satisfy their needs. There are many possible solutions to consider, such as (1) a system distributed among currently-existing organizations for providing the integrated menu of social services to clients, or (2) an entirely new, stand-alone system for doing the integrated service function that is superimposed over the existing array of service providers.
Again, this is an extremely fraught project requiring careful execution of each of the three project phases in appropriate form.