In environmental science, and elsewhere, the term problem displacement describes what happens when solving a given problem creates a different problem. For example, sewage sludge disposal by incineration solves the sewage sludge disposal problem, but one consequence is air pollution [Jänicke 1990]. The term problem displacement is possibly a misnomer, because displacement typically refers to moving from one place to another. In most cases of problem displacement, the created problem or problems usually replace the original problem. For this reason, in these circumstances, I prefer the term problem replacement.
Problem replacement can also apply to problem solutions in organizations. It can be useful as a management tool, because it can clarify organizational status by accounting more accurately for all the costs of solving a problem. As an example, consider technical debt.
Technical debt is the collection of technology artifacts, arising by any mechanism, which we would like to revise or replace for sound engineering reasons. In many cases, if not most, organizations incur new technical debt as a consequence of solving some other problem. In our terms, much technical debt is the result of problem replacement.
For concreteness, consider upgrading a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. Suppose that because of financial pressures, the company decides not to upgrade the hardware that supports the CRM software. And suppose further, as is common, that the latest version of the CRM software requires a hardware upgrade. Consequently, upgrading the CRM software is impossible, which means that CRM system users must maintain existing applications — and develop new ones — based on the (now outdated) CRM software. They must later repeat that work when the new system is installed. It therefore comprises technical debt.
The debt in this example is not due to shoddy workmanship or shortcuts in implementing CRM applications. Rather, it's the direct result of "solving" the company's financial problems by postponing a hardware upgrade. It's an example of problem replacement.
In most In most organizations, the costs of
retiring software technical debt are
usually charged to the Information
Technology (IT) function. That
practice can obscure the
actual source of the problem.organizations, the costs of retiring software technical debts of this kind are usually charged to the Information Technology (IT) function. In our example, the cost of IT is thus represented as higher than it actually would be without problem replacement. Likewise, the cost of financial management is correspondingly represented as lower than it would be without problem replacement. A more accurate accounting would allocate to the financial management function, rather than to IT, the costs of carrying and eventually retiring the technical debt.
Because problem replacement scenarios are common in organizations, they account for a significant fraction of technical debt. The overstatement of the costs of the IT function, and the corresponding understatement of the costs of other enterprise elements, make responsible management of the enterprise difficult.
Some replacement problems can be termed unintended consequences. Perhaps some technical debt is unintentional. But some solutions that entail problem replacement, especially those that burden political rivals, are most intentional indeed. We'll explore examples of that phenomenon next time. Next in this series Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:
- Assumptions and the Johari Window: I
- The roots of both creative and destructive conflict can often be traced to differing assumptions of
the parties to the conflict. Working out these differences is a lot easier when we know what everyone's
- Group Problem-Solving Tangles
- When teams solve problems together, discussions of proposed solutions usually focus on combinations
of what the solution will do, how much it will cost, how long it will take, and much more. Disentangling
these threads can make discussions much more effective.
- The Tyranny of Singular Nouns
- When groups try to reach decisions, and the issue in question has a name that suggests a unitary concept,
such as "policy," they sometimes collectively assume that they're required to find a one-size-fits-all
solution. This assumption leads to poor decisions when one-size-fits-all isn't actually required.
- Call in the Right Expert
- When solving a problem is beyond us, we turn to experts, but sometimes we turn to the wrong experts.
That can make the problem even worse. Why? How does this happen? What can we do about it?
- Guidelines for Curmudgeon Teams
- The curmudgeon team is a subgroup of a larger team. Their job is to strengthen the team's conclusions
and results by raising thorny issues that cause the team to reconsider the path it's about to take.
In this way they help the team avoid dead ends and disasters.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.