Exploring organizational problem-solving modes: a dynamic capabilities approach

Abstract

PurposeAdopting the dynamic capability perspective, this study aims at exploring which problem-solving capabilities result in fundamental solutions with a potentially low likelihood for problems to recur. This can also shed light on why, despite many attempts, process improvement programs often fail to produce such long-term solutions.Design/methodology/approachA case study is carried out to inductively describe and classify problem-solving in companies and to indicate why problem-solving efforts are typically bounded to short-term solutions. The empirical findings are triangulated with findings from the extant literature.FindingsFirst, the authors propose three problem-solving modes with different characteristics and potential impacts on operational performance: intuitive problem-solving, semi-structured problem-solving and systematic problem-solving. Second, by emphasizing dynamic capabilities' micro-foundations and with the focus on learning mechanisms, the authors show that, among these modes, only systematic problem-solving can serve as a dynamic capability with fundamental solutions. Third, based on insights from the case study, the authors address behavioral and organizational impediments that curb dynamic capabilities and limit systematic problem-solving adoption.Originality/valueThis study is an empirically informed attempt to understand systematic problem-solving as a dynamic capability. The authors uncover the micro-foundations and the learning mechanisms through which systematic problem-solving becomes a dynamic capability. By highlighting problem-solving orientation as a hardly investigated dimension of improvement programs, the authors show that a mixture of a static problem-solving approach and a set of impediments at both individual and organizational levels is the major reason of failures of improvement programs over time.

Thriving in turbulent environments through adaptive forms of organizing

“…In fact, the functional and operational routines that drive competitive success in stable conditions -"baseline" capabilities such as supply chain management and access to distribution channels become rapidly obsolescent (Teece, 2007). In these settings, it is essential for organizations to develop dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007(Teece, , 2018Mohaghegh and Gr€ oßler, 2022), and through them continuously work on their baseline capabilitiesanticipating, shaping and adapting to novel business opportunities (Teece, 2007(Teece, , 2018.…”

How to facilitate manufacturing industry learning from problems: a review on advanced technology problem-solving

“…(Womack and Jones, 1997). Other methodologies include A3 Thinking, Root-Cause Analysis, 5-Why and Design Thinking (Liedtka, 2020; Mohaghegh and Furlan, 2020; Mohaghegh and Größler, 2021; Womack and Jones, 1997).…”

“…Support for this can also be found in Schon’s (1984) ideas of reflecting in action, in which thinking is not separated from doing and thus facilitates learning in action. Although the Mode-1 approach is useful in certain situations due to its minimal requirements of resources, it may fail to contribute with sustainable solutions as attention is not put on the analysis and understanding of the problem (Mohaghegh and Größler, 2021).…”

“…The latter, slow and steady Mode-2, is about going to the root cause of the problem, engaging in analysis of its logical aspects and antecedents, and thus providing sustainable solutions based on careful analysis (Mohaghegh and Furlan, 2020). In learning theory and theory of organizational change, this is referred to as double-loop learning (Argyris, 1976; Argyris and Schön, 1997), second-order change (Watzlawick et al , 2011), System-2 problem-solving (Mohaghegh and Furlan, 2020; Mohaghegh and Größler, 2021) or explore (March, 1991). The aim is to test existing assumptions and expand knowledge about the problem instead of focusing on its solution (Mohaghegh and Furlan, 2020).…”

“…The aim is to test existing assumptions and expand knowledge about the problem instead of focusing on its solution (Mohaghegh and Furlan, 2020). Mode-2 infers learning from further investigating the problem and, hence, expanding knowledge on potential solutions as well as challenging existing behaviour (March, 1991; Mohaghegh and Größler, 2021). It is useful for establishing sustainable solutions but could, however, result in an over-abstraction (as aforementioned stated by Liedtka, 2020), in which extensive resources might be allocated to non-applicable conceptual work.…”