• Objective no. 1
Developing recipients’ ability to identify problems, their correct categorization due to the degree of complexity and setting out actions aimed at solving them.

• Objective no. 2
Building the foundations for shaping the ability to solve complex problems, presenting the methodology of identifying problems, as well as tools helpful in solving them.

• Objective no. 3
Understanding key terms in complex problem-solving, as well as mastering work with case studies and self-assessment tools of acquired knowledge.

• Objective no. 4
Building competences necessary for independent and effective implementation of the acquired knowledge to solve problems identified in the organization.

After completing the course, the participant (...):

Outcome no. 1
will have the knowledge of defining problem phenomena and categorizing identified problems in terms of the degree of their complexity.

Outcome no. 2
will acquire knowledge of methods and tools for both the identification and solving of complex problems in the organization.

Outcome no. 3
will have comprehensive skills of practical application of the learned tools and methods to solve identified problems.

The starting point for developing complex problem-solving skills is to explain the differences between simple, complicated and complex problems. For this purpose, we will use the example proposed by S. Glouberman and B. Zimmerman (2016), which is illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Simple, complicated and complex problems

Source: Glouberman, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2016). 1 Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? University of Toronto Press, p. 2.

What do the examples above mean and how should the contents of Table 1 be interpreted? In response, their content allows to easily explain the difference between the categories of problems indicated in the table.

A simple problem can be compared to baking a cake from ready-made ingredients. The recipe itself may cover the basic elements of a technique and terminology, but once you have mastered these, you can be sure of success with it.

A complicated problem is illustrated by the example describing sending of rocket to the moon. Complicated problems contain subsets of simple problems, but are not exclusively reducible to them. Their complicated nature is often related not only to the scale of the problem. Achieving success relatively often depends on the involvement of many people, sometimes many teams, as well as highly specialized knowledge. Moreover, unforeseen difficulties often happen with these kinds of problems. In addition, time and coordination are becoming significant obstacles. As a result, complicated problems, although they can be generalized, are not a set of simple components.

A complex problem best illustrates the upbringing of a child. While in the previous example, after mastering the entire procedure of flying to the moon, this process can be repeated and improved, the example presented does not apply to raising a child. Each child is unique. Thus, it should be viewed individually. This is because, although bringing up one child provides a number of valuable experiences, it does not guarantee educational success with another child. Hence, professional knowledge (although extremely valuable), is not sufficient. The next child may require a completely different approach than the previous one, and this indicates a feature of complexity of the problem. The results of measures taken to solve them remain highly uncertain. At the same time, despite the uncertainty, complex problems can also be approached with a certain degree of optimism: we are looking forward to raising a child despite the complexity of the problems involved in this process.

Complex problems can range from complicated to simple support problems. However, they cannot be reduced to any of them. This is because they have special requirements, including understanding of unique local conditions, interdependence with an additional nonlinearity attribute and the ability to adapt as conditions change.

Source: Glouberman, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2016). 1 Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? University of Toronto Press, p. 2. 

In practice, we use the terms "complicated" and "complex" interchangeably. This is due to misunderstanding of both concepts. As a result, discussions about the complexity of problems are not the simplest, and the resulting misunderstandings affect the ability to solve them effectively.

Complication means that a given (analyzed) element contains many precisely interconnected parts. Complication describes a problem that is difficult to resolve. As a result, one cannot be sure that solving a complicated problem is tantamount to a guarantee that all the elements co-creating it have been matched with each other in a rationally justified manner.

Complexity, in turn, occurs when something acts like a system and exhibits systemic properties that are not obvious at first glance. Complexity is more than the simple sum of parts of a larger whole. There may be many or few parts, and the result of combining them is "something" obscure that in some way begins to live a life of its own.

To emphasize the differences between complication and complexity, it is enough to provide a few examples taken from the surrounding reality. The Airbus A380 is complicated, while the jellyfish is complex. The Paris metro network is complicated and the way people use it is complex. Your skeleton is complicated, but you as a human are complex. The building you live in is complicated, but the city it is built in is complex.

This part of the material is dedicated to the differences between simple, complicated and complex problems, as well as how to identify them.

Table 2. Simple problem versus complex problem

Source: https://www.marcuscoetzee.co.za/identifying-simple-complex-and-wicked-problems/ (Access 2021 10 01).

Sometimes complex problems are called "wicked" because many of their characteristics cannot be reduced to simple component parts. However, this issue is much more complex. The following is an explanation of why complex problems and "wicked" problems should be considered separately.

In the case of wicked problem, the symptoms also became its causes. This makes them much more difficult to understand and solve. These kinds of problems are spirals where any wrong solution makes the problem worse. H.W. Rittel and M.M. Webber (1973) formulated the "concept of wicked problems" in reference to the complexity of designing and implementing social policy, and their specificity is reflected in the following characteristics:

• Difficulty in defining the problem;
• Difficulty in determining whether the problem has been fully resolved. Sometimes a permanent solution is not possible;
• No clear-cut right or wrong solutions;
• Limited possibilities of using the acquired knowledge from previous successes to solve new problems;
• Each problem is unique and previous or similar attempts to solve the problem may not be successful;
• There are too many possible solutions to list and compare them in a rational way.

The above description of the wicked problems is complemented by an example illustrating the situation inside the organization. Its entity is a non-profit entity with low bargaining power in dealing with clients and donors. The organization concludes contracts to raise funds for its activities, but the funds received are not sufficient to cover the costs of the work performed by it. This situation led to problems with the cash flow, which forced the organization to offer new customers and donors even more favorable contractual conditions that, from the organisation's perspective, covered even less overhead costs. As this cycle went on, the organization was forced to pay lower wages and its employees felt burned out. The quality of work inside the organization and its reputation began to be threatened, which further changed the perception of the brand among its stakeholders and put even more pressure on it. Key personnel began to leave which weakened the team even further, exacerbating the crisis. As a result of the situation, it was very difficult to clearly indicate where and how to intervene to solve the problem. The presented example perfectly reflects the formula of "wicked problems".

How should we deal with the real causes of problems? Understanding various problems, their causes and symptoms becomes much more necessary and more difficult when dealing with complex and wicked problems. Hence, sometimes misdiagnosing a symptom can only make the problem worse. Consider such an example. Suppose an industry is in crisis. We know that providing it with additional funds could help alleviate this problem, unless its main reason is the ineffectiveness of the use of public funds provided so far. In such a case, increasing funding will not only not heal the situation (which is due to the ineffectiveness of attempts to solve this problem through financial support to date), but will significantly worsen the problem, possibly leading to the need for stronger, much more far-reaching interventions. As this simple example shows, if the causes and symptoms of a problem are misunderstood, it is very difficult to fix. Moreover, it should be remembered that an incorrectly chosen solution may worsen this problem.

The information presented shows how important it is to correctly define the nature of the problem we are facing. The simplified, and therefore mistaken, belief that a wicked problem is a complex problem and a complex problem is a simple problem is proof that we do not really understand its full complexity. However, this situation creates a risk that our approach to solving the problem will be not only short-sighted but also ineffective. As a result, it can either contribute to or exacerbate the cycle of problems.

With the knowledge of identifying problems and their categorization, we can move on towards analyzing the effects of the defined problem (s). A very simple, yet effective technique can be used for this, which includes the following three steps.

1. For each identified problem, create a table with three columns. Their headings should be as follows: causes, consequences (effects) and solutions.
2. Begin by identifying the causes of the problem. Write each cause in the first column of the table.
3. Repeat the process to determine consequences, and then solutions.

Remember that there are sometimes no clear cause-effect relationships between the causes and consequences of problems. Therefore, the cause, consequences, and solutions will not always be related or horizontal. An example of corruption in the poor south countries is given below, illustrated using the technique described previously.

Table 3. Corruption in the countries of the poor south: causes, consequences (effects) and solutions

Source: VeneKlasen, L., & Miller, V., (2002) Causes, consequences, and solutions. PLA Notes, 43: ss. 18-19 oraz VeneKlasen, L. & Miller, V. (2002) A New Weave of Power, People & Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation, World Neighbors, Oklahoma City, OK: Ch.9.

The example presented is key to understanding the idea of correct problem solving. Identification of the causes should go hand in hand with the diagnosis of potential effects, and these, when combined with each other, should result in the identification of solutions.

The area of purest faults is distinguishing the causes of problems from their effects. Cause and effect represent the relationship between two things in which the action of one translates to the other. For example, an insufficient grade (effect) is caused by the student's unpreparedness for classes (cause). There can be many causes and effects. Therefore, looking for the reason why something happens (cause / effect) is a basic human motivation.           

Logical separation between cause and effect

Occasionally, the materials contain words or phrases that signal cause-and-effect relationships. The following terms are used to describe the causes: because, if, due to (…). In turn, the effects are heralded by phrases such as: because of this, as a result, respectively (...). Depending on the examined issue, the subject of analysis may be to find one of the three categories of cause-effect relationships.

1. Established cause-effect relationships, i.e. those in which the tested relationship is clearly defined.
2. Unspecified cause-effect relationships, i.e. those in which the relationship should be established or identified by „reading between related”.
3. Cause-effect reciprocal relationships, the effects of which can be part of the chain. In this type of structure, one effect produces second effect, second effect produces third one, and so on.

While the established cause-effect relationships are easy to establish, undefined relationships pose problems. Let's focus a little more on them. Solving the issue of undefined problems can be reduced to proceeding in accordance with the scheme provided.

Step 1: Identify undefined cause and effect relationships.
• To find the effect, ask the question, "What happened?"
• To find the cause, ask "Why did this happen?"
Example. The Barrier Reef is under threat from global warming. The rising water temperature causes the reef to fade, making it less colorful and more susceptible to disease. Reef whitening is the result, and the cause is global warming and rising temperatures.

Step 2: Search for signal words in the analyzed text, showing cause-effect relationships.

Step 3: Determine the effects that are also causes. Effects can form a chain in which one effect causes another, which can then trigger a third, and so on.
Example. When people cut down trees to clear the land, they destroy bird habitats. This reduces the number of nesting sites. As a result, fewer chicks hatch and the bird population is declining.
• Cause 1: People are cutting trees.
• Effect 1: Bird habitats destroyed.
• Effect 2: Reduced number of nests.
• Effect 3: Fewer chicks hatch.
• Effect 4: The bird population is declining.

Resolving the issue of undefined problems

After identifying the problem and its potential consequences, decision makers prepare a set of alternatives/solutions (based on brainstorming), from which should be chosen the one that will be the most optimal in relation to the identified problem.

Implement in practice principle: the more complex the problem, the more creative and unconventional alternatives should be considered. A set of factors that may realistically limit a given alternative and its further implementation should be considered. Such limitations include legal, ethical or moral norms, as well as technology, economic factors or informal social norms. Creative thinking is necessary because, as practice shows, new and unique solutions are rarely proposed. In addition, new areas are rarely searched, but most often we are limited to the closest neighborhood of the currently used solution.

In practice, we limit ourselves too quickly to considering already existing alternatives that narrow the field of view. We should be willing to seek new alternatives. Of course, careful exploration of the various possibilities is time-consuming and energy-consuming, but it is inevitable. Searching for solutions based on brainstorming seems to be an ideal solution.

Brainstorming is a bridge between a less formal approach to problem solving and lateral thinking. This means that the purpose of brainstorming is to make people want to create ideas that may seem absurd at first glance. Some of these ideas offer the opportunity to create original and creative solutions to problems, while other concepts can drive a spiral of even more ideas. It is a chain of creating solutions in creative thinking.

There are many modifications to the classic brainstorming (the selected ones are described later in the module), but all of them are based on a similar procedure. The brainstorming scenario should look like this: defining the problems and its consequences, choosing a leader (moderator) who oversees the correct course of the brainstorming, and a group of people involved in the creative process. The brainstorming procedure can be expressed in the following scheme: introduction - creating ideas/solutions - analysis and evaluation of proposed solutions. A group of people interested in looking for solutions sit down in a circle. Each of the people involved in turn presents his ideas. The more the better.

The role of the moderator is to collect all ideas in a place that is generally accessible and visible to all members of the group. The list of ideas can be created on the board or using a flipchart, preferably using keywords or short phrases to show ideas. Anyone can take the floor and the leader watches over the agenda and, importantly, we do not note the author of the idea. All participants of the brainstorming add their own ideas (even the most unrealistic ones). These ideas can become the seed for new, even more creative ideas.

Source: own elaboration.

Brainstorming rules

• We focus on the number of ideas, disregarding their quality at the initial stage of the brainstorming (i.e. ideas, ideas and ideas once again),
• We avoid criticism at the level of generating ideas (the time for their evaluation will come later),
• We accept unusual ideas (at first look crazy, infantile or even out of touch with reality),
• We create a chain of ideas by improving each new one (create new ideas from the resulting ones),
• Implement in practice principle : the more complex the problem, the more creative and unconventional  alternatives should be considered,
• One should not forget about the limitations of the proposed alternative (such limitations can be classified as norms: legal, ethical economic reasons or informal social norms).

Scenario of brainstorming implementation

Source: own elaboration.

An example: Two students are going to set up a start-up.

Young students struggle with the problem of financing the new economic activity. As a result of the brainstorming, the students developed the following ways to finance a business.

Source: own elaboration.

During the brainstorming session, participants should let go of criticism or reward and evaluate the proposed ideas. Assessment of the proposed solutions at this stage of the brainstorming process is a destimulant for the generated ideas and causes intimidation of the other group members and limitation of creativity. A good time to evaluate ideas is the end of the session or the second evaluation meeting - then you should look for tools and solutions, already using conventional approaches. Group brainstorming offers the opportunity to encourage group collaboration by eliminating judgment.

After collecting the ideas, it is time to evaluate the collected material. Duplicates should be eliminated first. Other ideas should be discussed, assessed and analyzed with respect for all team members. What matters is the constructive evaluation and criticism of the collected material. It is worth preparing a transparent evaluation system, e.g. each participant receives a certain number of stickers, which he can assign to the best ideas.

Another idea is to award points. Each participant chooses 5 best ideas according to him and assigns them the appropriate number of points, i.e. 5 points - the best solution, 4 points - next, etc. Another method of making a selection is that each participant receives a certain number of points (usually a number from 5 to 10) and then gives points to those ideas that he likes best. He can distribute the points freely, i.e. he can, for example, award one point to many ideas, a few points to several ideas, or all points to one idea.

It is important that each participant has the same tool and awards the same number of points. After you have ranked the best ideas, you can move on to the summary. Describe the chosen solutions and define its implementation plan. A standard brainstorming session can take anywhere from 1 to 2 hours.

Brainstorming isn't just for the group. Individual brainstorming can be carried out. Identify the problem and write it down as a question. Then, for a specified period of time (20-30 minutes), you should write down ideas for solving the problem. A good way, as with group brainstorming, is to jot down key words and short phrases. You should not judge any solution in your mind. Then it's time to put together and evaluate your ideas. Finally, the core of the solution must be found.

Based on:

https://www.lynskysolutions.pl/baza-wiedzy/burza-mozgow-i-jej-rodzaje-generuj-pomysly-na-rozne-sposoby/, Access 2021 10 21).

Once a solution has been selected, it should be assessed in terms of its feasibility, but also the consequences associated with each of it. When making the assessment, it is necessary to answer a few questions: is the option at all feasible? What are the consequences of the alternative being considered? Is the alternative satisfactory from the point of view of the goals set?

The consequences can be of two types: explicit and hidden. Explicit consequences are those that can usually be predicted when making a specific decision. The hidden consequences are not even comparable to the same degree, or even possible, and can be forgiven to the most intelligent man for failing to foresee the devastating effects of the complicated chain of events caused by the decision being made. Of course, the emergence of obvious consequences entails the need to make further decisions and solve new problems. Each solution is also the seed of a new problem.

The answer to these problems is usually very difficult, as the information will not be complete in almost every situation, and obtaining it may require considerable time and money. Therefore, there is a risk of oversimplifying the analysis, the more so as we follow what Herbert Simon described as limited rationality. This means that instead of searching for optimal solutions, we are satisfied with those solutions that can satisfy us only to a sufficient degree.

Each alternative should be checked in terms of its feasibility, satisfaction and anticipated consequences of its implementation. This diagram is illustrated in the figure below, indicating the course of action for the decision maker.

Source: own elaboration

According to the theory of complex problem solving, three types of factors verifying the impact of the proposed solutions should be mentioned:

• • unstable environmental factors (factors beyond the control of the decision maker),
  • non-permanent decision factors,
  • results.

An environmental stimulant is a limitation of "space" that is beyond the control of decision makers. Variable decision factors are all spheres of "space" that are under the control of decision makers within their range of influence. The results depend both on the influence of variable environmental and decision-making factors.

The variable environmental factors include the weather, which we have no influence on but can only adapt to. We cannot "order: sunny weather." On the other hand, the choice of clothing belongs to the category of decision variables. Weather cannot be booked, but clothing can be adapted. In order to achieve the result of "frost-free and water-resistant", after leaving the house, you should wear a warm sweater, footwear or a waterproof jacket. So, when making decisions about how to dress on a cloudy, cold and rainy day, we must consider both changing environmental and decision-making factors.

In order to achieve the assumed goal or the desired state, it is necessary to set limits and how to deal with them. Therefore, it is indispensable in making decisions, in addition to determining the present and future state, the desired state, setting the limits within which the entity operates or will operate in the future. The people make decisions and the measures they choose are often the result of assumed constraints. These constraints appear in the planning process as "unforeseen accidents" - factors that may or may not change, but are not subject to the arbitrary control of an individual or organization.

Decision assumptions. According to Thompson (1967), decision issues always have two main dimensions: (1) beliefs about cause-effect relationships and (2) preferences regarding possible outcomes. These are the primary decision variables. Different decision-making strategies are appropriate when considering the state of these two variables. Preferences on outcomes (goals), e.g. may be clear or unclear. Likewise, the cause and effect actions that affect the outcome can be either certain or uncertain. A person may know exactly what he wants but, for example, he is not sure what to do to get it. The other person may be sure what types of actions are shaping the situation, but he does not know which direction to go in.

Based on:

https://mikroporady.pl/instrukcje-i-regulaminy/instrukcje/czy-znasz-3-elementy-podejmowania-skutecznej-decyzji (Access 2021 10 20).

Based on the analyses made in the previous step, the decision maker has to choose the most optimal variant from the point of view of the organization's interests. This step is at the heart of the solving problem process. One solution is to choose an alternative that is feasible, satisfactory, and has consequences that are acceptable. In order to make it easier for the manager to choose from among all the options considered, a set of subjective factors and weights can be prepared.

A wrong decision means a wrong choice, i.e. ineffective management, and effective management is the most important for any organization. It means choosing the right things to do. Ineffectiveness cannot be offset by any level of fitness, which means doing things the right way. It follows that each decision-maker should make the best use of the opportunity to multiply the benefits of the company and build its good image in the environment (Penc, 2003).

As already mentioned, we have a set of decision variants from which we choose the best one from the point of view of a specific criterion (Wojtas-Klima, 2014). The word "best" or "most advantageous" alternative makes it effective. Effective decision-making and selection of the optimal solution forces the decision maker to understand the reasons that lead him to make a given decision. It should be assumed that an effective decision should optimize the adopted set of factors from the company's point of view, and this set includes: profit, employee welfare, sales, but also: minimizing losses or limiting employee rotation. The decision-making process concerns both problem areas of the enterprise and touches the sphere related to the identification of new opportunities or development prospects.

It should also be mentioned that the choice of the best alternative can be made based on two basic types of managerial decisions: programmed and non-programmed. A programmed decision is defined as one that is fairly complete in structure and / or returns to the manager at certain intervals. An excellent example of a programmed decision is the process of replenishing packaging in a factory. The factory manager knows that he must have a five-day supply of packaging and has information that the supplier needs two days to complete the delivery. Therefore, the manager makes a cyclical decision to replenish the inventory when they fall below the seven-day requirement. In the presented case, the manager may introduce a system that automatically registers shortages in stocks and at the same time issues an instruction for their immediate replenishment.

On the other hand, non-programmed decisions are decisions with a rather not clearly defined structure; they are made much less frequently than programmed decisions. Managers facing such decisions must always treat them as unique, consuming an enormous amount of time, energy and resources necessary for a comprehensive examination of the decision-making situation. The main factors in non-programmed decisions are intuition and experience. Most of the decisions made by top managers regarding strategy (including mergers, acquisitions, and acquisitions) and organizational design are non-programmed decisions. Decisions about new plants, new products, collective agreements and legal problems are of a similar nature (Griffin, 2006).

In addition to different types of decisions, the existence of different conditions under which decisions are made should also be noted. Thus, a manager can make decisions under conditions of certainty, risk and uncertainty. When a decision maker knows with reasonable certainty the options available and the conditions attached to each of them, there is a state of certainty (Griffin, 2006). In this case, the decision-maker knows all the possibilities of making a decision, the degree of ambiguity is low and it can be concluded that there is little risk of making a wrong decision. It should be noted, however, that in the conditions of turbulent economic life, a negligible percentage of organizational decisions is made with certainty.

Nowadays, decisions are made under risky conditions much more often. According to R. W. Griffin (2006) , the state of risk is a situation in which the availability of individual opportunities and the potential benefits and costs associated with each of them are known with a certain estimated probability. When making decisions, every manager must accurately diagnose the probability associated with each of the possibilities. When making a decision under risky conditions, one should take into account the fact that the decision maker has moderate uncertainty and there is a moderate risk of making a wrong decision.

In a dynamically changing economic environment, we can meet an increasing number of decisions made under conditions of uncertainty. If the decision-making process is accompanied by uncertainty, it means that the manager does not know all the alternatives and the risks associated with them, as well as the possible consequences. Operating in conditions of uncertainty requires continuous decision making. Permanent uncertainty forces us to constantly decide which option of action is more certain and beneficial. A person in a decision-making situation feels uncertain because he does not know which of the considered variants of action will bring the expected result. Each decision is therefore a solution to the problem of uncertainty in operation. As a result of the decision, the uncertainty is completely eliminated or significantly reduced - it becomes controlled uncertainty, which is influenced by managers (Nosal, 2001).

The different conditions in which a choice is made requires the use of different strategies as follows:

1. A computational strategy should be used when there is certainty about both the causes and the preferences of the results. Its result is a programmed decision.
2. When the output preferences are clear, but the cause-effect relationships are uncertain, a judgmental strategy should be used. Its result is a planned decision - considering unforeseen accidents.
3. Where there is certainty about the cause-effect relationship but lack of clarity about the preferences of the outcomes, the situation requires a compromise strategy. The result is a compromise decision.
4. When there is uncertainty about both cause-effect relationships and outcome preferences, the situation requires focusing on a higher level of values and vision (inspiration) and making comparisons with external points of reference (other people who were once in a similar position). Its result is a dynamic decision made through mutual matching.

Based on:

https://mikroporady.pl/instrukcje-i-regulaminy/instrukcje/czy-znasz-3-elementy-podejmowania-skutecznej-decyzji (Access 2021 10 20).

The step following the selection of the optimal solution to the problem is its implementation. The Deming Cycle, also known as the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check and Act) cycle, will be used to discuss this issue. It is a method that helps to solve problems in an orderly and systematic manner. PDCA is a four-tier management model related to Lean Management, Kaizen, as well as Problem Solving and Continuous Improvement.

Phase A makes it possible to correct the developed plan in phase P, which shows that the Deming cycle is a continuous cycle that never ends and each subsequent repetition brings the organization closer to achieving the goal set in phase P. As a result, PDCA is also called the cycle of continuous improvement.

Below is an extended workflow for implementing a solution to a previously identified problem in accordance with the PDCA cycle (see Figure 1).

PDCA cycle

PLAN

• P1: Define the problem.

• P2: Document the current status.

• P3: Define a target state with measurable goals.

• P4: Identify solutions or process improvements.

• P5: Develop an action plan.

DO

• D1: Implement the action plan in a real process.

CHECK

• C1: Analyze the results against the goals set in the PLAN phase. Check if the state after implementation is consistent with the planned future state.

ACT

• A1: Document changes to the standard process.

• A2: Explore the progres of the learning process (what the team has learned).

• A3: Define the gaps between CHECK and PLAN phases.

• A4: If there are gaps in A3, then define another PDCA cycle.

• A5: Document improvement and share best practices.

Figure 1. PDCA cycle

Source: https://leanjestdlaludzi.pl/pdca-planuj-wykonuj-sprawdzaj-dzialaj-cykl-deminga-ciagle-doskonalenie/ (Access 2021 10 09).

Solving problems should not be a matter of just going through one cycle. In practice, this would diminish our vigilance and expose the organization to unnecessary costs. It often turns out that a solution that we feel is effective enough can be improved, just as the approaches to identifying solutions and assessing their effects can (and even need to) be improved. If we solved the problem, checked that the introduced solution works correctly and we started to use this solution permanently (by introducing the standard), then the next step is to improve it. For this purpose, the PDCA cycle is restarted. Subsequent iterations (repeating the same sequence of activities in a loop) lead to an improvement of the work system, the achieved result, and, consequently, the improvement of the entire organization (see Figure 2).

Self-improvement in problem solving

Some problem-solving methods are time-consuming and resource-intensive, not like the PDCA cycle which is flexible enough to be used in any situation. If the goal of the organization is to make systematic improvements, then PDCA is the right choice. However, the methodical and cyclical nature of PDCA means that changes are gradual. Hence, the method may not work if the organization faces a sudden problem. A similar situation occurs when the problem concerns the need to quickly improve efficiency and results. Then the PDCA may also not work. The unquestionable advantage of the PDCA cycle is that it enables constant identification of problems and methods of their optimal solution. However, it should be remembered that a complete solution to the problems and improvement in efficiency after the first iteration is unlikely.

Figure 2. Self-improvement in solving organizational problems