波士顿咨询（BCG）-高级咨询顾问技能-解决问题能力

ProblemSolvingApproachApril23,20XXIllustrate

anddiscuss

howastrategyconsultantsolves

problems,

including1.Threethinking

styles•Critical

thinking/批判思维•Logical

thinking/逻辑思维•Hypothesis

thinking/预设思维2.

Problemsolving

approachProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

1Today'sagendaProblemsolvingapproachAttitudeStructureSpeedBasicelementsforsuperiorproblemsolvingProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

2ProblemsolvingskillsHypothes

isthinkingLog

ica

lthinkingCrit

ica

lthinkingCriticalthinkingDraft—fordiscussiononly

3AgendaProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptxCritical

thinking

(Reflective

thinking)二VS.Un-reflectivethinkingAkindofevaluativethinkingJumptotheconclusion,

oracceptsomeevidenceorargument

at

facevalue,without

reallythinkingabout

itIt

involves

bothcriticismand

creativethinkingBe

honestwithyourself:

"whatI

knowabout"vs.

"what

I

don't

knowabout",

beforegivingyour

opinionsWhat's

critical

thinking-

it's

an

attitudeProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

4LogicalthinkingDraft—fordiscussiononly

5AgendaProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptxExploretherootcause!StructurethemessagesCausalityLogicalstructureTwopurposesforlogical

thinkingProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

6You

kickmy

buttIfeel

hurtCausality

istherelationshipbetweencauseand

effectProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

7CauseEffectSweetspotCauseProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

8SymptomFellasleep

in

anair-conditionedroomLiketowatchlate

nightshowsIllustrationofCausalityw

swwTooshallow(Doesn'tsolvethe

problemcompletelySetthe

roomtemperaturehigherBuya

TivoExample

FixHumanbeingsare

tooweakToo

deep

(Hardtofix)Catchinga

cold

Change

DNAHavinga

feverAspirin123#ofkidsemployees

haveThemore

kidsyou

have,themore

moneyyou

make?Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

9150100500Annualsalary(ThousandUSD)ExampleMoresenior,highertherankMoresalaryMore

kidsLogicfallacy(1):the

hidden3rdfactorProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

10Inorderto

learnEnglish,

I

needtowork

in

US!Mr.Xworksin

USfor3yearsand

his

English

is

good!MsZworksin

USfor5yearsand

her

English

is

good!Mr.Yworksin

USfor4yearsandhis

English

isgood!Yougetto

learngood

English

ifworkingin

US...Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

11ExampleSpeakinggood

English

is

pre-requisitetoworkin

USTherefore,Mr.Xgetstowork

in

USTherefore,MsZgetstowork

in

USTherefore,Mr.Ygetstowork

in

USLogicfallacy(2):reversingcause

and

effectMr.X'sEnglish

is

good!MsZs

Englishis

good!Mr.Y's

Englishisgood!Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

12ABCpart-time

studentThemanagerfoundoutthatitwasapart-timestudenthandlingthecall.part-timestudentpart-timestudentAndhence,he

decided

not

to

usepart-timestudentsanymore...Oneday,anangrycustomerfiledaseriouscomplainttoCompanyABConits

lousycustomerservice.Acomplaintfromanangrycustomer...Draft—fordiscussiononly

13Problem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptxExampleThecustomerwasangryPoorcustomerservicemanagement,e.g.incentivesnot

closelylinkedwith

KPI,etc.Thecustomerfiled

complaintsPoorcustomerserviceprovidedbya

part-time

studentLackofattentionfrommanagementoncustomerservicesProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

14Logicfallacy(3):the

laststrawTherefore,

IamcatAllcats

havefour

legsI

havefourlegsCommon

logicfallacies(4):sameattributes,sameobjectsProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

15A

CBCA=

BLow-endmodelsare

sold

well

intier4cities

in

ChinaHighendmodelswon't

sell

intier4cities

in

ChinaProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

16Common

logicfallacies(5)A

B~A

~BStructurethemessagesExploretherootcause!CausalityLogicalstructureTwopurposesforlogical

thinkingProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

17

MECE

—≥

MECE

Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

18Goodlogicalstructure=

PyramidstructureCause(Fact

base)Face

base

in

the

bottomOnemessage,one

boxOpinionsabovefactMECESame

logic

levelEffect(Opinions)Sowhat?Whyso?132baseThisis

NOTa

message

XTooexpensive2012revenueCut

costLauncha

pilotThis

isa

messageYoushouldenterChinesemarket20%ofyour

R&D

projectswerenot

commercializedAmessage

needstoa

"sentence",nota

noun

neither

averbBUX

hasbeenlost

moneyfor5

consecutive

yearsProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

19Onemessage,

one

box1ExampleRedcolor

is

popularYou

needtosetup

a

JV

ifenteringChinamarketChinaGDP

is$5T

in201220%ofcustomersbuyproduct

AandBat

the

same

timexxx3outof

10factories

inthistownwentbankruptHumanbeingscannot

live

foreverAstatementsupportedby

bothsolidquantitativeandqualitativeresearch•

VeryfewexceptionsAstatementbyexhaustivequantitativedata,orverylongtermobservation•

NoexceptionTypeSomeone'sperceptionSomeone'sobservationPublicdata/researchGeneralizedfactsbasedonsurveydataorstatisticsCrucialtodifferentiatefactsfromopinionsIdealfactbaseforconsultantsFactsDraft—fordiscussiononlyProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptxOpinions220Nogaps,

no

overlapsMECE:

Mutuallyexclusive,collectivelyexhaustiveProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

21What's

MECE

What's

NOT

MECECustomerSeniorOLHumanMaleFemaleTeenagers3CustomerMaleTip:Avoiddifferent

logic

levelatthesame

layerProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

22Same

logic

level

Different

logic

levelHumanMaleFemaleJuniorfemaleSenior

female3MalediesFemalediesHumanbeing

diesProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

23Induction3Humanbeing

diesYouarea

human

beingYou

dieProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

24Deduction3Autoco.shouldenterLaosmarketimmediatelyAutomarket

in

Laoswill

takeoffnextyearIttakes~1yearfor

Autoco.

toset

upa

new

marketAutomarketwilltake

offoncetheGDP/capitareaches

US

$3,000Laosis

aboutto

reach$3,000GDP/capitanextyearIttook~12

monthstosetupthe

market

incountry

YIttook~11

monthstosetupthe

market

incountryXProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

25Exampleofan

idealstructure...TheChinese

market

is

attractiveYou

needtoenterChinaCommon

logicfallacies(6):wind-belllogicProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

26Logicalstructurecan

be

usedonmakingstatements

oraskingquestions(a.k.a.

issuetrees)Howtosetup

the

channels?Howto

producetheproducts?Howtopricethe

products?Howtoadvertisetheproducts?StatementInductiveAre

product

A

available

instoreforcustomerswhowantto

buy

it?Arecustomersknowingproduct

Ainterestedinbuyingproduct

A?Arecustomersawareofproduct

A?Howto

entera

market?Humanwill

dieWoman

will

dieManwill

dieHumanwill

dieWoman

will

dieManwill

dieWhycan'tproduct

Asell?Draft—fordiscussiononly

27MECEMECEIssuetreesProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptxWhytreeHowtreeDeductiveHypothesisthinkingDraft—fordiscussiononly

28AgendaProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptxHypothesis

thinkingAthinkingstylethatforcesyoutohypothesizetheproblemortheanswerfirstandtakeactionstoprove/disprovetheit•Youalways

needtohavea

tentative

answer,

evenwith

limited

infoIthelpsconsultantsfocusresourcesonwhat'srelevantand

hencedeliver

resultsmuchmoreefficientlyAcoreskillthatallBCGconsultantswouldbeforcedtopick

upfrom

day

oneHypothesisTentativedescriptionforaproblemorananswerThebestguessbasedonyour

current

knowledgeNeedstobe

provenright

orwrongHypothesisvs.

hypothesisthinkingProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

29Hypothesis

onsolutions“解決本酒店財務困境的方式是找到有名的主廚”“以現在的時機，進中國市場要從三線市場開始”“我認為公司應採全職的店員，提升對產品的知識，

才能確保對客戶服務的品質，增加店內的營收”Hypothesis

on

problems“我認為少子化的根源問題出在女性投入職場的不

足”“我認為人才外流的主要原因在於22K政策”Hypothesiscould

beforproblemsorsolutionsProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

30•

隨著資料收集與分析，假說不斷進化•

隨時都有更新進度

可以討論與報告假說思考與傳統Boiltheocean方式比較假說Problem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

31Boil

the

ocean

Hypothesis

thinking•

期待deadline要到時能夠神來一筆

•

常常無法如期所願•

大量閱讀資料•

從第一天開始建假說假說•

沒有問題意識完成度完成度立假說DeadlineDeadline時間時間假說?1.

訪談2.到現場實地走訪3.

討論4.

文獻檢索5.

分析6.

一人獨想Problem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

32建立假說常用方式Good

example

Brokenlink

betweensales

planandexecutionTheskillsofthehighperformingsalesweren'tsharedamongthesales

groupWithscreenprocess

likebeingdoneatCompanyX,you

canimproveyour

hit

rate

significantlyThereisan

issue

on

sales

managementNewsalesreps

do

not

have

rightskillsWeakproductdevelopmentprocessescomparedwith

competitorXSpecificLinktoactionsCan

be

provenProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

33Goodvs.bad

hypothesisRequirement

ofgood

hypothesisBadexampleDiscussionDiscussionwithclientsExpertinterviewsDiscussionwithcustomersAnalysisEconomicsSurveyanalysisROIExperimentPilotTestmarketingExamplesWaystovalidatethe

hypothesesProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

34What'syourhypothesisonthe

key

issuesyourclient

isfacingwith?Problem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

35Discussionquestion問題解決法

(ProblemSolvingApproach)Draft—fordiscussiononly

36AgendaProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptxRuleof20/80

•80%ofsurfacedissues(symptoms)

drivenby20%ofkeydrivers

(root

causes)•

Evenforthemostcomplexissues,therewon'tbemorethanthree

root

causesComment•

Ifyou

cannotsolvea

problem,itmeansyou

areintellectually

lazy•Problem

solvers'value

added

comes

frombothidentifyingright

issues(root

causes)aswellasfindingsolutionsThreekey

beliefsforprofessional

problemsolversEverythingyouseeissymptom

(問題表象),

not

rootcause(問題本質)•Clientcomestoyou

becausetheydon't

see

theroot

causesKey

beliefNoproblem

is

unsolvableProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

37123第一步：定義問題(Define)第二步：提出方案(Solve)第三步：溝通

(Communicate)第四部：實施(Implementation)Today'sfocusProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

38策略顧問常用的問題解決方式（Problemsolvingapproach）討論與進化(Discussandevolve)評估選項(Evaluateoptions)組成實施團隊

(Formtheteam)架構論述(Makethestory)確認問題(Confirmproblems)提出選項(Generateoptions)擬定實施計畫(Developimplementationplan)簡報(Present)挖掘本質(Identifyrootcauses)驗證與修正(Validateandrevise)決定建議(Proposerecommendations)執行與修正(Executeand

revise)J第一步：定義問題Draft—fordiscussiononly

39AgendaProblem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx菲律賓海防槍殺台灣漁民?家暴？確認問題What

istheproblem?Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

40少子化？人才外流？However,

notall

problemsare

real

problems.Professionalswill

identifythe

right

problemtosolve

Problem

isthegapbetweencurrentstatusand

idealsituation

IdealsituationGap=

problemProblem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

41Currentstatus可有效達成問題陳述起點

Problemstatement1陳述為真?True?是2目的為何？

Objective?解決問題目的誰的問題？Whose3

problem?(Whydo

Icare?)關鍵人的問題值得探討的問題Relevantproblems確認問題

Confirmtherelevanceofproblemsviathree

questions:T.O.W.

修正或重新定義問題Fine-tuneorredefineproblems否

解決問題對達成目的不一定有幫助Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

42非關鍵人

的問題確認問題利用確認問題來修正問題追究點•本數字可信度？•是否有人才回流？•維持甚麼競爭力？•此競爭力需要什麼人才？•

這種人才也有大量外流的

趨勢嗎？•

人才外流對台灣企業競爭

力影響有多大？•

全國人民是你的關鍵服務

對象（Stakeholder）嗎？•

還有沒有其他stakeholder？他們的關

心點一致嗎？可能初步答案是的，因為據統計，每年有

約50萬人口到外地工作為了維持台灣企業的競爭力全國人民的問題最後，問題可能修正為：我國高科技高級技術人才近年來被中國與新加坡大量挖角，

已經造成關鍵技術外流，嚴重影響台灣關鍵高科技企業的競爭力陳述為真？(True?)目的為何？(Objectives?)誰的問題？(Whoseproblem?)我國人才大量外流Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

43原本問題陳述

確認問題事項Why,why,why議題樹(Issuetree)假說思考(Hypothesisthinking)發掘本質顧問常用發掘問題本質的手法Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

44結果人才利用法律漏洞，持續流失薪酬仍遠遠不足競爭對手，仍然

阻止不了人才流失企業投入資源申請科專補助，而

非思考本質創新有效讓製造業性質的企業與創新

導向的公司分開，各自發展，提

供了高級技術人才的發揮空間與激勵制度解決強迫競業條款規定最低報酬利用科專（專款補助創新專案），

鼓勵企業創新利用稅賦制度，鼓勵企業設置創

業基金，在既有企業外獎勵創業問題高級技術人才被中星挖角

Why?台灣高科技公司無法提供高級技術人才合理報酬

Why?台灣高科技公司固守本業，創新能量不足，導致組織僵化沒空間

讓人才升官

Why?經營者拘泥於製造業心態，過於

成本考量，不願也不懂如何對創新投資發掘本質用連問"Why,why,why?"，發掘問題本質表象根源Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

45發掘本質利用議題樹尋找問題本質：Whytree注意MECE原則為何高級技術人才被中星挖角？是否薪酬太低？是否發揮空間有限？是否工作環境太差？是否憂心公司發展前景？Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

46是否固定薪資太低？是否績效獎金太低？是否股票太少？是否不認同公司核心事業的前景？是否擔心公司沒有能力開發新事業？是否辦公室太過老舊或壅擠？是否同事素質太低？是否老闆太過無能？是否公司限制太多？進化假說進化假說因為台灣公

司老闆固守

製造心態，只顧成本Why?發掘本質利用假說思考也是一個探求問題本質的方式初始假說

因為台灣公司缺乏創新，沒有空間給人才發揮與升遷Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

47

因為薪資太低引發高端人才流失工作經驗訪談團隊討論文獻檢索現場參訪完成度Why?時間如何證明•

訪談被挖角人士•針對高級技術人才做問卷調查•

訪談被挖角公司人資高管•研究被挖角公司，觀察是否缺乏創

新，是否組織、高管變動小，下面

人才向上空間不大•訪談其員工，了解主要不滿•針對被挖角公司，了解該經營者對

創新的態度，過去所採取的相關行動與投資•訪談其員工，了解他們對經營者在

創新上面的看法驗證與修正有必要驗證問題本質的假說如果有誤，要修正該假說高級技術人才被中星挖角台灣高科技公司固守本業，創新能量不足，導致組織僵化，沒空間讓人才升官台灣高科技公司無法提供

高級技術人才合理報酬經營者拘泥於製造業心態，

過於成本考量，不願也不懂如何對創新投資Key

driver?

bKey

driver?

b1.發揮20/80法則下面一層是否是主要

造成上面一層的原因？2.有可能有複數原因（但很少超過三個）表象根源Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

48Keydriver?ConfirmproblemsIdentifyrootcausesWhat'stherootcause?True?What'stheobjective?Whoseproblem?(Whydo

Icare?)Source•

Observations

•

Requests•

Arguments

•Problem

Solving

Approach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—for

discussion

only

49小結：發現本質問題的方式EffectCause?Why?Starting

point213what?So...Oneday,you

receive

acall

from

Minister

ofEducation(教育部).

He

is

worried

about

thecompetitiveness

ofTaiwanesestudents...Problem

SolvingApproach_NCCU_CC_23APR14.pptx

Draft—fordiscussiononly

50Discussionquestion前政務委員、台大社會系教授薛承泰日前在一場演講中指出，大學校園中台灣學生和大陸學生間的競爭力落差，

「比大陸1,000顆飛彈瞄準台灣更驚悚」。這一席談話凸顯出近年來國人憂心兩岸人才

競爭力快速消長對台灣的不利影響，有必要深入探討其原因，並速謀補救之道。根據薛承泰教授的分析，台灣大學生競爭力不及陸生，主要歸因於以下因素：第一，出生人口從民

國65年42.5萬人高峰遽降至近年20萬人上下，大學學齡人口減少逾半，但大學院校卻不斷擴充，因