“Reaching for the moon” is a phrase that denotes trying to achieve the impossible. But now in our lifetime comes the achievement that gives the lie to the old phrase. Our national heroes, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin Aldrin, did the undoable by achieving the objectives of Apollo Eleven and being the first men on the moon.
The feat made the whole world proud—and thoughtful. Perhaps other “undoable” tasks are within our reach. At the very least, there’s a tremendous lesson to be learned from the moon-conquering accom¬plishment of the first man-on-the-moon rocket.
Analyzing the steps by which we forged our triumph, key points emerge that may be applied to “unsolvable” problems on the job:
1. Commitment.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy made a rous¬ing, determined statement that committed the nation to landing men
on the moon “before this decade is out.” When starting any ambi¬tious project we must resolve to put into the task the effort required. This act of will provides us with the drive and the emotional strength to start and sustain the energies needed for success.
2.Deadline.
In President Kennedy’s statement, the words, “before the decade is out,” created a sense of time pressure. Compare the effect of Kennedy’s statement without the time deadline What if he had merely said, “We must go to the moon.” It may have been as exciting a declaration. But without the deadline, we would not have had the same feeling of urgency, a highly motivating factor.
3. Resources.
Thousands of companies, hundreds of thousands of people became involved in producing the ideas, the planning, the hardware, and the techniques that eventually landed us on our satel¬lite. In the same way, the manager who is undertaking “mission im¬possible” must have resources available. Part of the solution is the assessment and gathering of resources, manpower, materials, equip¬ment, and so on.
4. Piecemeal victories.
We didn’t get to the moon in a single jump. As a matter of fact, a succession of ambitious projects starting with Pioneer 1 in 1957, and including Ranger, Mariner, Surveyor, Explorer, and Gemini, preceded Apollo 11. Each added to our knowledge and refinement of techniques. Within the framework of each of these major projects were thousands of piecemeal accomplishments—the improvement of a valve, the redesign of an electrical system, the con¬tinuing modernization of vital parts and instruments, such as the on-board computer.
In the same way, the executive should strive to break down his long-range goal into subelements and subgoals. These bite-size tasks or goals are attainable. And reaching the overall goal, in a sense, is the sum of many small successes.
5.Refinement and improvement.
A large part of the scientific and engineering talent in our space effort was devoted to continuing improvements in design methods and standards of quality. Accord¬ingly, the executive who may be trying to drastically reduce overall production time on a major item may find that he moves towards his objective when, under his direction, a subordinate comes up with an idea for a special bit for a drilling operation, or a more efficient jig for an assembly operation.
6.Consolidate learning.
As advances were made, the benefits were quickly incorporated into the overall activity. Accordingly, each others. if your problem involves other people, give them the chance to be right once in a while.
project benefited by what had been learned in previous ones. For example, the know-how for building bigger, better, and more reliable rockets advanced steadily from 1958 on. The same is true of the improvements in design and application of computers used in the space conquest.
7.Communications.
A part of the space effort that seldom made the headlines: the countless hours of meetings, conferences, discus¬sions; the exchange of memos and reports among the various groups and individuals involved in the space project.
It’s both stimulating and helpful to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Employee A who has solved a problem in his part of the project may be able to help Employee B solve one in his area. Or, Employee C, struggling with difficulties, may receive an idea from Employee D that will ease the bind.
8.Leadership.
An essential ingredient is continuing directly from the top. With a project involving even a few people—and certainly where larger numbers are involved—a single “command center” must supervise the effort, keep it moving along, and keep the parts of the project effectively related to one another. This is the ultimate contri¬bution of an executive. And, as some experts see it, Apollo 11 may be said to be a triumph of American management know-how as well as of “technology.”
An “unsolvable” problem? Apollo // proves that if there is such a thing, the number of items in this category are fewer than we think. Apollo // is an inspiration to the entire planet, but to American man-agement, it’s a stimulating reminder that any goal we set ourselves is possible—if we work toward that goal and believe in our ability to achieve it.
In World War II, management developed the saying: “The difficult we can do at once, the impossible takes a little longer.” Our moon triumph suggests that the “impossible” may not take that much longer.
Quantification, an assist in problem-solving
Roger Bacon said that knowledge wasn’t scientific until it used num¬bers. Sir Francis Galton, who launched the modern theory of statistics suggested, “Whenever you can, count.”
For executives, numbers are an important tool of thinking and prob¬lem-solving. Problems that seem vague and unmanageable come into sharper focus when you count and compare.
Clearly, when a problem naturally involves quantities, they become a key aspect of the solution. For example, you have a problem of moving 10 pounds of material across the continent. The solution is likely to be quite different from a similar problem involving 1,000 pounds.
But you are faced with many problems in which the quantification isn’t built in. In this case there are two possible approaches:
- Assignment of values. Let’s say you have a problem of evaluating the performance of an employee. His job involves three different elements, each of which is of different importance. You represent this difference by “weighting”: element A, the most important, is assigned a value of 50%, elements B and C given values of 25% each. Now, as you go about evaluating the quality of his performance in these three areas, the quantification step gives you a continuing re¬minder that his accomplishments in element A, or his failings, are twice as important as those in B or C.
- Rating scale. Instead of numbers, it’s also possible to make helpful comparisons by use of a graded scale such as Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Unsatisfactory.
In each of the above cases the objective is to make your thinking more specific. In avoiding vagueness, you sharpen the facts and make possible comparisons that are helpful in problem-solving.
