In commercial institutions, the problems faced often exceed the scope that people can handle in a timely manner. Ideally, this may only lead to minor issues being overlooked. However, in extreme cases, constantly responding to emergencies can deplete a company’s energy and resources. Particularly for companies with complex R&D and production processes, such negative emergency behaviors pose an imminent risk. This “firefighting syndrome” deserves our close attention; indeed, it is a major challenge faced by management.
The so-called “firefighting syndrome” can be identified by the following characteristics: insufficient time to solve all problems, leading to a buildup of issues. The number of problems dealt with often exceeds personal capabilities. Solutions are frequently quick fixes, more patchwork than fundamental solutions. Due to the lack of thorough measures, problems cycle repetitively, with old and new issues intertwined. Urgency begins to replace importance, allowing the pressing long-term issues to be postponed. Problems gradually turn into crises until they explode, at which point companies can only make tremendous efforts to deal with them. The overall performance of the business thereby continuously declines.
To get to the root of the firefighting syndrome, one could carefully analyze the transmission process of problems within the organization. When problems first arise, they enter a queue awaiting treatment until engineers are available to resolve them. Once an engineer has dealt with a problem, they need to report to the manager in charge of the problem queue, who decides which issue is most pressing and who should solve it.
A core workload indicator is the intensity of business volume, which is the ratio of the number of problems to the resources available for solving them. As the number of issues increases or the time required to solve them lengthens, the intensity of business volume rises. Adding personnel to solve problems can decrease the intensity of business volume. The system operates well when the business volume intensity is maintained at around 80%. If it exceeds 100%, emergency responses may occur. Managers and engineers may take extreme measures, prioritizing some problems, while they might spend more time dealing with impatient inquiries rather than working efficiently.
The longer the backlog lasts, the more stagnant affairs burgeon, and engineers begin to immerse themselves in tasks outside of problem-solving, such as meetings to discuss prioritization, arranging special emergency handling for clients with delayed orders, and reassessing problems due to changes in circumstances. In summary, when firefighting becomes the norm, the ensuing chaos and information overload occupy much of the engineers’ time. Yet this is not the worst of it; most severe is that, under the continuous tense atmosphere, engineers are often inefficient and rough in solving problems. They don’t have enough time to dig deep into the essence of the issues, relying instead on intuition for diagnosis and implementing solutions without fully testing their own diagnoses.
Quick fixes to issues may temporarily prevent the spread of problems, but often do not solve the issues fundamentally. Leaving problems aside without truly resolving them is due to a lack of systematic approach. Adopting different strategies can effectively avoid frequent “firefighting” behaviors, including methods at the tactical, strategic, and cultural levels.
Tactical methods focus on short-term, immediate response measures. Introducing temporary experts to the problem site is an effective short-term strategy. For instance, the hard drive industry dispatches American engineers to factories in Asia when producing new products, so that their troubleshooting abilities can have a direct impact. Another tactic is to halt operations temporarily when there are too many problems until all issues have been resolved. At the same time, it’s essential to acknowledge that some problems may be impossible to resolve and to make a decisive decision not to invest resources in these issues.
Strategic approaches, on the other hand, concentrate on more macroscopic, long-term solutions. Changing the product strategy can fundamentally reduce the problems that arise in the design and manufacturing processes. By seeking the root cause, problems can be categorized, and understanding the underlying reasons make solving long-term issues much simpler. Additionally, cultivating all staff to become problem-solvers can greatly increase the capability to resolve issues.
Cultural methods require innovation at the level of corporate culture and management behavior. Creating a culture that does not reward merely “temporary fixes” demands that managers distinguish between temporary patch-ups and fundamental solutions. For example, at Intel, from upper management to frontline, all have clear production line problem-solving experience, which helps to effectively avoid hasty “patchwork” actions.
In the pursuit of final deadlines, companies should not sacrifice long-term stability and sustainability. Management needs to show determination against short-sighted actions and help establish a culture focused on problem-solving throughout the organization.
When setting development goals, companies should opt for flexible adaptation rather than clinging to the initial deadlines. The standard of measurement for project progress should be based on the number of unresolved issues.
