What Should Mark Have Done If Jack Still Was Not Able To Res

What should Mark have done if Jack still was not able to resolve the problem?

If Jack was unable to resolve the door mechanism challenge after exhaustive effort, Mark should have considered several strategic actions. First, he could have assigned the project to another qualified engineer with expertise in innovative mechanical design, possibly someone with a broader background in complex system integration. This alternative approach could introduce fresh perspectives and new problem-solving methodologies. Second, Mark might have solicited external expertise, such as consulting with industry specialists or collaborating with research institutions specializing in aerospace mechanisms, fostering innovation through external partnerships. Third, he could have initiated a systematic review of the problem, breaking it into smaller, more manageable sub-problems to explore incremental solutions or alternative designs that might bypass the seemingly insurmountable challenge. Finally, a contingency plan involving incremental modifications or phased implementation could have been considered, reducing the risk and allowing for ongoing development while exploring further solutions. Implementing these options would maximize the likelihood of achieving a workable mechanism, ultimately serving the company’s goals of cost efficiency and operational reliability.

Would it make sense for Mark to assign this problem to someone else now, after Jack could not solve the problem the second time around?

Once Jack failed to find a solution after significant effort, it would be pragmatic for Mark to consider reassigning the problem to another individual or team. This decision is based on the premise that different engineers or designers might possess unique insights or approaches that Jack might not have employed. A fresh perspective could ignite new ideas, possibly leading to a breakthrough. Additionally, reassigning the challenge aligns with effective project management principles—if the current approach proves unfruitful, diversification of problem-solving efforts can be beneficial. However, before doing so, Mark should ensure that all possible avenues, including further internal analysis or external collaboration, have been explored. If these efforts also fail, then delegation to someone with different expertise, skills, or creative problem-solving strategies is justifiable and could expedite the search for a workable mechanism. Ultimately, this approach aims to leverage the collective expertise of the organization to mitigate risk, ensure progress, and meet strategic objectives.

References

• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Westview Press.
• Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for Business and Society. Harper Business.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
• Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2014). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Wiley.
• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press.
• Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Bloomsbury Academic.
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Dimensions, and Outcomes of Organizational Agility. Journal of Management, 30(5), 557–581.
• De Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Unlock Your Natural Creativity. HarperBusiness.
• Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All. Crown Business.
• Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press.