Abstract
The 3-Step Charrette problem-solving methodology turns the classroom into a consulting firm. It trains participants to solve complex, real-world problems cooperatively and systematically. Participants identify needed information and perform several research cycles in teams to gain knowledge to examine the root causes of a presented problem. Participants then re-form into different groups to find solutions, ultimately consolidating their chosen solutions into a plan of action. The jigsaw transposition from research teams to solving groups ensures that participants acquire needed expertise and properly characterize the problem before attempts to fashion solutions even begin. As participants follow the procedure, the instructor guides them using in-stream debriefing. Designed for use with a live client, this experiential exercise is useful for capstone, strategy, consulting, design thinking, and business architecture courses.
Keywords
“[Managers] find themselves dealing with accelerating rates of change, uncertainty, and ambiguity and often work in politicized organizations” (Cunliffe, 2004, p. 408). According to Dunne and Martin, business education should be more like design education—assigning MBAs projects that require them to solve “wicked problems.” Dunne and Martin credit Horst Rittel with originating the idea. Rittel defines “wicked problems” as a “class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Churchman, 1967, p. 141). Rittel elaborates upon this definition by enumerating 11 properties wicked problems have in common, which Buchanan summarizes (Buchanan, 1992; Dunne & Martin, 2006; Rittel, 1972).
In this article, we introduce an elegant experiential problem-solving methodology for tackling the complex, compound, real-world challenges that stand in the way of an organization realizing its vision. (We use “Challenge” to mean a problem that must be resolved in order to realize a “Vision”—the ideal future of the client’s organization.) Developed in an MBA consulting classroom, one emphasizing the importance of planning, strategy, and business architecture (“PSBA”) as essential tools, this exercise evolved from the need for an improved methodology and pedagogy for teaching participants how to help a live client envision an improved design of (and future for) their organization. We believe that the 3-Step Charrette improves upon traditional methods of instruction, which we discuss in Appendix A, a review of the literature.
The term charrette refers to a problem-solving methodology borrowed from the world of architecture, in which multidisciplinary teams of experts and stakeholders design a consensus-based solution to a broad challenge, which they present to a jury of their peers for constructive feedback (Markham, 2011). In practice, a charrette generally involves several rounds of collaborative activities led by a facilitator (Hughes, 2018). In this exercise, the instructor assumes this role. Invited faculty, outside experts, and/or past participants serve as the jury of peers.
Learning Outcomes
After completing this exercise, participants will be better able to:
Explain how to use the 3-Step Charrette to design solutions to complex, real-world challenges.
Explain how research design may change in response to acquired information.
Work through ambiguous, evolving challenges with increased resilience.
Recognize connections and patterns to synthesize seemingly unrelated facts within a real-world context to create new valuable insights.
Collectively weigh a variety of viewpoints and move toward consensus.
Cooperatively consolidate a spectrum of options into a single, holistically optimized plan of action.
Procedure
Format
The exercise uses a live client, who conveys a Vision to student-participants and then poses an associated Challenge for the class to address. The instructor guides participants using a Program Statement and in-stream debriefing.
Precourse Setup
The instructor schedules the course, secures the participation of a live client, prepares a program statement (“Program Statement”), posts online supportive materials, and assembles a jury of peers who will provide feedback to the participants prior to the final presentation to the client.
Challenge Solving Step 1: Iterative Research
The class is assigned the Challenge, identifies research needs, and forms into Research Teams. The Research Teams perform a succession of iterative research cycles. In each cycle, team members divide the work, conduct their research individually, and then share their findings and sources with their team and the class. The class discusses, reflects, and distributes additional research responsibilities to the teams. The cycle is repeated several times. At the end of the last cycle, Step 1 culminates in a meeting with the client to discuss and reflect on the class’s research findings, update and refine the Vision and Challenge, and, together, define several) key problems to solve (“Key Problems”)—problems that may hamper the client’s ability to achieve the Vision.
Challenge Solving Step 2: Solving
As in the jigsaw method, Research Teams disband and participants re-form into Solving Groups composed of at least one member from each Research Team to ensure that all research is available to all groups (Garcia, Abrego, & Robert, 2017; see Figure 1).
Transposing from Research Teams to Solving Groups.
Each Solving Group is tasked with addressing a Key Problem by developing and comparing several Solution Options.
Challenge Solving Step 3: Consolidating and Sharing
The class consolidates its findings into a single, complete, and optimized plan of action supported by the research. The exercise ends with two interactive sharing sessions: (1) a dry run presentation to the invited jury of peers for the purpose of gathering suggestions for improvements and (2) a final formal presentation to the client (see Figure 2).
Workflow diagram.
The exercise, its deliverables, and associated grading rubrics are described in a Program Statement, which is distributed to participants at the beginning of the course. A sample program statement, detailed run-through of the exercise with guidance for instructors, and peer review form can be found in Appendices B, C, and D, respectively. Appendices B and D are also available as online supplements.
Using In-Stream Debriefing to Facilitate and Consolidate Learning
Debriefing is a fundamental component of this exercise. It is built into the structure of the exercise as instructor-facilitated collective reflection. More important, debriefing is a continuous activity done in stream as the exercise progresses.
Nicholson (2013) describes several good debriefing approaches, based on a variety of models by Bloom, Kolb, Greenaway, and Thiagi, concluding that “the debrief is critical because it helps learners explore what went on, talk about their experiences, develop insights, reduce negative feelings about aspects of the activity and connect the activities to their real-life situations” (Nicholson, 2013, p. 28). The detailed run-through in Appendix C includes debriefing prompts for the instructor.
We suggest that debriefing be done using Socratic guided inquiry (Peterson, 2009; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016). As the instructor identifies opportunities for learning, he or she asks participants to pause, step back, and respond to a set of questions progressively working from the big picture down into the details. Though different for each exercise, sample questions include “What happened?” “How did it make you feel?” “Who is being affected by it?” “What similar things have you experienced before?” “How important is it?” “Is it an unforeseen anomaly or an indicator of a flawed design?” “Does it make sense?” “Do the numbers support the assumptions?” “How might we go about designing a solution?” “Will it get us there?” “What would we do differently if faced with a similar challenge in the future?” “How well are we serving our client?” and “What should be our next steps?”
Beyond such directed reflection, the instructor uses debriefing to steer the direction and control the pace of the exercise—driving momentum, drawing attention to important concepts, rescuing the class from unproductive paths, helping break compound problems into their subcomponents, and slowing things down when participants are not able to keep up. The instructor uses debriefing to ensure that participants are building a solid foundation of knowledge from which to work by persistently asking if the class would like validation and verification of the facts on which their live client may rely. It is used to expose dissonant facts, anomalies, and differences in interpretation, beliefs, values, biases, preconceived notions, and misconceptions for collective scrutiny and processing. It helps each participant verify the correctness of their understanding, fill gaps, and work through unfamiliar concepts and new circumstances. It locks in these learnings, causing participants to update their mental models. It provides the class with a common understanding and foundation from which to move forward. In the end, participants may not come away thinking differently, but each will have a better appreciation for the range and depth of others’ beliefs, values, and opinions and improved skills for bringing them into cooperative alignment, working toward a common goal.
Feedback
From Participants
Participants appreciate the deep learning the exercise facilitates. Right-brained “creatives” (artists and designers) accustomed to beginning their work with a blank sheet of paper felt comfortable with the ambiguity inherent in the exercise, while those self-selecting into more structured, left-brained disciplines including accounting and engineering had a harder time (as such, they can most benefit from it). Participants expressed surprise at the number of unforeseen conflicts and cross-impacts encountered, how often premises they took as universally true were conditioned by other factors, and how different the Key Problems and solutions were from what they expected. They were surprised by the quality and granularity of the data the Research Teams were able to uncover in a short time; the wisdom, diversity, and creativity of participants’ contributions; and how differently others process the same inputs.
From Clients
Clients were pleased with the process and relevance, impact, insightfulness, and practicality of the solutions; they liked that the class solved the Challenge holistically. A management executive explained, When they began, I said to myself, “Been there, done that, there’s nothing there, how much longer is this going to go?” Then, they started talking about things in a very different way. Their ideas were fresh, right on, and supported by the numbers. They really did their homework.
A corporate strategist shared, “I wish I had a whole team of MBAs like this who I could assign to problems.” Another told us that their company has adopted the recommendations and the methodology.
Conclusion
The defining features of the 3-Step Charrette include the following:
Participants learn to work cooperatively. They own and solve the Challenge, designing the approach they will take, choosing the research to perform, enduring the consequences of their decisions, and learning from their mistakes. The class is self-directing and self-correcting. It is supported, not led, by the instructor.
The structure fosters the development of working relationships among participants while preventing them from attempting to solve the Challenge before acquiring needed knowledge and accurately characterizing the Challenge at its root-cause level and the development of effective solutions.
It makes each participant vital to the solution by creating “subject matter experts”—that is, each participant is the sole member of their particular Research Team represented in the Solving Group.
The Solving Groups address different aspects of the Challenge, enabling the class, as a whole, to craft a more comprehensive solution, while removing competitive barriers to sharing and collaboration.
These features ensure that challenge solving is evidence based and grounded in facts rather than in preconceived notions, false assumptions, groupthink, or cognitive biases. It pools the class members’ backgrounds and expertise to improve the quality and comprehensive nature of the research and ultimately the solutions (Cheikes, Brown, Lehner, & Adelman, 2004; Manoogian, 2016).
Today’s business professionals face complex, evolving, cross-organizational challenges on a daily basis. Preparing participants to thrive in these environments requires that they gain experience solving such problems cooperatively in a near-real-world environment (Dunne & Martin, 2006). In over 15 years of deployment, our experience suggests that participants come to understand how to be successful at approaching such problems and fashioning evidence-based solutions. Sample documents and ample guidance provided in the appendices should help any instructor feel confident in successfully adopting this exercise with comparable results.
We find the 3-step Charrette method is helpful in identifying the core issues to be addressed if an organization is to achieve its vision. It is a good choice for business school capstone courses (the equivalent of the design studio around which the professional architect’s education is built) and problem-solving courses such as management consulting, organizational development, planning, strategy, business architecture, design thinking, and computer software development (Chappell & Dunn, 2016; Dunne & Martin, 2006). On graduation, participants will find this methodology to be a good choice for delivering professional consulting services. Beyond the classroom, we believe that it holds promise to support challenges presented by broader initiatives such as cross-university collaborations, academic-business partnerships, private-public collaborations, community design, and global cross-disciplinary challenges such as ecological sustainability or worldwide disease eradication (Green & Williams, 2016).
Supplemental Material
Bodine_Appendix_B_as_supplemental_file – Supplemental material for 3-Step Charrette: A Framework for Teaching Students to Solve Complex Problems in a Real-World Environment
Supplemental material, Bodine_Appendix_B_as_supplemental_file for 3-Step Charrette: A Framework for Teaching Students to Solve Complex Problems in a Real-World Environment by Paul Arthur Bodine, Natasha Palesa Mothapo and Karen Reardon in Management Teaching Review
Supplemental Material
Bodine_Appendix_D_as_supplemental_file – Supplemental material for 3-Step Charrette: A Framework for Teaching Students to Solve Complex Problems in a Real-World Environment
Supplemental material, Bodine_Appendix_D_as_supplemental_file for 3-Step Charrette: A Framework for Teaching Students to Solve Complex Problems in a Real-World Environment by Paul Arthur Bodine, Natasha Palesa Mothapo and Karen Reardon in Management Teaching Review
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Sample Program Statement for an Advanced MBA classroom on the Quarter System. Modify to reflect nature of the client, learning level of the participants, and the subject of the course.
Appendix C
Appendix D
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the extremely helpful suggestions of the MTR editors and anonymous reviewers for their help in improving this manuscript and bringing it to publication.
Authors’ Note
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
