Vol. 23, No. 8, August 2014, pp. 14621479 DOI 10.1111/poms.

12219
ISSN 1059-1478|EISSN 1937-5956|14|2308|1462 2014 Production and Operations Management Society

Defining Problems Fast and Slow: The U-shaped Effect

of Problem Definition Time on Project Duration
Adrian S. Choo
J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 35 Broad Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, USA, achoo@gsu.edu

his study examines how time spent in problem definition affects problem solving in projects such as Six Sigma
T projects. Our hypotheses are tested using data collected from 1558 Six Sigma projects in a company. The results show
evidence of a U-shaped relationship between the amount of time spent in the Define phase and project duration. This
finding suggests that spending too little time on problem definition potentially causes poor problem formulation, which
leads to deficient problem solving and lengthens overall project time. On the other hand, too much time spent on problem
definition can lead to unneeded delays in project completion due to diminishing returns on problem definition efforts.
Furthermore, the optimal balance between spending too little and too much time depends on prior project experience and
project complexity. Prior project experience reduced project completion time and weakened the U-shaped effect.
Conversely, complex projects took longer and appeared to show some evidence of a stronger U-shaped effect; this sug-
gests balancing the time spent in the Define phase was more challenging for complex projects. Our study also underscores
the importance of managing project duration, as projects that were completed faster tended to be associated with higher
project savings.

Key words: group problem solving; problem definition; prior project experience; project complexity; Six Sigma projects
History: Received: September 2011; Accepted: January 2014 by Stylianos Kavadias, after 3 revisions.

One does not begin with answers. One begins
by asking, What are our questions?
Peter Drucker
1. Introduction
Often, people begin searching for solutions without
sufficiently defining their problems. This tendency
occurs not only in individuals but also in teams
(Hackman 2011, Leonard and Swap 1999, Spradlin
2012). As a result of inadequate problem definitions,
projects miss important opportunities, waste limited
resources, and take longer than necessary (Spradlin
2012). When a team works on a project, differences
among team members understandings and defini-
tions of the focal problem also contribute to inade-
quately defining the problem (Cronin and Weingart
2007). Yet, group efforts to represent and define a
problem have the potential to develop better knowl-
edge via integrating multiple perspectives of team
members (Dahlin et al. 2005) and building a com-
mon understanding of the problem (Mesmer-Mag-
nus and DeChurch 2009). Taking the time to
thoroughly define a problem could facilitate the
teams solution search and information processing
in group problem solving (Baer et al. 2013, Reiter-
Palmon et al. 1997).
1462
According to information processing theory, prob-
lem solving can be viewed as an organized search
process. A search is instigated by a problem and is
directed toward finding a solution to that problem
(Cyert and March 1963, p. 121). A problem that is well
defined enables a faster solution search that makes
probable the discovery of one of the solutions early in
the process (Newell et al. 1958, p. 161). Early knowl-
edge of the problems scope facilitates the later solu-
tion search (Hunt 1994, p. 218, Polya 1945). While the
early problem formulation stage is critical to later
problem solving, the existing literature generally
focuses on later problem-solving stages about solu-
tion search and contains little empirical study of the
earlier problem definition phase (Baer et al. 2013,
Cross and Sproull 2004, Pretz et al. 2003, Simon 1991).
Given that project work is problem solving by nature,
we examine whether project teams that spend time
defining their problems more thoroughly will com-
plete projects faster, or even slower, than those that
spend little time on problem definition (cf. Nickerson
and Zenger 2004).
The amount of time needed to complete a project is
an important measure of project performance
(Houston 2011). The product development literature
suggests that the time spent completing a project is a
critical project performance measure because faster
development of new products can build a firms
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
competitive advantage through responding better to
market trends, reducing development costs, and
improving product quality (Brown and Eisenhardt
1995, Chen et al. 2010, Kessler and Chakrabarti 1996).
Consequently, a number of studies have investigated
factors that potentially decrease the development
time of product development projects (e.g., Eisen-
hardt and Tabrizi 1995, Griffin 1997, Ittner and
Larcker 1997, Swink 2002, Tatikonda and Montoya-
Weiss 2001).
However, factors that impact the project duration
of quality improvement projects remain largely
unexamined. Although some researchers claim that
the Six Sigma method creates a sense of urgency by
focusing on rapid project completion (Antony et al.
2011, Snee 2004, 2007), little research empirically
examines how a quality improvement methodology,
such as Six Sigma, and other project-related factors
can affect project duration. As an organization is
limited by the amount of time, funds and people,
it would benefit from executing quality improve-
ment projects in a shorter amount of time by using
fewer resources and responding speedily to custom-
ers needs and technology changes (Foster and
Adam 1996, Juran 1989, Reed et al. 1996). Thus, the
capability to solve problems quickly via a quality
improvement initiative such as Six Sigma can
build a more sustainable quality advantage for an
organization.
Accordingly, we choose to examine the relationship
between problem definition and project duration in
the context of Six Sigma. The Six Sigma context also
provides reliable project documentations that enable
us to more rigorously test our hypotheses. In particu-
lar, Six Sigma is a project-based quality initiative that
is widely implemented among manufacturing and
service firms (Nair et al. 2011, Pyzdek and Keller
2010, Schroeder et al. 2008). Six Sigma projects use
a systematic problem-solving method, commonly
referred to as DMAIC, which stands for Define,
Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control. The meth-
odology also includes a variety of analysis tools for
problem solving in project work. At the organiza-
tional level, the Six Sigma initiative involves elements
such as leadership and customer focus (Schroeder
et al. 2008, Zu et al. 2008), but problem solving is its
central function (Choo et al. 2007b, Schroeder et al.
2008). Our findings, therefore, are generalizable to
other settings that involve problem solving in doing
projects, albeit our research context focuses only on
Six Sigma projects.
Our investigation in the context of quality improve-
ment projects advances the understanding of problem
definition and project duration in three ways. First,
the tendency to focus on the solution search is
common in human problem solving; but, we know
1463
little about the potential negative impact of under-
emphasizing problem definition in group problem
solving (Pretz et al. 2003). In an in-depth case study
about quality improvement at a Ford plant, MacDuffie
(1997, p. 489) found workers typically focused on
choosing a solution and allocated little effort to prob-
lem definition to quickly finish their work because
they felt that they already understood the problem.
On the other hand, skimping on problem definition
in a quality improvement project may result in the
project team missing valuable process discoveries and
hampering project completion (Singh and Khanduja
2012). Taken together, there is a lack of research about
whether project teams that spend time defining their
problems will complete projects more quickly or
slowly. Our study adds to the research by showing
that there is a need to balance between spending
too little and too much time on problem definition.
Second, our study extends beyond the question about
whether the balance matters by examining two poten-
tial levers of balancing: prior project experience and
project complexity. Our results show some evidence
that prior project experience negatively moderates
but project complexity positively moderates the
U-shaped relationship between problem definition
time and project duration. Third, although many
studies have investigated the factors affecting project
duration in new product development projects (e.g.,
Atuahene-Gima 2003, Ittner and Larcker 1997, Swink
2002, Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss 2001), the factors
influencing project duration in quality improvement
projects have received little attention. This is surpris-
ing given that quality improvement activities comple-
ment and support new product developments (Levin
2000, MacDuffie 1997). Thus, our investigation in the
quality improvement context adds to the existing
literature about problem solving, project management,
and quality practices (e.g., Choo 2011, Choo et al.
2007a, Nair et al. 2011, Naveh and Erez 2004, Staats
et al. 2011).
From a managerial standpoint, management
should encourage project teams to spend sufficient
time defining problems and not punish project
teams for taking too much time before beginning the
solution search (Spradlin 2012). When managing a
balanced approach to time spent on problem defini-
tion by avoiding under- and over-analysis (Langley
1995), a newly trained Black Belt (a Six Sigma
project leader) should be encouraged to continue
learning by doing less complex projects rather than
taking on more complex projects. Experienced Black
Belts should lead more complex projects and
become a resource for mentoring inexperienced
Black Belts and team members. The remaining
sections are organized as follows: section 2 develops
the hypotheses, section 3 describes the data and the

1464 Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
methodology, section 4 presents the results, section
5 discusses the findings, and section 6 provides the
conclusions.
2. Impact of Problem Definition on
Project Duration
Problem solving begins with a problem, which can be
defined as a deviation from a desired set of specific
or a range of acceptable conditions resulting in a
symptom or a web of symptoms recognized as
needing to be addressed (Baer et al. 2013, p. 199). A
problem then enables a search for solutions, which
together constitute a basic problem-solving process
(Nelson 1982) or a problemistic search (Cyert and
March 1963, pp. 120121). According to the infor-
mation processing theory, the process of problem
solving is organizable because of similarities in pro-
cesses of human problem solving (Newell et al. 1958,
p. 152). An organizable problem-solving process can
possibly be made faster by using appropriate search
strategies (Muth 1986, p. 961), which is applicable to
quality improvement (MacDuffie 1997) and R&D
(Oraiopoulos and Kavadias 2014). In particular, the
formulation of a problem determines how the solu-
tion search is organized (MacDuffie 1997, Nickerson
and Zenger 2004) and a well-defined problem can
facilitate the solution search (Hunt 1994, p. 218, Polya
1945).
The influence of problem definition on the solution
search is most pronounced when the problem is
poorly defined (Lesgold 1988). According to Dillon
(1982), problems can be classified into three types: (1)
the presented problem, in which the problem and its
salient characteristics are defined, (2) the discovered
problem, in which the problem derives from the infor-
mation presented, and (3) the created problem, in
which the information requires for defining the prob-
lem does not exist. The second and the third types,
discovered and created problems, are ill-defined. The
ability to properly define such problems affects prob-
lem-solving performance (Mumford et al. 1994). A
classic study by Lyles and Mitroff (1980) found that
90% of problems facing managers were ill-defined,
which appears to hold true for todays contexts (Baer
et al. 2013). Despite the importance of problem defini-
tion for ill-defined problems, research in this area
remains scant. As Pretz et al. (2003, p. 9) lamented:
indeed, the emphasis in research has been on the lat-
ter rather than the earlier phases of problem solving.
Yet these earlier phases are critical to accurate and
faster problem solving, especially in the solution of
ill-defined problems. More research on problem
formulation is needed, particularly on how problem
definition affects problem solving in projects (cf.
Spradlin 2012).
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
In a project, team members often have inconsisten-
cies among their definitions of the teams problem.
Such inconsistencies hamper the integration of indi-
vidual members knowledge necessary for problem
solving, increase conflicts among team members, and
prolong project duration (Cronin and Weingart 2007).
On the other hand, differences in problem definitions
can be effectively considered when team members
spend time together to discuss, interact, reflect, and
observe (Seufert et al. 1999). Teams that spend time
together tend to share information more readily, par-
ticularly valuable information that is not common
knowledge among team members (Stasser and Titus
1985). Although efforts to appropriately define a
problem by integrating team members knowledge
may require more time initially, it can speed up the
overall problem resolution (MacDuffie 1997, p. 498).
Careful planning and definition of a projects focal
problem help a team to avoid mistakes and to stream-
line activities by eliminating unnecessary tasks and
steps. A well-defined problem also enables the team
to reduce delays and reworks, to share required
resources more swiftly, and to facilitate smoother
interactions and coordination within and outside
the team (Houston 2011, Kerzner 2010, Mepyans-
Robinson 2011).
While spending time to define a problem can
shorten the overall project duration, the beneficial
effect diminishes at a certain point, after which spend-
ing more time may actually delay the project. Time is
a scarce resource and when too much time is spent in
any given phase, the overall time required to
complete a project is lengthened (Kerzner 2010). In
addition, when too much time is devoted to early
problem definition activities, team members can be
overwhelmed with unnecessary information1, which
causes obfuscation of relevant information (Schneider
1987). Despite that spending time to collect more data
and information improve decision making, too much
data and information at the problem definition stage2
can result in information overload. According to the
information processing literature, the information
load should match the teams information processing
capacity so that it can be effectively and efficiently
processed (Eppler and Mengis 2004, Hemp 2009,
OReilly 1980). When the information load exceeds
what a team can process, the team members ability to
set priorities will be hampered as a result of confusion
(Jacoby 1984), which in turn causes sub-optimal deci-
sion processes (Malhotra 1982) and lengthens the time
needed to reach a decision (Chervany and Dickson
1974).
Furthermore, at the early phase of a project, it is
almost impossible for team members to know and
gather all of the necessary information for making
rational decisions. The literature on bounded
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society 1465

rationality shows that people are limited by their phase on project duration will exhibit a U-shaped
knowledge and cognitive capacities in decision mak- relationship.
ing (Simon 1955, 1982). To fully understand a problem
H1. The time spent in the Define phase of a Six
requires knowledge of all conceivable solutions ahead
Sigma project has a U-shaped relationship with
of time, which is impossible for an ill-structured or
project duration.
wicked problem (Rittel and Webber 1973). Certain
types of problem-related and solution-related infor-
mation can only be attained in later phases of problem
2.1. Direct and Moderating Effects of Project
solving through experiential learning (von Hippel
Complexity
and Tyre 1995). Early on, spending more time does
Information processing among individuals varies by
not continue to yield a correspondingly better
task complexity (Newell and Simon 1972, Payne
problem definition because it generates redundant
1976). According to the perspective of complexity as
information, which also can hamper creativity
objective task characteristics (Campbell 1988), a com-
(Perry-Smith 2006). Therefore, we argue that spend-
plex task is characterized by a high number of task
ing time in the problem definition stage decreases
components and numerous interdependencies among
project duration only to a certain point, beyond
task components (Campbell 1988, Payne 1976, Wood
which spending more time slows down project
1986). Analogously, a complex system is made up of
completion.
a large number of parts that have many interactions
As previously stated, Six Sigma projects use a prob-
(Simon 1996, pp. 183184). Following this logic, we
lem-solving methodology called DMAIC that orga-
use two variables for measuring project complexity.
nizes a projects problem-solving process into five
The first is the number of targeted objectives in a pro-
phases known as Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve,
ject. The goal setting literature suggests that a higher
and Control (Pyzdek and Keller 2010). In particular,
number of goals (in this case, project objectives)
the Define phase involves describing a problem and
implies a higher level of task complexity and diffi-
setting the project scope. During the Define phase, a
culty (Locke and Latham 1990). The second project
team gathers what is known about the problem and
measure is a dummy variable that indicates whether
defines the projects targeted processes and objectives.
a given project involves multiple products or services
The Measure phase pertains to the quantification of
(i.e., a complex project) or a single specific product or
the problem. The team collects data by making deci-
service (i.e., a less complex project). A project that
sions on what to measure and how to measure based
spans multiple product lines is more complex because
on how team members understood and defined the
it necessitates more coordination and interdependen-
problem. The Measure phase is followed by the Ana-
cies among requisite tasks (Shenhar 2001, Shenhar
lyze phase, during which the team uses the collected
and Dvir 2007).
data to identify the sources of variation and to deter-
A complex project should take more time to com-
mine the root causes of the defects driven by the focal
plete. The new product development literature shows
problem. In the Improve phase, the team brainstorms
that project complexity generally increases project
ideas for potential solutions and implements a solu-
completion time (Griffin 1997, Hansen 1999, Thomke
tion for the defined problem of the project. Finally,
and Reinertsen 2012); however, little empirical
the Control phase focuses on monitoring the imple-
research investigates this potential effect in the con-
mented solution to ensure the sustainability of the
text of quality improvement projects (Linderman
improvement. These descriptions of phases align with
et al. 2003, Nair et al. 2011). More complex quality
the definition of DMAIC from American Society for
improvement projects are characterized by project
Quality website (retrieved on April 3, 2013 from
scopes that involve larger amount of data and analy-
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/six-sigma/over-
ses (Nair et al. 2011, p. 533), which likely require a
view/dmaic.htm).
longer project time. Furthermore, complex quality
Despite variations in practice, the initial Define
improvement problems also are harder to define and
phase typically involves problem definition and the
tend to require extensive coordination among various
later phases encompass the search for and implemen-
functions and departments (MacDuffie 1997). There-
tation of a solution (Pyzdek 2003, Pyzdek and Keller
fore, a complex Six Sigma project should take longer
2010, Singh and Khanduja 2012). Spending an appro-
to complete due to the challenging task requirements
priate amount time in the Define phase allows team
that result from multiple project goals and the need
members to uncover and share relevant knowledge
for more extensive coordination spanning multiple
that is crucial to problem formulation and the
product or service lines.
subsequent phases (Anand et al. 2010, Singh and
Khanduja 2012). In particular, we expect that the H2. Project complexity is positively associated
effect of the time spent during the problem definition with (lengthens) project duration.

1466 Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
In addition, project complexity likely moderates the
effect of problem definition effort. Prior research sug-
gests that problem understanding and problem for-
mulation play a bigger role in solving complex
problems compared to solving less complex problems
(Bystrom and J arvelin 1995). An experiment study
about group problem solving found that group mem-
bers spent more time and engaged in higher quality
up-front planning when working on complex tasks
than they did when working on simple tasks (Wein-
gart 1992). For a complex project, team members
likely derive greater benefits from spending time at
up-front planning and problem definition. A complex
problem requires more attention and information pro-
cessing (Fernandes and Simon 1999). Consequentially,
a clearer understanding of the focal problem in the
early phase of a complex project would enable team
members to develop better strategies for solution
search and to coordinate tasks more smoothly, and
subsequently lead to a faster completion of the
complex project. Project complexity should interact
with problem definition and strengthen the effect of
problem definition time on project duration.
If time spent in the problem definition stage
decreases project duration more greatly for a complex
project, then spending too much time on problem
definition would also result in greater delays in the
project. This is because an early delay in a complex
project is harder to resolve in later phases due to the
higher level of uncertainty that is typically associated
with a complex project (Shenhar 2001). Therefore,
project complexity should interact with problem
definition in a way that increases the upward curvi-
linearity of the problem definition effect. That is, pro-
ject complexity strengthens the U-shaped effect of
problem definition time on project duration, making
the trade-off between spending too little and too
much time on problem definition more challenging to
manage.
H3. Project complexity positively moderates the
U-shaped relationship between the time spent in
the Define phase and project duration.
2.2. Direct and Moderating Effects of Prior Project
Experience
Experience is fundamental to learning and acquisition
of knowledge (Argote et al. 2003, Cohen and Levin-
thal 1990, Cyert and March 1963, Huber 1991). In pro-
duction tasks, workers who repeatedly do the same
task over time will gain experience, which results in
an exponential decrease in task completion time,
defects, and costs (Levy 1965, Wright 1936). The learn-
ing curve effect is also applicable to quality improve-
ment (Fine 1986). Lapre et al. (2000) found
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
cumulative experience of quality improvement
projects that generated both know-how and know-
why facilitated learning curve rates at a tyre cord
manufacturing plant, and such experience could be
transferred to other parts of the factory. Prior project
experience facilitates new learning because team
members can build on what they already know
(Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Knowledge acquired
from earlier projects can be reused and recombined to
solve similar or related problems at a later time,
which is evident in group problem solving (Schilling
et al. 2003), operational teams (Zellmer-Bruhn 2003),
and franchise business units (Darr et al. 1995).
In this study, we use two variables to measure prior
project experience: the cumulative number of prior
projects completed by the Black Belt (a Six Sigma
team leader) of a given project and the cumulative
number of prior completed projects in the organiza-
tion antecedent to the start of the project. As a Black
Belt gains experience by successfully finishing pro-
jects, over time he or she can become more proficient
at applying the Six Sigma method to projects and at
managing Six Sigma teams. Recent research shows
Black Belt experience played a major role in facilitat-
ing project success (Easton and Rosenzweig 2012).
Experience gained from doing Six Sigma projects also
can be transferred across teams as more projects are
completed in an organization (Schroeder et al. 2008).
Thus, we hypothesize that the experience gained from
doing prior Six Sigma projects will facilitate current
project completion.
H4. Prior project experience is negatively associ-
ated with (shortens) project duration.
Accumulation of project experience can originate
from two components. The firstcontent knowledge
can transfer from one problem to the same or a
related problem. For instance, technical knowledge
learned from one Six Sigma project can transfer to
another project via personnel movement. The second
component of project experience is learning to learn
(Ellis 1965, p. 32), which results from the experience
gained by teams engaging in more effective problem
solving. As prior project experience increases, a Six
Sigma teams ability to accomplish effective problem
solving also increases. While both types of experience
can lead to faster problem solving in projects (as
already hypothesized), they also can weaken the
impact of problem definition on project duration. A
team with prior project experience may reason and
work more intuitively and insightfully, and conse-
quently the team may be less affected by the relation-
ship between spending time in the problem definition
phase and project duration. Because people tend to
rely on their experience to do work (Argote et al.
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
2003), increased project experience could play a big-
ger part in problem solving and weaken the need to
be constrained by the amount of time spent in the
problem definition stage. For instance, a high level of
professional experience was found to substitute the
need for the management to provide task-related
information for doing work (Kerr and Slocum 1981).
Workers prefer to rely on their experience for creative
problem solving rather than be constrained by struc-
ture and time milestones (Amabile 1997). On the other
hand, a Six Sigma team that lacks prior project experi-
ence may find spending time at the Define phase use-
ful in effectively defining the projects focal problem
(Linderman et al. 2004, Singh and Khanduja 2012).
Altogether, prior project experience can substitute for
the effect of time spent on problem definition, sug-
gesting an antagonistic interaction effect between
prior project experience and problem definition time.
Increased prior project experience should weaken the
effect of problem definition time on project duration.
A project team with prior project experience is also
more capable of mitigating project delays (Easton and
Rosenzweig 2012), which suggests that prior project
experience helps to reduce the risk of slowing down
project completion when too much time is spent in
the problem definition stage. That is, prior project
experience interacts with problem definition to
reduce the upward curvilinearity of the problem defi-
nition effect. Overall, a project team with prior project
experience should more easily discern and manage
the trade-off between spending too little and too
much time on problem definition. Thus, prior project
experience likely weakens the U-shaped effect of
problem definition time on project duration.
H5. Prior project experience negatively moder-
ates the U-shaped relationship between the time
spent in the Define phase and project duration.
3. Data and Methodology
Our research site, Company A, is a global computer
manufacturing firm headquartered in the United
States. Company A has annual sales of over six billion
dollars and started its Six Sigma program in 1998. The
Six Sigma initiative was first implemented in sites in
the United States before being extended to sites in
other countries.
Company A has documented and monitored its Six
Sigma projects since the inception of the program. We
collected project data for completed projects begin-
ning with their first project in 1998 until early 2002.
After combining several databases of project informa-
tion from the companys IT system, our data consisted
of 1628 quality improvement projects that focused on
problems related to their products and processes. All
1467
selected projects were related to improving the exist-
ing performance (e.g., costs, quality, and yield) of
products and processes. Our sample only includes
successfully completed projects. About 3% of Six
Sigma projects in the company were canceled due to
negative results and were excluded from our sample
because of incomplete time data. While the company
also performed R&D work, those projects were
excluded from our sample. The company completed
an average of 400 quality improvement projects annu-
ally during the period of data collection. However,
due to missing values, we excluded 70 of these pro-
jects and were left with a sample of 1558 projects for
analysis. To check for a potential sample bias between
the remaining sample and the 70 dropped projects,
we computed difference tests for two project variables
(i.e., those without missing values) and found no
statistical difference between the two samples.
3.1. Main Variables
Project duration is measured by the number of days
taken to complete a project. We computed this num-
ber based on the start and end dates of a project. The
average project duration is 142 days with a standard
deviation of 89 days. This average is within the range
of the average Six Sigma project duration of 120
180 days in General Electric but shorter than the
average of 240 days in Ford Motor Company
(Thompson 2007, p. 23). Since project duration might
vary by business division due to the nature of
projects, we standardized project durations by their
corresponding business divisions. Standardization of
project duration has been done in prior studies (refer
Eisenhardt and Tabrizi 1995, Terwiesch and Loch
1999). To standardize project duration, we subtracted
the number of days taken by a project from the aver-
age project duration of its corresponding business
division; then, we divided the difference by the
average project duration of the respective business
division. Our sample includes 10 business divisions,
which ranged from a minimum of five projects in one
division to a maximum of 731 projects in another. The
average project duration for a business division ran-
ged from 108 to 275 days. So, our dependent variable
is Standardized Project Duration.
The main independent variable, Define Intensity, is
calculated by taking the number of days taken by the
Define phase of a project and divided by the total
number of days taken by the entire project. This mea-
sure reflects the intensity of effort for the early stage
in a project and follows the same measurement
approach reported in prior studies (Eisenhardt and
Tabrizi 1995, Terwiesch and Loch 1999). The Define
phase is the first step in the Six Sigma methodology
and should capture most problem definition activities

1468 Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
in a project (Pyzdek and Keller 2010, Singh and
Khanduja 2012).
We used two variables to measure project complex-
ity. The first variable, Num_Objectives, is the number
of targeted objectives in a project. In Company As
database, every Six Sigma project was classified by
whether it impacted each of the companys seven com-
mon objectives, which are as follows: improving time
to market, becoming a market leader, improving
manufacturing, improving supply chain, improving
products, improving customer relations, and improv-
ing employee relations. As we have discussed previ-
ously, more complex projects should have more
objectives, which is consistent with task complexity
and the goal theory literature (Locke and Latham
1990, Wood et al. 1987). So, we collected the project
data from the companys database and counted the
number of objectives for each project. Due to skew-
ness, we computed the natural log of the resulting
variable for our regression analysis. The second vari-
able is a dummy variable, Complex01. Here, the num-
ber 1 represents a complex project involving multiple
products or services and the number 0 represents a
less complex project involving only a single specific
product or service. We coded the dummy variable
based on the descriptions of projects, which were pro-
vided by the company. In our regression analysis,
both variables are used to test the direct and moderat-
ing effects of project complexity.
We also used two variables to measure prior project
experience. The first variable, BB_experience, is the
cumulative number of prior projects performed by
the Black Belt of a given project. A Black Belt, who is
the team leader of a Six Sigma project, plays an impor-
tant role in facilitating problem solving during the
project because of his or her rigorous training in the
Six Sigma method and tools (Easton and Rosenzweig
2012). The greater the number of projects completed
by a Black Belt, the more problem-solving experience
the Black Belt should bring to a given project. The sec-
ond variable, Org_experience, indicates the cumulative
number of projects completed by the company prior
to the start of a given project. As we have previously
discussed, prior project experience accumulates as
more projects are completed in an organization (Argote
1999, Schroeder et al. 2008). Following the learning
curve literature, which shows that gains in experience
exhibit a logarithmic form (e.g., Argote et al. 1990,
Baum and Dahlin 2007, Lapre and Tsikriktsis 2006),
we computed the natural log of both variables for
later analyses.
3.2. Control Variables
Our analysis includes several control variables. All
data are provided by the company and we extracted
the information through coding and combining
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
several databases. The first control variable is Techni-
cal, for which 0 represents non-technical projects and
1, technical projects. We included this variable
because the technical content of a project can influ-
ence the projects duration (Clark 1989, Gaimon 2008).
Of the 1558 projects, 1358 projects are based on techni-
cal problems such as manufacturing technology and
testing procedures, while the other 200 projects are
non-technical in nature and focus on issues such as
improving a human resource policy. We also
included a variable called Major, with 3 for high-pri-
ority projects, 2 for medium-priority projects, and 1
for low-priority projects. The priority classifications
were provided by the company. There are 264 high-
priority projects, 1276 medium-priority projects, and
18 low-priority projects. High-priority projects receive
more attention and resources, which may affect the
motivation and the pace of completing the project
(Shenhar et al. 2005, Verma and Sinha 2002). The
third control variable is Hard. For this variable, 0
represents a project consisting of soft benefits and
savings such as improved strategic customer relations
and cost avoidance, while 1 represents hard project
benefits that directly impact financial measures. In Six
Sigma projects, soft savings may be quantifiable but
do not directly affect the companys financial state-
ments (Breyfogle 1999). Project teams with targeted
hard savings are likely to be more motivated to com-
plete their tasks quickly (Latham and Seijts 1999)
because organizations tend to emphasize financial
savings more than non-financial measures (Kaplan
and Norton 1992). Our data include 214 projects that
are classified as soft (i.e., Hard = 0) and 1344 pro-
jects as hard (i.e., Hard = 1). Finally, we control for
potential variations due to business cycle effects using
quarter dummy variables, which represent every
quarter beginning with the third quarter of 1998 till
the first quarter of 2002 (a total 15 quarters).
3.3. Analysis Method
Our regression analysis estimates the following
model for testing the main effects:
Standardized Project Durationj
b0 b1 Define Intensityj b2 Define Intensityj 2
b3 LnNum Objectivesj b4 Complex01j
b5 LnBB experiencej b6 LnOrg experiencej
b7 Technicalj b8 Majorj b9 Hardj
b10 Quarter Dummiesj j
where j represents a particular Six Sigma project.
According to Cohen et al. (2003, p. 293), testing a
curvilinear by linear interaction requires centering
the associated variables and entering two interac-
tion terms. For instance, to test the moderation of
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society 1469

Ln(Num_Objectivesj) on the effect of (Define Inten-
sityj)2, we needed to enter both Define Inten-
sityj 9 Ln(Num_Objectivesj) and (Define Intensityj)2 9
Ln(Num_Objectivesj) in a regression model. See the
model below:
Standardized Project Durationj
b0 b1 Define Intensityj b2 Define Intensityj 2
b3 LnNum Objectivesj b4 Complex01j
b5 LnBB experiencej b6 LnOrg experiencej
b7 Technicalj b8 Majorj b9 Hardj
b10 Quarter Dummiesj b11 Define Intensityj
 LnNum Objectivesj b12 DefineIntensityj 2
 LnNum Objectivesj j
Similarly, we used the same analytical approach for
testing the moderation effects of Complex01j, Ln
(BB_experiencej) and Ln(Org_experiencej).
We summarize the descriptive statistics in Table 1.
Regression diagnostics showed no collinearity issue
with maximum VIF = 1.70. The residual vs. fitted plot
indicated some heteroskedasticity in the data, which
we remedied by reporting our ordinary least squares
(OLS) models with HuberWhite (HW) robust stan-
dard errors that are robust to heteroskedasticity
(White 1980). We also examined the plot of standard-
ized residuals and while it appeared to be normally
distributed, about 1% of our data were outside 3,
which indicated potential outliers. Close examination
of the data showed that the few outliers were not data
errors and that the 1% potential outliers was reason-
able in a large dataset due to population variability
(Evans 1999, Hair et al. 1998). Nonetheless, we per-
formed an additional analysis, robust regression, to
further account for potential outliers. This analysis
technique reduces the effects of potential outliers
(Berk 1990). We utilized the command rreg from Stata
12.1 to generate the results of the robust regression.
The rreg procedure first fits an OLS model, then calcu-
lates Cooks D influence statistic and excludes any
observation with D > 1, and finally performs a gener-
alized least squares using residual-derived weights
(Huber weights and biweight).
4. Results
Table 2 shows the analysis models that are analyzed
using OLS regression with HW robust standard
errors, and Table 3 shows the same models analyzed
using the robust regression technique. Our results
begin with the base model that contains the control
variables (model 1), follow by models that add the
main effect variables (models 25), and finally models
that further include the interaction variables (models
710). The main results from the robust regression
corroborate those from the OLS with HW robust
standard errors. The general consistency between the
results of these two approaches further demonstrates
that our findings are not hampered by potential out-
liers and heteroskedasticity in the data.
For control variables, the coefficients of Hard are
negative and significant in most models from Table 2
and all models from Table 3. These findings suggest
that projects with quantifiable financial benefits are
correlated with shorter project duration. Next, the
coefficients of Technical are not significant in all mod-

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations (n = 1558 Projects)

Mean
Variable (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Standardized project duration 0.003 1.00
(0.517)
Define Intensity 0.112 0.076 1.00
(0.106)
Ln(Num_Objectives) 0.079 0.087 0.014 1.00
(0.271)
Complex01 0.283 0.051 0.014 0.040 1.00
(0.451)
Ln(BB_experience) 1.171 0.185 0.009 0.054 0.074 1.00
(0.780)
Ln(Org_experience) 5.801 0.208 0.043 0.016 0.068 0.503 1.00
(0.861)
Technical 0.871 0.027 0.037 0.055 0.107 0.038 0.039 1.00
(0.335)
Major 2.158 0.001 0.031 0.036 0.067 0.034 0.062 0.070 1.00
(0.395)
Hard 0.862 0.045 0.013 0.124 0.083 0.031 0.112 0.131 0.041 1.00
(0.344)

Correlations greater than |0.051| are significant at p < 0.05 (two-tailed tests).
Table 2 Ordinary Least Squares Regression Analysis with HuberWhite SE (n = 1558)
1470

Dependent variable: standardized project duration

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
Define Intensity 0.355** 1.310*** 1.304*** 1.288*** 1.289*** 1.260*** 1.301*** 1.321*** 1.302***
(0.171) (0.199) (0.197) (0.196) (0.194) (0.231) (0.197) (0.197) (0.195)
(Define Intensity)2 (H1) 4.981*** 5.026*** 4.963*** 5.126*** 4.043*** 4.948*** 5.398*** 5.317***
(1.03) (1.01) (1.00) (0.945) (1.12) (0.977) (0.977) (0.883)
Ln(Num_Objectives) (H2) 0.200*** 0.186*** 0.098* 0.184*** 0.181*** 0.175*** 0.120**
(0.053) (0.053) (0.058) (0.058) (0.051) (0.049) (0.051)
Complex01 (H2) 0.065** 0.071** 0.065** 0.037 0.070** 0.069** 0.024
(0.029) (0.029) (0.028) (0.033) (0.029) (0.028) (0.032)
Ln(BB_experience) (H4) 0.064*** 0.062*** 0.065*** 0.038* 0.063*** 0.050***
(0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.020) (0.016) (0.018)
Ln(Org_experience) (H4) 0.193** 0.188** 0.189** 0.208** 0.209*** 0.206***
(0.081) (0.081) (0.082) (0.082) (0.079) (0.078)
Define Intensity 9 Ln(Num_Objectives) 0.643 0.423
(0.801) (0.767)
(Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(Num_Objectives)(H3) 8.825 5.059
(5.48) (3.84)
Define Intensity 9 Complex01 0.034 0.191
(0.444) (0.445)
(Define Intensity)2 9 Complex01 (H3) 3.035 3.833**
(2.23) (1.87)
Define Intensity 9 Ln(BB_experience) 0.274 0.097
(0.241) (0.261)
(Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(BB_experience) (H5) 2.348* 1.179
(1.23) (0.988)
Define Intensity 9 Ln(Org_experience) 0.489** 0.452**
(0.241) (0.225)
(Define intensity)2 9 Ln(Org_experience) (H5) 3.895*** 3.289***
(1.32) (0.897)
Controls
Technical 0.037 0.041 0.042 0.027 0.016 0.016 0.019 0.018 0.015 0.019
(0.048) (0.048) (0.047) (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.048)
Major 0.026 0.023 0.022 0.023 0.018 0.025 0.019 0.019 0.015 0.021
(0.032) (0.032) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031)
Hard 0.100** 0.100** 0.092** 0.065 0.063 0.071* 0.060 0.067 0.070* 0.072*
(0.043) (0.042) (0.042) (0.041) (0.041) (0.041) (0.041) (0.041) (0.040) (0.041)
Quarter Dummies Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included
Intercept 0.259*** 0.249** 0.601*** 0.625*** 0.428*** 0.415*** 0.423*** 0.403*** 0.361*** 0.335***
(0.096) (0.096) (0.096) (0.097) (0.109) (0.110) (0.109) (0.109) (0.110) (0.108)
R2 0.073 0.078 0.105 0.118 0.128 0.135 0.132 0.132 0.138 0.148
Adjusted R2 0.063 0.068 0.094 0.106 0.115 0.121 0.118 0.118 0.124 0.131
F 30.64*** 27.56*** 21.42*** 20.02*** 35.12*** 32.32*** 33.84*** 37.87*** 44.56*** 41.08***

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 (based on two-tailed tests); HW robust standard errors are in parentheses.
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Table 3 Robust Regression Analysis (n = 1558)

Dependent variable: standardized project duration

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
Define Intensity 0.528*** 0.988*** 0.980*** 0.964*** 0.955*** 0.926*** 0.966*** 1.00*** 0.997***
(0.097) (0.152) (0.151) (0.150) (0.150) (0.177) (0.150) (0.150) (0.149)
(Define Intensity)2 (H1) 3.105*** 3.130*** 3.022*** 2.892*** 2.024*** 2.951*** 3.469*** 3.539***
(0.608) (0.605) (0.599) (0.601) (0.716) (0.600) (0.604) (0.607)
Ln(Num_Objectives) (H2) 0.158*** 0.141*** 0.165*** 0.140*** 0.138*** 0.140*** 0.164***
(0.039) (0.038) (0.045) (0.038) (0.038) (0.038) (0.045)
Complex01 (H2) 0.057** 0.064*** 0.065*** 0.036 0.063*** 0.065*** 0.023
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow

(0.023) (0.023) (0.023) (0.027) (0.023) (0.023) (0.027)

Ln(BB_experience) (H4) 0.071*** 0.072*** 0.072*** 0.055*** 0.071*** 0.057***
(0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.017) (0.015) (0.018)
Ln(Org_experience) (H4) 0.157* 0.156* 0.159** 0.168** 0.179** 0.185**
(0.080) (0.080) (0.080) (0.080) (0.080) (0.080)
Define Intensity 9 Ln(Num_Objectives) 0.134 0.144
(0.550) (0.550)
(Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(Num_Objectives) (H3) 3.115 3.680
(2.34) (2.45)
Define Intensity 9 Complex01 0.023 0.169
(0.330) (0.330)
(Define intensity)2 9 Complex01 (H3) 3.107** 4.461***
(2.39) (2.34)
Define Intensity 9 Ln(BB_experience) 0.166 0.085
(0.200) (0.228)
(Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(BB_experience) (H5) 1.751** 1.627*
(0.762) (0.891)
Define intensity 9 Ln(Org_experience) 0.288 0.299
(0.184) (0.211)
(Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(Org_experience) (H5) 2.715*** 2.343***
(0.784) (0.883)
Controls
Technical 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.044 0.055* 0.053* 0.053* 0.056* 0.059* 0.054*
(0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031)
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society

Major 0.001 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.011 0.008
(0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026)
Hard 0.086*** 0.086*** 0.084*** 0.062** 0.060** 0.057* 0.056* 0.067** 0.066** 0.059*
(0.031) (0.030) (0.030) (0.031) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030)
Quarter dummies Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included
Intercept 0.397*** 0.395*** 0.698** 0.723** 0.564* 0.570* 0.556* 0.542* 0.514* 0.484
(0.104) (0.102) (0.296) (0.295) (0.302) (0.302) (0.301) (0.302) (0.302) (0.301)
R2 0.071 0.088 0.096 0.108 0.124 0.123 0.131 0.130 0.136 0.148
Adjusted R2 0.061 0.077 0.085 0.095 0.111 0.109 0.117 0.116 0.122 0.131
F 6.99*** 8.28*** 8.68*** 8.87*** 9.45*** 8.67*** 9.28*** 9.23*** 9.66*** 8.57***

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 (based on two-tailed tests); standard errors are in parentheses.
1471
 Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
1472 Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society

els from Table 2 but are positive and significant from
models 5 to 10 in Table 3. These results suggest that
technical projects may take longer to complete than
non-technical projects. The variable Major, however,
is not significant in all models from Tables 2 and 3.
Finally, Quarter Dummies are included in all models
and are mostly significant (for simplicity, detailed
results are not showed in Tables 2 and 3). The signifi-
cant effects imply potential variations due to business
cycle effect are likely controlled for in our results.
Hypothesis 1 is strongly supported. The coefficient
of the squared term, (Define Intensity)2, is positive and
significant in model 3 (both Tables 2 and 3), which
supports the predicted U-shaped relationship
between Define Intensity and project duration.
Hypotheses 2 and 4 are supported by the results of
models 4 and 5. In particular, we test H2 by using two
variables for project complexity (i.e., Ln(Num_Objec-
tives) and Complex01) in model 4 and H4 by using two
variables for prior project experience (i.e., Ln(BB_expe-
rience) and Ln(Org_experience)) in model 5. All four
coefficients are significant (in either Table 2 or
Table 3) and are in the expected signs, showing that
critical to facilitating completion of complex projects,
albeit the partial support of Hypothesis 3.
Finally, Hypothesis 5 is supported. Hypothesis 5
predicts the negative moderating (weakening) effect
of prior project experience and the corresponding
coefficients, (Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(BB_experience)
and (Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(Org_experience), should
be negative and significant in models 8, 9, and 10.
Three corresponding coefficients from Table 2 are
negative and significant; and in Table 3, all four corre-
sponding coefficients are negative and significant.
Taken together, the results show sufficient evidence
that supports our prediction. The interaction effects
are also shown graphically in Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 2 shows the U-shaped effects of Define Intensity
on standardized project duration with three values of
Ln(BB_experience): low (one standard deviation below
the mean), medium (mean), and high (one standard
deviation above the mean). Similarly, Figure 3 shows
Figure 1 Interaction Plot between Define Intensity and Complex01
.8

project complexity lengthens project duration but

Standardized Project Duration

prior project experience shortens it.

.6

To evaluate curvilinear by linear interactions, we

entered two associated interaction terms each time in
.4

separate models (refer Cohen et al. 2003). Hypothesis

3, which predicts the positive moderation of project
.2

complexity, is tested by the results from models 6, 7,

and 10. Models 6 and 7 test interactions related to Ln
0

(Num_Objectives) and Complex01 separately, and

-.2

model 10 tests all interaction terms together. Since we

expect a positive moderating (strengthening) effect, 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5 .55 .6

the corresponding coefficients of (Define Intensity)2 9 Define Intensity

Ln(Num_Objectives) and (Define Intensity)2 9 Com- Low Complex01 (= 0)

High Complex01 (= 1)
plex01 should be positive and significant in models 6,
7, and 10, respectively. In Table 2, the two coefficients
in models 6 and 7 are positive but not significant;
however, in the all-inclusive model 10 one of the two Figure 2 Interaction Plot between Define Intensity and Ln(BB_experi-
coefficients is positive and significant (i.e., (Define ence)
Intensity)2 9 Complex01). Results in Table 3 are con-
.6

sistent with models 7 and 10 showing positive and

Standardized Project Duration

significant coefficients of (Define Intensity)2 9 Com-

.4

plex01; however, the coefficients of (Define Inten-

sity)2 9 Ln(Num_Objectives) in models 6 and 10 are
again not significant.
.2

Given the three significant coefficients of (Define

Intensity)2 9 Complex01 but non-significant tests of
0

(Define Intensity)2 9 Ln(Num_Objectives), Hypothesis

3 is partially supported. Figure 1 shows the U-shaped
-.2

effects of Define Intensity on standardized project 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5 .55 .6
duration when Complex01 is low (=0) and high (=1). Define Intensity

The plots show that projects with high complexity Low Ln(BB_experience) ( - 1 S.D.)
have a stronger U-shaped effect, indicating that the Medium Ln(BB_experience) (Mean)
High Ln(BB_experience) ( + 1 S.D.)
balancing of time spent on problem definition is more
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
Figure 3 Interaction Plot between Define Intensity and Ln(Org_experi-
ence)
1
Standardized Project Duration
.5
0
-.5
0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45
Define Intensity
Low Ln(Org_experience) ( - 1 S.D.)
Medium Ln(Org_experience) (Mean)
High Ln(Org_experience) ( + 1 S.D.)
the same U-shaped effects but plotted with three lev-
els of Ln(Org_experience). Whether prior project expe-
rience is measured by the cumulative number of prior
projects completed by a Black Belt, or by the cumula-
tive number of the organizations prior projects, both
Figures 2 and 3 show that as prior project experience
increases, the U-shaped curve of Define Intensity
becomes flatter. This implies that both the accelerat-
ing and delaying effects of spending time in the
Define phase are less evident in projects with higher
levels of prior project experience. Prior project experi-
ence, which also directly reduces project duration,
can indirectly weaken the effect of spending time in
the Define phase on project duration. Thus, balancing
the amount of time spent at problem definition is
easier to manage with prior project experience.
Interestingly, Figure 2 shows that projects led by
Black Belts with less experience have an optimal point
(lowest standardized project duration) that corre-
sponds to about 0.2 of Define Intensity (i.e., 20% of the
overall project time) but the optimal point occurs at a
higher value (about 0.3) of Define Intensity for projects
led by Black Belts with more experience. Similar pat-
terns occur in Figure 3. These patterns imply that
teams with experienced Black Belts (or high levels of
prior project experience) did not necessarily spend
less time in the Define phase because the U-curves
optimal point (lowest standardized project duration)
is located at a higher level of Define Intensity for a team
with a high level of prior project experience. An expe-
rienced team3 , while proficient at problem solving,
could take more time to define a problem because
they recognize the particular importance of more
information and knowledge while a team with a
lower level of prior project experience could overlook
it. Some research also shows experts (high experience)
spend more time than novices (low experience)
defining a problem (Lesgold 1988, Voss et al. 1983).
1473
Although a team with a high level of prior project
experience might spend more time on problem defini-
tion, the team is also more adaptable to change and
capable of reducing the risk of delays in completing
projects. In other words, teams with high levels of
prior project experience more ably balance the need
to spend increased time on problem definition with-
out necessarily delaying project completion.
4.1. Post-hoc Analysis
We further analyzed a possible association between
project duration and another project performance
.5 .55 .6 measure by regressing Ln(Project Savings) on all study
variables including project duration. Project savings
are based on the financial impacts associated with
project outcomes. The company calculated and veri-
fied these savings based on their direct and/or indi-
rect project savings, which were generated by cost
reductions in various areas such as labor, material,
scrap and rework, overhead, and capital. Table 4 pre-
sents the results. In both OLS and robust regression
models (models 1 and 3), coefficients of Standardized
Project Duration are negative and significant, showing
that shorter project duration is correlated with higher
performance based on project savings. In the models
using OLS (models 1 and 2), the significant coeffi-
cients of Ln(Org_experience), Ln(Num_Objectives), and
Complex01 are consistent with our hypotheses. How-
ever, these coefficients are not significant in the mod-
els using robust regression (i.e., models 3 and 4).
Define Intensity and (Define Intensity)2 are also not sig-
nificant in all models, which are not surprising
because these time-related measures are hypothesized
to influence project duration and not project savings.
In addition, we did another robustness check (as sug-
gested by a reviewer) for a potential non-linear
(inverted-U) relationship between project duration
and project savings because very quick projects might
have very low project savings. So, we included a
squared term of project duration in models 2 and 4;
but, the results show the coefficients are not signifi-
cant. Altogether, these additional analyses provide
evidence that shorter project durations are associated
with higher project savings, further emphasizing the
importance of studying project duration.
5. Discussion
Einstein was once asked what he would do if he had
an hour to save the world, and he responded that he
would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and
then 5 minutes solving it (Michalko 2001). Einsteins
response underscores the importance of spending
time on problem definition. When a team encounters
a problem, multiple problem representations can be
activated by different members. These representations
 Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
1474 Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society

Table 4 Regression Analysis on Ln(Project Savings) (n = 1558)

Dependent variable: Ln(Project savings)

OLS with HW SE Robust regression

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Standardized project duration 1.308*** 1.534*** 0.194** 0.201*
(0.268) (0.318) (0.084) (0.107)
(Standardized project duration)2 0.256 0.007
(0.231) (0.074)
Define intensity 0.645 0.700 0.766 0.767
(1.85) (1.85) (0.613) (0.614)
(Define intensity)2 3.706 3.106 1.334 1.318
(7.42) (7.38) (2.44) (2.45)
Ln(Num_Objectives) 2.299*** 2.299*** 0.073 0.073
(0.495) (0.494) (0.156) (0.157)
Complex01 0.905*** 0.904*** 0.072 0.072
(0.281) (0.280) (0.092) (0.093)
Ln(BB_experience) 0.207 0.223 0.081 0.081
(0.182) (0.183) (0.062) (0.062)
Ln(Org_experience) 2.026** 2.035** 0.005 0.003
(1.011) (1.007) (0.324) (0.325)
Controls
Technical 0.749** 0.786** 0.027 0.028
(0.379) (0.381) (0.125) (0.125)
Major 0.509 0.515 0.439*** 0.439***
(0.318) (0.318) (0.104) (0.105)
Hard 7.12*** 7.12*** 11.39*** 11.39***
(0.268) (0.268) (0.123) (0.123)
Quarter dummies Included Included Included Included
Intercept 2.64 2.93 3.179*** 3.188***
(1.95) (1.95) (1.22) (1.22)
R2 0.303 0.301 0.861 0.861
Adjusted R2 0.289 0.289 0.859 0.859
F 66.35*** 64.00*** 398.34*** 381.44***

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 (based on two-tailed tests); standard errors are in parentheses.

should be considered collectively and systematically
to effectively define and understand the teams focal
problem. Allocating ample time in the early problem-
solving phase encourages team members to voice
legitimate concerns and prevents a group from reject-
ing good ideas as a result of too little discussion. Also,
people are more creative when they are given more
time to think about their problems (Amabile et al.
2005). In Six Sigma projects, problem formulation is
found to be important for ensuring creativity in prob-
lem solving (Anand et al. 2010, p. 312). Spending time
in the early problem-solving phase potentially creates
a better problem understanding and increases creativ-
ity in problem solving, which together facilitate the
teams generation of solutions.
While spending time to clearly define a problem
contributes to resolving it, allocating too much time
to problem definition risks delaying a project because
of diminishing returns to learning. The process of
improving problem formulation can become satu-
rated in a way that incremental learning yielded
from spending additional time to define the problem
becomes marginal, possibly even deleterious. The
finding of an U-shaped effect between problem defi-
nition and project duration shows that a point of
diminishing returns occurs when more time spent
defining a problem stops being advantageous. This
can be due to collective and individual cognitive limi-
tations in recognizing relevant knowledge (Simon
1991). Procrastination may have occurred as well,
which can happen in any stage of a project (ODon-
oghue and Rabin 2008). While it has been argued that
successful projects typically begin with a long period
of project definition (Dvir and Shenhar 2011, p. 20),
our study shows the importance of a balanced
approach to allocating the appropriate amount of
time spent in problem definition of a project. In the
context of quality improvement, project teams not
only must avoid allocating too little time but also
must avoid spending too much time in the early
phase of defining quality improvement problems.
The ease of balancing time spent in problem defini-
tion depends on prior project experience. We found
that the cumulative number of projects done by a
Black Belt and the cumulative number of projects
completed by an organization negatively moderated
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
the U-shaped effect of problem definition time on pro-
ject duration. Prior project experience is also found to
directly reduce project duration. Collectively, these
findings suggest experienced project leaders and the
learning accumulated from prior completed projects
should directly and indirectly facilitate project com-
pletion. In particular, project teams with a lower level
of prior project experience should pay more attention
to the amount of time spent on problem definition to
compensate for their experience deficit. With less-
experienced members, implementing deadlines at dif-
ferent project stages could offset the deleterious
effects associated with lack of experience (Sarin and
Mahajan 2001). Such Six Sigma project teams also can
focus more on applying Six Sigma tools during
problem definition (Linderman et al. 2004, Singh and
Khanduja 2012).
On the other hand, a team with experienced indi-
viduals can work more intuitively because they are
able to recognize meaningful patterns in a problem
that novices cannot (Crossan et al. 1999). Consequen-
tially, the Six Sigma methodology could play a smal-
ler role. As Swink and Jacobs (2012, p. 450) argued,
while Six Sigma may entail distinctive organizational
structures, problem-solving tools, and metrics, these
attributes appear to be less important for already
experienced firms. From a practice standpoint, we
hesitate to recommend that more experienced teams
use fewer Six Sigma tools because our study did not
test the usage of problem-solving tools. Future
research could examine the relationship between the
use of problem-solving tools and project performance.
Furthermore, some scholars have proposed that Six
Sigma is effective for innovation in stable environ-
ments but not in turbulent conditions (Adler et al.
2009, Nair et al. 2011, Parast 2011). Relatedly, while
experience facilitates learning, it creates inertia and
impedes learning in turbulent environments (Levin-
thal and March 1993). Extending this research to vary-
ing levels of environmental munificence in different
industries could develop more insights into a broader
understanding of the interrelationships between Six
Sigma and project experience, further testing the
generalizability of our findings.
Our study also found evidence that complex pro-
jects took a longer time to complete. Complex projects
consist of tasks and problems that are more challeng-
ing because they involve extensive information pro-
cessing, more coordination, and frequent change
(Fernandes and Simon 1999, Wood 1986). While we
hypothesized that time spent in problem definition
would have a stronger effect for complex projects, we
only found evidence of the interaction effect for one
out of the two variables used to measure project
complexity. The non-significant results of the other
variable could be due to idiosyncrasy of the measure.
1475
Despite the partial support of the moderating hypoth-
esis, identification and conceptualization of a problem
is likely harder in complex projects, which potentially
reduces the ease of balancing between too little and
too much time spent in problem definition stage. This
implies that decreasing project complexity may
enhance the ease of problem definition. Some
research has argued that the Six Sigma method helps
to reduce task complexity by breaking down complex
tasks in a quality improvement project into simpler
and more solvable components (Linderman et al.
2003). However, the use of Six Sigma method needs
to be flexible in order for a team to be adaptive and
creative while engaged in problem solving for a com-
plex project (Nair et al. 2011). Using problem as a
unit of analysis, Nickerson and Zenger (2004) theo-
rized that a problems complexity should influence
the method of solution search. As a problem increases
in complexity, the means used to reduce complexity
become critical to solving the problem. From this van-
tage point, the up-front problem definition in projects
can possibly reduce or increase problem complexity,
resulting in speeding up or slowing down of project
completion.
Several managerial implications can be derived
from our findings. First, project teams with little prior
project experience should be assigned less complex
projects and should also be advised to closely follow
the recommended structure of the Six Sigma method.
Alternatively, a complex project can be broken down
into smaller projects such as green belt projects (Hin-
do 2007, Rasis et al. 2002). Also, Master Black Belts or
experienced Black Belts can be more involved in the
problem formulation of initial Six Sigma projects that
are led by less-experienced or newly trained Black
Belts. This increased involvement should complement
the leadership support provided by Champions who
offer a holistic view of the focal problem and ensure
buy-in and resource availability for Six Sigma projects
(Schroeder et al. 2008, p. 541). Furthermore, it is nota-
ble that people who have prior experience working
together may have developed greater trust in each
other and are consequently likely to be more effective
in complex problem solving. Managers, therefore,
should emphasize the importance of building trust
within a team as it enables more effective learning
behaviors (Edmondson 1999). For instance, team-
based incentives can be implemented to reward coop-
eration among team members because individuals are
likely to contribute a significant amount of their time
and energy to a project if they feel that their team
efforts will be appreciated and rewarded in a fair and
just manner.
There are a few limitations to this study. First,
it focuses specifically on projects using the Six
Sigma methodology for quality improvement. Other

1476 Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
contexts such as lean and problem-solving work at
the group and individual levels of analysis would be
useful to test the generalizability of our results. For
instance, Staats et al. (2011) found that applying lean
principles to IT projects affected learning by improv-
ing problem identification and problem resolution.
Moritz et al. (2013) analyzed individual forecasting
decisions and found their forecast errors were higher
for very fast and very slow decisions. Second, we only
investigated project duration as our dependent vari-
able to reflect the pace of problem solving. Although
we found projects that were completed faster also
performed better with regard to project savings,
research studies from the product development litera-
ture have argued that potential trade-offs may exist
between time and other performance metrics (Griffin
2002, Swink et al. 2006). Therefore, future research
could study other problem-solving performance mea-
sures such as novelty and utility of solutions. Third,
our findings are limited by the sample being derived
from a single firm, albeit studying projects in a single
firm enabled us to control for confounding factors
across firms such as cultures, industries, and markets.
Fourth, our results are limited by the low values of R2
with a maximum of 14.8% variance explained. This
potential shortcoming, however, does not affect the
precision of our parameter estimates as our regression
models are based on a relatively large sample size
(Wooldridge 2009, p. 199). Finally, our sample only
includes successfully completed projects. About 3%
of Six Sigma projects in the company were canceled,
which were excluded from our sample because of
their incomplete time data. Nevertheless, canceled
projects could provide a means for investigating and
understanding failures in problem solving (e.g., Cha-
kravorty 2009).
6. Conclusions
Our study demonstrates how a problem-solving per-
spective helps advance our understanding of the
direct and moderating effects of time spent in prob-
lem definition on project duration such as in Six
Sigma projects. We provide evidence of the impor-
tance of balancing between spending too little and too
much time in problem definition, which potentially
reflects the impacts of under- and over-analysis of a
problem (Langley 1995). In addition, we show how
project complexity and prior project experience mod-
erate the trade-off effect. Overall, this study adds to
the extant scholarship of problem solving in projects
and specifically, how quality practices such as Six
Sigma can be useful for group problem solving (e.g.,
Anand et al. 2010, Choo 2011, Choo et al. 2007b,
Mukherjee et al. 1998, Naveh and Erez 2004, Staats
et al. 2011). Our findings also suggest the critical need
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
for a firm to carefully select and define its (strategic)
problems to effectively and efficiently organize solu-
tion searches that would develop and sustain its orga-
nizational competence (Baer et al. 2013, Nickerson
and Zenger 2004).
Acknowledgments
I thank the department editor, Stylianos (Stelios) Kavadias,
and his review team for their insightful comments that have
greatly improved the paper. I also thank Martha Grabowski,
Yusen Xia, and Peter Zhang for their valuable feedback on
earlier drafts. Finally, I am grateful to my sponsors from the
research site and Christine Anlicker for copy editing of the
paper.
Notes
1
For the purpose of this study, we consider the term infor-
mation broadly as referring to the collection and interpre-
tation of data. Some information science studies have used
the two termsdata and informationinterchangeably as
they are necessarily intertwined (Fricke 2009, Machlup
1983, Saab and Riss 2011).
2
In the early stage of a project when a focal problem is
defined, information processing includes collecting and
interpreting data. As Daft and Lengel (1986) argued,
information processing in organizations involves not only
collecting data to remedy a lack of data (uncertainty)
but also interpreting data to mitigate a lack of clarity (equiv-
ocality). When multiple problem definitions are possible
and goals are ambiguous, sharing opinions and interpreta-
tions of data among team members play an important role
in the Define phase (Singh and Khanduja 2012).
3
Note that we did not specifically measure team experi-
ence in our study. Our use of the term experienced
team is limited to discussion of our results. On the basis
of our knowledge of the research site, a project with a
high level of prior project experience likely consisted of
experienced team members. Furthermore, experience accu-
mulated from doing Six Sigma projects can be transferred
and shared among team members across multiple projects
over time in an organization (Schroeder et al. 2008).
References
Adler, P. S., M. Benner, D. J. Brunner, J. P. MacDuffie, E. Osono,
B. R. Staats, H. Takeuchi, M. Tushman, S. G. Winter. 2009.
Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. J. Oper. Manag.
27(2): 99113.
Amabile, T. M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On
doing what you love and loving what you do. Calif. Manage.
Rev. 40(1): 3958.
Amabile, T. M., S. G. Barsade, J. S. Mueller, B. M. Staw. 2005.
Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50(3): 367403.
Anand, G., P. T. Ward, M. V. Tatikonda. 2010. Role of explicit
and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma projects: An empirical
examination of differential project success. J. Oper. Manag.
28(4): 303315.
Antony, J., E. V. Gijo, S. J. Childe. 2011. Case study in Six Sigma
methodology: Manufacturing quality improvement and guid-
ance for managers. Prod. Plan. Control 23(8): 624640.
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
Argote, L. 1999. Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and
Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA.
Argote, L., S. L. Beckman, D. Epple. 1990. The persistence and
transfer of learning in industrial settings. Manage. Sci. 36(2):
140154.
Argote, L., B. McEvily, R. Reagans. 2003. Managing knowledge in
organizations: An integrative framework and review of
emerging themes. Manage. Sci. 49(4): 571582.
Atuahene-Gima, K. 2003. The effects of centrifugal and centripetal
forces on product development speed and quality: How does
problem solving matter? Acad. Manag. J. 46(3): 359373.
Baer, M., K. T. Dirks, J. A. Nickerson. 2013. Microfoundations of
strategic problem formulation. Strateg. Manag. J. 34(2): 197214.
Baum, J. A. C., K. B. Dahlin. 2007. Aspiration performance and
railroads patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes.
Organ. Sci. 18(3): 368385.
Berk, R. A. 1990. A primer on robust regression. J. Fox, J. S. Long,
eds. Methods of Data Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 292
324.
Breyfogle, F. W. III. 1999. Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions
Using Statistical Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Brown, S. L., K. M. Eisenhardt. 1995. Product development: Past
research, present findings, and future directions. Acad. Man-
age. Rev. 20(2): 343378.
Bystr
om, K., K. J
arvelin. 1995. Task complexity affects information
seeking and use. Inf. Process. Manag. 31(2): 191213.
Campbell, D. J. 1988. Task complexity: A review and analysis.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 13(1): 4052.
Chakravorty, S. 2009. Six Sigma failures: An escalation model.
Oper. Manage. Res. 2(1): 4455.
Chen, J., F. Damanpour, R. R. Reilly. 2010. Understanding ante-
cedents of new product development speed: A meta-analysis.
J. Oper. Manag. 28(1): 1733.
Chervany, N. L., G. W. Dickson. 1974. An experimental evaluation
of information overload in a production environment. Man-
age. Sci. 20(10): 13351344.
Choo, A. S. 2011. Impact of a stretch strategy on knowledge crea-
tion in quality improvement projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.
58(1): 8796.
Choo, A. S., K. W. Linderman, R. G. Schroeder. 2007a. Method
and context perspectives on learning and knowledge creation
in quality management. J. Oper. Manag. 25(4): 918931.
Choo, A. S., K. W. Linderman, R. G. Schroeder. 2007b. Method
and psychological effects on learning behaviors and knowl-
edge creation in quality improvement projects. Manage. Sci.
53(3): 437450.
Clark, K. B. 1989. Project scope and project performance: The
effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product
development. Manage. Sci. 35(10): 12471263.
Cohen, W. M., D. A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35(1):
128152.
Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S. G. West, L. S. Aiken. 2003. Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd
edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cronin, M. A., L. R. Weingart. 2007. Representational gaps, infor-
mation processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 32(3): 761773.
Cross, R., L. Sproull. 2004. More than an answer: Information
relationships for actionable knowledge. Organ. Sci. 15(4):
446462.
Crossan, M. M., H. W. Lane, R. E. White. 1999. An organizational
learning framework: From intuition to institution. Acad.
Manage. Rev. 24(3): 522537.
1477
Cyert, R. M., J. G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Daft, R. L., R. H. Lengel. 1986. Organizational information
requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage.
Sci. 32(5): 554571.
Dahlin, K. B., L. R. Weingart, P. J. Hinds. 2005. Team diversity
and information use. Acad. Manage. J. 48(6): 11071123.
Darr, E. D., L. Argote, D. Epple. 1995. The acquisition, transfer,
and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations:
Productivity in franchises. Manage. Sci. 41(11): 17501762.
Dillon, J. T. 1982. Problem finding and solving. J. Creative Behav.
16(2): 97111.
Dvir, D., A. J. Shenhar. 2011. What great projects have in com-
mon. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 52(3): 1921.
Easton, G. S., E. D. Rosenzweig. 2012. The role of experience in
Six Sigma project success: An empirical analysis of improve-
ment projects. J. Oper. Manag. 30(78): 481493.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior
in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44(2): 350383.
Eisenhardt, K. M., B. N. Tabrizi. 1995. Accelerating adaptive pro-
cesses: Product innovation in the global computer industry.
Adm. Sci. Q. 40(1): 84110.
Ellis, H. C. 1965. The Transfer of Learning. Macmillan, New York,
NY.
Eppler, M. J., J. Mengis. 2004. The concept of information over-
load: A review of literature from organization science,
accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Inf. Soc.
20(5): 325344.
Evans, V. P. 1999. Strategies for detecting outliers in regression
analysis: An introductory primer. B. Thompson, ed. Advances
in Social Science Methodology, Vol. 5. JAI Press, Stamford, CT,
213233.
Fernandes, R., H. A. Simon. 1999. A study of how individuals
solve complex and ill-structured problems. Policy Sci. 32(3):
225245.
Fine, C. H. 1986. Quality improvement and learning in productive
systems. Manage. Sci. 32(10): 13011315.
Foster, S. T., E. E. Jr Adam. 1996. Examining the impact of speed
of quality improvement on quality-related costs. Decis. Sci.
27(4): 623646.
Fricke, M. 2009. The knowledge pyramid: A critique of the DIKW
hierarchy. J. Inf. Sci. 35(2): 131142.
Gaimon, C. 2008. The management of technology: A production
and operations management perspective. Prod. Oper. Manag.
17(1): 111.
Griffin, A. 1997. The effect of project and process characteristics
on product development cycle time. J. Mark. Res. 34(1): 2435.
Griffin, A. 2002. Product development cycle time for busi-
ness-to-business products. Ind. Mark. Manag. 31(4): 291304.
Hackman, J. R. 2011. Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve
Hard Problems. Berett-Koehler, San Franscisco, CA.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, W. C. Black. 1998. Multi-
variate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of
weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits.
Adm. Sci. Q. 44(1): 82111.
Hemp, P. 2009. Death by information overload. Harvard Bus. Rev.
87(9): 8289.
Hindo, B. 2007, June 11.At 3M, a struggle between efficiency and
creativity. Business Week.
von Hippel, E., M. J. Tyre. 1995. How learning by doing is done:
Problem identification in novel process equipment. Res. Policy
24(1): 112.

1478 Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
Houston, V. 2011. Time management in practice. P. C. Dinsmore,
J. Cabanis-Brewin, eds. The AMA Handbook of Project Manage-
ment, 3rd edn. Amacom Books, New York, 8795.
Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing pro-
cesses and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 2(1): 88115.
Hunt, E. (1994). Problem solving. R. J. Sternberg, ed. Thinking
and Problem Solving. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA,
215232.
Ittner, C. D., D. F. Larcker. 1997. Product development cycle time
and organizational performance. J. Mark. Res. 34(1): 1323.
Jacoby, J. 1984. Perspectives on information overload. J. Consum.
Res. 10(4): 432435.
Juran, J. M. 1989. Juran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive
Handbook. Free Press, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R. S., D. P. Norton. 1992. The balanced scorecard - Mea-
sures that drive performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 70(1): 7179.
Kerr, S., J. W. Slocum Jr.. 1981. Controlling the performances of
people in organizations. P. C. Nystrom, W. H. Starbuck, eds.
Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 2. Oxford University
Press, New York, 116134.
Kerzner, H. 2010. Project Management Best Practices: Achieving Glo-
bal Excellence, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kessler, E. H., A. K. Chakrabarti. 1996. Innovation speed: A con-
ceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Acad.
Manage. Rev. 21(4): 11431191.
Langley, A. 1995. Between paralysis by analysis and extinction
by instinct. Sloan Manage. Rev. 36(3): 6376.
Lapre, M. A., N. Tsikriktsis. 2006. Organizational learning curves
for customer dissatisfaction: Heterogeneity across airlines.
Manage. Sci. 52(3): 352366.
Lapre, M. A., A. S. Mukherjee, L. N. Van Wassenhove. 2000.
Behind the learning curve: Linking learning activities to waste
reduction. Manage. Sci. 46(5): 597611.
Latham, G. P., G. H. Seijts. 1999. The effects of proximal and
distal goals on performance on a moderately complex task.
J. Organ. Behav. 20(4): 421429.
Leonard, D. A., W. C. Swap. 1999. When Sparks Fly: Igniting Crea-
tivity in Groups. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lesgold, A. M. 1988. Problem solving. R. J. Sternberg, E. E. Smith,
eds. The Psychology of Human Thought. Cambridge University
Press, New York, 188213.
Levin, D. Z. 2000. Organizational learning and the transfer of
knowledge: An investigation of quality improvement. Organ.
Sci. 11(6): 630647.
Levinthal, D. A., J. G. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Stra-
teg. Manage. J., 14(Special Issue): 95112.
Levy, F. K. 1965. Adaptation in the production process. Manage.
Sci. 11(6): B136B154.
Linderman, K., R. G. Schroeder, S. Zaheer, A. S. Choo. 2003. Six
Sigma: A goal-theoretic perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 21(2):
193203.
Linderman, K., R. G. Schroeder, S. Zaheer, C. Liedtke, A. S. Choo.
2004. Integrating quality management practices with knowl-
edge creation processes. J. Oper. Manag. 22(6): 589607.
Locke, E. A., G. P. Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task
Performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lyles, M. A., I. I. Mitroff. 1980. Organizational problem formula-
tion: An empirical study. Adm. Sci. Q. 25(1): 102119.
MacDuffie, J. P. 1997. The road to root cause: Shop-floor prob-
lem-solving at three auto assembly plants. Manage. Sci. 43(4):
479502.
Machlup, F. 1983. Semantic quirks in studies of information.
F. Machlup, U. Mansfield, eds. The Study of Information: Inter-
disciplinary Messages. John Wiley, New York, 641671.
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Malhotra, N. K. 1982. Information load and consumer decision
making. J. Consum. Res. 8(4): 419430.
Mepyans-Robinson, R. 2011. Project scope management in prac-
tice. P. C. Dinsmore, J. Cabanis-Brewin, eds. The AMA Hand-
book of Project Management, 3rd edn. Amacom Books, New
York, 7985.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., L. A. DeChurch. 2009. Information sharing
and team performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94(2):
535546.
Michalko, M. 2001. Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Gen-
ius. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, CA.
Moritz, B., E. Siemsen, M. Kremer. 2013. Judgmental forecasting:
Cognitive reflection and decision speed. Prod. Oper. Manag.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/poms.12105.
Mukherjee, A. S., M. A. Lapre, L. N. Van Wassenhove. 1998.
Knowledge driven quality improvement. Manage. Sci. 44(11:2):
S35S49.
Mumford, M. D., R. Reiter-Palmon, M. R. Redmond. 1994. Prob-
lem construction and cognition: Applying problem represen-
tations in ill-defined domains. M. A. Runco, ed. Problem
Finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity. Ablex, Norwood, NJ,
339.
Muth, J. F. 1986. Search theory and the manufacturing progress
function. Manage. Sci. 32(8): 948962.
Nair, A., M. K. Malhotra, S. L. Ahire. 2011. Toward a theory of
managing context in Six Sigma process-improvement projects:
An action research investigation. J. Oper. Manag. 29(5): 529548.
Naveh, E., M. Erez. 2004. Innovation and attention to detail in the
quality improvement paradigm. Manage. Sci. 50(11): 15761586.
Nelson, R. R. 1982. The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency.
Quart. J. Econ. 97(3): 453470.
Newell, A., H. A. Simon. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Newell, A., J. C. Shaw, H. A. Simon. 1958. Elements of a theory of
human problem solving. Psychol. Rev. 65(3): 151166.
Nickerson, J. A., T. R. Zenger. 2004. A knowledge-based theory of
the firm: The problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. 15(6):
617632.
ODonoghue, T., M. Rabin. 2008. Procrastination on long-term
projects. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 66(2): 161175.
Oraiopoulos, N., S. Kavadias. 2014. The path dependent nature of
R&D search: Implications for (and from) competition. Prod.
Oper. Manag. 23(8): 14501461.
OReilly, C. A. III. 1980. Individuals and information overload
in organizations: Is more necessarily better? Acad. Manage. J.
23(4): 684696.
Parast, M. M. 2011. The effect of Six Sigma projects on innova-
tion and firm performance. Int. J. Project Manage. 29(1):
4555.
Payne, J. W. 1976. Task complexity and contingent processing in
decision making: An information search and protocol analy-
sis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 16(2): 366387.
Perry-Smith, J. E. 2006. Social yet creative: The role of social rela-
tionships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad. Manage. J.
49(1): 85101.
Polya, G. 1945. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical
Method. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Pretz, J. E., A. J. Naples, R. J. Sternberg. 2003. Recognizing, defin-
ing, and representing problems. J. E. Davidson, R. J. Stern-
berg, eds. The Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge
University Press, New York, 330.
Pyzdek, T. 2003. The Six Sigma Project Planner: A Step by Step Guide
to Leading a Six Sigma Project Through DMAIC. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Choo: Defining Problems Fast and Slow
Production and Operations Management 23(8), pp. 14621479, 2014 Production and Operations Management Society
Pyzdek, T., P. Keller. 2010. The Six Sigma Handbook, 3rd edn.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Rasis, D., H. S. Gitlow, E. Popovich. 2002. Paper Organizers Inter-
national: A fictitious Six Sigma Green Belt case studyPart 1.
Qual. Eng. 15(1): 127145.
Reed, R., D. J. Lemak, J. C. Montgomery. 1996. Beyond process:
TQM content and firm performance. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21(1):
173202.
Reiter-Palmon, R., M. D. Mumford, J. OConnor Boes, M. A.
Runco. 1997. Problem construction and creativity: The role of
ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Res.
J. 10(1): 923.
Rittel, H. W. J., M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general the-
ory of planning. Policy Sci. 4(2): 155169.
Saab, D. J., U. V. Riss. 2011. Information as ontologization. J. Am.
Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62(11): 22362246.
Sarin, S., V. Mahajan. 2001. The effect of reward structures on the
performance of cross-functional product development teams.
J. Mark. 65(2): 3553.
Schilling, M. A., P. Vidal, R. E. Ployhart, A. Marangoni. 2003.
Learning by doing something else: Variation, relatedness, and
the learning curve. Manage. Sci. 49(1): 3956.
Schneider, S. C. 1987. Information overload: Causes and conse-
quences. Hum. Syst. Manag. 7(2): 143153.
Schroeder, R. G., K. Linderman, C. Liedtke, A. S. Choo. 2008. Six
Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. J. Oper. Manag. 26(4):
536554.
Seufert, A., G. Von Krogh, A. Bach. 1999. Towards knowledge
networking. J. Knowl. Manag. 3(3): 180190.
Shenhar, A. J. 2001. One size does not fit all projects:
Exploring classical contingency domains. Manage. Sci. 47(3):
394414.
Shenhar, A. J., D. Dvir. 2007. Reinventing Project Management: The
Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. HBS
Press, Boston, MA.
Shenhar, A., D. Dvir, D. Milosevic, J. Mulenburg, P. Patanakul, R.
Reilly, M. Ryan, A. Sage, B. Sauser, S. Srivannaboon. 2005.
Toward a NASA-specific project management framework.
Eng. Manage. J. 17(4): 816.
Simon, H. A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart.
J. Econ. 69(1): 99118.
Simon, H. A. 1982. Models of Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Simon, H. A. 1991. Bounded rationality and organizational learn-
ing. Organ. Sci. 2(1): 125134.
Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Singh, B. J., D. Khanduja. 2012. Essentials of D-phase to secure
the competitive advantage through Six Sigma. Int. J. Bus.
Excellence 5(1): 3551.
Snee, R. D. 2004. Six Sigma: The evolution of 100 years of busi-
ness improvement methodology. Int. J. Six Sigma Competitive
Advantage. 1(1): 420.
Snee, R. D. 2007. The Six Sigma approach to improvement and
organizational change. P. Holman, T. Devane, S. Cady, eds.
The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Todays Best
1479
Methods for Engaging Whole Systems, 2nd edn. Berrett-Koehler,
San Francisco, 465478.
Spradlin, D. 2012. Are you solving the right problem? Harvard
Bus. Rev. 90(9): 8493.
Staats, B. R., D. J. Brunner, D. M. Upton. 2011. Lean principles,
learning, and knowledge work: Evidence from a software ser-
vices provider. J. Oper. Manag. 29(5): 376390.
Stasser, G., W. Titus. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in
group decision making: Biased information sampling during
discussion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48(6): 14671478.
Swink, M. 2002. Product developmentfaster, on-time. Res. Tech-
nol. Manag. 45(4): 5058.
Swink, M., B. W. Jacobs. 2012. Six Sigma adoption: Operating per-
formance impacts and contextual drivers of success. J. Oper.
Manag. 30(6): 437453.
Swink, M., S. Talluri, T. Pandejpong. 2006. Faster, better, cheaper:
A study of NPD project efficiency and performance tradeoffs.
J. Oper. Manag. 24(5): 542562.
Tatikonda, M. V., M. M. Montoya-Weiss. 2001. Integrating opera-
tions and marketing perspectives of product innovation: The
influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on
development performance. Manage. Sci. 47(1): 151172.
Terwiesch, C., C. H. Loch. 1999. Measuring the effectiveness of
overlapping development activities. Manage. Sci. 45(4): 455465.
Thomke, S., D. Reinertsen. 2012. Six myths of product develop-
ment. Harvard Bus. Rev. 90(5): 8494.
Thompson, S. J. (2007). Improving the performance of Six Sigma; a
case study of the Six Sigma process at Ford Motor Company.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bedfordshire.
Verma, D., K. K. Sinha. 2002. Toward a theory of project interde-
pendencies in high tech R&D environments. J. Oper. Manag.
20(5): 451468.
Voss, J. F., S. W. Tyler, L. Yengo. 1983. Individual differences in
the solving of social science problems. R. F. Dillon, R. R. Sch-
meck, eds. Individual Differences in Cognition, Vol. 1. Academic
Press, New York, 205232.
Weingart, L. R. 1992. Impact of group goals, task component com-
plexity, effort, and planning on group performance. J. Appl.
Psychol. 77(5): 682693.
White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix
estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica
48: 817830.
Wood, R. E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 37(1): 6082.
Wood, R. E., E. A. Locke, A. J. Mento. 1987. Task complexity as
a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol.
72(3): 416425.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2009. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern
Approach, 4th edn. South-Western, Mason, OH.
Wright, T. P. 1936. Factors affecting the costs of airplanes. J. Aero-
naut. Sci. 3(4): 122128.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. 2003. Interruptive events and team knowl-
edge acquisition. Manage. Sci. 49(4): 514528.
Zu, X., L. D. Fredendall, T. J. Douglas. 2008. The evolving theory
of quality management: The role of Six Sigma. J. Oper. Manag.
26(5): 630650.