The Problem Solving Process

The stages in the process listed below is deliberately fairly thorough; keep in mind that some steps occur in a single conversation, but they are critical nonetheless. Our more typical practice of problem solving suffers from numerous false starts and blind alleys. Like so many other things, you can do it right or you can do it twice!

The first two phases (Naming and Framing) are primarily leadership tasks; the third phases (Taming) is where staff take up the gauntlet and work the issues.

Across these 3 phases, we can distinguish the roles of 3 significant players: the leader, the individual contributors, and (possibly) a neutral party.

Is it really a problem?
Are we working on the really important problems?
Are we focusing on the full problem?

One of the major roles of leadership is to name the problems to be addressed in the first place. It is a matter of bounding the focus of attention of the organization. Without this initial direction, the organization is uncertain where the resources will be allocated, or where is the corporate will to change.

This phase actually has to answer three separate questions:

Is it a problem?

Not every bad situation is a problem; not every good situation is automatically not a problem. A problem exists only when we expect or want a better state, even if the current situation is positive.

Is it an important problem?

Most often we have to "leave worse enough along"; but which problems must be taken up? Which cannot be avoided or denied? The strategic intent of the organization is the first filter which should sort out problems that must be solved from those that should be only watched. Maintaining the integrity of the entire enterprise provides another set of useful constraints.

Are we looking at the complete problem?

Are we looking at just a symptom? Do we have all the relevant events and variables "in the mix"? If the initial scope boundary is too broad, the process may collapse under its own weight; if it is too narrow, the entire process may be futile.

While the first two questions can be answered with some confidence in this phase, the third question is always a coarse hypothesis, one that will be tested repeatedly as the process rolls out. The initial statement from leadership will be need revision as the latter stages explore the problem in more detail.

Giving clear and responsible direction to the organization.

As the focus of concern begins to settle on a known and finite set of events, the next general phase is to correctly frame the problem.

Framing has two components, but the essential thrust is to provide a fully articulated charter to the organization for how the problem will be addressed. This puts the issue in context as well as providing a roadmap for others to follow. This is one of the common shortcomings of leadership, who may use their authority to avoid the work of making a clear directive to the organization.

Type It

Defining the essential nature of the problem by linking it explicitly to one of the 8 problem types. Initially the problem types suggest the most useful process and an outline of the eventual solution, both of which aid in the next task.

Task It

Providing an explicit and thorough charter to the organization to structure and legitimate the problem solving efforts of staff. This statement (whether oral or written) clarifies the desired end, the rationale for the time and cost, the resources promised, and other needed information before serious staff effort begins.

The real work begins ... and executives step back.

This phase is actually a handoff from the executive or management ranks to the individual contributor ranks. The framing we discussed earlier creates a context for staff action. The shift will be delicate. The pressure to "fix it" will tease both sides into unfortunate behaviors.

Staff faced with a difficult problem and anxious about their reputation will try to draw the leader into the problem solving ("It's up to you in the end anyway, so why don't you just tell us what you want?").  For the leader who became an executive by solving problems, it is equally tempting to return to their earlier comfort zone rather than hold to the discipline of leadership (which is distinct from that of management, or of the individual contributor).

The best role of leadership is most often that of a senior sponsor rather than an active participant.

Exploring the Problem

Testing our perceptions and assumptions about the problem. Crafting a clear statement of the problem independent of any possible solutions. Analyzing the problem as objectively as possible. Although this phase re-visits many elements of earlier work, it is crucial to do so with the deeper analysis and broader participation possible in this step.

Considering Options

Once there is sufficient consensus on the nature of the problem, it is appropriate to explore options. The process is both creative and analytical. Usually requires the creative mixing of multiple options to maximize the value against specific criteria.

Implementing Solutions

With clear support for a leading candidate, the process moves to implementation. Although project planning is a key dimension of this phase, it also involves reflection and learning, and anticipating the next round of problems that are likely to emerge from the change effort. For the leadership, it is a delicate stage in which the true cost to the organization could even revise the decision to proceed at all. In addition, a solution could push for significant changes