The Problem Solving Process

Problem Solving 1.0 was all about managing the process of the problem solvers; it offered a set of tools for helping groups be more creative, explore differences of opinion, handle conflict, sort through options, and finally come to consensus. And it had a rudimentary and very linear approach to investigation and experimentation. Problem Solving 2.0 is more about truly understanding problems. That does not mean process is irrelevant. Far from it! With a clearer understanding of the essential nature of a problem comes a clearer understanding of the best process for its most effective resolution.

Although the process definitions below may seem rather extreme, keep in mind that many steps happen in a single conversation, or only in the mind of a single individual. Do not equate each step with a meeting or a project phase. This explication of the process is deliberately exhaustive; once you know the process well, it is dramatically quicker and smoother. Our typical practice of problem solving is often longer because of so many false starts and blind alleys.

Also note that the first two phases (Naming and Framing) are primarily leadership tasks; the third phase (Taming) is where staff take up the gauntlet and work the issues. In other words, we are looking at the problem solving process in an organizational context, where there are different roles based on level in the company. One of the main contributions of the leadership of an organization is to select the problems that will be targeted for resolution. The unrestrained attention to only the most pressing problem or the most recent problem can seriously compromise any progress along a strategic trajectory.

Below is an outline of the whole process as well as links to more detail on each of the phases. The best path through the material is to return to this page frequently as you work your way through.

Is it really a problem?

Are we working on the really important problems?

There is an element of identifying problems that occurs very early, almost unconsciously, and creates the greatest conflict and inefficiency when done poorly. It is the step of identifying the problem in the first place. It focuses the attention of the organization. Since staff are literally awash in possible problems, the organization needs some direction on which problems deserve their attention. There is an initial choice to look "here" and not "there"; without that limitation, the problem solving effort immediately collapses under its own weight.

The Theory of Naming: What are we actually doing?

As a conceptual task, Naming is a fascinating topic in and of itself. This option explores a conceptual map of the Naming process and defines the critical elements.

The Practice of Naming: How to do it?

Naming is usually not a theoretical concern; it is practical, immediate, and urgent. This option defines a series of questions that will drive more effective naming. There is also a downloadable set of Power Point slides that can be used for presenting your thoughts around those questions most efficiently.

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.

Type It

Defining the essential nature of the problem by linking it explicitly to one of the 8 problem types.

Task It

Providing an explicit and thorough charter to the organization to structure and legitimate the problem solving efforts of staff.

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).

Good problem solving is not linear. It progresses in a circle, cycling back to the beginning as experience opens up new problems or refines our sense of our original problem.

Problem solving proceeds through a series of phases, each with its unique challenges and dilemmas. When people are (often unconsciously) working at different steps in the process, their efforts are often unproductive at best, and heavily conflicted at worse.

While the process is not linear, our discussion of them must be. It is up to the reader to weave the phases together in an actual application.

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.

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.