A reason people often jump to solutions is they don't question their basic assumptions about the problem. Assumptions act like shortcuts in our mind, and sometimes, they're based on outdated or wrong information. For example, you might think, "Our customers don’t like our product because it's expensive," when the real issue is that they don't understand its unique features. To avoid this, always list out your assumptions at the start. Challenge each one by asking, "Why do I believe this?" and "What if the opposite were true?" This process slows you down enough to consider all angles before diving into solutions. Remember, taking a little extra time to check your assumptions can save you a lot of time fixing the wrong solutions later on.

In a past life, I taught kindergartners how to think like engineers. They kept journals in which they’d capture their musings. One day I stumbled across this gem, written by a little girl: “Engineers solve many problems by FIRST figuring out what the problem is. Then trying to solve it.” Even at the age of 5, this kid recognized the trap of solving the wrong problem. Properly defining the problem is the most important step, and should not be shortchanged. Sometimes that process is best led by someone at least one step removed from the problem, because they bring a fresh perspective.

In my experience the issues in problem solving is : the same thinkers and thinking that created the problem are trying to solve the problem . We need to take a beginners mindset on problem solving and solve by imagining what should be and then work out how and what is missing to reach that state.

🎯 Avoid premature conclusions! I'd emphasize the importance of understanding the problem before devising a solution. Quick fixes often stem from misdiagnosing the root of an issue, resulting in wasted resources and efforts. A well-framed problem is a lighthouse, guiding teams toward impactful and efficient solutions. Engage multiple perspectives, shun assumptions, and resist the allure of one-size-fits-all answers. Remember, a well-defined problem is already half-solved. Why jump into the ocean of solutions without a clear compass? 🧭⚓

"The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution." - Albert Einstein 3 Questions to Ask on this: What are some typical pitfalls that individuals or teams encounter when framing problems, and how can we avoid them? Can you provide examples of situations where problem framing errors led to suboptimal solutions or outcomes? What techniques or best practices can help us improve our problem framing skills and make better-informed decisions?

Problems normally have a root issue ; solve this and it normally resolves the other less contagion issues. The root issue is normally based in design . Like architecture - good form always promotes good function . Good function always promotes good flow.

I think Striking the right balance in problem framing is essential to identify and address the core issues without losing sight of the bigger picture.

Striking the right balance in problem framing is crucial. Framing too narrowly or too broadly can both hinder effective problem-solving. Achieving the right level of specificity and granularity by using tools like SMART goals, boundary conditions, and assumptions is essential for ensuring that your problem is well-defined and manageable, making it easier to identify and implement effective solutions.

This is where I find the 5 whys to be very useful as a way of framing a problem and getting to the actual need. One of the benefits of five whys is you can see if it’s an individual problem – which often it’s not – or an organisational or societal problem. It helps you see the scale and boundaries of the problem which are often different than we first imagine.

Common problem framing mistakes include: âž¡ arrowing the scope too much, missing the bigger picture. âž¡Assuming the problem's cause without sufficient evidence. âž¡Not involving relevant stakeholders in defining the problem. âž¡Ignoring the problem's root causes, focusing on symptoms. âž¡Framing the problem with a biased perspective. âž¡Using vague or ambiguous language in problem statements. âž¡Rushing to solutions before fully understanding the problem.

You make a valid point. Framing the problem as a statement rather than a question provides a clearer and more actionable foundation for problem-solving. It helps avoid potential ambiguity and makes it easier to establish measurable objectives and track progress effectively. Using tools like SMART objectives, key performance indicators, and benchmarks further enhances the precision of your problem-solving process.

Well, It's important to define the problem with a declarative statement to provide a focused and concise direction for finding solutions. Questions can be valuable for exploration, but a well framed problem statement sets the stage for a more targeted and effective problem solving process.

For me, framing a problem as a question can be beneficial for open exploration and engagement however it may introduce ambiguity and subjectivity. It can make defining clear success criteria challenging. Combining question-based exploration with a well-defined problem statement using tools like SMART objectives and KPIs can strike a balance between exploration and precision in problem framing, leading to effective problem-solving.

While questions can help explore the problem space, they can be limiting when used to frame the problem. For instance, a question might imply that there's only one right answer, which can limit creative exploration. Instead, try to frame problems as actionable statements that encourage a wider range of solutions.

I don’t think that I fully agree with this point as I question situations to identify the problem, with “what is wrong with this picture?”, or “why doesn’t this work?” while brainstorming solutions as I’m identifying issues. If you’re not questioning whether a problem even exists, how can you expect to try and resolve it?

We don't question nor spend enough time understanding the problem from our customer/end-user point of view. The learning is to focus on understanding the problem well before you go further into a solution mode. At every step, check if your focus is on the right problem. For example, if we define a problem like “how might we develop face recognition when people enter our building?” it will put your team’s focus on face recognition technology. However, if we reframe the problem like: “how might we control who is in the building?” we open up for many other possibilities beyond just face recognition.

This mistake is significant and is underscored by the impact of user research. Listening to how the people you want to build for talk about their problem - the actual words they use, the priorities and additional context they provide - really helps us get out of our own heads and understand how think about - and address - the problem - from the perspective of the people we are most hoping to impact.

Absolutely, considering multiple perspectives is vital in problem framing. Relying solely on your own viewpoint can lead to bias and an incomplete understanding of the issue at hand. Using tools like stakeholder analysis, empathy maps, or personas helps incorporate diverse views and needs, fostering a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to problem definition. It's essential for better problem-solving and addressing the concerns of all stakeholders.

Take off your horse blinders and broaden your view. It’s natural to focus on our own challenges, but we must step into others’ shoes. Understand their feelings, actions, and how the problem affects them. You may find your ‘big’ problem is minor for them or vice versa. It will only help you to communicate better, framing the issue correctly, finding solutions, and prioritising.

Often times framing a problem from your own perspective lacks insight and may lead to blaming. This creates a divide within a team, creates defensiveness, and can distract from the root cause and team problem solving approach.

Problem solving should always be combined with SYSTEM THINKING. Nothing happens in isolation - a business is a dynamic interplay between systems , actors (people) and processes which all either create flow or friction.

You're absolutely right. Isolating the problem from its context can indeed lead to ineffective solutions. Recognizing and addressing the broader environment and interdependencies is crucial for practical problem-solving. Tools like systems thinking, SWOT analysis, and PESTLE analysis help to consider the complex web of factors that impact the problem, ultimately leading to more realistic and viable solutions. This holistic approach is key to successful problem framing and solving.

When it comes to problem framing, there are several common mistakes that can hinder the problem-solving process and lead to ineffective solutions; some examples are: • When the problem is defined too narrowly, focusing only on the immediate symptoms or surface-level issues can prevent you from identifying the root causes of the problem. • Bias framing can influence how we perceive and frame problems. This happens when the problem is presented from a specific perspective or influenced by personal beliefs. • Lack of Stakeholder Involvement which can lead to overlooking crucial insights and perspectives. To avoid these problem framing mistakes, it is crucial to approach problem-solving with a systematic and open-minded mindset.

Actually, It's a common mistake to isolate a problem from its broader ecosystem or organization, which can result in incomplete or ineffective solutions. Effective problem framing considers the larger context, potential ripple effects, and how the problem connects to other aspects of the business or situation.

This can result in impractical solutions because it overlooks the impact of external factors and interactions. To avoid this mistake, relate your problem to its context and use tools to identify and evaluate the factors influencing your problem and solution.

In simple words,let’s say a shipping company is facing a problem of delayed deliveries. If they frame the problem as fixed or static, they may assume that the main issue lies with the transportation process. However, by being dynamic and flexible, they may gather feedback and data that reveals the problem is actually related to inefficient logistics planning or inadequate communication between teams. This realization allows them to adjust their problem definition and solution, implementing better planning systems or improving communication channels, ultimately leading to more timely and efficient deliveries.

As well as defining if it's fixed or static, it's also useful to look at past attempts to solve the problem – your organisations’ and others in your industry. It’s important to examine why those past attempts didn’t work. Now you are moving beyond a knee-jerk reaction to the problem and embracing critical, deep, and innovative thinking. If you discover the problem is industrywide – why has the market been unable to solve it? And if it has already been solved, don’t make the mistake of reinventing the wheel or throwing money at dead ends.

Solution: Recognize dynamic nature: Acknowledge that problems can evolve over time, influenced by changing circumstances or new information. Revisit framing regularly: Reassess the problem framing periodically to ensure it remains relevant and accurately reflects the current situation. Adapt to changing conditions: Be prepared to adjust your approach as the problem evolves or new insights emerge

En el análisis de la causa raíz también es indispensable involucrar a todas las partes involucradas, sean del nivel gerarquico que sea, pues muchas veces la partes operativas tienen una visión mucho más amplia que otras partes que solamente pueden tener una visión parcial de la posible causa del problema; y como especificaron las causan suelen ser variables y no tan fijos o estáticos. En repetidas oportunidades he encontrado que la opinión de la parte operativa enriquece la posibles soluciones, que canalizadas por las jefaturas de una manera más clara y aterrizada llevan a la solución definitivas del problema planteado.

Ignoring the context: Ignoring the context when framing a problem is a significant mistake that can have far-reaching consequences including misunderstanding the problem, developing solutions that are not feasible, alienating stakeholders, cultural mismatch, amongst others. To avoid these problems, it's critical to conduct a thorough analysis of the problem's context. This includes consulting with relevant stakeholders, assessing available resources, understanding the organizational culture, and considering legal, technological, market, and economic factors. Incorporating the context into the problem-framing process increases the likelihood of developing realistic, effective, and sustainable solutions.

Few specific insights from my own experiences and the way forward as I transitioned into a corporate role: Avoid Hierarchy Overemphasis: Foster open communication and innovation. Embrace Adaptability: Be flexible, seizing opportunities and adjusting strategies. Value the Human Element: Prioritize employee morale, collaboration, and team dynamics. Promote Empowerment: Encourage employee input and empowerment, avoiding rigid control. Stay Customer-Centric: Ensure the organisation remains focused on customer needs and market dynamics.

Additionally, Narrow framing restricts the view of the issue, potentially missing crucial factors and solutions. Conversely, overly broad framing can make the problem seem insurmountable and daunting. Striking the right balance, where the scope of the problem aligns with the desired outcomes, is essential for successful problem-solving. Therefore, its vital to find the right level of granularity in defining the problem to ensure comprehensive yet manageable analysis and solutions.

People way too often want to be perceived as special ones. The same is true for the problem - in reality, there is never a problem, only people, circumstances, and ill communication. The problem in the organizational context is always of a personal nature - if the conflict is in the source code, you rewrite the code. If the problem is with the material, you change the material. If I succeed with my client in explaining this reality, then any problem has three steps in order to successfully overcome it. Ask yourself and coworkers: 1. What are the attitudes and behaviors that contribute to the problem? 2. What is the organizational context? 3. What are communication strategies and rules?

A couple of potential dark sides of problem framing as it is framed here: 1. Believing their is one solution and we must find that one solution. There are almost always multiple ways to address issues and progress is almost always preferable to pursuinig the one perfect answer. 2. The need to define the problem properly can be used as an excuse to remain in analysis rather than doing something with the aim of progressing either knowledge or improvement. There is always going to be incomplete information (because if we had complete information we would likely have the / a solution).