In Nelson Repenning’s article for MIT Sloan Management Review, “The Most Underrated Skill in Management," he and his co-authors share a proven way to improve organizations' methods and practices to stay relevant in today's world. While many leaders try to spearhead change through complete upheaval, continuous small improvements are what achieve these sought-after impacts. According to Repenning, by formulating a clear problem statement, organizations can give teams strategic direction and achieve company goals more efficiently.
How our minds solve problems
One reason we need a structure for problem solving is because our brains are prone to jump from problem to solution without complete knowledge. This hasty conclusion can prevent innovation, waste time and money, and create frustration.
Research conducted over the last few decades indicates that the human brain has at least two different methods for tackling problems, which psychologists and cognitive scientists sometimes call automatic processing and conscious processing (also sometimes known as system 1 and system 2).
Conscious processing is part of your brain that you control. This process can be precise and powerful. This is the only process in the brain that is "capable of forming a mental picture of a situation at hand and then playing out different possible scenarios," even those that have not occurred before. This ability allows humans to innovate and learn.
However, this processing technique has its downfalls. It is a slow process, and our finite physical capacity limits us to one problem at a time. With the high expense, the brain has evolved to minimize this so called “System 1” processing for specific instances.
Automatic processing represents the part of your brain you cannot control. We are only aware of the results, either when a thought pops into our head, or a physical response occurs. “System 2” processing works with association or pattern matching. The automatic processor attempts to match the current challenge to a previous comparable situation to use the experience(s) as a guide for how to act. This "associative machine" can identify subtle patterns in the environment to make split-second decisions. The downfall of automatic processing is that in guiding us to the status quo, it can impede innovation.
Structured problem-solving: Leverage the strengths of conscious processing
To complement that fast thinking with a more deliberate approach, structured problem-solving entails developing a logical argument that links the observed data to root causes and, eventually, to a solution. “Developing this logical path increases the chance that you will leverage the strengths of conscious processing and may also create the conditions for generating and then evaluating an unconscious breakthrough,” instruct the authors.
The basic elements of a good problem statement:
- It connects to a clear and specific goal within the organization
- It clearly articulates the gap between the current state and the goal
- The key variables—the target, current state, and the gap—are quantifiable
- It is neutral concerning possible diagnoses or solutions
- It is small in scope and easily tackled
Things to consider when creating a problem statement:
- Is this problem important? The problem statement should have a direct connection to the organization's overall mission and target.
- Is the gap between the future goal and the current situation clearly articulated? The steps to close this gap should be clear and easy to understand.
- Is your progress in closing the gap measurable/quantifiable? Being able to measure the gap between the current state and your target precisely will support an effective project. While “soft” variables like customer satisfaction and employee trust can be hard to measure, they can be quantified (e.g., more of both is better!).
- Is the stated problem neutral? Make sure the problem does not presuppose anything about the root cause or solution.
- Is your problem statement specific? The problem should focus on a specific manifestation of the larger issue that your organization cares about.
Common mistakes to look for:
- Failing to formulate the problem. Never assume that the entire team already agrees on the problem.
- Problem-statement as diagnoses or solutions. Make sure the problem statement focuses on the goal or target that aligns with the organization, not an assumption. Skipping steps in the logical chain means missing opportunities to engage in conscious and automatic processing.
- Lack of a clear gap. Make sure to fully articulate the gap between the current state and the future goal.
- Too broad. Broadly scoped problem statements lead to "large, costly, and slow initiatives." Make sure to focus on an acute problem to bring quick results.
Structured Problem-Solving
Structured problem-solving mirrors the essential elements of the scientific method—testing hypotheses through controlled experimentation.
In the last two decades, the authors have honed a hybrid approach to guiding and reporting on structured problem-solving that is both simple and effective. They capture their approach in a version of Toyota’s famous A3 form that they have modified to enable its use for work in settings other than manufacturing. You can learn the steps for the A3 process in their MIT SMR article. Their process takes advantage of the innate processes of the brain to define and tackle inefficiencies.
You can also learn more about good problem formulation and structured problem-solving in Repenning’s related Executive Education course, Visual Management for Competitive Advantage: MIT's Approach to Efficient and Agile Work. Repenning also teaches in Leading Strategic Change and in the self-paced online courses Business Process Design for Strategic Management and Business Sustainability Strategy.