The Problem With Problem-Solving

Just this past week, Seamus Maguire publsihed a book entitled Finding Fact Before Fixing: How Business Professionals Can Avoid False Assumptions When Solving Problems, which explores the reasons, biases, and blind spots that result in business professionals making assumptions and jumping to conclusions during problem-solving.

During a recent conversation with Seamus, I asked him: "What are some of the common mistakes business leaders make when problem-solving?" Here is his answer:

It’s my opinion that assumptions, not complexity, are the biggest obstacle to effective problem solving today.

There are a myriad of tools and frameworks that we can follow, from DMAIC to A3 and everything in between. However, even when these tools and frameworks are followed and we have the right people, problem-solving activities can still fall short.

The issue lies not in the tools themselves but rather in how people are hardwired to focus on fast results.

This creates a subconscious tendency to accept our best guesses as facts. We regularly skip the part of an investigation that requires experimental work or going to the gemba to observe.

This tendency is so subtle that we often don’t even realise we are doing it. Often, the potential causes feel so right and are so logical that it seems a waste of time to challenge them through experimentation.

The thing is, we will always be wrong more often than we are right in problem solving, and that’s ok! We can’t think our way out of a problem; if we could, well, it wouldn’t be a problem.

The alternative takes a little more work; it involves creating a way to test our hypothesis so that we learn more about the process/product in question until we reach the point where our knowledge encompasses the problem. At this point, it is no longer a problem.

That’s why true root causes often seem so obvious in hindsight. Until we have the knowledge, the issue is super complex. Then, once we gain the required knowledge, the problem becomes simple and mundane overnight, and you scratch your head, asking why it took so long to figure it out.

So next time you are asking for an update on a problem-solving activity, instead of asking ‘Have you got to root cause yet?’, or, ‘What’s the root cause?’, maybe ask, ‘What have you experimentally ruled out so far?’, or, ‘How did you confirm that?’ This will shift the focus to how problem-solving is conducted, rather than encouraging the team to accept assumptions as fact to achieve a quick result.

What do you think of Seamus's perspective? Do these types of mistakes happen in your organization? What have you done to rectify them? 

Do Managers Truly Understand How to Measure Critical Success Factors (CSFs)?

Earlier this month, I spoke with James H. Dobbins about his latest book, Critical Success Factors: How to Effectively Identify, Measure, and Apply CSFs, which equips managers with a practical framework to accurately identify, measure, and apply their critical success factors (CSFs). Unlike previous efforts that relied on broad surveys and statistical analyses intended to generate generalized lists of CSFs, this approach honors the foundational definition of CSFs and provides actionable guidance tailored to each manager’s unique context.

During our conversation, I asked James, "What are the biggest mistakes managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs)?" Here is his complete answer:

The biggest mistake managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs) is failing to understand what CSFs are in the first place. Managers turn to the results of research by others, projects often done by academics in the pursuit of an advanced degree. The research objective is to produce a list of generalized CSFs.  Once the list is published, the research is completed, the degree is granted, and the researcher goes on with their life. No measures are suggested. Many researchers worldwide, all with the same objective, have published different sets of CSFs. There is no guidance on which list to use. The biggest problem is that all the research was conducted using surveys of large numbers of managers, and there has never been a valid list of CSFs produced from surveys. Using surveys to identify CSFs has several fundamental flaws.  Some, noted in the Introduction to the book, are:

• The assumption that project managers know how to identify their CSFs,
• The failure to recognize that CSFs are contextually relevant to the manager, and therefore, the elimination of anything not generalizable, is contrary to the definition of CSF.
• The failure to understand that Critical Success Factors are, in fact, critical for a specific manager, and that all must be done well.  CSFs are not something you pick from a menu, like a survey result, hoping you chose the right ones.
• The absence of any longitudinal studies. There was no follow-up with any of the managers surveyed to validate the study's results or to determine whether and how they utilized the CSFs identified in the survey.
• There was no attempt to identify measures for the identified CSFs to help managers track their success in meeting the CSFs.  

Does your company actively use and apply critical success factors (CSFs) in its operations? Does your organization rely on surveys to determine which CSFs to prioritize? And do you agree with the mistakes James H. Dobbins identifies in this area?