Problem solving
Problem solving is a large topic and there probably isn’t one right approach. This post is focused on just one element of problem solving that has helped me and I feel like it is often overlooked.
When I started my career as an auditor, the Partner on my first job asked a question of the team that has resonated with me ever since. We were busy auditing all the London-based entities of a multinational business. We audited every single account on the balance sheet and performed standard audit tests on the P&L. If you had asked us anything about the business’s cash on hand, bad debts, major suppliers we would have known the answer. We could have discussed the application of accounting rules and provided a list of controls improvements for management. The Partner didn’t ask us anything about this, the Partner asked instead, without looking at the files, which of the entities we were working on were profitable? These were numbers that had been starring at us through the entire audit and yet we couldn’t give an answer. Rather than thinking about the business as a whole, we had jumped straight into the details. Aside from the acute embarrassment at the time, it was a memorable lesson early in my career.
This week’s blog is on the initial part of problem-solving; understanding the problem before moving to solving the problem. I’m sure I am not alone on this, but when I am confronted with a problem, I rush to find solutions. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but I now realize that the best solutions usually emerge when I have thought about and simplified the actual problem itself. I assume that everyone will have felt that wonderful eureka moment when an idea comes to you from seemingly nowhere. I recently noticed I get that eureka moment not just for solutions to problems, but also when I can clearly see and define a problem for what it is.
I have come up with a theory (and apologies if someone else has already thought of this). My theory is that there are no complicated problems, only complicated solutions. At one level this is purely a play on the words we use by replacing “this problem is complicated” with “solving this problem is complicated”. But, given the power of the language we use on the way we think, if we put the emphasis of complexity in the correct area, I think we can derive some benefit by understanding a problem and expressing it in its most simple form.
Most problems come wrapped up in vested interests, previous experiences, time pressure, untested assumptions, fear of failure, internal and external competition, incomplete or asymmetric data, non-alignment with strategic goals and other issues. By stripping the layers away and expressing a problem in its simplest form, you give space for a wider range of solutions to be discussed without that associated baggage. When a problem is expressed in its simplest form you may also more readily see the connections between different problems. By solving for one problem, you may have deliberately created a solution that helps across multiple problems. Some problems aren’t urgent and shouldn’t be prioritized at all. Simple problems are easier to align with strategic goals and therefore more likely to get management support. When problems are expressed in their simplest form, it also easier to brainstorm potential solutions with colleagues and quickly eliminate solutions that don’t fully solve the problem.
Often problems relate to transactions and involve two or more participants. One of my favorite processes is to express the top-level interests of each participant (e.g. Partner A makes product X and wants to sell it to Partner B who needs it to do Y). Even this simple statement can reset our mental thoughts and allow us to think more creatively about the deal negotiation. Where this becomes more useful is when deals become more complicated with additional partners or where a partner is contributing more than a product or payment for a product. Expressing this in a simple summary elevates our thinking and is a helpful, if not essential, first step prior to considering solutions. At this point you have defined the problem and can identify all the parties and their relative importance in the deal. My next step would be to overlay the risks and rewards associated with each participant. For example: Partner A is looking to contribute x and wants to take y in return. One you have established this then you have a complete picture of the problem you are trying to solve and an early idea of whether the deal feels balanced.
Examples of other problems where this approach could be helpful are investment cases, efficiency programs, capability assessments, organization design and new ideas. If you can express the problem you are trying to solve as simply as possible, it becomes easier to explain, easier to rank in priority, easier to discuss in relevant groups and easier to measure the success of solutions.
I will end this with an example closer to home. As an expat Brit I have been asked about my views on BREXIT many times. For those followed the news, the British exit from the European Union seemed to become a complicated political mess. The original vote became mired in disagreement about what BREXIT really meant and why had people voted for it. All of this was political conjecture and emotionally charged public debate. But the problem of BREXIT is surprisingly simple to express. How can one country move from an existing trading relationship to a different trading relationship with its closest geographical neighbors? That isn’t to detract at all from the complexity of the solutions and the negotiations. But when expressed in these terms it does feel less emotional and imminently more solvable.
As always, I am interested in your thoughts on this. Next week I want to write about the role confidence plays in my performance at work and life in general.