basic assumptions of problem solving model

Critical & Creative Thinking - OER & More Resources: IDEAL problem solving

• Self evaluation
• Creating goals
• Creating personal mission statement
• Creative Thinking
• Problem Solving
• IDEAL problem solving
• CRITICAL THINKING
• Critical Thinking Tips
• Logic Terms
• Logic Traps
• Free OER Textbooks
• More Thinking: OER
• Ethics - OER Textbooks
• Evidence-Based Critical Thinking
• BELIEFS & BIAS
• Limits of Perception
• Reality & Assumptions
• Stereotypes & Race
• MAKING YOUR CASE
• Argument (OER)
• Inductive Arguments
• Information Literacy: Be Savvy about your Sources
• Persuasive Speaking (OER)
• Philosophy & Thinking
• WiPhi Philosophy Project
• Browse All Guides

VM: I had to inter-library loan this item to read the original content.  This is highly cited throughout literature, so I wanted to have a good grasp on what it covered.  Here are my notes and commentary:

•  Full text From TNtech.edu: "Ideal Problem Solver, 2 ed." (c) 1984, 1993 more... less... Thanks to Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning - Reports & Publications"
• Full text from ERIC: The IDEAL Workplace: Strategies for Improving Learning, Problem Solving, and Creativity
• Show your support: The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide to Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity Second Edition

The reason you should learn the IDEAL method is so you don't need to avoid problems.  The more know about and practice problem solving, the easier it gets.  It is learnable skill. It also prompts you to look for problems and solutions instead of just doing things the same old way.

Improvement of problem solving skills.  

Model for analyzing the processes that underlie effective problem solving.

IDEAL Model for improving problem solving (Verbatim copy of Fig 2.1; p.12)

I = Identifying the problem.

D = Define and represent the problem.

E = Explore possible strategies.

A = Act on the strategies.

L = Look back and evaluate the effects of your activities.

ELABORATION:

I = Identifying that there is a problem that, once described as a problem, may be solved or improved.

D = Define and represent the problem.  Draw it instead of trying to imagine it.

E = Explore possible strategies & alternative approaches or viewpoints. 

General strategies: Break problem down into small simple problems. Working a problem backwards. Build scale model Try simulation experiment, with smaller or simpler sets.

A = Act on the strategies. Try, then reflect or recall. Actively try learning strategy.

L = Look back and evaluate the effects of your activities. Look at results of learning strategy used: Does it work to allow full recall?

"Many students make the mistake of assuming that they have "learned" adequately if the information seems to make sense as they read it in a textbook or hear it in a lecture."    (p. 23" Must  use or practice, recall, or paraphrase - in order to evaluate effectiveness of learning.  

Math: Do example problems before looking at solution to practice concepts.  Look at solution to see where you went wrong (or not). 

Don't let the test be the first time you evaluate your understanding of material

Problem identification and definition.

Proof of concept - act/look/evaluate.

To find an answer to a problem, you can dig deeper, or dig somewhere else.  

Question assumptions about limits  The old - think outside the box- strategy.

When memorizing, know what you need to remember  Definitions?  Concepts? Graphs?  Dates?  each teacher has different priorities...ask them what to focus on

Ways to solve problem of learning new information.

Techniques for improving memory.

Short term meomory

Long term memory

Remembering people's names

Studying for an essay test.

Using cues to retrieve information.  For example, you can remember IDEAL first and that will help you reconstruct the idea of how to solve problems.

Some strategies for remembering information:

Make a story full of memorable images.  

Funny obnoxious "vivid images" or "mental pictures" are more memorabl e. (Ex: random words in a list, passwords, people's names. Banana vomit haunts me.)

Rehearse over and over - over learn.   (Ex: Memorizing a phone number 867-5309 )

Rehearse words in groups - chunking. (Ex: Memorizing a part in a play, poems, pledges, short stories.)

Organize words into conceptual categories - Look for unifying relationships. (Recall, order not important. Ex: Shopping list, points in an essay.)

Look for similarities and coincidences in the words themselves. (Ex: How many words have e's, or 2 syllables, or have pun-ishing homonyms)

The feet that use the manual transmission car pedals are, from left to right: ​ C ( L eft-foot) utch , the  B( R ight-foot) ake , and the  A ccelerato ( R ight-foot)

Does order mimic alphabetical order? The manual transmission car pedals are, from left to right, the C lutch, the B rake, and the A ccelerator )   

Use Acronyms I dentify D efine ​E xplore A ct ​L ook

Acronym- easily remembered word: FACE

Acrostic- easily remembered phrase:    E very G ood B oy D eserves F udge

• Modified image source: Commons.wikimedia.org

Don't waste time studying what you already know

Image - Name Strategy:

What is unique about the person?  What is unique about their name?

Find a relationship between the two.

Other Pairing Strategies:

method of loci: arranging words to be remembered in association with familiar location or path .

Peg-word method: arranging words to be remembered in association with number order or alphabet letter order .

Strategies to comprehend new information.

more difficult than

Strategies to memorize new information.

Learning with understanding - comprehending new information.

Knowledge of CORE CONCEPTS in a field SIMPLIFIES problem solving. 

Ways to approach a problem of learning information that seems to be arbitrary:

Over-learn:  rehearse the facts until they are mastered.  2+2=4

Find relationships between images or words that are memorable: story telling, silmilarieties, vivid images, pegging, etc.

When a concept seems unclear, learn more about it.

Memory- can be of seemingly arbitrary words or numbers: ROTE (Ex. Facts and relationships) appearance

Comprehension - is understanding significance or relationships or function

Novices often forced to memorize information until they learn enough (related concepts and context) to understand it.

The mere memorization of information rarely provides useful conceptual tools that enable one to solve new problems later on. (p. 61,69)

Taking notes will not necessarily lead to effective recall prompts. How do you know when you understand material? Self-test by trying to explain material to another person.That will expose gaps in understanding.

Recall answers or solve problems out of order to be sure you know which concepts to apply and why.

Look at mistakes made as soon as possible, and learn where you went wrong.

Uses of information require more or less precision in understanding, depending on context. (A pilot must know more about an airplane than a passenger.)

Evaluation basics: evaluate factual claims look for flaws in logic question assumptions that form the basis of the argument

Correlation does not necessarily prove cause and effect.

Importance of being able to criticize ideas and generate alternatives.

Strategies for effective criticism.

Strategies for formulating creative solutions.

Finding/understanding implicit assumptions that hamper brainstorming.

Strategies for making implicit assumptions explicit.

"The uncreative mind can spot wrong answers, but it takes a creative mnd to spot wrong questions ." Emphasis added. - Anthony Jay, (p.93)

Making implicit assumptions explicit: look for inconsistencies question assumptions make predictions analyze worst case get feedback & criticism from others

Increase generation of novel ideas: break down problem into smaller parts analyze properties on a simpler level use analogies use brainstorming give it a rest, sleep on it don't be in a hurry, let ideas incubate: ​talk to others, read, keep the problem in the back of your mind try to communicate your ideas as clearly as possible, preferably in writing. attempting to write or teach an idea can function as a discovery technique

Strategies for Effective Communication

What we are trying to accomplish (goal)

Evaluating communication fro effectiveness:

Identify and Define: Have you given audience basis to understand different points of view about a topic? Different problem definitions can lead to different solutions. Did you Explore pros and cons of different strategies? Did you take Action and then Look at consequences? Did you organize your content into main points that are easy to identify and remeber?

Did you use analogies and background information to put facts into context?

Did you make sure your facts were accurate and did you avoid making assumptions?Always check for logical fallacies and inconsistencies.  Did you include information that is novel and useful, instead of just regurgitating what everyone already knows?

After you communicate, get feedback and evaluate your strategies.  Look for effects, and learn from your mistakes.  (p. 117)

Identify and Define what (problem) you want to communicate, with respect to your audience and your goals. Explore strategies for communicating your ideas.Act - based on your strategies. Look at effects.

Summaries of Useful  Attitudes and Strategies: Anybody can use the IDEAL system to improve their problem solving skills.

Related Resources:

• Teaching The IDEAL Problem-Solving Method To Diverse Learners Written by: Amy Sippl
• << Previous: Problem Solving
• Next: CRITICAL THINKING >>
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 3:04 PM
• URL: https://library.fvtc.edu/Thinking

About Us • Contact Us • FVTC Terms of Service • Sitemap FVTC Privacy Statement • FVTC Library Services Accessibility Statement DISCLAIMER: Any commercial mentions on our website are for instructional purposes only. Our guides are not a substitute for professional legal or medical advice. Fox Valley Technical College • Library Services • 1825 N. Bluemound Drive • Room G113 Appleton, WI 54912-2277 • United States • (920) 735-5653 © 2024 • Fox Valley Technical College • All Rights Reserved.

The https://library.fvtc.edu/ pages are hosted by SpringShare. Springshare Privacy Policy.

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 4 min read

The Problem-Solving Process

Looking at the basic problem-solving process to help keep you on the right track.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Problem-solving is an important part of planning and decision-making. The process has much in common with the decision-making process, and in the case of complex decisions, can form part of the process itself.

We face and solve problems every day, in a variety of guises and of differing complexity. Some, such as the resolution of a serious complaint, require a significant amount of time, thought and investigation. Others, such as a printer running out of paper, are so quickly resolved they barely register as a problem at all.

Despite the everyday occurrence of problems, many people lack confidence when it comes to solving them, and as a result may chose to stay with the status quo rather than tackle the issue. Broken down into steps, however, the problem-solving process is very simple. While there are many tools and techniques available to help us solve problems, the outline process remains the same.

The main stages of problem-solving are outlined below, though not all are required for every problem that needs to be solved.

1. Define the Problem

Clarify the problem before trying to solve it. A common mistake with problem-solving is to react to what the problem appears to be, rather than what it actually is. Write down a simple statement of the problem, and then underline the key words. Be certain there are no hidden assumptions in the key words you have underlined. One way of doing this is to use a synonym to replace the key words. For example, ‘We need to encourage higher productivity ’ might become ‘We need to promote superior output ’ which has a different meaning.

2. Analyze the Problem

Ask yourself, and others, the following questions.

• Where is the problem occurring?
• When is it occurring?
• Why is it happening?

Be careful not to jump to ‘who is causing the problem?’. When stressed and faced with a problem it is all too easy to assign blame. This, however, can cause negative feeling and does not help to solve the problem. As an example, if an employee is underperforming, the root of the problem might lie in a number of areas, such as lack of training, workplace bullying or management style. To assign immediate blame to the employee would not therefore resolve the underlying issue.

Once the answers to the where, when and why have been determined, the following questions should also be asked:

• Where can further information be found?
• Is this information correct, up-to-date and unbiased?
• What does this information mean in terms of the available options?

3. Generate Potential Solutions

When generating potential solutions it can be a good idea to have a mixture of ‘right brain’ and ‘left brain’ thinkers. In other words, some people who think laterally and some who think logically. This provides a balance in terms of generating the widest possible variety of solutions while also being realistic about what can be achieved. There are many tools and techniques which can help produce solutions, including thinking about the problem from a number of different perspectives, and brainstorming, where a team or individual write as many possibilities as they can think of to encourage lateral thinking and generate a broad range of potential solutions.

4. Select Best Solution

When selecting the best solution, consider:

• Is this a long-term solution, or a ‘quick fix’?
• Is the solution achievable in terms of available resources and time?
• Are there any risks associated with the chosen solution?
• Could the solution, in itself, lead to other problems?

This stage in particular demonstrates why problem-solving and decision-making are so closely related.

5. Take Action

In order to implement the chosen solution effectively, consider the following:

• What will the situation look like when the problem is resolved?
• What needs to be done to implement the solution? Are there systems or processes that need to be adjusted?
• What will be the success indicators?
• What are the timescales for the implementation? Does the scale of the problem/implementation require a project plan?
• Who is responsible?

Once the answers to all the above questions are written down, they can form the basis of an action plan.

6. Monitor and Review

One of the most important factors in successful problem-solving is continual observation and feedback. Use the success indicators in the action plan to monitor progress on a regular basis. Is everything as expected? Is everything on schedule? Keep an eye on priorities and timelines to prevent them from slipping.

If the indicators are not being met, or if timescales are slipping, consider what can be done. Was the plan realistic? If so, are sufficient resources being made available? Are these resources targeting the correct part of the plan? Or does the plan need to be amended? Regular review and discussion of the action plan is important so small adjustments can be made on a regular basis to help keep everything on track.

Once all the indicators have been met and the problem has been resolved, consider what steps can now be taken to prevent this type of problem recurring? It may be that the chosen solution already prevents a recurrence, however if an interim or partial solution has been chosen it is important not to lose momentum.

Problems, by their very nature, will not always fit neatly into a structured problem-solving process. This process, therefore, is designed as a framework which can be adapted to individual needs and nature.

Join Mind Tools and get access to exclusive content.

This resource is only available to Mind Tools members.

Already a member? Please Login here

Team Management

Learn the key aspects of managing a team, from building and developing your team, to working with different types of teams, and troubleshooting common problems.

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

SWOT Analysis

How to Build a Strong Culture in a Distributed Team

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Top tips for delegating.

Delegate work to your team members effectively with these top tips

Ten Dos and Don'ts of Change Conversations

Tips for tackling discussions about change

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

How to create brand champions.

A Seven-Step Methodology to Help Create Brand Champions in an Organization

How to Guides

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• The Art of Effective Problem Solving: A Step-by-Step Guide
• Learn Lean Sigma
• Problem Solving

Whether we realise it or not, problem solving skills are an important part of our daily lives. From resolving a minor annoyance at home to tackling complex business challenges at work, our ability to solve problems has a significant impact on our success and happiness. However, not everyone is naturally gifted at problem-solving, and even those who are can always improve their skills. In this blog post, we will go over the art of effective problem-solving step by step.

You will learn how to define a problem, gather information, assess alternatives, and implement a solution, all while honing your critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills. Whether you’re a seasoned problem solver or just getting started, this guide will arm you with the knowledge and tools you need to face any challenge with confidence. So let’s get started!

Table of Contents

Problem solving methodologies.

Individuals and organisations can use a variety of problem-solving methodologies to address complex challenges. 8D and A3 problem solving techniques are two popular methodologies in the Lean Six Sigma framework.

Methodology of 8D (Eight Discipline) Problem Solving:

The 8D problem solving methodology is a systematic, team-based approach to problem solving. It is a method that guides a team through eight distinct steps to solve a problem in a systematic and comprehensive manner.

The 8D process consists of the following steps:

• Form a team: Assemble a group of people who have the necessary expertise to work on the problem.
• Define the issue: Clearly identify and define the problem, including the root cause and the customer impact.
• Create a temporary containment plan: Put in place a plan to lessen the impact of the problem until a permanent solution can be found.
• Identify the root cause: To identify the underlying causes of the problem, use root cause analysis techniques such as Fishbone diagrams and Pareto charts.
• Create and test long-term corrective actions: Create and test a long-term solution to eliminate the root cause of the problem.
• Implement and validate the permanent solution: Implement and validate the permanent solution’s effectiveness.
• Prevent recurrence: Put in place measures to keep the problem from recurring.
• Recognize and reward the team: Recognize and reward the team for its efforts.

Download the 8D Problem Solving Template

A3 Problem Solving Method:

The A3 problem solving technique is a visual, team-based problem-solving approach that is frequently used in Lean Six Sigma projects. The A3 report is a one-page document that clearly and concisely outlines the problem, root cause analysis, and proposed solution.

The A3 problem-solving procedure consists of the following steps:

• Determine the issue: Define the issue clearly, including its impact on the customer.
• Perform root cause analysis: Identify the underlying causes of the problem using root cause analysis techniques.
• Create and implement a solution: Create and implement a solution that addresses the problem’s root cause.
• Monitor and improve the solution: Keep an eye on the solution’s effectiveness and make any necessary changes.

Subsequently, in the Lean Six Sigma framework, the 8D and A3 problem solving methodologies are two popular approaches to problem solving. Both methodologies provide a structured, team-based problem-solving approach that guides individuals through a comprehensive and systematic process of identifying, analysing, and resolving problems in an effective and efficient manner.

Step 1 – Define the Problem

The definition of the problem is the first step in effective problem solving. This may appear to be a simple task, but it is actually quite difficult. This is because problems are frequently complex and multi-layered, making it easy to confuse symptoms with the underlying cause. To avoid this pitfall, it is critical to thoroughly understand the problem.

To begin, ask yourself some clarifying questions:

• What exactly is the issue?
• What are the problem’s symptoms or consequences?
• Who or what is impacted by the issue?
• When and where does the issue arise?

Answering these questions will assist you in determining the scope of the problem. However, simply describing the problem is not always sufficient; you must also identify the root cause. The root cause is the underlying cause of the problem and is usually the key to resolving it permanently.

Try asking “why” questions to find the root cause:

• What causes the problem?
• Why does it continue?
• Why does it have the effects that it does?

By repeatedly asking “ why ,” you’ll eventually get to the bottom of the problem. This is an important step in the problem-solving process because it ensures that you’re dealing with the root cause rather than just the symptoms.

Once you have a firm grasp on the issue, it is time to divide it into smaller, more manageable chunks. This makes tackling the problem easier and reduces the risk of becoming overwhelmed. For example, if you’re attempting to solve a complex business problem, you might divide it into smaller components like market research, product development, and sales strategies.

To summarise step 1, defining the problem is an important first step in effective problem-solving. You will be able to identify the root cause and break it down into manageable parts if you take the time to thoroughly understand the problem. This will prepare you for the next step in the problem-solving process, which is gathering information and brainstorming ideas.

Step 2 – Gather Information and Brainstorm Ideas

Gathering information and brainstorming ideas is the next step in effective problem solving. This entails researching the problem and relevant information, collaborating with others, and coming up with a variety of potential solutions. This increases your chances of finding the best solution to the problem.

Begin by researching the problem and relevant information. This could include reading articles, conducting surveys, or consulting with experts. The goal is to collect as much information as possible in order to better understand the problem and possible solutions.

Next, work with others to gather a variety of perspectives. Brainstorming with others can be an excellent way to come up with new and creative ideas. Encourage everyone to share their thoughts and ideas when working in a group, and make an effort to actively listen to what others have to say. Be open to new and unconventional ideas and resist the urge to dismiss them too quickly.

Finally, use brainstorming to generate a wide range of potential solutions. This is the place where you can let your imagination run wild. At this stage, don’t worry about the feasibility or practicality of the solutions; instead, focus on generating as many ideas as possible. Write down everything that comes to mind, no matter how ridiculous or unusual it may appear. This can be done individually or in groups.

Once you’ve compiled a list of potential solutions, it’s time to assess them and select the best one. This is the next step in the problem-solving process, which we’ll go over in greater detail in the following section.

Step 3 – Evaluate Options and Choose the Best Solution

Once you’ve compiled a list of potential solutions, it’s time to assess them and select the best one. This is the third step in effective problem solving, and it entails weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each solution, considering their feasibility and practicability, and selecting the solution that is most likely to solve the problem effectively.

To begin, weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each solution. This will assist you in determining the potential outcomes of each solution and deciding which is the best option. For example, a quick and easy solution may not be the most effective in the long run, whereas a more complex and time-consuming solution may be more effective in solving the problem in the long run.

Consider each solution’s feasibility and practicability. Consider the following:

• Can the solution be implemented within the available resources, time, and budget?
• What are the possible barriers to implementing the solution?
• Is the solution feasible in today’s political, economic, and social environment?

You’ll be able to tell which solutions are likely to succeed and which aren’t by assessing their feasibility and practicability.

Finally, choose the solution that is most likely to effectively solve the problem. This solution should be based on the criteria you’ve established, such as the advantages and disadvantages of each solution, their feasibility and practicability, and your overall goals.

It is critical to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to problems. What is effective for one person or situation may not be effective for another. This is why it is critical to consider a wide range of solutions and evaluate each one based on its ability to effectively solve the problem.

Step 4 – Implement and Monitor the Solution

When you’ve decided on the best solution, it’s time to put it into action. The fourth and final step in effective problem solving is to put the solution into action, monitor its progress, and make any necessary adjustments.

To begin, implement the solution. This may entail delegating tasks, developing a strategy, and allocating resources. Ascertain that everyone involved understands their role and responsibilities in the solution’s implementation.

Next, keep an eye on the solution’s progress. This may entail scheduling regular check-ins, tracking metrics, and soliciting feedback from others. You will be able to identify any potential roadblocks and make any necessary adjustments in a timely manner if you monitor the progress of the solution.

Finally, make any necessary modifications to the solution. This could entail changing the solution, altering the plan of action, or delegating different tasks. Be willing to make changes if they will improve the solution or help it solve the problem more effectively.

It’s important to remember that problem solving is an iterative process, and there may be times when you need to start from scratch. This is especially true if the initial solution does not effectively solve the problem. In these situations, it’s critical to be adaptable and flexible and to keep trying new solutions until you find the one that works best.

To summarise, effective problem solving is a critical skill that can assist individuals and organisations in overcoming challenges and achieving their objectives. Effective problem solving consists of four key steps: defining the problem, generating potential solutions, evaluating alternatives and selecting the best solution, and implementing the solution.

You can increase your chances of success in problem solving by following these steps and considering factors such as the pros and cons of each solution, their feasibility and practicability, and making any necessary adjustments. Furthermore, keep in mind that problem solving is an iterative process, and there may be times when you need to go back to the beginning and restart. Maintain your adaptability and try new solutions until you find the one that works best for you.

• Novick, L.R. and Bassok, M., 2005.  Problem Solving . Cambridge University Press.

Daniel Croft

Daniel Croft is a seasoned continuous improvement manager with a Black Belt in Lean Six Sigma. With over 10 years of real-world application experience across diverse sectors, Daniel has a passion for optimizing processes and fostering a culture of efficiency. He's not just a practitioner but also an avid learner, constantly seeking to expand his knowledge. Outside of his professional life, Daniel has a keen Investing, statistics and knowledge-sharing, which led him to create the website learnleansigma.com, a platform dedicated to Lean Six Sigma and process improvement insights.

Free Lean Six Sigma Templates

Improve your Lean Six Sigma projects with our free templates. They're designed to make implementation and management easier, helping you achieve better results.

5S Floor Marking Best Practices

In lean manufacturing, the 5S System is a foundational tool, involving the steps: Sort, Set…

How to Measure the ROI of Continuous Improvement Initiatives

When it comes to business, knowing the value you’re getting for your money is crucial,…

8D Problem-Solving: Common Mistakes to Avoid

In today’s competitive business landscape, effective problem-solving is the cornerstone of organizational success. The 8D…

The Evolution of 8D Problem-Solving: From Basics to Excellence

In a world where efficiency and effectiveness are more than just buzzwords, the need for…

8D: Tools and Techniques

Are you grappling with recurring problems in your organization and searching for a structured way…

How to Select the Right Lean Six Sigma Projects: A Comprehensive Guide

Going on a Lean Six Sigma journey is an invigorating experience filled with opportunities for…

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Assumptions of problem-solving methods and their role in knowledge engineering

Related Papers

International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Dieter Fensel

Remco Straatman

Springer eBooks

Data & Knowledge Engineering

Ecological Entomology

Rix Groenboom

Padraig Cunningham

Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) has emerged from research in cognitive psychology as a model of human memory and remembering. It has been embraced by researchers of AI applications as a methodology that avoids some of the knowledge acquisition and reasoning problems that occur with other methods for developing knowledge-based systems. In this paper we propose that, in developing knowledge based systems, knowledge engineering addresses two tasks.

The paper introduces a software architecture for the specification and verification of knowledge-based systems combining conceptual and formal techniques. Our focus is component-based specification enabling their reuse. We identify four elements of the specification of a knowledge-based system: a task definition, a problem-solving method, a domain model, and an adapter. We present algebraic specifications and a variant of dynamic logic as formal means to specify and verify these different elements. As a consequence of our architecture we can decompose the overall specification and verification task of the knowledge-based systems into subtasks. We identify different subcomponents for specification and different proof obligations for verification. The use of the architecture in specification and verification improves understandability and reduces the effort for both activities. In addition, its decomposition and modularisation enables reuse of components and proofs. Ther...

Jacky Akoka , Isabelle Comyn-wattiau

IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

RELATED PAPERS

Clinical Medicine Insights: Pathology

Nattapong Tulapunt

Jorge Villanova Biazus

S. Obayashi

Jurnal Manajemen Kesehatan Indonesia

Agus Adriansyah

Graham Holloway

Trends in Transplantation

Adrian Martínez

Dr Okezie O. Kanu

Baju Lurik by Rumah Jahit Azka

Cellular Immunology

Prof. Atanu Pati

Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development

hayder alshawi

Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Humanistyczno-Przyrodniczego im. Jana Długosza w Częstochowie. Zeszyty Historyczne

Marek Świerczek

Ron Brouwer

Confluências | Revista Interdisciplinar de Sociologia e Direito

Rony Oliveira

Bruno Neves

Extensão em Foco

Bettina Ruppelt

Proceedings of the 13th Seminar on Power Electronics and Control (SEPOC 2021)

MARCOS ALVES DOS SANTOS

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

The Journal of Supercomputing

Morteza Adeli

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Physical Review C

Integralistik

dina indriyani

Stephan Bohlhalter

Scientific Reports

Journal of Urological Surgery

William Dooley

Samuel Wedderburn

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

In this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , Simon London speaks with Charles Conn, CEO of venture-capital firm Oxford Sciences Innovation, and McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin about the complexities of different problem-solving strategies.

Podcast transcript

Simon London: Hello, and welcome to this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , with me, Simon London. What’s the number-one skill you need to succeed professionally? Salesmanship, perhaps? Or a facility with statistics? Or maybe the ability to communicate crisply and clearly? Many would argue that at the very top of the list comes problem solving: that is, the ability to think through and come up with an optimal course of action to address any complex challenge—in business, in public policy, or indeed in life.

Looked at this way, it’s no surprise that McKinsey takes problem solving very seriously, testing for it during the recruiting process and then honing it, in McKinsey consultants, through immersion in a structured seven-step method. To discuss the art of problem solving, I sat down in California with McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin and also with Charles Conn. Charles is a former McKinsey partner, entrepreneur, executive, and coauthor of the book Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything [John Wiley & Sons, 2018].

Charles and Hugo, welcome to the podcast. Thank you for being here.

Hugo Sarrazin: Our pleasure.

Charles Conn: It’s terrific to be here.

Simon London: Problem solving is a really interesting piece of terminology. It could mean so many different things. I have a son who’s a teenage climber. They talk about solving problems. Climbing is problem solving. Charles, when you talk about problem solving, what are you talking about?

Charles Conn: For me, problem solving is the answer to the question “What should I do?” It’s interesting when there’s uncertainty and complexity, and when it’s meaningful because there are consequences. Your son’s climbing is a perfect example. There are consequences, and it’s complicated, and there’s uncertainty—can he make that grab? I think we can apply that same frame almost at any level. You can think about questions like “What town would I like to live in?” or “Should I put solar panels on my roof?”

You might think that’s a funny thing to apply problem solving to, but in my mind it’s not fundamentally different from business problem solving, which answers the question “What should my strategy be?” Or problem solving at the policy level: “How do we combat climate change?” “Should I support the local school bond?” I think these are all part and parcel of the same type of question, “What should I do?”

I’m a big fan of structured problem solving. By following steps, we can more clearly understand what problem it is we’re solving, what are the components of the problem that we’re solving, which components are the most important ones for us to pay attention to, which analytic techniques we should apply to those, and how we can synthesize what we’ve learned back into a compelling story. That’s all it is, at its heart.

I think sometimes when people think about seven steps, they assume that there’s a rigidity to this. That’s not it at all. It’s actually to give you the scope for creativity, which often doesn’t exist when your problem solving is muddled.

Simon London: You were just talking about the seven-step process. That’s what’s written down in the book, but it’s a very McKinsey process as well. Without getting too deep into the weeds, let’s go through the steps, one by one. You were just talking about problem definition as being a particularly important thing to get right first. That’s the first step. Hugo, tell us about that.

Hugo Sarrazin: It is surprising how often people jump past this step and make a bunch of assumptions. The most powerful thing is to step back and ask the basic questions—“What are we trying to solve? What are the constraints that exist? What are the dependencies?” Let’s make those explicit and really push the thinking and defining. At McKinsey, we spend an enormous amount of time in writing that little statement, and the statement, if you’re a logic purist, is great. You debate. “Is it an ‘or’? Is it an ‘and’? What’s the action verb?” Because all these specific words help you get to the heart of what matters.

Want to subscribe to The McKinsey Podcast ?

Simon London: So this is a concise problem statement.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah. It’s not like “Can we grow in Japan?” That’s interesting, but it is “What, specifically, are we trying to uncover in the growth of a product in Japan? Or a segment in Japan? Or a channel in Japan?” When you spend an enormous amount of time, in the first meeting of the different stakeholders, debating this and having different people put forward what they think the problem definition is, you realize that people have completely different views of why they’re here. That, to me, is the most important step.

Charles Conn: I would agree with that. For me, the problem context is critical. When we understand “What are the forces acting upon your decision maker? How quickly is the answer needed? With what precision is the answer needed? Are there areas that are off limits or areas where we would particularly like to find our solution? Is the decision maker open to exploring other areas?” then you not only become more efficient, and move toward what we call the critical path in problem solving, but you also make it so much more likely that you’re not going to waste your time or your decision maker’s time.

How often do especially bright young people run off with half of the idea about what the problem is and start collecting data and start building models—only to discover that they’ve really gone off half-cocked.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah.

Charles Conn: And in the wrong direction.

Simon London: OK. So step one—and there is a real art and a structure to it—is define the problem. Step two, Charles?

Charles Conn: My favorite step is step two, which is to use logic trees to disaggregate the problem. Every problem we’re solving has some complexity and some uncertainty in it. The only way that we can really get our team working on the problem is to take the problem apart into logical pieces.

What we find, of course, is that the way to disaggregate the problem often gives you an insight into the answer to the problem quite quickly. I love to do two or three different cuts at it, each one giving a bit of a different insight into what might be going wrong. By doing sensible disaggregations, using logic trees, we can figure out which parts of the problem we should be looking at, and we can assign those different parts to team members.

Simon London: What’s a good example of a logic tree on a sort of ratable problem?

Charles Conn: Maybe the easiest one is the classic profit tree. Almost in every business that I would take a look at, I would start with a profit or return-on-assets tree. In its simplest form, you have the components of revenue, which are price and quantity, and the components of cost, which are cost and quantity. Each of those can be broken out. Cost can be broken into variable cost and fixed cost. The components of price can be broken into what your pricing scheme is. That simple tree often provides insight into what’s going on in a business or what the difference is between that business and the competitors.

If we add the leg, which is “What’s the asset base or investment element?”—so profit divided by assets—then we can ask the question “Is the business using its investments sensibly?” whether that’s in stores or in manufacturing or in transportation assets. I hope we can see just how simple this is, even though we’re describing it in words.

When I went to work with Gordon Moore at the Moore Foundation, the problem that he asked us to look at was “How can we save Pacific salmon?” Now, that sounds like an impossible question, but it was amenable to precisely the same type of disaggregation and allowed us to organize what became a 15-year effort to improve the likelihood of good outcomes for Pacific salmon.

Simon London: Now, is there a danger that your logic tree can be impossibly large? This, I think, brings us onto the third step in the process, which is that you have to prioritize.

Charles Conn: Absolutely. The third step, which we also emphasize, along with good problem definition, is rigorous prioritization—we ask the questions “How important is this lever or this branch of the tree in the overall outcome that we seek to achieve? How much can I move that lever?” Obviously, we try and focus our efforts on ones that have a big impact on the problem and the ones that we have the ability to change. With salmon, ocean conditions turned out to be a big lever, but not one that we could adjust. We focused our attention on fish habitats and fish-harvesting practices, which were big levers that we could affect.

People spend a lot of time arguing about branches that are either not important or that none of us can change. We see it in the public square. When we deal with questions at the policy level—“Should you support the death penalty?” “How do we affect climate change?” “How can we uncover the causes and address homelessness?”—it’s even more important that we’re focusing on levers that are big and movable.

Would you like to learn more about our Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice ?

Simon London: Let’s move swiftly on to step four. You’ve defined your problem, you disaggregate it, you prioritize where you want to analyze—what you want to really look at hard. Then you got to the work plan. Now, what does that mean in practice?

Hugo Sarrazin: Depending on what you’ve prioritized, there are many things you could do. It could be breaking the work among the team members so that people have a clear piece of the work to do. It could be defining the specific analyses that need to get done and executed, and being clear on time lines. There’s always a level-one answer, there’s a level-two answer, there’s a level-three answer. Without being too flippant, I can solve any problem during a good dinner with wine. It won’t have a whole lot of backing.

Simon London: Not going to have a lot of depth to it.

Hugo Sarrazin: No, but it may be useful as a starting point. If the stakes are not that high, that could be OK. If it’s really high stakes, you may need level three and have the whole model validated in three different ways. You need to find a work plan that reflects the level of precision, the time frame you have, and the stakeholders you need to bring along in the exercise.

Charles Conn: I love the way you’ve described that, because, again, some people think of problem solving as a linear thing, but of course what’s critical is that it’s iterative. As you say, you can solve the problem in one day or even one hour.

Charles Conn: We encourage our teams everywhere to do that. We call it the one-day answer or the one-hour answer. In work planning, we’re always iterating. Every time you see a 50-page work plan that stretches out to three months, you know it’s wrong. It will be outmoded very quickly by that learning process that you described. Iterative problem solving is a critical part of this. Sometimes, people think work planning sounds dull, but it isn’t. It’s how we know what’s expected of us and when we need to deliver it and how we’re progressing toward the answer. It’s also the place where we can deal with biases. Bias is a feature of every human decision-making process. If we design our team interactions intelligently, we can avoid the worst sort of biases.

Simon London: Here we’re talking about cognitive biases primarily, right? It’s not that I’m biased against you because of your accent or something. These are the cognitive biases that behavioral sciences have shown we all carry around, things like anchoring, overoptimism—these kinds of things.

Both: Yeah.

Charles Conn: Availability bias is the one that I’m always alert to. You think you’ve seen the problem before, and therefore what’s available is your previous conception of it—and we have to be most careful about that. In any human setting, we also have to be careful about biases that are based on hierarchies, sometimes called sunflower bias. I’m sure, Hugo, with your teams, you make sure that the youngest team members speak first. Not the oldest team members, because it’s easy for people to look at who’s senior and alter their own creative approaches.

Hugo Sarrazin: It’s helpful, at that moment—if someone is asserting a point of view—to ask the question “This was true in what context?” You’re trying to apply something that worked in one context to a different one. That can be deadly if the context has changed, and that’s why organizations struggle to change. You promote all these people because they did something that worked well in the past, and then there’s a disruption in the industry, and they keep doing what got them promoted even though the context has changed.

Simon London: Right. Right.

Hugo Sarrazin: So it’s the same thing in problem solving.

Charles Conn: And it’s why diversity in our teams is so important. It’s one of the best things about the world that we’re in now. We’re likely to have people from different socioeconomic, ethnic, and national backgrounds, each of whom sees problems from a slightly different perspective. It is therefore much more likely that the team will uncover a truly creative and clever approach to problem solving.

Simon London: Let’s move on to step five. You’ve done your work plan. Now you’ve actually got to do the analysis. The thing that strikes me here is that the range of tools that we have at our disposal now, of course, is just huge, particularly with advances in computation, advanced analytics. There’s so many things that you can apply here. Just talk about the analysis stage. How do you pick the right tools?

Charles Conn: For me, the most important thing is that we start with simple heuristics and explanatory statistics before we go off and use the big-gun tools. We need to understand the shape and scope of our problem before we start applying these massive and complex analytical approaches.

Simon London: Would you agree with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: I agree. I think there are so many wonderful heuristics. You need to start there before you go deep into the modeling exercise. There’s an interesting dynamic that’s happening, though. In some cases, for some types of problems, it is even better to set yourself up to maximize your learning. Your problem-solving methodology is test and learn, test and learn, test and learn, and iterate. That is a heuristic in itself, the A/B testing that is used in many parts of the world. So that’s a problem-solving methodology. It’s nothing different. It just uses technology and feedback loops in a fast way. The other one is exploratory data analysis. When you’re dealing with a large-scale problem, and there’s so much data, I can get to the heuristics that Charles was talking about through very clever visualization of data.

You test with your data. You need to set up an environment to do so, but don’t get caught up in neural-network modeling immediately. You’re testing, you’re checking—“Is the data right? Is it sound? Does it make sense?”—before you launch too far.

Simon London: You do hear these ideas—that if you have a big enough data set and enough algorithms, they’re going to find things that you just wouldn’t have spotted, find solutions that maybe you wouldn’t have thought of. Does machine learning sort of revolutionize the problem-solving process? Or are these actually just other tools in the toolbox for structured problem solving?

Charles Conn: It can be revolutionary. There are some areas in which the pattern recognition of large data sets and good algorithms can help us see things that we otherwise couldn’t see. But I do think it’s terribly important we don’t think that this particular technique is a substitute for superb problem solving, starting with good problem definition. Many people use machine learning without understanding algorithms that themselves can have biases built into them. Just as 20 years ago, when we were doing statistical analysis, we knew that we needed good model definition, we still need a good understanding of our algorithms and really good problem definition before we launch off into big data sets and unknown algorithms.

Simon London: Step six. You’ve done your analysis.

Charles Conn: I take six and seven together, and this is the place where young problem solvers often make a mistake. They’ve got their analysis, and they assume that’s the answer, and of course it isn’t the answer. The ability to synthesize the pieces that came out of the analysis and begin to weave those into a story that helps people answer the question “What should I do?” This is back to where we started. If we can’t synthesize, and we can’t tell a story, then our decision maker can’t find the answer to “What should I do?”

Simon London: But, again, these final steps are about motivating people to action, right?

Charles Conn: Yeah.

Simon London: I am slightly torn about the nomenclature of problem solving because it’s on paper, right? Until you motivate people to action, you actually haven’t solved anything.

Charles Conn: I love this question because I think decision-making theory, without a bias to action, is a waste of time. Everything in how I approach this is to help people take action that makes the world better.

Simon London: Hence, these are absolutely critical steps. If you don’t do this well, you’ve just got a bunch of analysis.

Charles Conn: We end up in exactly the same place where we started, which is people speaking across each other, past each other in the public square, rather than actually working together, shoulder to shoulder, to crack these important problems.

Simon London: In the real world, we have a lot of uncertainty—arguably, increasing uncertainty. How do good problem solvers deal with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: At every step of the process. In the problem definition, when you’re defining the context, you need to understand those sources of uncertainty and whether they’re important or not important. It becomes important in the definition of the tree.

You need to think carefully about the branches of the tree that are more certain and less certain as you define them. They don’t have equal weight just because they’ve got equal space on the page. Then, when you’re prioritizing, your prioritization approach may put more emphasis on things that have low probability but huge impact—or, vice versa, may put a lot of priority on things that are very likely and, hopefully, have a reasonable impact. You can introduce that along the way. When you come back to the synthesis, you just need to be nuanced about what you’re understanding, the likelihood.

Often, people lack humility in the way they make their recommendations: “This is the answer.” They’re very precise, and I think we would all be well-served to say, “This is a likely answer under the following sets of conditions” and then make the level of uncertainty clearer, if that is appropriate. It doesn’t mean you’re always in the gray zone; it doesn’t mean you don’t have a point of view. It just means that you can be explicit about the certainty of your answer when you make that recommendation.

Simon London: So it sounds like there is an underlying principle: “Acknowledge and embrace the uncertainty. Don’t pretend that it isn’t there. Be very clear about what the uncertainties are up front, and then build that into every step of the process.”

Hugo Sarrazin: Every step of the process.

Simon London: Yeah. We have just walked through a particular structured methodology for problem solving. But, of course, this is not the only structured methodology for problem solving. One that is also very well-known is design thinking, which comes at things very differently. So, Hugo, I know you have worked with a lot of designers. Just give us a very quick summary. Design thinking—what is it, and how does it relate?

Hugo Sarrazin: It starts with an incredible amount of empathy for the user and uses that to define the problem. It does pause and go out in the wild and spend an enormous amount of time seeing how people interact with objects, seeing the experience they’re getting, seeing the pain points or joy—and uses that to infer and define the problem.

Simon London: Problem definition, but out in the world.

Hugo Sarrazin: With an enormous amount of empathy. There’s a huge emphasis on empathy. Traditional, more classic problem solving is you define the problem based on an understanding of the situation. This one almost presupposes that we don’t know the problem until we go see it. The second thing is you need to come up with multiple scenarios or answers or ideas or concepts, and there’s a lot of divergent thinking initially. That’s slightly different, versus the prioritization, but not for long. Eventually, you need to kind of say, “OK, I’m going to converge again.” Then you go and you bring things back to the customer and get feedback and iterate. Then you rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. There’s a lot of tactile building, along the way, of prototypes and things like that. It’s very iterative.

Simon London: So, Charles, are these complements or are these alternatives?

Charles Conn: I think they’re entirely complementary, and I think Hugo’s description is perfect. When we do problem definition well in classic problem solving, we are demonstrating the kind of empathy, at the very beginning of our problem, that design thinking asks us to approach. When we ideate—and that’s very similar to the disaggregation, prioritization, and work-planning steps—we do precisely the same thing, and often we use contrasting teams, so that we do have divergent thinking. The best teams allow divergent thinking to bump them off whatever their initial biases in problem solving are. For me, design thinking gives us a constant reminder of creativity, empathy, and the tactile nature of problem solving, but it’s absolutely complementary, not alternative.

Simon London: I think, in a world of cross-functional teams, an interesting question is do people with design-thinking backgrounds really work well together with classical problem solvers? How do you make that chemistry happen?

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah, it is not easy when people have spent an enormous amount of time seeped in design thinking or user-centric design, whichever word you want to use. If the person who’s applying classic problem-solving methodology is very rigid and mechanical in the way they’re doing it, there could be an enormous amount of tension. If there’s not clarity in the role and not clarity in the process, I think having the two together can be, sometimes, problematic.

The second thing that happens often is that the artifacts the two methodologies try to gravitate toward can be different. Classic problem solving often gravitates toward a model; design thinking migrates toward a prototype. Rather than writing a big deck with all my supporting evidence, they’ll bring an example, a thing, and that feels different. Then you spend your time differently to achieve those two end products, so that’s another source of friction.

Now, I still think it can be an incredibly powerful thing to have the two—if there are the right people with the right mind-set, if there is a team that is explicit about the roles, if we’re clear about the kind of outcomes we are attempting to bring forward. There’s an enormous amount of collaborativeness and respect.

Simon London: But they have to respect each other’s methodology and be prepared to flex, maybe, a little bit, in how this process is going to work.

Hugo Sarrazin: Absolutely.

Simon London: The other area where, it strikes me, there could be a little bit of a different sort of friction is this whole concept of the day-one answer, which is what we were just talking about in classical problem solving. Now, you know that this is probably not going to be your final answer, but that’s how you begin to structure the problem. Whereas I would imagine your design thinkers—no, they’re going off to do their ethnographic research and get out into the field, potentially for a long time, before they come back with at least an initial hypothesis.

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

Hugo Sarrazin: That is a great callout, and that’s another difference. Designers typically will like to soak into the situation and avoid converging too quickly. There’s optionality and exploring different options. There’s a strong belief that keeps the solution space wide enough that you can come up with more radical ideas. If there’s a large design team or many designers on the team, and you come on Friday and say, “What’s our week-one answer?” they’re going to struggle. They’re not going to be comfortable, naturally, to give that answer. It doesn’t mean they don’t have an answer; it’s just not where they are in their thinking process.

Simon London: I think we are, sadly, out of time for today. But Charles and Hugo, thank you so much.

Charles Conn: It was a pleasure to be here, Simon.

Hugo Sarrazin: It was a pleasure. Thank you.

Simon London: And thanks, as always, to you, our listeners, for tuning into this episode of the McKinsey Podcast . If you want to learn more about problem solving, you can find the book, Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything , online or order it through your local bookstore. To learn more about McKinsey, you can of course find us at McKinsey.com.

Charles Conn is CEO of Oxford Sciences Innovation and an alumnus of McKinsey’s Sydney office. Hugo Sarrazin is a senior partner in the Silicon Valley office, where Simon London, a member of McKinsey Publishing, is also based.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Strategy to beat the odds

Five routes to more innovative problem solving

Common Problem-Solving Models & How to Use Them

Problem – solving models are step-by-step processes that provide a framework for addressing challenges. Problems arise in every facet of life. From work. to home. to friends and family, problems and conflicts can make life difficult and interfere with our physical and mental well-being. Understanding how to approach problems when they arise and implementing problem-solving techniques can make the journey through a problem less onerous on ourselves and those around us.

By building a structured problem-solving process, you can begin to build muscle memory by repeatedly practicing the same approach, and eventually, you may even begin to find yourself solving complex problems . Building a problem-solving model for each of the situations where you may encounter a problem can give you a path forward, even when the most difficult of problems arise.

This article will explore the concept of problem-solving models and dive into examples of such models and how to use them. It will also outline the benefits of implementing a problem-solving model in each area of life and why these problem-solving methods can have a large impact on your overall well-being. The goal of this article is to help you identify effective problem-solving strategies and develop critical thinking to generate solutions for any problem that comes your way.

Problem-Solving Model Defined

The first step in creating a problem-solving plan is to understand what we mean when we say problem-solving models. A problem-solving model is a step-by-step process that helps a team identify and effectively solve problems that they may encounter. This problem-solving approach gives the team the muscle memory and guide to address a conflict and resolve disputes quickly and effectively.

There are common problem-solving models that many teams have implemented, but there is also the freedom to shape a method to fit the needs of a specific situation. These models often rely on various problem-solving techniques to identify the root cause of the issue and find the best solution. This article will explore some common problem-solving models as well as general problem-solving techniques to help a team engage with and solve problems effectively.

Benefits of Implementing Problem-Solving Models

Before we discuss the exact models for problem-solving, it can be helpful to discuss why problem-solving models are beneficial in the first place. There are a variety of benefits to having a plan in place when a problem arises, but a few important benefits are listed below.

Guide Posts

When a team encounters a problem and has a guide for how to approach and solve the problem, it can be a relief to know that they have a process to fall back on when the issue cannot be resolved quickly from the beginning. A problem-solving strategy will serve as a guide for the parties to know which steps to take next and how to identify the appropriate solution.

It can also clarify when the issue needs to stay within the team, and when the issue needs to be escalated to someone in a position with more authority. It can also help the entire team solve complex problems without creating an issue out of the way the team solves the problem. It gives the team a blueprint to work from and encourages them to find a good solution.

Creative Solutions That Last

When the team or family has a way to fall back on to solve a problem, it takes some of the pressure off of coming up with the process and allows the parties to focus on identifying the relevant information and coming up with various potential solutions to the issue. By using a problem-solving method, the parties can come up with different solutions and find common ground with the best solution. This can be stifled if the team is too focused on figuring out how to solve the problem.

Additionally, the solutions that the parties come up with through problem-solving tools will often address the root cause of the issue and stop the team from having to revisit the same problem over and over again. This can lead to overall productivity and well-being and help the team continue to output quality work. By encouraging collaboration and creativity, a problem-solving technique will often keep solving problems between the parties moving forward and possibly even address them before they show up.

Common Models to Use in the Problem-Solving Process

Several models can be applied to a complex problem and create possible solutions. These range from common and straightforward to creative and in-depth to identify the most effective ways to solve a problem. This section will discuss and break down the problem-solving models that are most frequently used.

Standard Problem-Solving Process

When you search for a problem-solving technique, chances are you will find the standard model for saving problems. This model identifies and uses several important steps that will often be used in other models as well, so it can be helpful to begin the model-building process with an understanding of this model as a base. Other models often draw from this process and adapt one or more of the steps to help create additional options. Each of these steps works to accomplish a specific goal in furtherance of a solution.

Define the Problem

The first step in addressing a problem is to create a clear definition of the issue at hand. This will often require the team to communicate openly and honestly to place parameters around the issue. As the team defines the problem, it will be clear what needs to be solved and what pieces of the conflict are ancillary to the major issue. It helps to find the root causes of the issue and begin a process to address that rather than the symptoms of the problem. The team can also create a problem statement, which outlines the parameters of the problem and what needs to be fixed.

In addition to open and honest communication, other techniques can help to identify the root cause and define the problem. This includes a thorough review of the processes and steps that are currently used in the task and whether any of those steps are directly or indirectly causing the problem.

This includes reviewing how tasks are done, how communication is shared, and the current partners and team members that work together to identify if any of those are part of the issue. It is also the time to identify if some of the easy fixes or new tools would solve the problem and what the impact would be.

It is also important to gain a wide understanding of the problem from all of the people involved. Many people will have opinions on what is going on, but it is also important to understand the facts over the opinions that are affecting the problem. This can also help you identify if the problem is arising from a boundary or standard that is not being met or honored. By gathering data and understanding the source of the problem, the process of solving it can begin.

Generate Solutions

The next step in the basic process is to generate possible solutions to the problem. At this step, it is less important to evaluate how each of the options will play out and how they may change the process and more important to identify solutions that could address the issue. This includes solutions that support the goals of the team and the task, and the team can also identify short and long-term solutions.

The team should work to brainstorm as many viable solutions as possible to give them the best options to consider moving forward. They cannot pick the first solution that is proposed and consider it a successful problem-solving process.

Evaluate and Select

After a few good options have been identified, the next step is to evaluate the options and pick the most viable option that also supports the goals of the team or organization. This includes looking at each of the possible solutions and determining how they would either encourage or hinder the goals and standards of the team. These should evaluated without bias toward the solution proposed or the person putting forward the solution. Additionally, the team should consider both actual outcomes that have happened in the past and predicted instances that may occur if the solution is chosen.

Each solution should be evaluated by considering if the solution would solve the current problem without causing additional issues, the willingness of the team to buy in and implement the solution, and the actual ability of the team to implement the solution.

Participation and honesty from all team members will make the process go more smoothly and ensure that the best option for everyone involved is selected. Once the team picks the option they would like to use for the specific problem, they should clearly define what the solution is and how it should be implemented. There should also be a strategy for how to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution.

Implement the Solution and Follow Up

Once a solution is chosen, a team will often assume that the work of solving problems is complete. However, the final step in the basic model is an important step to determine if the matter is resolved or if additional options are needed. After the solution has been implemented by the team, the members of the team must provide feedback and identify any potential obstacles that may have been missed in the decision-making process.

This encourages long-term solutions for the problem and helps the team to continue to move forward with their work. It also gives the team a sense of ownership and an example of how to evaluate an idea in the future.

If the solution is not working the way that it should, the team will often need to adapt the option, or they may get to the point where they scrap the option and attempt another. Solving a problem is not always a linear process, and encouraging reform and change within the process will help the team find the answer to the issues that they face.

GROW Method

Another method that is similar to the standard method is the G.R.O.W. method. This method has very similar steps to the standard method, but the catchiness of the acronym helps a team approach the problem from the same angle each time and work through the method quickly.

The first step in the method is to identify a goal, which is what the “g” stands for in “grow.” To establish a goal, the team will need to look at the issues that they are facing and identify what they would like to accomplish and solve through the problem-solving process. The team will likely participate in conversations that identify the issues that they are facing and what they need to resolve.

The next step is to establish the current reality that the group is facing. This helps them to determine where they currently are and what needs to be done to move them forward. This can help the group establish a baseline for where they started and what they would like to change.

The next step is to find any obstacles that may be blocking the group from achieving their goal. This is where the main crux of the issues that the group is facing will come out. This is also helpful in giving the group a chance to find ways around these obstacles and toward a solution.

Way Forward

After identifying the obstacles and potential ways to avoid them, the group will then need to pick the best way to move forward and approach their goal together. Here, they will need to create steps to move forward with that goal.

Divide and Conquer

Another common problem-solving method is the divide-and-conquer method. Here, instead of the entire team working through each step of the process as a large group, they split up the issue into smaller problems that can be solved and have individual members or small groups work through the smaller problems. Once each group is satisfied with the solution to the problem, they present it to the larger group to consider along with the other options.

This process can be helpful if there is a large team attempting to solve a large and complex problem. It is also beneficial because it can be used in teams with smaller, specialized teams within it because it allows each smaller group to focus on what they know best.

However, it does encourage the parties to shy away from collaboration on the overall issue, and the different solutions that each proposes may not be possible when combined and implemented.

For this reason, it is best to use this solution when approaching complex problems with large teams and the ability to combine several problem-solving methods into one.

Six Thinking Hats

The Six Thinking Hats theory is a concept designed for a team with a lot of differing conflict styles and problem-solving techniques. This method was developed to help sort through the various techniques that people may use and help a team find a solution that works for everyone involved. It helps to organize thinking and lead the conversation to the best possible solution.

Within this system, there are six different “hats” that identify with the various aspects of the decision-making process: the overall process, idea generation, intuition and emotions, values, information gathering, and caution or critical thinking. The group agrees to participate in the process by agreeing on which of the hats the group is wearing at a given moment. This helps set parameters and expectations around what the group is attempting to achieve at any moment.

This system is particularly good in a group with different conflict styles or where people have a hard time collecting and organizing their thoughts. It can be incredibly beneficial for complex problems with many moving parts. It can also help groups identify how each of the smaller sections relates to the big picture and help create new ideas to answer the overall problem.

However, it can derail if the group focuses too heavily or for too long on one of the “hats.” The group should ensure that they have a facilitator to guide them through the process and ensure that each idea and section is considered adequately.

Trial and Error

The trial and error process takes over the evaluation and selection process and instead chooses to try out each of the alternatives to determine what the best option would be. It allows the team to gather data on each of the options and how they apply practically. It also provides the ability for the team to have an example of each possible answer to help a decision-maker determine what the best option is.

Problem-solving methods that focus on trial and error can be helpful when a team has a simple problem or a lot of time to test potential solutions, gather data, and determine an answer to the issue.

It can also be helpful when the team has a sense of the best guess for a solution but wants to test it out to determine if the data supports that option, or if they have several viable options and would like to identify the best one. However, it can be incredibly time-consuming to test each of the options and evaluate how they went. Time can often be saved by evaluating each option and selecting the best to test.

Other Problem-Solving Skills

In addition to the methods outlined above, other problem-solving skills can be used regardless of the model that is used. These techniques can round out the problem-solving process and help address either specific steps in the overall method or alter the step in some way to help it fit a specific situation.

Ask Good Questions

One of the best ways to work through any of the problem-solving models is to ask good questions. This will help the group find the issue at the heart of the problem and address that issue rather than the symptoms. The best questions will also help the group find viable solutions and pick the solution that the group can use to move forward. The more creative the questions , the more likely that they will produce innovative solutions.

Take a Step Back

Occasionally, paying attention to a problem too much can give the group tunnel vision and harm the overall processes that the group is using. Other times, the focus can lead to escalations in conflict. When this happens, it can be helpful to set aside the problem and give the group time to calm down. Once they have a chance to reconsider the options and how they apply, they can approach the issue with a new sense of purpose and determination. This can lead to additional creative solutions that may help the group find a new way forward.

Final Thoughts

Problem-solving can be a daunting part of life. However, with a good problem-solving method and the right techniques, problems can be addressed well and quickly. Applying some of these options outlined in this article can give you a head start in solving your next problem and any others that arise.

To learn more about problem-solving models, problem-solving activities, and more, contact ADR Times !

Must-read Articles:

• Recent Posts

• Mediator vs Lawyer: Finding the Best Fit - April 2, 2024
• How to Deal With a Narcissist - March 27, 2024
• How Long After Mediation Will I Get My Money? - March 19, 2024

After you solve this mathematical model using the Excel " EZ Setup "/ Solver Add-Ins, you could do a "what if" analysis, in order to enhance your learning. What if the final pressure was not given, and you were ask to find it, in addition to the fina\ l volume. How would the mathematical model change? Proceed as follows: Add a V f = V i equation Add a P i V i = n i R T i equation and do not assign a value to P f . Now the DOF = 4, and you know T i , P i , n i , an\ d T f . Try solving this new mathematical model, as directed in Worksheet " batch IF " of file " water_rxn.xls " .

We can write the ideal gas law equation twice, for the initial and final states: P i V i = n i R T i and P f V f = n f R T f Combining these two equations by eliminating the R and noting that V i = V f gives: \ n f T f P f = P i * --- * --- n i T i 95 mol 473.15 K P f = 1 atm --------- ----------- = 1.50761 atm 100 mol 298.15 K Since the chemical reaction results in a net decrea\ se in the number of molecules, one would expect the final pressure to be smaller than the initial pressure. However, the temperature increases because the reaction is exothermic.

Note that for a batch system, the extent of reaction is defined as follows: t f / R I = / R_dot dt _/ t i that is, the intergral of R_dot from the initial time to the final time. Since finding a value for variable \ R I \ is sufficient to solve the mathematical model, it is not necessary to evaluate the integral.

R I with a dot is the extent of reaction; that is, the number of reaction events in units of g-rxn/s for this problem. For each reaction event of the chemical reaction: 2 H 2 + O 2 --> 2 H 2 0 three mole\ cules are consumed to produce 2 molecules. Thus, the total mole balance has a net deficit of one molecule per reaction event; that is, -1 R I with a dot.

R I with a dot is the extent of reaction; that is, the number of reaction events in units of g-rxn/s for this problem. For each reaction event of the chemical reaction: 2 H 2 + O 2 --> 2 H 2 0 two molecu\ les of hydrogen are consumed. Thus, the hydrogen mole balance has a deficit of two molecules of hydrogen per reaction event; that is, -2 R I with a dot.

R I with a dot is the extent of reaction; that is, the number of reaction events in units of g-rxn/s for this problem. For each reaction event of the chemical reaction: 2 H 2 + O 2 --> 2 H 2 0 two molecu\ les of water are produced. Thus, the water mole balance has an addition of two molecules of water per reaction event; that is, +2 R I with a dot.

For most problems, their solutions can be obtained by writing one set of material balances, either mass or moles. When writing mass balances, any given molar quantities can usually be converted to their mass equivalents \ using mixture molecular weights. When writing mole balances, any given mass quantities can usually be converted to their molar equivalents using mixture molecular weights. For any given volumetric quantities, they can be converted to their mass equivale\ nts using mixture densities, and those mass equivalents can then be converted to their molar equivalents using mixture molecular weights. In order to calculate any mixture molecular weight, you must know the molecular weights of ALL chemical components i\ n that mixture. In some problems, you may NOT know the molecular weight of at least one of the chemical components, but you may know the molecular weight of at least ONE of the other chemical components. That one known molecular weight can serve as a bridge between the mass balances and mole ba\ lances. For a problem where a chemical component molecular weight is NOT known, any known mass quantities can be used to solve part of the mass balances, and any known molar quantities can be used to solve part of the mole balances. The chemical component with known m\ olecular weight can then bridge these two types of balances by converting its mass quantity to its molar equivalent or vice versa. Thus, both the mass and mole balances will have to be written to solve this kind of problem, as illustrated through\ the coaching notes for Problem P1.A5 in Appendix E.

For most problems, their solutions can be obtained by writing one set of material balances, either mass or moles. When writing mass balances, any given molar quantities can usually be converted to their mass equivalents \ using mixture molecular weights. When writing mole balances, any given mass quantities can usually be converted to their molar equivalents using mixture molecular weights. For any given volumetric quantities, they can be converted to their mass equivale\ nts using mixture densities, and those mass equivalents can then be converted to their molar equivalents using mixture molecular weights. In order to calculate any mixture molecular weight, you must know the molecular weights of ALL chemical components in that mixture. In some probl\ ems, you may NOT know the\ molecular weight of at least one of the chemical components, but you may know the molecular weight of at least ONE of the other chemical components. That one known molecular weight can serve as a bridge between the mass balances and mole balances. For a problem where\ a chemical component molecular weight is NOT known, any known mass quantities can be used to solve part of the mass balances, and any known molar quantities can be used to solve part of the mole balances. The chemical component with known molecular weight can then bridge these \ two types of balances by converting its mass quantity to its molar equivalent or vice versa. Thus, both the mass and mole balances will have to be written to solve this kind of problem, as illustrated through the coaching notes for Problem P1.A5 \ in Appendix E.

• Outlook – General Tab
• Outlook – Phone Tab
• ADUC – General Tab
• ADUC – Address Tab
• ADUC – Account Tab
• ISA/TMG Scripts
• Active Directory on Fixed Ports
• RPC Internet Ports in Windows 2008
• DNS High Memory Utilization Issue
• WP – Cookies for Comments
• PHPBB HTTP 403 Forbidden Issue
• Shift Key and RDP Woes
• Domain Controller crash – memory leaking process
• Associate MP3 files to MPG123.EXE with parameters
• Privacy Policy

Assumptions and Known Quantities

Solving problems – abstracted logical thinking: fact or fiction.

What we’re talking about is nothing new. The goal here is to develop our innate diagnostic skills by better understanding assumptions and known quantities. We need to become “the doctor” complete with a theoretical clipboard and stethoscope. The idea is to deal not only with facts or known quantities; we need to understand the difference between proven fact and the perception of a concept without proven fact  – an assumption that may lead to an inference of some kind. The biggest problem facing the timely resolution of an issue is often the dreaded “assumption”.

We need to be sensitive to our audience and its needs when investigating an issue. Some assumptions come from beliefs, fear, pride, and intuition. Other assumptions simply stem from misinformation. An assumption can be tied into quite an emotive and what may seem irrational train of thought. Dismissing an assumption can be detrimental in many ways; some quite psychological based – relating to feelings of validation and so on. Dismissing an assumption can lead to a lower level of interest from others who may be in a key position to help solve an underlying problem. We need to understand that an assumption can be quite helpful if it is treated accordingly:

An assumption is not proven and could be incorrect. Regardless, an assumption represents a point of view that could be shared by many and it may or may not be relevant to the situation at hand.

It is important to capture and identify (bag and tag) assumptions throughout the problem solving process. An assumption could be 100% correct without a hint of evidence. Often, an assumption holds the key to unlocking a known quantity, and it is only though the thorough testing of an assumption that we are then able to deduce a qualified known quantity.

Treat assumptions with the utmost respect and be sure to effectively capture assumptions and known quantities – don’t just assume an assumption is incorrect!

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Domain rejoin or prestaging – minimum permissions, powershell gpo deep dive – part 1, dhcp client stuck with 5 minute lease time, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Foundations of Mathematical Modelling for Engineering Problem Solving pp 11–22 Cite as

Problem Solving and Mathematical Modeling

• Parikshit Narendra Mahalle 7 ,
• Nancy Ambritta P. 8 ,
• Sachin R. Sakhare 9 &
• Atul P. Kulkarni 10  
• First Online: 11 January 2023

176 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Autonomic, Data-driven and Industrial Computing ((SADIC))

A problem is a puzzle or task that requires a logical thought process or fundamental mathematical steps to solve it. The puzzle generally represents the set of questions on the underlined use case which also consist of complete description of the use case along with the set of constraints about the use case. Logic is very importantly used to solve the puzzle or problem. Logic is defined as a method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is a subjective matter and varies from person to person. Logic is directly linked to the natural intelligence of human being and is a language of reasoning. Logic also represents the set of rules we use when we do reasoning. It is observed that majority of the employment of fresh engineering graduates across the globe is in software and information technology sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Rao ORS Hiring trends of fresh engineering graduates. Report in engineering special

Google Scholar  

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/story-fresh-engineering-graduate-indrani-mukherjee/

Joshi SA, Mahalle PN (2016) Design and analysis of algorithms: a problem solving approach. Cambridge University Press, India, p 209

TOCICO Board of Directors—Theory of constraints international certification organization. www.tocico.org . Retrieved 17 Mar 2018

Dettmer HW (2007) The logical thinking process: a systems approach to complex problem solving. ISBN: 978-0-87389-723-5

Pólya G (1945) How to solve it. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 0-691-08097-6

Dormy RG (2005) How to solve it by computers. Prentice Hall

Levitin A (2005) Introduction to design and analysis of algorithms. Pearson Education Press

Frejd P (2014) Modes of mathematical modelling: an analysis of how modelling is used and interpreted in and out of school settings. Linköping University

Blum W (2015) Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: what do we know, what can we do? In: Cho S (eds) The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_9

Ball DL, Hill HC, Bass H (2005) Knowing mathematics for teaching. Am Educ 29(3):14–46

Biccard P, Wessels DCJ (2011) Documenting the development of modelling competencies of grade 7 students. In: Kaiser G et al (eds) Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (ICTMA 14). Springer, Dordrecht, pp 375–383

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kantner J (2008) The only absolute truth in mathematics is the myth of mathematics as universal. Perspect: N Y J Adult Learn 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED501486.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, Pune, India

Parikshit Narendra Mahalle

Glareal Software Solutions PTE. Ltd., Singapore, Singapore

Nancy Ambritta P.

Department of Computer Engineering, Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, Pune, India

Sachin R. Sakhare

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, Pune, India

Atul P. Kulkarni

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy Ambritta P. .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Mahalle, P.N., Ambritta P., N., Sakhare, S.R., Kulkarni, A.P. (2023). Problem Solving and Mathematical Modeling. In: Foundations of Mathematical Modelling for Engineering Problem Solving. Studies in Autonomic, Data-driven and Industrial Computing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8828-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8828-8_2

Published : 11 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-8827-1

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-8828-8

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research