The 4-Step Framework to Solve Almost Any Problem Like Top Strategy Consultants

Education & Career Trends: October 7

Curated by the Knowledge Team of  ICS Career GPS

---

---

Article by Alex Miguel Meyer, published on medium.com.

---

How do you solve big problems? How do you answer difficult questions in life and business? Is there a systematic approach that fits any situation?

There is.

Luckily in university, I had a complete course about systematic problem solving taught by a senior partner at McKinsey Management Consulting. I memorised and practised every step and nuance of the framework. I knew I had found gold.

I then jumped into consulting myself, applying it daily. On the job but also in my private life. I gained an enormous confidence that whatever they throw at me there is a way to work it out. It all starts with the problem.

We have to spend more energy understanding and defining the problem before jumping to solutions.

It’s not what business executives like to hear from their consultants. Yet, it’s one of the biggest pitfalls in problem-solving. Many of us over-rely on “fast” thinking. We quickly jump to an interpretation of the situation and to a possible solution.

This is especially true for experts who rely on mental models from their domain of expertise. They often fail to recognise the limits of their knowledge and become trapped by their expertise when conditions change.

If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions. — Albert Einstein

So what to do? How do I know when to start working on solutions? And how do I find solutions?

The answer is the 4S approach made famous by some big consulting companies: State, Structure, Solve, Sell (or Set in Motion if you can implement the solution yourself).

Step 1: State — A Well Posed Problem Is Half-Solved

As a rule of thumb, if I can’t state the problem in a clear and precise way, I don’t understand it properly.

It’s like when you can’t explain how something works in a way that a 10-year-old would understand it. You likely haven’t fully understood it.

I see that in business every day.

As a consultant and still today as a manager, I use the following TOSCA framework to collect all the information to grasp the problem fully:

• Trouble: What’s the symptom or trouble that makes this problem real?
• Owner: Whose problem is it?
• Success: How and when do we know that we have effectively solved the problem?
• Constraints: What limits do we have to consider when solving the problem? e.g. resources, time, skills, preexisting commitments, etc.
• Actors: Who is concerned with how we solve the problem and what do they want?

Once I have collected all of the above I write the core problem statement.

Let’s illustrate this with a simple case study: My friend’s onsite life coaching business with 8 coaches is not making enough profit.

Trouble: Low profit.

Owner: My friend, the founder of the life coaching business.

Success: Increase profit by 50% in 2 years.

Constraints: No hiring of new coaches, no new debt may be taken on.

Actors: The coaches and the clients.

Core problem statement: How can we increase profit by 50% within the next 2 years without hiring new personnel and without taking up new debt?

Please note that for illustration purposes this is a simplified example. Typically, there is more information to consider. In most cases, the problem definition is a joint and iterative effort.

Step 2: Structure — Choose a Problem-Solving Approach

There are many ways to approach the problem once it’s stated.

Choosing the best-fitting approach not only improves the odds of coming up with a really good solution. It can save you hours or even days of work.

There are 3 main paths to solving such problems in the 4S method. I use the following flowchart to evaluate which strategy I will use:

As said, the first step is to clearly define the problem. If that’s not possible, I switch to Design Thinking and use empathising techniques such as empathy maps or user journey mapping.

Once I have the problem stated, I check if there is a good potential solution. If there is, I validate it using a Hypthesis Pyramid which I’ll explain later. That’s the Hypothesis-Driven path.

If there is not good candidate solution I check if I have enough information to build an Issue Tree. That means breaking the problem down into smaller questions like we do with first-principles thinking. Analysing and answering those smaller questions will lead me to the answer. That’s the Issue-Driven path.

If that’s also not possible I go into design thinking and apply ideation techniques such as brainstorming, brainwriting, mind mapping etc. From there I can follow the Build-Measure-Learn principle and test potential solutions.

The Hypothesis-Driven path

I formulate a hypothesis on how to solve the problem. Then I break it down into more elementary hypotheses. Each of these can be confirmed or disconfirmed in and by itself.

The breakdown should follow the MECE rule. It stands for Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive.

Mutually Exclusive means that when I break down the hypothesis into parts, each part should be separate and distinct from the others. This way I can analyse them one by one.

Collectively Exhaustive means that when I consider all those separate parts together, they cover the entire problem or topic.

In our case the leading hypothesis could be:

The coaching business should expand to online coaching services to reach more clients.

Sub-Hypothesis 1: There is sufficient and unsaturated demand for Online coaching.

Sub-Hypothesis 2: The existing coaches would be willing to coach online.

I can now go ahead and confirm or disconfirm these hypotheses.

The benefit of this approach is that I now have a clear candidate solution that I can validate which saves me a lot of time exploring other ideas.

The disadvantage is that I close my eyes to other good remedies.

The Issue-Driven path

The issue-driven path follows a similar logic but has a much larger solution space.

The core problem is divided into smaller questions. Those questions might again be broken down into sub-questions until you find adequate answers to each elementary issue.

Just like with the Hypothesis-Driven path, the breakdown should be MECE.

Let’s look at our example:

The core question was: How can we increase profit by 50% within the next 2 years without hiring new personnel and without taking up new debt?

Question 1: How can we increase revenue?

Sub-Question 1.1: How can we charge more for each coaching?

Sub-Question 1.2: How can we do more coaching?

Question 2: How can we decrease cost?

Sub-Question 2.1: How can we pay less for rent?

Sub-Question 2.2: How can we pay less for marketing?

Sub-Question 2.3: Where else could we save money?

Now, with these questions, I can jump into the analysis to answer them one by one.

Step 3: Solve Analytically and Creatively

Let’s say I choose the Hypothesis-Driven path. I now go ahead with solving the questions. For this, I need to apply both analytical and creative thinking.

For example for question 1.1 How can we charge more for each coaching? I can collect new ideas and look at good practices from other coaching businesses. That’s the creative part.

We could offer new coaching techniques, integrate workshops, do sessions out in nature, add online sessions, etc.

Interesting…

Now I have to analyse the ideas. Which ones are the best? Which ones should we do?

For this, I analyse each idea’s benefit in relation to its cost. Based on that ratio I will rank them. That’s the analytical part.

Now, having the best ideas selected, I can set it in motion or sell the solution to my client or both.

Step 4: Sell or Set in Motion

Here it depends. Am I solving the problem for myself? Then I will be the one implementing it. This means I will go ahead and select the best idea, and start making all the changes.

In the example here, I was consulting the coaching business of my friend. So I have to sell the solution. I have to convince her that this is the best fix and how to proceed.

The backbone of any solution selling is a compelling storyline including the following:

• What’s the situation and the problem?
• What options are there?
• Which options should we go with and why?
• What are the next steps?

Also, I develop a clear and action-oriented core message such as:

Expanding the coaching business by adding online coaching services is the best option:

1. The market for online coaching is growing
2. Clients are more comfortable with online meetings since the COVID-19 pandemic
3. Clients and coaches appreciate the gain in flexibility
4. It is a low-cost, low-risk expansion

There are entire books on selling solutions. I will not go into more detail here.

In management consulting, we used endless PowerPoint presentations. Yuck.

It really depends on who I’m trying to convince.

In any case, I document my findings using online tools such as Miro or Mural boards. Unless someone imposes the PowerPoint curse on me.

When I work for clients, proper documentation is a must for legal reasons.

Important Takeaways

There are a couple of things I would like you to take away from this.

State — Problem definition

Failing to properly state the problem will almost always lead to bad solutions.

There is no right problem definition. But there are many wrong ones. TOSCA gives me a frame on the problem and helps me not to forget about anything.

For complex topics, crafting a problem statement is an iterative process. Empathizing with involved people is often a must in those cases.

Structure—Choosing the right approach

I only use the Hypothesis-Driven path in 2 cases:

1. When I have strong reasons to believe in my hypothesis
2. When I don’t have time to build an issue tree

By default, I use the Issue-Driven path because it mitigates confirmation biases and enables more innovative solutions.

To avoid getting lost in all the potential issues I apply the 80/20 rule. Typically, 20% of the questions can generate 80% of the insights I need.

Structuring the problem is an iterative process. Sometimes I have to change the questions or go to an entirely different path.

Solve — Between creativity and analysis

Any approach will need creativity and analysis. There is always a design-thinking aspect to any problem-solving.

There are many ways to analyse which solutions are best. The relation of benefit to cost is the most common one. But in more complex scenarios I define a set of success criteria against which I compare the different ideas using a scoring model. For example:

How much do solutions 1, 2, and 3 contribute to the following success criteria: Profit, reputation, and speed of implementation?

This gives me a more precise ranking of solutions. But, it’s more time-consuming.

Set in motion or sell

If I solve the problem for myself, I can go right ahead and implement, check, and adjust my approach.

If I sell it I focus a lot on a rock-solid storyline. I also added some visually conveyed evidence for my findings.

Lastly, I formulate a clear and action-oriented core message that I want to resonate with the audience.

In addition, I document my approach and any findings along the same storyline.

Now, this is it. This approach has been vastly helpful for me in any project that I took on.

The more I used this technique the more my thinking shifted towards understanding problems properly and the different ways I could solve them.

Solving problems is like any other skill something we can learn and train. It eventually becomes a habit. We can get better at life.

Which problem will you crack like a pro?

…

---

Have you checked out yesterday’s blog yet?

The ‘Golden Mean’: Aristotle’s Secret to a Great Life

---

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article mentioned above are those of the author(s). They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of ICS Career GPS or its staff.)

Like this post? For more such helpful articles, click on the button below and subscribe FREE to our blog.

---

• Facebook
• Instagram
• LinkedIn
• Twitter