what is problem solving technology

What Is Problem Solving? How Software Engineers Approach Complex Challenges

From debugging an existing system to designing an entirely new software application, a day in the life of a software engineer is filled with various challenges and complexities. The one skill that glues these disparate tasks together and makes them manageable? Problem solving . 

Throughout this blog post, we’ll explore why problem-solving skills are so critical for software engineers, delve into the techniques they use to address complex challenges, and discuss how hiring managers can identify these skills during the hiring process. 

What Is Problem Solving?

But what exactly is problem solving in the context of software engineering? How does it work, and why is it so important?

Problem solving, in the simplest terms, is the process of identifying a problem, analyzing it, and finding the most effective solution to overcome it. For software engineers, this process is deeply embedded in their daily workflow. It could be something as simple as figuring out why a piece of code isn’t working as expected, or something as complex as designing the architecture for a new software system. 

In a world where technology is evolving at a blistering pace, the complexity and volume of problems that software engineers face are also growing. As such, the ability to tackle these issues head-on and find innovative solutions is not only a handy skill — it’s a necessity. 

The Importance of Problem-Solving Skills for Software Engineers

Problem-solving isn’t just another ability that software engineers pull out of their toolkits when they encounter a bug or a system failure. It’s a constant, ongoing process that’s intrinsic to every aspect of their work. Let’s break down why this skill is so critical.

Driving Development Forward

Without problem solving, software development would hit a standstill. Every new feature, every optimization, and every bug fix is a problem that needs solving. Whether it’s a performance issue that needs diagnosing or a user interface that needs improving, the capacity to tackle and solve these problems is what keeps the wheels of development turning.

It’s estimated that 60% of software development lifecycle costs are related to maintenance tasks, including debugging and problem solving. This highlights how pivotal this skill is to the everyday functioning and advancement of software systems.

Innovation and Optimization

The importance of problem solving isn’t confined to reactive scenarios; it also plays a major role in proactive, innovative initiatives . Software engineers often need to think outside the box to come up with creative solutions, whether it’s optimizing an algorithm to run faster or designing a new feature to meet customer needs. These are all forms of problem solving.

Consider the development of the modern smartphone. It wasn’t born out of a pre-existing issue but was a solution to a problem people didn’t realize they had — a device that combined communication, entertainment, and productivity into one handheld tool.

Increasing Efficiency and Productivity

Good problem-solving skills can save a lot of time and resources. Effective problem-solvers are adept at dissecting an issue to understand its root cause, thus reducing the time spent on trial and error. This efficiency means projects move faster, releases happen sooner, and businesses stay ahead of their competition.

Improving Software Quality

Problem solving also plays a significant role in enhancing the quality of the end product. By tackling the root causes of bugs and system failures, software engineers can deliver reliable, high-performing software. This is critical because, according to the Consortium for Information and Software Quality, poor quality software in the U.S. in 2022 cost at least $2.41 trillion in operational issues, wasted developer time, and other related problems.

Problem-Solving Techniques in Software Engineering

So how do software engineers go about tackling these complex challenges? Let’s explore some of the key problem-solving techniques, theories, and processes they commonly use.

Decomposition

Breaking down a problem into smaller, manageable parts is one of the first steps in the problem-solving process. It’s like dealing with a complicated puzzle. You don’t try to solve it all at once. Instead, you separate the pieces, group them based on similarities, and then start working on the smaller sets. This method allows software engineers to handle complex issues without being overwhelmed and makes it easier to identify where things might be going wrong.

Abstraction

In the realm of software engineering, abstraction means focusing on the necessary information only and ignoring irrelevant details. It is a way of simplifying complex systems to make them easier to understand and manage. For instance, a software engineer might ignore the details of how a database works to focus on the information it holds and how to retrieve or modify that information.

Algorithmic Thinking

At its core, software engineering is about creating algorithms — step-by-step procedures to solve a problem or accomplish a goal. Algorithmic thinking involves conceiving and expressing these procedures clearly and accurately and viewing every problem through an algorithmic lens. A well-designed algorithm not only solves the problem at hand but also does so efficiently, saving computational resources.

Parallel Thinking

Parallel thinking is a structured process where team members think in the same direction at the same time, allowing for more organized discussion and collaboration. It’s an approach popularized by Edward de Bono with the “ Six Thinking Hats ” technique, where each “hat” represents a different style of thinking.

In the context of software engineering, parallel thinking can be highly effective for problem solving. For instance, when dealing with a complex issue, the team can use the “White Hat” to focus solely on the data and facts about the problem, then the “Black Hat” to consider potential problems with a proposed solution, and so on. This structured approach can lead to more comprehensive analysis and more effective solutions, and it ensures that everyone’s perspectives are considered.

This is the process of identifying and fixing errors in code . Debugging involves carefully reviewing the code, reproducing and analyzing the error, and then making necessary modifications to rectify the problem. It’s a key part of maintaining and improving software quality.

Testing and Validation

Testing is an essential part of problem solving in software engineering. Engineers use a variety of tests to verify that their code works as expected and to uncover any potential issues. These range from unit tests that check individual components of the code to integration tests that ensure the pieces work well together. Validation, on the other hand, ensures that the solution not only works but also fulfills the intended requirements and objectives.

Explore verified tech roles & skills.

The definitive directory of tech roles, backed by machine learning and skills intelligence.

Explore all roles

Evaluating Problem-Solving Skills

We’ve examined the importance of problem-solving in the work of a software engineer and explored various techniques software engineers employ to approach complex challenges. Now, let’s delve into how hiring teams can identify and evaluate problem-solving skills during the hiring process.

Recognizing Problem-Solving Skills in Candidates

How can you tell if a candidate is a good problem solver? Look for these indicators:

• Previous Experience: A history of dealing with complex, challenging projects is often a good sign. Ask the candidate to discuss a difficult problem they faced in a previous role and how they solved it.
• Problem-Solving Questions: During interviews, pose hypothetical scenarios or present real problems your company has faced. Ask candidates to explain how they would tackle these issues. You’re not just looking for a correct solution but the thought process that led them there.
• Technical Tests: Coding challenges and other technical tests can provide insight into a candidate’s problem-solving abilities. Consider leveraging a platform for assessing these skills in a realistic, job-related context.

Assessing Problem-Solving Skills

Once you’ve identified potential problem solvers, here are a few ways you can assess their skills:

• Solution Effectiveness: Did the candidate solve the problem? How efficient and effective is their solution?
• Approach and Process: Go beyond whether or not they solved the problem and examine how they arrived at their solution. Did they break the problem down into manageable parts? Did they consider different perspectives and possibilities?
• Communication: A good problem solver can explain their thought process clearly. Can the candidate effectively communicate how they arrived at their solution and why they chose it?
• Adaptability: Problem-solving often involves a degree of trial and error. How does the candidate handle roadblocks? Do they adapt their approach based on new information or feedback?

Hiring managers play a crucial role in identifying and fostering problem-solving skills within their teams. By focusing on these abilities during the hiring process, companies can build teams that are more capable, innovative, and resilient.

Key Takeaways

As you can see, problem solving plays a pivotal role in software engineering. Far from being an occasional requirement, it is the lifeblood that drives development forward, catalyzes innovation, and delivers of quality software. 

By leveraging problem-solving techniques, software engineers employ a powerful suite of strategies to overcome complex challenges. But mastering these techniques isn’t simple feat. It requires a learning mindset, regular practice, collaboration, reflective thinking, resilience, and a commitment to staying updated with industry trends. 

For hiring managers and team leads, recognizing these skills and fostering a culture that values and nurtures problem solving is key. It’s this emphasis on problem solving that can differentiate an average team from a high-performing one and an ordinary product from an industry-leading one.

At the end of the day, software engineering is fundamentally about solving problems — problems that matter to businesses, to users, and to the wider society. And it’s the proficient problem solvers who stand at the forefront of this dynamic field, turning challenges into opportunities, and ideas into reality.

This article was written with the help of AI. Can you tell which parts?

Get started with HackerRank

Over 2,500 companies and 40% of developers worldwide use HackerRank to hire tech talent and sharpen their skills.

Recommended topics

• Hire Developers
• Problem Solving

What Factors Actually Impact a Developer’s Decision to Accept an Offer?

What is Problem Solving? (Steps, Techniques, Examples)

By Status.net Editorial Team on May 7, 2023 — 5 minutes to read

What Is Problem Solving?

Definition and importance.

Problem solving is the process of finding solutions to obstacles or challenges you encounter in your life or work. It is a crucial skill that allows you to tackle complex situations, adapt to changes, and overcome difficulties with ease. Mastering this ability will contribute to both your personal and professional growth, leading to more successful outcomes and better decision-making.

Problem-Solving Steps

The problem-solving process typically includes the following steps:

• Identify the issue : Recognize the problem that needs to be solved.
• Analyze the situation : Examine the issue in depth, gather all relevant information, and consider any limitations or constraints that may be present.
• Generate potential solutions : Brainstorm a list of possible solutions to the issue, without immediately judging or evaluating them.
• Evaluate options : Weigh the pros and cons of each potential solution, considering factors such as feasibility, effectiveness, and potential risks.
• Select the best solution : Choose the option that best addresses the problem and aligns with your objectives.
• Implement the solution : Put the selected solution into action and monitor the results to ensure it resolves the issue.
• Review and learn : Reflect on the problem-solving process, identify any improvements or adjustments that can be made, and apply these learnings to future situations.

Defining the Problem

To start tackling a problem, first, identify and understand it. Analyzing the issue thoroughly helps to clarify its scope and nature. Ask questions to gather information and consider the problem from various angles. Some strategies to define the problem include:

• Brainstorming with others
• Asking the 5 Ws and 1 H (Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How)
• Analyzing cause and effect
• Creating a problem statement

Generating Solutions

Once the problem is clearly understood, brainstorm possible solutions. Think creatively and keep an open mind, as well as considering lessons from past experiences. Consider:

• Creating a list of potential ideas to solve the problem
• Grouping and categorizing similar solutions
• Prioritizing potential solutions based on feasibility, cost, and resources required
• Involving others to share diverse opinions and inputs

Evaluating and Selecting Solutions

Evaluate each potential solution, weighing its pros and cons. To facilitate decision-making, use techniques such as:

• SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)
• Decision-making matrices
• Pros and cons lists
• Risk assessments

After evaluating, choose the most suitable solution based on effectiveness, cost, and time constraints.

Implementing and Monitoring the Solution

Implement the chosen solution and monitor its progress. Key actions include:

• Communicating the solution to relevant parties
• Setting timelines and milestones
• Assigning tasks and responsibilities
• Monitoring the solution and making adjustments as necessary
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the solution after implementation

Utilize feedback from stakeholders and consider potential improvements. Remember that problem-solving is an ongoing process that can always be refined and enhanced.

Problem-Solving Techniques

During each step, you may find it helpful to utilize various problem-solving techniques, such as:

• Brainstorming : A free-flowing, open-minded session where ideas are generated and listed without judgment, to encourage creativity and innovative thinking.
• Root cause analysis : A method that explores the underlying causes of a problem to find the most effective solution rather than addressing superficial symptoms.
• SWOT analysis : A tool used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to a problem or decision, providing a comprehensive view of the situation.
• Mind mapping : A visual technique that uses diagrams to organize and connect ideas, helping to identify patterns, relationships, and possible solutions.

Brainstorming

When facing a problem, start by conducting a brainstorming session. Gather your team and encourage an open discussion where everyone contributes ideas, no matter how outlandish they may seem. This helps you:

• Generate a diverse range of solutions
• Encourage all team members to participate
• Foster creative thinking

When brainstorming, remember to:

• Reserve judgment until the session is over
• Encourage wild ideas
• Combine and improve upon ideas

Root Cause Analysis

For effective problem-solving, identifying the root cause of the issue at hand is crucial. Try these methods:

• 5 Whys : Ask “why” five times to get to the underlying cause.
• Fishbone Diagram : Create a diagram representing the problem and break it down into categories of potential causes.
• Pareto Analysis : Determine the few most significant causes underlying the majority of problems.

SWOT Analysis

SWOT analysis helps you examine the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats related to your problem. To perform a SWOT analysis:

• List your problem’s strengths, such as relevant resources or strong partnerships.
• Identify its weaknesses, such as knowledge gaps or limited resources.
• Explore opportunities, like trends or new technologies, that could help solve the problem.
• Recognize potential threats, like competition or regulatory barriers.

SWOT analysis aids in understanding the internal and external factors affecting the problem, which can help guide your solution.

Mind Mapping

A mind map is a visual representation of your problem and potential solutions. It enables you to organize information in a structured and intuitive manner. To create a mind map:

• Write the problem in the center of a blank page.
• Draw branches from the central problem to related sub-problems or contributing factors.
• Add more branches to represent potential solutions or further ideas.

Mind mapping allows you to visually see connections between ideas and promotes creativity in problem-solving.

Examples of Problem Solving in Various Contexts

In the business world, you might encounter problems related to finances, operations, or communication. Applying problem-solving skills in these situations could look like:

• Identifying areas of improvement in your company’s financial performance and implementing cost-saving measures
• Resolving internal conflicts among team members by listening and understanding different perspectives, then proposing and negotiating solutions
• Streamlining a process for better productivity by removing redundancies, automating tasks, or re-allocating resources

In educational contexts, problem-solving can be seen in various aspects, such as:

• Addressing a gap in students’ understanding by employing diverse teaching methods to cater to different learning styles
• Developing a strategy for successful time management to balance academic responsibilities and extracurricular activities
• Seeking resources and support to provide equal opportunities for learners with special needs or disabilities

Everyday life is full of challenges that require problem-solving skills. Some examples include:

• Overcoming a personal obstacle, such as improving your fitness level, by establishing achievable goals, measuring progress, and adjusting your approach accordingly
• Navigating a new environment or city by researching your surroundings, asking for directions, or using technology like GPS to guide you
• Dealing with a sudden change, like a change in your work schedule, by assessing the situation, identifying potential impacts, and adapting your plans to accommodate the change.
• How to Resolve Employee Conflict at Work [Steps, Tips, Examples]
• How to Write Inspiring Core Values? 5 Steps with Examples
• 30 Employee Feedback Examples (Positive & Negative)

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

• Identify the Problem
• Define the Problem
• Form a Strategy
• Organize Information
• Allocate Resources
• Monitor Progress
• Evaluate the Results

Frequently Asked Questions

Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.

The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything they can about the issue and then using factual knowledge to come up with a solution. In other instances, creativity and insight are the best options.

It is not necessary to follow problem-solving steps sequentially, It is common to skip steps or even go back through steps multiple times until the desired solution is reached.

In order to correctly solve a problem, it is often important to follow a series of steps. Researchers sometimes refer to this as the problem-solving cycle. While this cycle is portrayed sequentially, people rarely follow a rigid series of steps to find a solution.

The following steps include developing strategies and organizing knowledge.

1. Identifying the Problem

While it may seem like an obvious step, identifying the problem is not always as simple as it sounds. In some cases, people might mistakenly identify the wrong source of a problem, which will make attempts to solve it inefficient or even useless.

Some strategies that you might use to figure out the source of a problem include :

• Asking questions about the problem
• Breaking the problem down into smaller pieces
• Looking at the problem from different perspectives
• Conducting research to figure out what relationships exist between different variables

2. Defining the Problem

After the problem has been identified, it is important to fully define the problem so that it can be solved. You can define a problem by operationally defining each aspect of the problem and setting goals for what aspects of the problem you will address

At this point, you should focus on figuring out which aspects of the problems are facts and which are opinions. State the problem clearly and identify the scope of the solution.

3. Forming a Strategy

After the problem has been identified, it is time to start brainstorming potential solutions. This step usually involves generating as many ideas as possible without judging their quality. Once several possibilities have been generated, they can be evaluated and narrowed down.

The next step is to develop a strategy to solve the problem. The approach used will vary depending upon the situation and the individual's unique preferences. Common problem-solving strategies include heuristics and algorithms.

• Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are often based on solutions that have worked in the past. They can work well if the problem is similar to something you have encountered before and are often the best choice if you need a fast solution.
• Algorithms are step-by-step strategies that are guaranteed to produce a correct result. While this approach is great for accuracy, it can also consume time and resources.

Heuristics are often best used when time is of the essence, while algorithms are a better choice when a decision needs to be as accurate as possible.

4. Organizing Information

Before coming up with a solution, you need to first organize the available information. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? The more information that is available the better prepared you will be to come up with an accurate solution.

When approaching a problem, it is important to make sure that you have all the data you need. Making a decision without adequate information can lead to biased or inaccurate results.

5. Allocating Resources

Of course, we don't always have unlimited money, time, and other resources to solve a problem. Before you begin to solve a problem, you need to determine how high priority it is.

If it is an important problem, it is probably worth allocating more resources to solving it. If, however, it is a fairly unimportant problem, then you do not want to spend too much of your available resources on coming up with a solution.

At this stage, it is important to consider all of the factors that might affect the problem at hand. This includes looking at the available resources, deadlines that need to be met, and any possible risks involved in each solution. After careful evaluation, a decision can be made about which solution to pursue.

6. Monitoring Progress

After selecting a problem-solving strategy, it is time to put the plan into action and see if it works. This step might involve trying out different solutions to see which one is the most effective.

It is also important to monitor the situation after implementing a solution to ensure that the problem has been solved and that no new problems have arisen as a result of the proposed solution.

Effective problem-solvers tend to monitor their progress as they work towards a solution. If they are not making good progress toward reaching their goal, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies .

7. Evaluating the Results

After a solution has been reached, it is important to evaluate the results to determine if it is the best possible solution to the problem. This evaluation might be immediate, such as checking the results of a math problem to ensure the answer is correct, or it can be delayed, such as evaluating the success of a therapy program after several months of treatment.

Once a problem has been solved, it is important to take some time to reflect on the process that was used and evaluate the results. This will help you to improve your problem-solving skills and become more efficient at solving future problems.

A Word From Verywell​

It is important to remember that there are many different problem-solving processes with different steps, and this is just one example. Problem-solving in real-world situations requires a great deal of resourcefulness, flexibility, resilience, and continuous interaction with the environment.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can stop dwelling in a negative mindset.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

You can become a better problem solving by:

• Practicing brainstorming and coming up with multiple potential solutions to problems
• Being open-minded and considering all possible options before making a decision
• Breaking down problems into smaller, more manageable pieces
• Asking for help when needed
• Researching different problem-solving techniques and trying out new ones
• Learning from mistakes and using them as opportunities to grow

It's important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about what's going on. Try to see things from their perspective as well as your own. Work together to find a resolution that works for both of you. Be willing to compromise and accept that there may not be a perfect solution.

Take breaks if things are getting too heated, and come back to the problem when you feel calm and collected. Don't try to fix every problem on your own—consider asking a therapist or counselor for help and insight.

If you've tried everything and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the problem, you may have to learn to accept it. This can be difficult, but try to focus on the positive aspects of your life and remember that every situation is temporary. Don't dwell on what's going wrong—instead, think about what's going right. Find support by talking to friends or family. Seek professional help if you're having trouble coping.

Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ, editors.  The Psychology of Problem Solving .  Cambridge University Press; 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771

Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving .  Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. Published 2018 Jun 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Introduction to Problem Solving Skills

What is problem solving and why is it important.

The ability to solve problems is a basic life skill and is essential to our day-to-day lives, at home, at school, and at work. We solve problems every day without really thinking about how we solve them. For example: it’s raining and you need to go to the store. What do you do? There are lots of possible solutions. Take your umbrella and walk. If you don't want to get wet, you can drive, or take the bus. You might decide to call a friend for a ride, or you might decide to go to the store another day. There is no right way to solve this problem and different people will solve it differently.

Problem solving is the process of identifying a problem, developing possible solution paths, and taking the appropriate course of action.

Why is problem solving important? Good problem solving skills empower you not only in your personal life but are critical in your professional life. In the current fast-changing global economy, employers often identify everyday problem solving as crucial to the success of their organizations. For employees, problem solving can be used to develop practical and creative solutions, and to show independence and initiative to employers.

Throughout this case study you will be asked to jot down your thoughts in idea logs. These idea logs are used for reflection on concepts and for answering short questions. When you click on the "Next" button, your responses will be saved for that page. If you happen to close the webpage, you will lose your work on the page you were on, but previous pages will be saved. At the end of the case study, click on the "Finish and Export to PDF" button to acknowledge completion of the case study and receive a PDF document of your idea logs.

What Does Problem Solving Look Like?

The ability to solve problems is a skill, and just like any other skill, the more you practice, the better you get. So how exactly do you practice problem solving? Learning about different problem solving strategies and when to use them will give you a good start. Problem solving is a process. Most strategies provide steps that help you identify the problem and choose the best solution. There are two basic types of strategies: algorithmic and heuristic.

Algorithmic strategies are traditional step-by-step guides to solving problems. They are great for solving math problems (in algebra: multiply and divide, then add or subtract) or for helping us remember the correct order of things (a mnemonic such as “Spring Forward, Fall Back” to remember which way the clock changes for daylight saving time, or “Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosey” to remember what direction to turn bolts and screws). Algorithms are best when there is a single path to the correct solution.

But what do you do when there is no single solution for your problem? Heuristic methods are general guides used to identify possible solutions. A popular one that is easy to remember is IDEAL [ Bransford & Stein, 1993 ] :

• I dentify the problem
• D efine the context of the problem
• E xplore possible strategies
• A ct on best solution

IDEAL is just one problem solving strategy. Building a toolbox of problem solving strategies will improve your problem solving skills. With practice, you will be able to recognize and use multiple strategies to solve complex problems.

Watch the video

What is the best way to get a peanut out of a tube that cannot be moved? Watch a chimpanzee solve this problem in the video below [ Geert Stienissen, 2010 ].

[PDF transcript]

Describe the series of steps you think the chimpanzee used to solve this problem.

• [Page 2: What does Problem Solving Look Like?] Describe the series of steps you think the chimpanzee used to solve this problem.

Think of an everyday problem you've encountered recently and describe your steps for solving it.

• [Page 2: What does Problem Solving Look Like?] Think of an everyday problem you've encountered recently and describe your steps for solving it.

Developing Problem Solving Processes

Problem solving is a process that uses steps to solve problems. But what does that really mean? Let's break it down and start building our toolbox of problem solving strategies.

What is the first step of solving any problem? The first step is to recognize that there is a problem and identify the right cause of the problem. This may sound obvious, but similar problems can arise from different events, and the real issue may not always be apparent. To really solve the problem, it's important to find out what started it all. This is called identifying the root cause .

Example: You and your classmates have been working long hours on a project in the school's workshop. The next afternoon, you try to use your student ID card to access the workshop, but discover that your magnetic strip has been demagnetized. Since the card was a couple of years old, you chalk it up to wear and tear and get a new ID card. Later that same week you learn that several of your classmates had the same problem! After a little investigation, you discover that a strong magnet was stored underneath a workbench in the workshop. The magnet was the root cause of the demagnetized student ID cards.

The best way to identify the root cause of the problem is to ask questions and gather information. If you have a vague problem, investigating facts is more productive than guessing a solution. Ask yourself questions about the problem. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? When was the last time it worked correctly? What has changed since then? Can you diagram the process into separate steps? Where in the process is the problem occurring? Be curious, ask questions, gather facts, and make logical deductions rather than assumptions.

Watch Adam Savage from Mythbusters, describe his problem solving process [ ForaTv, 2010 ]. As you watch this section of the video, try to identify the questions he asks and the different strategies he uses.

Adam Savage shared many of his problem solving processes. List the ones you think are the five most important. Your list may be different from other people in your class—that's ok!

• [Page 3: Developing Problem Solving Processes] Adam Savage shared many of his problem solving processes. List the ones you think are the five most important.

“The ability to ask the right question is more than half the battle of finding the answer.” — Thomas J. Watson , founder of IBM

Voices From the Field: Solving Problems

In manufacturing facilities and machine shops, everyone on the floor is expected to know how to identify problems and find solutions. Today's employers look for the following skills in new employees: to analyze a problem logically, formulate a solution, and effectively communicate with others.

In this video, industry professionals share their own problem solving processes, the problem solving expectations of their employees, and an example of how a problem was solved.

Meet the Partners:

• Taconic High School in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is a comprehensive, fully accredited high school with special programs in Health Technology, Manufacturing Technology, and Work-Based Learning.
• Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, prepares its students with applied manufacturing technical skills, providing hands-on experience at industrial laboratories and manufacturing facilities, and instructing them in current technologies.
• H.C. Starck in Newton, Massachusetts, specializes in processing and manufacturing technology metals, such as tungsten, niobium, and tantalum. In almost 100 years of experience, they hold over 900 patents, and continue to innovate and develop new products.
• Nypro Healthcare in Devens, Massachusetts, specializes in precision injection-molded healthcare products. They are committed to good manufacturing processes including lean manufacturing and process validation.

Making Decisions

Now that you have a couple problem solving strategies in your toolbox, let's practice. In this exercise, you are given a scenario and you will be asked to decide what steps you would take to identify and solve the problem.

Scenario: You are a new employee and have just finished your training. As your first project, you have been assigned the milling of several additional components for a regular customer. Together, you and your trainer, Bill, set up for the first run. Checking your paperwork, you gather the tools and materials on the list. As you are mounting the materials on the table, you notice that you didn't grab everything and hurriedly grab a few more items from one of the bins. Once the material is secured on the CNC table, you load tools into the tool carousel in the order listed on the tool list and set the fixture offsets.

Bill tells you that since this is a rerun of a job several weeks ago, the CAD/CAM model has already been converted to CNC G-code. Bill helps you download the code to the CNC machine. He gives you the go-ahead and leaves to check on another employee. You decide to start your first run.

What problems did you observe in the video?

• [Page 5: Making Decisions] What problems did you observe in the video?
• What do you do next?
• Try to fix it yourself.
• Ask your trainer for help.

As you are cleaning up, you think about what happened and wonder why it happened. You try to create a mental picture of what happened. You are not exactly sure what the end mill hit, but it looked like it might have hit the dowel pin. You wonder if you grabbed the correct dowel pins from the bins earlier.

You can think of two possible next steps. You can recheck the dowel pin length to make sure it is the correct length, or do a dry run using the CNC single step or single block function with the spindle empty to determine what actually happened.

• Check the dowel pins.
• Use the single step/single block function to determine what happened.

You notice that your trainer, Bill, is still on the floor and decide to ask him for help. You describe the problem to him. Bill asks if you know what the end mill ran into. You explain that you are not sure but you think it was the dowel pin. Bill reminds you that it is important to understand what happened so you can fix the correct problem. He suggests that you start all over again and begin with a dry run using the single step/single block function, with the spindle empty, to determine what it hit. Or, since it happened at the end, he mentions that you can also check the G-code to make sure the Z-axis is raised before returning to the home position.

• Run the single step/single block function.
• Edit the G-code to raise the Z-axis.

You finish cleaning up and check the CNC for any damage. Luckily, everything looks good. You check your paperwork and gather the components and materials again. You look at the dowel pins you used earlier, and discover that they are not the right length. As you go to grab the correct dowel pins, you have to search though several bins. For the first time, you are aware of the mess - it looks like the dowel pins and other items have not been put into the correctly labeled bins. You spend 30 minutes straightening up the bins and looking for the correct dowel pins.

Finally finding them, you finish setting up. You load tools into the tool carousel in the order listed on the tool list and set the fixture offsets. Just to make sure, you use the CNC single step/single block function, to do a dry run of the part. Everything looks good! You are ready to create your first part. The first component is done, and, as you admire your success, you notice that the part feels hotter than it should.

You wonder why? You go over the steps of the process to mentally figure out what could be causing the residual heat. You wonder if there is a problem with the CNC's coolant system or if the problem is in the G-code.

• Look at the G-code.

After thinking about the problem, you decide that maybe there's something wrong with the setup. First, you clean up the damaged materials and remove the broken tool. You check the CNC machine carefully for any damage. Luckily, everything looks good. It is time to start over again from the beginning.

You again check your paperwork and gather the tools and materials on the setup sheet. After securing the new materials, you use the CNC single step/single block function with the spindle empty, to do a dry run of the part. You watch carefully to see if you can figure out what happened. It looks to you like the spindle barely misses hitting the dowel pin. You determine that the end mill was broken when it hit the dowel pin while returning to the start position.

After conducting a dry run using the single step/single block function, you determine that the end mill was damaged when it hit the dowel pin on its return to the home position. You discuss your options with Bill. Together, you decide the best thing to do would be to edit the G-code and raise the Z-axis before returning to home. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code. Just to make sure, you use the CNC single step/single block function, to do another dry run of the part. You are ready to create your first part. It works. You first part is completed. Only four more to go.

As you are cleaning up, you notice that the components are hotter than you expect and the end mill looks more worn than it should be. It dawns on you that while you were milling the component, the coolant didn't turn on. You wonder if it is a software problem in the G-code or hardware problem with the CNC machine.

It's the end of the day and you decide to finish the rest of the components in the morning.

• You decide to look at the G-code in the morning.
• You leave a note on the machine, just in case.

You decide that the best thing to do would be to edit the G-code and raise the Z-axis of the spindle before it returns to home. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code.

While editing the G-code to raise the Z-axis, you notice that the coolant is turned off at the beginning of the code and at the end of the code. The coolant command error caught your attention because your coworker, Mark, mentioned having a similar issue during lunch. You change the coolant command to turn the mist on.

• You decide to talk with your supervisor.
• You discuss what happened with a coworker over lunch.

As you reflect on the residual heat problem, you think about the machining process and the factors that could have caused the issue. You try to think of anything and everything that could be causing the issue. Are you using the correct tool for the specified material? Are you using the specified material? Is it running at the correct speed? Is there enough coolant? Are there chips getting in the way?

Wait, was the coolant turned on? As you replay what happened in your mind, you wonder why the coolant wasn't turned on. You decide to look at the G-code to find out what is going on.

From the milling machine computer, you open the CNC G-code. You notice that there are no coolant commands. You add them in and on the next run, the coolant mist turns on and the residual heat issues is gone. Now, its on to creating the rest of the parts.

Have you ever used brainstorming to solve a problem? Chances are, you've probably have, even if you didn't realize it.

You notice that your trainer, Bill, is on the floor and decide to ask him for help. You describe the problem with the end mill breaking, and how you discovered that items are not being returned to the correctly labeled bins. You think this caused you to grab the incorrect length dowel pins on your first run. You have sorted the bins and hope that the mess problem is fixed. You then go on to tell Bill about the residual heat issue with the completed part.

Together, you go to the milling machine. Bill shows you how to check the oil and coolant levels. Everything looks good at the machine level. Next, on the CNC computer, you open the CNC G-code. While looking at the code, Bill points out that there are no coolant commands. Bill adds them in and when you rerun the program, it works.

Bill is glad you mentioned the problem to him. You are the third worker to mention G-code issues over the last week. You noticed the coolant problems in your G-code, John noticed a Z-axis issue in his G-code, and Sam had issues with both the Z-axis and the coolant. Chances are, there is a bigger problem and Bill will need to investigate the root cause .

Talking with Bill, you discuss the best way to fix the problem. Bill suggests editing the G-code to raise the Z-axis of the spindle before it returns to its home position. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code. Following the setup sheet, you re-setup the job and use the CNC single step/single block function, to do another dry run of the part. Everything looks good, so you run the job again and create the first part. It works. Since you need four of each component, you move on to creating the rest of them before cleaning up and leaving for the day.

It's a new day and you have new components to create. As you are setting up, you go in search of some short dowel pins. You discover that the bins are a mess and components have not been put away in the correctly labeled bins. You wonder if this was the cause of yesterday's problem. As you reorganize the bins and straighten up the mess, you decide to mention the mess issue to Bill in your afternoon meeting.

You describe the bin mess and using the incorrect length dowels to Bill. He is glad you mentioned the problem to him. You are not the first person to mention similar issues with tools and parts not being put away correctly. Chances are there is a bigger safety issue here that needs to be addressed in the next staff meeting.

In any workplace, following proper safety and cleanup procedures is always important. This is especially crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly and sometimes dangerous equipment. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost, and save money.

You now know that the end mill was damaged when it hit the dowel pin. It seems to you that the easiest thing to do would be to edit the G-code and raise the Z-axis position of the spindle before it returns to the home position. You open the CNC control program and edit the G-code, raising the Z-axis. Starting over, you follow the setup sheet and re-setup the job. This time, you use the CNC single step/single block function, to do another dry run of the part. Everything looks good, so you run the job again and create the first part.

At the end of the day, you are reviewing your progress with your trainer, Bill. After you describe the day's events, he reminds you to always think about safety and the importance of following work procedures. He decides to bring the issue up in the next morning meeting as a reminder to everyone.

In any workplace, following proper procedures (especially those that involve safety) is always important. This is especially crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly, and sometimes dangerous equipment. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost, and save money. One tool to improve communication is the morning meeting or huddle.

The next morning, you check the G-code to determine what is wrong with the coolant. You notice that the coolant is turned off at the beginning of the code and also at the end of the code. This is strange. You change the G-code to turn the coolant on at the beginning of the run and off at the end. This works and you create the rest of the parts.

Throughout the day, you keep wondering what caused the G-code error. At lunch, you mention the G-code error to your coworker, John. John is not surprised. He said that he encountered a similar problem earlier this week. You decide to talk with your supervisor the next time you see him.

You are in luck. You see your supervisor by the door getting ready to leave. You hurry over to talk with him. You start off by telling him about how you asked Bill for help. Then you tell him there was a problem and the end mill was damaged. You describe the coolant problem in the G-code. Oh, and by the way, John has seen a similar problem before.

Your supervisor doesn't seem overly concerned, errors happen. He tells you "Good job, I am glad you were able to fix the issue." You are not sure whether your supervisor understood your explanation of what happened or that it had happened before.

The challenge of communicating in the workplace is learning how to share your ideas and concerns. If you need to tell your supervisor that something is not going well, it is important to remember that timing, preparation, and attitude are extremely important.

It is the end of your shift, but you want to let the next shift know that the coolant didn't turn on. You do not see your trainer or supervisor around. You decide to leave a note for the next shift so they are aware of the possible coolant problem. You write a sticky note and leave it on the monitor of the CNC control system.

How effective do you think this solution was? Did it address the problem?

In this scenario, you discovered several problems with the G-code that need to be addressed. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring and avoid injury to personnel. The challenge of communicating in the workplace is learning how and when to share your ideas and concerns. If you need to tell your co-workers or supervisor that there is a problem, it is important to remember that timing and the method of communication are extremely important.

You are able to fix the coolant problem in the G-code. While you are glad that the problem is fixed, you are worried about why it happened in the first place. It is important to remember that if a problem keeps reappearing, you may not be fixing the right problem. You may only be addressing the symptoms.

You decide to talk to your trainer. Bill is glad you mentioned the problem to him. You are the third worker to mention G-code issues over the last week. You noticed the coolant problems in your G-code, John noticed a Z-axis issue in his G-code, and Sam had issues with both the Z-axis and the coolant. Chances are, there is a bigger problem and Bill will need to investigate the root cause .

Over lunch, you ask your coworkers about the G-code problem and what may be causing the error. Several people mention having similar problems but do not know the cause.

You have now talked to three coworkers who have all experienced similar coolant G-code problems. You make a list of who had the problem, when they had the problem, and what each person told you.

When you see your supervisor later that afternoon, you are ready to talk with him. You describe the problem you had with your component and the damaged bit. You then go on to tell him about talking with Bill and discovering the G-code issue. You show him your notes on your coworkers' coolant issues, and explain that you think there might be a bigger problem.

You supervisor thanks you for your initiative in identifying this problem. It sounds like there is a bigger problem and he will need to investigate the root cause. He decides to call a team huddle to discuss the issue, gather more information, and talk with the team about the importance of communication.

Root Cause Analysis

Root cause analysis ( RCA ) is a method of problem solving that identifies the underlying causes of an issue. Root cause analysis helps people answer the question of why the problem occurred in the first place. RCA uses clear cut steps in its associated tools, like the "5 Whys Analysis" and the "Cause and Effect Diagram," to identify the origin of the problem, so that you can:

• Determine what happened.
• Determine why it happened.
• Fix the problem so it won’t happen again.

RCA works under the idea that systems and events are connected. An action in one area triggers an action in another, and another, and so on. By tracing back these actions, you can discover where the problem started and how it developed into the problem you're now facing. Root cause analysis can prevent problems from recurring, reduce injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost and save money. There are many different RCA techniques available to determine the root cause of a problem. These are just a few:

• Root Cause Analysis Tools
• 5 Whys Analysis
• Fishbone or Cause and Effect Diagram
• Pareto Analysis

How Huddles Work

Communication is a vital part of any setting where people work together. Effective communication helps employees and managers form efficient teams. It builds trusts between employees and management, and reduces unnecessary competition because each employee knows how their part fits in the larger goal.

One tool that management can use to promote communication in the workplace is the huddle . Just like football players on the field, a huddle is a short meeting where everyone is standing in a circle. A daily team huddle ensures that team members are aware of changes to the schedule, reiterated problems and safety issues, and how their work impacts one another. When done right, huddles create collaboration, communication, and accountability to results. Impromptu huddles can be used to gather information on a specific issue and get each team member's input.

The most important thing to remember about huddles is that they are short, lasting no more than 10 minutes, and their purpose is to communicate and identify. In essence, a huddle’s purpose is to identify priorities, communicate essential information, and discover roadblocks to productivity.

Who uses huddles? Many industries and companies use daily huddles. At first thought, most people probably think of hospitals and their daily patient update meetings, but lots of managers use daily meetings to engage their employees. Here are a few examples:

• Brian Scudamore, CEO of 1-800-Got-Junk? , uses the daily huddle as an operational tool to take the pulse of his employees and as a motivational tool. Watch a morning huddle meeting .
• Fusion OEM, an outsourced manufacturing and production company. What do employees take away from the daily huddle meeting .
• Biz-Group, a performance consulting group. Tips for a successful huddle .

Brainstorming

One tool that can be useful in problem solving is brainstorming . Brainstorming is a creativity technique designed to generate a large number of ideas for the solution to a problem. The method was first popularized in 1953 by Alex Faickney Osborn in the book Applied Imagination . The goal is to come up with as many ideas as you can in a fixed amount of time. Although brainstorming is best done in a group, it can be done individually. Like most problem solving techniques, brainstorming is a process.

• Define a clear objective.
• Have an agreed a time limit.
• During the brainstorming session, write down everything that comes to mind, even if the idea sounds crazy.
• If one idea leads to another, write down that idea too.
• Combine and refine ideas into categories of solutions.
• Assess and analyze each idea as a potential solution.

When used during problem solving, brainstorming can offer companies new ways of encouraging staff to think creatively and improve production. Brainstorming relies on team members' diverse experiences, adding to the richness of ideas explored. This means that you often find better solutions to the problems. Team members often welcome the opportunity to contribute ideas and can provide buy-in for the solution chosen—after all, they are more likely to be committed to an approach if they were involved in its development. What's more, because brainstorming is fun, it helps team members bond.

• Watch Peggy Morgan Collins, a marketing executive at Power Curve Communications discuss How to Stimulate Effective Brainstorming .
• Watch Kim Obbink, CEO of Filter Digital, a digital content company, and her team share their top five rules for How to Effectively Generate Ideas .

Importance of Good Communication and Problem Description

Communication is one of the most frequent activities we engage in on a day-to-day basis. At some point, we have all felt that we did not effectively communicate an idea as we would have liked. The key to effective communication is preparation. Rather than attempting to haphazardly improvise something, take a few minutes and think about what you want say and how you will say it. If necessary, write yourself a note with the key points or ideas in the order you want to discuss them. The notes can act as a reminder or guide when you talk to your supervisor.

Tips for clear communication of an issue:

• Provide a clear summary of your problem. Start at the beginning, give relevant facts, timelines, and examples.
• Avoid including your opinion or personal attacks in your explanation.
• Avoid using words like "always" or "never," which can give the impression that you are exaggerating the problem.
• If this is an ongoing problem and you have collected documentation, give it to your supervisor once you have finished describing the problem.
• Remember to listen to what's said in return; communication is a two-way process.

Not all communication is spoken. Body language is nonverbal communication that includes your posture, your hands and whether you make eye contact. These gestures can be subtle or overt, but most importantly they communicate meaning beyond what is said. When having a conversation, pay attention to how you stand. A stiff position with arms crossed over your chest may imply that you are being defensive even if your words state otherwise. Shoving your hands in your pockets when speaking could imply that you have something to hide. Be wary of using too many hand gestures because this could distract listeners from your message.

The challenge of communicating in the workplace is learning how and when to share your ideas or concerns. If you need to tell your supervisor or co-worker about something that is not going well, keep in mind that good timing and good attitude will go a long way toward helping your case.

Like all skills, effective communication needs to be practiced. Toastmasters International is perhaps the best known public speaking organization in the world. Toastmasters is open to anyone who wish to improve their speaking skills and is willing to put in the time and effort to do so. To learn more, visit Toastmasters International .

Methods of Communication

Communication of problems and issues in any workplace is important, particularly when safety is involved. It is therefore crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly, and sometimes dangerous equipment. As issues and problems arise, they need to be addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important skill because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost and save money.

There are many different ways to communicate: in person, by phone, via email, or written. There is no single method that fits all communication needs, each one has its time and place.

In person: In the workplace, face-to-face meetings should be utilized whenever possible. Being able to see the person you need to speak to face-to-face gives you instant feedback and helps you gauge their response through their body language. Be careful of getting sidetracked in conversation when you need to communicate a problem.

Email: Email has become the communication standard for most businesses. It can be accessed from almost anywhere and is great for things that don’t require an immediate response. Email is a great way to communicate non-urgent items to large amounts of people or just your team members. One thing to remember is that most people's inboxes are flooded with emails every day and unless they are hyper vigilant about checking everything, important items could be missed. For issues that are urgent, especially those around safety, email is not always be the best solution.

Phone: Phone calls are more personal and direct than email. They allow us to communicate in real time with another person, no matter where they are. Not only can talking prevent miscommunication, it promotes a two-way dialogue. You don’t have to worry about your words being altered or the message arriving on time. However, mobile phone use and the workplace don't always mix. In particular, using mobile phones in a manufacturing setting can lead to a variety of problems, cause distractions, and lead to serious injury.

Written: Written communication is appropriate when detailed instructions are required, when something needs to be documented, or when the person is too far away to easily speak with over the phone or in person.

There is no "right" way to communicate, but you should be aware of how and when to use the appropriate form of communication for your situation. When deciding the best way to communicate with a co-worker or manager, put yourself in their shoes, and think about how you would want to learn about the issue. Also, consider what information you would need to know to better understand the issue. Use your good judgment of the situation and be considerate of your listener's viewpoint.

Did you notice any other potential problems in the previous exercise?

• [Page 6:] Did you notice any other potential problems in the previous exercise?

Summary of Strategies

In this exercise, you were given a scenario in which there was a problem with a component you were creating on a CNC machine. You were then asked how you wanted to proceed. Depending on your path through this exercise, you might have found an easy solution and fixed it yourself, asked for help and worked with your trainer, or discovered an ongoing G-code problem that was bigger than you initially thought.

When issues and problems arise, it is important that they are addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost, and save money. Although, each path in this exercise ended with a description of a problem solving tool for your toolbox, the first step is always to identify the problem and define the context in which it happened.

There are several strategies that can be used to identify the root cause of a problem. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a method of problem solving that helps people answer the question of why the problem occurred. RCA uses a specific set of steps, with associated tools like the “5 Why Analysis" or the “Cause and Effect Diagram,” to identify the origin of the problem, so that you can:

Once the underlying cause is identified and the scope of the issue defined, the next step is to explore possible strategies to fix the problem.

If you are not sure how to fix the problem, it is okay to ask for help. Problem solving is a process and a skill that is learned with practice. It is important to remember that everyone makes mistakes and that no one knows everything. Life is about learning. It is okay to ask for help when you don’t have the answer. When you collaborate to solve problems you improve workplace communication and accelerates finding solutions as similar problems arise.

One tool that can be useful for generating possible solutions is brainstorming . Brainstorming is a technique designed to generate a large number of ideas for the solution to a problem. The method was first popularized in 1953 by Alex Faickney Osborn in the book Applied Imagination. The goal is to come up with as many ideas as you can, in a fixed amount of time. Although brainstorming is best done in a group, it can be done individually.

Depending on your path through the exercise, you may have discovered that a couple of your coworkers had experienced similar problems. This should have been an indicator that there was a larger problem that needed to be addressed.

In any workplace, communication of problems and issues (especially those that involve safety) is always important. This is especially crucial in manufacturing where people are constantly working with heavy, costly, and sometimes dangerous equipment. When issues and problems arise, it is important that they be addressed in an efficient and timely manner. Effective communication is an important tool because it can prevent problems from recurring, avoid injury to personnel, reduce rework and scrap, and ultimately, reduce cost and save money.

One strategy for improving communication is the huddle . Just like football players on the field, a huddle is a short meeting with everyone standing in a circle. A daily team huddle is a great way to ensure that team members are aware of changes to the schedule, any problems or safety issues are identified and that team members are aware of how their work impacts one another. When done right, huddles create collaboration, communication, and accountability to results. Impromptu huddles can be used to gather information on a specific issue and get each team member's input.

To learn more about different problem solving strategies, choose an option below. These strategies accompany the outcomes of different decision paths in the problem solving exercise.

• View Problem Solving Strategies Select a strategy below... Root Cause Analysis How Huddles Work Brainstorming Importance of Good Problem Description Methods of Communication

Communication is one of the most frequent activities we engage in on a day-to-day basis. At some point, we have all felt that we did not effectively communicate an idea as we would have liked. The key to effective communication is preparation. Rather than attempting to haphazardly improvise something, take a few minutes and think about what you want say and how you will say it. If necessary, write yourself a note with the key points or ideas in the order you want to discuss them. The notes can act as a reminder or guide during your meeting.

• Provide a clear summary of the problem. Start at the beginning, give relevant facts, timelines, and examples.

In person: In the workplace, face-to-face meetings should be utilized whenever possible. Being able to see the person you need to speak to face-to-face gives you instant feedback and helps you gauge their response in their body language. Be careful of getting sidetracked in conversation when you need to communicate a problem.

There is no "right" way to communicate, but you should be aware of how and when to use the appropriate form of communication for the situation. When deciding the best way to communicate with a co-worker or manager, put yourself in their shoes, and think about how you would want to learn about the issue. Also, consider what information you would need to know to better understand the issue. Use your good judgment of the situation and be considerate of your listener's viewpoint.

"Never try to solve all the problems at once — make them line up for you one-by-one.” — Richard Sloma

Problem Solving: An Important Job Skill

Problem solving improves efficiency and communication on the shop floor. It increases a company's efficiency and profitability, so it's one of the top skills employers look for when hiring new employees. Recent industry surveys show that employers consider soft skills, such as problem solving, as critical to their business’s success.

The 2011 survey, "Boiling Point? The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing ," polled over a thousand manufacturing executives who reported that the number one skill deficiency among their current employees is problem solving, which makes it difficult for their companies to adapt to the changing needs of the industry.

In this video, industry professionals discuss their expectations and present tips for new employees joining the manufacturing workforce.

Quick Summary

• [Quick Summary: Question1] What are two things you learned in this case study?
• What question(s) do you still have about the case study?
• [Quick Summary: Question2] What question(s) do you still have about the case study?
• Is there anything you would like to learn more about with respect to this case study?
• [Quick Summary: Question3] Is there anything you would like to learn more about with respect to this case study?

Advertisement

Technological problem solving: an investigation of differences associated with levels of task success

• Open access
• Published: 02 June 2021
• Volume 32 , pages 1725–1753, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• David Morrison-Love   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9009-4738 1  

8378 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Research into technological problem solving has shown it to exist in a range of forms and draw upon different processes and knowledge types. This paper adds to this understanding by identifying procedural and epistemic differences in relation to task performance for pupils solving a well-defined technological problem. The study is theoretically grounded in a transformative epistemology of technology education. 50 pupils in small groups worked through a cantilever problem, the most and least successful solutions to which were identified using a Delphi technique. Time-interval photography, verbal interactions, observations and supplementary data formed a composite representation of activity which was analysed with successively less contrasting groups to isolate sustained differences. Analyses revealed key differences in three areas. First, more successful groups used better and more proactive process-management strategies including use of planning, role and task allocation with lower levels of group tension. Second, they made greater use of reflection in which knowledge associated with the technological solution was explicitly verblised. This was defined as ‘analytical reflection’ and reveals aspects of pupils’ qualitative technical knowledge. Third, higher-performing groups exhibited greater levels of tacit-procedural knowledge within their solutions. There was also evidence that less successful groups were less affected by competition and not as comprehensive in translating prior conceptual learning into their tangible technological solutions. Overall findings suggest that proactive management, and making contextual and technical connections, are important for pupils solving well-defined technological problems. This understanding can be used to support classroom pedagogies that help pupils learn to problem solve more effectively.

Similar content being viewed by others

Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Educational Technology Skills: A Problem-Solving Process

Daniela R. Vilarinho-Pereira, Adrie A. Koehler & Yishi Long

Problem-Based Learning in Technology Education

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Problem solving is an activity, a context and a dominant pedagogical frame for Technology Education. It constitutes a central method and a critical skill through which school pupils learn about and become proficient in technology (Custer et al., 2001 ). Research has, among other things, been able to identify and investigate sets of intellectual and cognitive processes (Buckley et al., 2019 ; Haupt, 2018 ; Johnson, 1997 ; Sung & Kelly, 2019 ) and shown there to be conceptual, procedural, relational and harder-to-get-to forms of ‘technological knowledge’ involved when pupils develop technological solutions (de Vries, 2005 ; McCormick, 1997 , 2004 ; Rauscher, 2011 ). Some authors argue that technological problem solving (and design) is a situated activity (Jackson & Strimel, 2018 ; Murphy & McCormick, 1997 ; Liddament, 1996 ), but with social and context-independent processes also playing an important role (e.g. Jones, 1997 ; Winkelmann & Hacker, 2011 ). Within and across this vista, there has been strong interest in more open-ended, creative and design-based problem-solving (Lewis, 2005 , 2009 ), which Xu et al. ( 2019 ) notes became particularly prominent after 2006. These studies have helped to understand some of the challenges and pedagogies of design (Gómez Puente et al., 2013 ; Lavonen et al., 2002 ; Mioduser & Dagan, 2007 ; Mawson, 2003 ) including those that mitigate effects such as cognitive fixation (e.g. McLellan & Nicholl, 2011 ). Problem solving, it seems, is a pervasive idea in technology education research and policy. Middleton ( 2009 ) notes that problem solving is found in almost all international technology education curricula.

The pace, nature and complexity of contemporary societal challenges make it more critical than ever that technology classrooms prepare people who can think through and respond to technological problems effectively. It requires that we strengthen our understanding in ways that will ultimately be powerful for shaping classroom learning. One way of contributing to this is to learn more about the differences between learners who are more and less successful at technological problem solving. Studies that share a comparative perspective and/or a focus upon task success are relatively few. Doornekamp ( 2001 ) compared pupils (circa 13 years old) who solved technological problems using weakly structured instructional materials with those using strongly structured materials. It was shown that the latter led to statistically significant improvements in the quality of the technical solutions. More recently, Bartholomew & Strimel ( 2018 ) were able to show that, for open-ended problem solving, there was no significant relationship between prior experience and folio creation, but that more in-school school experience of open-ended problem solving corresponded to higher ranked solutions.

This paper contributes to this work by reporting on a study that compares groups of pupils during technological problem solving in order to identify areas of difference and the factors associated with more successful outcomes. Specifically, it addresses the question: ‘In terms of intellectual processes and knowledge, what are the differences in the modi operandi between groups of pupils that produced more and less successful technological solutions to a well-defined problem?’ Theoretically grounded in a transformative epistemology of technology education (Morrison-Love, 2017 ), the study identifies prominent procedural and epistemic differences in pupils’ thinking and technical solutions. Groups of pupils engaged with a structures problem requiring them to develop a cantilever bridge system which would facilitate safe travel across a body of water.

The paper begins by setting out the theoretical basis and conceptual framework for investigation before describing the comparative methodological and analytical approaches that were adopted. Following an analysis and presentation of key findings, conclusion and implications are discussed.

A theoretical basis for the study of technological problem solving

Despite there being no single comprehensive paradigm for technological problem solving, a theoretical grounding and conceptual framework necessary for this study are presented. At the theoretical level, this study is based upon a ‘transformative epistemology’ for technology education (Morrison-Love, 2017 ). From this, a ternary conceptual framework based upon mode, epistemology and process is developed to support study design and initiate data analysis.

A transformative epistemology for technology education (Morrison-Love, ibid) proposes that pupils’ technological knowledge and capability arises from the ontological transformation of their technical solution from ‘perdurant’ (more conceptual, mutable, less well-defined, partial) in the early stages, to ‘endurant’ (comprehensive, tangible, stable over time) upon completion. It proposes that technical outcomes exist in material and tangible forms and that to be technological (rather than, for example, social, cultural or aesthetic) these must somehow enhance human capabilities in their intended systems of use. For this study, the ideas of transformative epistemology support problem solving in which pupils build technological knowledge by iteratively moving from concept to tangible, material solution. Moreover, it means pupils are successful in this when their solutions or prototypes: (1) enhance existing human capabilities in some way, and (2) are sufficiently developed to be stable over time, beyond the problem-solving activity that created it.

A conceptual framework for technological problem solving

A ternary conceptual framework (Fig. 1 ) of mode, process and epistemology was developed from the literature in which the knowledge and cognitive/intellectual processes used by pupils are enacted in the ‘process application block’. This is like the ‘problem space’ described in a model proposed by Mioduser ( 1998 ). Collectively, the goal of creating a physical artefact, the solution itself, the epistemic and procedural dimensions reflect the four dimensions of technology identified by Custer ( 1995 ).

‘A conceptual framework for technological problem solving’

Mode and forms dimension

Although problem solving may be ‘technological’, several classifications of both problem type and problem solving are found in the literature. Ill-defined and well-defined problems build upon the earlier work of information processing and cognitive psychology (see Jonassen, 1997 ). Typically, these two forms reflect different extents to which the outcome is specified to the solver at the outset. Ill-defined problems are strongly associated with design and creativity, and Twyford and Järvinen ( 2000 ) suggest that these more open briefs promote greater social interaction and use by pupils of prior knowledge and experience. Additionally, two forms of troubleshooting were identified in the literature: emergent troubleshooting and discrete troubleshooting. MacPherson ( 1998 ) argues that ‘troubleshooting’ constitutes a particular subset of technological problem solving—something earlier recognised by McCade ( 1990 ), who views it as the identification and overcoming of problems encountered during the production or use of a technical solution. In this study, emergent troubleshooting occurs in the process of developing solutions in response to emergent problems (McCormick, 1994 ). Discrete troubleshooting is a process in which significant technical understanding is applied in a structured way (Schaafstal et al., 2000 ) to resolve something about an existing artefact.

Intellectual and cognitive process dimension

Studies often conceptualise cognitive processes discretely rather than hierarchically, and different studies employ different process sets. Williams ( 2000 ), identifies evaluation, communication, modelling, generating ideas, research and investigation, producing and documenting as important to technological problem solving, while DeLuca ( 1991 ) identifies troubleshooting, the scientific process, the design process, research and development, and project management. There are also studies that employ specific, or more established, coding schemes for sets of intellectual and cognitive processes. A detailed analysis of these is given Grubbs et al. ( 2018 ), although the extent to which a particular process remains discrete or could form a sub-process of another remains problematic. In DeLuca’s ( 1991 ) break down for example, to what extent are research and investigation part of design and does this depend on the scale at which we conceptualise different processes?

Regardless of the processes a study defines, it is typically understood that pupils apply them in iterative or cyclic fashion. This is reflected across several models from Argyle’s ( 1972 ) ‘Motor Skill Process Model’ (perception-translation-motor response) through to those of Miodusre and Kipperman ( 2002 ) and Scrivener et al. ( 2002 ) (evaluation-modification cycles) which pertain specifically to technology education. All these models bridge pupils’ conceptual-internal representations with their practical-external representations as they move towards an ontologically endurant solution and this is captured by the ‘Re-Application/Transformation Loop’ of the conceptual framework. Given that little is known about where differences might lie, the process set identified by Halfin ( 1973 ) was adopted due to its rigour and the breadth of thinking it encompasses. This set was validated for technology classrooms by Hill and Wicklein ( 1999 ) and used successfully by other studies of pupils technological thinking including Hill ( 1997 ), Kelley ( 2008 ) and Strimel ( 2014 ).

Epistemology dimension

The nature and sources of knowledge play a critical role for pupils when solving technological problems, but these remain far from straightforward to conceptualise. McCormick ( 1997 ) observes that the activity of technology education, and its body of content, can be thought of as ‘procedural knowledge’ and ‘conceptual knowledge’ respectively. Vincenti ( 1990 ), in the context of Engineering, makes the case for descriptive knowledge (things as they currently are) and prescriptive knowledge (of that with is required to meet a desired state) but also recognises knowledge can take on implicit, or tacit forms relating to an individual’s skill, judgement, and practice (Polanyi, 1967 ; Schön, 1992 ; Sternberg, 1999 ; Welch, 1998 ). Arguably, moving from concept to physical solution will demand from pupils a certain level of practical skill and judgement, and Morgan ( 2008 ) observes that procedural knowledge which is explicit in the early stages becomes increasingly implicit with mastery. Notably, in addition to conceptual, procedural and tacit forms of knowledge, there is also evidence that knowledge of principles plays a role. Distinct from impoverished notions of technology as ‘applied science’, Rophol ( 1997 ) shows that it is often technological principles, laws and maxims that are applied during problem solving rather than scientific ones. Frey ( 1989 ) makes similar observations and sees this form of knowledge arising largely from practice. In this study, knowledge of principles involves knowledge of a relationship between things. It is not constrained to those that are represented scientifically.

The conceptual framework finally accounts for pupils’ sources of knowledge during problem solving, building principally on a design knowledge framework of media, community and domain presented by Erkip et al. ( 1997 ). In this study, media includes task information, representations and materials; community includes teachers and peers, and domain relates to prior technological knowledge from within technology lessons and prior personal knowledge from out with technology lessons. Finally, the developing solution is itself recognised a source of knowledge that pupils iteratively engage with and reflect upon, even when it appears that limited progress in being made (Hamel & Elshout, 2000 ).

Methodology

The research question in this study is concerned with differences in the knowledge and intellectual processes used by pupils in moving from a perdurant to an endurant technical solution. From an exploratory stance, this elicits a dualistic activity system involving pupils’ subjective constructions of reality as well as the resultant tangible and more objective material solution. The study does not aim to investigate pupils’ own subjective constructions from an emic perspective, but rather seeks to determine the nature and occurrences of any differences during observable real-time problem-solving activity. As such, content rather than thematic analysis was used (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008 ; Vaismoradi et al., 2013 ) with concurrent data collection to build a composite representation of reality (Gall et al., 2003 , p.14). Complementary data provided insights into study effects, the classrooms and contexts within which problem-solving took place.

This study assumes that should differences exist, these will be discernible in the inferred cognitive processes, external material transformations, interactions and verbalisation (even though this tends to diminish as activity becomes more practical). Absolute and objective observation is not possible. This study also accepts that data gathering and analysis are influenced by theory, researcher fallibility and bias which will be explicitly accounted for as far as possible. Finally, while the conceptual framework provides an analytical starting point, it should not preclude the capture of differences that may lie elsewhere in the data including, for example, process that lie out with those identified by Halfin ( 1973 ).

Participants, selection and grouping

To support transferability, a representative spread of pupils from low, medium and high socio-economic backgrounds took part in this study. Purposeful, four-stage criterion sampling was used (Gall et al., 2003 , p.179). Stage one identified six schools at each socio-economic level from all Scottish secondary schools that presented pupils for one or more technology subjects with the Scottish Qualifications Authority. This was done using socio-economic data from the Scottish Area Deprivation Index, the Carstairs Index and pupil eligibility for subsidised meals. Secondary school catchment areas were used to account for pupil demographics as accurately as possible. All eighteen schools were subsequently ranked with one median drawn from low, medium and high bands of socio-economic deprivation (School 1: Low, School 2: Medium, School 3: High).

One class in each school was then selected from the second year of study prior to pupils making specific subject choices to minimise variations in curricular experience. In total, 3 class teachers and 50 pupils (20 female, 30 male) aged between 12 and 13 years old took part in the study. The group rather than the individual was defined as unit of study to centralise verbal interaction.

None of the pupils participating in this study had experience of group approaches such as co-operative learning and it was likely that groups might experience participation effects including inter-group conflict and interaction effects (Harkins, 1987 ; Sherif et al., 1961 ), social loafing (Salomon & Globerson, 1989 ), free-rider (Strong & Anderson, 1990 ) and status differential effects (Rowell, 2002 ). Relevant also to this study is evidence suggesting that gender effects can take place in untrained groups undertaking practical/material manipulation activities. To maximise interaction between group members and the material solution, thirteen single sex groups averaging four pupils were formed in order to: (1) minimise the marginalisation of girls with boys’ tendency to monopolise materials and apparatus in groups (Conwell et al., 1993 ; Whyte, 1984 ); (2) recognise boys’ tendency to respond more readily to other boys (Webb, 1984 ) and, (3) maximise girls’ opportunities to interact which is seen to erode in mixed groups (Parker & Rennie, 2002 ; Rennie & Parker, 1987 ). Hong et al. ( 2012 ) examines such gender differences in detail specifically within the context of technological problem solving. Teacher participation in group allocation minimised inter-group conflict and interaction effects although groups still experienced naturally fluctuating attrition from pupil absences (School 1 = 17.6%; School 2 = 2.5% and School 3 = 8.8%).

Identification of most and least successful solutions

The research question requires differences to be identified in terms of levels of success. The overall trustworthiness of any differences therefore depends upon the credible identification of the most and least successful solutions from the thirteen produced. Wholly objective assessment of the pupils’ solutions is not possible, and material imperfections in different solutions negated reliable physical testing across the three classes. Moreover, because the researcher earlier observed pupils while problem solving, neutrality of researcher judgement in establishing a rank order of group solutions was equally problematic. Everton and Green ( 1986 ) identify this biasing risk between and early and later stages of research as a form of contamination.

To address these limitations, a Delphi technique was design using the work of Gordon ( 1994 ), Rowe and Wright ( 1999 ) and Yousuf ( 2007 ). This was undertaken anonymously prior to any analysis and, in conjunction with the results of physical testing, enabled the four most successful and four least successful solutions to be confidently identified independently of the researcher. A panel of eight secondary school teachers was convened from schools out with the study. All panel members had expertise in teaching structures with no dependent relationships or conflicts of interest. Following Delphi training, and a threshold level of 75%, the four most and four least successful solutions on outcome alone were identified after two rounds. Qualitative content validity checks confirmed that panel judgements fell within the scope of the accessible information. 37/43 reasons given were ‘High’, with six considered ‘Medium’ because the reasoning was partially speculative. When triangulated with additional evidence from physical testing, two cohorts of four groups were identified and paired to form four dyads (Table 1 ).

Study design

As noted, ‘Structures’ was chosen as a topic area and was new to all participants. It was appropriate for setting well-defined problems and allowed pupils to draw upon a sufficiently wide range of processes and knowledge types in developing a tangible, endurant solution. In discussion with the researcher, teachers did not alter their teaching style and adopted pedagogy and formative interactions that would support independent thinking, reasoning and problem solving. This study involved a learning phase, followed by a problem-solving phase.

In the learning phase, groups engaged over three fifty-minute periods with a unit of work on structures which was developed collaboratively with, and delivered by, the three classroom teachers. This allowed pupils to interact with materials and develop a qualitative understanding of key structural concepts including strength, tension and compression, triangulation, and turning moments. During this time, pupils also acclimatised to the presence of the researcher and recording equipment which helped to reduce any potential Hawthorne effect (Gall et al., 2003 ). Structured observations, teacher de-briefs and questionnaires were used in this phase to capture study effects, unit content coverage and environmental consistency between the three classrooms. Content coverage and environmental consistency were shown to be extremely high. Scores from the unit activity sheets that pupils completed were used to gauge group understanding of key concepts.

The problem-solving phase took place over two circa 50-minute periods (range: 40–52 m) in which pupils responded to a well-defined problem brief. This required them to develop a cantilever bridge enabling travel across a body of water. This bridge would enhance people’s ability to traverse terrain (conditions for being ‘technological’) with maximal span rigidity and minimal deflection (conditions for an ontologically ‘endurant’ solution). All groups had access to the same range and number of materials and resources and were issued with a base board showing water and land on which to develop their solutions.

While video capture was explored in depth (Lomax & Casey, 1998 ), challenges in reliably capturing solution detail resulted in group verbalisation being recorded as audio. This was synchronised with time interval photography and supplemented with structured observer-participant observation that focused on a sub-set of observable processes from the conceptual framework (Halfin, 1973 ). The developing technical solutions were viewed as manifestations of the knowledge and intellectual processes used by pupils at different points in time through their cognitive and material interactions. Photographs captured the results of these interactions in group solutions every 3–4 min but did not capture interactions between pupils. The structured observational approach adopted continuous coding similar to that found in the Flanders System of Interaction analysis (Amatari, 2015 ) and was refined through two pilot studies. During each problem-solving session, groups were observed at least twice between photographs and, following each session, pupil questionnaires, teacher de-briefs and solution videos (360° panoramic pivot about the solution) were completed to support future analysis. Reflexive accounts by the researcher also captured critical events, observer and study effects.

Analytical approach

All data were prepared, time-synchronised and analysed in three stages. Core verbal data (apx. 12h) and photographic data (n = 206) were triangulated with observational and other data against time. The problem-solving phase for each class was broken into a series of 3–4 min samples labelled S = 1, S = 2, S = 3…with durations in each recorded in minutes and seconds. Verbal data were analysed using NVivo software using digital waveforms rather than transcribed files to preserve immediacy, accuracy and minimise levels of interpretation (Wainwright & Russell, 2010 ; Zamawe, 2015 ). Photographic data were coded for the physical developments of the solutions (e.g. adding/removing materials in particular places) allowing solution development to be mapped for different groups over time. Triangulation of data also allowed coding to capture whether individual developments enhanced or detracted from the overall function efficacy of the solution.

The first stage of analysis was immersive, beginning with an initial codebook derived from the conceptual framework. In response to the data this iteratively shifted to a more inductive mode. To sensitise the analysis to differences, the most successful and the least successful groups were compared first as is discussed by Strauss 1987 (Miles & Huberman, 1994 , p.58). Three frameworks of differences emerged from this: (1) epistemic differences, (2) process differences, and (3) social and extrinsic differences. These were then applied to dyads of decreasing contrast and successively  refined in response to how these differences were reflected in the wider data set. Seven complete passes allowed non-profitable codes to be omitted and frameworks to be finalised. A final stage summarised differences across all groups.

Analysis and findings

The analysis and findings are presented in two main parts: (1) findings from the learning phase, and (2) findings from the problem-solving phase. Verbal data forms a core data source throughout and coding includes both counts and durations (in minutes and seconds). Direct quotations are used from verbal data, although the pupils involved in the study were from regions of Scotland with differing and often very strong local dialects. Quotations are therefore presented with dialect effects removed:

Example data excerpt reflecting dialect: “See instead-e all-e-us watchin’, we could all be doin’ su-hum instead-o watchin’ Leanne..” Example data excerpt with dialect removed: “See instead of all of us watching, we could all be doing something instead of watching Leanne..”

Part 1: Findings from the Learning Phase

Both teacher and researcher observation confirmed that pupils in all three classes engaged well with the unit of work (50 pupils across 13 groups) with all 40 content indicators covered by each class. Teachers of classes 1 and 3 commented that the lesson pace was slightly faster than pupils were used to. As expected, different teaching styles and examples were between classes, but all pupils completed the same unit activity sheets. The teacher of class 2, for example, used man-made structures and insect wings to explore triangulation; and the teacher in class 3 talked about the improved stability pupils get by standing with their feet apart. The understanding reflected in activity sheets was very good overall and Table 2 illustrates the percentage of correct responses for each class in relation to each of the three core concept areas.

Though unit activity sheets are not standardised tests, the conditions of administration, scoring, standards for interpretation, fairness and concept validity discussed by Gall et al. ( 2003 , p.xx) were maintained as far as possible. Evidence did not show that representational/stylistic variations by teachers had any discernible effect on pupil understanding and was seen to maintain normality from the pupils’ perspective. Class 3 scored consistently highly across all conceptual areas, although the qualitative understanding of turning moments was least secure for all three classes. Non-completion of selected questions in the task sheets partially explains lower numerical attainment for this concept in class 1 and 2, however, it is unknown if omissions resulted from a lack of understanding. The figures in Table 2 are absence corrected to account for fluctuating pupil attendance at sessions: (17.6% pupil absence across sessions for class 1, compared with 8.8% and 2.5% for classes 3 and 3 respectively). Table 3 illustrates the percentage scores for activity sheets completed by groups in the more and less successful cohorts.

Observational and reflexive data highlighted evidence of some researcher and recorder effects. These were typically associated with pupils’ interest in understanding the roles of the researcher and class teacher, and discussion around what they could say while being recorded. These subsided over time for all but two groups in Class 1, but with no substantive effect on pupils’ technological thinking.

In summary, findings from the learning phase show that: (1) Pupils engagement was high, and all classes covered the core structural concepts in the unit; (2) pupil knowledge and understanding, as measured by activity sheet responses, was very good overall but scores for turning moments were comparatively lower, and (3) study effect subsided quite quickly for all but two groups and there was no evidence showing these to be detrimental to technological thinking. These differences are considered epistemic and are captured in the framework of difference in Fig. 5 .

Part 2: findings from the problem-solving phase

Part 2 begins by describing the differences from comparing the material solutions produced by the most and least successful groups (dyad 1). Subsequent sections report upon the three areas in which difference were found: epistemic differences, process differences and social and extrinsic differences. Each of these sections lead with the analysis from the most contrasting groups (dyad 1) before presenting the resultant framework of difference. They conclude by reporting on how the differences in these frameworks are reflected across the wider data set. As with findings across all sections, findings only account for areas of the conceptual framework in which differences were identified. For processes such as measuring and testing, no difference was found and other processes, such as computing, did not feature for any of the groups.

Differences in the solutions produced by the most & least successful groups (dyad 1)

Group 5′s solution was identified as the most successful and Group7′s solution was identified as the least successful. Overall, both of these groups engaged well with the task and produced cantilevers that are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 . The order in which different parts of the solutions were developed is indicated by colour with the lighter parts appearing earlier in problem solving than the darker parts. Figure 4 shows this cumulative physical development of each solution over time. Both groups shared a similar conceptual basis and employed triangulation above and below the road surface. Figure 4 shows that Group 5′s solution evolved through 36 developments, while Group 7 undertook 23 developments and chose to strip down and restart their solution at the beginning of the second problem solving session. Similarly, groups 6, 11 and 13 removed or rebuilt significant sections of their solution. Neither group 5 or 7 undertook any developments under the rear of the road surface, and the greatest percentage of developments applied to the road surface itself (Group 7: 30.6%; Group 5: 47.8%). For Group 5, it was only developments 5 and 6 (Fig. 2 ) which offered little to no functional structural advantage. All other developments contributed to either triangulation, rigidity or strength through configuration and material choice with no evidence of misconception, which was also noted by the Delphi panel. The orientation, configuration and choice of materials by Group 7 share similarities with Group 5 insofar as each reflected knowledge of a cognate concept or principle (e.g. triangulation). Delphi Panel Member 8 described Group 7′s solution as having a good conceptual basis. Key differences, however, lay in the overall structural integrity of the solution and the underdevelopment of the road surface (Fig. 3 , Dev.1 and Dev.5) which mean that Group 5 achieved a more ontologically endurant solution than Group 7 did. Evidence from Group 7′s discussion (S = 3, 3.34–3.37; S = 3, 3.38–3.39; S = 16, 3.26–3.30) suggests this is partly because of misconception and deficits in knowledge about materials and the task/cantilever requirements. This was also reflected in the group’s activity responses during structures unit in the learning phase. Alongside the photographic evidence and reflexive notes of the researcher, this suggest that there was  some difficultly in translating concepts and ideas into a practical form. This constitutes a difference in tacit-procedural knowledge between Group 5 and Group 7.

‘Group 5 solution schematic’

‘Group 7 solution schematic’

‘Cumulative development of tangible solutions’

Epistemic differences during problem solving

As well as the knowledge differences in the learning phase and the physical solutions, analysis of the most and least successful groups revealed epistemic differences in problem solving activity related to ‘task knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of concepts and principles’. The extent to which ‘knowledge’ can be reliably coded for in this context is limited because it rapidly becomes inseparable from process. Skills are processes which, in turn, are forms of enacted knowledge. Consequently, although Halfin ( 1973 ) defines idea generation as a knowledge generating process using all the senses, attempts to code for this were unsuccessful because it was not possible to ascertain with any confidence where one idea ended, and another began. Coding was possible, however, for ‘prior personal knowledge’, ‘task knowledge’ and ‘prior technological knowledge’. The analysis of these is present along with the resulting framework of epistemic difference with prior personal knowledge omitted on the basis that no differences between groups was found. The final section looks at how epistemic differences are reflected in the activity of the remaining groups.

Epistemic differences between the most & least successful groups (dyad 1)

Task knowledge is the knowledge pupils have of the problem statement and includes relatively objective parameters, conditions, and constraints. One key difference was the extent to which groups explicitly used this to support decision making. Group 5 spent considerably more time than Group 7 discussing what they knew and understood of the task prior to construction (1m10s vs. 8 s) but during construction, had more instances where their knowledge of the task appeared uncertain or was questioned (n = 6 for Group 5 vs. n = 2 for Group 7). Differences were also found in the prior technological knowledge used by groups. This knowledge includes core structural concepts and principles explored in the learning phase. As with task knowledge, Group 5 verbalised this category of knowledge to a far greater extent than Group 7, both apart from, and as part of, formative discussions with the class teacher (18:59 s vs. 14:43 s). In only one instance was the prior technological knowledge of Group 5 incorrect or uncertain compared with four instances for Group 7. These included misconceptions about triangulation and strength despite performing well with these in the learning phase. Furthermore, some instances of erroneous knowledge impacted directly upon solution development. In response to a discussion about rigidity and the physical performance of the road surface, one pupil stated: “Yes, but it is supposed to be able to bend in the middle..” (Group 7, S = 3, 3.34–3.37) meaning that the group did not sufficient attend to this point of structural weakness which resulted in a less endurant solution. No such occurrences took place with Group 5. More prominent and accurate use of this type of knowledge supports stronger application of learning into the problem-solving context and appeared to accompany greater solution integrity.

From these findings, and those from the learning phase, the framework of difference shown in Fig. 5 was developed:

‘Framework of epistemic differences from comparative analysis of Group 5 and 7’

Epistemic differences across all groups (dyads 1–4)

As with dyad 1, the more successful groups in dyads 3 and 4 scored higher (+ 14% and + 20.7%, respectively) in the learning phase compared with their less successful partner groups. This, however, was not seen with dyad 2. The less successful group achieved a higher average score of 86.3% compared with 71% and, despite greater fluctuations in pupil attendance, scored 100% for turning moments compared with 58% for the more successful group. Although comparatively minimal across all groups, more successful groups in each dyad tended to explicitly verbalise technological and task knowledge more than less successful groups. Furthermore, it was more often correct or certain for more successful groups. This was particularly true for dyad 2, although there was some uncertainty about the strongest shapes for given materials in, for example, Group 12 which was the more successful group of dyad 3. The greatest similarity in verbalised task knowledge was observed with the least contrasting dyad, although evidence from concept sketching (Figs. 6 , 7 ) illustrated a shared misunderstanding between both groups of the cantilever and task requirements.

‘Group 2 concept sketch’

‘Group 8 concept sketch’

The differences in tacit-procedural knowledge between Group 5 and 7 were reflected quite consistently across other dyads, with more successful groups showing greater accuracy, skill and judgement in solution construction. The more successful groups in dyads 2 and 3 undertook three material developments that offered little to no functional advantage, and each of the developments these groups undertook correctly embodied knowledge of cognate structural concepts and principles. Notably, Group 8 of dyad 4 was able to achieved this with no structural redundancy at all. Less successful groups, however, were not as secure in their grasp of the functional dependencies and interrelationships between different parts of their structural systems. The starkest example of this was with Group 4 of dyad 3, who explicitly used triangulation but their failure to physically connect it with other parts of the structure rendered the triangulation redundant. Group 2 of dyad 4 were the only group not to triangulate the underside of the road surface. Less successful groups tended to focus slightly more of their material developments in areas of the bridge other than the road surface, whereas the opposite tended to be true for the other groups. Significantly, while all groups in the study included developments that offered little to no functional advantage, it was only in the case of less successful groups that these impaired the overall functional performance of solutions in some way. Table 4 summarises the sustained epistemic difference across all four dyads.

Process differences

Analysis of the most contrasting dyad yielded process differences in: (1) managing (Halfin, 1973 ), (2) planning, and (3) reflection. Groups managed role and task allocation differently, as well as engaging in different approaches to planning aspects of solution development. Reflection, as a process of drawing meaning or conclusions from past events, is not explicitly identified by Halfin or the conceptual framework. Two new forms of reflection for well-defined technological problem solving (declarative reflection and analytical reflection) were therefor developed to account for the differences found. The analysis of the process differences is presented with the resulting framework for this dyad. The final section presents sustained process differences across all groups.

Difference in managing—role & task allocation & adoption (dyad 1)

The autonomous creation of roles and allocation of tasks featured heavily in the activity of Group 5. These typically clustered around agreed tasks such as sketching (S = 2, 1.46), and points where group members were not directly engaged in construction. In total, Group 5 allocated or adopted roles or task on 31 occasions during problem solving compared with only 7 for Group 7. Both groups did so to assist other members (Group 5, S = 16, 3.33–3.38; Group 7, S = 3, 0.37–0.41), to take advantage of certain skills that group members were perceived to possess (Group 5, S = 2, 1.47- 1.49; Group 7, S = 2, 2.03–2.06) and, for one instance in Group 7, to prevent one group member from executing something incorrectly (S = 16, 2.11–2.13). There was evidence, however, that Group 5 moved beyond these quite pragmatic drivers. Member often had more of a choice and, as shown in Excerpt 5, allocation and adoption is mediated by sense of ownership and fairness.

Excerpt 5: Idea Ownership (Sketching) Pupil ?: “You can’t draw on them..” Pupil 1: “You draw Chloe, I can’t draw..” Pupil 2: “I know I can’t draw on them, that’s why I doing them; no, because you, you had the ideas… because you had…” Pupil ?: “(unclear)” Pupil 3: “Just draw your own ideas, right, you can share with mine right…. Right, you draw the thread one, I’ll do the straw thing…” (Group 5, S  =  2, 1.46–1.59)

The effective use of role and task allocation appeared to play an important role in realising an effective technical solution, however, negative managerial traits were perhaps more significant.

Difference in managing—negative managerial traits (dyad 1)

Evidence of differences between Group 5 and 7 were found in relation to: (1) group involvement, and (2) fragmentation of group vision, which were found to be highly interrelated. Negative group involvement accounted for traits of dominance and dismissiveness. For Group 7, this was more prevalent earlier in the problem-solving activity where one group member tended to dominate the process. This pupil tabled 9 out of 11 proposals prior to working with physical materials and, at times, readily dismissed suggestions by other group members (See Excerpt 1). Moreover, ideas and proposals within the group were sometimes poorly communicated (Excerpt 2), which led to a growing level of disenfranchisement for some group members and a fragmented group vision for solution development.

Excerpt 1 Pupil 1:“We could do it that way…” (Pupils continue discussion without acknowledgement) Pupil 1:“You could do that..” Pupil 2:“Shut up, how are we going to do that?” Pupil 1:“Well you’re allowed glue, and you’re allowed scissors..” Several group members: “Shut-up!” (Group 7, S = 1, 2.07–2.28) Excerpt 2 “(Loud inhalation) Watch my brilliant idea… I need scissors.. Are you allowed scissors?” (Group 7, S = 1, 1.36–1.41)

The was some evidence of dismissiveness present with Group 5 also (e.g. S = 9, 1.32–1.46), however, group members were able to voice their ideas which appeared to support a better shared understanding among group members. Notably, Group 5 reached a degree of consensus about what they would do prior to constructing anything, whilst Group 7 did not. Even in these early stages, two of the four members of Group 7 made it very clear that they did not know what was happening (Excerpt 3).

Excerpt 3 Pupil 1: “What are you all up to?” Pupil 2: “Move you” Pupil 4: “No idea” Pupil 2: “You’re allowed to say hell are you not?” Pupil ?: “Helli-yeh” Pupil 2: “Hellilouya” (slight laughter) Pupil 3: “Right so were going to..(unclear) and do that..” Pupil 1: “What are you all up to?” Pupil 2: “Just… I know what he’s thinking of..” Pupil 4: “I don’t have a clue what you’re thinking of..” Pupil 3: “Neither do I..” (Group 7, S = 2, 0.15–0.33)

Occurrence like these contributed to a growing sense of fragmentation in the group. Verbal and observational data show this to have been picked up by the class teacher who tried to encourage and support the group to share and discussed ideas more fully. Despite this, the group lost their sense of shared vision about how to approach a solution and, part way through the first session, two group members attempted to begin developing a separate solution of their own (S-3, 2.52).

The final managerial difference between Group 5 and 7 was the way in which efforts were made to increase the efficiency of solution development. Seen as a positive managerial trait, both groups did this, but it was more frequent and more developed with Group 5. There were four examples of this with Group 7 in the form of simple prompts to speed the process up (E.g. S = 5:3.02–3.04; S = 6:2.22–2.23; S = 11: 1.34–1.35) and 25 examples with Group 5 involving prompts and orchestrating parallel rather than successive activity.

Differences in planning (dyad 1)

Differences emerged in how Group 5 and 7 thought about and prepared for future problem-solving activity. While the complexity of the pupils’ problem-solving prevented cause and effect from being attributed to planning decisions, four areas of difference were identified: (1) determining use of/amount of materials/resources, (2) sequencing, ordering or prioritising, (3) identification of global solution requirements, and (4) working through how an idea should be practically executed. Across both problem-solving sessions, Group 5 spent over three times as long as Group 7 did, engaging in these forms of planning (8m17s vs. 2.23 s), but Group 7 planned on almost twice as many occasions (n = 98 vs. n = 56). Both groups considered the availability of materials for, and matching of materials to, given ideas (e.g. Group 5, S = 5:3.38–3.48; Group 7, S = 4:2.20–2.34; S = 12:1.53–2.00) and both identified global solution requirements. At the start, Group 5 engaged in 12 min of planning in which they read task instructions (S = 1, 0.49–1.49), explored, tested, and compared the available materials (S = 1, 1.49–2.10), and agreed on a starting point. As shown in Excerpt 4, these discussions attempted to integrate thinking on materials, joining methods, placement. As the class teacher observed, Group 7 were eager to begin construction after 4m45s and did so without an agreed starting point. Pupils in this group explored materials in a more reactive way in response to construction.

Excerpt 4 “..a tiny bit of cardboard, right, this is the cardboard, right.. (picks up part) put glue on it so that’s on that, right.. (modelling part orientation) then put glue on it there so it sticks down.. something to stick it down, do you know what I mean?” (Group 5, S = 9, 2.10–2.20)

Despite similar types of planning processes, the planning discourse of Group 5 was more proactive, and this may have minimised inefficiencies and avoidable errors. For Group 7, two group members unintentionally drew the same idea (S = 2, 3.19–3.26), parts were taped in the wrong place (S = 17, 1.26–1.40) and others glued in the wrong order (S = 5, 1.28–1.30 and 1.48–1.56). Such occurrences, however, notably reduced after the group re-started their solution in the second session which also mirrored a 73% drop in poor group involvement. Communication played an important role in planning and there was no evidence of avoidable errors with Group 5.

Differences in reflection (dyad 1)

The most prevent differences in this study were found in how Group 5 and Group 7 reflected upon their developing solutions. Analysis revealed two main forms of reflection that were used differently by groups. ‘Declarative reflection’ lies close to observation and is defined by this study as reflection that does not explicitly reveal anything of a pupil’s knowledge of technical relationships within their solution, e.g.: “that’s not going to be strong…” (Group 7, S = 2, 0.49–0.51). This form of reflection was critical for both groups who used it heuristically to quality assure material developments, but it was used slightly more often by Group 7 (n = 164:4m30s vs. n = 145:4m07s). By contrast, ‘analytical reflection’ is defined as that which does reveal something of a pupil’s knowledge of technical relationships between two or more parts of a solution. Examples of this are shown in Excerpts 5 and 6 where pupils are reflecting upon an attempt made to support the underside of the road surface.

Excerpt 5: “It’s not going to work because it’s in compression and straws bend..” (Group 5, S = 9, 2.3–2.35) Excerpt 6: “no, that’ll be… oh, aye, because that would weight it down and it would go into the water.” (Group 5, S = 14, 3.35–3.38)

Looking across verbal and observational data, there was no consistent pattern to the use of declarative reflection but analytical reflection for both groups was almost exclusively anchored around, and promoted by, the practical enactment of an idea and could be associated with predictions about the future performance of their solution. Overall, both Group 5 and 7 reflected a similar number of times (n = 216 and n = 209, respectively) although the total amount of time spent reflecting was 17% longer for Group 5. This difference in time was accounted for by comparatively more analytical reflection in Group 5 (n = 75:3m47s vs. n = 45:2m10s for Group 7), particularly during the first half of problem solving. It was also interesting that Group 7 engaged with no analytical reflection at all prior to construction.

Findings from process management, planning and reflection led to the framework of difference in Fig. 8 . This also accounts for differences in the amount of time each group reflected upon the task detail, but this was extremely limited (Group 5: n = 7, 26 s; Group 7: n = 5, 10 s).

‘Framework of process differences from comparative analysis of Group 5 and 7’

Process differences across all groups (dyads 1–4)

Task reflection, attempts at increasing efficiency and differences of fragmented vision found with the most contrasting dyad were not sustained across remaining groups. The only sufficiently consistent difference in patterns of solution development was that more successful groups, on average, spent 18% longer in planning and discussion before beginning to construct anything.

Overall, the nature and patterns of good and poor group involvement from dyad 1 were reflected more widely, with some instances of deviation. The more successful group in dyad 4 had more significant and numerous examples of poor group involvement than did the less successful group (n = 16 vs. n = 10), although they made more effective use of roles and task allocation and spent longer engaged in planning processes. Dyad 2 deviated also insofar as the less successful group (13) actually had fewer avoidable errors than Group 6 who accidentally cut the incorrect parts (e.g. S = 15, 2.44–2.47), undertook developments that were not required (e.g. S = 6, 2.11–2.16) and integrated the wrong parts into their solution (e.g. S = 7, 1.10–1.13).

Differences in the nature and use of reflection was one of the most consistently sustained findings between the most and least successful cohorts. All four of the more successful groups engaged more heavily in reflective processes and more of this reflection was analytical in nature. This shows that reflection which explicitly integrates knowledge of technical relationships between different aspects of a solution plays an important role in more successful technical outcomes. Whilst declarative reflection remained important for all groups, it was also less prominent for groups in the less successful cohort. Table 5 summarises the sustained process difference across dyads 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Social & extrinsic differences (dyad 1)

Differences reported in this section lie out with the formal conceptual framework of the study but, nonetheless, were shown to play a role in the technological problem-solving activity of dyad 1. Differences between Group 5 and 7 emerged in three areas: (1) group tension, (2) effects of the classroom competitive dynamic, and (3) study effects. Group tension, which relates to aspects of interaction such as argumentative discourse, raised voices and exasperation, were negligible for Group 5 (n = 4, 0m24s) when compared with Group 7 (n = 38, 2m38s) and related exclusively to pupils having their voiced heard. For group 7, tension was evident during both sessions, but was more significant in the first session before re-starting the solution in session 2 and purposeful attempts to work more collaboratively with the support of the teacher (Group 7, S = 10, 0.36–1.29). Observations revealed that tension was typically caused by pupils failing to carry out practical processes to the standard of other group members, or breaking parts such as the thread supporting the road surface in the 36 th minute of Session 2.

Despite collaborative efforts within groups, there was a sense of competitive dynamic which appeared either to positively bias, negatively bias, or to not affect group activity. This competitive dynamic was present in groups comparing themselves to other groups in the class. Group 7 had 3.7 times as many instances of this as Group 5 with 73% of these negatively affecting the group. These included interference from and with other groups (S = 7, 0.07–0.12), attempting to copy other groups (S = 7, 1.14–1.22) and comparing the solutions of other groups to their own (S = 8, 2.55–2.59). In contrast, Group 5 appeared to be far less affected by perceptions of competition. Around a third of instances were coded as neutral, however, Group 7 experienced more instances of positive competitive effects than Group 5 did (n = 5 vs. n = 1).

Study effects were present for both groups often triggered by the arrival of the researcher at their table to observe or take photographs. The biggest difference in study effects was associated with the audio recorder. Recorder effects for Group 7 were three and half times that of Group 5 involving discussion about how it worked (Group 7, S = 10, 3.04–3.17), or about what was caught or not caught on tape (Group 7, S = 14, 1.01–1.45). Although questionnaire data showed that pupils in Group 5 felt that they talked less in the presence of the recorder, this was not supported by observations, verbal data, or the class teacher. From these findings, the framework of social and extrinsic difference in Fig. 9 was developed.

‘Framework of social & extrinsic differences from comparative analysis of Group 5 and 7’

Social & extrinsic differences across all groups (dyads 1–4)

Most of the social and extrinsic differences identified with Groups 5 and 7 were reflected to greater or lesser extents in other dyads. In addition to less successful groups being more susceptible to researcher and recorder effects, two specific points of interest emerged. Firstly, group tension was considerably more prominent for less successful groups than it was for more successful groups. Although no evidence of a direct relationship was established, tension appeared to accompany poor managerial traits and the changing of group composition (e.g. Group 8, Group 13). The most significant differences in tension were found with dyad 3. No occurrences were found for the most successful group and 29 were seen with the least successful group including aggressive and abrupt communication between pupils involving blame for substandard construction (S = 10, 2.28–2.38), through to name calling (S = 12, 0.20–0.22), arguing (S = 6, 1.46–2.10) and threats of physical violence (S = 11, 3.25–3.29).

Secondly, the more successful groups were influenced by the competitive class dynamic more than the less successful groups were. This is the only sustained finding that directly opposes what was found with dyad 1. These took the form of neutral or negative inter-group effects involving comparing and judging other groups (e.g. Group 6), espionage, copying or suspicion thereof (e.g. Group 6, 8 and 12). Table 6 summarises the sustained social and extrinsic differences across the more and less successful cohorts.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study established and applied three frameworks to capture the epistemic, procedural, and social and extrinsic differences between groups of pupils as they developed solutions to a well-defined technological problem. Social & extrinsic findings revealed higher levels of group tension for the less successful cohort, but that more successful groups elicited more negative responses to the competitive class dynamic created by different groups solving the same problem. Major findings about differences in knowledge and process are discussed. Thereafter, a three-part characterisation of thinking for well-defined technological problem solving is presented in support of pedagogy for Design & Technology classrooms.

The most important of those knowledge differences uncovered were found in: (1) the material development of the solution itself, and (2) the reflective processes used by groups during problem solving. The conceptual framework characterises ‘tacit-procedural knowledge’ as the implicit procedural knowledge embodied in technical skill, accuracy and judgement, and this was further refined in the solutions of more successful groups. Linked to this was the fact that several of the material developments for triangulation and strength were improperly realised by less successful groups which negatively impacted on the functional performance of their solutions. Often, this was despite evidence of a good conceptual understanding of triangulation, tension, and compression in the learning phase. An ontologically endurant solution requires stability over time and lesser developed aspects of tacit-procedural knowledge and knowledge application meant that this was not realised as fully as possible for some groups.

This can be partly explained by the challenge of learning transfer, or more accurately, learning application. Several notable studies have explored these difficulties in technology education (Brown, 2001 ; Dixon & Brown, 2012 ; Kelly & Kellam, 2009 ; Wicklein & Schell, 1995 ), but typically at a subject or interdisciplinary level. The findings of this study suggest that, even when the concepts in a learning unit are tightly aligned with a well-defined problem brief, some pupils find difficulty in applying them within a tangible, material context. It could be argued that more successful groups were better at connecting learning between different contexts associated with the problem-solving task and could apply this with more developed skill and judgement.

The second important knowledge difference arose in the various forms of reflection that groups engaged with. Reflection in this study supports pupils in cycling through the re-application/transformation loop in a similar way to the perception/translation/evaluation blocks of the iterative models of problem solving (Argyle, 1972 ; Miodusre & Kipperman, 2002 ; Scrivener et al., 2002 ). Surprisingly few studies explore ‘reflection’ as a process in technological thinking (Kavousi et al., 2020 ; Luppicini, 2003 ; Lousberg et al., 2020 ), and fewer still in the context of school-level technological problem solving. This study found that more successful groups reflected more frequently, and that more of this reflection was analytical insofar as it explicitly revealed knowledge of technical relationships between different variables or parts of their solution. Such instances are likely to have been powerful in shaping the shared understanding of the group. This type of reflection is significant because it takes place at a deeper level than declarative reflection and is amalgamated with pupils’ subject knowledge and qualitative understanding of their technical solution. This allowed pupils to look back and to predict by explicitly making connections between technical aspects of their solution.

The final area in which important differences were found was management of the problem-solving process which is accounted for by Halfin ( 1973 ) in his mental process set. When analysed, the more successful cohort exploited more positive managerial strategies, and fewer negative traits. They made more extensive and effective use of role and task allocation, spent more time planning ahead and longer in the earlier conceptual phase prior to construction. Other studies have also captured aspects of these for technology education. Hennessy and Murphy ( 1999 ) discuss peer interaction, planning, co-operation and conflict, and changing roles and responsibilities as features of collaboration with significant potential for problem solving in technology. Rowell ( 2002 ), in a study of a single pair of technology pupils, demonstrated the significance of roles and participative decisions as enablers and inhibiters of what pupils take away from learning situations. What was interesting about the groups involved in this study, was that the managerial approaches were collectively more proactive in nature for more successful groups. Less successful groups were generally more reactive to emergent successes or problems during solution development.

The problem-solving activity of pupils in this study was exceptionally complex and a fuller understanding of how these complexities interacted would have to be further explored. Yet, key differences in knowledge and process collectively suggest that effectively solving well-defined technological problems involves a combination of proactive rather than reactive process management, and an ability to make two different types of technology-specific connections: contextual connections and technical connections. Proactively managing is generic and involves planning, sequencing, and resourcing developments beyond those that are immediately in play to minimise avoidable errors with reference to problem parameters. It involves group members through agreed roles and task allocation that, where possible, capitalise on their strengths. Contextual connections involve effectively linking and applying technological knowledge, concepts, and principles to the material context that have been learnt form other contexts out with solution development. This is supported by skill and judgement in the material developments that embody this knowledge. Finally, technical connections appear to be important for better functioning solutions. These are links in understanding that pupils make between different parts of the developing solution that reveal and build knowledge of interrelationships, dependencies and how their solution works. In addition to helping pupils developing effective managerial approaches in group work, this suggests that pedagogical approaches should not assume pupils are simply able to make contextual and technical connections during technological problem solving.  Rather, pedagogy should actively seek to help pupils make both forms of connection explicit in their thinking.

This study has determined that proactive management, contextual and technical connections are important characteristics of the modus operandi of pupils who successfully solve well-defined technological problems. This study does not make any claim about the learning that pupils might have taken from the problem-solving experience. It does, however, provide key findings that teachers can use to support questioning, formative assessment and pedagogies that help pupils in solving well-structured technological problems more effectively.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the School of Education Ethics Committee at the University of Glasgow and guided by the British Educational Research Association Ethical Code of Conduct. All necessary permissions and informed consents were gained, and participants knew they could withdraw at any time without giving a reason. The author declares no conflicts of interest in carrying out this study.

Argyle, M. (1972). Anlaysis of the behaviour of an interactor. In A. Morrison & D. McIntyre (Eds.), The social psychology of teaching. Cox & Wyman Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Bartholomew, S. R., & Strimel, G. J. (2018). Factors influencing student success on open-ended design problems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (3), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9415-2 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Brown, D. (2001). Cognitive science concepts and technology teacher education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 27 (1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v27i1.a.7 .

Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (2), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9446-3 .

Conwell, C. R., Griffin, S., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Gender and racial differences in unstructured learning groups in science. International Journal of Science Education, 15 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150109 .

Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5 (3), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00769905 .

Custer, R. L., Valesey, B. G., & Burke, B. N. (2001). An Assessment model for a design approach to technological problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 12 (2), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v12i2.a.1 .

de Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: Philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15 (2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-8276-2 .

DeLuca, V. W. (1991). Implementing technology education problem-solving activities. Journal of Technology Education, 2 (2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v2i2.a.2 .

Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connecting concepts during problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24 (1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i1.a.1 .

Doornekamp, B. G. (2001). Designing teaching materials for learning problem solving in technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19 (1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120046204 .

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x .

Erkip, F., Demirkan, H., & Pultar, M. (1997). Knowledge acquisition for design education. In IDATER 97 Conference, 1997 (pp. 126-132). Loughborough: Loughborough University.

Everton, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 192–213). MacMillan.

Frey, R. E. (1989). A philosophical framework for understanding technology. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 27 (1), 23–35.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research: an introduction . (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (3), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x .

Gordon, T. J. (1994). The delphi method. Futures research methodology, 2 (3), 1–30.

Grubbs, M. E., Strimel, G. J., & Kim, E. (2018). Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 engineering/technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (4), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9427-y .

Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach. Doctoral Thesis, West Virginia University, West Virginia.

Hamel, R., & Elshout, J. J. (2000). On the development of knowledge during problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12 (3), 289–322.

Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23 (1), 1–18.

Haupt, G. (2018). Hierarchical thinking: A cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (1), 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9381-0 .

Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9 (1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008855526312 .

Hill, R. B. (1997). The design of an instrument to assess problem solving activities in technology education. Journal of Technology Education , 9 (1), 31–46.

Hill, R. B., & Wicklein, R. C. (1999). A factor analysis of primary mental processes for technological problem solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36 (2), 83–100.

Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Wong, W.-T., Lin, H.-C., & Yau, C.-M. (2012). Gender differences in social cognitive learning at a technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22 (4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9152-x .

Jackson, A., & Strimel, G. (2018). Toward a matrix of situated design cognition. CTETE Research Monograph Series, 1 (1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.21061/ctete-rms.v1.c.3 .

Johnson, S. D. (1997). Learning technological concepts and developing intellectual skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 161–180.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613 .

Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008813120391 .

Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2020). Modeling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30 (4), 709–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9 .

Kelley, T., & Kellam, N. (2009). A theoretical framework to guide the re-engineering of technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20 (2), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v20i2.a.3 .

Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19 (2), 15.

Lavonen, J., Meisalo, V., & Lattu, M. (2002). Collaborative problem solving in a control technology learning environment, a pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12 (2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015261004362 .

Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity a framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education . https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v17i1.a.3 .

Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19 (3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9051-y .

Liddament, T. (1996). Design and Problem-Solving. In IDATER 1996 Conference, 1996 (pp. 1-5). Loughborough: Loughborough University.

Lomax, H., & Casey, N. (1998). Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology. Sociological Research Online, 3 (2), 121–146.

Lousberg, L., Rooij, R., van Jansen, S., Dooren, E., & van der Zaag, E. (2020). Reflection in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30 (5), 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09532-6 .

Luppicini, R. (2003). Reflective action instructional design (raid): A designer’s aid. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13 (1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000039569.05754.a8 .

MacPherson, R. T. (1998). Factors affecting technological trouble shooting skills. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35 (4), 1–29.

Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond `the design process’: an alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13 (2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024186814591 .

McCade, J. (1990). Problem solving: Much more than just design. Journal of Technology Education, 2 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v2i1.a.5 .

McCormick, R. (1994). The problem solving in technology education (PSTE) project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5 (2), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00766816 .

Mccormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 161–180.

McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14 (1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007359.81781.7c .

McLellan, R., & Nicholl, B. (2011). “If I was going to design a chair, the last thing I would look at is a chair”: Product analysis and the causes of fixation in students’ design work 11–16 years. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21 (1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9107-7 .

Middleton, H. (2009). Problem-solving in technology education as an approach to education for sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19 (2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9075-3 .

Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Mioduser, D. (1998). Framework for the study of cognitive and curricular issues of technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8 (2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008824125352 .

Mioduser, D. (2002). Evaluation/Modification cycles in junior high students’ technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12 (2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015256928387 .

Mioduser, D., & Dagan, O. (2007). The effect of alternative approaches to design instruction (structural or functional) on students’ mental models of technological design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17 (2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-0004-z .

Morgan, K. (2008). Does Polanyi’s Tacit Knowledge Dimension Exist? In Polanyi Society Conference, 2008 . Chicago: Loyola University.

Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Towards a transformative epistemology of technology education: An epistemology of technology education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51 (1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12226 .

Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27 (3), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461765 .

Odiri Amatari, V. (2015). The instructional process: a review of flanders’ interaction analysis in a classroom setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 3 (5), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20150305.11 .

Parker, L. H., & Rennie, L. J. (2002). Teachers’ implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (9), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110078860 .

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension . Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Rauscher, W. (2011). The technological knowledge used by technology education students in capability tasks. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21 (3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9120-x .

Relations, U. o. O. I. o. G., & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10): University Book Exchange Norman, OK.

Rennie, L. J., & Parker, L. H. (1987). Detecting and accounting for gender differences in mixed-sex and single-sex groupings in science lessons. Educational Review, 39 (1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191870390107 .

Ropohl, N. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 56–72.

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15 (4), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7 .

Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013081115540 .

Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International journal of Educational research, 13 (1), 89–99.

Schaafstal, A., Schraagen, J. M., & van Berl, M. (2000). Cognitive task analysis and innovation of training: The case of structured troubleshooting. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42 (1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779656570 .

Schön, D. A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . Routledge.

Scrivener, S. A. R., Liang, K. C., & Ball, L. J. (2002). Extending the design problem-solving process model: Requirements and outcomes. In: Common Ground: Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference of the Design Research Society. Staffordshire University Press, Stoke-On-Trent.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 4 (3), 292–316.

Strimel, G. J. (2014). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach. Doctoral Thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.

Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of marketing education, 12 (2), 61–67.

Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: a sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1 .

Twyford, J., & Järvinen, E.-M. (2000). The formation of children’s technological concepts: A study of what it means to do technology from a child’s perspective. Journal of Technology Education, 12 (1), 17.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study—qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15 (3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 .

Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history . The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wainwright, M. (2010). Using NVivo audio-coding: Practical, sensorial and epistemological considerations . (pp. 1–4). Social Research Update.

Webb, N. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (2), 211.

Welch, M. (1998). Students’ use of three-dimensional modelling while designing and making a solution to a technological problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8 (3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008802927817 .

Whyte, J. (1984). Observing sex stereotypes and interactions in the school lab and workshop. Educational Review, 36 (1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191840360107 .

Wicklein, R. C., & Schell, J. W. (1995). Case studies of multidisciplinary approaches to integrating mathematics, science and technologyeducation. Journal of Technology Education, 6 (2), 18.

Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology. Journal of Technology Education . https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v11i2.a.4 .

Winkelmann, C., & Hacker, W. (2011). Generic non-technical procedures in design problem solving: Is there any benefit to the clarification of task requirements? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21 (4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9131-7 .

Xu, M., Williams, P. J., Gu, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Hotspots and trends of technology education in the international journal of technology and design education: 2000–2018. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6 .

Yousuf, M. I. (2007). Using experts` opinions through delphi technique. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12 (4), 1–8.

Zamawe, F. (2015). The Implication of Using NVivo software in qualitative data analysis: Evidence-based reflections. Malawi Medical Journal, 27 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v27i1.4 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Jane V. Magill, Dr. Alastair D. McPhee and Professor Frank Banks for their support in this work as well as the participating teachers and pupils who made this possible.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Glasgow, 11 Eldon Street, Glasgow, G3 6NH, Scotland

David Morrison-Love

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Morrison-Love .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Morrison-Love, D. Technological problem solving: an investigation of differences associated with levels of task success. Int J Technol Des Educ 32 , 1725–1753 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09675-5

Download citation

Accepted : 25 April 2021

Published : 02 June 2021

Issue Date : July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09675-5

Share this article

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

• Technology education
• Well-defined problem solving
• Secondary school
• Learning differences
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An effective problem solving process for IT professionals

1. what is the actual problem.

This should be the first question an IT professional should ask when it comes to troubleshooting various IT related issues – even if only to verify the information that has already been provided. Typically this will mean having a conversation with the individual or group of individuals that reported the problem in the first place. It’s certainly not unheard of for the reported problem to get muddied or distorted when going through multiple people or channels before you first hear of it.

People often rephrase things when dictating what someone else previously said, so it’s quite possible for the original complaint to turn into something completely different as it passes through different people:

“The Amazon website tends to lock up my web browser whenever I add items into my Cart.” Mary, Sales Department.

“Helpdesk? Mary’s internet isn’t working when she’s online shopping.” CASE STUDY This Wisconsin manufacturer needed to modernize its IT infrastructure to support rapid business growth. Discover what they did Mary’s Boss

“Please help Mary so she can browse shopping sites. I think the internet filter is probably blocking that category.” John, creating Helpdesk ticket

We’ve all encountered these types of scenarios in the past and they can be really frustrating, even more so when the issues are much more important than whether a single employee is capable of adding items to their Amazon shopping cart.

The point here being,  don’t take what’s being told to you for granted . Spend the time necessary to verify that what is being reported to you is actually what’s occurring and the original reason the issue was raised in the first place. Furthermore, taking the time to speak with the source, in this case, Mary, allows you to ask important follow-up questions that can further aid in diagnosing the problem as its being reported.

2. Who is experiencing the problem?

Without knowledge of who is experiencing the problem, your ability to focus your troubleshooting efforts into a precise area will be diminished and you might wind up going off in a direction that’s not even necessary or even remotely related to the source of the problem. One of the questions that should be asked is, who exactly is experiencing the problem?

Is it (for example):

• A single user
• A group/department of users
• The entire remote branch office location
• The entire main office location –and- remote branch offices

Every organization is different as it relates to the “Who”, but there are stark differences in the following scenario and what could be the underlying issue relating to the company’s IP Phones when the IT professional called in to solve the problem has a clearer understanding of “Who” is actually affected:

Single User

• Jerry’s IP phone isn’t working
• This is likely an issue with Jerry’s phone specifically

A group/dept. of users

• The entire 2nd floor is having problems with IP phones
• This might be an issue specific to a network switch/VLAN on the 2nd floor

Remote/branch office

• All users in the remote/branch office are having problems with IP phones
• This might be an issue specific to the VPN connection between offices

Main and remote offices

• All users in the main and remote offices are having problems with IP phones
• This might be an issue specific to the core switch or IP Phone System itself

The point here is, when the IT professional starts to  understand “Who” is really affected , they can eliminate having to navigate down unnecessary paths while troubleshooting and can instead work towards narrowing down their troubleshooting efforts to a more specific and concise area. In the case of the single user above, why waste time troubleshooting the VPN tunnel when only Jerry is affected by the issue? This is why  knowing the “Who” is extremely important.

Here’s another example of something an IT Professional or Wireless Engineer hears from time to time.   “Help!  Wireless is completely down in the entire building.  Everyone is reporting problems” .   In these situations, do yourself a favor and pay special attention to words or phrases such as “entire”, “everyone”, and “completely down” when problems are reported.  These “all-inclusive” phraseologies tend to exaggerate what’s really happening and have the potential to lead you astray.

It’s not uncommon that while investigating the problem, the IT Professional or Wireless Engineers quickly learns that the “entire” building, or “everyone”, or that the wireless network being “completely down” (which, for example, in a school, might affect 3,000+ users) turns out to be a single wireless Access Point being down in one small office that is affecting 5 actual users (not, 3,000+ users as “everyone” seems to imply).

Bear in mind,  problems can sometimes be overblown and overstated , especially when a user, or group of users, is regularly frustrated with or intimated by technology (any IT professional has likely experienced those high-maintenance users that cry wolf over just about anything!).

3. When did the problem start?

Knowing when the problem actually started (with attention to finite details such as the exact day and exact time) can often provide a better understanding of the problem and help trigger more definitive ideas and potential solutions relating to the underlying root cause that a given IT professional is expected to solve. Imagine being brought into a new customer to resolve critical problems with their Internet Services and being told,

“The internet pipe is a problem. People are randomly seeing spotty performance and oddball issues whenever web surfing and we don’t know why.”

Now, a less-experienced IT professional might just start diving headfirst into firewall logs, bandwidth monitoring, opening up a trouble-ticket directly with the ISP and trying to figure out what is going on, but someone with more experience will first pause to ask additional questions , wanting more specifics as to “When” the problem started happening.

• Has this ALWAYS been a problem?
• WHEN were these random internet browsing issues first reported?

Certainly looking back into firewall logs and bandwidth utilization metrics over the last 2 week period makes sense knowing the issue presented itself within the last 10 days, but it hardly warrants spending much time at all looking back at logs and bandwidth utilization metrics from 3+ months ago. That being said, once again, try to VERIFY the information being told to you . Perhaps the person giving you the answer vaguely remembers that it was 10 days ago, but in truth, it’s only been 3 days!

In this particular situation where the internet is being reported as sporadic, it’s altogether possible that roughly 11 days ago, another on-site computer technician decided to enable the UTM (Unified Threat Management) functionality within their firewall to allow for additional Antivirus inspection, IDS (Intrusion Detection Services), Geo-IP Filtering, and a plethora of other goodies typically included in UTM feature-sets.

Unfortunately, as a direct result, the firewall’s processors/CPUs have become overloaded and cannot move traffic through it quickly enough to keep up with the additional processing demands required when the firewall’s UTM feature-set was enabled.

4. Is the problem intermittent or constant?

Another key element to an effective problem solving process is finding out if the reported issue is occurring constantly or whether it’s only occurring intermittently? Problems that are constant, or fixed , are generally (though not always) easier to troubleshoot . Whereas problems that are intermittent and seemingly random, are generally more difficult to troubleshoot.

How many times have we as IT professionals been called in to troubleshoot a problem, only to find that upon our arrival, the issue suddenly doesn’t seem to exist anymore yet no one did anything specific to actually resolve the problem!? Those situations can be really frustrating, not only for the IT professional but for the end-user as well because the likelihood of the issue reappearing is rather high (and most likely reappears just a few short moments after the IT professional has left!)

The best thing to do in these scenarios is document WHEN the issue occurred and how LONG it lasted before it miraculously “fixed itself”, so the next time that same problem is reported, you might be able to piece together some crude and basic assumptions or theories based on WHEN it happened previously and how LONG it lasted each time.

Wireless chaos only at lunchtime?!

5. What changed recently?

This is one question that is unfortunately not asked often enough, is just plain overlooked, or in other cases is just completely disregarded (shame on you if you fall into that category!). Technology is a very touchy and hypersensitive beast , and more often than not, it doesn’t take too kindly to introducing changes. Even the changes that are supposed to solve and prevent other known problems, often result in the introduction of new and unexpected problems.

It’s not unheard of that sometimes even routine maintenance on equipment can cause problems .

Take for example, updating firmware on a network switch . This should be a relatively trouble-free routine operation, but suddenly users are reporting that they’re occasionally having problems logging into their desktops. It’s happening to more than one user, in fact, it’s being reported sporadically throughout the building early in the morning hours when most employees arrive for the start of their shift.

“What Changed” recently? Over the weekend you decided to update the firmware on your edge switches and now the port security that was set up on the switches using AAA authentication with Radius, isn’t behaving as expected. Unfortunately, it looks like the new firmware update might have introduced a random bug! What’s the solution? Back rev your switches , or look for ever newer firmware code that might resolve the problem.

You haven’t changed anything with the VMWare software itself, still running on the same trusted vSphere 6.0 Update 1 release that has been rock solid and problem-free in your environment. So “What Changed” recently? Wait a minute, come to think of it, the host server that is regularly crashing recently had an additional 64GB of memory added to it one week ago! Might be worth removing that extra 64GB of memory and seeing if the problem goes away. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time new or additional hardware was the result of the underlying issue .

6. Can the problem be recreated?

Another helpful step for effective problem solving is trying to recreate the actual problem. As discussed before, reported problems can either be of a constant or intermittent nature. Taking the time to re-create the problem can be beneficial and especially helpful in cases where you might need to break out tools such as Wireshark to capture packets and network traffic for future analysis and evaluation. IT professionals have to make use of such tools in more complex technical support issues especially when the flow of network traffic is in question or when there’s a need to examine whether the traffic is making it from the source to destination devices.

If possible, take advantage of any sandbox or test environments that are available. Having these environments gives you the flexibility to recreate the issue and effectively “break” things on purpose, without putting your production network or systems at risk and without interrupting services that end-users are relying on during standard business hours.

Recreating the problem is also advantageous in situations where the IT professional may need to involve 3rd party technical support from a vendor as well. Often, these vendors will have the means to establish remote sessions to take control of your desktop (or the machine in which you’ve successfully recreated the problem on), which gives the vendor the ability to actually see the issue while it’s occurring to further help diagnose what is happening.

7. Are benchmarks and logs available?

Having some kind of benchmarking tool available to track and record network and server performance is beyond measure in terms of its overall value when helping an IT professional track down challenging technical issues. One of the key areas worth checking when problems are being reported is looking at the actual METRICS over a historical period of time. Metrics can prove to be invaluable when trying to figure out: Whether the problem reported actually exists or is a false positive

Maybe you’ve been in a situation where someone reports, “The file server is really slow today!” Without historical benchmarks available, taking a look at the current server performance may not yield any fruitful results because the CPU, disk, network, and memory counters all SEEM to be operating at a reasonable level, but based on and compared to what exactly?

With historical benchmarks available, there is a foundation to actually compare today’s performance on the server as it relates to the CPU, Disk, Network, and Memory (and any other metric/counter you want) VERSUS what the server has been utilizing for the past days, weeks, or months prior.

What historical benchmarks might help you discover is, that according to the historical data, perhaps there is absolutely NO difference in the server performance today versus previous days, weeks, or months? The complaint of “The file server is really slow today” turns out to be a false positive in that case, proven by the metrics an historical benchmarks. Finding the real cause and resolution to the user’s complaint is going to require you to start looking into other areas aside from the server itself. Perhaps it’s a client-side issue or networking issue.

Having benchmarks available is crucial in taking out illogical guess-work and assumptions, and replacing them with hard evidence and facts to back up your problem solving process. There are countless software options available that will give you the data you need for metrics, though we often recommend using PRTG from Paessler, which is a wonderful utility for acquiring benchmarks on your network and servers.

Logs are another important thing to consider during the troubleshooting process. Going back into log history can give a stumped IT Professional some additional clues as to what is going on, especially in cases where the question of “ When did the problem start?” remains unanswered.

Having network devices (switches, routers, firewalls, wireless, etc.) sending their log information to a dedicated syslog server (for example, Kiwi Syslog Server from SolarWinds) gives someone the opportunity to search for entries related to particular devices (by IP address) for specific warning messages or error messages.

Syslog messages and the historical information gathered here can sometimes help point the IT Professional in the right direction, not to mention, the logs themselves can be extremely valuable to the vendor of the product as well when they are involved in troubleshooting what is happening.

8. I’m officially stuck – now what?

Alright, so you find yourself in one of those rather unpleasant circumstances where you’ve asked all the right questions, dug into your resourceful bag of tricks, and find that you’ve exhausted all your technical knowledge and ability to track down the source of the problem. What do you do now? The first step is DON’T PANIC . Effective problem solving is, more often than not, substantially reduced when the IT professional is stressed out and under pressure (although in some rare cases, people tend to flourish under these “trial by fire” scenarios). Keeping panic at bay will help a person to remain calm, focused, and continue to allow them to logically walk through the problem solving process.

This is however, easier said than done, when there are countless emails and phone calls coming in demanding an update as to when the source of the problem will be fixed (and let’s not forget, potentially angry bosses that might be clueless as to why the problem is taking more than 10 minutes to resolve!).

The second step is just that, call in the cavalry! Let’s face it, there will always be instances where even the most seasoned IT professional needs assistance from peers, vendors or other resources . None of us are capable of knowing absolutely everything. When you find yourself struggling, don’t be afraid to reach out for help! What does that mean?

• Open a case with, for example, Cisco TAC support
• Open a case with, for example, Microsoft PSS support
• Involve a co-worker, professional colleague, or peer
• Partner with a local and trusted IT vendor
• Google can be your friend (be careful of “quick-fix” solutions you find)
• Look into vendor specific forums (most large-vendors have them)

The problem solving process in summary

Be sure to give yourself the absolute best chance to combat those dreaded technical support issues. The next time someone contacts you and yells in a panic, “Email is broken!” understand that you can more quickly deduct what is actually going on and help minimize the amount of time necessary to resolve the problem by simply asking the right questions :

• What is the Actual Problem?
• Who is Experiencing the Problem?
• When did the Problem Start?
• Is the Problem Intermittent or Constant?
• What Recently Changed?
• Can the Problem be Recreated?
• Are Benchmarks and Logs Available?
• I’m Officially Stuck – Now What?

Keep in mind, however, that not only do you need answers to those questions, but you need answers that are accurate .

As stated earlier, this means the IT professional may need to take the necessary time to validate the answers being provided to them. Inaccurate answers and misinformed facts will send you down the wrong troubleshooting path and unnecessarily prolong the amount of time necessary to resolve complex technical support issues. So get your facts straight!

Having the answers to these questions will allow you to immediately narrow down the scope of the problem and the potential areas at fault, conduct tests, formulate conclusions, and resolve problems even faster than you may have anticipated.

You should also read:

5 practical steps to avoid a cyber attack

Understanding the e-rate process [download primer].

Jesse is the owner of Source One Technology and has been providing IT consulting services to Enterprises , SMBs , schools , and nonprofits in Waukesha , Milwaukee , Dane , Washington , Jefferson , Ozaukee , Kenosha , Racine counties and across Wisconsin for over 18 years.

Is application virtualization now a necessity?

Microsoft deployment toolkit and windows deployment services, 2 thoughts on “an effective problem solving process for it professionals”.

Found your article very interesting. I can definitely identify with all of the points you made, especially troubleshooting. Either you can or cant troubleshoot and think logically through an issue or problem. You are right in mentioning that its something you really cannot teach. One other thing that helps with a logically stepping through the process is documentation. There should always be a repository where network diagrams, server builds, OS versions etc., are kept. I understand that a lot of times these documents cannot be relied upon due to being out of date and it seems most people scoff at the idea of keeping good documentation. But I believe it to be important to help with any troubleshooting. You also mentioned the question, Did anything change? or What changed? A big issue when attempting to troubleshoot. Every place I have worked at, always used a change management process that documented every single change, no matter how small. Of course these places had to by law (SOX audits) because they were publicly traded companies. Just wanted to say, good article!

That is a great article with some excellent questions. Working with students and teachers, I’d throw in a few extra suggestions.

1. What is a reasonable timeline for solving the problem? Often times a lack of communication to this question leads to frustration and long term mistrust regarding the reliability of technology. Asking what needs to be done from the end user’s perspective, and knowing their timeline for completion is helpful. Giving them a reasonable amount of time in which they can expect the issue to be resolved sets everybody up for success around reasonable expectations.

2. Suggest potential work-arounds when necessary — Standing in front of a group of adults and attempting to present when the technology is not working is overwhelming and frustrating. The same tech failure when you are working with a group of students and you start to lose their attention — it’s a nightmare! Knowing what tools your district provides for staff and their general purpose may allow you to offer some potential work-around ideas until the problem is resolved. There is not a fix for everything, but when you can suggest a reasonable alternative in the moment, you offer more than just tech support — you offer customer service.

Comments are closed.

Source One Technology, Inc.

375 Bishops Way, Ste 223 Brookfield, WI 53005

P: (262) 432-9000

Solutions & Services

Business email

Cloud migration

Data backup

IT assessments

Networking support

Virtualization

Virtual CIO

Business - enterprise

Business - small and medium

Banking and finance

Churches and non-profits

Government and municipalities

Manufacturing

Schools and districts

Testimonials and case studies

Read our blog

Copyright 2024 Source One Technology, Inc All rights reserved | Privacy Policy . | Marketing by Riabro .

Problem Solving Skills for the Digital Age

Lucid Content

Reading time: about 6 min

Let’s face it: Things don’t always go according to plan. Systems fail, wires get crossed, projects fall apart.

Problems are an inevitable part of life and work. They’re also an opportunity to think critically and find solutions. But knowing how to get to the root of unexpected situations or challenges can mean the difference between moving forward and spinning your wheels.

Here, we’ll break down the key elements of problem solving, some effective problem solving approaches, and a few effective tools to help you arrive at solutions more quickly.

So, what is problem solving?

Broadly defined, problem solving is the process of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues. But you already knew that. Understanding problem solving frameworks, however, requires a deeper dive.

Think about a recent problem you faced. Maybe it was an interpersonal issue. Or it could have been a major creative challenge you needed to solve for a client at work. How did you feel as you approached the issue? Stressed? Confused? Optimistic? Most importantly, which problem solving techniques did you use to tackle the situation head-on? How did you organize thoughts to arrive at the best possible solution?

Solve your problem-solving problem  

Here’s the good news: Good problem solving skills can be learned. By its nature, problem solving doesn’t adhere to a clear set of do’s and don’ts—it requires flexibility, communication, and adaptation. However, most problems you face, at work or in life, can be tackled using four basic steps.

First, you must define the problem . This step sounds obvious, but often, you can notice that something is amiss in a project or process without really knowing where the core problem lies. The most challenging part of the problem solving process is uncovering where the problem originated.

Second, you work to generate alternatives to address the problem directly. This should be a collaborative process to ensure you’re considering every angle of the issue.

Third, you evaluate and test potential solutions to your problem. This step helps you fully understand the complexity of the issue and arrive at the best possible solution.

Finally, fourth, you select and implement the solution that best addresses the problem.

Following this basic four-step process will help you approach every problem you encounter with the same rigorous critical and strategic thinking process, recognize commonalities in new problems, and avoid repeating past mistakes.

In addition to these basic problem solving skills, there are several best practices that you should incorporate. These problem solving approaches can help you think more critically and creatively about any problem:

You may not feel like you have the right expertise to resolve a specific problem. Don’t let that stop you from tackling it. The best problem solvers become students of the problem at hand. Even if you don’t have particular expertise on a topic, your unique experience and perspective can lend itself to creative solutions.

Challenge the status quo

Standard problem solving methodologies and problem solving frameworks are a good starting point. But don’t be afraid to challenge assumptions and push boundaries. Good problem solvers find ways to apply existing best practices into innovative problem solving approaches.

Think broadly about and visualize the issue

Sometimes it’s hard to see a problem, even if it’s right in front of you. Clear answers could be buried in rows of spreadsheet data or lost in miscommunication. Use visualization as a problem solving tool to break down problems to their core elements. Visuals can help you see bottlenecks in the context of the whole process and more clearly organize your thoughts as you define the problem.  

Hypothesize, test, and try again

It might be cliche, but there’s truth in the old adage that 99% of inspiration is perspiration. The best problem solvers ask why, test, fail, and ask why again. Whether it takes one or 1,000 iterations to solve a problem, the important part—and the part that everyone remembers—is the solution.

Consider other viewpoints

Today’s problems are more complex, more difficult to solve, and they often involve multiple disciplines. They require group expertise and knowledge. Being open to others’ expertise increases your ability to be a great problem solver. Great solutions come from integrating your ideas with those of others to find a better solution. Excellent problem solvers build networks and know how to collaborate with other people and teams. They are skilled in bringing people together and sharing knowledge and information.

4 effective problem solving tools

As you work through the problem solving steps, try these tools to better define the issue and find the appropriate solution.

Root cause analysis

Similar to pulling weeds from your garden, if you don’t get to the root of the problem, it’s bound to come back. A root cause analysis helps you figure out the root cause behind any disruption or problem, so you can take steps to correct the problem from recurring. The root cause analysis process involves defining the problem, collecting data, and identifying causal factors to pinpoint root causes and arrive at a solution.

Less structured than other more traditional problem solving methods, the 5 Whys is simply what it sounds like: asking why over and over to get to the root of an obstacle or setback. This technique encourages an open dialogue that can trigger new ideas about a problem, whether done individually or with a group. Each why piggybacks off the answer to the previous why. Get started with the template below—both flowcharts and fishbone diagrams can also help you track your answers to the 5 Whys.

Brainstorming

A meeting of the minds, a brain dump, a mind meld, a jam session. Whatever you call it, collaborative brainstorming can help surface previously unseen issues, root causes, and alternative solutions. Create and share a mind map with your team members to fuel your brainstorming session.

Gap analysis

Sometimes you don’t know where the problem is until you determine where it isn’t. Gap filling helps you analyze inadequacies that are preventing you from reaching an optimized state or end goal. For example, a content gap analysis can help a content marketer determine where holes exist in messaging or the customer experience. Gap analysis is especially helpful when it comes to problem solving because it requires you to find workable solutions. A SWOT analysis chart that looks at a problem through the lens of strengths, opportunities, opportunities, and threats can be a helpful problem solving framework as you start your analysis.

A better way to problem solve

Beyond these practical tips and tools, there are myriad methodical and creative approaches to move a project forward or resolve a conflict. The right approach will depend on the scope of the issue and your desired outcome.

Depending on the problem, Lucidchart offers several templates and diagrams that could help you identify the cause of the issue and map out a plan to resolve it.  Learn more about how Lucidchart can help you take control of your problem solving process .

Lucidchart, a cloud-based intelligent diagramming application, is a core component of Lucid Software's Visual Collaboration Suite. This intuitive, cloud-based solution empowers teams to collaborate in real-time to build flowcharts, mockups, UML diagrams, customer journey maps, and more. Lucidchart propels teams forward to build the future faster. Lucid is proud to serve top businesses around the world, including customers such as Google, GE, and NBC Universal, and 99% of the Fortune 500. Lucid partners with industry leaders, including Google, Atlassian, and Microsoft. Since its founding, Lucid has received numerous awards for its products, business, and workplace culture. For more information, visit lucidchart.com.

Related articles

Sometimes you're faced with challenges that traditional problem solving can't fix. Creative problem solving encourages you to find new, creative ways of thinking that can help you overcome the issue at hand more quickly.

Root cause analysis refers to any problem-solving method used to trace an issue back to its origin. Learn how to complete a root cause analysis—we've even included templates to get you started.

Bring your bright ideas to life.

or continue with

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 7 min read

What Is Problem Solving?

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We all spend a lot of our time solving problems, both at work and in our personal lives.

Some problems are small, and we can quickly sort them out ourselves. But others are complex challenges that take collaboration, creativity, and a considerable amount of effort to solve.

At work, the types of problems we face depend largely on the organizations we're in and the jobs we do. A manager in a cleaning company, for example, might spend their day untangling staffing issues, resolving client complaints, and sorting out problems with equipment and supplies. An aircraft designer, on the other hand, might be grappling with a problem about aerodynamics, or trying to work out why a new safety feature isn't working. Meanwhile, a politician might be exploring solutions to racial injustice or climate change.

But whatever issues we face, there are some common ways to tackle them effectively. And we can all boost our confidence and ability to succeed by building a strong set of problem-solving skills.

Mind Tools offers a large collection of resources to help you do just that!

How Well Do You Solve Problems?

Start by taking an honest look at your existing skills. What's your current approach to solving problems, and how well is it working? Our quiz, How Good Is Your Problem Solving? lets you analyze your abilities, and signposts ways to address any areas of weakness.

Define Every Problem

The first step in solving a problem is understanding what that problem actually is. You need to be sure that you're dealing with the real problem – not its symptoms. For example, if performance in your department is substandard, you might think that the problem lies with the individuals submitting work. However, if you look a bit deeper, the real issue might be a general lack of training, or an unreasonable workload across the team.

Tools like 5 Whys , Appreciation and Root Cause Analysis get you asking the right questions, and help you to work through the layers of a problem to uncover what's really going on.

However, defining a problem doesn't mean deciding how to solve it straightaway. It's important to look at the issue from a variety of perspectives. If you commit yourself too early, you can end up with a short-sighted solution. The CATWOE checklist provides a powerful reminder to look at many elements that may contribute to the problem, keeping you open to a variety of possible solutions.

Understanding Complexity

As you define your problem, you'll often discover just how complicated it is. There are likely several interrelated issues involved. That's why it's important to have ways to visualize, simplify and make sense of this tangled mess!

Affinity Diagrams are great for organizing many different pieces of information into common themes, and for understanding the relationships between them.

Another popular tool is the Cause-and-Effect Diagram . To generate viable solutions, you need a solid understanding of what's causing the problem.

When your problem occurs within a business process, creating a Flow Chart , Swim Lane Diagram or a Systems Diagram will help you to see how various activities and inputs fit together. This may well highlight a missing element or bottleneck that's causing your problem.

Quite often, what seems to be a single problem turns out to be a whole series of problems. The Drill Down technique prompts you to split your problem into smaller, more manageable parts.

General Problem-Solving Tools

When you understand the problem in front of you, you’re ready to start solving it. With your definition to guide you, you can generate several possible solutions, choose the best one, then put it into action. That's the four-step approach at the heart of good problem solving.

There are various problem-solving styles to use. For example:

• Constructive Controversy is a way of widening perspectives and energizing discussions.
• Inductive Reasoning makes the most of people’s experiences and know-how, and can speed up solution finding.
• Means-End Analysis can bring extra clarity to your thinking, and kick-start the process of implementing solutions.

Specific Problem-Solving Systems

Some particularly complicated or important problems call for a more comprehensive process. Again, Mind Tools has a range of approaches to try, including:

• Simplex , which involves an eight-stage process: problem finding, fact finding, defining the problem, idea finding, selecting and evaluating, planning, selling the idea, and acting. These steps build upon the basic, four-step process described above, and they create a cycle of problem finding and solving that will continually improve your organization.
• Appreciative Inquiry , which is a uniquely positive way of solving problems by examining what's working well in the areas surrounding them.
• Soft Systems Methodology , which takes you through four stages to uncover more details about what's creating your problem, and then define actions that will improve the situation.

Further Problem-Solving Strategies

Good problem solving requires a number of other skills – all of which are covered by Mind Tools.

For example, we have a large section of resources to improve your Creativity , so that you come up with a range of possible solutions.

By strengthening your Decision Making , you'll be better at evaluating the options, selecting the best ones, then choosing how to implement them.

And our Project Management collection has valuable advice for strengthening the whole problem-solving process. The resources there will help you to make effective changes – and then keep them working long term.

Problems are an inescapable part of life, both in and out of work. So we can all benefit from having strong problem-solving skills.

It's important to understand your current approach to problem solving, and to know where and how to improve.

Define every problem you encounter – and understand its complexity, rather than trying to solve it too soon.

There's a range of general problem-solving approaches, helping you to generate possible answers, choose the best ones, and then implement your solution.

Some complicated or serious problems require more specific problem-solving systems, especially when they relate to business processes.

By boosting your creativity, decision-making and project-management skills, you’ll become even better at solving all the problems you face.

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Book Insights

The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas With Pictures

Infographic

Creative Problem Solving Infographic

Infographic Transcript

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Get 20% off your first year of Mind Tools

Our on-demand e-learning resources let you learn at your own pace, fitting seamlessly into your busy workday. Join today and save with our limited time offer!

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

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Pain Points Podcast - How Do I Balance My Work And My Kids?

Pain Points Podcast - How Can I Improve My Company Culture?

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - what are the dos and don’ts of interviewing people.

Tips For Giving Great Interviews

Pain Points Podcast - How Do I Set Goals And Stick To Them?

Make Your Goals Stick

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

Earning trust and credibility.

What Makes Someone Trustworthy?

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

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators 
using SessionLab.

Recommended Articles

A step-by-step guide to planning a workshop, how to create an unforgettable training session in 8 simple steps, 47 useful online tools for workshop planning and meeting facilitation.

All teams and organizations encounter challenges as they grow. There are problems that might occur for teams when it comes to miscommunication or resolving business-critical issues . You may face challenges around growth , design , user engagement, and even team culture and happiness. In short, problem-solving techniques should be part of every team’s skillset.

Problem-solving methods are primarily designed to help a group or team through a process of first identifying problems and challenges , ideating possible solutions , and then evaluating the most suitable .

Finding effective solutions to complex problems isn’t easy, but by using the right process and techniques, you can help your team be more efficient in the process.

So how do you develop strategies that are engaging, and empower your team to solve problems effectively?

In this blog post, we share a series of problem-solving tools you can use in your next workshop or team meeting. You’ll also find some tips for facilitating the process and how to enable others to solve complex problems.

Let’s get started! 

How do you identify problems?

How do you identify the right solution.

• Tips for more effective problem-solving

Complete problem-solving methods

• Problem-solving techniques to identify and analyze problems
• Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Closing activities for a problem-solving process.

Before you can move towards finding the right solution for a given problem, you first need to identify and define the problem you wish to solve. 

Here, you want to clearly articulate what the problem is and allow your group to do the same. Remember that everyone in a group is likely to have differing perspectives and alignment is necessary in order to help the group move forward. 

Identifying a problem accurately also requires that all members of a group are able to contribute their views in an open and safe manner. It can be scary for people to stand up and contribute, especially if the problems or challenges are emotive or personal in nature. Be sure to try and create a psychologically safe space for these kinds of discussions.

Remember that problem analysis and further discussion are also important. Not taking the time to fully analyze and discuss a challenge can result in the development of solutions that are not fit for purpose or do not address the underlying issue.

Successfully identifying and then analyzing a problem means facilitating a group through activities designed to help them clearly and honestly articulate their thoughts and produce usable insight.

With this data, you might then produce a problem statement that clearly describes the problem you wish to be addressed and also state the goal of any process you undertake to tackle this issue.  

Finding solutions is the end goal of any process. Complex organizational challenges can only be solved with an appropriate solution but discovering them requires using the right problem-solving tool.

After you’ve explored a problem and discussed ideas, you need to help a team discuss and choose the right solution. Consensus tools and methods such as those below help a group explore possible solutions before then voting for the best. They’re a great way to tap into the collective intelligence of the group for great results!

Remember that the process is often iterative. Great problem solvers often roadtest a viable solution in a measured way to see what works too. While you might not get the right solution on your first try, the methods below help teams land on the most likely to succeed solution while also holding space for improvement.

Every effective problem solving process begins with an agenda . A well-structured workshop is one of the best methods for successfully guiding a group from exploring a problem to implementing a solution.

In SessionLab, it’s easy to go from an idea to a complete agenda . Start by dragging and dropping your core problem solving activities into place . Add timings, breaks and necessary materials before sharing your agenda with your colleagues.

The resulting agenda will be your guide to an effective and productive problem solving session that will also help you stay organized on the day!

Tips for more effective problem solving

Problem-solving activities are only one part of the puzzle. While a great method can help unlock your team’s ability to solve problems, without a thoughtful approach and strong facilitation the solutions may not be fit for purpose.

Let’s take a look at some problem-solving tips you can apply to any process to help it be a success!

Clearly define the problem

Jumping straight to solutions can be tempting, though without first clearly articulating a problem, the solution might not be the right one. Many of the problem-solving activities below include sections where the problem is explored and clearly defined before moving on.

This is a vital part of the problem-solving process and taking the time to fully define an issue can save time and effort later. A clear definition helps identify irrelevant information and it also ensures that your team sets off on the right track.

Don’t jump to conclusions

It’s easy for groups to exhibit cognitive bias or have preconceived ideas about both problems and potential solutions. Be sure to back up any problem statements or potential solutions with facts, research, and adequate forethought.

The best techniques ask participants to be methodical and challenge preconceived notions. Make sure you give the group enough time and space to collect relevant information and consider the problem in a new way. By approaching the process with a clear, rational mindset, you’ll often find that better solutions are more forthcoming.  

Try different approaches  

Problems come in all shapes and sizes and so too should the methods you use to solve them. If you find that one approach isn’t yielding results and your team isn’t finding different solutions, try mixing it up. You’ll be surprised at how using a new creative activity can unblock your team and generate great solutions.

Don’t take it personally 

Depending on the nature of your team or organizational problems, it’s easy for conversations to get heated. While it’s good for participants to be engaged in the discussions, ensure that emotions don’t run too high and that blame isn’t thrown around while finding solutions.

You’re all in it together, and even if your team or area is seeing problems, that isn’t necessarily a disparagement of you personally. Using facilitation skills to manage group dynamics is one effective method of helping conversations be more constructive.

Get the right people in the room

Your problem-solving method is often only as effective as the group using it. Getting the right people on the job and managing the number of people present is important too!

If the group is too small, you may not get enough different perspectives to effectively solve a problem. If the group is too large, you can go round and round during the ideation stages.

Creating the right group makeup is also important in ensuring you have the necessary expertise and skillset to both identify and follow up on potential solutions. Carefully consider who to include at each stage to help ensure your problem-solving method is followed and positioned for success.

Document everything

The best solutions can take refinement, iteration, and reflection to come out. Get into a habit of documenting your process in order to keep all the learnings from the session and to allow ideas to mature and develop. Many of the methods below involve the creation of documents or shared resources. Be sure to keep and share these so everyone can benefit from the work done!

Bring a facilitator 

Facilitation is all about making group processes easier. With a subject as potentially emotive and important as problem-solving, having an impartial third party in the form of a facilitator can make all the difference in finding great solutions and keeping the process moving. Consider bringing a facilitator to your problem-solving session to get better results and generate meaningful solutions!

Develop your problem-solving skills

It takes time and practice to be an effective problem solver. While some roles or participants might more naturally gravitate towards problem-solving, it can take development and planning to help everyone create better solutions.

You might develop a training program, run a problem-solving workshop or simply ask your team to practice using the techniques below. Check out our post on problem-solving skills to see how you and your group can develop the right mental process and be more resilient to issues too!

Design a great agenda

Workshops are a great format for solving problems. With the right approach, you can focus a group and help them find the solutions to their own problems. But designing a process can be time-consuming and finding the right activities can be difficult.

Check out our workshop planning guide to level-up your agenda design and start running more effective workshops. Need inspiration? Check out templates designed by expert facilitators to help you kickstart your process!

In this section, we’ll look at in-depth problem-solving methods that provide a complete end-to-end process for developing effective solutions. These will help guide your team from the discovery and definition of a problem through to delivering the right solution.

If you’re looking for an all-encompassing method or problem-solving model, these processes are a great place to start. They’ll ask your team to challenge preconceived ideas and adopt a mindset for solving problems more effectively.

• Six Thinking Hats
• Lightning Decision Jam
• Problem Definition Process
• Discovery & Action Dialogue

Design Sprint 2.0

• Open Space Technology

1. Six Thinking Hats

Individual approaches to solving a problem can be very different based on what team or role an individual holds. It can be easy for existing biases or perspectives to find their way into the mix, or for internal politics to direct a conversation.

Six Thinking Hats is a classic method for identifying the problems that need to be solved and enables your team to consider them from different angles, whether that is by focusing on facts and data, creative solutions, or by considering why a particular solution might not work.

Like all problem-solving frameworks, Six Thinking Hats is effective at helping teams remove roadblocks from a conversation or discussion and come to terms with all the aspects necessary to solve complex problems.

2. Lightning Decision Jam

Featured courtesy of Jonathan Courtney of AJ&Smart Berlin, Lightning Decision Jam is one of those strategies that should be in every facilitation toolbox. Exploring problems and finding solutions is often creative in nature, though as with any creative process, there is the potential to lose focus and get lost.

Unstructured discussions might get you there in the end, but it’s much more effective to use a method that creates a clear process and team focus.

In Lightning Decision Jam, participants are invited to begin by writing challenges, concerns, or mistakes on post-its without discussing them before then being invited by the moderator to present them to the group.

From there, the team vote on which problems to solve and are guided through steps that will allow them to reframe those problems, create solutions and then decide what to execute on. 

By deciding the problems that need to be solved as a team before moving on, this group process is great for ensuring the whole team is aligned and can take ownership over the next stages. 

Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ)   #action   #decision making   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #innovation   #design   #remote-friendly   The problem with anything that requires creative thinking is that it’s easy to get lost—lose focus and fall into the trap of having useless, open-ended, unstructured discussions. Here’s the most effective solution I’ve found: Replace all open, unstructured discussion with a clear process. What to use this exercise for: Anything which requires a group of people to make decisions, solve problems or discuss challenges. It’s always good to frame an LDJ session with a broad topic, here are some examples: The conversion flow of our checkout Our internal design process How we organise events Keeping up with our competition Improving sales flow

3. Problem Definition Process

While problems can be complex, the problem-solving methods you use to identify and solve those problems can often be simple in design. 

By taking the time to truly identify and define a problem before asking the group to reframe the challenge as an opportunity, this method is a great way to enable change.

Begin by identifying a focus question and exploring the ways in which it manifests before splitting into five teams who will each consider the problem using a different method: escape, reversal, exaggeration, distortion or wishful. Teams develop a problem objective and create ideas in line with their method before then feeding them back to the group.

This method is great for enabling in-depth discussions while also creating space for finding creative solutions too!

Problem Definition   #problem solving   #idea generation   #creativity   #online   #remote-friendly   A problem solving technique to define a problem, challenge or opportunity and to generate ideas.

4. The 5 Whys 

Sometimes, a group needs to go further with their strategies and analyze the root cause at the heart of organizational issues. An RCA or root cause analysis is the process of identifying what is at the heart of business problems or recurring challenges. 

The 5 Whys is a simple and effective method of helping a group go find the root cause of any problem or challenge and conduct analysis that will deliver results. 

By beginning with the creation of a problem statement and going through five stages to refine it, The 5 Whys provides everything you need to truly discover the cause of an issue.

The 5 Whys   #hyperisland   #innovation   This simple and powerful method is useful for getting to the core of a problem or challenge. As the title suggests, the group defines a problems, then asks the question “why” five times, often using the resulting explanation as a starting point for creative problem solving.

5. World Cafe

World Cafe is a simple but powerful facilitation technique to help bigger groups to focus their energy and attention on solving complex problems.

World Cafe enables this approach by creating a relaxed atmosphere where participants are able to self-organize and explore topics relevant and important to them which are themed around a central problem-solving purpose. Create the right atmosphere by modeling your space after a cafe and after guiding the group through the method, let them take the lead!

Making problem-solving a part of your organization’s culture in the long term can be a difficult undertaking. More approachable formats like World Cafe can be especially effective in bringing people unfamiliar with workshops into the fold. 

World Cafe   #hyperisland   #innovation   #issue analysis   World Café is a simple yet powerful method, originated by Juanita Brown, for enabling meaningful conversations driven completely by participants and the topics that are relevant and important to them. Facilitators create a cafe-style space and provide simple guidelines. Participants then self-organize and explore a set of relevant topics or questions for conversation.

6. Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

One of the best approaches is to create a safe space for a group to share and discover practices and behaviors that can help them find their own solutions.

With DAD, you can help a group choose which problems they wish to solve and which approaches they will take to do so. It’s great at helping remove resistance to change and can help get buy-in at every level too!

This process of enabling frontline ownership is great in ensuring follow-through and is one of the methods you will want in your toolbox as a facilitator.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)   #idea generation   #liberating structures   #action   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   DADs make it easy for a group or community to discover practices and behaviors that enable some individuals (without access to special resources and facing the same constraints) to find better solutions than their peers to common problems. These are called positive deviant (PD) behaviors and practices. DADs make it possible for people in the group, unit, or community to discover by themselves these PD practices. DADs also create favorable conditions for stimulating participants’ creativity in spaces where they can feel safe to invent new and more effective practices. Resistance to change evaporates as participants are unleashed to choose freely which practices they will adopt or try and which problems they will tackle. DADs make it possible to achieve frontline ownership of solutions.

7. Design Sprint 2.0

Want to see how a team can solve big problems and move forward with prototyping and testing solutions in a few days? The Design Sprint 2.0 template from Jake Knapp, author of Sprint, is a complete agenda for a with proven results.

Developing the right agenda can involve difficult but necessary planning. Ensuring all the correct steps are followed can also be stressful or time-consuming depending on your level of experience.

Use this complete 4-day workshop template if you are finding there is no obvious solution to your challenge and want to focus your team around a specific problem that might require a shortcut to launching a minimum viable product or waiting for the organization-wide implementation of a solution.

8. Open space technology

Open space technology- developed by Harrison Owen – creates a space where large groups are invited to take ownership of their problem solving and lead individual sessions. Open space technology is a great format when you have a great deal of expertise and insight in the room and want to allow for different takes and approaches on a particular theme or problem you need to be solved.

Start by bringing your participants together to align around a central theme and focus their efforts. Explain the ground rules to help guide the problem-solving process and then invite members to identify any issue connecting to the central theme that they are interested in and are prepared to take responsibility for.

Once participants have decided on their approach to the core theme, they write their issue on a piece of paper, announce it to the group, pick a session time and place, and post the paper on the wall. As the wall fills up with sessions, the group is then invited to join the sessions that interest them the most and which they can contribute to, then you’re ready to begin!

Everyone joins the problem-solving group they’ve signed up to, record the discussion and if appropriate, findings can then be shared with the rest of the group afterward.

Open Space Technology   #action plan   #idea generation   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #large group   #online   #remote-friendly   Open Space is a methodology for large groups to create their agenda discerning important topics for discussion, suitable for conferences, community gatherings and whole system facilitation

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

Using a problem-solving method to help a team identify and analyze a problem can be a quick and effective addition to any workshop or meeting.

While further actions are always necessary, you can generate momentum and alignment easily, and these activities are a great place to get started.

We’ve put together this list of techniques to help you and your team with problem identification, analysis, and discussion that sets the foundation for developing effective solutions.

Let’s take a look!

• The Creativity Dice
• Fishbone Analysis
• Problem Tree
• SWOT Analysis
• Agreement-Certainty Matrix
• The Journalistic Six
• LEGO Challenge
• What, So What, Now What?
• Journalists

Individual and group perspectives are incredibly important, but what happens if people are set in their minds and need a change of perspective in order to approach a problem more effectively?

Flip It is a method we love because it is both simple to understand and run, and allows groups to understand how their perspectives and biases are formed. 

Participants in Flip It are first invited to consider concerns, issues, or problems from a perspective of fear and write them on a flip chart. Then, the group is asked to consider those same issues from a perspective of hope and flip their understanding.  

No problem and solution is free from existing bias and by changing perspectives with Flip It, you can then develop a problem solving model quickly and effectively.

Flip It!   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Often, a change in a problem or situation comes simply from a change in our perspectives. Flip It! is a quick game designed to show players that perspectives are made, not born.

10. The Creativity Dice

One of the most useful problem solving skills you can teach your team is of approaching challenges with creativity, flexibility, and openness. Games like The Creativity Dice allow teams to overcome the potential hurdle of too much linear thinking and approach the process with a sense of fun and speed. 

In The Creativity Dice, participants are organized around a topic and roll a dice to determine what they will work on for a period of 3 minutes at a time. They might roll a 3 and work on investigating factual information on the chosen topic. They might roll a 1 and work on identifying the specific goals, standards, or criteria for the session.

Encouraging rapid work and iteration while asking participants to be flexible are great skills to cultivate. Having a stage for idea incubation in this game is also important. Moments of pause can help ensure the ideas that are put forward are the most suitable. 

The Creativity Dice   #creativity   #problem solving   #thiagi   #issue analysis   Too much linear thinking is hazardous to creative problem solving. To be creative, you should approach the problem (or the opportunity) from different points of view. You should leave a thought hanging in mid-air and move to another. This skipping around prevents premature closure and lets your brain incubate one line of thought while you consciously pursue another.

11. Fishbone Analysis

Organizational or team challenges are rarely simple, and it’s important to remember that one problem can be an indication of something that goes deeper and may require further consideration to be solved.

Fishbone Analysis helps groups to dig deeper and understand the origins of a problem. It’s a great example of a root cause analysis method that is simple for everyone on a team to get their head around. 

Participants in this activity are asked to annotate a diagram of a fish, first adding the problem or issue to be worked on at the head of a fish before then brainstorming the root causes of the problem and adding them as bones on the fish. 

Using abstractions such as a diagram of a fish can really help a team break out of their regular thinking and develop a creative approach.

Fishbone Analysis   #problem solving   ##root cause analysis   #decision making   #online facilitation   A process to help identify and understand the origins of problems, issues or observations.

12. Problem Tree 

Encouraging visual thinking can be an essential part of many strategies. By simply reframing and clarifying problems, a group can move towards developing a problem solving model that works for them. 

In Problem Tree, groups are asked to first brainstorm a list of problems – these can be design problems, team problems or larger business problems – and then organize them into a hierarchy. The hierarchy could be from most important to least important or abstract to practical, though the key thing with problem solving games that involve this aspect is that your group has some way of managing and sorting all the issues that are raised.

Once you have a list of problems that need to be solved and have organized them accordingly, you’re then well-positioned for the next problem solving steps.

Problem tree   #define intentions   #create   #design   #issue analysis   A problem tree is a tool to clarify the hierarchy of problems addressed by the team within a design project; it represents high level problems or related sublevel problems.

13. SWOT Analysis

Chances are you’ve heard of the SWOT Analysis before. This problem-solving method focuses on identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is a tried and tested method for both individuals and teams.

Start by creating a desired end state or outcome and bare this in mind – any process solving model is made more effective by knowing what you are moving towards. Create a quadrant made up of the four categories of a SWOT analysis and ask participants to generate ideas based on each of those quadrants.

Once you have those ideas assembled in their quadrants, cluster them together based on their affinity with other ideas. These clusters are then used to facilitate group conversations and move things forward. 

SWOT analysis   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   #meeting facilitation   The SWOT Analysis is a long-standing technique of looking at what we have, with respect to the desired end state, as well as what we could improve on. It gives us an opportunity to gauge approaching opportunities and dangers, and assess the seriousness of the conditions that affect our future. When we understand those conditions, we can influence what comes next.

14. Agreement-Certainty Matrix

Not every problem-solving approach is right for every challenge, and deciding on the right method for the challenge at hand is a key part of being an effective team.

The Agreement Certainty matrix helps teams align on the nature of the challenges facing them. By sorting problems from simple to chaotic, your team can understand what methods are suitable for each problem and what they can do to ensure effective results. 

If you are already using Liberating Structures techniques as part of your problem-solving strategy, the Agreement-Certainty Matrix can be an invaluable addition to your process. We’ve found it particularly if you are having issues with recurring problems in your organization and want to go deeper in understanding the root cause. 

Agreement-Certainty Matrix   #issue analysis   #liberating structures   #problem solving   You can help individuals or groups avoid the frequent mistake of trying to solve a problem with methods that are not adapted to the nature of their challenge. The combination of two questions makes it possible to easily sort challenges into four categories: simple, complicated, complex , and chaotic .  A problem is simple when it can be solved reliably with practices that are easy to duplicate.  It is complicated when experts are required to devise a sophisticated solution that will yield the desired results predictably.  A problem is complex when there are several valid ways to proceed but outcomes are not predictable in detail.  Chaotic is when the context is too turbulent to identify a path forward.  A loose analogy may be used to describe these differences: simple is like following a recipe, complicated like sending a rocket to the moon, complex like raising a child, and chaotic is like the game “Pin the Tail on the Donkey.”  The Liberating Structures Matching Matrix in Chapter 5 can be used as the first step to clarify the nature of a challenge and avoid the mismatches between problems and solutions that are frequently at the root of chronic, recurring problems.

Organizing and charting a team’s progress can be important in ensuring its success. SQUID (Sequential Question and Insight Diagram) is a great model that allows a team to effectively switch between giving questions and answers and develop the skills they need to stay on track throughout the process. 

Begin with two different colored sticky notes – one for questions and one for answers – and with your central topic (the head of the squid) on the board. Ask the group to first come up with a series of questions connected to their best guess of how to approach the topic. Ask the group to come up with answers to those questions, fix them to the board and connect them with a line. After some discussion, go back to question mode by responding to the generated answers or other points on the board.

It’s rewarding to see a diagram grow throughout the exercise, and a completed SQUID can provide a visual resource for future effort and as an example for other teams.

SQUID   #gamestorming   #project planning   #issue analysis   #problem solving   When exploring an information space, it’s important for a group to know where they are at any given time. By using SQUID, a group charts out the territory as they go and can navigate accordingly. SQUID stands for Sequential Question and Insight Diagram.

16. Speed Boat

To continue with our nautical theme, Speed Boat is a short and sweet activity that can help a team quickly identify what employees, clients or service users might have a problem with and analyze what might be standing in the way of achieving a solution.

Methods that allow for a group to make observations, have insights and obtain those eureka moments quickly are invaluable when trying to solve complex problems.

In Speed Boat, the approach is to first consider what anchors and challenges might be holding an organization (or boat) back. Bonus points if you are able to identify any sharks in the water and develop ideas that can also deal with competitors!   

Speed Boat   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Speedboat is a short and sweet way to identify what your employees or clients don’t like about your product/service or what’s standing in the way of a desired goal.

17. The Journalistic Six

Some of the most effective ways of solving problems is by encouraging teams to be more inclusive and diverse in their thinking.

Based on the six key questions journalism students are taught to answer in articles and news stories, The Journalistic Six helps create teams to see the whole picture. By using who, what, when, where, why, and how to facilitate the conversation and encourage creative thinking, your team can make sure that the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the are covered exhaustively and thoughtfully. Reporter’s notebook and dictaphone optional.

The Journalistic Six – Who What When Where Why How   #idea generation   #issue analysis   #problem solving   #online   #creative thinking   #remote-friendly   A questioning method for generating, explaining, investigating ideas.

18. LEGO Challenge

Now for an activity that is a little out of the (toy) box. LEGO Serious Play is a facilitation methodology that can be used to improve creative thinking and problem-solving skills. 

The LEGO Challenge includes giving each member of the team an assignment that is hidden from the rest of the group while they create a structure without speaking.

What the LEGO challenge brings to the table is a fun working example of working with stakeholders who might not be on the same page to solve problems. Also, it’s LEGO! Who doesn’t love LEGO! 

LEGO Challenge   #hyperisland   #team   A team-building activity in which groups must work together to build a structure out of LEGO, but each individual has a secret “assignment” which makes the collaborative process more challenging. It emphasizes group communication, leadership dynamics, conflict, cooperation, patience and problem solving strategy.

19. What, So What, Now What?

If not carefully managed, the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the problem-solving process can actually create more problems and misunderstandings.

The What, So What, Now What? problem-solving activity is designed to help collect insights and move forward while also eliminating the possibility of disagreement when it comes to identifying, clarifying, and analyzing organizational or work problems. 

Facilitation is all about bringing groups together so that might work on a shared goal and the best problem-solving strategies ensure that teams are aligned in purpose, if not initially in opinion or insight.

Throughout the three steps of this game, you give everyone on a team to reflect on a problem by asking what happened, why it is important, and what actions should then be taken. 

This can be a great activity for bringing our individual perceptions about a problem or challenge and contextualizing it in a larger group setting. This is one of the most important problem-solving skills you can bring to your organization.

W³ – What, So What, Now What?   #issue analysis   #innovation   #liberating structures   You can help groups reflect on a shared experience in a way that builds understanding and spurs coordinated action while avoiding unproductive conflict. It is possible for every voice to be heard while simultaneously sifting for insights and shaping new direction. Progressing in stages makes this practical—from collecting facts about What Happened to making sense of these facts with So What and finally to what actions logically follow with Now What . The shared progression eliminates most of the misunderstandings that otherwise fuel disagreements about what to do. Voila!

20. Journalists  

Problem analysis can be one of the most important and decisive stages of all problem-solving tools. Sometimes, a team can become bogged down in the details and are unable to move forward.

Journalists is an activity that can avoid a group from getting stuck in the problem identification or problem analysis stages of the process.

In Journalists, the group is invited to draft the front page of a fictional newspaper and figure out what stories deserve to be on the cover and what headlines those stories will have. By reframing how your problems and challenges are approached, you can help a team move productively through the process and be better prepared for the steps to follow.

Journalists   #vision   #big picture   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   This is an exercise to use when the group gets stuck in details and struggles to see the big picture. Also good for defining a vision.

Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions 

The success of any problem-solving process can be measured by the solutions it produces. After you’ve defined the issue, explored existing ideas, and ideated, it’s time to narrow down to the correct solution.

Use these problem-solving techniques when you want to help your team find consensus, compare possible solutions, and move towards taking action on a particular problem.

• Improved Solutions
• Four-Step Sketch
• 15% Solutions
• How-Now-Wow matrix
• Impact Effort Matrix

21. Mindspin  

Brainstorming is part of the bread and butter of the problem-solving process and all problem-solving strategies benefit from getting ideas out and challenging a team to generate solutions quickly. 

With Mindspin, participants are encouraged not only to generate ideas but to do so under time constraints and by slamming down cards and passing them on. By doing multiple rounds, your team can begin with a free generation of possible solutions before moving on to developing those solutions and encouraging further ideation. 

This is one of our favorite problem-solving activities and can be great for keeping the energy up throughout the workshop. Remember the importance of helping people become engaged in the process – energizing problem-solving techniques like Mindspin can help ensure your team stays engaged and happy, even when the problems they’re coming together to solve are complex. 

MindSpin   #teampedia   #idea generation   #problem solving   #action   A fast and loud method to enhance brainstorming within a team. Since this activity has more than round ideas that are repetitive can be ruled out leaving more creative and innovative answers to the challenge.

22. Improved Solutions

After a team has successfully identified a problem and come up with a few solutions, it can be tempting to call the work of the problem-solving process complete. That said, the first solution is not necessarily the best, and by including a further review and reflection activity into your problem-solving model, you can ensure your group reaches the best possible result. 

One of a number of problem-solving games from Thiagi Group, Improved Solutions helps you go the extra mile and develop suggested solutions with close consideration and peer review. By supporting the discussion of several problems at once and by shifting team roles throughout, this problem-solving technique is a dynamic way of finding the best solution. 

Improved Solutions   #creativity   #thiagi   #problem solving   #action   #team   You can improve any solution by objectively reviewing its strengths and weaknesses and making suitable adjustments. In this creativity framegame, you improve the solutions to several problems. To maintain objective detachment, you deal with a different problem during each of six rounds and assume different roles (problem owner, consultant, basher, booster, enhancer, and evaluator) during each round. At the conclusion of the activity, each player ends up with two solutions to her problem.

23. Four Step Sketch

Creative thinking and visual ideation does not need to be confined to the opening stages of your problem-solving strategies. Exercises that include sketching and prototyping on paper can be effective at the solution finding and development stage of the process, and can be great for keeping a team engaged. 

By going from simple notes to a crazy 8s round that involves rapidly sketching 8 variations on their ideas before then producing a final solution sketch, the group is able to iterate quickly and visually. Problem-solving techniques like Four-Step Sketch are great if you have a group of different thinkers and want to change things up from a more textual or discussion-based approach.

Four-Step Sketch   #design sprint   #innovation   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   The four-step sketch is an exercise that helps people to create well-formed concepts through a structured process that includes: Review key information Start design work on paper,  Consider multiple variations , Create a detailed solution . This exercise is preceded by a set of other activities allowing the group to clarify the challenge they want to solve. See how the Four Step Sketch exercise fits into a Design Sprint

24. 15% Solutions

Some problems are simpler than others and with the right problem-solving activities, you can empower people to take immediate actions that can help create organizational change. 

Part of the liberating structures toolkit, 15% solutions is a problem-solving technique that focuses on finding and implementing solutions quickly. A process of iterating and making small changes quickly can help generate momentum and an appetite for solving complex problems.

Problem-solving strategies can live and die on whether people are onboard. Getting some quick wins is a great way of getting people behind the process.   

It can be extremely empowering for a team to realize that problem-solving techniques can be deployed quickly and easily and delineate between things they can positively impact and those things they cannot change. 

15% Solutions   #action   #liberating structures   #remote-friendly   You can reveal the actions, however small, that everyone can do immediately. At a minimum, these will create momentum, and that may make a BIG difference.  15% Solutions show that there is no reason to wait around, feel powerless, or fearful. They help people pick it up a level. They get individuals and the group to focus on what is within their discretion instead of what they cannot change.  With a very simple question, you can flip the conversation to what can be done and find solutions to big problems that are often distributed widely in places not known in advance. Shifting a few grains of sand may trigger a landslide and change the whole landscape.

25. How-Now-Wow Matrix

The problem-solving process is often creative, as complex problems usually require a change of thinking and creative response in order to find the best solutions. While it’s common for the first stages to encourage creative thinking, groups can often gravitate to familiar solutions when it comes to the end of the process. 

When selecting solutions, you don’t want to lose your creative energy! The How-Now-Wow Matrix from Gamestorming is a great problem-solving activity that enables a group to stay creative and think out of the box when it comes to selecting the right solution for a given problem.

Problem-solving techniques that encourage creative thinking and the ideation and selection of new solutions can be the most effective in organisational change. Give the How-Now-Wow Matrix a go, and not just for how pleasant it is to say out loud. 

How-Now-Wow Matrix   #gamestorming   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   When people want to develop new ideas, they most often think out of the box in the brainstorming or divergent phase. However, when it comes to convergence, people often end up picking ideas that are most familiar to them. This is called a ‘creative paradox’ or a ‘creadox’. The How-Now-Wow matrix is an idea selection tool that breaks the creadox by forcing people to weigh each idea on 2 parameters.

26. Impact and Effort Matrix

All problem-solving techniques hope to not only find solutions to a given problem or challenge but to find the best solution. When it comes to finding a solution, groups are invited to put on their decision-making hats and really think about how a proposed idea would work in practice. 

The Impact and Effort Matrix is one of the problem-solving techniques that fall into this camp, empowering participants to first generate ideas and then categorize them into a 2×2 matrix based on impact and effort.

Activities that invite critical thinking while remaining simple are invaluable. Use the Impact and Effort Matrix to move from ideation and towards evaluating potential solutions before then committing to them. 

Impact and Effort Matrix   #gamestorming   #decision making   #action   #remote-friendly   In this decision-making exercise, possible actions are mapped based on two factors: effort required to implement and potential impact. Categorizing ideas along these lines is a useful technique in decision making, as it obliges contributors to balance and evaluate suggested actions before committing to them.

27. Dotmocracy

If you’ve followed each of the problem-solving steps with your group successfully, you should move towards the end of your process with heaps of possible solutions developed with a specific problem in mind. But how do you help a group go from ideation to putting a solution into action? 

Dotmocracy – or Dot Voting -is a tried and tested method of helping a team in the problem-solving process make decisions and put actions in place with a degree of oversight and consensus. 

One of the problem-solving techniques that should be in every facilitator’s toolbox, Dot Voting is fast and effective and can help identify the most popular and best solutions and help bring a group to a decision effectively. 

Dotmocracy   #action   #decision making   #group prioritization   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Dotmocracy is a simple method for group prioritization or decision-making. It is not an activity on its own, but a method to use in processes where prioritization or decision-making is the aim. The method supports a group to quickly see which options are most popular or relevant. The options or ideas are written on post-its and stuck up on a wall for the whole group to see. Each person votes for the options they think are the strongest, and that information is used to inform a decision.

All facilitators know that warm-ups and icebreakers are useful for any workshop or group process. Problem-solving workshops are no different.

Use these problem-solving techniques to warm up a group and prepare them for the rest of the process. Activating your group by tapping into some of the top problem-solving skills can be one of the best ways to see great outcomes from your session.

• Check-in/Check-out
• Doodling Together
• Show and Tell
• Constellations
• Draw a Tree

28. Check-in / Check-out

Solid processes are planned from beginning to end, and the best facilitators know that setting the tone and establishing a safe, open environment can be integral to a successful problem-solving process.

Check-in / Check-out is a great way to begin and/or bookend a problem-solving workshop. Checking in to a session emphasizes that everyone will be seen, heard, and expected to contribute. 

If you are running a series of meetings, setting a consistent pattern of checking in and checking out can really help your team get into a groove. We recommend this opening-closing activity for small to medium-sized groups though it can work with large groups if they’re disciplined!

Check-in / Check-out   #team   #opening   #closing   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Either checking-in or checking-out is a simple way for a team to open or close a process, symbolically and in a collaborative way. Checking-in/out invites each member in a group to be present, seen and heard, and to express a reflection or a feeling. Checking-in emphasizes presence, focus and group commitment; checking-out emphasizes reflection and symbolic closure.

29. Doodling Together  

Thinking creatively and not being afraid to make suggestions are important problem-solving skills for any group or team, and warming up by encouraging these behaviors is a great way to start. 

Doodling Together is one of our favorite creative ice breaker games – it’s quick, effective, and fun and can make all following problem-solving steps easier by encouraging a group to collaborate visually. By passing cards and adding additional items as they go, the workshop group gets into a groove of co-creation and idea development that is crucial to finding solutions to problems. 

Doodling Together   #collaboration   #creativity   #teamwork   #fun   #team   #visual methods   #energiser   #icebreaker   #remote-friendly   Create wild, weird and often funny postcards together & establish a group’s creative confidence.

30. Show and Tell

You might remember some version of Show and Tell from being a kid in school and it’s a great problem-solving activity to kick off a session.

Asking participants to prepare a little something before a workshop by bringing an object for show and tell can help them warm up before the session has even begun! Games that include a physical object can also help encourage early engagement before moving onto more big-picture thinking.

By asking your participants to tell stories about why they chose to bring a particular item to the group, you can help teams see things from new perspectives and see both differences and similarities in the way they approach a topic. Great groundwork for approaching a problem-solving process as a team! 

Show and Tell   #gamestorming   #action   #opening   #meeting facilitation   Show and Tell taps into the power of metaphors to reveal players’ underlying assumptions and associations around a topic The aim of the game is to get a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on anything—a new project, an organizational restructuring, a shift in the company’s vision or team dynamic.

31. Constellations

Who doesn’t love stars? Constellations is a great warm-up activity for any workshop as it gets people up off their feet, energized, and ready to engage in new ways with established topics. It’s also great for showing existing beliefs, biases, and patterns that can come into play as part of your session.

Using warm-up games that help build trust and connection while also allowing for non-verbal responses can be great for easing people into the problem-solving process and encouraging engagement from everyone in the group. Constellations is great in large spaces that allow for movement and is definitely a practical exercise to allow the group to see patterns that are otherwise invisible. 

Constellations   #trust   #connection   #opening   #coaching   #patterns   #system   Individuals express their response to a statement or idea by standing closer or further from a central object. Used with teams to reveal system, hidden patterns, perspectives.

32. Draw a Tree

Problem-solving games that help raise group awareness through a central, unifying metaphor can be effective ways to warm-up a group in any problem-solving model.

Draw a Tree is a simple warm-up activity you can use in any group and which can provide a quick jolt of energy. Start by asking your participants to draw a tree in just 45 seconds – they can choose whether it will be abstract or realistic. 

Once the timer is up, ask the group how many people included the roots of the tree and use this as a means to discuss how we can ignore important parts of any system simply because they are not visible.

All problem-solving strategies are made more effective by thinking of problems critically and by exposing things that may not normally come to light. Warm-up games like Draw a Tree are great in that they quickly demonstrate some key problem-solving skills in an accessible and effective way.

Draw a Tree   #thiagi   #opening   #perspectives   #remote-friendly   With this game you can raise awarness about being more mindful, and aware of the environment we live in.

Each step of the problem-solving workshop benefits from an intelligent deployment of activities, games, and techniques. Bringing your session to an effective close helps ensure that solutions are followed through on and that you also celebrate what has been achieved.

Here are some problem-solving activities you can use to effectively close a workshop or meeting and ensure the great work you’ve done can continue afterward.

• One Breath Feedback
• Who What When Matrix
• Response Cards

How do I conclude a problem-solving process?

All good things must come to an end. With the bulk of the work done, it can be tempting to conclude your workshop swiftly and without a moment to debrief and align. This can be problematic in that it doesn’t allow your team to fully process the results or reflect on the process.

At the end of an effective session, your team will have gone through a process that, while productive, can be exhausting. It’s important to give your group a moment to take a breath, ensure that they are clear on future actions, and provide short feedback before leaving the space. 

The primary purpose of any problem-solving method is to generate solutions and then implement them. Be sure to take the opportunity to ensure everyone is aligned and ready to effectively implement the solutions you produced in the workshop.

Remember that every process can be improved and by giving a short moment to collect feedback in the session, you can further refine your problem-solving methods and see further success in the future too.

33. One Breath Feedback

Maintaining attention and focus during the closing stages of a problem-solving workshop can be tricky and so being concise when giving feedback can be important. It’s easy to incur “death by feedback” should some team members go on for too long sharing their perspectives in a quick feedback round. 

One Breath Feedback is a great closing activity for workshops. You give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback on what they’ve done but only in the space of a single breath. This keeps feedback short and to the point and means that everyone is encouraged to provide the most important piece of feedback to them. 

One breath feedback   #closing   #feedback   #action   This is a feedback round in just one breath that excels in maintaining attention: each participants is able to speak during just one breath … for most people that’s around 20 to 25 seconds … unless of course you’ve been a deep sea diver in which case you’ll be able to do it for longer.

34. Who What When Matrix 

Matrices feature as part of many effective problem-solving strategies and with good reason. They are easily recognizable, simple to use, and generate results.

The Who What When Matrix is a great tool to use when closing your problem-solving session by attributing a who, what and when to the actions and solutions you have decided upon. The resulting matrix is a simple, easy-to-follow way of ensuring your team can move forward. 

Great solutions can’t be enacted without action and ownership. Your problem-solving process should include a stage for allocating tasks to individuals or teams and creating a realistic timeframe for those solutions to be implemented or checked out. Use this method to keep the solution implementation process clear and simple for all involved. 

Who/What/When Matrix   #gamestorming   #action   #project planning   With Who/What/When matrix, you can connect people with clear actions they have defined and have committed to.

35. Response cards

Group discussion can comprise the bulk of most problem-solving activities and by the end of the process, you might find that your team is talked out! 

Providing a means for your team to give feedback with short written notes can ensure everyone is head and can contribute without the need to stand up and talk. Depending on the needs of the group, giving an alternative can help ensure everyone can contribute to your problem-solving model in the way that makes the most sense for them.

Response Cards is a great way to close a workshop if you are looking for a gentle warm-down and want to get some swift discussion around some of the feedback that is raised. 

Response Cards   #debriefing   #closing   #structured sharing   #questions and answers   #thiagi   #action   It can be hard to involve everyone during a closing of a session. Some might stay in the background or get unheard because of louder participants. However, with the use of Response Cards, everyone will be involved in providing feedback or clarify questions at the end of a session.

Save time and effort discovering the right solutions

A structured problem solving process is a surefire way of solving tough problems, discovering creative solutions and driving organizational change. But how can you design for successful outcomes?

With SessionLab, it’s easy to design engaging workshops that deliver results. Drag, drop and reorder blocks  to build your agenda. When you make changes or update your agenda, your session  timing   adjusts automatically , saving you time on manual adjustments.

Collaborating with stakeholders or clients? Share your agenda with a single click and collaborate in real-time. No more sending documents back and forth over email.

Explore  how to use SessionLab  to design effective problem solving workshops or  watch this five minute video  to see the planner in action!

Over to you

The problem-solving process can often be as complicated and multifaceted as the problems they are set-up to solve. With the right problem-solving techniques and a mix of creative exercises designed to guide discussion and generate purposeful ideas, we hope we’ve given you the tools to find the best solutions as simply and easily as possible.

Is there a problem-solving technique that you are missing here? Do you have a favorite activity or method you use when facilitating? Let us know in the comments below, we’d love to hear from you! 

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Going from a mere idea to a workshop that delivers results for your clients can feel like a daunting task. In this piece, we will shine a light on all the work behind the scenes and help you learn how to plan a workshop from start to finish. On a good day, facilitation can feel like effortless magic, but that is mostly the result of backstage work, foresight, and a lot of careful planning. Read on to learn a step-by-step approach to breaking the process of planning a workshop into small, manageable chunks.  The flow starts with the first meeting with a client to define the purposes of a workshop.…

How does learning work? A clever 9-year-old once told me: “I know I am learning something new when I am surprised.” The science of adult learning tells us that, in order to learn new skills (which, unsurprisingly, is harder for adults to do than kids) grown-ups need to first get into a specific headspace.  In a business, this approach is often employed in a training session where employees learn new skills or work on professional development. But how do you ensure your training is effective? In this guide, we'll explore how to create an effective training session plan and run engaging training sessions. As team leader, project manager, or consultant,…

Effective online tools are a necessity for smooth and engaging virtual workshops and meetings. But how do you choose the right ones? Do you sometimes feel that the good old pen and paper or MS Office toolkit and email leaves you struggling to stay on top of managing and delivering your workshop? Fortunately, there are plenty of online tools to make your life easier when you need to facilitate a meeting and lead workshops. In this post, we’ll share our favorite online tools you can use to make your job as a facilitator easier. In fact, there are plenty of free online workshop tools and meeting facilitation software you can…

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Sign up for free