A problem is the gap between where you are and where you want to be (Cyert & March, 1963; Senge, 1990). How you frame this gap shapes your understanding and influences the ideas and actions you explore. The same problem can present differently to various individuals and communities. A well-crafted problem statement will resonate with many people and communities, even if they view the problem differently.
Visualizing the Problem – The Rubber Band Metaphor
Imagine your current reality as one hand and your goal (Near Star) as the other. The distance between them is the problem. If the gap is too big, the “rubber band” snaps – symbolizing a crisis. No gap indicates complacency. The ideal stretch challenges but remains achievable, creating tension that drives progress. This gap provides creative tension – the source of energy driving you to learn, adapt, and move toward your vision (Senge, 1990).
The Complexities of Problem Framing
Identifying a problem, especially a systems problem, is a complex task. Here are a few reasons why:
- Not Pre-Defined: Problems don’t exist on their own – they need framing and often, re-framing. This involves translating symptoms into a series of questions or alternative problem frames (Baer et al., 2013).
- Incomplete Information: Problem framing often starts with incomplete information that can lead to uncertainties and assumptions. As new information emerges, reframing and adjusting the problem becomes necessary (Simon, 1977).
- Multiple Perspectives: A systems-level problem impacts various stakeholders differently, making it crucial to incorporate diverse viewpoints, including the planet and future generations. When a systems problem is framed and viewed as a series of nested problems incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives, it can generate more creative ideas.
The Risk of Jumping to Solutions
One out of four problems that undergoes a problem-solving process is never revisited for reformulation (Niederman & DeSanctis, 1995). This suggests that organizations are more inclined to prematurely jump to solutions. Yet, framing and reframing the problem on an ongoing basis is crucial because the problem also shapes the ideas and actions for potential solutions.
Early management theories often proposed that once an organization recognizes a problem, which may be signalled by a performance shortfall, it should jump directly into searching for a solution. However, jumping to solutions before framing the problem creates two main issues:
- Leads to Narrow Problem Definitions: Research indicates that individuals tend to recognize only the most evident symptoms of problems, overlooking diverse perspectives and contextual factors to which they are less attuned. This leads to identifying simplistic or inaccurate problems (March & Simon, 1958).
- Limits Potential Solutions: Organizations prioritize solutions that are proximate to their existing knowledge and practices (Cyert & March, 1963). By identifying a solution before fully understanding the problem, they might then try to frame the problem based on a preconceived notion of the solution (Duncker, 1945). This can hinder the organization’s ability to discover truly innovative or more effective solutions.
Problem and Solution as Active Iteration
The connection between problem and solution may seem linear, but in reality, problems and solutions co-evolve through an active, iterative process of framing and exploration.
This active iterative framing aligns with the pragmatist notion of reflective inquiry (Dewey, 1997; Wegener et al., 2023). Problem identification and solution development are not discrete phases but interwoven cycles of reflection and action that continually evolve in response to each other. Proposed solutions spawn new insights that redefine the problem (von Hippel, 2005), which then inspires adapted solutions, and so on (Dewey, 1997; Dimova & Kamarska, 2015).
The potential solutions that surface build greater awareness of the system, redefining the overarching problem space (von Hippl and Krogh, 2016).
References
- Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197-214.
- Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Dewey, J. (1997 / 1910). How we think. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
- Dimova, Y., & Kamarska, K. (2015). Rediscovering John Dewey’s model of learning through reflective inquiry. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 63, 29.
- Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.). Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113.
- March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations: Wiley.
- Niederman F, DeSanctis G. (1995). The impact of a structured-argument approach on group problem formulation. Decision Sciences 26: 451-474.
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
- Simon, H. A. (1976). How complex are complex systems? In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 1976, No. 2, pp. 507-522). Cambridge University Press.
- von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55, 63-78.
- von Hippel, E. & von Krogh, G. (2016). Crossroads—identifying viable “Need-solution pairs”: Problem solving without problem formulation. Organization Science, 27(1): 207-221.
- Wegener, F. E., Lee, J. Y., Mascena Barbosa, A., Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. (2024). From impact to impacting: A pragmatist perspective on tackling grand challenges. Strategic Organization (online first).
Further Reading: The Complexities of Problem Framing
- Volkema, R. J. (1983). Problem formulation in planning and design. Management Science, 29(6), 639-652.
- Volkema, R. J. (1997). Managing the problem formulation process: guidelines for team leaders and facilitators. Human Systems Management, 16(1), 27-34.
Further Reading: The Risk of Jumping to Solutions
- Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2008). A retrospective look at a behavioral theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66(1), 1-6.
- Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., Levinthal, D. A., & Ocasio, W. (2012). The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 1-40.
- Knudsen, T., & Levinthal, D. A. (2007). Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organization Science, 18(1), 39-54.
- Laursen, K. (2012). Keep searching and you’ll find: what do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation? Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1181-1220.
- March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
- Puranam, P., Stieglitz, N., Osman, M., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Modelling bounded rationality in organizations: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 337-392.
Further Reading: Problem and Solution as Active Iteration
Ready to try the Compass? Click below to open the worksheet and checklist for the Problem space of the Compass.
