Alternative approaches to defining problems

Problemeering: Engineering the Problem Before the Solution What is it? Problemeering (problem + engineering) is the art and science of identifying, defining, and framing problems so they can be solved more creatively and efficiently. Why it matters Many product launches, business strategies, and even personal projects flop because they target the wrong problem or never define one at all. Problemeering helps you: • Understand the real issue • Avoid premature “band‑aid” fixes • Uncover root causes and hidden opportunities • Frame challenges in a way that sparks breakthrough ideas Key steps Observe & Empathize – Listen to users and spot pain points. Define – State the core problem in one crisp sentence. Reframe – Challenge every assumption: “Is this really the problem?” Explore Context – Map the ecosystem, constraints, and stakeholders. Ask “How might we…?” – Turn the problem frame into innovation prompts. Quick example Late‑delivery complaints in a food‑delivery app. Instead of jumping straight to route optimization, a problemeering mindset asks: • Are customer expectations realistic? • Does the UI overpromise delivery times? • Are restaurants accepting orders they can’t fulfill? Addressing these upstream issues often fixes “late deliveries” more effectively than tweaking maps alone. Origin Not yet in the dictionary it just reminds us: engineer the problem first, then engineer the solution.

On problematization as a research method (or a guide for early career scholars). Problematization is one of the most challenging things a scholar must learn to do. Why? Because it requires us, as scholars, to question everything that we know. Doing it well, requires us to constructively identify and articulate issues or inconsistencies in established knowledge, frameworks, or practices to open new avenues for inquiry and understanding. Being constructive is important because if we become too critical, problematization becomes a nihilistic exercise - with scant useful outcomes. But how to do it? In a constructive way? Brahim Hinda just published a framework that walks you through five approaches to problematization, offers guidance on how to pursue them, and grounds them in the appropriate literatures. What I like about the paper, is Hinda does not suggest that one or another approach to problematization is superior, rather, it advocates for using several approaches in concert - to really sort out the issues. Give it a look! Citation: Hiba, B. (2025). If you don't problematize it, you won't see it, and you won't understand it. New Ideas in Psychology, 77, 101141. Link: https://lnkd.in/eWtXs3YS Abstract: This paper critically redefines problematization as both a research method and a transformative approach to critical thinking, positioning it as a pivotal modus operandi that transcends the limitations of conventional research practices. Diverging from traditional established research methods focused on gap-spotting and incremental contributions, this paper underscores problematization's unique capacity to interrogate and disrupt the foundational assumptions underpinning existing knowledge structures. By doing so, it drives researchers to reimagine and expand the horizons of scholarly inquiry. Grounded in the intellectual contributions of Nietzsche, Foucault, Marx, Heidegger, Deleuze, and Lacan, this paper addresses the theoretical limitations of the discourse about problematization, often clouded by complex philosophical jargon, while dismantling misconceptions about its nature and application. Beyond theoretical exploration, this paper introduces a practical framework that integrates innovative metaphors, discursive clarity, and actionable strategies. This framework is tailored to empower doctoral students and early-career researchers, equipping them with a taxonomy of epistemological and critical questions for effectively problematizing research problems. The research questions guiding this paper investigate how problematization can be reinterpreted and operationalized to challenge the ideological and power dynamics within dominant research paradigms. Furthermore, this paper explores how a multi-modal approach—combining rhizomatic, genealogical, visual, metaphorical, and ecological thinking—can deepen the practice of problematization.

"How would you approach this problem differently?" This question reveals the power of diverse thinking frameworks. Different "languages"—whether professional, technical, or cultural—shape how problems are solved: • Economic thinking provides frameworks for strategic decisions • Technical languages structure data analysis approaches • Cultural perspectives influence relationship building • Academic training shapes complexity management These aren't just communication tools. They're operating systems for the brain. Mental code-switching is the hidden advantage of diverse backgrounds in tech. When one approach fails, switching to another often reveals solutions: • From quantitative to qualitative • From analytical to intuitive • From global patterns to local insights The most innovative breakthroughs emerge at these intersections. The pattern appears consistently among exceptional leaders: • Engineers applying artistic principles to system design • Marketers using psychology to transform research • Product managers whose diverse backgrounds reshape how they build A unique combination of languages—whether technical, cultural, or domain-specific—isn't just interesting background. It's a strategic advantage in problem-solving. What unexpected "language" in your toolkit has helped you solve a problem others couldn't see?

Most startup founders rush to build a Minimum Viable Product before identifying a real problem. It’s like navigating without a compass. A product without a clearly defined problem is a collection of features waiting to fail. The real MVP is a Minimum Viable Problem Before you build, your mission is to define a tangible, validated, and meaningful problem for your target audience. Here are 3 proven methodologies to identify your Minimum Viable Problem: The Hiccup Method: Find where discomfort lives. Focus on pinpointing the exact moments where users feel frustration or friction. Ask specific, probing questions to uncover these pain points. When lasers revolutionized eye surgery, it wasn’t by chance. Innovators asked surgeons: “At what moment during surgery do you feel the most discomfort?” The answer? Of the entire procedure, one critical hiccup stood out: using a scalpel to remove a small piece of the cornea. By eliminating this step, laser technology transformed the process—and the market. The Hidden Resource Method: Turn what’s overlooked into value. Identify resources—physical, digital, or behavioral—that others ignore or underutilize. Airbnb: The hidden resource was unused living spaces. Uber: Idle drivers, unused cars, and smartphones with GPS. Both transformed “hidden resources” into massive opportunities for users and creators. The Change Lens Method: Leverage recent shifts. Spot opportunities by analyzing changes—cultural, technological, or behavioral—impacting the world around you. The shift to remote work didn’t invent new tools—it created new problems. Solutions like Zoom and Notion boomed by solving pain points triggered by this global change. Stop building products for the sake of it. Start by discovering the right problem to solve. The most impactful products aren’t created—they’re discovered by solving real, meaningful problems. Which methodology resonates most with you?

How to define & understand problems to get better results from change initiatives. Often results are not delivered because (time pressured) leaders jump straight into problem-solving actions without making the time & space to understand & define what the problem is. Here's the "E5" approach to problem-framing: 1) Expand: explore all aspects of a problem & its nuances 2) Examine: understand underlying drivers & systemic contributors to the problem 3) Empathise: consider the perspectives of those who are most central to & affected by the problem 4) Elevate: understand how the problem connects to broader system issues 5) Envision: actively imagine & design solutions to the problem https://lnkd.in/eNWf4UPx. By Julia Binder & Michael D Watkins

Summary.    In surveys of 106 C-suite executives representing 91 private- and public-sector companies from 17 countries, the author found that 85% agreed that their organizations were bad at problem diagnosis, and 87% agreed that this flaw carried significant costs. Fewer than one in 10 said they were unaffected by the issue. What they need help with, it turns out, is not solving problems but figuring out what the issues are. And creative solutions nearly always come from an alternative explanation for—or a reframing of—your problem. The point of reframing is not to find the “real” problem but, rather, to see if there is a better problem to solve. The author outlines seven practices for effective reframing: (1) Establish legitimacy. (2) Bring outsiders into the discussion. (3) Get people’s definitions in writing. (4) Ask what’s missing. (5) Consider multiple categories. (6) Analyze positive exceptions. (7) Question the objective.

Getting Past ‘Either-Or’ Thinking The temptation to simplify issues into binary choices ‘Either-Or’ thinking, can be compelling. This cognitive shortcut helps us navigate complex decisions and challenges with apparent ease, but it often falls short of addressing the nuanced realities we face. ‘Either-Or’ thinking, also known as dichotomous thinking, refers to the cognitive process of framing issues in terms of two opposing options, with no middle ground or shades of Gray. For example, one might think in terms of success versus failure, right versus wrong, or liberal versus conservative. Here are some useful alternatives if you’re trapped by ‘Either-Or’ thinking. 1.  Embracing complexity instead of oversimplifying One of the primary drawbacks of ‘Either-Or’ thinking is that it oversimplifies complex issues. Most real-world problems are not black and white but involve multiple variables and perspectives. One alternative to ‘Either-Or’ thinking is to embrace the complexity of issues. This involves recognizing and exploring the multiple dimensions of a problem rather than reducing it to two extremes. By adopting a more nuanced perspective, individuals and organizations can develop far better solutions. 2.  Promoting gradation instead of polarizing ‘Either-Or’ thinking can contribute to polarization and division, particularly in social and political contexts. When individuals or groups view issues through a binary lens, it can exacerbate conflicts and entrench positions. Another approach is to view issues on a continuum rather than as discrete choices. This perspective acknowledges that most situations involve varying degrees of a particular characteristic rather than a binary opposition. 3.  Encouraging dialogue instead of critique By reducing issues to two opposing options, ‘Either-Or’ thinking can inhibit critical thinking and creativity. This binary approach discourages individuals from considering alternative perspectives or innovative solutions. Fostering dialogue and compromise is crucial in overcoming the limitations of ‘Either-Or’ thinking. Engaging in open discussions where multiple viewpoints are considered can lead to more collaborative and integrative solutions. #eitherorthinking #cognitiveshortcut #heuristic #thinkingfastandslow #danielkahneman #amostversky #positivepsychology #positiveleadership #positivepsychology #leadershipcoach #leadershipspeaker #ceoleadership #leadershipmentor #leadershipdevelopment #leadershiptrainer International Positive Psychology Association (IPPA) Forbes Coaches Council Forbes The Center for Positive Leadership Center for Positive Organizations University of Missouri-Columbia University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Stayfit Health & Fitness World Pvt Ltd

Do you ever feel like you’re solving the same problems in your business again and again? That’s the problem with quick fixes—they only scratch the surface. It’s like pulling a weed without getting the roots. The issue keeps coming back, often bigger and messier than before. I’ve seen this pattern time and again with the businesses I work with, which is why I developed the 5X5 MethodIP.  This method expands on Sakichi Toyoda’s renowned “5 Whys” technique, which focuses on uncovering the root cause by asking “why” five times.     I’ve taken it a step further by adding the five whos.   For every why, also ask: Who is affected by this problem?  Who will feel the impact of the solution? By combining the whys and whos, the 5x5 Method IP uncovers effective, strategic, and sustainable solutions that stick. What’s one recurring issue in your business that might benefit from this approach? Let me know in the comments! #BusinessGrowth #ProblemSolving #solution

When faced with challenges/issues/problems, we often jump straight into solving them without fully understanding what we are dealing with. All our efforts are directed towards coming up with the best possible solution. And this is problematic for 2 reasons. 1) Without a clear understanding of the problem, we risk heading in the wrong direction while looking for answers. 2) We end up with a solution that a) treats the symptoms rather than the core issue (best case scenario), b) has no effect, or c) worsens the issue further (worst case scenario). In his book Clear Thinking, Shane Parrish highlights this problem and suggests a simple (but powerful) framework to address it. He recommends spending enough time defining the problem and answering these two questions to get clarity: 1) What do you want to achieve? 2) What obstacles stand in the way of getting it? These 2 questions might sound straightforward, but when I started using them, they helped me uncover insights I would have completely missed otherwise. The second question, particularly, brings some important hidden details to light and has often prevented me from taking the wrong path. Forget about this framework or these questions for a moment. Just spending time defining the problem will help you avoid unnecessary detours and focus your energy where it matters most. At the workplace, Shane suggests splitting the process into two meetings (time permitting): one dedicated to defining the problem and another focused on brainstorming and finding a solution. Try it yourself, and you’ll be surprised (and impressed) by how much of the solution lies in defining the right problem itself.