Insight Problem or Execution Problem? The Four Fields of Problem Solving

“We know all that already.” We hear this sentence often in first conversations. Management knows that the product range has sprawled over the years. It knows that delivery reliability is no longer good enough. It knows that the ERP system holds data nobody trusts anymore. The list has been the same for years – it has just grown longer.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: if the company knows what is going on, why has the problem not been solved? The answer decides which kind of help will work at all. Because not every company that knows a problem has understood it. And not every company that has understood it actually solves it.

Two capabilities, four patterns

In our state model, we set a company’s backlog of problems against its problem-solving capacity – the organization’s ability to identify problems, prioritize them and solve them sustainably. This definition contains two capabilities that develop independently of each other:

• Insight: Is the root cause of a problem identified – or does it stop at describing the symptoms?
• Execution: Is the solution implemented in a purposeful, systematic and effective way – with owners, deadlines and results – or rather haphazardly?

The basic idea is not new. Peter F. Drucker coined the distinction between effectiveness and efficiency: doing the right things – and doing things right. We have adapted this model to our day-to-day consulting work and reinterpreted it. Drucker is concerned with choosing the right goals. In the companies we work with, however, the goal is often undisputed: better delivery reliability, a leaner product range, reliable data. What is open is whether the right root cause has been found – and whether the solution is actually implemented.

Plot these two questions against each other and four fields emerge. Each describes a pattern we encounter in our engagements, and each calls for a different remedy.

Muddling through: neither root cause nor system

In the first field, neither one nor the other is in place. Problems are described but not understood, and measures arise from the moment: an extra shift here, a new form there, a clarifying call with the supplier somewhere else. Each measure is reasonable on its own. Taken together, they add up not to a program but to activity. The backlog of problems keeps growing, and the organization gets used to problems being part of everyday life. The way out starts with an honest diagnosis – and then leads along both axes.

Busy on symptoms: the wrong thing, done thoroughly

In the second field, execution is disciplined – it just misses the problem, because the root cause was never properly established. Example delivery reliability: Management knows that delivery reliability is too poor; customers tell it so regularly. So action is taken, and consistently so. Safety stocks are raised, a team chases critical orders, Saturday shifts are scheduled, and everything is tracked carefully. Delivery reliability still barely moves. Because nobody has gone through the value chain step by step, from order entry through planning, procurement and production to shipping. Those who do often find the cause where nobody expected it: for instance in inventories that look different in the system than on the shelf – with the result that orders wait for material that exists only on paper.

This field is treacherous because it looks like good management. There are projects, owners, deadlines and status reports. What is missing is impact. Often new problems even arise: higher inventories tie up capital, extra shifts drive up costs. The organization consumes problem-solving capacity without reducing the backlog of problems. The remedy is a root cause analysis before any further execution. Yet another project aimed at the symptom only speeds things up in the wrong direction.

Insight without impact: the classic execution problem

In the third field, the root cause is known – and still nothing, or too little, happens. This is the classic execution problem. It has two causes that often overlap but call for different remedies.

Missing tools. The organization knows what to do, but not how. Example product range: the number of items and variants has grown over the years, a little more with every customer request. Setup times rise, inventories tie up capital, sales sells variants whose contribution margin nobody knows. What is missing are the starting points for a systematic cleanup: By which criteria is an item cut? Above which threshold does it become a candidate? How are revenue risk and cost relief weighed against each other? Without a method, every cleanup round ends the same way: a few obvious slow movers are dropped, sales defends the rest, and two years later the range is larger than before. The remedy is method and guidance – in a way that the organization masters it on its own afterwards. That is the core of Institutional Learning.

Missing follow-through. The organization knows what and how – but it does not happen. There are no bindingly defined work packages, deadlines and results, and nobody follows up. Almost always there is a conflict of objectives, and day-to-day business wins. Example supply chain management: the planning team is chronically overloaded; the day is full before it has begun. What gets left behind is the maintenance of master and transaction data. Poor data makes the system unreliable, an unreliable system produces planning errors and rush orders, and those produce even more day-to-day work. The problem consumes precisely the capacity it would need to be solved. The remedy here is not a method but leadership: management has to resolve the conflict of objectives itself – who gets how much time for which work package, and what is left undone in return? After that, it takes a fixed rhythm in which results are not reported but demanded, as described in our leadership control loop.

The two remedies are not interchangeable. Anyone who answers missing follow-through with training teaches people something they can already do. Anyone who answers missing tools with more pressure only increases the pace of attempts that cannot reach the goal.

Peak performance: systematic problem solving

In the fourth field, both capabilities interlock. Problems are analyzed down to the root cause, measures are derived from it, assigned owners and deadlines, and checked for their impact. That sounds unspectacular, and it is. It is not rocket science – but it has to be learned and done. It is no coincidence that the BASICON method starts by separating the problem from its symptoms and ends with monitoring success. We teach it to employees ideally on their own fields of action. Only in this field does the backlog of problems shrink for good, and with every problem solved, problem-solving capacity grows.

Why one axis is not enough

The matrix leads to an uncomfortable conclusion: anyone who only disciplines execution ends up busy on symptoms. Anyone who only improves analysis ends up with insight without impact. The path to peak performance runs along both axes.

A mistake we see again and again: an execution problem is treated like an insight problem. Yet another concept, another analysis, another workshop is produced – with results the organization essentially knew already. Conversely, an insight problem often goes undetected because the organization is busy and activity is mistaken for progress.

Recommended action

Take your list of open fields of action – the topics that have been on it for months or years – and ask three questions about each:

1. Is the root cause proven – or is only the symptom known? Proven means: demonstrated with data from the process, not assumed.
2. Has action already been taken – and has the key figure moved? A lot of activity without movement is the typical sign of being busy on symptoms.
3. Is there a responsible person with a name, a deadline and a dedicated time budget? If not, the topic will still be on the list next year – no matter how good the solution is.

Assign each field of action to one of the four fields. The result is an honest problem-opportunity balance sheet: where you need to clarify root causes, where you lack method, where leadership decisions are pending – and where you already deliver peak performance.

Would you like to know how your backlog of problems compares with your problem-solving capacity? The Quick Health Check takes five minutes to complete and shows which state your company is in and which fields of action offer the greatest leverage – as a five-page profile, reviewed by an experienced consultant and free of charge. Start the Quick Health Check.

Further articles:

The Four States of a Company: Where Does Yours Stand? (link)

The BASICON Method (link)

The Leadership Control Loop: From Goal to Execution (link)

Institutional Learning (Part 1/2) (link)