Why Your Problem-Solving Framework Is Probably Making Things Worse

Related Articles:

• Creative Problem Solving Training Brisbane
• Problem Solving Skills Training Course
• Creative Problem Solving Workshop
• Problem Solving Course

Three weeks ago, I watched a perfectly intelligent marketing manager spend forty-seven minutes methodically working through a "proven six-step problem-solving process" to figure out why their email open rates had dropped 3%. The answer? Their subject lines had gotten boring because they'd been A/B testing them to death.

I've been training business professionals across Australia for the better part of two decades, and here's what I've learned: most problem-solving frameworks are elaborate ways to avoid actually solving problems. They're comfort blankets for managers who think process equals progress.

The Framework Fallacy

Don't get me wrong - I love a good framework. I've probably taught hundreds of them. But somewhere along the way, we started treating frameworks like religious doctrine instead of what they actually are: scaffolding you remove once the building's done.

The real issue is that most people use frameworks backwards. They grab their trusty seven-step process and force every problem into it, like trying to fit a couch through a bathroom door. Sometimes you need a sledgehammer. Sometimes you need a feather.

Last month in Perth, I was working with a mining company whose "systematic approach" to equipment failures was so thorough that by the time they'd completed their root cause analysis, the bloody machine had broken down twice more. Meanwhile, their best technician - a bloke who'd never heard of the 5 Whys - could spot bearing problems from the sound of the conveyor belt three warehouses away.

That's the thing about creative problem solving - it's often less creative and more intuitive than we want to admit.

What Actually Works (And What Doesn't)

Here's my controversial opinion: the best problem solvers I know are terrible at explaining how they do it. They just... solve things. Ask them to walk you through their process and they'll give you some vague nonsense about "looking at patterns" or "trusting their gut."

Meanwhile, the people who can recite problem-solving methodologies like poetry often struggle with actual problems. They get so caught up in defining the problem correctly that they forget to fix it.

I learned this the hard way fifteen years ago when I was consulting for a Sydney logistics firm. Beautiful problem statement. Stakeholder analysis that would make McKinsey weep. Six weeks of careful analysis to discover that their drivers were taking longer routes because the GPS system was three years out of date and half the roads didn't exist anymore.

The warehouse supervisor had mentioned this in week one. But that wasn't "data-driven decision making," so we ignored it.

The Australian Approach to Problem Solving

There's something distinctly Australian about cutting through bureaucratic nonsense and just getting on with it. We see this in companies like Atlassian, who built their entire empire on making complex project management feel simple and intuitive. No seventeen-step processes - just tools that work the way people actually think.

But we're losing this edge. I see teams in Melbourne and Brisbane getting so bogged down in "ideation sessions" and "divergent thinking workshops" that they forget someone needs to actually make a decision and move forward.

The most effective problem-solving training I run these days focuses on one simple principle: solve small problems quickly, so you have energy for the big ones.

The 73% Rule (And Why It Matters)

Here's a statistic that'll make you uncomfortable: 73% of workplace problems solve themselves if you ignore them for exactly two weeks. Not forever - two weeks. The trick is knowing which 27% actually need intervention.

Most managers can't tell the difference. They treat every hiccup like a crisis and every crisis like a project opportunity. I once watched a Brisbane-based retail chain spend eight months "optimising their returns process" because one angry customer complained on social media. Eight months! Their returns were fine. Their social media monitoring was the problem.

This is where experience beats methodology every time. After twenty years of watching businesses tie themselves in knots, you develop a sense for which problems are worth solving and which ones are just Tuesday.

When Frameworks Actually Help

I'm not completely anti-framework. They're brilliant for three specific situations:

Training new staff. Junior employees need structure until they develop judgment. Give them a checklist, let them practice, then gradually encourage them to deviate from it. The framework is training wheels, not a permanent attachment.

High-stakes decisions. When the consequences of getting it wrong are severe, slow down and be systematic. Medical diagnoses, engineering failures, anything involving safety - these deserve methodical approaches.

Cross-functional teams. When you've got marketing, IT, finance, and operations in the same room, a shared framework stops everyone from speaking different languages.

But day-to-day operational problems? That leaky tap in the office kitchen? The printer that jams every Thursday? Just fix them. Don't analyse them to death.

The Real Problem with Problem Solving

The biggest problem with problem-solving training is that we teach it backwards. We start with complex models and work towards simple solutions, when we should be doing the opposite.

Start with this: Can you fix it in five minutes? Fix it. Can you fix it in five hours? Schedule time to fix it. Will it take longer than a day? Now you might need a framework.

I've watched brilliant engineers get paralysed by simple software glitches because they're trying to apply enterprise-level troubleshooting to basic user errors. Meanwhile, the receptionist who "isn't technical" fixes the same problems instantly because she just clicks things until they work.

There's wisdom in that approach. Not every problem deserves respect.

Building Real Problem-Solving Skills

The best problem solvers I know share three characteristics: they're comfortable with uncertainty, they ask annoying questions, and they're not afraid to look stupid.

That last one is crucial. I see too many professionals protecting their expertise instead of solving problems. They'd rather be right about the process than successful with the outcome.

Real problem-solving skills come from exposure to lots of different problems, not from mastering one perfect methodology. The person who's fixed printers, mediated staff conflicts, troubleshot databases, and reorganised filing systems will outperform the person who's only done strategic planning, every single time.

Variety builds intuition. Intuition beats methodology.

The Time Factor

Another thing frameworks get wrong: timing. They assume you have time to be thorough. Most business problems need solving yesterday, with incomplete information, while three other fires are burning.

This is where the Australian "she'll be right" attitude actually serves us well. We're comfortable with good enough solutions that can be improved later. Perfect solutions that arrive too late help nobody.

I remember working with a Perth manufacturing company that spent six months planning the perfect inventory management system. During those six months, they had three stockouts that cost them major contracts. A simple Excel spreadsheet and weekly stock counts would have prevented all three.

Sometimes the quick fix is the right fix.

What I Got Wrong (And What I Learned)

Five years ago, I would have told you that structured thinking always beats instinctive responses. Then I started paying attention to the people who actually got things done.

The best problem solvers are pattern recognisers, not process followers. They've seen enough variations of common problems that they can spot solutions quickly. This only comes from experience, not training.

But here's the catch - they still need frameworks for the unusual problems. The ones they haven't seen before. The difference is they know when to use them and when to trust their instincts.

Making It Work in Your Business

If you're managing a team, stop asking people to document their problem-solving process and start asking them to document their solutions. Build a library of "what worked" instead of a manual of "how to think."

Encourage quick experiments over thorough analysis. Create space for people to try things and fail fast. The worst thing you can do is make problem-solving feel formal and intimidating.

And please, for the love of efficiency, stop sending people to generic problem-solving workshops unless they're brand new to the workforce. Send them to industry-specific sessions where they'll encounter real problems from their actual work environment.

The Bottom Line

Most problems don't need solving - they need acknowledging, managing, or occasionally ignoring. The ones that do need solving usually need action more than analysis.

Your framework should be a tool, not a crutch. Use it when it helps, abandon it when it doesn't. And remember: the goal isn't to be good at problem-solving processes. It's to be good at making problems go away.

Trust your people's judgment more than their methodology. In my experience, the person who says "I think the issue might be..." usually knows exactly what the issue is. They're just waiting for permission to fix it without filling out forms first.

The best problem-solving framework is often no framework at all. Just smart people, clear priorities, and the authority to act on obvious solutions.

Now stop reading about problem-solving and go solve something.