complex problem solving method

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators  using SessionLab.

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!

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

SoftwareDominos

The 7 Timeless Steps to Guide You Through Complex Problem Solving

As we go through life, we inevitably encounter problems that require extensive forethought, critical thinking , and creativity . Solving complex problems is a crucial skill for success, whether it’s a business challenge, a personal dilemma, or a societal issue.

This guide will explore the fundamentals of complex problem-solving and provide practical tips and strategies for mastering this critical skill.

This article is part of a series on complex problem-solving. The list below will guide you through the different subtopics.

Complex Problem-Solving Guide in 7 Steps

The Nature of Complex Problems

What Does the Nature of the Problem Tell Us About Its Solution

Gaussian Distributions vs Power Laws

Your Ultimate Guide to Making Sense of Natural and Social Phenomena

Complex Problem-Solving in Groups

An Exploratory Overview of ProbleSolving Processes in Groups

The Power of Critical Thinking

An Essential Guide for Personal and Professional Development

Group-Decision Making

6 Modes That Tell Us How Teams Decide

1. What Is a Complex Problem?

1.1 generic definition of complex problems.

Four properties allow us to distinguish complex problems from simple ones.

Complex problems accept alternative solutions
Choices can weighed in multiple ways
Data supports multiple hypotheses
Breakdown of causal chains.

In crude terms, a complex problem presents no trivial or obvious solution. In other words, it shows the following characteristics:

Now that we have defined the general notion of a complex problem, let’s look at some specific cases related to software development , business management , and complexity theory.

1.2 Complex Problems in Software Development

A complex software development problem involves intricate interactions between numerous system components and requires a sophisticated understanding of the business problem, computing , algorithms and data structures.

Source: “Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software” by Eric Evans

1.3 Complex Problems in Business Management

In business management , a complex problem is characterized by interconnected elements, uncertainty, and dynamic interactions, making it challenging to predict outcomes and devise straightforward solutions. This is most obviously seen in formulating effective organisational strategies or leading successful enterprise transformations.

Source: “ Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity ” by Ralph D. Stacey

1.4 Complex Problems in Complexity Theory

From a complexity theory standpoint, a complex problem involves many interacting agents or components, often exhibiting emergent properties that cannot be easily deduced from the properties of individual agents.

Source: “ The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex ” by Murray Gell-Mann

Complex problems are contrasted with complicated problems. Complicated problems have clear causes and effects, can be broken down into smaller parts, and have predictable solutions. Complex problems, however, are dynamic, have interconnected parts, and exhibit emergent properties (unpredictable outcomes from the interaction of parts).

Source: “Cynefin Framework” (2007) by Dave Snowden

1.5 What are Complex Problem Solving Skills?

Complex problem-solving skills involve identifying , analysing , and solving non-routine problems requiring high cognitive effort.

These problems typically involve a large number of variables and require the application of creative and critical thinking skills to identify potential solutions. Individuals with complex problem-solving skills can work through ambiguity and uncertainty and use logical reasoning to develop effective solutions.

2. Solving Complex Problems: A Generic Approach

While developing a universal solution that works in any context would be very challenging, we will describe a generic approach consisting of seven steps that will assist you in creating a bespoke method suitable to the specific context you are working in.

At the heart of this approach is logical decomposition , or breaking down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable ones and then developing and implementing effective solutions for each. It is a key skill essential for success in many areas of life, including business, education , and personal relationships.

Logical decomposition is at the heart of scientific thought, as described in Edsger W. Dijkstra’s paper “ On the Role of Scientific Thought “.

The seven steps to solving complex problems are listed below. We will go through them in great detail in the following sections.

The 7 steps to creative solutions

Complexity in Natural and Human Systems — Why and When We Should Care

3. Complex Problem-Solving Skills

3.1 why are complex problem solving skills essential.

In today’s rapidly changing world, individuals and organizations must possess complex problem-solving skills to succeed. These skills are essential for several reasons:

Dealing with Uncertainty

In many situations, there is no clear-cut solution to a problem. Complex problem-solving skills enable individuals to work through ambiguity and uncertainty and develop effective solutions.

Identifying Root Causes

Complex problems often have multiple causes that are difficult to identify. Individuals with complex problem-solving skills can identify and address the root causes of problems rather than just treating the symptoms.

Developing Creative Solutions

Complex problems require creative solutions that go beyond traditional approaches. Individuals who possess complex problem-solving skills can think outside the box and develop innovative solutions.

Achieving Business Success

Organizations with complex problem-solving skills are better equipped to overcome challenges, identify opportunities, and succeed in today’s competitive business environment.

3.2 How to Develop Complex Problem-Solving Skills

While some individuals possess a natural aptitude for complex problem-solving, these skills can be developed and improved over time. Here are some tips to help you develop complex problem-solving skills:

3.2.1 Build Your Knowledge Base

Developing complex problem-solving skills requires a strong foundation of knowledge in your area of expertise. Stay updated on your field’s latest trends, research, and developments to enhance your problem-solving abilities.

3.2.2 Practice Critical Thinking

Developing critical thinking skills is essential for complex problem-solving. Practice questioning assumptions, analyzing information , and evaluating arguments to develop critical thinking skills.

3.2.3 Embrace Creativity

Complex problems require creative solutions. Embrace your creativity by exploring new ideas, brainstorming solutions, and seeking diverse perspectives.

3.2.4 Collaborate with Others

Collaborating with others can help you develop your complex problem-solving skills. Working in a team environment can expose you to new ideas and approaches, help you identify blind spots, and provide opportunities for feedback and support.

3.2.5 Seek Out Challenging Problems

Developing complex problem-solving skills requires practice. Seek out challenging problems and apply your problem-solving skills to real-world situations.

4. Step 1: Understanding the Nature of Complex vs Complicated

4.1 the cynefin framework.

Complex and complicated problems are two distinct types of challenges that require different approaches to solve. Dave Snowden, a management consultant and researcher, developed the Cynefin framework, a conceptual model used to understand complex systems and situations. The framework identifies five domains: simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disordered, and guides how to approach challenges in each domain.

4.2 Complicated Problems

Complicated Problems:

are characterized by having many interrelated parts and require specialized knowledge and expertise to solve.
have a clear cause-and-effect relationship , and the solution can be discovered by systematically analysing the components.
are best addressed through a top-down, expert-driven approach , where the experts can identify the best solution through analysis and evaluation.

4.3 Complex Problems

Complex problems are characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity, and the involvement of multiple interconnected factors. There is no clear cause-and-effect relationship, and the solution cannot be found by simply analysing the components. Complex problems require a bottom-up, participatory approach, where multiple perspectives and ideas are considered to develop a solution. The solution may not be clear initially but involves experimentation, adaptation, and feedback.

The Cynefin framework proposes that complex problems belong to the complex domain, where emergent solutions cannot be predicted or prescribed. The complex domain should explore the problem, generate hypotheses, and test them through experimentation. The emphasis is on learning from the process , adapting to changing circumstances, and using feedback to guide the solution.

4.4 Practical Tips on Identifying an Appropriate Framework

Objective — Classify the problem as complex, complicated, or disordered. This classification will determine the approach to be used.

How it’s done — You can do that by asking the following questions.

Do we have multiple, internally consistent, competing hypotheses explaining the issue?
Does the available data support both theories?

In this case, the problem lies in the complex domain, and the preferred approach is to identify good solutions and conduct safe-to-fail experiments. If it’s a complicated (but not complex) problem, the following questions can be answered in the affirmative:

Do we have a single view that explains the problem?
Do we know the engineering part of the solution?
Is the problem sufficiently familiar to be solved by an expert?

5. Step 2: Identifying and Defining the Problem

5.1 problem identification.

The first step in problem-solving is identifying the problem. This step involves recognizing that a problem exists and understanding its nature. Some tips for identifying the problem include:

Once you have identified the problem, the next step is to define it. This step involves breaking down the problem into smaller parts and better understanding its nature. Some tips for defining the problem include:

Writing it down: Write down the problem statement clearly and concisely. This will help you to focus on the specific issue and avoid confusion.
Breaking it down: Break the problem into smaller parts to better understand its nature. This can help you to identify the underlying causes and potential solutions. The logical decomposition of the issues is vital, and we have dedicated the next section.
Identifying the scope: Identify the scope of the problem and determine its impact. This can help you to prioritize the problem and allocate resources accordingly.

Reliable data and statistical analysis skills are crucial in problem-solving. Data provides information and insights necessary for understanding the root cause of the problem. Statistical analysis allows us to make sense of the data and extract meaningful information. This article will discuss the importance of reliable data and statistical analysis skills in problem identification.

5.2 Practical Tips on Identifying the Problem

Objective — Paint a full picture of the problem by laying out the details, preferably on a piece of paper, classifying it, and deciding on an approach to solving it.

How it’s done — Write down a complete description of the problem, including its scope and impact on the various stakeholders or aspects of the business. Use data as evidence to support initial hypotheses. Find out if the problem is localised and can be resolved locally or whether it might need escalation and support from higher levels of management.

6. Step 3: Gathering and Analyzing Data

6.1 gathering reliable data.

In today’s fast-paced business environment, reliable data is more critical than ever. It is vital to have accurate and objective information to identify problems and determine their root cause.

Reliable data is the basis of any evidence-based decision-making, without which what we have is opinions and assumptions.

Without reliable data, it is difficult to make informed decisions that can lead to effective problem-solving. Here are some of the benefits of using reliable data in problem identification:

Objective information: Reliable data provides an objective perspective of the situation.
Evidence-based decision-making: Using reliable data ensures that decisions are based on evidence rather than assumptions or opinions.
Improved accuracy: Reliable data improves the accuracy of problem identification, leading to better solutions.
Better understanding: Reliable data provides a better understanding of the situation, leading to a more comprehensive and holistic approach to problem-solving.
Improved Risk Management : Reliable helps put problems into perspective by allowing analysts to calculate their occurrence probabilities and impacts. Based on impact and probability , risk can then be categorised and prioritized.

6.2 Statistical Analysis Skills

Statistical analysis skills are necessary for making sense of the data and extracting meaningful information. These skills allow us to identify patterns and trends, understand the relationships between different variables, and (sometimes) predict future outcomes.

How statistical analysis can help with complex problem solving.

Some benefits of using statistical analysis skills in problem identification include the following:

Identifying patterns: Statistical analysis skills enable us to identify patterns and trends in the data, which can help identify the problem accurately.
Understanding relationships: Statistical analysis skills help us understand the relationships between different variables, which can help identify the problem’s root cause.
Predictive capabilities: Statistical analysis skills allow us to predict future outcomes based on the data, which can help develop effective solutions.
Objective analysis: Statistical analysis provides objective data analysis, which can help make evidence-based decisions.

Interpreting data, however, requires technical skills to avoid misinterpretations. The following is a common list of statistical analysis mistakes non-professionals can make.

6.3 How Software Team Leads Can Gather Reliable Data

Software team leads need reliable data on their performance to make informed decisions and identify areas for improvement. Here are some sources where software team leads can gather reliable data on their team’s performance:

Project management tools: Most project management tools have built-in reporting features, allowing team leads to track performance metrics such as task completion rates, sprint velocity, and burn-down charts. This data can be used to identify areas for improvement and make data-driven decisions.
Team feedback: Gathering feedback from team members through one-on-one meetings or anonymous feedback forms can provide valuable insights into team performance . This data can help team leads identify areas where team members may struggle or additional training or resources may be needed. Crucially, it also provides insights into the organisational culture .
Code analysis tools like SonarQube or Code Climate can provide insights into code quality , maintainability, and security. This data can help team leads identify needed code improvements and prioritize technical debt reduction.
Customer feedback: Customer feedback, such as ratings, reviews, and support tickets, can provide insights into the usability and functionality of deployed applications. This data can help team leads identify areas for improvement and prioritize feature development.

The software team should gather data from multiple sources, use that data to inform decisions and identify areas for improvement. By using reliable data sources and monitoring team performance metrics regularly, software team leads can drive continuous improvement and ensure project success.

6.4 Practical Tips on Gathering Data to Support the Proposed Hypotheses

Objective — The availability of data can help place the problem into perspective. For example, a dollar figure of the losses due to process inefficiencies can help identify the potential solutions that management will deem feasible.

How it’s done — All modern project management and tracking tools have sophisticated built-in data capture tools that can be exported, cleaned, and analysed for insights.

For example, when evaluating a team’s productivity , you can export data from JIRA, Jenkins, or BitBucket and measure performance metrics such as team velocity, overruns, and time-to-market.

When evidence is insufficient, you can gather more data, abandon the hypothesis, or temporarily shelve it.

7 Step 4: Logical Decomposition in Problem Solving

7.1 logical decomposition.

Logical decomposition is a problem-solving technique that breaks down complex problems into smaller, more manageable pieces. It is a structured approach that enables individuals to examine a problem from multiple angles, identify key issues and sub-problems, and develop a solution that addresses each piece of the problem.

The process of logical decomposition involves breaking down the main problem into smaller sub-problems, which are then broken down into smaller pieces. Each piece is analyzed in detail to determine its underlying cause-and-effect relationships and potential solutions. By breaking down the problem into smaller pieces, the individual can better understand the overall problem, identify potential solutions more easily, and prioritize which sub-problems to address first.

Logical decomposition is particularly useful for dealing with complex issues, as it allows individuals to break down a large, overwhelming problem into smaller, more manageable pieces. This not only makes the problem easier to understand and solve but also makes it less daunting and more approachable. Additionally, by breaking down the problem into smaller pieces, individuals can identify and focus on the underlying root causes of the problem rather than just treating the symptoms.

Logical decomposition is a vital stage of architecting large systems and solutions.

7.2 Practical Tips on Logical Decomposition

Objective — Most problems worth tackling are also overwhelming in size and complexity (or complicatedness). Luckily, a logical decomposition into specialized areas or modules will help focus the team’s efforts on a small enough subproblem or bring in the right expertise.

How it’s done — This author prefers mindmaps. A mindmap is a tree that starts with a single node and branches off into different areas, views, or perspectives of the problem. Mindmaps help analysts stay focused on a key area and ensure that all aspects of a problem are covered.

Once a mindmap has been created, potential solutions can be explored.

From Abstract Concepts to Tangible Value: Solution Architecture in Modern IT Systems

8. Step 5: Generating and Evaluating (Several) Potential Solutions

Generating multiple solutions to solve a problem is an effective way to increase creativity and innovation in problem-solving. By exploring different options, individuals can identify the strengths and weaknesses of each solution and determine the most effective approach to solving the problem. This section will discuss the advantages and techniques of generating multiple solutions to solve problems more effectively.

8.1 Advantages of Generating Multiple Solutions

The advantages of generating multiple solutions during problem-solving are:

8.2 Techniques for Generating Multiple Solutions

Techniques for generating multiple solutions:

8.3 Practical Tips on Solution Generation and Selection

Objective — The key principle of solution generation is comprehensively exploring the solution space. This exploration allows teams to avoid local minima or overcommitting to a suboptimal solution.

How it’s done — The most effective approach is to bring in several people from different areas of expertise or seniority and to offer every suggestion the opportunity to be heard and thoroughly explored.

Also, different stakeholders might favour solutions that maximise their (potentially) narrow gains. If not consulted, they might actively block the implementation of the selected solution if it adversely impacts their interests.

The technical aspect of problem-solving is relatively easy to generate and implement without budgetary or scheduling constraints . It’s only when you consider the cost and impact of a solution that complexity arises.

5 Key Concepts You Need to Know From Herbert Simon’s Paper on the Architecture of Complexity

9. Step 6: Implementing and Assessing Solutions

Implementing solutions to complex problems requires a structured approach that considers the unique challenges and variables involved. Effective problem-solving involves implementing practical, feasible, and sustainable solutions.

This section will first discuss two approaches to implementing solutions to complex problems: small, safe-to-fail solutions and solving easy problems with large benefits.

9.1 Implementing Many Safe-to-Fail Solutions

One effective approach to implementing solutions to complex problems is small, safe-to-fail solutions. This technique involves implementing a small-scale solution that can be tested quickly and easily to gather feedback.

Exploring multiple paths allows analysts to avoid over-commitment to suboptimal solutions.

Starting with small-scale solutions allows individuals to gather feedback and adjust before investing significant resources in a larger solution. This approach can save time and resources while ensuring that the final solution meets the needs of stakeholders.

Small safe-to-fail experiments effectively deal with complexity where an engineering solution is unknown priori.

9.2 Prioritizing High-Yield Solutions

Another effective approach to implementing solutions to complex problems is to first solve easy problems with large benefits. This technique involves identifying and solving simple, straightforward problems that significantly impact the overall problem.

By prioritising easy problems, individuals can progress quickly and gain momentum towards solving the larger problem. This approach can also help build trust and credibility with stakeholders, as progress is visible and measurable.

9.3 A Systematic Approach to Implementing Solutions

It is important to note that both approaches should be used with a broader problem-solving methodology . Effective problem-solving requires a systematic approach that involves identifying the problem, gathering information, analyzing data, developing and evaluating potential solutions, and implementing the best solution. By implementing small, safe-to-fail solutions and solving easy problems with large benefits, individuals can enhance their problem-solving approach and increase the likelihood of success.

In conclusion, implementing solutions to complex problems requires a structured approach that considers the unique challenges and variables involved. Implementing small, safe-to-fail solutions and solving easy problems with large benefits are two effective techniques for enhancing problem-solving. These techniques should be used with a broader problem-solving methodology to ensure the final solution is practical, feasible, and sustainable.

9.4 Implementing the Solution

Objective — This stage aims to efficiently and effectively implement the (optimal) selected solution(s).

How it’s done — Three principal techniques are required for the implementation of the solution to succeed. The first is conducting safe-to-fail experiments. The second is allocating resources to conduct each experiment. The third is setting up the criteria for success or failure.

10. Step 7: Evaluating the Solution

Objective — Solutions might work well under laboratory conditions but fail spectacularly in the field. Evaluating solutions after a trial is vital to avoid continuing investment in failed solutions.

How it’s done — The best way to evaluate a solution is to monitor the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) originally used in the problem diagnosis. When solutions are successful, noticeable and measurable improvements should be observed.

Measuring second-order effects or observing undesirable team or business dynamics changes is key to continuing or aborting initiatives.

Complex problem-solving refers to the ability to solve complex, ambiguous problems that often require creative and innovative solutions. It involves identifying the root cause of a problem, analyzing different variables and factors, developing and evaluating possible solutions, and selecting the best course of action.

Complex problem-solving is essential because it allows individuals and organizations to overcome challenges and obstacles hindering their progress and success. It enables them to identify opportunities, improve processes, and innovate to stay ahead of the competition.

To develop your complex problem-solving skills, you can practice consistently, develop a systematic approach, and leverage the right tools and resources. You can also seek feedback from others, learn from your mistakes, and adopt a growth mindset that values continuous learning and improvement.

Some common obstacles to effective problem-solving include cognitive biases , lack of information, unclear objectives, and groupthink. These obstacles can hinder individuals and teams from developing effective solutions to complex problems.

Various tools and techniques for complex problem-solving include root cause analysis, fishbone diagrams, SWOT analysis, Pareto analysis, decision trees, and scenario planning. These tools can help individuals and teams to analyze complex problems, identify underlying causes, and develop effective solutions.

To improve your decision-making skills, you can develop a structured approach, gather and analyze relevant data, evaluate different options, and consider each alternative’s potential risks and benefits. You can also seek feedback from others and reflect on your past decisions to learn from your mistakes.

Complex problem-solving skills can be applied in various aspects of your personal life, such as improving your relationships, managing your finances, and achieving your goals. You can overcome obstacles and succeed personally by systematically analyzing different variables and factors and developing creative and innovative solutions.

To overcome cognitive biases in problem-solving, you can challenge your assumptions, seek diverse perspectives, and use data and evidence to inform your decisions. You can also use brainstorming and mind-mapping techniques to generate new ideas and avoid tunnel vision.

12. Final Words

In conclusion, complex problem-solving is a crucial skill that can significantly impact your professional and personal life. It allows you to navigate complex challenges, identify the root cause of a problem, and develop effective solutions.

By mastering the art of complex problem-solving, you can enhance your critical thinking, analytical skills, and decision-making abilities, which are essential for success in today’s fast-paced and dynamic business environment.

The key to mastering complex problem-solving is to practice consistently, develop a systematic approach, and leverage the right tools and resources. With patience, persistence, and a growth mindset, anyone can become a skilled problem solver and tackle even the most challenging problems.

Decision Making In a Professional Environment: Techniques and Pitfalls

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Complex problem solving: what it is and what it is not.

$\r\nDietrich Drner$

1 Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
2 Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Computer-simulated scenarios have been part of psychological research on problem solving for more than 40 years. The shift in emphasis from simple toy problems to complex, more real-life oriented problems has been accompanied by discussions about the best ways to assess the process of solving complex problems. Psychometric issues such as reliable assessments and addressing correlations with other instruments have been in the foreground of these discussions and have left the content validity of complex problem solving in the background. In this paper, we return the focus to content issues and address the important features that define complex problems.

Succeeding in the 21st century requires many competencies, including creativity, life-long learning, and collaboration skills (e.g., National Research Council, 2011 ; Griffin and Care, 2015 ), to name only a few. One competence that seems to be of central importance is the ability to solve complex problems ( Mainzer, 2009 ). Mainzer quotes the Nobel prize winner Simon (1957) who wrote as early as 1957:

The capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems is very small compared with the size of the problem whose solution is required for objectively rational behavior in the real world or even for a reasonable approximation to such objective rationality. (p. 198)

The shift from well-defined to ill-defined problems came about as a result of a disillusion with the “general problem solver” ( Newell et al., 1959 ): The general problem solver was a computer software intended to solve all kind of problems that can be expressed through well-formed formulas. However, it soon became clear that this procedure was in fact a “special problem solver” that could only solve well-defined problems in a closed space. But real-world problems feature open boundaries and have no well-determined solution. In fact, the world is full of wicked problems and clumsy solutions ( Verweij and Thompson, 2006 ). As a result, solving well-defined problems and solving ill-defined problems requires different cognitive processes ( Schraw et al., 1995 ; but see Funke, 2010 ).

Well-defined problems have a clear set of means for reaching a precisely described goal state. For example: in a match-stick arithmetic problem, a person receives a false arithmetic expression constructed out of matchsticks (e.g., IV = III + III). According to the instructions, moving one of the matchsticks will make the equations true. Here, both the problem (find the appropriate stick to move) and the goal state (true arithmetic expression; solution is: VI = III + III) are defined clearly.

Ill-defined problems have no clear problem definition, their goal state is not defined clearly, and the means of moving towards the (diffusely described) goal state are not clear. For example: The goal state for solving the political conflict in the near-east conflict between Israel and Palestine is not clearly defined (living in peaceful harmony with each other?) and even if the conflict parties would agree on a two-state solution, this goal again leaves many issues unresolved. This type of problem is called a “complex problem” and is of central importance to this paper. All psychological processes that occur within individual persons and deal with the handling of such ill-defined complex problems will be subsumed under the umbrella term “complex problem solving” (CPS).

Systematic research on CPS started in the 1970s with observations of the behavior of participants who were confronted with computer simulated microworlds. For example, in one of those microworlds participants assumed the role of executives who were tasked to manage a company over a certain period of time (see Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 , for a discussion of this methodology). Today, CPS is an established concept and has even influenced large-scale assessments such as PISA (“Programme for International Student Assessment”), organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD, 2014 ). According to the World Economic Forum, CPS is one of the most important competencies required in the future ( World Economic Forum, 2015 ). Numerous articles on the subject have been published in recent years, documenting the increasing research activity relating to this field. In the following collection of papers we list only those published in 2010 and later: theoretical papers ( Blech and Funke, 2010 ; Funke, 2010 ; Knauff and Wolf, 2010 ; Leutner et al., 2012 ; Selten et al., 2012 ; Wüstenberg et al., 2012 ; Greiff et al., 2013b ; Fischer and Neubert, 2015 ; Schoppek and Fischer, 2015 ), papers about measurement issues ( Danner et al., 2011a ; Greiff et al., 2012 , 2015a ; Alison et al., 2013 ; Gobert et al., 2015 ; Greiff and Fischer, 2013 ; Herde et al., 2016 ; Stadler et al., 2016 ), papers about applications ( Fischer and Neubert, 2015 ; Ederer et al., 2016 ; Tremblay et al., 2017 ), papers about differential effects ( Barth and Funke, 2010 ; Danner et al., 2011b ; Beckmann and Goode, 2014 ; Greiff and Neubert, 2014 ; Scherer et al., 2015 ; Meißner et al., 2016 ; Wüstenberg et al., 2016 ), one paper about developmental effects ( Frischkorn et al., 2014 ), one paper with a neuroscience background ( Osman, 2012 ) 1 , papers about cultural differences ( Güss and Dörner, 2011 ; Sonnleitner et al., 2014 ; Güss et al., 2015 ), papers about validity issues ( Goode and Beckmann, 2010 ; Greiff et al., 2013c ; Schweizer et al., 2013 ; Mainert et al., 2015 ; Funke et al., 2017 ; Greiff et al., 2017 , 2015b ; Kretzschmar et al., 2016 ; Kretzschmar, 2017 ), review papers and meta-analyses ( Osman, 2010 ; Stadler et al., 2015 ), and finally books ( Qudrat-Ullah, 2015 ; Csapó and Funke, 2017b ) and book chapters ( Funke, 2012 ; Hotaling et al., 2015 ; Funke and Greiff, 2017 ; Greiff and Funke, 2017 ; Csapó and Funke, 2017a ; Fischer et al., 2017 ; Molnàr et al., 2017 ; Tobinski and Fritz, 2017 ; Viehrig et al., 2017 ). In addition, a new “Journal of Dynamic Decision Making” (JDDM) has been launched ( Fischer et al., 2015 , 2016 ) to give the field an open-access outlet for research and discussion.

This paper aims to clarify aspects of validity: what should be meant by the term CPS and what not? This clarification seems necessary because misunderstandings in recent publications provide – from our point of view – a potentially misleading picture of the construct. We start this article with a historical review before attempting to systematize different positions. We conclude with a working definition.

Historical Review

The concept behind CPS goes back to the German phrase “komplexes Problemlösen” (CPS; the term “komplexes Problemlösen” was used as a book title by Funke, 1986 ). The concept was introduced in Germany by Dörner and colleagues in the mid-1970s (see Dörner et al., 1975 ; Dörner, 1975 ) for the first time. The German phrase was later translated to CPS in the titles of two edited volumes by Sternberg and Frensch (1991) and Frensch and Funke (1995a) that collected papers from different research traditions. Even though it looks as though the term was coined in the 1970s, Edwards (1962) used the term “dynamic decision making” to describe decisions that come in a sequence. He compared static with dynamic decision making, writing:

In dynamic situations, a new complication not found in the static situations arises. The environment in which the decision is set may be changing, either as a function of the sequence of decisions, or independently of them, or both. It is this possibility of an environment which changes while you collect information about it which makes the task of dynamic decision theory so difficult and so much fun. (p. 60)

The ability to solve complex problems is typically measured via dynamic systems that contain several interrelated variables that participants need to alter. Early work (see, e.g., Dörner, 1980 ) used a simulation scenario called “Lohhausen” that contained more than 2000 variables that represented the activities of a small town: Participants had to take over the role of a mayor for a simulated period of 10 years. The simulation condensed these ten years to ten hours in real time. Later, researchers used smaller dynamic systems as scenarios either based on linear equations (see, e.g., Funke, 1993 ) or on finite state automata (see, e.g., Buchner and Funke, 1993 ). In these contexts, CPS consisted of the identification and control of dynamic task environments that were previously unknown to the participants. Different task environments came along with different degrees of fidelity ( Gray, 2002 ).

According to Funke (2012) , the typical attributes of complex systems are (a) complexity of the problem situation which is usually represented by the sheer number of involved variables; (b) connectivity and mutual dependencies between involved variables; (c) dynamics of the situation, which reflects the role of time and developments within a system; (d) intransparency (in part or full) about the involved variables and their current values; and (e) polytely (greek term for “many goals”), representing goal conflicts on different levels of analysis. This mixture of features is similar to what is called VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) in modern approaches to management (e.g., Mack et al., 2016 ).

In his evaluation of the CPS movement, Sternberg (1995) compared (young) European approaches to CPS with (older) American research on expertise. His analysis of the differences between the European and American traditions shows advantages but also potential drawbacks for each side. He states (p. 301): “I believe that although there are problems with the European approach, it deals with some fundamental questions that American research scarcely addresses.” So, even though the echo of the European approach did not enjoy strong resonance in the US at that time, it was valued by scholars like Sternberg and others. Before attending to validity issues, we will first present a short review of different streams.

Different Approaches to CPS

In the short history of CPS research, different approaches can be identified ( Buchner, 1995 ; Fischer et al., 2017 ). To systematize, we differentiate between the following five lines of research:

(a) The search for individual differences comprises studies identifying interindividual differences that affect the ability to solve complex problems. This line of research is reflected, for example, in the early work by Dörner et al. (1983) and their “Lohhausen” study. Here, naïve student participants took over the role of the mayor of a small simulated town named Lohhausen for a simulation period of ten years. According to the results of the authors, it is not intelligence (as measured by conventional IQ tests) that predicts performance, but it is the ability to stay calm in the face of a challenging situation and the ability to switch easily between an analytic mode of processing and a more holistic one.

(b) The search for cognitive processes deals with the processes behind understanding complex dynamic systems. Representative of this line of research is, for example, Berry and Broadbent’s (1984) work on implicit and explicit learning processes when people interact with a dynamic system called “Sugar Production”. They found that those who perform best in controlling a dynamic system can do so implicitly, without explicit knowledge of details regarding the systems’ relations.

(c) The search for system factors seeks to identify the aspects of dynamic systems that determine the difficulty of complex problems and make some problems harder than others. Representative of this line of research is, for example, work by Funke (1985) , who systematically varied the number of causal effects within a dynamic system or the presence/absence of eigendynamics. He found, for example, that solution quality decreases as the number of systems relations increases.

(d) The psychometric approach develops measurement instruments that can be used as an alternative to classical IQ tests, as something that goes “beyond IQ”. The MicroDYN approach ( Wüstenberg et al., 2012 ) is representative for this line of research that presents an alternative to reasoning tests (like Raven matrices). These authors demonstrated that a small improvement in predicting school grade point average beyond reasoning is possible with MicroDYN tests.

(e) The experimental approach explores CPS under different experimental conditions. This approach uses CPS assessment instruments to test hypotheses derived from psychological theories and is sometimes used in research about cognitive processes (see above). Exemplary for this line of research is the work by Rohe et al. (2016) , who test the usefulness of “motto goals” in the context of complex problems compared to more traditional learning and performance goals. Motto goals differ from pure performance goals by activating positive affect and should lead to better goal attainment especially in complex situations (the mentioned study found no effect).

To be clear: these five approaches are not mutually exclusive and do overlap. But the differentiation helps to identify different research communities and different traditions. These communities had different opinions about scaling complexity.

The Race for Complexity: Use of More and More Complex Systems

In the early years of CPS research, microworlds started with systems containing about 20 variables (“Tailorshop”), soon reached 60 variables (“Moro”), and culminated in systems with about 2000 variables (“Lohhausen”). This race for complexity ended with the introduction of the concept of “minimal complex systems” (MCS; Greiff and Funke, 2009 ; Funke and Greiff, 2017 ), which ushered in a search for the lower bound of complexity instead of the higher bound, which could not be defined as easily. The idea behind this concept was that whereas the upper limits of complexity are unbound, the lower limits might be identifiable. Imagine starting with a simple system containing two variables with a simple linear connection between them; then, step by step, increase the number of variables and/or the type of connections. One soon reaches a point where the system can no longer be considered simple and has become a “complex system”. This point represents a minimal complex system. Despite some research having been conducted in this direction, the point of transition from simple to complex has not been identified clearly as of yet.

Some years later, the original “minimal complex systems” approach ( Greiff and Funke, 2009 ) shifted to the “multiple complex systems” approach ( Greiff et al., 2013a ). This shift is more than a slight change in wording: it is important because it taps into the issue of validity directly. Minimal complex systems have been introduced in the context of challenges from large-scale assessments like PISA 2012 that measure new aspects of problem solving, namely interactive problems besides static problem solving ( Greiff and Funke, 2017 ). PISA 2012 required test developers to remain within testing time constraints (given by the school class schedule). Also, test developers needed a large item pool for the construction of a broad class of problem solving items. It was clear from the beginning that MCS deal with simple dynamic situations that require controlled interaction: the exploration and control of simple ticket machines, simple mobile phones, or simple MP3 players (all of these example domains were developed within PISA 2012) – rather than really complex situations like managerial or political decision making.

As a consequence of this subtle but important shift in interpreting the letters MCS, the definition of CPS became a subject of debate recently ( Funke, 2014a ; Greiff and Martin, 2014 ; Funke et al., 2017 ). In the words of Funke (2014b , p. 495):

It is funny that problems that nowadays come under the term ‘CPS’, are less complex (in terms of the previously described attributes of complex situations) than at the beginning of this new research tradition. The emphasis on psychometric qualities has led to a loss of variety. Systems thinking requires more than analyzing models with two or three linear equations – nonlinearity, cyclicity, rebound effects, etc. are inherent features of complex problems and should show up at least in some of the problems used for research and assessment purposes. Minimal complex systems run the danger of becoming minimal valid systems.

Searching for minimal complex systems is not the same as gaining insight into the way how humans deal with complexity and uncertainty. For psychometric purposes, it is appropriate to reduce complexity to a minimum; for understanding problem solving under conditions of overload, intransparency, and dynamics, it is necessary to realize those attributes with reasonable strength. This aspect is illustrated in the next section.

Importance of the Validity Issue

The most important reason for discussing the question of what complex problem solving is and what it is not stems from its phenomenology: if we lose sight of our phenomena, we are no longer doing good psychology. The relevant phenomena in the context of complex problems encompass many important aspects. In this section, we discuss four phenomena that are specific to complex problems. We consider these phenomena as critical for theory development and for the construction of assessment instruments (i.e., microworlds). These phenomena require theories for explaining them and they require assessment instruments eliciting them in a reliable way.

The first phenomenon is the emergency reaction of the intellectual system ( Dörner, 1980 ): When dealing with complex systems, actors tend to (a) reduce their intellectual level by decreasing self-reflections, by decreasing their intentions, by stereotyping, and by reducing their realization of intentions, (b) they show a tendency for fast action with increased readiness for risk, with increased violations of rules, and with increased tendency to escape the situation, and (c) they degenerate their hypotheses formation by construction of more global hypotheses and reduced tests of hypotheses, by increasing entrenchment, and by decontextualizing their goals. This phenomenon illustrates the strong connection between cognition, emotion, and motivation that has been emphasized by Dörner (see, e.g., Dörner and Güss, 2013 ) from the beginning of his research tradition; the emergency reaction reveals a shift in the mode of information processing under the pressure of complexity.

The second phenomenon comprises cross-cultural differences with respect to strategy use ( Strohschneider and Güss, 1999 ; Güss and Wiley, 2007 ; Güss et al., 2015 ). Results from complex task environments illustrate the strong influence of context and background knowledge to an extent that cannot be found for knowledge-poor problems. For example, in a comparison between Brazilian and German participants, it turned out that Brazilians accept the given problem descriptions and are more optimistic about the results of their efforts, whereas Germans tend to inquire more about the background of the problems and take a more active approach but are less optimistic (according to Strohschneider and Güss, 1998 , p. 695).

The third phenomenon relates to failures that occur during the planning and acting stages ( Jansson, 1994 ; Ramnarayan et al., 1997 ), illustrating that rational procedures seem to be unlikely to be used in complex situations. The potential for failures ( Dörner, 1996 ) rises with the complexity of the problem. Jansson (1994) presents seven major areas for failures with complex situations: acting directly on current feedback; insufficient systematization; insufficient control of hypotheses and strategies; lack of self-reflection; selective information gathering; selective decision making; and thematic vagabonding.

The fourth phenomenon describes (a lack of) training and transfer effects ( Kretzschmar and Süß, 2015 ), which again illustrates the context dependency of strategies and knowledge (i.e., there is no strategy that is so universal that it can be used in many different problem situations). In their own experiment, the authors could show training effects only for knowledge acquisition, not for knowledge application. Only with specific feedback, performance in complex environments can be increased ( Engelhart et al., 2017 ).

These four phenomena illustrate why the type of complexity (or degree of simplicity) used in research really matters. Furthermore, they demonstrate effects that are specific for complex problems, but not for toy problems. These phenomena direct the attention to the important question: does the stimulus material used (i.e., the computer-simulated microworld) tap and elicit the manifold of phenomena described above?

Dealing with partly unknown complex systems requires courage, wisdom, knowledge, grit, and creativity. In creativity research, “little c” and “BIG C” are used to differentiate between everyday creativity and eminent creativity ( Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 ; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ). Everyday creativity is important for solving everyday problems (e.g., finding a clever fix for a broken spoke on my bicycle), eminent creativity changes the world (e.g., inventing solar cells for energy production). Maybe problem solving research should use a similar differentiation between “little p” and “BIG P” to mark toy problems on the one side and big societal challenges on the other. The question then remains: what can we learn about BIG P by studying little p? What phenomena are present in both types, and what phenomena are unique to each of the two extremes?

Discussing research on CPS requires reflecting on the field’s research methods. Even if the experimental approach has been successful for testing hypotheses (for an overview of older work, see Funke, 1995 ), other methods might provide additional and novel insights. Complex phenomena require complex approaches to understand them. The complex nature of complex systems imposes limitations on psychological experiments: The more complex the environments, the more difficult is it to keep conditions under experimental control. And if experiments have to be run in labs one should bring enough complexity into the lab to establish the phenomena mentioned, at least in part.

There are interesting options to be explored (again): think-aloud protocols , which have been discredited for many years ( Nisbett and Wilson, 1977 ) and yet are a valuable source for theory testing ( Ericsson and Simon, 1983 ); introspection ( Jäkel and Schreiber, 2013 ), which seems to be banned from psychological methods but nevertheless offers insights into thought processes; the use of life-streaming ( Wendt, 2017 ), a medium in which streamers generate a video stream of think-aloud data in computer-gaming; political decision-making ( Dhami et al., 2015 ) that demonstrates error-proneness in groups; historical case studies ( Dörner and Güss, 2011 ) that give insights into the thinking styles of political leaders; the use of the critical incident technique ( Reuschenbach, 2008 ) to construct complex scenarios; and simulations with different degrees of fidelity ( Gray, 2002 ).

The methods tool box is full of instruments that have to be explored more carefully before any individual instrument receives a ban or research narrows its focus to only one paradigm for data collection. Brehmer and Dörner (1993) discussed the tensions between “research in the laboratory and research in the field”, optimistically concluding “that the new methodology of computer-simulated microworlds will provide us with the means to bridge the gap between the laboratory and the field” (p. 183). The idea behind this optimism was that computer-simulated scenarios would bring more complexity from the outside world into the controlled lab environment. But this is not true for all simulated scenarios. In his paper on simulated environments, Gray (2002) differentiated computer-simulated environments with respect to three dimensions: (1) tractability (“the more training subjects require before they can use a simulated task environment, the less tractable it is”, p. 211), correspondence (“High correspondence simulated task environments simulate many aspects of one task environment. Low correspondence simulated task environments simulate one aspect of many task environments”, p. 214), and engagement (“A simulated task environment is engaging to the degree to which it involves and occupies the participants; that is, the degree to which they agree to take it seriously”, p. 217). But the mere fact that a task is called a “computer-simulated task environment” does not mean anything specific in terms of these three dimensions. This is one of several reasons why we should differentiate between those studies that do not address the core features of CPS and those that do.

What is not CPS?

Even though a growing number of references claiming to deal with complex problems exist (e.g., Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2015 ; Greiff et al., 2016 ), it would be better to label the requirements within these tasks “dynamic problem solving,” as it has been done adequately in earlier work ( Greiff et al., 2012 ). The dynamics behind on-off-switches ( Thimbleby, 2007 ) are remarkable but not really complex. Small nonlinear systems that exhibit stunningly complex and unstable behavior do exist – but they are not used in psychometric assessments of so-called CPS. There are other small systems (like MicroDYN scenarios: Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2014 ) that exhibit simple forms of system behavior that are completely predictable and stable. This type of simple systems is used frequently. It is even offered commercially as a complex problem-solving test called COMPRO ( Greiff and Wüstenberg, 2015 ) for business applications. But a closer look reveals that the label is not used correctly; within COMPRO, the used linear equations are far from being complex and the system can be handled properly by using only one strategy (see for more details Funke et al., 2017 ).

Why do simple linear systems not fall within CPS? At the surface, nonlinear and linear systems might appear similar because both only include 3–5 variables. But the difference is in terms of systems behavior as well as strategies and learning. If the behavior is simple (as in linear systems where more input is related to more output and vice versa), the system can be easily understood (participants in the MicroDYN world have 3 minutes to explore a complex system). If the behavior is complex (as in systems that contain strange attractors or negative feedback loops), things become more complicated and much more observation is needed to identify the hidden structure of the unknown system ( Berry and Broadbent, 1984 ; Hundertmark et al., 2015 ).

Another issue is learning. If tasks can be solved using a single (and not so complicated) strategy, steep learning curves are to be expected. The shift from problem solving to learned routine behavior occurs rapidly, as was demonstrated by Luchins (1942) . In his water jar experiments, participants quickly acquired a specific strategy (a mental set) for solving certain measurement problems that they later continued applying to problems that would have allowed for easier approaches. In the case of complex systems, learning can occur only on very general, abstract levels because it is difficult for human observers to make specific predictions. Routines dealing with complex systems are quite different from routines relating to linear systems.

What should not be studied under the label of CPS are pure learning effects, multiple-cue probability learning, or tasks that can be solved using a single strategy. This last issue is a problem for MicroDYN tasks that rely strongly on the VOTAT strategy (“vary one thing at a time”; see Tschirgi, 1980 ). In real-life, it is hard to imagine a business manager trying to solve her or his problems by means of VOTAT.

What is CPS?

In the early days of CPS research, planet Earth’s dynamics and complexities gained attention through such books as “The limits to growth” ( Meadows et al., 1972 ) and “Beyond the limits” ( Meadows et al., 1992 ). In the current decade, for example, the World Economic Forum (2016) attempts to identify the complexities and risks of our modern world. In order to understand the meaning of complexity and uncertainty, taking a look at the worlds’ most pressing issues is helpful. Searching for strategies to cope with these problems is a difficult task: surely there is no place for the simple principle of “vary-one-thing-at-a-time” (VOTAT) when it comes to global problems. The VOTAT strategy is helpful in the context of simple problems ( Wüstenberg et al., 2014 ); therefore, whether or not VOTAT is helpful in a given problem situation helps us distinguish simple from complex problems.

Because there exist no clear-cut strategies for complex problems, typical failures occur when dealing with uncertainty ( Dörner, 1996 ; Güss et al., 2015 ). Ramnarayan et al. (1997) put together a list of generic errors (e.g., not developing adequate action plans; lack of background control; learning from experience blocked by stereotype knowledge; reactive instead of proactive action) that are typical of knowledge-rich complex systems but cannot be found in simple problems.

Complex problem solving is not a one-dimensional, low-level construct. On the contrary, CPS is a multi-dimensional bundle of competencies existing at a high level of abstraction, similar to intelligence (but going beyond IQ). As Funke et al. (2018) state: “Assessment of transversal (in educational contexts: cross-curricular) competencies cannot be done with one or two types of assessment. The plurality of skills and competencies requires a plurality of assessment instruments.”

There are at least three different aspects of complex systems that are part of our understanding of a complex system: (1) a complex system can be described at different levels of abstraction; (2) a complex system develops over time, has a history, a current state, and a (potentially unpredictable) future; (3) a complex system is knowledge-rich and activates a large semantic network, together with a broad list of potential strategies (domain-specific as well as domain-general).

Complex problem solving is not only a cognitive process but is also an emotional one ( Spering et al., 2005 ; Barth and Funke, 2010 ) and strongly dependent on motivation (low-stakes versus high-stakes testing; see Hermes and Stelling, 2016 ).

Furthermore, CPS is a dynamic process unfolding over time, with different phases and with more differentiation than simply knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. Ideally, the process should entail identifying problems (see Dillon, 1982 ; Lee and Cho, 2007 ), even if in experimental settings, problems are provided to participants a priori . The more complex and open a given situation, the more options can be generated (T. S. Schweizer et al., 2016 ). In closed problems, these processes do not occur in the same way.

In analogy to the difference between formative (process-oriented) and summative (result-oriented) assessment ( Wiliam and Black, 1996 ; Bennett, 2011 ), CPS should not be reduced to the mere outcome of a solution process. The process leading up to the solution, including detours and errors made along the way, might provide a more differentiated impression of a person’s problem-solving abilities and competencies than the final result of such a process. This is one of the reasons why CPS environments are not, in fact, complex intelligence tests: research on CPS is not only about the outcome of the decision process, but it is also about the problem-solving process itself.

Complex problem solving is part of our daily life: finding the right person to share one’s life with, choosing a career that not only makes money, but that also makes us happy. Of course, CPS is not restricted to personal problems – life on Earth gives us many hard nuts to crack: climate change, population growth, the threat of war, the use and distribution of natural resources. In sum, many societal challenges can be seen as complex problems. To reduce that complexity to a one-hour lab activity on a random Friday afternoon puts it out of context and does not address CPS issues.

Theories about CPS should specify which populations they apply to. Across populations, one thing to consider is prior knowledge. CPS research with experts (e.g., Dew et al., 2009 ) is quite different from problem solving research using tasks that intentionally do not require any specific prior knowledge (see, e.g., Beckmann and Goode, 2014 ).

More than 20 years ago, Frensch and Funke (1995b) defined CPS as follows:

CPS occurs to overcome barriers between a given state and a desired goal state by means of behavioral and/or cognitive, multi-step activities. The given state, goal state, and barriers between given state and goal state are complex, change dynamically during problem solving, and are intransparent. The exact properties of the given state, goal state, and barriers are unknown to the solver at the outset. CPS implies the efficient interaction between a solver and the situational requirements of the task, and involves a solver’s cognitive, emotional, personal, and social abilities and knowledge. (p. 18)

The above definition is rather formal and does not account for content or relations between the simulation and the real world. In a sense, we need a new definition of CPS that addresses these issues. Based on our previous arguments, we propose the following working definition:

Complex problem solving is a collection of self-regulated psychological processes and activities necessary in dynamic environments to achieve ill-defined goals that cannot be reached by routine actions. Creative combinations of knowledge and a broad set of strategies are needed. Solutions are often more bricolage than perfect or optimal. The problem-solving process combines cognitive, emotional, and motivational aspects, particularly in high-stakes situations. Complex problems usually involve knowledge-rich requirements and collaboration among different persons.

The main differences to the older definition lie in the emphasis on (a) the self-regulation of processes, (b) creativity (as opposed to routine behavior), (c) the bricolage type of solution, and (d) the role of high-stakes challenges. Our new definition incorporates some aspects that have been discussed in this review but were not reflected in the 1995 definition, which focused on attributes of complex problems like dynamics or intransparency.

This leads us to the final reflection about the role of CPS for dealing with uncertainty and complexity in real life. We will distinguish thinking from reasoning and introduce the sense of possibility as an important aspect of validity.

CPS as Combining Reasoning and Thinking in an Uncertain Reality

Leading up to the Battle of Borodino in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky explains the concept of war to his friend Pierre. Pierre expects war to resemble a game of chess: You position the troops and attempt to defeat your opponent by moving them in different directions.

“Far from it!”, Andrei responds. “In chess, you know the knight and his moves, you know the pawn and his combat strength. While in war, a battalion is sometimes stronger than a division and sometimes weaker than a company; it all depends on circumstances that can never be known. In war, you do not know the position of your enemy; some things you might be able to observe, some things you have to divine (but that depends on your ability to do so!) and many things cannot even be guessed at. In chess, you can see all of your opponent’s possible moves. In war, that is impossible. If you decide to attack, you cannot know whether the necessary conditions are met for you to succeed. Many a time, you cannot even know whether your troops will follow your orders…”

In essence, war is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. A good commander (or politician) can add to that what he or she sees, tentatively fill in the blanks – and not just by means of logical deduction but also by intelligently bridging missing links. A bad commander extrapolates from what he sees and thus arrives at improper conclusions.

Many languages differentiate between two modes of mentalizing; for instance, the English language distinguishes between ‘thinking’ and ‘reasoning’. Reasoning denotes acute and exact mentalizing involving logical deductions. Such deductions are usually based on evidence and counterevidence. Thinking, however, is what is required to write novels. It is the construction of an initially unknown reality. But it is not a pipe dream, an unfounded process of fabrication. Rather, thinking asks us to imagine reality (“Wirklichkeitsfantasie”). In other words, a novelist has to possess a “sense of possibility” (“Möglichkeitssinn”, Robert Musil; in German, sense of possibility is often used synonymously with imagination even though imagination is not the same as sense of possibility, for imagination also encapsulates the impossible). This sense of possibility entails knowing the whole (or several wholes) or being able to construe an unknown whole that could accommodate a known part. The whole has to align with sociological and geographical givens, with the mentality of certain peoples or groups, and with the laws of physics and chemistry. Otherwise, the entire venture is ill-founded. A sense of possibility does not aim for the moon but imagines something that might be possible but has not been considered possible or even potentially possible so far.

Thinking is a means to eliminate uncertainty. This process requires both of the modes of thinking we have discussed thus far. Economic, political, or ecological decisions require us to first consider the situation at hand. Though certain situational aspects can be known, but many cannot. In fact, von Clausewitz (1832) posits that only about 25% of the necessary information is available when a military decision needs to be made. Even then, there is no way to guarantee that whatever information is available is also correct: Even if a piece of information was completely accurate yesterday, it might no longer apply today.

Once our sense of possibility has helped grasping a situation, problem solvers need to call on their reasoning skills. Not every situation requires the same action, and we may want to act this way or another to reach this or that goal. This appears logical, but it is a logic based on constantly shifting grounds: We cannot know whether necessary conditions are met, sometimes the assumptions we have made later turn out to be incorrect, and sometimes we have to revise our assumptions or make completely new ones. It is necessary to constantly switch between our sense of possibility and our sense of reality, that is, to switch between thinking and reasoning. It is an arduous process, and some people handle it well, while others do not.

If we are to believe Tuchman’s (1984) book, “The March of Folly”, most politicians and commanders are fools. According to Tuchman, not much has changed in the 3300 years that have elapsed since the misguided Trojans decided to welcome the left-behind wooden horse into their city that would end up dismantling Troy’s defensive walls. The Trojans, too, had been warned, but decided not to heed the warning. Although Laocoön had revealed the horse’s true nature to them by attacking it with a spear, making the weapons inside the horse ring, the Trojans refused to see the forest for the trees. They did not want to listen, they wanted the war to be over, and this desire ended up shaping their perception.

The objective of psychology is to predict and explain human actions and behavior as accurately as possible. However, thinking cannot be investigated by limiting its study to neatly confined fractions of reality such as the realms of propositional logic, chess, Go tasks, the Tower of Hanoi, and so forth. Within these systems, there is little need for a sense of possibility. But a sense of possibility – the ability to divine and construe an unknown reality – is at least as important as logical reasoning skills. Not researching the sense of possibility limits the validity of psychological research. All economic and political decision making draws upon this sense of possibility. By not exploring it, psychological research dedicated to the study of thinking cannot further the understanding of politicians’ competence and the reasons that underlie political mistakes. Christopher Clark identifies European diplomats’, politicians’, and commanders’ inability to form an accurate representation of reality as a reason for the outbreak of World War I. According to Clark’s (2012) book, “The Sleepwalkers”, the politicians of the time lived in their own make-believe world, wrongfully assuming that it was the same world everyone else inhabited. If CPS research wants to make significant contributions to the world, it has to acknowledge complexity and uncertainty as important aspects of it.

For more than 40 years, CPS has been a new subject of psychological research. During this time period, the initial emphasis on analyzing how humans deal with complex, dynamic, and uncertain situations has been lost. What is subsumed under the heading of CPS in modern research has lost the original complexities of real-life problems. From our point of view, the challenges of the 21st century require a return to the origins of this research tradition. We would encourage researchers in the field of problem solving to come back to the original ideas. There is enough complexity and uncertainty in the world to be studied. Improving our understanding of how humans deal with these global and pressing problems would be a worthwhile enterprise.

Author Contributions

JF drafted a first version of the manuscript, DD added further text and commented on the draft. JF finalized the manuscript.

Authors Note

After more than 40 years of controversial discussions between both authors, this is the first joint paper. We are happy to have done this now! We have found common ground!

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for the continuous support of their research over many years. Thanks to Daniel Holt for his comments on validity issues, thanks to Julia Nolte who helped us by translating German text excerpts into readable English and helped us, together with Keri Hartman, to improve our style and grammar – thanks for that! We also thank the two reviewers for their helpful critical comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Finally, we acknowledge financial support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg within their funding programme Open Access Publishing .

^ The fMRI-paper from Anderson (2012) uses the term “complex problem solving” for tasks that do not fall in our understanding of CPS and is therefore excluded from this list.

Alison, L., van den Heuvel, C., Waring, S., Power, N., Long, A., O’Hara, T., et al. (2013). Immersive simulated learning environments for researching critical incidents: a knowledge synthesis of the literature and experiences of studying high-risk strategic decision making. J. Cogn. Eng. Deci. Mak. 7, 255–272. doi: 10.1177/1555343412468113

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (2012). Tracking problem solving by multivariate pattern analysis and hidden markov model algorithms. Neuropsychologia 50, 487–498. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.07.025

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barth, C. M., and Funke, J. (2010). Negative affective environments improve complex solving performance. Cogn. Emot. 24, 1259–1268. doi: 10.1080/02699930903223766

Beckmann, J. F., and Goode, N. (2014). The benefit of being naïve and knowing it: the unfavourable impact of perceived context familiarity on learning in complex problem solving tasks. Instruct. Sci. 42, 271–290. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9280-7

Beghetto, R. A., and Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: a case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychol. Aesthetics Creat. Arts 1, 73–79. doi: 10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 18, 5–25. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678

Berry, D. C., and Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 36, 209–231. doi: 10.1080/14640748408402156

Blech, C., and Funke, J. (2010). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too: how induced goal conflicts affect complex problem solving. Open Psychol. J. 3, 42–53. doi: 10.2174/1874350101003010042

Brehmer, B., and Dörner, D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9, 171–184. doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D

Buchner, A. (1995). “Basic topics and approaches to the study of complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds P. A. Frensch and J. Funke (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 27–63.

Google Scholar

Buchner, A., and Funke, J. (1993). Finite state automata: dynamic task environments in problem solving research. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 46A, 83–118. doi: 10.1080/14640749308401068

Clark, C. (2012). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 . London: Allen Lane.

Csapó, B., and Funke, J. (2017a). “The development and assessment of problem solving in 21st-century schools,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds B. Csapó and J. Funke (Paris: OECD Publishing), 19–31.

Csapó, B., and Funke, J. (eds) (2017b). The Nature of Problem Solving. Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Danner, D., Hagemann, D., Holt, D. V., Hager, M., Schankin, A., Wüstenberg, S., et al. (2011a). Measuring performance in dynamic decision making. Reliability and validity of the Tailorshop simulation. J. Ind. Differ. 32, 225–233. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000055

CrossRef Full Text

Danner, D., Hagemann, D., Schankin, A., Hager, M., and Funke, J. (2011b). Beyond IQ: a latent state-trait analysis of general intelligence, dynamic decision making, and implicit learning. Intelligence 39, 323–334. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.06.004

Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., and Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: differences between experts and novices. J. Bus. Ventur. 24, 287–309. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.002

Dhami, M. K., Mandel, D. R., Mellers, B. A., and Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Improving intelligence analysis with decision science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 753–757. doi: 10.1177/1745691615598511

Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. J. Creat. Behav. 16, 97–111. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00326.x

Dörner, D. (1975). Wie Menschen eine Welt verbessern wollten [How people wanted to improve a world]. Bild Der Wissenschaft 12, 48–53.

Dörner, D. (1980). On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulat. Gam. 11, 87–106. doi: 10.1177/104687818001100108

Dörner, D. (1996). The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Dörner, D., Drewes, U., and Reither, F. (1975). “Über das Problemlösen in sehr komplexen Realitätsbereichen,” in Bericht über den 29. Kongreß der DGfPs in Salzburg 1974, Band 1 , ed. W. H. Tack (Göttingen: Hogrefe), 339–340.

Dörner, D., and Güss, C. D. (2011). A psychological analysis of Adolf Hitler’s decision making as commander in chief: summa confidentia et nimius metus. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 15, 37–49. doi: 10.1037/a0022375

Dörner, D., and Güss, C. D. (2013). PSI: a computational architecture of cognition, motivation, and emotion. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17, 297–317. doi: 10.1037/a0032947

Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H. W., Reither, F., and Stäudel, T. (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern: Huber.

Ederer, P., Patt, A., and Greiff, S. (2016). Complex problem-solving skills and innovativeness – evidence from occupational testing and regional data. Eur. J. Educ. 51, 244–256. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12176

Edwards, W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabiIistic information processing. Hum. Factors 4, 59–73. doi: 10.1177/001872086200400201

Engelhart, M., Funke, J., and Sager, S. (2017). A web-based feedback study on optimization-based training and analysis of human decision making. J. Dynamic Dec. Mak. 3, 1–23.

Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1983). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports As Data. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

Fischer, A., Greiff, S., and Funke, J. (2017). “The history of complex problem solving,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds B. Csapó and J. Funke (Paris: OECD Publishing), 107–121.

Fischer, A., Holt, D. V., and Funke, J. (2015). Promoting the growing field of dynamic decision making. J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 1, 1–3. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23807

Fischer, A., Holt, D. V., and Funke, J. (2016). The first year of the “journal of dynamic decision making.” J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 2, 1–2. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2016.1.28995

Fischer, A., and Neubert, J. C. (2015). The multiple faces of complex problems: a model of problem solving competency and its implications for training and assessment. J. Dynamic Decis. Mak. 1, 1–14. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23945

Frensch, P. A., and Funke, J. (eds) (1995a). Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Frensch, P. A., and Funke, J. (1995b). “Definitions, traditions, and a general framework for understanding complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds P. A. Frensch and J. Funke (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 3–25.

Frischkorn, G. T., Greiff, S., and Wüstenberg, S. (2014). The development of complex problem solving in adolescence: a latent growth curve analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 1004–1020. doi: 10.1037/a0037114

Funke, J. (1985). Steuerung dynamischer Systeme durch Aufbau und Anwendung subjektiver Kausalmodelle. Z. Psychol. 193, 435–457.

Funke, J. (1986). Komplexes Problemlösen - Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven [Complex Problem Solving: Survey and Perspectives]. Heidelberg: Springer.

Funke, J. (1993). “Microworlds based on linear equation systems: a new approach to complex problem solving and experimental results,” in The Cognitive Psychology of Knowledge , eds G. Strube and K.-F. Wender (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers), 313–330.

Funke, J. (1995). “Experimental research on complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds P. A. Frensch and J. Funke (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 243–268.

Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? Cogn. Process. 11, 133–142. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0

Funke, J. (2012). “Complex problem solving,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning , Vol. 38, ed. N. M. Seel (Heidelberg: Springer), 682–685.

Funke, J. (2014a). Analysis of minimal complex systems and complex problem solving require different forms of causal cognition. Front. Psychol. 5:739. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00739

Funke, J. (2014b). “Problem solving: what are the important questions?,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , eds P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, and B. Scassellati (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society), 493–498.

Funke, J., Fischer, A., and Holt, D. V. (2017). When less is less: solving multiple simple problems is not complex problem solving—A comment on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5:5. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5010005

Funke, J., Fischer, A., and Holt, D. V. (2018). “Competencies for complexity: problem solving in the 21st century,” in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills , eds E. Care, P. Griffin, and M. Wilson (Dordrecht: Springer), 3.

Funke, J., and Greiff, S. (2017). “Dynamic problem solving: multiple-item testing based on minimally complex systems,” in Competence Assessment in Education. Research, Models and Instruments , eds D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, and E. Klieme (Heidelberg: Springer), 427–443.

Gobert, J. D., Kim, Y. J., Pedro, M. A. S., Kennedy, M., and Betts, C. G. (2015). Using educational data mining to assess students’ skills at designing and conducting experiments within a complex systems microworld. Think. Skills Creat. 18, 81–90. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.04.008

Goode, N., and Beckmann, J. F. (2010). You need to know: there is a causal relationship between structural knowledge and control performance in complex problem solving tasks. Intelligence 38, 345–352. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.01.001

Gray, W. D. (2002). Simulated task environments: the role of high-fidelity simulations, scaled worlds, synthetic environments, and laboratory tasks in basic and applied cognitive research. Cogn. Sci. Q. 2, 205–227.

Greiff, S., and Fischer, A. (2013). Measuring complex problem solving: an educational application of psychological theories. J. Educ. Res. 5, 38–58.

Greiff, S., Fischer, A., Stadler, M., and Wüstenberg, S. (2015a). Assessing complex problem-solving skills with multiple complex systems. Think. Reason. 21, 356–382. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2014.989263

Greiff, S., Stadler, M., Sonnleitner, P., Wolff, C., and Martin, R. (2015b). Sometimes less is more: comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence 50, 100–113. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.007

Greiff, S., Fischer, A., Wüstenberg, S., Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., and Martin, R. (2013a). A multitrait–multimethod study of assessment instruments for complex problem solving. Intelligence 41, 579–596. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.012

Greiff, S., Holt, D. V., and Funke, J. (2013b). Perspectives on problem solving in educational assessment: analytical, interactive, and collaborative problem solving. J. Problem Solv. 5, 71–91. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1153

Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Molnár, G., Fischer, A., Funke, J., and Csapó, B. (2013c). Complex problem solving in educational contexts—something beyond g: concept, assessment, measurement invariance, and construct validity. J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 364–379. doi: 10.1037/a0031856

Greiff, S., and Funke, J. (2009). “Measuring complex problem solving: the MicroDYN approach,” in The Transition to Computer-Based Assessment. New Approaches to Skills Assessment and Implications for Large-Scale Testing , eds F. Scheuermann and J. Björnsson (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities), 157–163.

Greiff, S., and Funke, J. (2017). “Interactive problem solving: exploring the potential of minimal complex systems,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds B. Csapó and J. Funke (Paris: OECD Publishing), 93–105.

Greiff, S., and Martin, R. (2014). What you see is what you (don’t) get: a comment on Funke’s (2014) opinion paper. Front. Psychol. 5:1120. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01120

Greiff, S., and Neubert, J. C. (2014). On the relation of complex problem solving, personality, fluid intelligence, and academic achievement. Learn. Ind. Diff. 36, 37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.08.003

Greiff, S., Niepel, C., Scherer, R., and Martin, R. (2016). Understanding students’ performance in a computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: an analysis of behavioral data from computer-generated log files. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 36–46. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.095

Greiff, S., Stadler, M., Sonnleitner, P., Wolff, C., and Martin, R. (2017). Sometimes more is too much: a rejoinder to the commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5:6. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5010006

Greiff, S., and Wüstenberg, S. (2014). Assessment with microworlds using MicroDYN: measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 1, 1–11. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000194

Greiff, S., and Wüstenberg, S. (2015). Komplexer Problemlösetest COMPRO [Complex Problem-Solving Test COMPRO]. Mödling: Schuhfried.

Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., and Funke, J. (2012). Dynamic problem solving: a new assessment perspective. Appl. Psychol. Measure. 36, 189–213. doi: 10.1177/0146621612439620

Griffin, P., and Care, E. (2015). “The ATC21S method,” in Assessment and Taching of 21st Century Skills , eds P. Griffin and E. Care (Dordrecht, NL: Springer), 3–33.

Güss, C. D., and Dörner, D. (2011). Cultural differences in dynamic decision-making strategies in a non-linear, time-delayed task. Cogn. Syst. Res. 12, 365–376. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.12.003

Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., and Orduña, L. V. (2015). Strategies, tactics, and errors in dynamic decision making in an Asian sample. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1, 1–14. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.13131

Güss, C. D., and Wiley, B. (2007). Metacognition of problem-solving strategies in Brazil, India, and the United States. J. Cogn. Cult. 7, 1–25. doi: 10.1163/156853707X171793

Herde, C. N., Wüstenberg, S., and Greiff, S. (2016). Assessment of complex problem solving: what we know and what we don’t know. Appl. Meas. Educ. 29, 265–277. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2016.1209208

Hermes, M., and Stelling, D. (2016). Context matters, but how much? Latent state – trait analysis of cognitive ability assessments. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 24, 285–295. doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12147

Hotaling, J. M., Fakhari, P., and Busemeyer, J. R. (2015). “Dynamic decision making,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2nd Edn, eds N. J. Smelser and P. B. Batles (New York, NY: Elsevier), 709–714.

Hundertmark, J., Holt, D. V., Fischer, A., Said, N., and Fischer, H. (2015). System structure and cognitive ability as predictors of performance in dynamic system control tasks. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1, 1–10. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.26416

Jäkel, F., and Schreiber, C. (2013). Introspection in problem solving. J. Problem Solv. 6, 20–33. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1131

Jansson, A. (1994). Pathologies in dynamic decision making: consequences or precursors of failure? Sprache Kogn. 13, 160–173.

Kaufman, J. C., and Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of creativity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 13, 1–12. doi: 10.1037/a0013688

Knauff, M., and Wolf, A. G. (2010). Complex cognition: the science of human reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Cogn. Process. 11, 99–102. doi: 10.1007/s10339-010-0362-z

Kretzschmar, A. (2017). Sometimes less is not enough: a commentary on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 5:4. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5010004

Kretzschmar, A., Neubert, J. C., Wüstenberg, S., and Greiff, S. (2016). Construct validity of complex problem solving: a comprehensive view on different facets of intelligence and school grades. Intelligence 54, 55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.004

Kretzschmar, A., and Süß, H.-M. (2015). A study on the training of complex problem solving competence. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 1, 1–14. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.15455

Lee, H., and Cho, Y. (2007). Factors affecting problem finding depending on degree of structure of problem situation. J. Educ. Res. 101, 113–123. doi: 10.3200/JOER.101.2.113-125

Leutner, D., Fleischer, J., Wirth, J., Greiff, S., and Funke, J. (2012). Analytische und dynamische Problemlösekompetenz im Lichte internationaler Schulleistungsvergleichsstudien: Untersuchungen zur Dimensionalität. Psychol. Rundschau 63, 34–42. doi: 10.1026/0033-3042/a000108

Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: the effect of einstellung. Psychol. Monogr. 54, 1–95. doi: 10.1037/h0093502

Mack, O., Khare, A., Krämer, A., and Burgartz, T. (eds) (2016). Managing in a VUCA world. Heidelberg: Springer.

Mainert, J., Kretzschmar, A., Neubert, J. C., and Greiff, S. (2015). Linking complex problem solving and general mental ability to career advancement: does a transversal skill reveal incremental predictive validity? Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 34, 393–411. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2015.1060024

Mainzer, K. (2009). Challenges of complexity in the 21st century. An interdisciplinary introduction. Eur. Rev. 17, 219–236. doi: 10.1017/S1062798709000714

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., and Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the Limits. Vermont, VA: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. New York, NY: Universe Books.

Meißner, A., Greiff, S., Frischkorn, G. T., and Steinmayr, R. (2016). Predicting complex problem solving and school grades with working memory and ability self-concept. Learn. Ind. Differ. 49, 323–331. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.04.006

Molnàr, G., Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., and Fischer, A. (2017). “Empirical study of computer-based assessment of domain-general complex problem-solving skills,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds B. Csapó and J. Funke (Paris: OECD Publishing), 125–141.

National Research Council (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., and Simon, H. A. (1959). A general problem-solving program for a computer. Comput. Automat. 8, 10–16.

Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84, 231–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

OECD (2014). “PISA 2012 results,” in Creative Problem Solving: Students’ Skills in Tackling Real-Life problems , Vol. 5 (Paris: OECD Publishing).

Osman, M. (2010). Controlling uncertainty: a review of human behavior in complex dynamic environments. Psychol. Bull. 136, 65–86. doi: 10.1037/a0017815

Osman, M. (2012). The role of reward in dynamic decision making. Front. Neurosci. 6:35. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2012.00035

Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2015). Better Decision Making in Complex, Dynamic Tasks. Training with Human-Facilitated Interactive Learning Environments. Heidelberg: Springer.

Ramnarayan, S., Strohschneider, S., and Schaub, H. (1997). Trappings of expertise and the pursuit of failure. Simulat. Gam. 28, 28–43. doi: 10.1177/1046878197281004

Reuschenbach, B. (2008). Planen und Problemlösen im Komplexen Handlungsfeld Pflege. Berlin: Logos.

Rohe, M., Funke, J., Storch, M., and Weber, J. (2016). Can motto goals outperform learning and performance goals? Influence of goal setting on performance, intrinsic motivation, processing style, and affect in a complex problem solving task. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 2, 1–15. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2016.1.28510

Scherer, R., Greiff, S., and Hautamäki, J. (2015). Exploring the relation between time on task and ability in complex problem solving. Intelligence 48, 37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.003

Schoppek, W., and Fischer, A. (2015). Complex problem solving – single ability or complex phenomenon? Front. Psychol. 6:1669. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01669

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M., and Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 9, 523–538. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350090605

Schweizer, F., Wüstenberg, S., and Greiff, S. (2013). Validity of the MicroDYN approach: complex problem solving predicts school grades beyond working memory capacity. Learn. Ind. Differ. 24, 42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.011

Schweizer, T. S., Schmalenberger, K. M., Eisenlohr-Moul, T. A., Mojzisch, A., Kaiser, S., and Funke, J. (2016). Cognitive and affective aspects of creative option generation in everyday life situations. Front. Psychol. 7:1132. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01132

Selten, R., Pittnauer, S., and Hohnisch, M. (2012). Dealing with dynamic decision problems when knowledge of the environment is limited: an approach based on goal systems. J. Behav. Deci. Mak. 25, 443–457. doi: 10.1002/bdm.738

Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations , 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Keller, U., and Martin, R. (2014). Differential relations between facets of complex problem solving and students’ immigration background. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 681–695. doi: 10.1037/a0035506

Spering, M., Wagener, D., and Funke, J. (2005). The role of emotions in complex problem solving. Cogn. Emot. 19, 1252–1261. doi: 10.1080/02699930500304886

Stadler, M., Becker, N., Gödker, M., Leutner, D., and Greiff, S. (2015). Complex problem solving and intelligence: a meta-analysis. Intelligence 53, 92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.005

Stadler, M., Niepel, C., and Greiff, S. (2016). Easily too difficult: estimating item difficulty in computer simulated microworlds. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65, 100–106. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.025

Sternberg, R. J. (1995). “Expertise in complex problem solving: a comparison of alternative conceptions,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective , eds P. A. Frensch and J. Funke (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 295–321.

Sternberg, R. J., and Frensch, P. A. (1991). Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms. (eds) R. J. Sternberg and P. A. Frensch. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Strohschneider, S., and Güss, C. D. (1998). Planning and problem solving: differences between brazilian and german students. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 29, 695–716. doi: 10.1177/0022022198296002

Strohschneider, S., and Güss, C. D. (1999). The fate of the Moros: a cross-cultural exploration of strategies in complex and dynamic decision making. Int. J. Psychol. 34, 235–252. doi: 10.1080/002075999399873

Thimbleby, H. (2007). Press On. Principles of Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tobinski, D. A., and Fritz, A. (2017). “EcoSphere: a new paradigm for problem solving in complex systems,” in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning , eds B. Csapó and J. Funke (Paris: OECD Publishing), 211–222.

Tremblay, S., Gagnon, J.-F., Lafond, D., Hodgetts, H. M., Doiron, M., and Jeuniaux, P. P. J. M. H. (2017). A cognitive prosthesis for complex decision-making. Appl. Ergon. 58, 349–360. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.009

Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: a hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Dev. 51, 1–10. doi: 10.2307/1129583

Tuchman, B. W. (1984). The March of Folly. From Troy to Vietnam. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Verweij, M., and Thompson, M. (eds) (2006). Clumsy Solutions for A Complex World. Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230624887

Viehrig, K., Siegmund, A., Funke, J., Wüstenberg, S., and Greiff, S. (2017). “The heidelberg inventory of geographic system competency model,” in Competence Assessment in Education. Research, Models and Instruments , eds D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, and E. Klieme (Heidelberg: Springer), 31–53.

von Clausewitz, C. (1832). Vom Kriege [On war]. Berlin: Dämmler.

Wendt, A. N. (2017). The empirical potential of live streaming beyond cognitive psychology. J. Dynamic Deci. Mak. 3, 1–9. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2017.1.33724

Wiliam, D., and Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? Br. Educ. Res. J. 22, 537–548. doi: 10.1080/0141192960220502

World Economic Forum (2015). New Vsion for Education Unlocking the Potential of Technology. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum (2016). Global Risks 2016: Insight Report , 11th Edn. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Wüstenberg, S., Greiff, S., and Funke, J. (2012). Complex problem solving — more than reasoning? Intelligence 40, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.003

Wüstenberg, S., Greiff, S., Vainikainen, M.-P., and Murphy, K. (2016). Individual differences in students’ complex problem solving skills: how they evolve and what they imply. J. Educ. Psychol. 108, 1028–1044. doi: 10.1037/edu0000101

Wüstenberg, S., Stadler, M., Hautamäki, J., and Greiff, S. (2014). The role of strategy knowledge for the application of strategies in complex problem solving tasks. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 19, 127–146. doi: 10.1007/s10758-014-9222-8

Keywords : complex problem solving, validity, assessment, definition, MicroDYN

Citation: Dörner D and Funke J (2017) Complex Problem Solving: What It Is and What It Is Not. Front. Psychol. 8:1153. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153

Received: 14 March 2017; Accepted: 23 June 2017; Published: 11 July 2017.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2017 Dörner and Funke. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Joachim Funke, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

How To Solve Complex Problems

In today’s increasingly complex world, we are constantly faced with ill-defined problems that don’t have a clear solution. From poverty and climate change to crime and addiction, complex situations surround us. Unlike simple problems with a pre-defined or “right” answer, complex problems share several basic characteristics that make them hard to solve. While these problems can be frustrating and overwhelming, they also offer an opportunity for growth and creativity. Complex problem-solving skills are the key to addressing these tough issues.

In this article, I will discuss simple versus complex problems, define complex problem solving, and describe why it is so important in complex dynamic environments. I will also explain how to develop problem-solving skills and share some tips for effectively solving complex problems.

How is simple problem-solving different from complex problem-solving?

Solving problems is about getting from a currently undesirable state to an intended goal state. In other words, about bridging the gap between “what is” and “what ought to be”. However, the challenge of reaching a solution varies based on the kind of problem that is being solved. There are generally three different kinds of problems you should consider.

Simple problems have one problem solution. The goal is to find that answer as quickly and efficiently as possible. Puzzles are classic examples of simple problem solving. The objective is to find the one correct solution out of many possibilities.

Problems are different from puzzles in that they don’t have a known problem solution. As such, many people may agree that there is an issue to be solved, but they may not agree on the intended goal state or how to get there. In this type of problem, people spend a lot of time debating the best solution and the optimal way to achieve it.

Messes are collections of interrelated problems where many stakeholders may not even agree on what the issue is. Unlike problems where there is agreement about what the problem is, in messes, there isn’t agreement amongst stakeholders. In other words, even “what is” can’t be taken for granted. Most complex social problems are messes, made up of interrelated social issues with ill-defined boundaries and goals.

Problems and messes can be complicated or complex

Puzzles are simple, but problems and messes exist on a continuum between complicated and complex. Complicated problems are technical in nature. There may be many involved variables, but the relationships are linear. As a result, complicated problems have step-by-step, systematic solutions. Repairing an engine or building a rocket may be difficult because of the many parts involved, but it is a technical problem we call complicated.

On the other hand, solving a complex problem is entirely different. Unlike complicated problems that may have many variables with linear relationships, a complex problem is characterized by connectivity patterns that are harder to understand and predict.

Characteristics of complex problems and messes

So what else makes a problem complex? Here are seven additional characteristics (from Funke and Hester and Adams ).

Lack of information. There is often a lack of data or information about the problem itself. In some cases, variables are unknown or cannot be measured.
Many goals. A complex problem has a mix of conflicting objectives. In some sense, every stakeholder involved with the problem may have their own goals. However, with limited resources, not all goals can be simultaneously satisfied.
Unpredictable feedback loops. In part due to many variables connected by a range of different relationships, a change in one variable is likely to have effects on other variables in the system. However, because we do not know all of the variables it will affect, small changes can have disproportionate system-wide effects. These unexpected events that have big, unpredictable effects are sometimes called Black Swans.
Dynamic. A complex problem changes over time and there is a significant impact based on when you act. In other words, because the problem and its parts and relationships are constantly changing, an action taken today won’t have the same effects as the same action taken tomorrow.
Time-delayed. It takes a while for cause and effect to be realized. Thus it is very hard to know if any given intervention is working.
Unknown unknowns. Building off the previous point about a lack of information, in a complex problem you may not even know what you don’t know. In other words, there may be very important variables that you are not even aware of.
Affected by (error-prone) humans. Simply put, human behavior tends to be illogical and unpredictable. When humans are involved in a problem, avoiding error may be impossible.

What is complex problem-solving?

“Complex problem solving” is the term for how to address a complex problem or messes that have the characteristics listed above.

Since a complex problem is a different phenomenon than a simple or complicated problem, solving them requires a different approach. Methods designed for simple problems, like systematic organization, deductive logic, and linear thinking don’t work well on their own for a complex problem.

And yet, despite its importance, there isn’t complete agreement about what exactly it is.

How is complex problem solving defined by experts?

Let’s look at what scientists, researchers, and system thinkers have come up with in terms of a definition for solving a complex problem.

As a series of observations and informed decisions

For many employers, the focus is on making smart decisions. These must weigh the future effects to the company of any given solution. According to Indeed.com , it is defined as “a series of observations and informed decisions used to find and implement a solution to a problem. Beyond finding and implementing a solution, complex problem solving also involves considering future changes to circumstance, resources, and capabilities that may affect the trajectory of the process and success of the solution. Complex problem solving also involves considering the impact of the solution on the surrounding environment and individuals.”

As using information to review options and develop solutions

For others, it is more of a systematic way to consider a range of options. According to O*NET , the definition focuses on “identifying complex problems and reviewing related information to develop and evaluate options and implement solutions.”

As a self-regulated psychological process

Others emphasize the broad range of skills and emotions needed for change. In addition, they endorse an inspired kind of pragmatism. For example, Dietrich Dorner and Joachim Funke define it as “a collection of self-regulated psychological processes and activities necessary in dynamic environments to achieve ill-defined goals that cannot be reached by routine actions. Creative combinations of knowledge and a broad set of strategies are needed. Solutions are often more bricolage than perfect or optimal. The problem-solving process combines cognitive, emotional, and motivational aspects, particularly in high-stakes situations. Complex problems usually involve knowledge-rich requirements and collaboration among different persons.”

As a novel way of thinking and reasoning

Finally, some emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of knowledge and processes needed to tackle a complex problem. Patrick Hester and Kevin MacG. Adams have stated that “no single discipline can solve truly complex problems. Problems of real interest, those vexing ones that keep you up at night, require a discipline-agnostic approach…Simply they require us to think systemically about our problem…a novel way of thinking and reasoning about complex problems that encourages increased understanding and deliberate intervention.”

A synthesis definition

By pulling the main themes of these definitions together, we can get a sense of what complex problem-solvers must do:

Gain a better understanding of the phenomena of a complex problem or mess. Use a discipline-agnostic approach in order to develop deliberate interventions. Take into consideration future impacts on the surrounding environment.

Why is complex problem solving important?

Many efforts aimed at complex social problems like reducing homelessness and improving public health – despite good intentions giving more effort than ever before – are destined to fail because their approach is based on simple problem-solving. And some efforts might even unwittingly be contributing to the problems they’re trying to solve.

Einstein said that “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” I think he could have easily been alluding to the need for more complex problem solvers who think differently. So what skills are required to do this?

What are complex problem-solving skills?

The skills required to solve a complex problem aren’t from one domain, nor are they an easily-packaged bundle. Rather, I like to think of them as a balancing act between a series of seemingly opposite approaches but synthesized. This brings a sort of cognitive dissonance into the process, which is itself informative.

It brings F. Scott Fitzgerald’s maxim to mind:

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

To see the problem situation clearly, for example, but also with a sense of optimism and possibility.

Here are the top three dialectics to keep in mind:

Thinking and reasoning

Reasoning is the ability to make logical deductions based on evidence and counterevidence. On the other hand, thinking is more about imagining an unknown reality based on thoughts about the whole picture and how the parts could fit together. By thinking clearly, one can have a sense of possibility that prepares the mind to deduce the right action in the unique moment at hand.

As Dorner and Funke explain: “Not every situation requires the same action, and we may want to act this way or another to reach this or that goal. This appears logical, but it is a logic based on constantly shifting grounds: We cannot know whether necessary conditions are met, sometimes the assumptions we have made later turn out to be incorrect, and sometimes we have to revise our assumptions or make completely new ones. It is necessary to constantly switch between our sense of possibility and our sense of reality, that is, to switch between thinking and reasoning. It is an arduous process, and some people handle it well, while others do not.”

Analysis and reductionism combined with synthesis and holism

It’s important to be able to use scientific processes to break down a complex problem into its parts and analyze them. But at the same time, a complex problem is more than the sum of its parts. In most cases, the relationships between the parts are more important than the parts themselves. Therefore, decomposing problems with rigor isn’t enough. What’s needed, once problems are reduced and understood, is a way of understanding the relationships between various components as well as putting the pieces back together. However, synthesis and holism on their own without deductive analysis can often miss details and relationships that matter.

What makes this balancing act more difficult is that certain professions tend to be trained in and prefer one domain over the other. Scientists prefer analysis and reductionism whereas most social scientists and practitioners default to synthesis and holism. Unfortunately, this divide of preferences results in people working in their silos at the expense of multi-disciplinary approaches that together can better “see” complexity.

Situational awareness and self-awareness

Dual awareness is the ability to pay attention to two experiences simultaneously. In the case of complex problems, context really matters. In other words, problem-solving exists in an ecosystem of environmental factors that are not incidental. Personal and cultural preferences play a part as do current events unfolding over time. But as a problem solver, knowing the environment is only part of the equation.

The other crucial part is the internal psychological process unique to every individual who also interacts with the problem and the environment. Problem solvers inevitably come into contact with others who may disagree with them, or be advancing seemingly counterproductive solutions, and these interactions result in emotions and motivations. Without self-awareness, we can become attached to our own subjective opinions, fall in love with “our” solutions, and generally be driven by the desire to be seen as problem solvers at the expense of actually solving the problem.

By balancing these three dialectics, practitioners can better deal with uncertainty as well as stay motivated despite setbacks. Self-regulation among these seemingly opposite approaches also reminds one to stay open-minded.

How do you develop complex problem-solving skills?

There is no one answer to this question, as the best way to develop them will vary depending on your strengths and weaknesses. However, there are a few general things that you can do to improve your ability to solve problems.

Ground yourself in theory and knowledge

First, it is important to learn about systems thinking and complexity theories. These frameworks will help you understand how complex systems work, and how different parts of a system interact with each other. This conceptual understanding will allow you to identify potential solutions to problems more quickly and effectively.

Practice switching between approaches

Second, practice switching between the dialectics mentioned above. For example, in your next meeting try to spend roughly half your time thinking and half your time reasoning. The important part is trying to get habituated to regularly switching lenses. It may seem disjointed at first, but after a while, it becomes second nature to simultaneously see how the parts interact and the big picture.

Focus on the specific problem phenomena

Third, it may sound obvious, but people often don’t spend very much time studying the problem itself and how it functions. In some sense, becoming a good problem-solver involves becoming a problem scientist. Your time should be spent regularly investigating the phenomena of “what is” rather than “what ought to be”. A holistic understanding of the problem is the required prerequisite to coming up with good solutions.

Stay curious

Finally, after we have worked on a problem for a while, we tend to think we know everything about it, including how to solve it. Even if we’re working on a problem, which may change dynamically from day to day, we start treating it more like a puzzle with a definite solution. When that happens, we can lose our motivation to continue learning about the problem. This is very risky because it closes the door to learning from others, regardless of whether we completely agree with them or not.

As Neils Bohr said, “Two different perspectives or models about a system will reveal truths regarding the system that are neither entirely independent nor entirely compatible.”

By staying curious, we can retain our ability to learn on a daily basis.

Tips for how to solve complex problems

Focus on processes over results.

It’s easy to get lost in utopian thinking. Many people spend so much time on “what ought to be” that they forget that problem solving is about the gap between “what is” and “what ought to be”. It is said that “life is a journey, not a destination.” The same is true for complex problem-solving. To do it well, a problem solver must focus on enjoying the process of gaining a holistic understanding of the problem.

Adaptive and iterative methods and tools

A variety of adaptive and iterative methods have been developed to address complexity. They share a laser focus on gaining holistic understanding with tools that best match the phenomena of complexity. They are also non-ideological, trans-disciplinary, and flexible. In most cases, your journey through a set of steps won’t be linear. Rather, as you think and reason, analyze and synthesize, you’ll jump around to get a holistic picture.

In my online course , we generally follow a seven-step method:

Get clear sight with a complex problem-solving frame
Establish a secure base of operation
Gain a deep understanding of the problem
Create an interactive model of the problem
Develop an impact strategy
Create an action plan and implement
Embed systemic solutions

Of course, each of these steps involves testing to see what works and consistently evaluating our process and progress.

Resolution is about systematically managing a problem over time

One last thing to keep in mind. Most social problems are not just solved one day, never to return. In reality, most complex problems are managed, not solved. For all practical purposes, what this means is that “the solution” is a way of systematically dealing with the problem over time. Some find this disappointing, but it’s actually a pragmatic pointer to think about resolution – a way move problems in the right direction – rather than final solutions.

Problem solvers regularly train and practice

If you need help developing your complex problem-solving skills, I have an online class where you can learn everything you need to know.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

What It Takes to Think Deeply About Complex Problems

Tony Schwartz

Three ways to embrace a more nuanced, spacious perspective.

The problems we’re facing often seem as intractable as they do complex. But as Albert Einstein famously observed, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” So what does it take to increase the complexity of our thinking? To cultivate a more nuanced, spacious perspective, start by challenging your convictions. Ask yourself, “What am I not seeing here?” and “What else might be true?” Second, do your most challenging task first every day, when your mind is fresh and before distractions arise. And third, pay attention to how you’re feeling. Embracing complexity means learning to better manage tough emotions like fear and anger.

The problems we’re facing often seem as complex as they do intractable. And as Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” So what does it take to increase the complexity of our thinking?

Tony Schwartz is the CEO of The Energy Project and the author of The Way We’re Working Isn’t Working . Become a fan of The Energy Project on Facebook .

Partner Center

Complex Problem Solving

Reference work entry
Cite this reference work entry

Joachim Funke 2

1263 Accesses

50 Citations

3 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Brehmer, B., & Dörner, D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Computers in Human Behavior, 9 , 171–184.

Google Scholar

Dörner, D. (1997). The logic of failure. Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations . New York: Basic Books.

Frensch, P. A., & Funke, J. (Eds.). (1995). Complex problem solving: The European perspective . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Funke, J. (2003). Problemlösendes Denken . Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Osman, M. (2010). Controlling uncertainty: A review of human behavior in complex dynamic environments. Psychological Bulletin, 136 , 65–86.

Wenke, D., Frensch, P. A., & Funke, J. (2005). Complex problem solving and intelligence: Empirical relation and causal direction. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition and intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind (pp. 160–187). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Hauptstr. 47-51, Heidelberg, 69117, Germany

Dr. Joachim Funke

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Funke .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Economics and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Education, University of Freiburg, 79085, Freiburg, Germany

Norbert M. Seel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Funke, J. (2012). Complex Problem Solving. In: Seel, N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_685

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_685

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-1427-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-1428-6

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Share this entry

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

In this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , Simon London speaks with Charles Conn, CEO of venture-capital firm Oxford Sciences Innovation, and McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin about the complexities of different problem-solving strategies.

Podcast transcript

Simon London: Hello, and welcome to this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , with me, Simon London. What’s the number-one skill you need to succeed professionally? Salesmanship, perhaps? Or a facility with statistics? Or maybe the ability to communicate crisply and clearly? Many would argue that at the very top of the list comes problem solving: that is, the ability to think through and come up with an optimal course of action to address any complex challenge—in business, in public policy, or indeed in life.

Looked at this way, it’s no surprise that McKinsey takes problem solving very seriously, testing for it during the recruiting process and then honing it, in McKinsey consultants, through immersion in a structured seven-step method. To discuss the art of problem solving, I sat down in California with McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin and also with Charles Conn. Charles is a former McKinsey partner, entrepreneur, executive, and coauthor of the book Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything [John Wiley & Sons, 2018].

Charles and Hugo, welcome to the podcast. Thank you for being here.

Hugo Sarrazin: Our pleasure.

Charles Conn: It’s terrific to be here.

Simon London: Problem solving is a really interesting piece of terminology. It could mean so many different things. I have a son who’s a teenage climber. They talk about solving problems. Climbing is problem solving. Charles, when you talk about problem solving, what are you talking about?

Charles Conn: For me, problem solving is the answer to the question “What should I do?” It’s interesting when there’s uncertainty and complexity, and when it’s meaningful because there are consequences. Your son’s climbing is a perfect example. There are consequences, and it’s complicated, and there’s uncertainty—can he make that grab? I think we can apply that same frame almost at any level. You can think about questions like “What town would I like to live in?” or “Should I put solar panels on my roof?”

You might think that’s a funny thing to apply problem solving to, but in my mind it’s not fundamentally different from business problem solving, which answers the question “What should my strategy be?” Or problem solving at the policy level: “How do we combat climate change?” “Should I support the local school bond?” I think these are all part and parcel of the same type of question, “What should I do?”

I’m a big fan of structured problem solving. By following steps, we can more clearly understand what problem it is we’re solving, what are the components of the problem that we’re solving, which components are the most important ones for us to pay attention to, which analytic techniques we should apply to those, and how we can synthesize what we’ve learned back into a compelling story. That’s all it is, at its heart.

I think sometimes when people think about seven steps, they assume that there’s a rigidity to this. That’s not it at all. It’s actually to give you the scope for creativity, which often doesn’t exist when your problem solving is muddled.

Simon London: You were just talking about the seven-step process. That’s what’s written down in the book, but it’s a very McKinsey process as well. Without getting too deep into the weeds, let’s go through the steps, one by one. You were just talking about problem definition as being a particularly important thing to get right first. That’s the first step. Hugo, tell us about that.

Hugo Sarrazin: It is surprising how often people jump past this step and make a bunch of assumptions. The most powerful thing is to step back and ask the basic questions—“What are we trying to solve? What are the constraints that exist? What are the dependencies?” Let’s make those explicit and really push the thinking and defining. At McKinsey, we spend an enormous amount of time in writing that little statement, and the statement, if you’re a logic purist, is great. You debate. “Is it an ‘or’? Is it an ‘and’? What’s the action verb?” Because all these specific words help you get to the heart of what matters.

Want to subscribe to The McKinsey Podcast ?

Simon London: So this is a concise problem statement.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah. It’s not like “Can we grow in Japan?” That’s interesting, but it is “What, specifically, are we trying to uncover in the growth of a product in Japan? Or a segment in Japan? Or a channel in Japan?” When you spend an enormous amount of time, in the first meeting of the different stakeholders, debating this and having different people put forward what they think the problem definition is, you realize that people have completely different views of why they’re here. That, to me, is the most important step.

Charles Conn: I would agree with that. For me, the problem context is critical. When we understand “What are the forces acting upon your decision maker? How quickly is the answer needed? With what precision is the answer needed? Are there areas that are off limits or areas where we would particularly like to find our solution? Is the decision maker open to exploring other areas?” then you not only become more efficient, and move toward what we call the critical path in problem solving, but you also make it so much more likely that you’re not going to waste your time or your decision maker’s time.

How often do especially bright young people run off with half of the idea about what the problem is and start collecting data and start building models—only to discover that they’ve really gone off half-cocked.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah.

Charles Conn: And in the wrong direction.

Simon London: OK. So step one—and there is a real art and a structure to it—is define the problem. Step two, Charles?

Charles Conn: My favorite step is step two, which is to use logic trees to disaggregate the problem. Every problem we’re solving has some complexity and some uncertainty in it. The only way that we can really get our team working on the problem is to take the problem apart into logical pieces.

What we find, of course, is that the way to disaggregate the problem often gives you an insight into the answer to the problem quite quickly. I love to do two or three different cuts at it, each one giving a bit of a different insight into what might be going wrong. By doing sensible disaggregations, using logic trees, we can figure out which parts of the problem we should be looking at, and we can assign those different parts to team members.

Simon London: What’s a good example of a logic tree on a sort of ratable problem?

Charles Conn: Maybe the easiest one is the classic profit tree. Almost in every business that I would take a look at, I would start with a profit or return-on-assets tree. In its simplest form, you have the components of revenue, which are price and quantity, and the components of cost, which are cost and quantity. Each of those can be broken out. Cost can be broken into variable cost and fixed cost. The components of price can be broken into what your pricing scheme is. That simple tree often provides insight into what’s going on in a business or what the difference is between that business and the competitors.

If we add the leg, which is “What’s the asset base or investment element?”—so profit divided by assets—then we can ask the question “Is the business using its investments sensibly?” whether that’s in stores or in manufacturing or in transportation assets. I hope we can see just how simple this is, even though we’re describing it in words.

When I went to work with Gordon Moore at the Moore Foundation, the problem that he asked us to look at was “How can we save Pacific salmon?” Now, that sounds like an impossible question, but it was amenable to precisely the same type of disaggregation and allowed us to organize what became a 15-year effort to improve the likelihood of good outcomes for Pacific salmon.

Simon London: Now, is there a danger that your logic tree can be impossibly large? This, I think, brings us onto the third step in the process, which is that you have to prioritize.

Charles Conn: Absolutely. The third step, which we also emphasize, along with good problem definition, is rigorous prioritization—we ask the questions “How important is this lever or this branch of the tree in the overall outcome that we seek to achieve? How much can I move that lever?” Obviously, we try and focus our efforts on ones that have a big impact on the problem and the ones that we have the ability to change. With salmon, ocean conditions turned out to be a big lever, but not one that we could adjust. We focused our attention on fish habitats and fish-harvesting practices, which were big levers that we could affect.

People spend a lot of time arguing about branches that are either not important or that none of us can change. We see it in the public square. When we deal with questions at the policy level—“Should you support the death penalty?” “How do we affect climate change?” “How can we uncover the causes and address homelessness?”—it’s even more important that we’re focusing on levers that are big and movable.

Would you like to learn more about our Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice ?

Simon London: Let’s move swiftly on to step four. You’ve defined your problem, you disaggregate it, you prioritize where you want to analyze—what you want to really look at hard. Then you got to the work plan. Now, what does that mean in practice?

Hugo Sarrazin: Depending on what you’ve prioritized, there are many things you could do. It could be breaking the work among the team members so that people have a clear piece of the work to do. It could be defining the specific analyses that need to get done and executed, and being clear on time lines. There’s always a level-one answer, there’s a level-two answer, there’s a level-three answer. Without being too flippant, I can solve any problem during a good dinner with wine. It won’t have a whole lot of backing.

Simon London: Not going to have a lot of depth to it.

Hugo Sarrazin: No, but it may be useful as a starting point. If the stakes are not that high, that could be OK. If it’s really high stakes, you may need level three and have the whole model validated in three different ways. You need to find a work plan that reflects the level of precision, the time frame you have, and the stakeholders you need to bring along in the exercise.

Charles Conn: I love the way you’ve described that, because, again, some people think of problem solving as a linear thing, but of course what’s critical is that it’s iterative. As you say, you can solve the problem in one day or even one hour.

Charles Conn: We encourage our teams everywhere to do that. We call it the one-day answer or the one-hour answer. In work planning, we’re always iterating. Every time you see a 50-page work plan that stretches out to three months, you know it’s wrong. It will be outmoded very quickly by that learning process that you described. Iterative problem solving is a critical part of this. Sometimes, people think work planning sounds dull, but it isn’t. It’s how we know what’s expected of us and when we need to deliver it and how we’re progressing toward the answer. It’s also the place where we can deal with biases. Bias is a feature of every human decision-making process. If we design our team interactions intelligently, we can avoid the worst sort of biases.

Simon London: Here we’re talking about cognitive biases primarily, right? It’s not that I’m biased against you because of your accent or something. These are the cognitive biases that behavioral sciences have shown we all carry around, things like anchoring, overoptimism—these kinds of things.

Both: Yeah.

Charles Conn: Availability bias is the one that I’m always alert to. You think you’ve seen the problem before, and therefore what’s available is your previous conception of it—and we have to be most careful about that. In any human setting, we also have to be careful about biases that are based on hierarchies, sometimes called sunflower bias. I’m sure, Hugo, with your teams, you make sure that the youngest team members speak first. Not the oldest team members, because it’s easy for people to look at who’s senior and alter their own creative approaches.

Hugo Sarrazin: It’s helpful, at that moment—if someone is asserting a point of view—to ask the question “This was true in what context?” You’re trying to apply something that worked in one context to a different one. That can be deadly if the context has changed, and that’s why organizations struggle to change. You promote all these people because they did something that worked well in the past, and then there’s a disruption in the industry, and they keep doing what got them promoted even though the context has changed.

Simon London: Right. Right.

Hugo Sarrazin: So it’s the same thing in problem solving.

Charles Conn: And it’s why diversity in our teams is so important. It’s one of the best things about the world that we’re in now. We’re likely to have people from different socioeconomic, ethnic, and national backgrounds, each of whom sees problems from a slightly different perspective. It is therefore much more likely that the team will uncover a truly creative and clever approach to problem solving.

Simon London: Let’s move on to step five. You’ve done your work plan. Now you’ve actually got to do the analysis. The thing that strikes me here is that the range of tools that we have at our disposal now, of course, is just huge, particularly with advances in computation, advanced analytics. There’s so many things that you can apply here. Just talk about the analysis stage. How do you pick the right tools?

Charles Conn: For me, the most important thing is that we start with simple heuristics and explanatory statistics before we go off and use the big-gun tools. We need to understand the shape and scope of our problem before we start applying these massive and complex analytical approaches.

Simon London: Would you agree with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: I agree. I think there are so many wonderful heuristics. You need to start there before you go deep into the modeling exercise. There’s an interesting dynamic that’s happening, though. In some cases, for some types of problems, it is even better to set yourself up to maximize your learning. Your problem-solving methodology is test and learn, test and learn, test and learn, and iterate. That is a heuristic in itself, the A/B testing that is used in many parts of the world. So that’s a problem-solving methodology. It’s nothing different. It just uses technology and feedback loops in a fast way. The other one is exploratory data analysis. When you’re dealing with a large-scale problem, and there’s so much data, I can get to the heuristics that Charles was talking about through very clever visualization of data.

You test with your data. You need to set up an environment to do so, but don’t get caught up in neural-network modeling immediately. You’re testing, you’re checking—“Is the data right? Is it sound? Does it make sense?”—before you launch too far.

Simon London: You do hear these ideas—that if you have a big enough data set and enough algorithms, they’re going to find things that you just wouldn’t have spotted, find solutions that maybe you wouldn’t have thought of. Does machine learning sort of revolutionize the problem-solving process? Or are these actually just other tools in the toolbox for structured problem solving?

Charles Conn: It can be revolutionary. There are some areas in which the pattern recognition of large data sets and good algorithms can help us see things that we otherwise couldn’t see. But I do think it’s terribly important we don’t think that this particular technique is a substitute for superb problem solving, starting with good problem definition. Many people use machine learning without understanding algorithms that themselves can have biases built into them. Just as 20 years ago, when we were doing statistical analysis, we knew that we needed good model definition, we still need a good understanding of our algorithms and really good problem definition before we launch off into big data sets and unknown algorithms.

Simon London: Step six. You’ve done your analysis.

Charles Conn: I take six and seven together, and this is the place where young problem solvers often make a mistake. They’ve got their analysis, and they assume that’s the answer, and of course it isn’t the answer. The ability to synthesize the pieces that came out of the analysis and begin to weave those into a story that helps people answer the question “What should I do?” This is back to where we started. If we can’t synthesize, and we can’t tell a story, then our decision maker can’t find the answer to “What should I do?”

Simon London: But, again, these final steps are about motivating people to action, right?

Charles Conn: Yeah.

Simon London: I am slightly torn about the nomenclature of problem solving because it’s on paper, right? Until you motivate people to action, you actually haven’t solved anything.

Charles Conn: I love this question because I think decision-making theory, without a bias to action, is a waste of time. Everything in how I approach this is to help people take action that makes the world better.

Simon London: Hence, these are absolutely critical steps. If you don’t do this well, you’ve just got a bunch of analysis.

Charles Conn: We end up in exactly the same place where we started, which is people speaking across each other, past each other in the public square, rather than actually working together, shoulder to shoulder, to crack these important problems.

Simon London: In the real world, we have a lot of uncertainty—arguably, increasing uncertainty. How do good problem solvers deal with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: At every step of the process. In the problem definition, when you’re defining the context, you need to understand those sources of uncertainty and whether they’re important or not important. It becomes important in the definition of the tree.

You need to think carefully about the branches of the tree that are more certain and less certain as you define them. They don’t have equal weight just because they’ve got equal space on the page. Then, when you’re prioritizing, your prioritization approach may put more emphasis on things that have low probability but huge impact—or, vice versa, may put a lot of priority on things that are very likely and, hopefully, have a reasonable impact. You can introduce that along the way. When you come back to the synthesis, you just need to be nuanced about what you’re understanding, the likelihood.

Often, people lack humility in the way they make their recommendations: “This is the answer.” They’re very precise, and I think we would all be well-served to say, “This is a likely answer under the following sets of conditions” and then make the level of uncertainty clearer, if that is appropriate. It doesn’t mean you’re always in the gray zone; it doesn’t mean you don’t have a point of view. It just means that you can be explicit about the certainty of your answer when you make that recommendation.

Simon London: So it sounds like there is an underlying principle: “Acknowledge and embrace the uncertainty. Don’t pretend that it isn’t there. Be very clear about what the uncertainties are up front, and then build that into every step of the process.”

Hugo Sarrazin: Every step of the process.

Simon London: Yeah. We have just walked through a particular structured methodology for problem solving. But, of course, this is not the only structured methodology for problem solving. One that is also very well-known is design thinking, which comes at things very differently. So, Hugo, I know you have worked with a lot of designers. Just give us a very quick summary. Design thinking—what is it, and how does it relate?

Hugo Sarrazin: It starts with an incredible amount of empathy for the user and uses that to define the problem. It does pause and go out in the wild and spend an enormous amount of time seeing how people interact with objects, seeing the experience they’re getting, seeing the pain points or joy—and uses that to infer and define the problem.

Simon London: Problem definition, but out in the world.

Hugo Sarrazin: With an enormous amount of empathy. There’s a huge emphasis on empathy. Traditional, more classic problem solving is you define the problem based on an understanding of the situation. This one almost presupposes that we don’t know the problem until we go see it. The second thing is you need to come up with multiple scenarios or answers or ideas or concepts, and there’s a lot of divergent thinking initially. That’s slightly different, versus the prioritization, but not for long. Eventually, you need to kind of say, “OK, I’m going to converge again.” Then you go and you bring things back to the customer and get feedback and iterate. Then you rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. There’s a lot of tactile building, along the way, of prototypes and things like that. It’s very iterative.

Simon London: So, Charles, are these complements or are these alternatives?

Charles Conn: I think they’re entirely complementary, and I think Hugo’s description is perfect. When we do problem definition well in classic problem solving, we are demonstrating the kind of empathy, at the very beginning of our problem, that design thinking asks us to approach. When we ideate—and that’s very similar to the disaggregation, prioritization, and work-planning steps—we do precisely the same thing, and often we use contrasting teams, so that we do have divergent thinking. The best teams allow divergent thinking to bump them off whatever their initial biases in problem solving are. For me, design thinking gives us a constant reminder of creativity, empathy, and the tactile nature of problem solving, but it’s absolutely complementary, not alternative.

Simon London: I think, in a world of cross-functional teams, an interesting question is do people with design-thinking backgrounds really work well together with classical problem solvers? How do you make that chemistry happen?

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah, it is not easy when people have spent an enormous amount of time seeped in design thinking or user-centric design, whichever word you want to use. If the person who’s applying classic problem-solving methodology is very rigid and mechanical in the way they’re doing it, there could be an enormous amount of tension. If there’s not clarity in the role and not clarity in the process, I think having the two together can be, sometimes, problematic.

The second thing that happens often is that the artifacts the two methodologies try to gravitate toward can be different. Classic problem solving often gravitates toward a model; design thinking migrates toward a prototype. Rather than writing a big deck with all my supporting evidence, they’ll bring an example, a thing, and that feels different. Then you spend your time differently to achieve those two end products, so that’s another source of friction.

Now, I still think it can be an incredibly powerful thing to have the two—if there are the right people with the right mind-set, if there is a team that is explicit about the roles, if we’re clear about the kind of outcomes we are attempting to bring forward. There’s an enormous amount of collaborativeness and respect.

Simon London: But they have to respect each other’s methodology and be prepared to flex, maybe, a little bit, in how this process is going to work.

Hugo Sarrazin: Absolutely.

Simon London: The other area where, it strikes me, there could be a little bit of a different sort of friction is this whole concept of the day-one answer, which is what we were just talking about in classical problem solving. Now, you know that this is probably not going to be your final answer, but that’s how you begin to structure the problem. Whereas I would imagine your design thinkers—no, they’re going off to do their ethnographic research and get out into the field, potentially for a long time, before they come back with at least an initial hypothesis.

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

Hugo Sarrazin: That is a great callout, and that’s another difference. Designers typically will like to soak into the situation and avoid converging too quickly. There’s optionality and exploring different options. There’s a strong belief that keeps the solution space wide enough that you can come up with more radical ideas. If there’s a large design team or many designers on the team, and you come on Friday and say, “What’s our week-one answer?” they’re going to struggle. They’re not going to be comfortable, naturally, to give that answer. It doesn’t mean they don’t have an answer; it’s just not where they are in their thinking process.

Simon London: I think we are, sadly, out of time for today. But Charles and Hugo, thank you so much.

Charles Conn: It was a pleasure to be here, Simon.

Hugo Sarrazin: It was a pleasure. Thank you.

Simon London: And thanks, as always, to you, our listeners, for tuning into this episode of the McKinsey Podcast . If you want to learn more about problem solving, you can find the book, Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything , online or order it through your local bookstore. To learn more about McKinsey, you can of course find us at McKinsey.com.

Charles Conn is CEO of Oxford Sciences Innovation and an alumnus of McKinsey’s Sydney office. Hugo Sarrazin is a senior partner in the Silicon Valley office, where Simon London, a member of McKinsey Publishing, is also based.

Explore a career with us

Strategy to beat the odds

Five routes to more innovative problem solving

Book a Demo

></center></p><h2>17 Smart Problem-Solving Strategies: Master Complex Problems</h2><ul><li>March 3, 2024</li><li>Productivity</li><li>25 min read</li></ul><p><center><img style=

Struggling to overcome challenges in your life? We all face problems, big and small, on a regular basis.

So how do you tackle them effectively? What are some key problem-solving strategies and skills that can guide you?

Effective problem-solving requires breaking issues down logically, generating solutions creatively, weighing choices critically, and adapting plans flexibly based on outcomes. Useful strategies range from leveraging past solutions that have worked to visualizing problems through diagrams. Core skills include analytical abilities, innovative thinking, and collaboration.

Want to improve your problem-solving skills? Keep reading to find out 17 effective problem-solving strategies, key skills, common obstacles to watch for, and tips on improving your overall problem-solving skills.

Key Takeaways:

Effective problem-solving requires breaking down issues logically, generating multiple solutions creatively, weighing choices critically, and adapting plans based on outcomes.
Useful problem-solving strategies range from leveraging past solutions to brainstorming with groups to visualizing problems through diagrams and models.
Core skills include analytical abilities, innovative thinking, decision-making, and team collaboration to solve problems.
Common obstacles include fear of failure, information gaps, fixed mindsets, confirmation bias, and groupthink.
Boosting problem-solving skills involves learning from experts, actively practicing, soliciting feedback, and analyzing others’ success.
Onethread’s project management capabilities align with effective problem-solving tenets – facilitating structured solutions, tracking progress, and capturing lessons learned.

What Is Problem-Solving?

Problem-solving is the process of understanding an issue, situation, or challenge that needs to be addressed and then systematically working through possible solutions to arrive at the best outcome.

It involves critical thinking, analysis, logic, creativity, research, planning, reflection, and patience in order to overcome obstacles and find effective answers to complex questions or problems.

The ultimate goal is to implement the chosen solution successfully.

What Are Problem-Solving Strategies?

Problem-solving strategies are like frameworks or methodologies that help us solve tricky puzzles or problems we face in the workplace, at home, or with friends.

Imagine you have a big jigsaw puzzle. One strategy might be to start with the corner pieces. Another could be looking for pieces with the same colors.

Just like in puzzles, in real life, we use different plans or steps to find solutions to problems. These strategies help us think clearly, make good choices, and find the best answers without getting too stressed or giving up.

Why Is It Important To Know Different Problem-Solving Strategies?

Knowing different problem-solving strategies is important because different types of problems often require different approaches to solve them effectively. Having a variety of strategies to choose from allows you to select the best method for the specific problem you are trying to solve.

This improves your ability to analyze issues thoroughly, develop solutions creatively, and tackle problems from multiple angles. Knowing multiple strategies also aids in overcoming roadblocks if your initial approach is not working.

Here are some reasons why you need to know different problem-solving strategies:

Different Problems Require Different Tools: Just like you can’t use a hammer to fix everything, some problems need specific strategies to solve them.
Improves Creativity: Knowing various strategies helps you think outside the box and come up with creative solutions.
Saves Time: With the right strategy, you can solve problems faster instead of trying things that don’t work.
Reduces Stress: When you know how to tackle a problem, it feels less scary and you feel more confident.
Better Outcomes: Using the right strategy can lead to better solutions, making things work out better in the end.
Learning and Growth: Each time you solve a problem, you learn something new, which makes you smarter and better at solving future problems.

Knowing different ways to solve problems helps you tackle anything that comes your way, making life a bit easier and more fun!

17 Effective Problem-Solving Strategies

Effective problem-solving strategies include breaking the problem into smaller parts, brainstorming multiple solutions, evaluating the pros and cons of each, and choosing the most viable option.

Critical thinking and creativity are essential in developing innovative solutions. Collaboration with others can also provide diverse perspectives and ideas.

By applying these strategies, you can tackle complex issues more effectively.

Now, consider a challenge you’re dealing with. Which strategy could help you find a solution? Here we will discuss key problem strategies in detail.

1. Use a Past Solution That Worked

This strategy involves looking back at previous similar problems you have faced and the solutions that were effective in solving them.

It is useful when you are facing a problem that is very similar to something you have already solved. The main benefit is that you don’t have to come up with a brand new solution – you already know the method that worked before will likely work again.

However, the limitation is that the current problem may have some unique aspects or differences that mean your old solution is not fully applicable.

The ideal process is to thoroughly analyze the new challenge, identify the key similarities and differences versus the past case, adapt the old solution as needed to align with the current context, and then pilot it carefully before full implementation.

An example is using the same negotiation tactics from purchasing your previous home when putting in an offer on a new house. Key terms would be adjusted but overall it can save significant time versus developing a brand new strategy.

2. Brainstorm Solutions

This involves gathering a group of people together to generate as many potential solutions to a problem as possible.

It is effective when you need creative ideas to solve a complex or challenging issue. By getting input from multiple people with diverse perspectives, you increase the likelihood of finding an innovative solution.

The main limitation is that brainstorming sessions can sometimes turn into unproductive gripe sessions or discussions rather than focusing on productive ideation —so they need to be properly facilitated.

The key to an effective brainstorming session is setting some basic ground rules upfront and having an experienced facilitator guide the discussion. Rules often include encouraging wild ideas, avoiding criticism of ideas during the ideation phase, and building on others’ ideas.

For instance, a struggling startup might hold a session where ideas for turnaround plans are generated and then formalized with financials and metrics.

3. Work Backward from the Solution

This technique involves envisioning that the problem has already been solved and then working step-by-step backward toward the current state.

This strategy is particularly helpful for long-term, multi-step problems. By starting from the imagined solution and identifying all the steps required to reach it, you can systematically determine the actions needed. It lets you tackle a big hairy problem through smaller, reversible steps.

A limitation is that this approach may not be possible if you cannot accurately envision the solution state to start with.

The approach helps drive logical systematic thinking for complex problem-solving, but should still be combined with creative brainstorming of alternative scenarios and solutions.

An example is planning for an event – you would imagine the successful event occurring, then determine the tasks needed the week before, two weeks before, etc. all the way back to the present.

4. Use the Kipling Method

This method, named after author Rudyard Kipling, provides a framework for thoroughly analyzing a problem before jumping into solutions.

It consists of answering six fundamental questions: What, Where, When, How, Who, and Why about the challenge. Clearly defining these core elements of the problem sets the stage for generating targeted solutions.

The Kipling method enables a deep understanding of problem parameters and root causes before solution identification. By jumping to brainstorm solutions too early, critical information can be missed or the problem is loosely defined, reducing solution quality.

Answering the six fundamental questions illuminates all angles of the issue. This takes time but pays dividends in generating optimal solutions later tuned precisely to the true underlying problem.

The limitation is that meticulously working through numerous questions before addressing solutions can slow progress.

The best approach blends structured problem decomposition techniques like the Kipling method with spurring innovative solution ideation from a diverse team.

An example is using this technique after a technical process failure – the team would systematically detail What failed, Where/When did it fail, How it failed (sequence of events), Who was involved, and Why it likely failed before exploring preventative solutions.

5. Try Different Solutions Until One Works (Trial and Error)

This technique involves attempting various potential solutions sequentially until finding one that successfully solves the problem.

Trial and error works best when facing a concrete, bounded challenge with clear solution criteria and a small number of discrete options to try. By methodically testing solutions, you can determine the faulty component.

A limitation is that it can be time-intensive if the working solution set is large.

The key is limiting the variable set first. For technical problems, this boundary is inherent and each element can be iteratively tested. But for business issues, artificial constraints may be required – setting decision rules upfront to reduce options before testing.

Furthermore, hypothesis-driven experimentation is far superior to blind trial and error – have logic for why Option A may outperform Option B.

Examples include fixing printer jams by testing different paper tray and cable configurations or resolving website errors by tweaking CSS/HTML line-by-line until the code functions properly.

6. Use Proven Formulas or Frameworks (Heuristics)

Heuristics refers to applying existing problem-solving formulas or frameworks rather than addressing issues completely from scratch.

This allows leveraging established best practices rather than reinventing the wheel each time.

It is effective when facing recurrent, common challenges where proven structured approaches exist.

However, heuristics may force-fit solutions to non-standard problems.

For example, a cost-benefit analysis can be used instead of custom weighting schemes to analyze potential process improvements.

Onethread allows teams to define, save, and replicate configurable project templates so proven workflows can be reliably applied across problems with some consistency rather than fully custom one-off approaches each time.

Try One thread

Experience One thread full potential, with all its features unlocked. Sign up now to start your 14-day free trial!

7. Trust Your Instincts (Insight Problem-Solving)

Insight is a problem-solving technique that involves waiting patiently for an unexpected “aha moment” when the solution pops into your mind.

It works well for personal challenges that require intuitive realizations over calculated logic. The unconscious mind makes connections leading to flashes of insight when relaxing or doing mundane tasks unrelated to the actual problem.

Benefits include out-of-the-box creative solutions. However, the limitations are that insights can’t be forced and may never come at all if too complex. Critical analysis is still required after initial insights.

A real-life example would be a writer struggling with how to end a novel. Despite extensive brainstorming, they feel stuck. Eventually while gardening one day, a perfect unexpected plot twist sparks an ideal conclusion. However, once written they still carefully review if the ending flows logically from the rest of the story.

8. Reverse Engineer the Problem

This approach involves deconstructing a problem in reverse sequential order from the current undesirable outcome back to the initial root causes.

By mapping the chain of events backward, you can identify the origin of where things went wrong and establish the critical junctures for solving it moving ahead. Reverse engineering provides diagnostic clarity on multi-step problems.

However, the limitation is that it focuses heavily on autopsying the past versus innovating improved future solutions.

An example is tracing back from a server outage, through the cascade of infrastructure failures that led to it finally terminating at the initial script error that triggered the crisis. This root cause would then inform the preventative measure.

9. Break Down Obstacles Between Current and Goal State (Means-End Analysis)

This technique defines the current problem state and the desired end goal state, then systematically identifies obstacles in the way of getting from one to the other.

By mapping the barriers or gaps, you can then develop solutions to address each one. This methodically connects the problem to solutions.

A limitation is that some obstacles may be unknown upfront and only emerge later.

For example, you can list down all the steps required for a new product launch – current state through production, marketing, sales, distribution, etc. to full launch (goal state) – to highlight where resource constraints or other blocks exist so they can be addressed.

Onethread allows dividing big-picture projects into discrete, manageable phases, milestones, and tasks to simplify execution just as problems can be decomposed into more achievable components. Features like dependency mapping further reinforce interconnections.

Using Onethread’s issues and subtasks feature, messy problems can be decomposed into manageable chunks.

10. Ask “Why” Five Times to Identify the Root Cause (The 5 Whys)

This technique involves asking “Why did this problem occur?” and then responding with an answer that is again met with asking “Why?” This process repeats five times until the root cause is revealed.

Continually asking why digs deeper from surface symptoms to underlying systemic issues.

It is effective for getting to the source of problems originating from human error or process breakdowns.

However, some complex issues may have multiple tangled root causes not solvable through this approach alone.

An example is a retail store experiencing a sudden decline in customers. Successively asking why five times may trace an initial drop to parking challenges, stemming from a city construction project – the true starting point to address.

11. Evaluate Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT Analysis)

This involves analyzing a problem or proposed solution by categorizing internal and external factors into a 2×2 matrix: Strengths, Weaknesses as the internal rows; Opportunities and Threats as the external columns.

Systematically identifying these elements provides balanced insight to evaluate options and risks. It is impactful when evaluating alternative solutions or developing strategy amid complexity or uncertainty.

The key benefit of SWOT analysis is enabling multi-dimensional thinking when rationally evaluating options. Rather than getting anchored on just the upsides or the existing way of operating, it urges a systematic assessment through four different lenses:

Internal Strengths: Our core competencies/advantages able to deliver success
Internal Weaknesses: Gaps/vulnerabilities we need to manage
External Opportunities: Ways we can differentiate/drive additional value
External Threats: Risks we must navigate or mitigate

Multiperspective analysis provides the needed holistic view of the balanced risk vs. reward equation for strategic decision making amid uncertainty.

However, SWOT can feel restrictive if not tailored and evolved for different issue types.

Teams should view SWOT analysis as a starting point, augmenting it further for distinct scenarios.

An example is performing a SWOT analysis on whether a small business should expand into a new market – evaluating internal capabilities to execute vs. risks in the external competitive and demand environment to inform the growth decision with eyes wide open.

12. Compare Current vs Expected Performance (Gap Analysis)

This technique involves comparing the current state of performance, output, or results to the desired or expected levels to highlight shortfalls.

By quantifying the gaps, you can identify problem areas and prioritize address solutions.

Gap analysis is based on the simple principle – “you can’t improve what you don’t measure.” It enables facts-driven problem diagnosis by highlighting delta to goals, not just vague dissatisfaction that something seems wrong. And measurement immediately suggests improvement opportunities – address the biggest gaps first.

This data orientation also supports ROI analysis on fixing issues – the return from closing larger gaps outweighs narrowly targeting smaller performance deficiencies.

However, the approach is only effective if robust standards and metrics exist as the benchmark to evaluate against. Organizations should invest upfront in establishing performance frameworks.

Furthermore, while numbers are invaluable, the human context behind problems should not be ignored – quantitative versus qualitative gap assessment is optimally blended.

For example, if usage declines are noted during software gap analysis, this could be used as a signal to improve user experience through design.

13. Observe Processes from the Frontline (Gemba Walk)

A Gemba walk involves going to the actual place where work is done, directly observing the process, engaging with employees, and finding areas for improvement.

By experiencing firsthand rather than solely reviewing abstract reports, practical problems and ideas emerge.

The limitation is Gemba walks provide anecdotes not statistically significant data. It complements but does not replace comprehensive performance measurement.

An example is a factory manager inspecting the production line to spot jam areas based on direct reality rather than relying on throughput dashboards alone back in her office. Frontline insights prove invaluable.

14. Analyze Competitive Forces (Porter’s Five Forces)

This involves assessing the marketplace around a problem or business situation via five key factors: competitors, new entrants, substitute offerings, suppliers, and customer power.

Evaluating these forces illuminates risks and opportunities for strategy development and issue resolution. It is effective for understanding dynamic external threats and opportunities when operating in a contested space.

However, over-indexing on only external factors can overlook the internal capabilities needed to execute solutions.

A startup CEO, for example, may analyze market entry barriers, whitespace opportunities, and disruption risks across these five forces to shape new product rollout strategies and marketing approaches.

15. Think from Different Perspectives (Six Thinking Hats)

The Six Thinking Hats is a technique developed by Edward de Bono that encourages people to think about a problem from six different perspectives, each represented by a colored “thinking hat.”

The key benefit of this strategy is that it pushes team members to move outside their usual thinking style and consider new angles. This brings more diverse ideas and solutions to the table.

It works best for complex problems that require innovative solutions and when a team is stuck in an unproductive debate. The structured framework keeps the conversation flowing in a positive direction.

Limitations are that it requires training on the method itself and may feel unnatural at first. Team dynamics can also influence success – some members may dominate certain “hats” while others remain quiet.

A real-life example is a software company debating whether to build a new feature. The white hat focuses on facts, red on gut feelings, black on potential risks, yellow on benefits, green on new ideas, and blue on process. This exposes more balanced perspectives before deciding.

Onethread centralizes diverse stakeholder communication onto one platform, ensuring all voices are incorporated when evaluating project tradeoffs, just as problem-solving should consider multifaceted solutions.

16. Visualize the Problem (Draw it Out)

Drawing out a problem involves creating visual representations like diagrams, flowcharts, and maps to work through challenging issues.

This strategy is helpful when dealing with complex situations with lots of interconnected components. The visuals simplify the complexity so you can thoroughly understand the problem and all its nuances.

Key benefits are that it allows more stakeholders to get on the same page regarding root causes and it sparks new creative solutions as connections are made visually.

However, simple problems with few variables don’t require extensive diagrams. Additionally, some challenges are so multidimensional that fully capturing every aspect is difficult.

A real-life example would be mapping out all the possible causes leading to decreased client satisfaction at a law firm. An intricate fishbone diagram with branches for issues like service delivery, technology, facilities, culture, and vendor partnerships allows the team to trace problems back to their origins and brainstorm targeted fixes.

17. Follow a Step-by-Step Procedure (Algorithms)

An algorithm is a predefined step-by-step process that is guaranteed to produce the correct solution if implemented properly.

Using algorithms is effective when facing problems that have clear, binary right and wrong answers. Algorithms work for mathematical calculations, computer code, manufacturing assembly lines, and scientific experiments.

Key benefits are consistency, accuracy, and efficiency. However, they require extensive upfront development and only apply to scenarios with strict parameters. Additionally, human error can lead to mistakes.

For example, crew members of fast food chains like McDonald’s follow specific algorithms for food prep – from grill times to ingredient amounts in sandwiches, to order fulfillment procedures. This ensures uniform quality and service across all locations. However, if a step is missed, errors occur.

The Problem-Solving Process

The problem-solving process typically includes defining the issue, analyzing details, creating solutions, weighing choices, acting, and reviewing results.

In the above, we have discussed several problem-solving strategies. For every problem-solving strategy, you have to follow these processes. Here’s a detailed step-by-step process of effective problem-solving:

Step 1: Identify the Problem

The problem-solving process starts with identifying the problem. This step involves understanding the issue’s nature, its scope, and its impact. Once the problem is clearly defined, it sets the foundation for finding effective solutions.

Identifying the problem is crucial. It means figuring out exactly what needs fixing. This involves looking at the situation closely, understanding what’s wrong, and knowing how it affects things. It’s about asking the right questions to get a clear picture of the issue.

This step is important because it guides the rest of the problem-solving process. Without a clear understanding of the problem, finding a solution is much harder. It’s like diagnosing an illness before treating it. Once the problem is identified accurately, you can move on to exploring possible solutions and deciding on the best course of action.

Step 2: Break Down the Problem

Breaking down the problem is a key step in the problem-solving process. It involves dividing the main issue into smaller, more manageable parts. This makes it easier to understand and tackle each component one by one.

After identifying the problem, the next step is to break it down. This means splitting the big issue into smaller pieces. It’s like solving a puzzle by handling one piece at a time.

By doing this, you can focus on each part without feeling overwhelmed. It also helps in identifying the root causes of the problem. Breaking down the problem allows for a clearer analysis and makes finding solutions more straightforward.

Each smaller problem can be addressed individually, leading to an effective resolution of the overall issue. This approach not only simplifies complex problems but also aids in developing a systematic plan to solve them.

Step 3: Come up with potential solutions

Coming up with potential solutions is the third step in the problem-solving process. It involves brainstorming various options to address the problem, considering creativity and feasibility to find the best approach.

After breaking down the problem, it’s time to think of ways to solve it. This stage is about brainstorming different solutions. You look at the smaller issues you’ve identified and start thinking of ways to fix them. This is where creativity comes in.

You want to come up with as many ideas as possible, no matter how out-of-the-box they seem. It’s important to consider all options and evaluate their pros and cons. This process allows you to gather a range of possible solutions.

Later, you can narrow these down to the most practical and effective ones. This step is crucial because it sets the stage for deciding on the best solution to implement. It’s about being open-minded and innovative to tackle the problem effectively.

Step 4: Analyze the possible solutions

Analyzing the possible solutions is the fourth step in the problem-solving process. It involves evaluating each proposed solution’s advantages and disadvantages to determine the most effective and feasible option.

After coming up with potential solutions, the next step is to analyze them. This means looking closely at each idea to see how well it solves the problem. You weigh the pros and cons of every solution.

Consider factors like cost, time, resources, and potential outcomes. This analysis helps in understanding the implications of each option. It’s about being critical and objective, ensuring that the chosen solution is not only effective but also practical.

This step is vital because it guides you towards making an informed decision. It involves comparing the solutions against each other and selecting the one that best addresses the problem.

By thoroughly analyzing the options, you can move forward with confidence, knowing you’ve chosen the best path to solve the issue.

Step 5: Implement and Monitor the Solutions

Implementing and monitoring the solutions is the final step in the problem-solving process. It involves putting the chosen solution into action and observing its effectiveness, making adjustments as necessary.

Once you’ve selected the best solution, it’s time to put it into practice. This step is about action. You implement the chosen solution and then keep an eye on how it works. Monitoring is crucial because it tells you if the solution is solving the problem as expected.

If things don’t go as planned, you may need to make some changes. This could mean tweaking the current solution or trying a different one. The goal is to ensure the problem is fully resolved.

This step is critical because it involves real-world application. It’s not just about planning; it’s about doing and adjusting based on results. By effectively implementing and monitoring the solutions, you can achieve the desired outcome and solve the problem successfully.

Why This Process is Important

Following a defined process to solve problems is important because it provides a systematic, structured approach instead of a haphazard one. Having clear steps guides logical thinking, analysis, and decision-making to increase effectiveness. Key reasons it helps are:

Clear Direction: This process gives you a clear path to follow, which can make solving problems less overwhelming.
Better Solutions: Thoughtful analysis of root causes, iterative testing of solutions, and learning orientation lead to addressing the heart of issues rather than just symptoms.
Saves Time and Energy: Instead of guessing or trying random things, this process helps you find a solution more efficiently.
Improves Skills: The more you use this process, the better you get at solving problems. It’s like practicing a sport. The more you practice, the better you play.
Maximizes collaboration: Involving various stakeholders in the process enables broader inputs. Their communication and coordination are streamlined through organized brainstorming and evaluation.
Provides consistency: Standard methodology across problems enables building institutional problem-solving capabilities over time. Patterns emerge on effective techniques to apply to different situations.

The problem-solving process is a powerful tool that can help us tackle any challenge we face. By following these steps, we can find solutions that work and learn important skills along the way.

Key Skills for Efficient Problem Solving

Efficient problem-solving requires breaking down issues logically, evaluating options, and implementing practical solutions.

Key skills include critical thinking to understand root causes, creativity to brainstorm innovative ideas, communication abilities to collaborate with others, and decision-making to select the best way forward. Staying adaptable, reflecting on outcomes, and applying lessons learned are also essential.

With practice, these capacities will lead to increased personal and team effectiveness in systematically addressing any problem.

Let’s explore the powers you need to become a problem-solving hero!

Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills

Critical thinking and analytical skills are vital for efficient problem-solving as they enable individuals to objectively evaluate information, identify key issues, and generate effective solutions.

These skills facilitate a deeper understanding of problems, leading to logical, well-reasoned decisions. By systematically breaking down complex issues and considering various perspectives, individuals can develop more innovative and practical solutions, enhancing their problem-solving effectiveness.

Communication Skills

Effective communication skills are essential for efficient problem-solving as they facilitate clear sharing of information, ensuring all team members understand the problem and proposed solutions.

These skills enable individuals to articulate issues, listen actively, and collaborate effectively, fostering a productive environment where diverse ideas can be exchanged and refined. By enhancing mutual understanding, communication skills contribute significantly to identifying and implementing the most viable solutions.

Decision-Making

Strong decision-making skills are crucial for efficient problem-solving, as they enable individuals to choose the best course of action from multiple alternatives.

These skills involve evaluating the potential outcomes of different solutions, considering the risks and benefits, and making informed choices. Effective decision-making leads to the implementation of solutions that are likely to resolve problems effectively, ensuring resources are used efficiently and goals are achieved.

Planning and Prioritization

Planning and prioritization are key for efficient problem-solving, ensuring resources are allocated effectively to address the most critical issues first. This approach helps in organizing tasks according to their urgency and impact, streamlining efforts towards achieving the desired outcome efficiently.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence enhances problem-solving by allowing individuals to manage emotions, understand others, and navigate social complexities. It fosters a positive, collaborative environment, essential for generating creative solutions and making informed, empathetic decisions.

Leadership skills drive efficient problem-solving by inspiring and guiding teams toward common goals. Effective leaders motivate their teams, foster innovation, and navigate challenges, ensuring collective efforts are focused and productive in addressing problems.

Time Management

Time management is crucial in problem-solving, enabling individuals to allocate appropriate time to each task. By efficiently managing time, one can ensure that critical problems are addressed promptly without neglecting other responsibilities.

Data Analysis

Data analysis skills are essential for problem-solving, as they enable individuals to sift through data, identify trends, and extract actionable insights. This analytical approach supports evidence-based decision-making, leading to more accurate and effective solutions.

Research Skills

Research skills are vital for efficient problem-solving, allowing individuals to gather relevant information, explore various solutions, and understand the problem’s context. This thorough exploration aids in developing well-informed, innovative solutions.

Becoming a great problem solver takes practice, but with these skills, you’re on your way to becoming a problem-solving hero.

How to Improve Your Problem-Solving Skills?

Improving your problem-solving skills can make you a master at overcoming challenges. Learn from experts, practice regularly, welcome feedback, try new methods, experiment, and study others’ success to become better.

Learning from Experts

Improving problem-solving skills by learning from experts involves seeking mentorship, attending workshops, and studying case studies. Experts provide insights and techniques that refine your approach, enhancing your ability to tackle complex problems effectively.

To enhance your problem-solving skills, learning from experts can be incredibly beneficial. Engaging with mentors, participating in specialized workshops, and analyzing case studies from seasoned professionals can offer valuable perspectives and strategies.

Experts share their experiences, mistakes, and successes, providing practical knowledge that can be applied to your own problem-solving process. This exposure not only broadens your understanding but also introduces you to diverse methods and approaches, enabling you to tackle challenges more efficiently and creatively.

Improving problem-solving skills through practice involves tackling a variety of challenges regularly. This hands-on approach helps in refining techniques and strategies, making you more adept at identifying and solving problems efficiently.

One of the most effective ways to enhance your problem-solving skills is through consistent practice. By engaging with different types of problems on a regular basis, you develop a deeper understanding of various strategies and how they can be applied.

This hands-on experience allows you to experiment with different approaches, learn from mistakes, and build confidence in your ability to tackle challenges.

Regular practice not only sharpens your analytical and critical thinking skills but also encourages adaptability and innovation, key components of effective problem-solving.

Openness to Feedback

Being open to feedback is like unlocking a secret level in a game. It helps you boost your problem-solving skills. Improving problem-solving skills through openness to feedback involves actively seeking and constructively responding to critiques.

This receptivity enables you to refine your strategies and approaches based on insights from others, leading to more effective solutions.

Learning New Approaches and Methodologies

Learning new approaches and methodologies is like adding new tools to your toolbox. It makes you a smarter problem-solver. Enhancing problem-solving skills by learning new approaches and methodologies involves staying updated with the latest trends and techniques in your field.

This continuous learning expands your toolkit, enabling innovative solutions and a fresh perspective on challenges.

Experimentation

Experimentation is like being a scientist of your own problems. It’s a powerful way to improve your problem-solving skills. Boosting problem-solving skills through experimentation means trying out different solutions to see what works best. This trial-and-error approach fosters creativity and can lead to unique solutions that wouldn’t have been considered otherwise.

Analyzing Competitors’ Success

Analyzing competitors’ success is like being a detective. It’s a smart way to boost your problem-solving skills. Improving problem-solving skills by analyzing competitors’ success involves studying their strategies and outcomes. Understanding what worked for them can provide valuable insights and inspire effective solutions for your own challenges.

Challenges in Problem-Solving

Facing obstacles when solving problems is common. Recognizing these barriers, like fear of failure or lack of information, helps us find ways around them for better solutions.

Fear of Failure

Fear of failure is like a big, scary monster that stops us from solving problems. It’s a challenge many face. Because being afraid of making mistakes can make us too scared to try new solutions.

How can we overcome this? First, understand that it’s okay to fail. Failure is not the opposite of success; it’s part of learning. Every time we fail, we discover one more way not to solve a problem, getting us closer to the right solution. Treat each attempt like an experiment. It’s not about failing; it’s about testing and learning.

Lack of Information

Lack of information is like trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces. It’s a big challenge in problem-solving. Because without all the necessary details, finding a solution is much harder.

How can we fix this? Start by gathering as much information as you can. Ask questions, do research, or talk to experts. Think of yourself as a detective looking for clues. The more information you collect, the clearer the picture becomes. Then, use what you’ve learned to think of solutions.

Fixed Mindset

A fixed mindset is like being stuck in quicksand; it makes solving problems harder. It means thinking you can’t improve or learn new ways to solve issues.

How can we change this? First, believe that you can grow and learn from challenges. Think of your brain as a muscle that gets stronger every time you use it. When you face a problem, instead of saying “I can’t do this,” try thinking, “I can’t do this yet.” Look for lessons in every challenge and celebrate small wins.

Everyone starts somewhere, and mistakes are just steps on the path to getting better. By shifting to a growth mindset, you’ll see problems as opportunities to grow. Keep trying, keep learning, and your problem-solving skills will soar!

Jumping to Conclusions

Jumping to conclusions is like trying to finish a race before it starts. It’s a challenge in problem-solving. That means making a decision too quickly without looking at all the facts.

How can we avoid this? First, take a deep breath and slow down. Think about the problem like a puzzle. You need to see all the pieces before you know where they go. Ask questions, gather information, and consider different possibilities. Don’t choose the first solution that comes to mind. Instead, compare a few options.

Feeling Overwhelmed

Feeling overwhelmed is like being buried under a mountain of puzzles. It’s a big challenge in problem-solving. When we’re overwhelmed, everything seems too hard to handle.

How can we deal with this? Start by taking a step back. Breathe deeply and focus on one thing at a time. Break the big problem into smaller pieces, like sorting puzzle pieces by color. Tackle each small piece one by one. It’s also okay to ask for help. Sometimes, talking to someone else can give you a new perspective.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is like wearing glasses that only let you see what you want to see. It’s a challenge in problem-solving. Because it makes us focus only on information that agrees with what we already believe, ignoring anything that doesn’t.

How can we overcome this? First, be aware that you might be doing it. It’s like checking if your glasses are on right. Then, purposely look for information that challenges your views. It’s like trying on a different pair of glasses to see a new perspective. Ask questions and listen to answers, even if they don’t fit what you thought before.

Groupthink is like everyone in a group deciding to wear the same outfit without asking why. It’s a challenge in problem-solving. It means making decisions just because everyone else agrees, without really thinking it through.

How can we avoid this? First, encourage everyone in the group to share their ideas, even if they’re different. It’s like inviting everyone to show their unique style of clothes.

Listen to all opinions and discuss them. It’s okay to disagree; it helps us think of better solutions. Also, sometimes, ask someone outside the group for their thoughts. They might see something everyone in the group missed.

Overcoming obstacles in problem-solving requires patience, openness, and a willingness to learn from mistakes. By recognizing these barriers, we can develop strategies to navigate around them, leading to more effective and creative solutions.

What are the most common problem-solving techniques?

The most common techniques include brainstorming, the 5 Whys, mind mapping, SWOT analysis, and using algorithms or heuristics. Each approach has its strengths, suitable for different types of problems.

What’s the best problem-solving strategy for every situation?

There’s no one-size-fits-all strategy. The best approach depends on the problem’s complexity, available resources, and time constraints. Combining multiple techniques often yields the best results.

How can I improve my problem-solving skills?

Improve your problem-solving skills by practicing regularly, learning from experts, staying open to feedback, and continuously updating your knowledge on new approaches and methodologies.

Are there any tools or resources to help with problem-solving?

Yes, tools like mind mapping software, online courses on critical thinking, and books on problem-solving techniques can be very helpful. Joining forums or groups focused on problem-solving can also provide support and insights.

What are some common mistakes people make when solving problems?

Common mistakes include jumping to conclusions without fully understanding the problem, ignoring valuable feedback, sticking to familiar solutions without considering alternatives, and not breaking down complex problems into manageable parts.

Final Words

Mastering problem-solving strategies equips us with the tools to tackle challenges across all areas of life. By understanding and applying these techniques, embracing a growth mindset, and learning from both successes and obstacles, we can transform problems into opportunities for growth. Continuously improving these skills ensures we’re prepared to face and solve future challenges more effectively.

Let's Get Started with Onethread

Onethread empowers you to plan, organise, and track projects with ease, ensuring you meet deadlines, allocate resources efficiently, and keep progress transparent.

By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy .

Giving modern marketing teams superpowers with short links that stand out.

Live Product Demo

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Complex Problem Solving

Find solutions to real-world problems

Complex Problem Solving is the skill of applying a method to a problem, often not seen before, to obtain a satisfactory solution. It requires a creative combination of knowledge and strategies to arrive at an answer. Rapid technological change, the increasingly global exchange of ideas, and the proliferation of easy-to-access information – some of which is decidedly unreliable – all contribute greater complexity to the problems that they will need to solve.

Excelling in Complex Problem Solving as a Job Skill means:

Engaged in ‘big picture’ thinking
Flexible & adaptable to change
Highly detail-oriented
Someone who sees patterns
Someone who works efficiently

Others see you:

Demonstrate self-reliance
Achieve your dreams and ambitions
Capable of higher-order thinking (not just memorizing facts, but demonstrating the ability to deeply understand, apply, analyze, and evaluate information)
Achieve increased status & responsibility at school or work
Create solutions that balance the facts, but with new insight

“ 4.9 Complex Problem Solving ” from Working in Play: Planning for a Career in the Recreation and Leisure Industry in Canada by Linda Whitehead, BA, M Ed, MBA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

The skill of applying a method to a problem, often not seen before, to obtain a satisfactory solution; it requires a creative combination of knowledge and strategies to arrive at an answer.

404 Not found

Designorate

Design thinking, innovation, user experience and healthcare design

The Six Systems Thinking Steps to Solve Complex Problems

A quick overview of common problem solving techniques indicates that most of these methods focus on the problem rather than the whole eco-system where the problem exists. Along with the challenges of global economy , problems turn out to be more complicated and sometimes awakening problems. Climate change, traffic problems, and organizational problems that have developed through the years are all complex problems that we shouldn’t look at the same way as simple or linear problems. Part of the problem of thinking about a complex problem is the way we approach it, which may contribute to making the problem even more complex. As stated by Albert Einstein, “The problems cannot be solved using the same level of thinking that created them.” Systems thinking tends to focus on the broader ecosystem rather than the problem itself.

Systems thinking was developed by Jay Forrester and members of the Society for Organizational Learning at MIT. The idea is described in his book, The Fifth Discipline , as follows: “Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots.’” A common example of the systems thinking method is the life around us where multiple systems interact with each other and are affected by each other. This wide perspective of systems thinking promotes it to solve complex problems that are dependent on external factors. Below are some of the stations that system thinking may contribute to solve.

Complex problems that involve different factors, which require understanding the big picture in order to be efficiently solved
Situations that are affecting, are being affected by, or affect the surrounding systems
Problems that have turned more complicated by previous attempts to solve them

Concepts of Systems Thinking

In order to understand systems thinking, a number of concepts should be highlighted in order to define the relation between the problem and the other elements in the system and how to observe this relation in order to reach an effective solution. These principles include the following.

All systems are composed of interconnected parts, and changing one part affects the entire system, including other parts.
The structure of a system determines its behavior, which means that the system depends on the connection between parts rather that the part themselves.
System behavior is an emergent phenomenon. System behavior is hard to predict due its continuously changing, non-linear relations and its time delay. It can’t be predicted by simply inspecting its elements or structure.
Feedback loops control a system’s major dynamic behavior. The feedback loop is a number of connections causing an output from one part to eventually influence input to that same part. The number of feedback loops are larger than the system parts, which contributes to increasing system complicity.
Complex social systems exhibit counterintuitive behavior. Solving complex problems can’t be achieved through everyday problem solving methods. They can be solved only through analytical methods and tools. Solving complex problems can be achieved through systems thinking, a process that fits the problem, and system dynamics , which is an approach to model systems by emphasizing their feedback loops.

Systems Thinking in Six Steps

In their paper Six Steps to Thinking Systemically , Michael Goodman and Richard Karash introduced six steps to apply systems thinking principles while solving complex problems. These steps were part of their case study to Bijou Bottling company’s problem of getting their orders shipped on time.

Set 1: Tell the Story

The first step in solving the problem is to understand it, and this can be achieved through looking deeply at the whole system rather than individual parts. This step requires meeting with the stakeholders to share their vision about the situation. One of the common tools to build this understanding is to utilize Concept Maps, which are graphical tools used to represent the organization or a structure of knowledge. Concept Maps visually present the system’s elements, concept links, proposition statements, cross-links, and examples.

Wait, Join my Newsletters!

As always, I try to come to you with design ideas, tips, and tools for design and creative thinking. Subscribe to my newsletters to receive new updated design tools and tips!

Step 2: Draw Behavior Over Time (BOT) Graphs

When thinking about a problem, we are influenced with the current situation that is reflected in our analysis, yet the problem follows a time dimension, which means that it should be tracked through the time. The Behavior Over Time graph draws a curve that presents a specific behavior (Y) through the time (X). This graph helps us to understanding whether or not the current solution is effective.

Step 3: Create a Focusing Statement

At this point, there should be a clear vision about the problem solving process, which is defined in the from of a statement that indicates the team’s target and why the problem occurs.

Step 4: Identify the Structure

After having clear vision about the problem through the proposed statement, the system structure should be described, including the behavior patterns. Building these patterns helps in understanding more about the problem, and it can be formed as a system archetype.

Step 5: Going Deeper into the Issues

After defining the problem and the system structure, this step tends to understand the underlying problems through clarifying four items: the purpose of the system (what we want), the mental models, the large system, and personal role in the situation.

Set 6: Plan an Intervention

The previously collected information is used to start the intervention phase, where modifications to the current problem relate parts to connections. This intervention attempts to reach the desirable behavior.

Practice Example of Systems Thinking

One of the direct examples of adopting the systems thinking method was presented by Daniel Aronson highlighting insects who caused damage crops. Traditional thinking to solve crop damage is to apply more pesticides to reduce the number of insects and subsequently reduce the crop damage. However, this solution solves the problem for a short term. In the long run, the problem isn’t truly solved, as the original insect eating the crops are controlling the population of another species of insect in the environment either by preying on it or competing with it. Subsequently, the crop damage increases again due to the increasing numbers of other insect species.

Observing the ecosystem that includes both the insects and the crops, systems thinking suggests exploring a solution that ensures reducing the crop damage in the long run without affecting the environmental balance, such as deploying the Integrated Pest Management that has proven success based on MIT and the National Academy of Science. This solution tends to control the number of an insect species by introducing its predators in the area.

Unlike everyday problems, complex problems can’t be solved using traditional problem solving methods due to the nature of the problems and their complexity. One of the theories that attempts to understand complex problems is systems thinking, which is defined by a number of characters. Six steps are to be used to explore and solve complex problems under the umbrella of systems thinking, which help us to observe and think in a whole eco-system rather than individual parts. Systems thinking can be deployed in multiple domains to solve organization problem, or global problems such as energy, pollution, and poverty.

Dr Rafiq Elmansy

As an academic and author, I've had the privilege of shaping the design landscape. I teach design at the University of Leeds and am the Programme Leader for the MA Design, focusing on design thinking, design for health, and behavioural design. I've developed and taught several innovative programmes at Wrexham Glyndwr University, Northumbria University, and The American University in Cairo. I'm also a published book author and the proud founder of Designorate.com, a platform that has been instrumental in fostering design innovation. My expertise in design has been recognised by prestigious organizations. I'm a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA), the Design Research Society (FDRS), and an Adobe Education Leader. Over the course of 20 years, I've had the privilege of working with esteemed clients such as the UN, World Bank, Adobe, and Schneider, contributing to their design strategies. For more than 12 years, I collaborated closely with the Adobe team, playing a key role in the development of many Adobe applications.

Design Thinking Case Study: Innovation at Apple

SWOT Analysis: Exploring Innovation and Creativity within Organizations

Customer Journey Mapping: A Complete Guide for Designers

How to Apply 5 Whys Root Cause Analysis

PESTLE Analysis and When to Use it

Guide for 3D Printing Technologies

3 thoughts on “ the six systems thinking steps to solve complex problems ”.

“Systems thinking was developed by Jay Forrester and members of the Society for Organizational Learning at MIT. The idea is described in his book, The Fifth Discipline, as follows:” Peter Senge is the author of The Fifth Discipline

Thank you so much Misi for the helpful information.

Thank you for the valuable information. I believe that systems thinking can be applied to every aspect of our lives. When you teach yourself to spot patterns, cycles, and loops instead of individuals elements. You see behind the scenes. Understand what actually needs addressing to move forward and make progress faster with less damage.

Breaking Down Complex Math Problems: A Step-by-Step Guide

Understanding complex math problems is essential for students, teachers, and individuals keen on applying math in daily life or at work. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you dissect and tackle these seemingly daunting equations or problems.

Step 1: Understand the Problem

Before anything else, understand what the problem is asking. To do this, you’ll need to:

Read the problem carefully, making sure to consider all the provided information.
Identify what you need to find (this will often be clearly stated in the problem).
Pinpoint any vocabulary or concepts that you may not understand and look them up.

Let’s take the problem, “If the sum of two consecutive numbers is 27, what are the numbers?” The goal here is to identify the two numbers. The term ‘consecutive’ is vital; it tells us that if one number is n, the next is n+1.

Step 2: Devise a Plan

Creating a plan involves deciding the methods or formulas to use to solve the problem. It may also include deciding the order in which to perform certain operations or steps.

For our problem, we know that consecutive numbers can be represented as n and n+1. The problem tells us their sum is 27. So, we set up the equation: n + (n + 1) = 27.

Step 3: Carry Out the Plan

At this point, we execute the plan we devised in step 2. Here, we solve the equation:

Combine like terms: 2n + 1 = 27
Subtract 1 from both sides: 2n = 26
Divide both sides by 2: n = 13

After we found n, we also need to find n+1, which equals 14. So, the two consecutive numbers are 13 and 14.

Step 4: Check Your Work

Checking the work ensures that the answer is reasonable and fits the criteria of the problem. Here, we check by substituting the numbers back into the original problem. Is 13 + 14 equal to 27? Yes, so we know our solution is correct.

Step 5: Reflect on Your Work

Reflection involves thinking about how you approached the problem, what strategies worked, what didn’t, and why. Reflecting helps improve your problem-solving skills for future problems.

Now let’s try a more complex problem:

“In a basketball game, if Player A scored twice as many points as Player B, and together they scored 54 points, how many points did each player score?”

We are looking for the points each player scored. We know that Player A scored twice as many points as Player B and that they scored 54 points together.

Let’s represent Player B’s score as ‘x’. Given that Player A scored twice as many points, we can represent his score as ‘2x’. Their combined score is 54 points. So, we can create the equation: x + 2x = 54.

Solve the equation:

Combine like terms: 3x = 54

Divide both sides by 3: x = 18

Player B scored 18 points. Since Player A scored twice as many points, he scored 36 points.

Substitute the numbers back into the original problem. Does 18 (Player B’s points) + 36 (Player A’s points) equal 54? Yes, so our solution is correct.

Just as with the simpler problem, reflect on your work. Understanding your own process can make tackling similar problems easier in the future.

In conclusion, breaking down complex math problems doesn’t have to be intimidating. By taking the time to understand the problem, devise a plan, carry out that plan, and then check and reflect on your work, you can effectively solve complex math problems. And remember, practice makes perfect! The more problems you solve, the better you will become.

Now, let’s take a look at a complex word problem that involves quadratic equations – a critical concept in algebra.

“A rectangle has a length that is 2 more than 3 times the width. The area of the rectangle is 75 square units. What are the dimensions of the rectangle?”

Our task is to find the width and length of the rectangle. We know from the problem that:

The length is 2 more than 3 times the width. If we represent the width as ‘w’, then the length is ‘3w + 2’.
The area of the rectangle is 75. The formula for the area of a rectangle is ‘width * length’.

We have two equations and two unknowns, which is a good start. Let’s set up our equations:

L = 3w + 2 (from the first piece of information)
L * w = 75 (from the second piece of information)

We can substitute the first equation into the second one because they both equal ‘L’.

This results in a quadratic equation:

(3w + 2) * w = 75 3w^2 + 2w = 75 3w^2 + 2w - 75 = 0

The next step is to solve this quadratic equation. Since it’s a quadratic equation, we can use the quadratic formula:

w = [-b ± sqrt(b^2 - 4ac)] / (2a)

In our equation, a = 3, b = 2, and c = -75. Plug those values into the formula:

w = [-2 ± sqrt((2)^2 - 4*3*(-75))] / (2*3) w = [-2 ± sqrt(4 + 900)] / 6 w = [-2 ± sqrt(904)] / 6

The square root of 904 is approximately 30.07. So the two possible values for w are:

w = [-2 + 30.07] / 6 = 4.68 (approximately) w = [-2 - 30.07] / 6 = -5.35 (approximately)

Since we can’t have a negative width, we discard the second solution. So the width is approximately 4.68 units.

Plug the value of w into the first equation to find the length:

L = 3*4.68 + 2 = 16.04 (approximately)

We should check our answers. The area of the rectangle is width times length, which should be 75:

4.68 * 16.04 = 75.1 (approximately)

The slight difference is due to the rounding. So, our solution is correct.

Consider how we approached this problem. We took the given information, translated it into mathematical equations, and then solved those equations. Recognizing that the problem was a quadratic equation allowed us to use the quadratic formula, which is a common method for solving such problems.

As you can see, with the right approach, even complex math problems can be broken down into manageable steps. This process requires practice, but over time, it will become second nature.

If you are a Class 7 CBSE student looking to practice class 7 math online for better marks, you can visit LearnTheta. It’s an online platform designed to aid you in achieving effective preparation.

For all your quant-related needs, visit LearnTheta

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."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

Complex Problem Solving: What It Is and What It Is Not

Dietrich dörner.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Joachim Funke

2 Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany