Track 2: Problem Framing
Mridula R.
Learning consultant / Instructional designer|| Training & performance solutions for startups to Fortune 100s, rooted in critical thinking and expertise
(From the series 'How I Approach Solutioning')
Description
In this track I suggest we ask ourselves: if I were working in the client's organisation, how would I ask for better value? Effective problem framing often involves choosing whether to accept, refine, or fundamentally rethink the client's original framing based on what will lead to the most impactful, achievable outcomes. Is the problem shared with us the real issue, or only part of it? The point of reframing is to see if there are ways to amplify value within the scope or adjacent needs.
Here's a range of examples:
Useful capabilities
Knowledge of multiple problem patterns and solutions from different points of view like training, organisational, domain and operations
Exploring possible questions
What are 'problem patterns and solutions from different points of view'?
When faced with an application training, we immediately realise that the module design must have something like a ‘show me-try me-test me’. The problem here is ‘how to teach an application’ and the solution is 'show-try-test'. This is from a training perspective. The domain pov will likely have an impact on the training side too. For instance, there is a difference between a standalone application, an enterprise application and a software tool. Knowing these variations and what they mean for training project scope is important and relevant.
Why does it matter for problem framing? Sometimes we spot opportunities for better framing based on solution option availability. By definition, you can only have a strategy if you have equally viable, competing options you need to select from.
What if training is not part of the problem frame?
A legit worry to have! There are two parts to this. First, a client is seldom totally off-base. Before a requirement comes to us training vendors, multiple people and validations are usually involved. You can still encounter a problem of a training department trying to use up its funds and therefore insisting on a pointless training module. But in this case, you’re not likely to find a profound framing that deviates from the ask because you’ll simply not have that rich a brief to work with.
Now let’s consider the situation where training is genuinely not part of your problem frame. This is now guided by your negotiation ability, internal environment, professional goals, etc etc. I don’t like pushing stuff at clients in bad faith. I’m not claiming that refusing to do so is always an easy conversation. But, in mature companies, I’ve found that the attitude is “let’s earn the client’s trust because we want a lasting relationship.” And I’ve never met a client who got mad that we were truthful and tried to save them money!
Am I overcomplicating or adding value?
Reframing is not always about making the matter bigger. The basic litmus test is whether there is clear and obvious benefit. If you’re suggesting the ultimate bulldozer to move a stack of papers, that’s not value addition.
Doing it better
Intelligently explore constraints
A consultative approach is not just about using a mix of open-ended and close-ended questions, as so many web articles claim! Instead, it is about being able to use expert knowledge to identify how more value can be created and about communicating these opportunities effectively. Consultants don’t just ask questions. They also offer guidance, thought process, analysis and ideas.
领英推荐
‘So that’ your thinking
‘So that’ is one of the most helpful ways to think through your considerations. Why is something important? It needs to be done so that xyz can happen. This step needs to be taken so that that step is possible. Once of the simplest ways to stop ourselves from thinking in fragments without adequate reasoning is to force ourselves to narrate things with coherent causal reasoning. ‘So that’ is the thinking complement of asking ‘why’.
Embrace the grunt work
Even though we're in problem framing, it can be really useful to have a clear idea of the eventual solution. Do whatever it takes to get into the details the way you would need to for implementing the actual solution. This is a basic feasibility and effectiveness check. It helps convince you if your framing is correct or wildly off the mark.
I’ve noticed a common tendency to think that seniors will do the high-level abstract work and that the detailed stuff, like actually going through 20 input documents, can be delegated to a junior. Don’t do that. Be absolutely familiar with the details. You won’t believe how useful it is when you’re presenting to the project sponsor and SME. If in the middle of a conversation, you’re able to cite a content example or detail to illustrate your point, you’ll have your SME in your corner from the get-go.
?
Some things that help
?
I trust you're starting to get a sense of why I consider these 'tracks' than 'steps': to become clearer about the problem, you may need to ask further questions and collect more information. As you gain clarity in your problem framing you may put it aside and quickly do the solution check before coming back to finesse the problem frame.
Some elements to keep in mind
This is a complex track, so here is a summary of some things it may be helpful to remember when you're in the middle of problem framing. :)
Other articles in this series:
#ProblemFraming #StrategicReframing, #Solutioning #Consulting #ProblemSolving #EffectiveSolutioning #TrainingDesign #LearningConsultant #ValueCreation #ValueChain #Strategy