Solving Business Problems

A Practical Framework for Solving Business Problems

The following framework for solving business problems can be applied by any business owner or small team dealing with a complex, unresolved challenge. It is structured enough to impose discipline and flexible enough to adapt to different types of problems.

Step 1: Assemble the right people

Start by asking who needs to be involved, not who happens to be available or most familiar with the issue.

A good problem-solving group is small. Four to six people works well in most situations. It draws on different parts of the business where relevant. It includes both the people with relevant knowledge and the person with the authority to make or confirm the final decision.

Many problems persist specifically because the people working on them do not have the authority to resolve them. And no one has been explicitly asked to close that gap.

Step 2: Define the goal before the problem

It may seem counterintuitive to start by looking ahead rather than at the problem itself. But the longer-term goal provides context that changes how you interpret and prioritise what you are working on.

A supply chain bottleneck looks different if your goal is to scale rapidly over the next 18 months than if your goal is to maintain steady operations.

A talent gap looks different if you are entering a new market. It means something else entirely if you are consolidating your current position.

Set a goal that is specific enough to be meaningful, typically one to three years out. Then use it as the reference point for everything that follows.

Step 3: Identify and Frame the critical problem

This is where most teams struggle, and where the quality of the outcome is largely determined.

Under pressure, teams often jump to solutions or attempt to solve several problems at once. The result is usually a broad action plan with shallow commitments and limited impact.

The discipline at this stage is to work through the full range of issues standing between the team and its goal before deciding which one deserves attention first.

Once the issues have been surfaced, ask a simple question:

If we could only solve one of these issues, and solving it would make the biggest difference to achieving our goal, which one would it be?

That issue becomes the critical problem.

This does not mean the other issues are unimportant. It means focus is more valuable than breadth. In practice, resolving the critical problem often removes or reduces several others.

The final task is to frame the problem clearly. Avoid vague statements such as “sales are down”, “communication is poor”, or “the team is not performing”. Describe the problem in specific terms that explain what is happening, where it is occurring, and why it matters.

Before moving to solutions, make sure there is agreement on the problem statement. Teams that agree on the problem usually find it much easier to agree on the solution.

A well-framed problem creates the foundation for effective problem-solving. If the problem is poorly defined, even good solutions are unlikely to produce the desired result.

Step 4: Generate possible solutions

Once the critical problem has been clearly defined, reframe it as an open question before generating solutions. A prompt such as “How might we…” shifts the conversation from diagnosis to possibility without losing focus. The approach originated in the design thinking field and has become a widely used technique for opening up solution-focused discussions. If you are unfamiliar with the technique, the Interaction Design Foundation provides a useful introduction to the How Might We approach.

This reframe matters because it opens up the solution space. “We have a customer retention problem” closes down thinking. “How might we make it meaningfully easier for our best customers to stay?” generates ideas.

Generate options individually before discussing them as a group. This reduces the influence of dominant voices and first suggestions, and tends to surface a broader range of ideas. Aim for quantity before quality at this stage. Evaluation comes next.

Step 5: Evaluate Solutions Before Choosing One

Not all good ideas are practical. Not all practical ideas are impactful. Evaluating options against agreed criteria introduces enough structure to ensure that the decision rests on considered judgement rather than preference, seniority, or the order in which ideas were raised.

The criteria will vary depending on the nature of the problem, but typically include some combination of likely impact on the goal, feasibility given current resources and constraints, speed of implementation, and risk.

The aim is not false precision. It is to avoid the common failure mode of choosing the most appealing option rather than the most useful one.

Step 6: Build an action plan, not a to-do list

A working session that ends with insight but no execution has not solved anything.

The final step is to translate the preferred solution into a clear, time-bound action plan. This means specific tasks, not vague intentions; named individuals with defined responsibilities, not team ownership which in practice often means no ownership; agreed deadlines; and defined measures of progress. Each action should have an owner who is present in the room and who has explicitly accepted the commitment.

The difference between this and a to-do list is accountability. The point of this step is not documentation. It is to ensure that the work leaves the room with momentum, clear ownership, and a mechanism for follow-through.

While many business owners can apply this framework themselves, these six steps also form the basis of Perispec’s Decision Sprint, a facilitated session designed to help teams work through complex business problems in a structured and focused way.