What are the most effective problem-solving methods for projects and operations?

For recurring or complex issues, use Root Cause Analysis (RCA) supported by 5 Whys and Fishbone. For system reliability and risk, use FMEA. For learning after incidents, use blameless post-mortems. For decision speed and uncertainty, use OODA and Cynefin.

How do I choose the right problem-solving tool?

Match tool to context: simple and well-bounded → 5 Whys; many potential causes → Fishbone; high risk of failure → FMEA; strategy or ambiguity → Decision Framing or Cynefin; continuous improvement → A3.

What is the difference between RCA and the 5 Whys?

5 Whys is a quick questioning technique; RCA is a broader process that can include 5 Whys plus evidence gathering, mapping (Fishbone), verification, and corrective actions.

When should I use a Fishbone (Ishikawa) diagram instead of 5 Whys?

Use Fishbone when there are multiple plausible cause categories (e.g., People, Process, Technology, Environment) and you need a visual to explore them before drilling down.

What is A3 Thinking and when is it helpful?

A3 Thinking is a Lean method to capture the entire problem-solving story on one page—context, analysis, countermeasures, and learning. It’s ideal for improvement projects and stakeholder alignment.

How is FMEA used in problem solving?

FMEA anticipates potential failure modes, estimates their impact and likelihood, and prioritises mitigations. It’s best for reliability, safety, and service quality risks.

What’s the difference between a post-mortem and a retrospective?

A post-mortem analyses a specific incident or failure after the fact; a retrospective is a regular team review for continuous improvement. Both should be blameless and action-oriented.

Can I combine multiple problem-solving methods?

Yes. A common flow is: define the problem → 5 Whys and Fishbone to hypothesise causes → verify with data → select countermeasures in an A3 → track residual risk with FMEA.

Do I always need data to run these methods?

Start with observations and stakeholder input, then validate key causes with data where possible. Lightweight data (logs, timestamps, samples) is often enough to confirm direction.

How long should structured problem solving take?

Simple issues can be resolved in one meeting with 5 Whys; moderate problems may need a few days; complex, cross-functional issues often require a short project following an A3 and FMEA.

Where can I get templates and examples?

Use the Problem-Solver Playbook for A3, Fishbone, post-mortem, and RCA checklists. Pair templates with real examples and a short facilitation script to accelerate adoption.

Category: Feature

Featured on the front page

The Case of the Declining Newsletter Engagement

Background: A B2B SaaS provider relied heavily on email marketing to nurture leads and retain customers. Their weekly newsletter shared case studies, feature updates, and opinion pieces. Over a six-month period, email open rates dropped by half and click-throughs declined even more. Feedback was minimal, and marketing ROI fell off a cliff.

Workaround

The marketing team tried increasing frequency—sending multiple campaigns per week, experimenting with send times, and tweaking subject lines. They also ran one-off promotions to re-engage users. However, these efforts only resulted in increased unsubscribe rates and flagged emails.

Symptom: Open and click-through rates were steadily declining. Engagement was down and complaints were up.
Workaround applied: More frequent, more aggressive emailing.

Deeper Analysis

A review of email data showed no segmentation in the audience list. Long-time customers, new sign-ups, and trial users all received the same generic newsletter. Many emails were flagged by spam filters due to lack of authentication protocols and poor domain reputation. Feedback surveys revealed the content wasn’t relevant or timely.

Cause: Poor audience segmentation and deliverability issues.

Root Cause

An outdated CRM with basic mailing list functionality and no clear owner of email performance KPIs. Content planning was done reactively, based on internal priorities, not audience needs.

Root Cause: No clear owner of KPI measures, no audience need research t drive content planning and an out of date CRM with poor functionality – a perfect storm!

Solution

They moved to a modern marketing automation platform with smart segmentation and behavioural triggers. The team reworked their content calendar around user journeys and implemented proper email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC).

Solution: New content calendar based on user journeys and a new modern marketing automation platform with segmentation.

Outcome

Within two months, open rates rose 45%, and user feedback became positive. New leads received tailored onboarding content, while long-term customers were offered relevant product tips and advanced usage guides. Engagement and pipeline value rebounded.

Problem examples Feature

The Case of the Inaccurate Inventory

Background: A regional online retailer experienced frequent disruptions due to incorrect stock records. Products listed as available would turn out to be out of stock when pickers arrived at the shelves, leading to delayed shipments, cancelled orders, and dissatisfied customers. The issue worsened during promotional periods and seasonal peaks.

Workaround

To prevent order errors, warehouse supervisors instituted daily manual counts for top-selling items. Staff used spreadsheets to log counts and reconcile discrepancies each morning before operations began. This temporary fix created new problems: increased workload, delays in order processing, and stress among floor staff.

Symptom: Frequent fulfilment errors and a spike in customer service complaints.
Workaround applied: Manual daily recounting of popular SKUs.

Deeper Analysis

The root of the issue wasn’t human error, but system design. The inventory management software updated stock levels in batches overnight, and it wasn’t connected to the ecommerce platform in real time. As a result, stock shown online didn’t match physical inventory. Discrepancies compounded daily.

Cause: A disconnect between sales and inventory systems, with no live syncing.

Root Cause

Technology and process had not kept pace with changing workplace behaviours. The company had no visibility over how spaces were actually used, nor any consequences for hoarding or misusing shared resources.

Root Cause: The company had grown quickly and patched its operations with separate tools. Integration and automation were sacrificed for speed. Inventory logic had not been reviewed since the company was much smaller.

Solution

They adopted a cloud-based ERP solution that integrated sales, inventory, and warehouse management. The system updated stock levels in real time and included handheld scanner integration for immediate adjustments during picking. Inventory accuracy was audited weekly to improve discipline.

Solution: the organisation adopted a cloud-based ERP solution that updated stock levels in real-time.

Outcome

Order accuracy improved dramatically. Customer complaints reduced by over 60%, and warehouse efficiency improved as manual tasks were phased out. Seasonal peaks were handled without overtime or errors.

Problem examples Feature

Slow Software Deployment

Background: A tech company experiences slow software deployment, causing frequent delays in launching updates. This has led to customer dissatisfaction and a decline in product reliability perception.

Workaround:

The development team decides to increase manual testing and patching before each release to catch and fix issues quickly. This helps minimise the delays and ensures the software works as expected, but it’s not a perfect solution. It still consumes a lot of time and resources, adding to costs.

Symptom: Slow software deployment and frequent delays.
Workaround Applied: Manually patching and increasing testing time to catch last-minute issues.

Deeper Analysis:

Upon investigation, it is found that the cause of frequent delays is frequent bugs and integration issues appearing late in the development cycle. The manual patching helps to catch some of these issues, but it doesn’t address why they happen in the first place.

Cause: Frequent bugs and integration issues late in the development process.

Root Cause:

Looking further, the root cause was discovered to be a lack of proper code review and integration testing throughout the development process. Developers worked in silos, leading to a buildup of conflicts that were only noticed during final integration.

Root Cause: Lack of continuous integration and code reviews during development.

Solution:

The company decides to implement a Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipeline with automated testing and regular code reviews. This allows bugs to be detected earlier and fixed immediately, avoiding the last-minute rush to patch things up. Additionally, it encourages collaboration among developers, ensuring that code conflicts are resolved quickly and cleanly.

Solution: Implementing a CI/CD pipeline with automated testing and regular code reviews.

Outcome: With the new solution in place, the team can deploy software more reliably and quickly. The need for manual patches is reduced, and customers are happier with the timely, high-quality updates.

Summary:

Workaround: Manual patching and extended testing time.
Symptom Addressed: Slow software deployment.
Cause: Bugs and integration issues detected late.
Root Cause: Lack of continuous integration and code reviews.
Solution: Implementing a CI/CD pipeline with automated testing.

This scenario illustrates how a workaround can temporarily relieve symptoms but doesn’t solve the underlying issue. Giving developers greater access to testing tools and avoiding manual steps is a winner.

Problem examples Feature

The case of the Delayed Programme milestones

Background: A large enterprise is undergoing a multi-year IT transformation program, which includes several projects aimed at modernising its core systems, migrating data to the cloud, and improving cybersecurity. However, the program is experiencing repeated delays, with milestones being missed across multiple projects. This leads to budget overruns, delayed programme milestones, frustrated stakeholders, and concerns about the feasibility of completing the program on time.

Workaround:

To deal with the delays, the program management office (PMO) starts reallocating resources between projects on an ad-hoc basis. Whenever a project falls behind, resources are borrowed from other projects to catch up. This helps address immediate issues, but it causes disruptions across other projects, leading to further delays and inefficiencies.

Symptom: Repeated delays and missed milestones across multiple projects in the program.
Workaround Applied: Reallocating resources between projects to address delays.

Deeper Analysis:

A deeper investigation reveals that the cause of the delays is poor coordination between projects and unclear dependencies. Many projects are interdependent, but they operate in silos, with little communication or alignment on shared milestones. For example, a data migration project might need to wait for a core system upgrade, but delays in one project cascade into others, creating a domino effect of missed deadlines.

Cause: Lack of coordination and communication between projects, leading to delays in shared milestones.

Root Cause:

The root cause of the issue is identified as the absence of a robust program governance framework that can effectively oversee and align multiple projects. The program lacks a centralised system for tracking dependencies and managing risks across projects. Additionally, there are no clear escalation procedures for when issues arise, leading to delays being addressed too late.

Root Cause: Lack of a centralised governance framework, ineffective tracking of dependencies, and unclear escalation procedures.

Solution:

The program management office (PMO) decides to implement a centralised program management framework to improve oversight and coordination. This includes the use of program management software that allows for comprehensive tracking of project dependencies, timelines, and risks across the program. The PMO also introduces program-level governance meetings, where project managers can report on progress, identify potential delays, and align on shared milestones. Clear escalation procedures are established, so issues can be addressed quickly and efficiently.

Solution: Centralised program management framework, comprehensive tracking software, regular governance meetings, and clear escalation procedures.

Outcome: With the new framework in place, projects within the program are better coordinated, and shared milestones are clearly defined and tracked. Dependencies between projects are managed proactively, reducing the risk of delays cascading across the program. Regular governance meetings help ensure that all projects are aligned, and issues are escalated and resolved in a timely manner. This leads to improved program performance, reduced budget overruns, and greater confidence among stakeholders.

Summary:

Workaround: Reallocating resources between projects to address delays.
Symptom Addressed: Repeated delays and missed milestones across multiple projects.
Cause: Lack of coordination and communication between projects, leading to delays in shared milestones.
Root Cause: Lack of a centralised governance framework, ineffective tracking of dependencies, and unclear escalation procedures.
Solution: Implementing a centralised program management framework, using tracking software, holding regular governance meetings, and establishing clear escalation procedures.

This example illustrates how addressing the root cause of poor program governance can lead to better coordination across projects, more efficient resource use, and successful program delivery, rather than relying on short-term fixes like ad-hoc resource reallocation.

Problem solving Feature Resources

Workaround

Deeper Analysis

Root Cause

Solution

Outcome

Workaround

Deeper Analysis

Root Cause

Solution

Outcome

Workaround:

Deeper Analysis:

Root Cause:

Solution:

Summary:

Workaround:

Deeper Analysis:

Root Cause:

Solution:

Summary:

1. Lean Startup Methodology

2. Agile Framework

3. Design Thinking

4. Business Model Canvas

5. SWOT Analysis

6. Five Whys

7. OKRs (Objectives and Key Results)

8. Rapid Prototyping

9. Customer Journey Mapping

10. Growth Hacking

11. Kanban

12. Bootstrapping

13. Pareto Analysis (80/20 Rule)

14. Lean Canvas

15. Mind Mapping

16. A/B Testing

17. Bootstrapped Marketing Techniques

18. SCRUM

19. Value Proposition Canvas

20. Risk Management Matrix