Don't Assume You Know the Problem

Most training requests aren't actually training problems. Before your team builds a single slide, ask three questions: What's the current behavior? What's the desired behavior? What's the measurable gap between them? If you can't answer all three with specifics then you're not ready to prescribe a solution yet. That's exactly what a performance consultant does. They slow down before the build, interviewing stakeholders, analyzing root causes, and mapping the gap between where people are and where they need to be. Performance consultants are what separates training that moves metrics from training that just moves people through slides. Save this infographic for your next stakeholder conversation. Then read the full diagnostic framework here: https://lnkd.in/gzXu7QBb #LearningAndDevelopment #PerformanceConsulting #InstructionalDesign #LDStrategy #WorkplaceLearning

The Real Cost of Skipping Root Cause Fixing the wrong problem is expensive. Not just in dollars. In time, credibility, and the organizational patience required to try again. It happens more than anyone wants to admit. A problem surfaces. Leadership feels pressure to act. A solution gets selected based on assumptions, past experience, tenure, or what worked somewhere else. Implementation begins before anyone has confirmed what is being solved. The fix launches. Results are mixed. The problem persists in a slightly different form. The project never quite closes because the team keeps chasing new symptoms. Now the organization is tired, the budget is thinner, and the appetite for another improvement effort is lower than it was before. Root cause work is not slow. Skipping it is. The diagnostic phase is where you separate the symptom from the source. It is also where you neutralize the loudest voice in the room, because the data speaks for everyone. Not a gut feeling. Not a benchmark from a different industry. Not whoever has the most tenure or the strongest opinion. Evidence from this process, in this organization, right now. Before any solution gets designed, one question is worth asking: Is the output exactly what the process was designed to deliver? If yes, the process is performing as designed. The problem lives somewhere else: in the design itself, the inputs, the environment, or the expectations. A process fix alone will not solve it. If no, the process is failing its own design. Different problem. Different solution. Either way, the diagnostic work tells you where to point the effort. I built the diagnostic phase into FORGE specifically because this is where most improvement efforts go wrong, not in execution, but in problem definition. If your organization keeps solving the same problems, or never quite finishes the ones it starts, the gap usually isn't capability. It's diagnosis. Where has this shown up in your work — a solution that launched before the problem was defined? #OperationalExcellence #RootCauseAnalysis #ProcessImprovement #LeanSixSigma #ContinuousImprovement #BusinessProcessManagement #ProblemSolving #BusinessTransformation #ProcessArchitecture

The Real Cost of Skipping Root Cause Fixing the wrong problem is expensive. Not just in dollars. In time, credibility, and the organizational patience required to try again. It happens more than anyone wants to admit. A problem surfaces. Leadership feels pressure to act. A solution gets selected based on assumptions, past experience, tenure, or what worked somewhere else. Implementation begins before anyone has confirmed what is being solved. The fix launches. Results are mixed. The problem persists in a slightly different form. The project never quite closes because the team keeps chasing new symptoms. Now the organization is tired, the budget is thinner, and the appetite for another improvement effort is lower than it was before. Root cause work is not slow. Skipping it is. The diagnostic phase is where you separate the symptom from the source. It is also where you neutralize the loudest voice in the room, because the data speaks for everyone. Not a gut feeling. Not a benchmark from a different industry. Not whoever has the most tenure or the strongest opinion. Evidence from this process, in this organization, right now. Before any solution gets designed, one question is worth asking: Is the output exactly what the process was designed to deliver? If yes, the process is performing as designed. The problem lives somewhere else: in the design itself, the inputs, the environment, or the expectations. A process fix alone will not solve it. If no, the process is failing its own design. Different problem. Different solution. Either way, the diagnostic work tells you where to point the effort. I built the diagnostic phase into FORGE specifically because this is where most improvement efforts go wrong, not in execution, but in problem definition. If your organization keeps solving the same problems, or never quite finishes the ones it starts, the gap usually isn't capability. It's diagnosis. Where has this shown up in your work — a solution that launched before the problem was defined? #OperationalExcellence #RootCauseAnalysis #ProcessImprovement #LeanSixSigma #ContinuousImprovement #BusinessProcessManagement #ProblemSolving #BusinessTransformation #ProcessArchitecture

I published a new article this morning: "The Assessment That Tells You How You Actually Manage." It explains what the Individual Invincibility Blueprint measures, how the questionnaire works, and what the report contains. If you saw Thursday's launch post and wanted to understand the methodology in more depth, this is where the detail sits. The short version: you answer 45 to 50 behavioural questions about real situations you have faced. Your responses are analysed against 20 management competencies across three groups. The output is a written report of 43 to 49 pages with a competency radar chart, a Management Readiness Dashboard rating your readiness across 9 management responsibilities, cross-cutting themes that surface patterns you repeat without realising, and a three-phase development plan built from your evidence. The article walks through each of those sections with anonymised examples from the sample reports. Full article link is in the first comment. 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘨 𝘒𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘬𝘰𝘷 | 𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 | 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳 #ManagementDevelopment #LeadershipAssessment #BusinessInvincibility

I have seen it a hundred times. You probably have too. Someone identifies a problem and jumps straight to a solution. In many companies, we actually train people to do this. "Don't bring me a problem unless you have a solution." It feels like we are teaching them. I believe the most important work happens well before offering solutions. It starts with a clear question. What is actually going on right now? Not what we think is happening. Not what we assume. What do we know? What don't we know? What have we already tried, and do we understand why it worked or didn't? In continuous improvement, we call this the diagnostic phase. In peer advisory groups, it shows up the same way. Before anyone offers input, the focus is on helping the person clarify the real issue. Without that clarity, we tend to solve the wrong problem. And solving the wrong problem well leaves the main problem untouched. When something isn't working in your business, do you spend time defining the problem or do you move straight to solutions?

The execution failure your team is working to fix probably started before execution began. The execution illusion is costly. Organizations direct their frustration, training, and intervention at the visible surface. The hidden reality is that struggling organizations are failing at the moment of commitment. Three conditions are already set before the first resource is deployed: ⚠️ Unaligned — the organization is not aligned on a Solution-Worth-Developing  ⚠️ Unmatched — capability does not match the complexity being attempted  ⚠️ Uncalibrated — skills and activity are not matched to the intended impact Brilliant execution cannot recover what a flawed commitment already set in motion. This edition of Compounding Momentum introduces the Three Maps diagnostic discipline — confirming favorable positioning before the commitment is made, not after the first execution breakdown. You will find the link in comments. When did your team last discover a commitment problem during execution rather than before it? #CompoundingMomentum #InnovationManagement #OrganizationalCapability

During a review meeting, someone said, Sir, people are making too many mistakes. It sounded like a people problem. But when we went to the workplace, something else became visible. Instructions were unclear. Visuals were missing. Tools looked similar. Priorities had changed twice that day. The system was creating confusion. And confusion creates mistakes. That day reminded me of something important: Before asking people to be more careful, ask whether the process is easy to follow. Lean teaches us a simple principle: Good systems reduce dependency on memory. Clear labels. Simple visual controls. Error-proofing. Stable standards. These are not “extra controls.” They are support systems for people doing the work. Most mistakes are not caused by lack of effort. They happen when the process asks people to remember too much. The best workplaces do not expect perfection. They design for success. Because quality improves when clarity improves. #LeanThinking #PokaYoke #OperationalExcellence #ContinuousImprovement #ProcessDesign #LeanCulture

SOPs used to be the gold standard. Write the process. Store the document. Expect performance to follow. That worked…in theory. Today? If it’s not embedded into how work actually happens, nobody goes back to read a document sitting somewhere. It gets created, filed, and forgotten. And then leaders wonder why performance is inconsistent. Here’s what I learned: SOPs don’t fail because they’re useless. They fail because they’re passive. They sit outside the flow of work. So I changed the approach. I stopped treating SOPs as documents and turned them into living systems. Here’s what that looked like: We integrated processes into daily execution. Not by telling people to “go read.” But by building it into how they worked. * Automated reminders for key actions * Scheduled activities tied to specific outcomes * Standard meeting agendas aligned with core processes So instead of remembering what to do… The system guided them. We also built feedback and review loops. Regular sessions to: * revisit what’s working * update what’s outdated * reinforce what matters Because a system that isn’t reviewed will eventually become irrelevant. The shift was simple. From documentation. To activation. And that’s where performance changed. Because structure was no longer optional. It became part of the culture. If your team has SOPs but performance is still inconsistent, ask yourself: Are your processes alive in the system or buried in a document? Make that shift. It changes everything. ♻️Share if this resonates with you.

Most teams don’t have a performance problem. They have a diagnosis problem. They fix symptoms. Not root causes. A delayed launch becomes: “engineering was too slow.” A failed project becomes: “bad execution.” A drop in morale becomes: “people lost motivation.” But surface explanations are rarely the real reason. The deeper issue is usually hidden inside: • unclear ownership • broken incentives • communication gaps • process friction • bad assumptions • invisible bottlenecks • system design flaws That’s why strong operators don’t jump straight to solutions. They investigate first. I put together 20 Claude prompts for Root Cause Analysis that help you think like a systems strategist instead of reacting emotionally to problems. Inside the infographic: • 5 Whys Analysis • Fishbone Diagram • Fault Tree Analysis • Systems Thinking • Pareto Analysis • Bottleneck Analysis • Counterfactual Thinking • Failure Prediction • Permanent Fixes …and more. The goal is simple: Stop treating recurring problems as isolated incidents. Because the same issue repeating twice is usually not a mistake anymore. It’s a system exposing its design. Which framework do you use most often when diagnosing problems?

A3 problem solving is a structured methodology developed to improve how organizations analyze problems, align teams, and implement corrective actions. Rather than jumping directly to solutions, A3 thinking encourages teams to: - define the problem clearly - understand the current condition - identify evidence-based root causes - establish measurable targets - implement focused countermeasures - and verify results after execution Many problem-solving efforts fail because organizations: - confuse symptoms with causes - skip analysis too quickly - rely on opinions instead of evidence - or close actions without verifying effectiveness A good A3 helps prevent these gaps by creating a more disciplined and transparent approach to problem solving. Because sustainable improvement requires more than corrective action. It requires better thinking. 🔁 Repost if you found this valuable. 📘 Request a soft copy: https://lnkd.in/gNy-9g9f 🤝 Connect with us: https://lnkd.in/gNe_Rxdf 🗞️ Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://lnkd.in/gag_vujE #OperationalExcellence #A3Thinking #ContinuousImprovement #Lean #ReliabilityEngineering #MaintenanceManagement #RootCauseAnalysis #EngineeringLeadership