Clarify the Problem Before Offering Solutions

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

"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." — H.L. Mencken Looking for simple answers to complex problems is one of the biggest traps in process improvement. When a problem appears, the instinct is to act fast: add more people, change a tool, redesign a step. (Trust me! I've done this more times than I'd like to admit :-) But complex problems rarely come from a single cause. They emerge from the interaction between processes, people, information flows, priorities, and decisions. That is why effective improvement should not start with the solution. It should start with understanding the problem. Before reaching for Lean, KPIs, PDCA, or any other improvement tool, we need to ask better questions: What is really happening? Where is the problem actually emerging? Which symptoms are we confusing with causes? What part of the system are we not seeing? There is a whole field dedicated to this — Problem Structuring — with different methodologies designed for different types of complexity. The right approach for the right problem makes all the difference. Because if we simplify too early, we end up improving the wrong thing. This is the way I approach process improvement: first understand the system, then structure the problem, and only then work on the solution. Are you solving the right problem — or just the most urgent one? #ProcessImprovement #OperationalExcellence #ProblemStructuring #LeanManagement #DecisionMaking #ContinuousImprovement

3 questions I ask before proposing any process improvement: 1. What problem are we actually solving, or are we just fixing a symptom? Most improvement efforts fail not because of poor execution, but because the wrong problem was selected. Pressure to act fast often skips this question entirely. 2. What happens if we change nothing? This one reframes the conversation. If the answer is "not much", the urgency needs to be questioned. If the answer is "things get worse", now everyone understands why the work matters. 3. Do we understand the current state before proposing the future state? A solution built on assumptions about how the process works is not a solution. It is a guess. Map first, propose second. The temptation in process improvement is always to jump to solutions. These three questions slow that down just enough to get it right. #ProcessImprovement #OperationalExcellence #LeanThinking #ContinuousImprovement #ProcessManagement

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞. Processes don’t fail because they were designed poorly. They fail because they were never reviewed again. Most processes begin with careful planning. Steps are defined. Dependencies are mapped. Controls are added. At launch, everything feels structured. Work moves smoothly. Outputs feel predictable. Confidence builds quickly. That’s usually where many organizations stop reviewing. Because once a process starts working, it creates the illusion of stability. But operations don’t stay static. Volumes grow. Teams change. Tools evolve - and new risks appear. Slowly, the environment around the process shifts - even when the process itself remains unchanged. That’s where risk begins. Not from sudden failure - but from silent drift. Steps that once made sense become unnecessary. Old validations remain, even when conditions change. New risks appear without being formally addressed. Over time, the process still exists - but it no longer fits the reality it operates in. Strong operations don’t treat process reviews as events. They treat them as discipline. Not once a year. Not after failure. But periodically - before drift turns into disruption. Because processes don’t remain reliable by design alone. They remain reliable through deliberate attention. 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰. #OperationsLeadership #SystemsThinking  #OperationalExcellence #ProcessGovernance

One thing I have learned over years of process improvement work: 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥. The confusion becomes normal. The chasing becomes normal. Until someone finally steps back and says: “Why are we doing it this way?” That moment matters. That is exactly why I created Bruce Bleu: a simple first step to help people see friction differently. No buzzwords. No giant consulting pitch. Just a fast way to start seeing clearer flow. Start here: https://lnkd.in/g3kfA_6y 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝.

One thing I have learned over years of process improvement work: 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥. The confusion becomes normal. The chasing becomes normal. Until someone finally steps back and says: “Why are we doing it this way?” That moment matters. That is exactly why I created Bruce Bleu: a simple first step to help people see friction differently. No buzzwords. No giant consulting pitch. Just a fast way to start seeing clearer flow. Start here: https://lnkd.in/ge5j-Twx 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝.

The Moment I Knew This Was My Strength I remember sitting in a meeting with senior leaders, reviewing a high-priority issue. The conversation was focused on solutions — timelines, ownership, next steps. Everything looked good on paper. But something didn’t feel right. So instead of jumping straight into recommendations, I asked a simple question: “Can I spend time with the team actually doing this work?” I sat side-by-side with the front-line employees. Watched the process in real time. Listened to where things were slowing down, breaking, or being worked around. And that’s when it became clear: The problem we were trying to solve… wasn’t the real problem. The root cause was buried in the day-to-day process — in steps that looked fine from a distance, but didn’t work in practice. Even more interesting? The people doing the work already had ideas on how to fix it. They just hadn’t been asked. That experience reinforced something I’ve carried with me ever since: ✔ The best solutions don’t come from assumptions ✔ They come from understanding the full picture ✔ And connecting strategy to real execution This is what I love about: • Risk & Issue Management • Root Cause Analysis • Process Improvement Taking complex problems… and turning them into solutions that actually work. 💬 If you’re a leader, how do you ensure you’re hearing from the people closest to the work? Searching together. Succeeding together.

Most operational issues aren’t caused by a lack of resources. They’re caused by small gaps nobody notices until they become bigger problems. A missing step. Unclear information. A validation point that doesn’t exist. A decision with no clear owner. That’s where delays, rework, and avoidable escalations start. Real process improvement doesn’t always come from major redesigns. Sometimes, better results come from something much simpler: Clear ownership. Clear steps. Clear expectations. When people know exactly what needs to happen, how it should happen, and who is responsible, execution becomes more consistent. Most of the time, the problem isn’t complexity. It’s lack of clarity.