Why Most Problem Solving Models Are Like Buying a Ute Without Test Driving It

Related Reading:

• The Old Reader Profile
• Strategic Thinking Training
• Business Problem Solving Resources
• Workplace Innovation Insights

Three months ago I watched a middle manager at a Brisbane engineering firm spend forty-seven minutes explaining their new "Six Sigma problem-solving framework" to a room full of tradies who just wanted to know why the bloody coffee machine kept breaking down. The answer, by the way, was that someone had been using tank water instead of filtered water for six weeks. Problem solved in thirty seconds once someone actually looked at the machine instead of drawing fishbone diagrams.

That's the thing about problem-solving models that drives me absolutely mental after two decades in workplace training. We've turned simple human logic into these elaborate academic frameworks that make consultants rich and actual problems linger like a bad smell in a Port-a-Loo.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-framework. Some of these models are brilliant when applied correctly. But somewhere along the way, we've convinced ourselves that every workplace hiccup needs the full CSI treatment complete with evidence boards and hypothesis testing.

The Model Trap Most Businesses Fall Into

Here's what happens in 73% of Australian workplaces when they discover problem-solving models: they pick one, usually DMAIC or the classic "5 Whys," and then apply it to everything like it's some sort of magical business hammer.

Got a customer complaint? DMAIC it. Staff morale issues? Five Whys. The printer's jammed again? Better define, measure, analyse, improve, and control that paper feed mechanism.

It's like watching someone use a chainsaw to butter toast. Technically possible, but completely missing the point.

The real issue isn't that these models don't work - they absolutely do when matched to the right problems. The issue is that most managers treat problem-solving like a one-size-fits-all tracksuit. Comfortable, maybe, but you wouldn't wear it to a wedding.

What Actually Works (And What Doesn't)

After training everyone from mining executives to hairdressers, I've noticed something interesting. The best problem solvers don't follow models religiously. They use them like tools in a toolkit, picking the right one for the job.

Simple problems - the coffee machine, the jammed printer, why Dave from accounts keeps showing up late - these need simple solutions. Ask a few questions, look for obvious causes, fix it, move on. No fishbone diagram required.

Complex problems - declining market share, systemic safety issues, why your best staff keep leaving - these deserve the full treatment. This is where your implementing improvement and innovation training becomes invaluable. These problems have multiple causes, stakeholders, and consequences. They need structured thinking.

But here's where most training programs get it wrong: they teach you ten different models and expect you to remember which one to use when. That's like learning ten different ways to tie knots and then panicking when your boat starts drifting away from the dock.

The Three-Model Rule That Actually Makes Sense

After years of watching people overcomplicate things, I've settled on what I call the Three-Model Rule. Master three problem-solving approaches, and you'll handle 95% of workplace issues:

For Daily Issues: The Common Sense Model

1. What's actually happening?
2. What should be happening?
3. What's causing the gap?
4. Fix the cause.

Revolutionary, right? Sometimes the most sophisticated problem-solving model is just paying attention.

For Team Problems: The People-First Model

1. Who's affected?
2. What do they need?
3. What's stopping them from getting it?
4. How do we remove those barriers?

This one's saved my bacon more times than I can count. Amazing how many "complex operational issues" turn out to be communication problems or someone not having the right tools.

For Strategic Problems: The Why-What-How Model

1. Why does this problem matter? (Impact and urgency)
2. What are all the possible causes? (Research and analysis)
3. How do we address the root cause? (Solution design and implementation)

This is where you might need some professional problem-solving courses to build your analytical skills. But notice how it's still just three questions, not seventeen steps with fancy names.

The Australian Approach to Problem Solving

We Australians have a natural advantage in problem-solving that we don't celebrate enough. We're practical people. We don't overthink things until someone tells us we should be using a "systematic methodology."

I remember working with a Perth mining company where the safety manager had implemented this incredibly complex incident investigation model. Twenty-three steps, multiple forms, mandatory training sessions. Meanwhile, the crew chiefs were solving safety issues in real-time using what they called "the pub test" - if you couldn't explain the problem and solution to your mate over a beer, it was probably too complicated.

Guess which approach prevented more accidents?

The best problem-solving model is often the one that doesn't feel like a model at all. It's curiosity plus common sense plus the willingness to actually talk to the people closest to the problem.

When Models Actually Help (And When They Hurt)

Here's something that might surprise you: the more experienced someone becomes, the less they rely on formal problem-solving models for routine issues. But - and this is crucial - they use them religiously for unfamiliar or high-stakes problems.

It's like driving. You don't consciously think "mirror, signal, manoeuvre" every time you change lanes after twenty years of driving. But you'd absolutely follow a detailed checklist if you were learning to fly a helicopter.

The mistake most organisations make is treating every problem like it's helicopter-flying complex. Your problem-solving skills training should teach people when to use which level of analysis.

Models hurt when they become bureaucratic processes instead of thinking tools. When filling out the forms becomes more important than solving the problem. When people spend longer documenting their problem-solving process than actually solving problems.

The Dirty Secret About Problem-Solving Models

Want to know something the textbooks won't tell you? Most breakthrough problem solutions come from breaking the model, not following it.

The best solutions I've seen in my career came from people who understood the models well enough to know when to ignore them. They'd use structured thinking to understand the problem, then throw out the rulebook to find creative solutions.

That's why I always tell my training participants: learn the models, practice with them, but don't become a slave to them. The goal is to solve problems, not to demonstrate your ability to follow a process.

Think of problem-solving models like training wheels on a bike. Essential for learning, helpful for building confidence, but eventually you need to take them off if you want to really ride.

What This Means for Your Team Tomorrow

Stop looking for the perfect problem-solving model. There isn't one.

Instead, build a culture where people feel comfortable using their judgment about which level of analysis a problem deserves. Some issues need five minutes and a phone call. Others need weeks of research and stakeholder consultation.

Train your people to recognise the difference. That's more valuable than memorising another acronym.

And for the love of all that's holy, stop making people fill out forms to solve simple problems. If it takes longer to document the problem-solving process than it took to solve the problem, you're doing it wrong.

The best problem-solving model is the one that gets problems solved quickly, permanently, and without creating new problems in the process. Everything else is just academic masturbation.

Now, who's going to fix that coffee machine?