thinking backwards the art of problem solving in business pdf

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera, scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video, download Flash Player

Follow the author

Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer Paperback

• Language English
• ISBN-10 9814382256
• ISBN-13 978-9814382250
• See all details

Product details

• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 9814382256
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-9814382250
• Item weight ‏ : ‎ 0.28 g

About the author

Martin scheepbouwer.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Enter the characters you see below

Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot. For best results, please make sure your browser is accepting cookies.

Type the characters you see in this image:

Server Busy

Our servers are getting hit pretty hard right now. To continue shopping, enter the characters as they are shown in the image below.

Type the characters you see in this image:

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

In this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , Simon London speaks with Charles Conn, CEO of venture-capital firm Oxford Sciences Innovation, and McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin about the complexities of different problem-solving strategies.

Podcast transcript

Simon London: Hello, and welcome to this episode of the McKinsey Podcast , with me, Simon London. What’s the number-one skill you need to succeed professionally? Salesmanship, perhaps? Or a facility with statistics? Or maybe the ability to communicate crisply and clearly? Many would argue that at the very top of the list comes problem solving: that is, the ability to think through and come up with an optimal course of action to address any complex challenge—in business, in public policy, or indeed in life.

Looked at this way, it’s no surprise that McKinsey takes problem solving very seriously, testing for it during the recruiting process and then honing it, in McKinsey consultants, through immersion in a structured seven-step method. To discuss the art of problem solving, I sat down in California with McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin and also with Charles Conn. Charles is a former McKinsey partner, entrepreneur, executive, and coauthor of the book Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything [John Wiley & Sons, 2018].

Charles and Hugo, welcome to the podcast. Thank you for being here.

Hugo Sarrazin: Our pleasure.

Charles Conn: It’s terrific to be here.

Simon London: Problem solving is a really interesting piece of terminology. It could mean so many different things. I have a son who’s a teenage climber. They talk about solving problems. Climbing is problem solving. Charles, when you talk about problem solving, what are you talking about?

Charles Conn: For me, problem solving is the answer to the question “What should I do?” It’s interesting when there’s uncertainty and complexity, and when it’s meaningful because there are consequences. Your son’s climbing is a perfect example. There are consequences, and it’s complicated, and there’s uncertainty—can he make that grab? I think we can apply that same frame almost at any level. You can think about questions like “What town would I like to live in?” or “Should I put solar panels on my roof?”

You might think that’s a funny thing to apply problem solving to, but in my mind it’s not fundamentally different from business problem solving, which answers the question “What should my strategy be?” Or problem solving at the policy level: “How do we combat climate change?” “Should I support the local school bond?” I think these are all part and parcel of the same type of question, “What should I do?”

I’m a big fan of structured problem solving. By following steps, we can more clearly understand what problem it is we’re solving, what are the components of the problem that we’re solving, which components are the most important ones for us to pay attention to, which analytic techniques we should apply to those, and how we can synthesize what we’ve learned back into a compelling story. That’s all it is, at its heart.

I think sometimes when people think about seven steps, they assume that there’s a rigidity to this. That’s not it at all. It’s actually to give you the scope for creativity, which often doesn’t exist when your problem solving is muddled.

Simon London: You were just talking about the seven-step process. That’s what’s written down in the book, but it’s a very McKinsey process as well. Without getting too deep into the weeds, let’s go through the steps, one by one. You were just talking about problem definition as being a particularly important thing to get right first. That’s the first step. Hugo, tell us about that.

Hugo Sarrazin: It is surprising how often people jump past this step and make a bunch of assumptions. The most powerful thing is to step back and ask the basic questions—“What are we trying to solve? What are the constraints that exist? What are the dependencies?” Let’s make those explicit and really push the thinking and defining. At McKinsey, we spend an enormous amount of time in writing that little statement, and the statement, if you’re a logic purist, is great. You debate. “Is it an ‘or’? Is it an ‘and’? What’s the action verb?” Because all these specific words help you get to the heart of what matters.

Want to subscribe to The McKinsey Podcast ?

Simon London: So this is a concise problem statement.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah. It’s not like “Can we grow in Japan?” That’s interesting, but it is “What, specifically, are we trying to uncover in the growth of a product in Japan? Or a segment in Japan? Or a channel in Japan?” When you spend an enormous amount of time, in the first meeting of the different stakeholders, debating this and having different people put forward what they think the problem definition is, you realize that people have completely different views of why they’re here. That, to me, is the most important step.

Charles Conn: I would agree with that. For me, the problem context is critical. When we understand “What are the forces acting upon your decision maker? How quickly is the answer needed? With what precision is the answer needed? Are there areas that are off limits or areas where we would particularly like to find our solution? Is the decision maker open to exploring other areas?” then you not only become more efficient, and move toward what we call the critical path in problem solving, but you also make it so much more likely that you’re not going to waste your time or your decision maker’s time.

How often do especially bright young people run off with half of the idea about what the problem is and start collecting data and start building models—only to discover that they’ve really gone off half-cocked.

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah.

Charles Conn: And in the wrong direction.

Simon London: OK. So step one—and there is a real art and a structure to it—is define the problem. Step two, Charles?

Charles Conn: My favorite step is step two, which is to use logic trees to disaggregate the problem. Every problem we’re solving has some complexity and some uncertainty in it. The only way that we can really get our team working on the problem is to take the problem apart into logical pieces.

What we find, of course, is that the way to disaggregate the problem often gives you an insight into the answer to the problem quite quickly. I love to do two or three different cuts at it, each one giving a bit of a different insight into what might be going wrong. By doing sensible disaggregations, using logic trees, we can figure out which parts of the problem we should be looking at, and we can assign those different parts to team members.

Simon London: What’s a good example of a logic tree on a sort of ratable problem?

Charles Conn: Maybe the easiest one is the classic profit tree. Almost in every business that I would take a look at, I would start with a profit or return-on-assets tree. In its simplest form, you have the components of revenue, which are price and quantity, and the components of cost, which are cost and quantity. Each of those can be broken out. Cost can be broken into variable cost and fixed cost. The components of price can be broken into what your pricing scheme is. That simple tree often provides insight into what’s going on in a business or what the difference is between that business and the competitors.

If we add the leg, which is “What’s the asset base or investment element?”—so profit divided by assets—then we can ask the question “Is the business using its investments sensibly?” whether that’s in stores or in manufacturing or in transportation assets. I hope we can see just how simple this is, even though we’re describing it in words.

When I went to work with Gordon Moore at the Moore Foundation, the problem that he asked us to look at was “How can we save Pacific salmon?” Now, that sounds like an impossible question, but it was amenable to precisely the same type of disaggregation and allowed us to organize what became a 15-year effort to improve the likelihood of good outcomes for Pacific salmon.

Simon London: Now, is there a danger that your logic tree can be impossibly large? This, I think, brings us onto the third step in the process, which is that you have to prioritize.

Charles Conn: Absolutely. The third step, which we also emphasize, along with good problem definition, is rigorous prioritization—we ask the questions “How important is this lever or this branch of the tree in the overall outcome that we seek to achieve? How much can I move that lever?” Obviously, we try and focus our efforts on ones that have a big impact on the problem and the ones that we have the ability to change. With salmon, ocean conditions turned out to be a big lever, but not one that we could adjust. We focused our attention on fish habitats and fish-harvesting practices, which were big levers that we could affect.

People spend a lot of time arguing about branches that are either not important or that none of us can change. We see it in the public square. When we deal with questions at the policy level—“Should you support the death penalty?” “How do we affect climate change?” “How can we uncover the causes and address homelessness?”—it’s even more important that we’re focusing on levers that are big and movable.

Would you like to learn more about our Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice ?

Simon London: Let’s move swiftly on to step four. You’ve defined your problem, you disaggregate it, you prioritize where you want to analyze—what you want to really look at hard. Then you got to the work plan. Now, what does that mean in practice?

Hugo Sarrazin: Depending on what you’ve prioritized, there are many things you could do. It could be breaking the work among the team members so that people have a clear piece of the work to do. It could be defining the specific analyses that need to get done and executed, and being clear on time lines. There’s always a level-one answer, there’s a level-two answer, there’s a level-three answer. Without being too flippant, I can solve any problem during a good dinner with wine. It won’t have a whole lot of backing.

Simon London: Not going to have a lot of depth to it.

Hugo Sarrazin: No, but it may be useful as a starting point. If the stakes are not that high, that could be OK. If it’s really high stakes, you may need level three and have the whole model validated in three different ways. You need to find a work plan that reflects the level of precision, the time frame you have, and the stakeholders you need to bring along in the exercise.

Charles Conn: I love the way you’ve described that, because, again, some people think of problem solving as a linear thing, but of course what’s critical is that it’s iterative. As you say, you can solve the problem in one day or even one hour.

Charles Conn: We encourage our teams everywhere to do that. We call it the one-day answer or the one-hour answer. In work planning, we’re always iterating. Every time you see a 50-page work plan that stretches out to three months, you know it’s wrong. It will be outmoded very quickly by that learning process that you described. Iterative problem solving is a critical part of this. Sometimes, people think work planning sounds dull, but it isn’t. It’s how we know what’s expected of us and when we need to deliver it and how we’re progressing toward the answer. It’s also the place where we can deal with biases. Bias is a feature of every human decision-making process. If we design our team interactions intelligently, we can avoid the worst sort of biases.

Simon London: Here we’re talking about cognitive biases primarily, right? It’s not that I’m biased against you because of your accent or something. These are the cognitive biases that behavioral sciences have shown we all carry around, things like anchoring, overoptimism—these kinds of things.

Both: Yeah.

Charles Conn: Availability bias is the one that I’m always alert to. You think you’ve seen the problem before, and therefore what’s available is your previous conception of it—and we have to be most careful about that. In any human setting, we also have to be careful about biases that are based on hierarchies, sometimes called sunflower bias. I’m sure, Hugo, with your teams, you make sure that the youngest team members speak first. Not the oldest team members, because it’s easy for people to look at who’s senior and alter their own creative approaches.

Hugo Sarrazin: It’s helpful, at that moment—if someone is asserting a point of view—to ask the question “This was true in what context?” You’re trying to apply something that worked in one context to a different one. That can be deadly if the context has changed, and that’s why organizations struggle to change. You promote all these people because they did something that worked well in the past, and then there’s a disruption in the industry, and they keep doing what got them promoted even though the context has changed.

Simon London: Right. Right.

Hugo Sarrazin: So it’s the same thing in problem solving.

Charles Conn: And it’s why diversity in our teams is so important. It’s one of the best things about the world that we’re in now. We’re likely to have people from different socioeconomic, ethnic, and national backgrounds, each of whom sees problems from a slightly different perspective. It is therefore much more likely that the team will uncover a truly creative and clever approach to problem solving.

Simon London: Let’s move on to step five. You’ve done your work plan. Now you’ve actually got to do the analysis. The thing that strikes me here is that the range of tools that we have at our disposal now, of course, is just huge, particularly with advances in computation, advanced analytics. There’s so many things that you can apply here. Just talk about the analysis stage. How do you pick the right tools?

Charles Conn: For me, the most important thing is that we start with simple heuristics and explanatory statistics before we go off and use the big-gun tools. We need to understand the shape and scope of our problem before we start applying these massive and complex analytical approaches.

Simon London: Would you agree with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: I agree. I think there are so many wonderful heuristics. You need to start there before you go deep into the modeling exercise. There’s an interesting dynamic that’s happening, though. In some cases, for some types of problems, it is even better to set yourself up to maximize your learning. Your problem-solving methodology is test and learn, test and learn, test and learn, and iterate. That is a heuristic in itself, the A/B testing that is used in many parts of the world. So that’s a problem-solving methodology. It’s nothing different. It just uses technology and feedback loops in a fast way. The other one is exploratory data analysis. When you’re dealing with a large-scale problem, and there’s so much data, I can get to the heuristics that Charles was talking about through very clever visualization of data.

You test with your data. You need to set up an environment to do so, but don’t get caught up in neural-network modeling immediately. You’re testing, you’re checking—“Is the data right? Is it sound? Does it make sense?”—before you launch too far.

Simon London: You do hear these ideas—that if you have a big enough data set and enough algorithms, they’re going to find things that you just wouldn’t have spotted, find solutions that maybe you wouldn’t have thought of. Does machine learning sort of revolutionize the problem-solving process? Or are these actually just other tools in the toolbox for structured problem solving?

Charles Conn: It can be revolutionary. There are some areas in which the pattern recognition of large data sets and good algorithms can help us see things that we otherwise couldn’t see. But I do think it’s terribly important we don’t think that this particular technique is a substitute for superb problem solving, starting with good problem definition. Many people use machine learning without understanding algorithms that themselves can have biases built into them. Just as 20 years ago, when we were doing statistical analysis, we knew that we needed good model definition, we still need a good understanding of our algorithms and really good problem definition before we launch off into big data sets and unknown algorithms.

Simon London: Step six. You’ve done your analysis.

Charles Conn: I take six and seven together, and this is the place where young problem solvers often make a mistake. They’ve got their analysis, and they assume that’s the answer, and of course it isn’t the answer. The ability to synthesize the pieces that came out of the analysis and begin to weave those into a story that helps people answer the question “What should I do?” This is back to where we started. If we can’t synthesize, and we can’t tell a story, then our decision maker can’t find the answer to “What should I do?”

Simon London: But, again, these final steps are about motivating people to action, right?

Charles Conn: Yeah.

Simon London: I am slightly torn about the nomenclature of problem solving because it’s on paper, right? Until you motivate people to action, you actually haven’t solved anything.

Charles Conn: I love this question because I think decision-making theory, without a bias to action, is a waste of time. Everything in how I approach this is to help people take action that makes the world better.

Simon London: Hence, these are absolutely critical steps. If you don’t do this well, you’ve just got a bunch of analysis.

Charles Conn: We end up in exactly the same place where we started, which is people speaking across each other, past each other in the public square, rather than actually working together, shoulder to shoulder, to crack these important problems.

Simon London: In the real world, we have a lot of uncertainty—arguably, increasing uncertainty. How do good problem solvers deal with that?

Hugo Sarrazin: At every step of the process. In the problem definition, when you’re defining the context, you need to understand those sources of uncertainty and whether they’re important or not important. It becomes important in the definition of the tree.

You need to think carefully about the branches of the tree that are more certain and less certain as you define them. They don’t have equal weight just because they’ve got equal space on the page. Then, when you’re prioritizing, your prioritization approach may put more emphasis on things that have low probability but huge impact—or, vice versa, may put a lot of priority on things that are very likely and, hopefully, have a reasonable impact. You can introduce that along the way. When you come back to the synthesis, you just need to be nuanced about what you’re understanding, the likelihood.

Often, people lack humility in the way they make their recommendations: “This is the answer.” They’re very precise, and I think we would all be well-served to say, “This is a likely answer under the following sets of conditions” and then make the level of uncertainty clearer, if that is appropriate. It doesn’t mean you’re always in the gray zone; it doesn’t mean you don’t have a point of view. It just means that you can be explicit about the certainty of your answer when you make that recommendation.

Simon London: So it sounds like there is an underlying principle: “Acknowledge and embrace the uncertainty. Don’t pretend that it isn’t there. Be very clear about what the uncertainties are up front, and then build that into every step of the process.”

Hugo Sarrazin: Every step of the process.

Simon London: Yeah. We have just walked through a particular structured methodology for problem solving. But, of course, this is not the only structured methodology for problem solving. One that is also very well-known is design thinking, which comes at things very differently. So, Hugo, I know you have worked with a lot of designers. Just give us a very quick summary. Design thinking—what is it, and how does it relate?

Hugo Sarrazin: It starts with an incredible amount of empathy for the user and uses that to define the problem. It does pause and go out in the wild and spend an enormous amount of time seeing how people interact with objects, seeing the experience they’re getting, seeing the pain points or joy—and uses that to infer and define the problem.

Simon London: Problem definition, but out in the world.

Hugo Sarrazin: With an enormous amount of empathy. There’s a huge emphasis on empathy. Traditional, more classic problem solving is you define the problem based on an understanding of the situation. This one almost presupposes that we don’t know the problem until we go see it. The second thing is you need to come up with multiple scenarios or answers or ideas or concepts, and there’s a lot of divergent thinking initially. That’s slightly different, versus the prioritization, but not for long. Eventually, you need to kind of say, “OK, I’m going to converge again.” Then you go and you bring things back to the customer and get feedback and iterate. Then you rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. There’s a lot of tactile building, along the way, of prototypes and things like that. It’s very iterative.

Simon London: So, Charles, are these complements or are these alternatives?

Charles Conn: I think they’re entirely complementary, and I think Hugo’s description is perfect. When we do problem definition well in classic problem solving, we are demonstrating the kind of empathy, at the very beginning of our problem, that design thinking asks us to approach. When we ideate—and that’s very similar to the disaggregation, prioritization, and work-planning steps—we do precisely the same thing, and often we use contrasting teams, so that we do have divergent thinking. The best teams allow divergent thinking to bump them off whatever their initial biases in problem solving are. For me, design thinking gives us a constant reminder of creativity, empathy, and the tactile nature of problem solving, but it’s absolutely complementary, not alternative.

Simon London: I think, in a world of cross-functional teams, an interesting question is do people with design-thinking backgrounds really work well together with classical problem solvers? How do you make that chemistry happen?

Hugo Sarrazin: Yeah, it is not easy when people have spent an enormous amount of time seeped in design thinking or user-centric design, whichever word you want to use. If the person who’s applying classic problem-solving methodology is very rigid and mechanical in the way they’re doing it, there could be an enormous amount of tension. If there’s not clarity in the role and not clarity in the process, I think having the two together can be, sometimes, problematic.

The second thing that happens often is that the artifacts the two methodologies try to gravitate toward can be different. Classic problem solving often gravitates toward a model; design thinking migrates toward a prototype. Rather than writing a big deck with all my supporting evidence, they’ll bring an example, a thing, and that feels different. Then you spend your time differently to achieve those two end products, so that’s another source of friction.

Now, I still think it can be an incredibly powerful thing to have the two—if there are the right people with the right mind-set, if there is a team that is explicit about the roles, if we’re clear about the kind of outcomes we are attempting to bring forward. There’s an enormous amount of collaborativeness and respect.

Simon London: But they have to respect each other’s methodology and be prepared to flex, maybe, a little bit, in how this process is going to work.

Hugo Sarrazin: Absolutely.

Simon London: The other area where, it strikes me, there could be a little bit of a different sort of friction is this whole concept of the day-one answer, which is what we were just talking about in classical problem solving. Now, you know that this is probably not going to be your final answer, but that’s how you begin to structure the problem. Whereas I would imagine your design thinkers—no, they’re going off to do their ethnographic research and get out into the field, potentially for a long time, before they come back with at least an initial hypothesis.

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

Hugo Sarrazin: That is a great callout, and that’s another difference. Designers typically will like to soak into the situation and avoid converging too quickly. There’s optionality and exploring different options. There’s a strong belief that keeps the solution space wide enough that you can come up with more radical ideas. If there’s a large design team or many designers on the team, and you come on Friday and say, “What’s our week-one answer?” they’re going to struggle. They’re not going to be comfortable, naturally, to give that answer. It doesn’t mean they don’t have an answer; it’s just not where they are in their thinking process.

Simon London: I think we are, sadly, out of time for today. But Charles and Hugo, thank you so much.

Charles Conn: It was a pleasure to be here, Simon.

Hugo Sarrazin: It was a pleasure. Thank you.

Simon London: And thanks, as always, to you, our listeners, for tuning into this episode of the McKinsey Podcast . If you want to learn more about problem solving, you can find the book, Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything , online or order it through your local bookstore. To learn more about McKinsey, you can of course find us at McKinsey.com.

Charles Conn is CEO of Oxford Sciences Innovation and an alumnus of McKinsey’s Sydney office. Hugo Sarrazin is a senior partner in the Silicon Valley office, where Simon London, a member of McKinsey Publishing, is also based.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Strategy to beat the odds

Five routes to more innovative problem solving

• ALL CATEGORY
• TRACK ORDER

Your Cart is Empty

• Rs. 0.00 Subtotal
• Action and adventure
• Business/Economics/Finance/Trading
• COMBO MADE FOR YOU
• Comics & Mangas
• Religion & Spirituality
• Analysis & Strategy
• Biographies & Autobiographies

Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business by Rob Van Haastrecht

Notify me when this product is available:

Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business   Paperback – 22 August 2012

Product details.

• Language ‏ : ‎   English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎   176 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎   9814382256
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎   978-9814382250
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎   0.28 g
• Country of Origin ‏ : ‎   India

Companies are lousy problem solvers. There are fundamental flaws in the way managers and their advisers make crucial decisions, including: unclear or missing objectives; spending too much time on the problem rather than on the solution; lack of real facts and evidence; giving direction without recommending concrete interventions; misalignment with key stakeholders; or simply missing good alternatives. This succinct but powerful guide aims to make you at least twice as effective a problem solver than before. Moreover, it will help you to make better decisions in less time and with less effort. The authors bring home four key principles in addressing business problems: "Think backwards"; "Get to the bottom of it"; "Decisions are nothing, interventions are everything"; and "Challenge the status quo and current thinking". After reading this book, you will make less mistakes and completely rethink the way you make business trade-offs.

Collections: All Books , Analysis & Strategy , Business/Economics/Finance/Trading , New Arrivals

FREQUENTLY BOUGHT TOGHTHER

Sign up for our newsletter.

Get a sneak peek on upcoming promos and get 10% off your first order!

Enter the characters you see below

Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot. For best results, please make sure your browser is accepting cookies.

Type the characters you see in this image:

Just added to your cart

Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business Hardcover

Adding product to your cart

• Share Share on Facebook
• Tweet Tweet on Twitter
• Pin it Pin on Pinterest

Customer Reviews

• Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
• Press the space key then arrow keys to make a selection.

Net Orders Checkout

Shipping Address

Shipping methods.

Effective Problem-Solving Techniques in Business

Problem solving is an increasingly important soft skill for those in business. The Future of Jobs Survey by the World Economic Forum drives this point home. According to this report, complex problem solving is identified as one of the top 15 skills that will be sought by employers in 2025, along with other soft skills such as analytical thinking, creativity and leadership.

Dr. Amy David , clinical associate professor of management for supply chain and operations management, spoke about business problem-solving methods and how the Purdue University Online MBA program prepares students to be business decision-makers.

Why Are Problem-Solving Skills Essential in Leadership Roles?

Every business will face challenges at some point. Those that are successful will have people in place who can identify and solve problems before the damage is done.

“The business world is constantly changing, and companies need to be able to adapt well in order to produce good results and meet the needs of their customers,” David says. “They also need to keep in mind the triple bottom line of ‘people, profit and planet.’ And these priorities are constantly evolving.”

To that end, David says people in management or leadership need to be able to handle new situations, something that may be outside the scope of their everyday work.

“The name of the game these days is change—and the speed of change—and that means solving new problems on a daily basis,” she says.

The pace of information and technology has also empowered the customer in a new way that provides challenges—or opportunities—for businesses to respond.

“Our customers have a lot more information and a lot more power,” she says. “If you think about somebody having an unhappy experience and tweeting about it, that’s very different from maybe 15 years ago. Back then, if you had a bad experience with a product, you might grumble about it to one or two people.”

David says that this reality changes how quickly organizations need to react and respond to their customers. And taking prompt and decisive action requires solid problem-solving skills.

What Are Some of the Most Effective Problem-Solving Methods?

David says there are a few things to consider when encountering a challenge in business.

“When faced with a problem, are we talking about something that is broad and affects a lot of people? Or is it something that affects a select few? Depending on the issue and situation, you’ll need to use different types of problem-solving strategies,” she says.

Using Techniques

There are a number of techniques that businesses use to problem solve. These can include:

• Five Whys : This approach is helpful when the problem at hand is clear but the underlying causes are less so. By asking “Why?” five times, the final answer should get at the potential root of the problem and perhaps yield a solution.
• Gap Analysis : Companies use gap analyses to compare current performance with expected or desired performance, which will help a company determine how to use its resources differently or adjust expectations.
• Gemba Walk : The name, which is derived from a Japanese word meaning “the real place,” refers to a commonly used technique that allows managers to see what works (and what doesn’t) from the ground up. This is an opportunity for managers to focus on the fundamental elements of the process, identify where the value stream is and determine areas that could use improvement.
• Porter’s Five Forces : Developed by Harvard Business School professor Michael E. Porter, applying the Five Forces is a way for companies to identify competitors for their business or services, and determine how the organization can adjust to stay ahead of the game.
• Six Thinking Hats : In his book of the same name, Dr. Edward de Bono details this method that encourages parallel thinking and attempting to solve a problem by trying on different “thinking hats.” Each color hat signifies a different approach that can be utilized in the problem-solving process, ranging from logic to feelings to creativity and beyond. This method allows organizations to view problems from different angles and perspectives.
• SWOT Analysis : This common strategic planning and management tool helps businesses identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT).

“We have a lot of these different tools,” David says. “Which one to use when is going to be dependent on the problem itself, the level of the stakeholders, the number of different stakeholder groups and so on.”

Each of the techniques outlined above uses the same core steps of problem solving:

• Identify and define the problem
• Consider possible solutions
• Evaluate options
• Choose the best solution
• Implement the solution
• Evaluate the outcome

Data drives a lot of daily decisions in business and beyond. Analytics have also been deployed to problem solve.

“We have specific classes around storytelling with data and how you convince your audience to understand what the data is,” David says. “Your audience has to trust the data, and only then can you use it for real decision-making.”

Data can be a powerful tool for identifying larger trends and making informed decisions when it’s clearly understood and communicated. It’s also vital for performance monitoring and optimization.

How Is Problem Solving Prioritized in Purdue’s Online MBA?

The courses in the Purdue Online MBA program teach problem-solving methods to students, keeping them up to date with the latest techniques and allowing them to apply their knowledge to business-related scenarios.

“I can give you a model or a tool, but most of the time, a real-world situation is going to be a lot messier and more valuable than what we’ve seen in a textbook,” David says. “Asking students to take what they know and apply it to a case where there’s not one single correct answer is a big part of the learning experience.”

Make Your Own Decision to Further Your Career

An online MBA from Purdue University can help advance your career by teaching you problem-solving skills, decision-making strategies and more. Reach out today to learn more about earning an online MBA with Purdue University .

If you would like to receive more information about pursuing a business master’s at the Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. School of Business, please fill out the form and a program specialist will be in touch!

Connect With Us

Working Backwards: A Strategic Approach to Productivity

This guide will walk you through the essential elements of using working backwards - the productivity method to keep your team productive and engaged.

In today's fast-paced world, the concept of working backwards has gained significant attention as a strategic approach to productivity. In this comprehensive guide, we will explore the origin, utility, methods, as well as the pros and cons of working backwards, and provide a detailed step-by-step guide for implementing this approach effectively. Additionally, actionable tips, do's and dont's, and frequently asked questions will be addressed to ensure a thorough understanding of this concept. Whether you are an individual striving for personal efficiency, a team leader looking to streamline processes, or an organization aiming for innovation and growth, the principles of working backwards can be a valuable asset. Let's delve into this powerful methodology and uncover how it can revolutionize your approach to problem-solving, planning, and goal attainment.

What is Working Backwards in the Context of Productivity?

In the realm of productivity, the concept of working backwards entails beginning with the end goal in mind and then structuring the steps required to achieve it. This approach involves envisioning the desired outcome and systematically plotting the reverse steps necessary to reach that outcome. It underscores the significance of clear, well-defined objectives as a precursor to formulating the path leading up to them.

By utilizing this methodology, individuals and organizations can align their efforts, resources, and strategies in a manner that is directly linked to achieving the intended results. This approach is particularly pertinent in scenarios where the ultimate goal is clearly defined, but the means to attainment are open to exploration and refinement. Working backwards beckons a shift in perspective, cultivating a mindset that is oriented towards thoroughly analyzing and understanding the end goal before embarking on the journey towards it.

This novel approach to productivity has garnered attention not only in corporate settings but also in personal development, project management, and various aspects of problem-solving.

Origin of Working Backwards

The concept of working backwards finds its roots in diverse domains, particularly in problem-solving methodologies. It has been a fundamental aspect of various innovation and strategic planning processes across different industries. The origin of this approach can be traced back to the techniques employed in fields such as engineering, design thinking, Agile project management, and software development.

In addition, the methodology has been prominently featured in the operational strategies of renowned companies, notably exemplified by its integration into Amazon's product development and strategic decision-making processes. Amazon's adoption of the working backwards approach has propelled its innovative endeavors, playing a pivotal role in the company's success and global impact.

The concept's evolution as a foundational principle in strategic planning and execution underscores its versatile applicability and enduring relevance in diverse contexts.

Use Lark to unleash your team productivity.

Who is Working Backwards For?

Working backwards is a versatile methodology that caters to a broad spectrum of individuals, teams, and organizations seeking to elevate their productivity, streamline their operations, and drive towards well-defined objectives. This approach is particularly beneficial for:

Innovators and Entrepreneurs : Individuals seeking to introduce groundbreaking products or pioneering solutions can benefit from the structured approach offered by working backwards, aiding in the comprehensive delineation of their vision.

Project Managers and Teams : Project managers and teams can leverage this approach to meticulously plan and execute projects, ensuring that every step aligns with the overall project goals.

Strategic Planners and Decision-makers : Professionals involved in strategic planning and decision-making can utilize this methodology to set clear, achievable targets and steer their organizations towards success.

Individuals Pursuing Personal Goals : The process of working backwards can be applied by individuals striving to achieve personal milestones, whether in terms of career progression, skill enhancement, or lifestyle transformations.

The widespread applicability of this approach underscores its relevance across various domains and its potential to drive impactful outcomes.

What are the Pros and Cons of Working Backwards?

Pros of working backwards.

The working backwards approach offers a multitude of benefits, making it an attractive productivity strategy for individuals and organizations alike. Some of the key advantages include:

Clarity and Precision : By commencing with a definitive end goal and working backwards, clarity and precision are fostered throughout the planning and execution phases, ensuring a clear trajectory towards the intended outcome.

Efficient Resource Allocation : This method enables the efficient allocation of resources by aligning them with the specific requirements and milestones identified during the working backwards process.

Risk Mitigation : Working backwards allows for a comprehensive analysis of potential pitfalls and challenges, thereby facilitating proactive risk mitigation strategies as part of the planning process.

Enhanced Innovation : The systematic approach of working backwards nurtures an environment conducive to innovation and unconventional thinking, often leading to breakthrough solutions and novel approaches.

Adaptability and Flexibility : The iterative nature of working backwards allows for adaptability and flexibility, empowering individuals and teams to adjust their strategies and tactics in response to evolving circumstances.

Cons of Working Backwards

While the working backwards methodology offers substantial advantages, it is imperative to consider potential drawbacks, including:

Complexity in Implementation : The detailed nature of this approach may result in a more intricate planning and execution process, potentially demanding additional time and resources.

Potential Over-analysis : There is a risk of over-analyzing the reverse steps, possibly leading to delays in the commencement of actions and initiatives.

Dynamic Environment Management : Adapting the planned steps to accommodate unexpected changes in a dynamic environment may necessitate ongoing evaluation and adjustment.

Striking a balance between the benefits and drawbacks is crucial for effectively implementing the working backwards methodology.

Learn more about Lark x Productivity

How to Get Started with Working Backwards

Embarking on the journey of working backwards involves a deliberate and systematic approach, encompassing several key phases. The initial steps include defining the desired outcome, articulating the reverse steps, and committing to iterative refinement. Let's explore these fundamental stages in greater detail.

Step-by-Step Guide for Working Backwards

Step 1: define the end goal.

The primary phase of working backwards involves clearly defining the end goal or desired outcome. At this stage, it's imperative to articulate the specific objectives and results that are to be achieved. This pivotal step sets the foundation for the subsequent phases, guiding the formation of the reverse action plan.

Step 2: Identify Key Milestones

Once the end goal is defined, the next step entails identifying the key milestones and intermediate objectives that collectively lead to the attainment of the ultimate target. This stage involves delineating the critical stages and achievements that mark the progression towards the end result.

Step 3: Outline the Reverse Action Plan

With the end goal and milestones established, the reverse action plan is formulated, detailing the steps required to reach each milestone and, subsequently, the final objective. This involves structuring the sequence of actions in a reverse order, commencing from the last step and progressing towards the initial phase.

Step 4: Iterative Refinement

The iterative refinement stage involves continuous evaluation and refinement of the action plan based on feedback, insights, and evolving circumstances. This iterative process ensures that the plan remains adaptable and responsive to changes.

By systematically traversing through these sequential steps, individuals and teams can effectively embrace the working backwards approach, infusing precision and purpose into their endeavors.

Actionable Tips for Working Backwards

Incorporating working backwards into your productivity arsenal can be enhanced by integrating the following actionable tips:

Embrace Iterative Thinking : Cultivate a mindset that welcomes iterative thinking and planning, facilitating continuous improvement and adaptability.

Leverage Feedback Loops : Establish feedback loops within the planning process to solicit insights and perspectives that can drive refinement and enhancement.

Foster Open Communication : Encourage open communication and collaboration among team members to cultivate a holistic understanding of the working backwards methodology.

Maintain a Clear Vision : Uphold a clear and articulate vision of the end goal to channel efforts and resources effectively throughout the reverse planning process.

Do's and Dont's

Below is a concise representation of the essential do's and dont's to consider when embracing the concept of working backwards:

In conclusion, working backwards offers a powerful and systematic approach to aligning efforts and resources with the attainment of well-defined objectives. By crystallizing the end goal, mapping out the reverse steps, and embracing iterative refinement, individuals and organizations can navigate their journeys with purpose and precision. The methodology's versatility and adaptability render it a valuable asset in diverse domains, empowering innovators, project managers, strategic planners, and individuals pursuing personal goals. Embracing the principles of working backwards can enrich problem-solving, strategic planning, and goal attainment endeavors, charting a course towards impactful and enduring success.

1. What are the primary industries where working backwards is commonly applied?

The working backwards methodology finds extensive application in domains such as product development, strategic planning, project management, and innovation-driven industries.

2. How does working backwards foster innovation and unconventional thinking?

By encouraging a structured yet flexible approach, working backwards provides a conducive environment for nurturing innovative thinking, enabling individuals and teams to explore unconventional solutions and approaches.

3. Can working backwards be applied to personal goal setting?

Absolutely. The methodology can be leveraged by individuals pursuing personal goals, as it allows for a systematic approach to defining objectives and formulating the steps necessary to achieve them.

4. How does iterative refinement contribute to the effectiveness of working backwards?

Iterative refinement ensures that the reverse action plan remains adaptable and responsive to changes, thereby enhancing its relevance and efficacy in dynamic environments.

5. What pivotal role does clear communication play in the success of the working backwards approach?

Clear and open communication conduces to fostering a shared understanding and commitment to the predefined goals and action steps, catalyzing the collective efforts towards success.

By integrating these guidelines and insights into your projects and endeavors, you can harness the power of working backwards to catalyze your journey towards triumph and innovation.

Remember, success is not achieved by chance, but through deliberate strategy and purposeful execution. Embrace the principles of working backwards, and unlock the potential for transformative achievements and enduring excellence.

Lark, bringing it all together

All your team need is Lark

Explore More in Productivity Glossary

Attention! Your ePaper is waiting for publication!

By publishing your document, the content will be optimally indexed by Google via AI and sorted into the right category for over 500 million ePaper readers on YUMPU.

This will ensure high visibility and many readers!

Your ePaper is now published and live on YUMPU!

You can find your publication here:

Share your interactive ePaper on all platforms and on your website with our embed function

!D.o.w.n.l.o.a.d e-Book Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer Full AudioBook

pdf download Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer read Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer best seller Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer txt Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer pdf Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer ebook Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer csv Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer doc Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer excel reading Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin Scheepbouwer full book

• scheepbouwer

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• More documents
• Recommendations

Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business.Rob Van Haastrecht & Martin ScheepbouwerBOOK DETAILAmazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a freebusiness account Hardcover: 192 pages Publisher: Marshall Cavendish Corp/Ccb (January 15, 2011)Language: English ISBN-10: 9814302724 ISBN-13: 978-9814302722 Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.7 x 0.8inches Shipping Weight: 9.9 ouncesStep By Step To Download Or Read Online1. Click Button "DOWNLOAD" Or "READ ONLINE"2. Sign Up To Acces "Thinking Backwards: The Art of Problem Solving in Business. Rob Van Haastrecht & MartinScheepbouwer"3. Choose the book you like when you register4. You can also cancel your membership if you are bored5. Enjoy and Happy Reading

Book DescriptionCompanies are lousy problem solvers. There are fundamental flaws in the way managers and theiradvisers make crucial decisions, including: unclear or missing objectives; spending too much timeon the problem rather than on the solution; lack of real facts and evidence; giving directionwithout recommending concrete interventions; misalignment with key stakeholders; or simplymissing good alternatives. This succinct but powerful guide aims to make you at least twice aseffective a problem solver than before. Moreover, it will help you to make better decisions in lesstime and with less effort. The authors bring home four key principles in addressing businessproblems: Think backwards ; Get to the bottom of it ; Decisions are nothing, interventions areeverything ; and Challenge the status quo and current thinking . After reading this book, you willmake less mistakes and completely rethink the way you make business trade-offs.

• Page 1: Thinking Backwards: The Art of Prob

Extended embed settings

Inappropriate

You have already flagged this document. Thank you, for helping us keep this platform clean. The editors will have a look at it as soon as possible.

Mail this publication

Delete template.

Are you sure you want to delete your template?

DOWNLOAD ePAPER

This ePaper is currently not available for download. You can find similar magazines on this topic below under ‘Recommendations’.

Save as template?

• Help & Support
• tuxbrain.com
• ooomacros.org
• nubuntu.org
• Terms of service
• Privacy policy
• Cookie policy
• Cookie settings

Choose your language

Main languages

Further languages

• Bahasa Indonesia

Performing this action will revert the following features to their default settings:

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!