What Problem Are You Trying to Solve?

Thursday, July 7, 2016 | Larry Sobal

“If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.” That quote by Albert Einstein captures the crux of this seemingly simple question. If debated and answered correctly, defining what problem you’re trying to solve can mean the difference between successful change and dysfunctional stagnation; yet I find that being able to fully articulate the actual problem is a hurdle many people and organizations cannot overcome.

Let’s explore what the barriers are and how to overcome them.

Why is defining the problem so hard? I can think of a lot of reasons and examples. To start with, too many companies devote far too little time to it. The urgency and temptation to jump to solutions is often so strong that thinking about what the problem is can be quickly glossed over. The problem definition phase is critically important because teams develop a clear understanding of what their goals are and generate hypotheses that can be tested and refined through experiments.

A second barrier is the lack of understanding of what an effective problem statement really is. The quality of a problem statement makes all the difference in a team’s ability to focus on what really matters. Unfortunately, few leaders have been trained in the proper construction of a problem statement, not to mention their lack of facilitative skills to lead a team to an effective creation of a problem statement.

For a third barrier, think of the statement, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Ironically, Albert Einstein is widely credited with that quote, although there’s no actual evidence he said it. Even so, it’s a great statement and a fantastic example of a compound business problem that is very common today: You don’t even know what you don’t know, so you continue to apply the same old solutions (solutions that are no longer effective because the problem has evolved). In other words, consider that the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. Those words are actually attributed to Albert Einstein.

Consider that the significant problems we have cannot be solved with the same level of thinking with which we created them.

Let’s switch to solutions.

If you Google “problem statement,” you’ll find there are 38 million postings. That’s a problem in itself because there seems to be many different ideas on exactly how to best construct a problem statement. I randomly looked at 50 or more of these sites and found quite a few differences.

For what it’s worth, here are the characteristics of a problem statement definition that I personally try to use:

1. It must describe the impact (pain area) in terms of quantitative data.
2. It must include the aspects of what, when and how much.
3. The statement should neither be too broad or generic, nor should it be so specific as to limit the scope of the analysis that will occur when seeking resolution of the problem.
4. The cause or solution should not be implied in the problem statement. If you are 100% convinced that you already know the cause or solution, then there is no need to do a problem statement—just fix it. However, to be sure you aren’t repeating barrier #1 discussed above, you should consider validating your certainty with a trusted third party.

Let me share a common example. MedAxiom clients we work with are often challenged with patient access to see their physicians, but aren’t always successful in defining the problem.  

Example Problem Statement: Our practice has a problem with not being able to get patients an appointment in a timely manner.

Better Problem Statement: Limited patient access at XYZ physician group is causing a loss of revenue, excessive scheduling rework, dissatisfied patients and referring physicians. Forty-five percent of patients are not able to obtain an appointment in a time period that is acceptable to them, with an average of 3.3 weeks for a non-urgent patient to receive an appointment. This problem has existed since Dr. Jones and Dr. Morton retired in 2015. If improved by 50%, billings could increase by $22,000 per month, rework cost could be reduced by $1,000 per month, and 90% of non-urgent patients could be seen within 10 days. Achieving this level of access is expected to improve patient satisfaction to the 90^th percentile.

Imagine a team working on the example problem statement, versus a team brainstorming how to tackle the second statement. I’d put my money on the second team, since a problem well-stated is half solved.

---

 

Larry Sobal is Executive Vice President of Business Development at MedAxiom. He has a 35-year background as a senior executive in medical group leadership, hospital leadership and insurance. As part of his current role, Larry consults, writes and presents on topics relevant to transforming physician practices and health systems.

 

---