One of the most common mistakes organisations make is confusing a proposed solution with the problem itself.

For example:

• "We need a new information management system."
• "Our employees need more training."
• "We need to improve communication."
• "We need to introduce artificial intelligence."

These statements describe possible interventions, not necessarily the underlying problems.

A stronger problem definition describes an observable gap between the current situation and the desired outcome.

Consider the difference:

Solution-oriented statement	Problem-oriented statement
We need new software.	Our teams cannot access accurate information when making decisions.
We need more training.	Employees lack specific capabilities required to perform critical tasks.
We need better communication.	Important decisions are frequently delayed because departments operate with disconnected information.
We need AI.	Existing processes require repetitive manual work that creates delays and inconsistencies.

Questions to ask

• What is happening that should not be happening?
• What should be happening that currently is not?
• Who experiences the problem?
• What specific outcome is being affected?

Practical output: A clear, concise problem statement that describes the challenge without prescribing its solution.

An issue may appear significant because it is frequently discussed, politically visible or strongly felt by leadership. However, the frequency with which a problem is mentioned does not necessarily reflect its actual scale or underlying causes.

Organisations need to establish an evidence base before deciding what intervention is appropriate.

Evidence may include operational data, financial records, customer feedback, employee experiences, performance indicators, research findings and direct observation.

Importantly, the absence of reliable data should not automatically mean that a problem does not exist. It may itself reveal an institutional weakness.

Questions to ask

• What evidence demonstrates that the problem exists?
• How frequently does it occur?
• How significant are its consequences?
• Are we relying on measurable information or assumptions?
• What information are we currently missing?

Practical output: An evidence summary distinguishing verified facts, assumptions and information gaps.

Organisational problems rarely affect everyone equally.

A process that works well for senior management may create difficulties for frontline employees. A policy that appears effective at institutional level may impose significant costs on the people expected to implement it.

Understanding the different experiences of stakeholders helps organisations avoid designing interventions around the perspectives of only those who have the authority to make decisions.

Stakeholder engagement is particularly important because the people closest to a problem often possess knowledge that is not captured in institutional reports or performance dashboards.

Questions to ask

• Who is directly affected by this problem?
• Who experiences its consequences indirectly?
• How does the problem affect different departments, customers or stakeholders?
• Whose perspectives are currently missing?
• Who will ultimately be responsible for implementing a solution?

Practical output: A stakeholder map identifying affected groups, their experiences, interests and influence.

Visible problems are not always the problems that need to be addressed.

For example, declining organisational performance may be attributed to employee productivity. However, further investigation may reveal that employees are working with outdated systems, unclear responsibilities, inefficient approval structures or conflicting performance incentives.

Treating the visible symptom without addressing its underlying causes often produces temporary improvements rather than lasting change.

One useful approach is the Five Whys technique: repeatedly asking why a problem occurs until the investigation moves beyond the immediate explanation.

However, complex organisational challenges rarely have a single cause. They may emerge from the interaction of people, processes, institutions, technology, incentives and external conditions.

Questions to ask

• What factors contribute to the problem?
• What conditions allow it to persist?
• Are there structural, institutional or behavioural causes?
• How do different parts of the organisation influence one another?
• Are we addressing the cause or simply managing the symptoms?

Practical output: A preliminary root-cause analysis identifying the factors sustaining the problem and how they interact.

Not every organisational problem requires immediate intervention. Some challenges are manageable, while others become increasingly expensive or difficult to address over time.

Understanding the consequences of inaction helps decision-makers distinguish between urgent priorities and issues that may be less consequential.

It also creates a clearer basis for determining whether an intervention is justified.

Consider an organisation experiencing delays in its procurement process. The immediate consequence may be slower purchasing. But over time, the same problem could contribute to higher operating costs, disrupted service delivery, weakened supplier relationships and reduced institutional credibility.

The consequences may extend far beyond the original operational difficulty.

Questions to ask

• What happens if the problem remains unresolved?
• What are the financial, operational and institutional consequences?
• Who bears the greatest cost?
• Will the problem become more difficult to address over time?
• What opportunities are being lost because of it?

Practical output: A consequence assessment outlining the costs of inaction and the urgency of intervention.

A solution that works in one organisation may fail in another.

The effectiveness of an intervention depends not only on the quality of its design but also on the conditions surrounding its implementation.

These may include financial resources, institutional capacity, infrastructure, regulatory requirements, organisational culture, political realities and existing systems.

This is particularly important when organisations consider adopting technologies, business models or development frameworks from other contexts.

A successful intervention elsewhere does not guarantee success locally.

The objective is not to limit ambition but to understand the conditions that determine what is practical, sustainable and appropriate.

Questions to ask

• What resources are available?
• What institutional or regulatory constraints exist?
• What existing systems must the intervention work alongside?
• What organisational capabilities are required?
• Which external conditions could affect implementation?

Practical output: A constraints and enabling conditions assessment that establishes the realities within which an intervention must operate.

Organisations sometimes measure success by whether an activity has been completed rather than whether the underlying problem has been resolved.

A new system is installed. A training programme is delivered. A strategy document is approved. An innovation challenge is concluded.

But these activities do not automatically translate into meaningful improvement.

Success should be defined in terms of the change an organisation wants to achieve.

If the problem is slow decision-making, success should not simply mean implementing new software. It should mean that decisions become faster, more informed and more consistent.

If the problem is poor service delivery, success should be measured through improvements in service quality, accessibility and user experience.

Defining success early creates a reference point against which potential interventions can be evaluated.

Questions to ask

• What specifically needs to change?
• What would a successful outcome look like?
• How will we know that the problem has been addressed?
• Which indicators should be used to measure progress?
• What would constitute a meaningful and sustainable improvement?

Practical output: A set of measurable outcomes and success indicators that can guide the design and evaluation of an intervention.