technology for problem solving

14 Major Tech Issues — and the Innovations That Will Resolve Them

Members of the Young Entrepreneur Council discuss some of the past year’s most pressing technology concerns and how we should address them.

The past year has seen unprecedented challenges to public-health systems and the global economy. Many facets of daily life and work have moved into the digital realm, and the shift has highlighted some underlying business technology issues that are getting in the way of productivity, communication and security.

As successful business leaders, the members of the Young Entrepreneur Council understand how important it is to have functional, up-to-date technology. That ’ s why we asked a panel of them to share what they view as the biggest business tech problem of the past year. Here are the issues they ’ re concerned about and the innovations they believe will help solve them.

Current Major Technology Issues

Need For Strong Digital Conference Platforms
Remote Internet Speed and Connections
Phishing and Data Privacy Issues
Deepfake Content
Too Much Focus on Automation
Data Mixups Due to AI Implementation
Poor User Experience

1. Employee Productivity Measurement

As most companies switched to 100 percent remote almost overnight, many realized that they lacked an efficient way to measure employee productivity. Technology with “ user productivity reports ” has become invaluable. Without being able to “ see ” an employee in the workplace, companies must find technology that helps them to track and report how productive employees are at home. — Bill Mulholland , ARC Relocation

2. Digital Industry Conference Platforms

Nothing beats in-person communication when it comes to business development. In the past, industry conferences were king. Today, though, the move to remote conferences really leaves a lot to be desired and transforms the largely intangible value derived from attending into something that is purely informational. A new form or platform for industry conferences is sorely needed. — Nick Reese , Elder Guide

3. Remote Internet Speed and Equipment

With a sudden shift to most employees working remotely, corporations need to boost at-home internet speed and capacity for employees that didn ’ t previously have the requirements to produce work adequately. Companies need to invest in new technologies like 5G and ensure they are supported at home. — Matthew Podolsky , Florida Law Advisers, P.A.

4. Too Much Focus on Automation

Yes, automation and multi-platform management might be ideal for big-name brands and companies, but for small site owners and businesses, it ’ s just overkill. Way too many people are overcomplicating things. Stick to your business model and what works without trying to overload the process. — Zac Johnson , Blogger

5. Phishing Sites

There are many examples of phishing site victims. Last year, I realized the importance of good pop-up blockers for your laptop and mobile devices. It is so scary to be directed to a website that you don ’ t know or to even pay to get to sites that actually don ’t exist. Come up with better pop-up blockers if possible. — Daisy Jing , Banish

6. Data Privacy

I think data privacy is still one of the biggest business tech issues around. Blockchain technology can solve this problem. We need more and more businesses to understand that blockchains don’t just serve digital currencies, they also protect people’s privacy. We also need Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. to understand that personal data belongs in the hands of the individual. — Amine Rahal , IronMonk Solutions

7. Mobile Security

Mobile security is a big issue because we rely so much on mobile internet access today. We need to be more aware of how these networks can be compromised and how to protect them. Whether it ’ s the IoT devices helping deliver data wirelessly to companies or people using apps on their smartphones, we need to become more aware of our mobile cybersecurity and how to protect our data. — Josh Kohlbach , Wholesale Suite

8. Deepfake Content

More and more people are embracing deepfake content, which is content created to look real but isn ’ t. Using AI, people can edit videos to look like someone did something they didn ’ t do and vice versa, which hurts authenticity and makes people question what ’ s real. Lawmakers need to take this issue seriously and create ways to stop people from doing this. — Jared Atchison , WPForms

9. Poor User Experience

I ’ ve noticed some brands struggling with building a seamless user experience. There are so many themes, plugins and changes people can make to their site that it can be overwhelming. As a result, the business owner eventually builds something they like, but sacrifices UX in the process. I suspect that we will see more businesses using customer feedback to make design changes. — John Brackett , Smash Balloon LLC

10. Cybersecurity Threats

Cybersecurity threats are more prevalent than ever before with increased digital activities. This has drawn many hackers, who are becoming more sophisticated and are targeting many more businesses. Vital Information, such as trade secrets, price-sensitive information, HR records, and many others are more vulnerable. Strengthening cybersecurity laws can maintain equilibrium. — Vikas Agrawal , Infobrandz

11. Data Backup and Recovery

As a company, you ’ ll store and keep lots of data crucial to keeping business moving forward. A huge tech issue that businesses face is their backup recovery process when their system goes down. If anything happens, you need access to your information. Backing up your data is crucial to ensure your brand isn ’ t at a standstill. Your IT department should have a backup plan in case anything happens. — Stephanie Wells , Formidable Forms

12. Multiple Ad and Marketing Platforms

A major issue that marketers are dealing with is having to use multiple advertising and marketing platforms, with each one handling a different activity. It can overload a website and is quite expensive. We ’ re already seeing AdTech and MarTech coming together as MAdTech. Businesses need to keep an eye on this convergence of technologies and adopt new platforms that support it. — Syed Balkhi , WPBeginner

13. Location-Based Innovation

The concentration of tech companies in places like Seattle and San Francisco has led to a quick rise in living costs in these cities. Income isn ’ t catching up, and there ’ s stress on public infrastructure. Poor internet services in rural areas also exacerbate this issue. Innovation should be decentralized. — Samuel Thimothy , OneIMS

14. Artificial Intelligence Implementation

Businesses, especially those in the tech industry, are having trouble implementing AI. If you ’ ve used and improved upon your AI over the years, you ’ re likely having an easier time adjusting. But new online businesses test multiple AI programs at once and it ’ s causing communication and data mix-ups. As businesses settle with specific programs and learn what works for them, we will see improvements. — Chris Christoff , MonsterInsights

Recent Corporate Innovation Articles

40 problem-solving techniques and processes

All teams and organizations encounter challenges. Approaching those challenges without a structured problem solving process can end up making things worse.

Proven problem solving techniques such as those outlined below can guide your group through a process of identifying problems and challenges , ideating on possible solutions , and then evaluating and implementing the most suitable .

In this post, you'll find problem-solving tools you can use to develop effective solutions. You'll also find some tips for facilitating the problem solving process and solving complex problems.

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators  using SessionLab.

What is problem solving?

Problem solving is a process of finding and implementing a solution to a challenge or obstacle. In most contexts, this means going through a problem solving process that begins with identifying the issue, exploring its root causes, ideating and refining possible solutions before implementing and measuring the impact of that solution.

For simple or small problems, it can be tempting to skip straight to implementing what you believe is the right solution. The danger with this approach is that without exploring the true causes of the issue, it might just occur again or your chosen solution may cause other issues.

Particularly in the world of work, good problem solving means using data to back up each step of the process, bringing in new perspectives and effectively measuring the impact of your solution.

Effective problem solving can help ensure that your team or organization is well positioned to overcome challenges, be resilient to change and create innovation. In my experience, problem solving is a combination of skillset, mindset and process, and it’s especially vital for leaders to cultivate this skill.

A group of people looking at a poster with notes on it

What is the seven step problem solving process?

A problem solving process is a step-by-step framework from going from discovering a problem all the way through to implementing a solution.

With practice, this framework can become intuitive, and innovative companies tend to have a consistent and ongoing ability to discover and tackle challenges when they come up.

You might see everything from a four step problem solving process through to seven steps. While all these processes cover roughly the same ground, I’ve found a seven step problem solving process is helpful for making all key steps legible.

We’ll outline that process here and then follow with techniques you can use to explore and work on that step of the problem solving process with a group.

The seven-step problem solving process is:

1. Problem identification

The first stage of any problem solving process is to identify the problem(s) you need to solve. This often looks like using group discussions and activities to help a group surface and effectively articulate the challenges they’re facing and wish to resolve.

Be sure to align with your team on the exact definition and nature of the problem you’re solving. An effective process is one where everyone is pulling in the same direction – ensure clarity and alignment now to help avoid misunderstandings later.

2. Problem analysis and refinement

The process of problem analysis means ensuring that the problem you are seeking to solve is the right problem . Choosing the right problem to solve means you are on the right path to creating the right solution.

At this stage, you may look deeper at the problem you identified to try and discover the root cause at the level of people or process. You may also spend some time sourcing data, consulting relevant parties and creating and refining a problem statement.

Problem refinement means adjusting scope or focus of the problem you will be aiming to solve based on what comes up during your analysis. As you analyze data sources, you might discover that the root cause means you need to adjust your problem statement. Alternatively, you might find that your original problem statement is too big to be meaningful approached within your current project.

Remember that the goal of any problem refinement is to help set the stage for effective solution development and deployment. Set the right focus and get buy-in from your team here and you’ll be well positioned to move forward with confidence.

3. Solution generation

Once your group has nailed down the particulars of the problem you wish to solve, you want to encourage a free flow of ideas connecting to solving that problem. This can take the form of problem solving games that encourage creative thinking or techniquess designed to produce working prototypes of possible solutions.

The key to ensuring the success of this stage of the problem solving process is to encourage quick, creative thinking and create an open space where all ideas are considered. The best solutions can often come from unlikely places and by using problem solving techniques that celebrate invention, you might come up with solution gold.

4. Solution development

No solution is perfect right out of the gate. It’s important to discuss and develop the solutions your group has come up with over the course of following the previous problem solving steps in order to arrive at the best possible solution. Problem solving games used in this stage involve lots of critical thinking, measuring potential effort and impact, and looking at possible solutions analytically.

During this stage, you will often ask your team to iterate and improve upon your front-running solutions and develop them further. Remember that problem solving strategies always benefit from a multitude of voices and opinions, and not to let ego get involved when it comes to choosing which solutions to develop and take further.

Finding the best solution is the goal of all problem solving workshops and here is the place to ensure that your solution is well thought out, sufficiently robust and fit for purpose.

5. Decision making and planning

Nearly there! Once you’ve got a set of possible, you’ll need to make a decision on which to implement. This can be a consensus-based group decision or it might be for a leader or major stakeholder to decide. You’ll find a set of effective decision making methods below.

Once your group has reached consensus and selected a solution, there are some additional actions that also need to be decided upon. You’ll want to work on allocating ownership of the project, figure out who will do what, how the success of the solution will be measured and decide the next course of action.

Set clear accountabilities, actions, timeframes, and follow-ups for your chosen solution. Make these decisions and set clear next-steps in the problem solving workshop so that everyone is aligned and you can move forward effectively as a group.

Ensuring that you plan for the roll-out of a solution is one of the most important problem solving steps. Without adequate planning or oversight, it can prove impossible to measure success or iterate further if the problem was not solved.

6. Solution implementation

This is what we were waiting for! All problem solving processes have the end goal of implementing an effective and impactful solution that your group has confidence in.

Project management and communication skills are key here – your solution may need to adjust when out in the wild or you might discover new challenges along the way. For some solutions, you might also implement a test with a small group and monitor results before rolling it out to an entire company.

You should have a clear owner for your solution who will oversee the plans you made together and help ensure they’re put into place. This person will often coordinate the implementation team and set-up processes to measure the efficacy of your solution too.

7. Solution evaluation

So you and your team developed a great solution to a problem and have a gut feeling it’s been solved. Work done, right? Wrong. All problem solving strategies benefit from evaluation, consideration, and feedback.

You might find that the solution does not work for everyone, might create new problems, or is potentially so successful that you will want to roll it out to larger teams or as part of other initiatives.

None of that is possible without taking the time to evaluate the success of the solution you developed in your problem solving model and adjust if necessary.

Remember that the problem solving process is often iterative and it can be common to not solve complex issues on the first try. Even when this is the case, you and your team will have generated learning that will be important for future problem solving workshops or in other parts of the organization.

It’s also worth underlining how important record keeping is throughout the problem solving process. If a solution didn’t work, you need to have the data and records to see why that was the case. If you go back to the drawing board, notes from the previous workshop can help save time.

What does an effective problem solving process look like?

Every effective problem solving process begins with an agenda . In our experience, a well-structured problem solving workshop is one of the best methods for successfully guiding a group from exploring a problem to implementing a solution.

The format of a workshop ensures that you can get buy-in from your group, encourage free-thinking and solution exploration before making a decision on what to implement following the session.

This Design Sprint 2.0 template is an effective problem solving process from top agency AJ&Smart. It’s a great format for the entire problem solving process, with four-days of workshops designed to surface issues, explore solutions and even test a solution.

Check it for an example of how you might structure and run a problem solving process and feel free to copy and adjust it your needs!

For a shorter process you can run in a single afternoon, this remote problem solving agenda will guide you effectively in just a couple of hours.

Whatever the length of your workshop, by using SessionLab, it’s easy to go from an idea to a complete agenda . Start by dragging and dropping your core problem solving activities into place . Add timings, breaks and necessary materials before sharing your agenda with your colleagues.

The resulting agenda will be your guide to an effective and productive problem solving session that will also help you stay organized on the day!

Complete problem-solving methods

In this section, we’ll look at in-depth problem-solving methods that provide a complete end-to-end process for developing effective solutions. These will help guide your team from the discovery and definition of a problem through to delivering the right solution.

If you’re looking for an all-encompassing method or problem-solving model, these processes are a great place to start. They’ll ask your team to challenge preconceived ideas and adopt a mindset for solving problems more effectively.

Six Thinking Hats

Individual approaches to solving a problem can be very different based on what team or role an individual holds. It can be easy for existing biases or perspectives to find their way into the mix, or for internal politics to direct a conversation.

Six Thinking Hats is a classic method for identifying the problems that need to be solved and enables your team to consider them from different angles, whether that is by focusing on facts and data, creative solutions, or by considering why a particular solution might not work.

Like all problem-solving frameworks, Six Thinking Hats is effective at helping teams remove roadblocks from a conversation or discussion and come to terms with all the aspects necessary to solve complex problems.

The Six Thinking Hats #creative thinking #meeting facilitation #problem solving #issue resolution #idea generation #conflict resolution The Six Thinking Hats are used by individuals and groups to separate out conflicting styles of thinking. They enable and encourage a group of people to think constructively together in exploring and implementing change, rather than using argument to fight over who is right and who is wrong.

Lightning Decision Jam

Featured courtesy of Jonathan Courtney of AJ&Smart Berlin, Lightning Decision Jam is one of those strategies that should be in every facilitation toolbox. Exploring problems and finding solutions is often creative in nature, though as with any creative process, there is the potential to lose focus and get lost.

Unstructured discussions might get you there in the end, but it’s much more effective to use a method that creates a clear process and team focus.

In Lightning Decision Jam, participants are invited to begin by writing challenges, concerns, or mistakes on post-its without discussing them before then being invited by the moderator to present them to the group.

From there, the team vote on which problems to solve and are guided through steps that will allow them to reframe those problems, create solutions and then decide what to execute on.

By deciding the problems that need to be solved as a team before moving on, this group process is great for ensuring the whole team is aligned and can take ownership over the next stages.

Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ) #action #decision making #problem solving #issue analysis #innovation #design #remote-friendly It doesn’t matter where you work and what your job role is, if you work with other people together as a team, you will always encounter the same challenges: Unclear goals and miscommunication that cause busy work and overtime Unstructured meetings that leave attendants tired, confused and without clear outcomes. Frustration builds up because internal challenges to productivity are not addressed Sudden changes in priorities lead to a loss of focus and momentum Muddled compromise takes the place of clear decision- making, leaving everybody to come up with their own interpretation. In short, a lack of structure leads to a waste of time and effort, projects that drag on for too long and frustrated, burnt out teams. AJ&Smart has worked with some of the most innovative, productive companies in the world. What sets their teams apart from others is not better tools, bigger talent or more beautiful offices. The secret sauce to becoming a more productive, more creative and happier team is simple: Replace all open discussion or brainstorming with a structured process that leads to more ideas, clearer decisions and better outcomes. When a good process provides guardrails and a clear path to follow, it becomes easier to come up with ideas, make decisions and solve problems. This is why AJ&Smart created Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ). It’s a simple and short, but powerful group exercise that can be run either in-person, in the same room, or remotely with distributed teams.

Problem Definition Process

While problems can be complex, the problem-solving methods you use to identify and solve those problems can often be simple in design.

By taking the time to truly identify and define a problem before asking the group to reframe the challenge as an opportunity, this method is a great way to enable change.

Begin by identifying a focus question and exploring the ways in which it manifests before splitting into five teams who will each consider the problem using a different method: escape, reversal, exaggeration, distortion or wishful. Teams develop a problem objective and create ideas in line with their method before then feeding them back to the group.

This method is great for enabling in-depth discussions while also creating space for finding creative solutions too!

Problem Definition #problem solving #idea generation #creativity #online #remote-friendly A problem solving technique to define a problem, challenge or opportunity and to generate ideas.

The 5 Whys

Sometimes, a group needs to go further with their strategies and analyze the root cause at the heart of organizational issues. An RCA or root cause analysis is the process of identifying what is at the heart of business problems or recurring challenges.

The 5 Whys is a simple and effective method of helping a group go find the root cause of any problem or challenge and conduct analysis that will deliver results.

By beginning with the creation of a problem statement and going through five stages to refine it, The 5 Whys provides everything you need to truly discover the cause of an issue.

The 5 Whys #hyperisland #innovation This simple and powerful method is useful for getting to the core of a problem or challenge. As the title suggests, the group defines a problems, then asks the question “why” five times, often using the resulting explanation as a starting point for creative problem solving.

World Cafe is a simple but powerful facilitation technique to help bigger groups to focus their energy and attention on solving complex problems.

World Cafe enables this approach by creating a relaxed atmosphere where participants are able to self-organize and explore topics relevant and important to them which are themed around a central problem-solving purpose. Create the right atmosphere by modeling your space after a cafe and after guiding the group through the method, let them take the lead!

Making problem-solving a part of your organization’s culture in the long term can be a difficult undertaking. More approachable formats like World Cafe can be especially effective in bringing people unfamiliar with workshops into the fold.

World Cafe #hyperisland #innovation #issue analysis World Café is a simple yet powerful method, originated by Juanita Brown, for enabling meaningful conversations driven completely by participants and the topics that are relevant and important to them. Facilitators create a cafe-style space and provide simple guidelines. Participants then self-organize and explore a set of relevant topics or questions for conversation.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

One of the best approaches is to create a safe space for a group to share and discover practices and behaviors that can help them find their own solutions.

With DAD, you can help a group choose which problems they wish to solve and which approaches they will take to do so. It’s great at helping remove resistance to change and can help get buy-in at every level too!

This process of enabling frontline ownership is great in ensuring follow-through and is one of the methods you will want in your toolbox as a facilitator.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD) #idea generation #liberating structures #action #issue analysis #remote-friendly DADs make it easy for a group or community to discover practices and behaviors that enable some individuals (without access to special resources and facing the same constraints) to find better solutions than their peers to common problems. These are called positive deviant (PD) behaviors and practices. DADs make it possible for people in the group, unit, or community to discover by themselves these PD practices. DADs also create favorable conditions for stimulating participants’ creativity in spaces where they can feel safe to invent new and more effective practices. Resistance to change evaporates as participants are unleashed to choose freely which practices they will adopt or try and which problems they will tackle. DADs make it possible to achieve frontline ownership of solutions.

Design Sprint 2.0

Want to see how a team can solve big problems and move forward with prototyping and testing solutions in a few days? The Design Sprint 2.0 template from Jake Knapp, author of Sprint, is a complete agenda for a with proven results.

Developing the right agenda can involve difficult but necessary planning. Ensuring all the correct steps are followed can also be stressful or time-consuming depending on your level of experience.

Use this complete 4-day workshop template if you are finding there is no obvious solution to your challenge and want to focus your team around a specific problem that might require a shortcut to launching a minimum viable product or waiting for the organization-wide implementation of a solution.

Open space technology

Open space technology- developed by Harrison Owen – creates a space where large groups are invited to take ownership of their problem solving and lead individual sessions. Open space technology is a great format when you have a great deal of expertise and insight in the room and want to allow for different takes and approaches on a particular theme or problem you need to be solved.

Start by bringing your participants together to align around a central theme and focus their efforts. Explain the ground rules to help guide the problem-solving process and then invite members to identify any issue connecting to the central theme that they are interested in and are prepared to take responsibility for.

Once participants have decided on their approach to the core theme, they write their issue on a piece of paper, announce it to the group, pick a session time and place, and post the paper on the wall. As the wall fills up with sessions, the group is then invited to join the sessions that interest them the most and which they can contribute to, then you’re ready to begin!

Everyone joins the problem-solving group they’ve signed up to, record the discussion and if appropriate, findings can then be shared with the rest of the group afterward.

Open Space Technology #action plan #idea generation #problem solving #issue analysis #large group #online #remote-friendly Open Space is a methodology for large groups to create their agenda discerning important topics for discussion, suitable for conferences, community gatherings and whole system facilitation

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

Using a problem-solving method to help a team identify and analyze a problem can be a quick and effective addition to any workshop or meeting.

While further actions are always necessary, you can generate momentum and alignment easily, and these activities are a great place to get started.

We’ve put together this list of techniques to help you and your team with problem identification, analysis, and discussion that sets the foundation for developing effective solutions.

Let’s take a look!

Fishbone Analysis

Organizational or team challenges are rarely simple, and it’s important to remember that one problem can be an indication of something that goes deeper and may require further consideration to be solved.

Fishbone Analysis helps groups to dig deeper and understand the origins of a problem. It’s a great example of a root cause analysis method that is simple for everyone on a team to get their head around.

Participants in this activity are asked to annotate a diagram of a fish, first adding the problem or issue to be worked on at the head of a fish before then brainstorming the root causes of the problem and adding them as bones on the fish.

Using abstractions such as a diagram of a fish can really help a team break out of their regular thinking and develop a creative approach.

Fishbone Analysis #problem solving ##root cause analysis #decision making #online facilitation A process to help identify and understand the origins of problems, issues or observations.

Problem Tree

Encouraging visual thinking can be an essential part of many strategies. By simply reframing and clarifying problems, a group can move towards developing a problem solving model that works for them.

In Problem Tree, groups are asked to first brainstorm a list of problems – these can be design problems, team problems or larger business problems – and then organize them into a hierarchy. The hierarchy could be from most important to least important or abstract to practical, though the key thing with problem solving games that involve this aspect is that your group has some way of managing and sorting all the issues that are raised.

Once you have a list of problems that need to be solved and have organized them accordingly, you’re then well-positioned for the next problem solving steps.

Problem tree #define intentions #create #design #issue analysis A problem tree is a tool to clarify the hierarchy of problems addressed by the team within a design project; it represents high level problems or related sublevel problems.

SWOT Analysis

Chances are you’ve heard of the SWOT Analysis before. This problem-solving method focuses on identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is a tried and tested method for both individuals and teams.

Start by creating a desired end state or outcome and bare this in mind – any process solving model is made more effective by knowing what you are moving towards. Create a quadrant made up of the four categories of a SWOT analysis and ask participants to generate ideas based on each of those quadrants.

Once you have those ideas assembled in their quadrants, cluster them together based on their affinity with other ideas. These clusters are then used to facilitate group conversations and move things forward.

SWOT analysis #gamestorming #problem solving #action #meeting facilitation The SWOT Analysis is a long-standing technique of looking at what we have, with respect to the desired end state, as well as what we could improve on. It gives us an opportunity to gauge approaching opportunities and dangers, and assess the seriousness of the conditions that affect our future. When we understand those conditions, we can influence what comes next.

Agreement-Certainty Matrix

Not every problem-solving approach is right for every challenge, and deciding on the right method for the challenge at hand is a key part of being an effective team.

The Agreement Certainty matrix helps teams align on the nature of the challenges facing them. By sorting problems from simple to chaotic, your team can understand what methods are suitable for each problem and what they can do to ensure effective results.

If you are already using Liberating Structures techniques as part of your problem-solving strategy, the Agreement-Certainty Matrix can be an invaluable addition to your process. We’ve found it particularly if you are having issues with recurring problems in your organization and want to go deeper in understanding the root cause.

Agreement-Certainty Matrix #issue analysis #liberating structures #problem solving You can help individuals or groups avoid the frequent mistake of trying to solve a problem with methods that are not adapted to the nature of their challenge. The combination of two questions makes it possible to easily sort challenges into four categories: simple, complicated, complex , and chaotic . A problem is simple when it can be solved reliably with practices that are easy to duplicate. It is complicated when experts are required to devise a sophisticated solution that will yield the desired results predictably. A problem is complex when there are several valid ways to proceed but outcomes are not predictable in detail. Chaotic is when the context is too turbulent to identify a path forward. A loose analogy may be used to describe these differences: simple is like following a recipe, complicated like sending a rocket to the moon, complex like raising a child, and chaotic is like the game “Pin the Tail on the Donkey.” The Liberating Structures Matching Matrix in Chapter 5 can be used as the first step to clarify the nature of a challenge and avoid the mismatches between problems and solutions that are frequently at the root of chronic, recurring problems.

Organizing and charting a team’s progress can be important in ensuring its success. SQUID (Sequential Question and Insight Diagram) is a great model that allows a team to effectively switch between giving questions and answers and develop the skills they need to stay on track throughout the process.

Begin with two different colored sticky notes – one for questions and one for answers – and with your central topic (the head of the squid) on the board. Ask the group to first come up with a series of questions connected to their best guess of how to approach the topic. Ask the group to come up with answers to those questions, fix them to the board and connect them with a line. After some discussion, go back to question mode by responding to the generated answers or other points on the board.

It’s rewarding to see a diagram grow throughout the exercise, and a completed SQUID can provide a visual resource for future effort and as an example for other teams.

SQUID #gamestorming #project planning #issue analysis #problem solving When exploring an information space, it’s important for a group to know where they are at any given time. By using SQUID, a group charts out the territory as they go and can navigate accordingly. SQUID stands for Sequential Question and Insight Diagram.

To continue with our nautical theme, Speed Boat is a short and sweet activity that can help a team quickly identify what employees, clients or service users might have a problem with and analyze what might be standing in the way of achieving a solution.

Methods that allow for a group to make observations, have insights and obtain those eureka moments quickly are invaluable when trying to solve complex problems.

In Speed Boat, the approach is to first consider what anchors and challenges might be holding an organization (or boat) back. Bonus points if you are able to identify any sharks in the water and develop ideas that can also deal with competitors!

Speed Boat #gamestorming #problem solving #action Speedboat is a short and sweet way to identify what your employees or clients don’t like about your product/service or what’s standing in the way of a desired goal.

The Journalistic Six

Some of the most effective ways of solving problems is by encouraging teams to be more inclusive and diverse in their thinking.

Based on the six key questions journalism students are taught to answer in articles and news stories, The Journalistic Six helps create teams to see the whole picture. By using who, what, when, where, why, and how to facilitate the conversation and encourage creative thinking, your team can make sure that the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the are covered exhaustively and thoughtfully. Reporter’s notebook and dictaphone optional.

The Journalistic Six – Who What When Where Why How #idea generation #issue analysis #problem solving #online #creative thinking #remote-friendly A questioning method for generating, explaining, investigating ideas.

Individual and group perspectives are incredibly important, but what happens if people are set in their minds and need a change of perspective in order to approach a problem more effectively?

Flip It is a method we love because it is both simple to understand and run, and allows groups to understand how their perspectives and biases are formed.

Participants in Flip It are first invited to consider concerns, issues, or problems from a perspective of fear and write them on a flip chart. Then, the group is asked to consider those same issues from a perspective of hope and flip their understanding.

No problem and solution is free from existing bias and by changing perspectives with Flip It, you can then develop a problem solving model quickly and effectively.

Flip It! #gamestorming #problem solving #action Often, a change in a problem or situation comes simply from a change in our perspectives. Flip It! is a quick game designed to show players that perspectives are made, not born.

LEGO Challenge

Now for an activity that is a little out of the (toy) box. LEGO Serious Play is a facilitation methodology that can be used to improve creative thinking and problem-solving skills.

The LEGO Challenge includes giving each member of the team an assignment that is hidden from the rest of the group while they create a structure without speaking.

What the LEGO challenge brings to the table is a fun working example of working with stakeholders who might not be on the same page to solve problems. Also, it’s LEGO! Who doesn’t love LEGO!

LEGO Challenge #hyperisland #team A team-building activity in which groups must work together to build a structure out of LEGO, but each individual has a secret “assignment” which makes the collaborative process more challenging. It emphasizes group communication, leadership dynamics, conflict, cooperation, patience and problem solving strategy.

What, So What, Now What?

If not carefully managed, the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the problem-solving process can actually create more problems and misunderstandings.

The What, So What, Now What? problem-solving activity is designed to help collect insights and move forward while also eliminating the possibility of disagreement when it comes to identifying, clarifying, and analyzing organizational or work problems.

Facilitation is all about bringing groups together so that might work on a shared goal and the best problem-solving strategies ensure that teams are aligned in purpose, if not initially in opinion or insight.

Throughout the three steps of this game, you give everyone on a team to reflect on a problem by asking what happened, why it is important, and what actions should then be taken.

This can be a great activity for bringing our individual perceptions about a problem or challenge and contextualizing it in a larger group setting. This is one of the most important problem-solving skills you can bring to your organization.

W³ – What, So What, Now What? #issue analysis #innovation #liberating structures You can help groups reflect on a shared experience in a way that builds understanding and spurs coordinated action while avoiding unproductive conflict. It is possible for every voice to be heard while simultaneously sifting for insights and shaping new direction. Progressing in stages makes this practical—from collecting facts about What Happened to making sense of these facts with So What and finally to what actions logically follow with Now What . The shared progression eliminates most of the misunderstandings that otherwise fuel disagreements about what to do. Voila!

Journalists

Problem analysis can be one of the most important and decisive stages of all problem-solving tools. Sometimes, a team can become bogged down in the details and are unable to move forward.

Journalists is an activity that can avoid a group from getting stuck in the problem identification or problem analysis stages of the process.

In Journalists, the group is invited to draft the front page of a fictional newspaper and figure out what stories deserve to be on the cover and what headlines those stories will have. By reframing how your problems and challenges are approached, you can help a team move productively through the process and be better prepared for the steps to follow.

Journalists #vision #big picture #issue analysis #remote-friendly This is an exercise to use when the group gets stuck in details and struggles to see the big picture. Also good for defining a vision.

Problem-solving techniques for brainstorming solutions

Now you have the context and background of the problem you are trying to solving, now comes the time to start ideating and thinking about how you’ll solve the issue.

Here, you’ll want to encourage creative, free thinking and speed. Get as many ideas out as possible and explore different perspectives so you have the raw material for the next step.

Looking at a problem from a new angle can be one of the most effective ways of creating an effective solution. TRIZ is a problem-solving tool that asks the group to consider what they must not do in order to solve a challenge.

By reversing the discussion, new topics and taboo subjects often emerge, allowing the group to think more deeply and create ideas that confront the status quo in a safe and meaningful way. If you’re working on a problem that you’ve tried to solve before, TRIZ is a great problem-solving method to help your team get unblocked.

Making Space with TRIZ #issue analysis #liberating structures #issue resolution You can clear space for innovation by helping a group let go of what it knows (but rarely admits) limits its success and by inviting creative destruction. TRIZ makes it possible to challenge sacred cows safely and encourages heretical thinking. The question “What must we stop doing to make progress on our deepest purpose?” induces seriously fun yet very courageous conversations. Since laughter often erupts, issues that are otherwise taboo get a chance to be aired and confronted. With creative destruction come opportunities for renewal as local action and innovation rush in to fill the vacuum. Whoosh!

Mindspin

Brainstorming is part of the bread and butter of the problem-solving process and all problem-solving strategies benefit from getting ideas out and challenging a team to generate solutions quickly.

With Mindspin, participants are encouraged not only to generate ideas but to do so under time constraints and by slamming down cards and passing them on. By doing multiple rounds, your team can begin with a free generation of possible solutions before moving on to developing those solutions and encouraging further ideation.

This is one of our favorite problem-solving activities and can be great for keeping the energy up throughout the workshop. Remember the importance of helping people become engaged in the process – energizing problem-solving techniques like Mindspin can help ensure your team stays engaged and happy, even when the problems they’re coming together to solve are complex.

MindSpin #teampedia #idea generation #problem solving #action A fast and loud method to enhance brainstorming within a team. Since this activity has more than round ideas that are repetitive can be ruled out leaving more creative and innovative answers to the challenge.

The Creativity Dice

One of the most useful problem solving skills you can teach your team is of approaching challenges with creativity, flexibility, and openness. Games like The Creativity Dice allow teams to overcome the potential hurdle of too much linear thinking and approach the process with a sense of fun and speed.

In The Creativity Dice, participants are organized around a topic and roll a dice to determine what they will work on for a period of 3 minutes at a time. They might roll a 3 and work on investigating factual information on the chosen topic. They might roll a 1 and work on identifying the specific goals, standards, or criteria for the session.

Encouraging rapid work and iteration while asking participants to be flexible are great skills to cultivate. Having a stage for idea incubation in this game is also important. Moments of pause can help ensure the ideas that are put forward are the most suitable.

The Creativity Dice #creativity #problem solving #thiagi #issue analysis Too much linear thinking is hazardous to creative problem solving. To be creative, you should approach the problem (or the opportunity) from different points of view. You should leave a thought hanging in mid-air and move to another. This skipping around prevents premature closure and lets your brain incubate one line of thought while you consciously pursue another.

Idea and Concept Development

Brainstorming without structure can quickly become chaotic or frustrating. In a problem-solving context, having an ideation framework to follow can help ensure your team is both creative and disciplined.

In this method, you’ll find an idea generation process that encourages your group to brainstorm effectively before developing their ideas and begin clustering them together. By using concepts such as Yes and…, more is more and postponing judgement, you can create the ideal conditions for brainstorming with ease.

Idea & Concept Development #hyperisland #innovation #idea generation Ideation and Concept Development is a process for groups to work creatively and collaboratively to generate creative ideas. It’s a general approach that can be adapted and customized to suit many different scenarios. It includes basic principles for idea generation and several steps for groups to work with. It also includes steps for idea selection and development.

Problem-solving techniques for developing and refining solutions

The success of any problem-solving process can be measured by the solutions it produces. After you’ve defined the issue, explored existing ideas, and ideated, it’s time to develop and refine your ideas in order to bring them closer to a solution that actually solves the problem.

Use these problem-solving techniques when you want to help your team think through their ideas and refine them as part of your problem solving process.

Improved Solutions

After a team has successfully identified a problem and come up with a few solutions, it can be tempting to call the work of the problem-solving process complete. That said, the first solution is not necessarily the best, and by including a further review and reflection activity into your problem-solving model, you can ensure your group reaches the best possible result.

One of a number of problem-solving games from Thiagi Group, Improved Solutions helps you go the extra mile and develop suggested solutions with close consideration and peer review. By supporting the discussion of several problems at once and by shifting team roles throughout, this problem-solving technique is a dynamic way of finding the best solution.

Improved Solutions #creativity #thiagi #problem solving #action #team You can improve any solution by objectively reviewing its strengths and weaknesses and making suitable adjustments. In this creativity framegame, you improve the solutions to several problems. To maintain objective detachment, you deal with a different problem during each of six rounds and assume different roles (problem owner, consultant, basher, booster, enhancer, and evaluator) during each round. At the conclusion of the activity, each player ends up with two solutions to her problem.

Four Step Sketch

Creative thinking and visual ideation does not need to be confined to the opening stages of your problem-solving strategies. Exercises that include sketching and prototyping on paper can be effective at the solution finding and development stage of the process, and can be great for keeping a team engaged.

By going from simple notes to a crazy 8s round that involves rapidly sketching 8 variations on their ideas before then producing a final solution sketch, the group is able to iterate quickly and visually. Problem-solving techniques like Four-Step Sketch are great if you have a group of different thinkers and want to change things up from a more textual or discussion-based approach.

Four-Step Sketch #design sprint #innovation #idea generation #remote-friendly The four-step sketch is an exercise that helps people to create well-formed concepts through a structured process that includes: Review key information Start design work on paper, Consider multiple variations , Create a detailed solution . This exercise is preceded by a set of other activities allowing the group to clarify the challenge they want to solve. See how the Four Step Sketch exercise fits into a Design Sprint

Ensuring that everyone in a group is able to contribute to a discussion is vital during any problem solving process. Not only does this ensure all bases are covered, but its then easier to get buy-in and accountability when people have been able to contribute to the process.

1-2-4-All is a tried and tested facilitation technique where participants are asked to first brainstorm on a topic on their own. Next, they discuss and share ideas in a pair before moving into a small group. Those groups are then asked to present the best idea from their discussion to the rest of the team.

This method can be used in many different contexts effectively, though I find it particularly shines in the idea development stage of the process. Giving each participant time to concretize their ideas and develop them in progressively larger groups can create a great space for both innovation and psychological safety.

1-2-4-All #idea generation #liberating structures #issue analysis With this facilitation technique you can immediately include everyone regardless of how large the group is. You can generate better ideas and more of them faster than ever before. You can tap the know-how and imagination that is distributed widely in places not known in advance. Open, generative conversation unfolds. Ideas and solutions are sifted in rapid fashion. Most importantly, participants own the ideas, so follow-up and implementation is simplified. No buy-in strategies needed! Simple and elegant!

15% Solutions

Some problems are simpler than others and with the right problem-solving activities, you can empower people to take immediate actions that can help create organizational change.

Part of the liberating structures toolkit, 15% solutions is a problem-solving technique that focuses on finding and implementing solutions quickly. A process of iterating and making small changes quickly can help generate momentum and an appetite for solving complex problems.

Problem-solving strategies can live and die on whether people are onboard. Getting some quick wins is a great way of getting people behind the process.

It can be extremely empowering for a team to realize that problem-solving techniques can be deployed quickly and easily and delineate between things they can positively impact and those things they cannot change.

15% Solutions #action #liberating structures #remote-friendly You can reveal the actions, however small, that everyone can do immediately. At a minimum, these will create momentum, and that may make a BIG difference. 15% Solutions show that there is no reason to wait around, feel powerless, or fearful. They help people pick it up a level. They get individuals and the group to focus on what is within their discretion instead of what they cannot change. With a very simple question, you can flip the conversation to what can be done and find solutions to big problems that are often distributed widely in places not known in advance. Shifting a few grains of sand may trigger a landslide and change the whole landscape.

Problem-solving techniques for making decisions and planning

After your group is happy with the possible solutions you’ve developed, now comes the time to choose which to implement. There’s more than one way to make a decision and the best option is often dependant on the needs and set-up of your group.

Sometimes, it’s the case that you’ll want to vote as a group on what is likely to be the most impactful solution. Other times, it might be down to a decision maker or major stakeholder to make the final decision. Whatever your process, here’s some techniques you can use to help you make a decision during your problem solving process.

How-Now-Wow Matrix

The problem-solving process is often creative, as complex problems usually require a change of thinking and creative response in order to find the best solutions. While it’s common for the first stages to encourage creative thinking, groups can often gravitate to familiar solutions when it comes to the end of the process.

When selecting solutions, you don’t want to lose your creative energy! The How-Now-Wow Matrix from Gamestorming is a great problem-solving activity that enables a group to stay creative and think out of the box when it comes to selecting the right solution for a given problem.

Problem-solving techniques that encourage creative thinking and the ideation and selection of new solutions can be the most effective in organisational change. Give the How-Now-Wow Matrix a go, and not just for how pleasant it is to say out loud.

How-Now-Wow Matrix #gamestorming #idea generation #remote-friendly When people want to develop new ideas, they most often think out of the box in the brainstorming or divergent phase. However, when it comes to convergence, people often end up picking ideas that are most familiar to them. This is called a ‘creative paradox’ or a ‘creadox’. The How-Now-Wow matrix is an idea selection tool that breaks the creadox by forcing people to weigh each idea on 2 parameters.

Impact and Effort Matrix

All problem-solving techniques hope to not only find solutions to a given problem or challenge but to find the best solution. When it comes to finding a solution, groups are invited to put on their decision-making hats and really think about how a proposed idea would work in practice.

The Impact and Effort Matrix is one of the problem-solving techniques that fall into this camp, empowering participants to first generate ideas and then categorize them into a 2×2 matrix based on impact and effort.

Activities that invite critical thinking while remaining simple are invaluable. Use the Impact and Effort Matrix to move from ideation and towards evaluating potential solutions before then committing to them.

Impact and Effort Matrix #gamestorming #decision making #action #remote-friendly In this decision-making exercise, possible actions are mapped based on two factors: effort required to implement and potential impact. Categorizing ideas along these lines is a useful technique in decision making, as it obliges contributors to balance and evaluate suggested actions before committing to them.

If you’ve followed each of the problem-solving steps with your group successfully, you should move towards the end of your process with heaps of possible solutions developed with a specific problem in mind. But how do you help a group go from ideation to putting a solution into action?

Dotmocracy – or Dot Voting -is a tried and tested method of helping a team in the problem-solving process make decisions and put actions in place with a degree of oversight and consensus.

One of the problem-solving techniques that should be in every facilitator’s toolbox, Dot Voting is fast and effective and can help identify the most popular and best solutions and help bring a group to a decision effectively.

Dotmocracy #action #decision making #group prioritization #hyperisland #remote-friendly Dotmocracy is a simple method for group prioritization or decision-making. It is not an activity on its own, but a method to use in processes where prioritization or decision-making is the aim. The method supports a group to quickly see which options are most popular or relevant. The options or ideas are written on post-its and stuck up on a wall for the whole group to see. Each person votes for the options they think are the strongest, and that information is used to inform a decision.

Straddling the gap between decision making and planning, MoSCoW is a simple and effective method that allows a group team to easily prioritize a set of possible options.

Use this method in a problem solving process by collecting and summarizing all your possible solutions and then categorize them into 4 sections: “Must have”, “Should have”, “Could have”, or “Would like but won‘t get”.

This method is particularly useful when its less about choosing one possible solution and more about prioritorizing which to do first and which may not fit in the scope of your project. In my experience, complex challenges often require multiple small fixes, and this method can be a great way to move from a pile of things you’d all like to do to a structured plan.

MoSCoW #define intentions #create #design #action #remote-friendly MoSCoW is a method that allows the team to prioritize the different features that they will work on. Features are then categorized into “Must have”, “Should have”, “Could have”, or “Would like but won‘t get”. To be used at the beginning of a timeslot (for example during Sprint planning) and when planning is needed.

When it comes to managing the rollout of a solution, clarity and accountability are key factors in ensuring the success of the project. The RAACI chart is a simple but effective model for setting roles and responsibilities as part of a planning session.

Start by listing each person involved in the project and put them into the following groups in order to make it clear who is responsible for what during the rollout of your solution.

Responsibility (Which person and/or team will be taking action?)
Authority (At what “point” must the responsible person check in before going further?)
Accountability (Who must the responsible person check in with?)
Consultation (Who must be consulted by the responsible person before decisions are made?)
Information (Who must be informed of decisions, once made?)

Ensure this information is easily accessible and use it to inform who does what and who is looped into discussions and kept up to date.

RAACI #roles and responsibility #teamwork #project management Clarifying roles and responsibilities, levels of autonomy/latitude in decision making, and levels of engagement among diverse stakeholders.

Problem-solving warm-up activities

All facilitators know that warm-ups and icebreakers are useful for any workshop or group process. Problem-solving workshops are no different.

Use these problem-solving techniques to warm up a group and prepare them for the rest of the process. Activating your group by tapping into some of the top problem-solving skills can be one of the best ways to see great outcomes from your session.

Check-in / Check-out

Solid processes are planned from beginning to end, and the best facilitators know that setting the tone and establishing a safe, open environment can be integral to a successful problem-solving process. Check-in / Check-out is a great way to begin and/or bookend a problem-solving workshop. Checking in to a session emphasizes that everyone will be seen, heard, and expected to contribute.

If you are running a series of meetings, setting a consistent pattern of checking in and checking out can really help your team get into a groove. We recommend this opening-closing activity for small to medium-sized groups though it can work with large groups if they’re disciplined!

Check-in / Check-out #team #opening #closing #hyperisland #remote-friendly Either checking-in or checking-out is a simple way for a team to open or close a process, symbolically and in a collaborative way. Checking-in/out invites each member in a group to be present, seen and heard, and to express a reflection or a feeling. Checking-in emphasizes presence, focus and group commitment; checking-out emphasizes reflection and symbolic closure.

Doodling Together

Thinking creatively and not being afraid to make suggestions are important problem-solving skills for any group or team, and warming up by encouraging these behaviors is a great way to start.

Doodling Together is one of our favorite creative ice breaker games – it’s quick, effective, and fun and can make all following problem-solving steps easier by encouraging a group to collaborate visually. By passing cards and adding additional items as they go, the workshop group gets into a groove of co-creation and idea development that is crucial to finding solutions to problems.

Doodling Together #collaboration #creativity #teamwork #fun #team #visual methods #energiser #icebreaker #remote-friendly Create wild, weird and often funny postcards together & establish a group’s creative confidence.

Show and Tell

You might remember some version of Show and Tell from being a kid in school and it’s a great problem-solving activity to kick off a session.

Asking participants to prepare a little something before a workshop by bringing an object for show and tell can help them warm up before the session has even begun! Games that include a physical object can also help encourage early engagement before moving onto more big-picture thinking.

By asking your participants to tell stories about why they chose to bring a particular item to the group, you can help teams see things from new perspectives and see both differences and similarities in the way they approach a topic. Great groundwork for approaching a problem-solving process as a team!

Show and Tell #gamestorming #action #opening #meeting facilitation Show and Tell taps into the power of metaphors to reveal players’ underlying assumptions and associations around a topic The aim of the game is to get a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on anything—a new project, an organizational restructuring, a shift in the company’s vision or team dynamic.

Constellations

Who doesn’t love stars? Constellations is a great warm-up activity for any workshop as it gets people up off their feet, energized, and ready to engage in new ways with established topics. It’s also great for showing existing beliefs, biases, and patterns that can come into play as part of your session.

Using warm-up games that help build trust and connection while also allowing for non-verbal responses can be great for easing people into the problem-solving process and encouraging engagement from everyone in the group. Constellations is great in large spaces that allow for movement and is definitely a practical exercise to allow the group to see patterns that are otherwise invisible.

Constellations #trust #connection #opening #coaching #patterns #system Individuals express their response to a statement or idea by standing closer or further from a central object. Used with teams to reveal system, hidden patterns, perspectives.

Draw a Tree

Problem-solving games that help raise group awareness through a central, unifying metaphor can be effective ways to warm-up a group in any problem-solving model.

Draw a Tree is a simple warm-up activity you can use in any group and which can provide a quick jolt of energy. Start by asking your participants to draw a tree in just 45 seconds – they can choose whether it will be abstract or realistic.

Once the timer is up, ask the group how many people included the roots of the tree and use this as a means to discuss how we can ignore important parts of any system simply because they are not visible.

All problem-solving strategies are made more effective by thinking of problems critically and by exposing things that may not normally come to light. Warm-up games like Draw a Tree are great in that they quickly demonstrate some key problem-solving skills in an accessible and effective way.

Draw a Tree #thiagi #opening #perspectives #remote-friendly With this game you can raise awarness about being more mindful, and aware of the environment we live in.

Closing activities for a problem-solving process

Each step of the problem-solving workshop benefits from an intelligent deployment of activities, games, and techniques. Bringing your session to an effective close helps ensure that solutions are followed through on and that you also celebrate what has been achieved.

Here are some problem-solving activities you can use to effectively close a workshop or meeting and ensure the great work you’ve done can continue afterward.

One Breath Feedback

Maintaining attention and focus during the closing stages of a problem-solving workshop can be tricky and so being concise when giving feedback can be important. It’s easy to incur “death by feedback” should some team members go on for too long sharing their perspectives in a quick feedback round.

One Breath Feedback is a great closing activity for workshops. You give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback on what they’ve done but only in the space of a single breath. This keeps feedback short and to the point and means that everyone is encouraged to provide the most important piece of feedback to them.

One breath feedback #closing #feedback #action This is a feedback round in just one breath that excels in maintaining attention: each participants is able to speak during just one breath … for most people that’s around 20 to 25 seconds … unless of course you’ve been a deep sea diver in which case you’ll be able to do it for longer.

Who What When Matrix

Matrices feature as part of many effective problem-solving strategies and with good reason. They are easily recognizable, simple to use, and generate results.

The Who What When Matrix is a great tool to use when closing your problem-solving session by attributing a who, what and when to the actions and solutions you have decided upon. The resulting matrix is a simple, easy-to-follow way of ensuring your team can move forward.

Great solutions can’t be enacted without action and ownership. Your problem-solving process should include a stage for allocating tasks to individuals or teams and creating a realistic timeframe for those solutions to be implemented or checked out. Use this method to keep the solution implementation process clear and simple for all involved.

Who/What/When Matrix #gamestorming #action #project planning With Who/What/When matrix, you can connect people with clear actions they have defined and have committed to.

Response cards

Group discussion can comprise the bulk of most problem-solving activities and by the end of the process, you might find that your team is talked out!

Providing a means for your team to give feedback with short written notes can ensure everyone is head and can contribute without the need to stand up and talk. Depending on the needs of the group, giving an alternative can help ensure everyone can contribute to your problem-solving model in the way that makes the most sense for them.

Response Cards is a great way to close a workshop if you are looking for a gentle warm-down and want to get some swift discussion around some of the feedback that is raised.

Response Cards #debriefing #closing #structured sharing #questions and answers #thiagi #action It can be hard to involve everyone during a closing of a session. Some might stay in the background or get unheard because of louder participants. However, with the use of Response Cards, everyone will be involved in providing feedback or clarify questions at the end of a session.

Tips for effective problem solving

Problem-solving activities are only one part of the puzzle. While a great method can help unlock your team’s ability to solve problems, without a thoughtful approach and strong facilitation the solutions may not be fit for purpose.

Let’s take a look at some problem-solving tips you can apply to any process to help it be a success!

Clearly define the problem

Jumping straight to solutions can be tempting, though without first clearly articulating a problem, the solution might not be the right one. Many of the problem-solving activities below include sections where the problem is explored and clearly defined before moving on.

This is a vital part of the problem-solving process and taking the time to fully define an issue can save time and effort later. A clear definition helps identify irrelevant information and it also ensures that your team sets off on the right track.

Don’t jump to conclusions

It’s easy for groups to exhibit cognitive bias or have preconceived ideas about both problems and potential solutions. Be sure to back up any problem statements or potential solutions with facts, research, and adequate forethought.

The best techniques ask participants to be methodical and challenge preconceived notions. Make sure you give the group enough time and space to collect relevant information and consider the problem in a new way. By approaching the process with a clear, rational mindset, you’ll often find that better solutions are more forthcoming.

Try different approaches

Problems come in all shapes and sizes and so too should the methods you use to solve them. If you find that one approach isn’t yielding results and your team isn’t finding different solutions, try mixing it up. You’ll be surprised at how using a new creative activity can unblock your team and generate great solutions.

Don’t take it personally

Depending on the nature of your team or organizational problems, it’s easy for conversations to get heated. While it’s good for participants to be engaged in the discussions, ensure that emotions don’t run too high and that blame isn’t thrown around while finding solutions.

You’re all in it together, and even if your team or area is seeing problems, that isn’t necessarily a disparagement of you personally. Using facilitation skills to manage group dynamics is one effective method of helping conversations be more constructive.

Get the right people in the room

Your problem-solving method is often only as effective as the group using it. Getting the right people on the job and managing the number of people present is important too!

If the group is too small, you may not get enough different perspectives to effectively solve a problem. If the group is too large, you can go round and round during the ideation stages.

Creating the right group makeup is also important in ensuring you have the necessary expertise and skillset to both identify and follow up on potential solutions. Carefully consider who to include at each stage to help ensure your problem-solving method is followed and positioned for success.

Create psychologically safe spaces for discussion

Identifying a problem accurately also requires that all members of a group are able to contribute their views in an open and safe manner.

It can be tough for people to stand up and contribute if the problems or challenges are emotive or personal in nature. Try and create a psychologically safe space for these kinds of discussions and where possible, create regular opportunities for challenges to be brought up organically.

Document everything

The best solutions can take refinement, iteration, and reflection to come out. Get into a habit of documenting your process in order to keep all the learnings from the session and to allow ideas to mature and develop. Many of the methods below involve the creation of documents or shared resources. Be sure to keep and share these so everyone can benefit from the work done!

Bring a facilitator

Facilitation is all about making group processes easier. With a subject as potentially emotive and important as problem-solving, having an impartial third party in the form of a facilitator can make all the difference in finding great solutions and keeping the process moving. Consider bringing a facilitator to your problem-solving session to get better results and generate meaningful solutions!

Develop your problem-solving skills

It takes time and practice to be an effective problem solver. While some roles or participants might more naturally gravitate towards problem-solving, it can take development and planning to help everyone create better solutions.

You might develop a training program, run a problem-solving workshop or simply ask your team to practice using the techniques below. Check out our post on problem-solving skills to see how you and your group can develop the right mental process and be more resilient to issues too!

Design a great agenda

Workshops are a great format for solving problems. With the right approach, you can focus a group and help them find the solutions to their own problems. But designing a process can be time-consuming and finding the right activities can be difficult.

Check out our workshop planning guide to level-up your agenda design and start running more effective workshops. Need inspiration? Check out templates designed by expert facilitators to help you kickstart your process!

Save time and effort creating an effective problem solving process

A structured problem solving process is a surefire way of solving tough problems, discovering creative solutions and driving organizational change. But how can you design for successful outcomes?

With SessionLab, it’s easy to design engaging workshops that deliver results. Drag, drop and reorder blocks to build your agenda. When you make changes or update your agenda, your session timing adjusts automatically , saving you time on manual adjustments.

Collaborating with stakeholders or clients? Share your agenda with a single click and collaborate in real-time. No more sending documents back and forth over email.

Explore how to use SessionLab to design effective problem solving workshops or watch this five minute video to see the planner in action!

Over to you

The problem-solving process can often be as complicated and multifaceted as the problems they are set-up to solve. With the right problem-solving techniques and a mix of exercises designed to guide discussion and generate purposeful ideas, we hope we’ve given you the tools to find the best solutions as simply and easily as possible.

Is there a problem-solving technique that you are missing here? Do you have a favorite activity or method you use when facilitating? Let us know in the comments below, we’d love to hear from you!

James Smart is Head of Content at SessionLab. He’s also a creative facilitator who has run workshops and designed courses for establishments like the National Centre for Writing, UK. He especially enjoys working with young people and empowering others in their creative practice.

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

Your list of techniques for problem solving can be helpfully extended by adding TRIZ to the list of techniques. TRIZ has 40 problem solving techniques derived from methods inventros and patent holders used to get new patents. About 10-12 are general approaches. many organization sponsor classes in TRIZ that are used to solve business problems or general organiztational problems. You can take a look at TRIZ and dwonload a free internet booklet to see if you feel it shound be included per your selection process.

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

What is Problem Solving? (Steps, Techniques, Examples)

What is problem solving, definition and importance.

Problem solving is the process of finding solutions to obstacles or challenges you encounter in your life or work. It is a crucial skill that allows you to tackle complex situations, adapt to changes, and overcome difficulties with ease. Mastering this ability will contribute to both your personal and professional growth, leading to more successful outcomes and better decision-making.

Problem-Solving Steps

The problem-solving process typically includes the following steps:

Identify the issue : Recognize the problem that needs to be solved.
Analyze the situation : Examine the issue in depth, gather all relevant information, and consider any limitations or constraints that may be present.
Generate potential solutions : Brainstorm a list of possible solutions to the issue, without immediately judging or evaluating them.
Evaluate options : Weigh the pros and cons of each potential solution, considering factors such as feasibility, effectiveness, and potential risks.
Select the best solution : Choose the option that best addresses the problem and aligns with your objectives.
Implement the solution : Put the selected solution into action and monitor the results to ensure it resolves the issue.
Review and learn : Reflect on the problem-solving process, identify any improvements or adjustments that can be made, and apply these learnings to future situations.

Defining the Problem

To start tackling a problem, first, identify and understand it. Analyzing the issue thoroughly helps to clarify its scope and nature. Ask questions to gather information and consider the problem from various angles. Some strategies to define the problem include:

Brainstorming with others
Asking the 5 Ws and 1 H (Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How)
Analyzing cause and effect
Creating a problem statement

Generating Solutions

Once the problem is clearly understood, brainstorm possible solutions. Think creatively and keep an open mind, as well as considering lessons from past experiences. Consider:

Creating a list of potential ideas to solve the problem
Grouping and categorizing similar solutions
Prioritizing potential solutions based on feasibility, cost, and resources required
Involving others to share diverse opinions and inputs

Evaluating and Selecting Solutions

Evaluate each potential solution, weighing its pros and cons. To facilitate decision-making, use techniques such as:

SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)
Decision-making matrices
Pros and cons lists
Risk assessments

After evaluating, choose the most suitable solution based on effectiveness, cost, and time constraints.

Implementing and Monitoring the Solution

Implement the chosen solution and monitor its progress. Key actions include:

Communicating the solution to relevant parties
Setting timelines and milestones
Assigning tasks and responsibilities
Monitoring the solution and making adjustments as necessary
Evaluating the effectiveness of the solution after implementation

Utilize feedback from stakeholders and consider potential improvements. Remember that problem-solving is an ongoing process that can always be refined and enhanced.

Problem-Solving Techniques

During each step, you may find it helpful to utilize various problem-solving techniques, such as:

Brainstorming : A free-flowing, open-minded session where ideas are generated and listed without judgment, to encourage creativity and innovative thinking.
Root cause analysis : A method that explores the underlying causes of a problem to find the most effective solution rather than addressing superficial symptoms.
SWOT analysis : A tool used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to a problem or decision, providing a comprehensive view of the situation.
Mind mapping : A visual technique that uses diagrams to organize and connect ideas, helping to identify patterns, relationships, and possible solutions.

Brainstorming

When facing a problem, start by conducting a brainstorming session. Gather your team and encourage an open discussion where everyone contributes ideas, no matter how outlandish they may seem. This helps you:

Generate a diverse range of solutions
Encourage all team members to participate
Foster creative thinking

When brainstorming, remember to:

Reserve judgment until the session is over
Encourage wild ideas
Combine and improve upon ideas

Root Cause Analysis

For effective problem-solving, identifying the root cause of the issue at hand is crucial. Try these methods:

5 Whys : Ask “why” five times to get to the underlying cause.
Fishbone Diagram : Create a diagram representing the problem and break it down into categories of potential causes.
Pareto Analysis : Determine the few most significant causes underlying the majority of problems.

SWOT Analysis

SWOT analysis helps you examine the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats related to your problem. To perform a SWOT analysis:

List your problem’s strengths, such as relevant resources or strong partnerships.
Identify its weaknesses, such as knowledge gaps or limited resources.
Explore opportunities, like trends or new technologies, that could help solve the problem.
Recognize potential threats, like competition or regulatory barriers.

SWOT analysis aids in understanding the internal and external factors affecting the problem, which can help guide your solution.

Mind Mapping

A mind map is a visual representation of your problem and potential solutions. It enables you to organize information in a structured and intuitive manner. To create a mind map:

Write the problem in the center of a blank page.
Draw branches from the central problem to related sub-problems or contributing factors.
Add more branches to represent potential solutions or further ideas.

Mind mapping allows you to visually see connections between ideas and promotes creativity in problem-solving.

Examples of Problem Solving in Various Contexts

In the business world, you might encounter problems related to finances, operations, or communication. Applying problem-solving skills in these situations could look like:

Identifying areas of improvement in your company’s financial performance and implementing cost-saving measures
Resolving internal conflicts among team members by listening and understanding different perspectives, then proposing and negotiating solutions
Streamlining a process for better productivity by removing redundancies, automating tasks, or re-allocating resources

In educational contexts, problem-solving can be seen in various aspects, such as:

Addressing a gap in students’ understanding by employing diverse teaching methods to cater to different learning styles
Developing a strategy for successful time management to balance academic responsibilities and extracurricular activities
Seeking resources and support to provide equal opportunities for learners with special needs or disabilities

Everyday life is full of challenges that require problem-solving skills. Some examples include:

Overcoming a personal obstacle, such as improving your fitness level, by establishing achievable goals, measuring progress, and adjusting your approach accordingly
Navigating a new environment or city by researching your surroundings, asking for directions, or using technology like GPS to guide you
Dealing with a sudden change, like a change in your work schedule, by assessing the situation, identifying potential impacts, and adapting your plans to accommodate the change.
How to Resolve Employee Conflict at Work [Steps, Tips, Examples]
How to Write Inspiring Core Values? 5 Steps with Examples
30 Employee Feedback Examples (Positive & Negative)

How Technology Can Help Solve Problems & Make Decisions

Small Business
Business Planning & Strategy
Making Business Decisions
')" data-event="social share" data-info="Pinterest" aria-label="Share on Pinterest">
')" data-event="social share" data-info="Reddit" aria-label="Share on Reddit">
')" data-event="social share" data-info="Flipboard" aria-label="Share on Flipboard">

What Is 'Systems Thinking' in Business?

How to start sql in single-user mode, how to remove registry entries for msconfig start up programs.

Logistics & Operation Planning
How Do Companies Connect Computers in Different States?

Technology is one of many tools that organizations use to help solve problems. The entire process of problem solving involves gathering and analyzing data, and then putting forth solutions that remedy an issue in the business. Decision making involves the tools that help management and other personnel choose what to do during the problem-solving process. The two concepts seem independent to some people, but when you throw technology into the mix, you can see the close relationship problem solving and decision making have with one another.

Enterprise Resource Planning

Small business operators do not normally equate the word "enterprise" to local and mom-and-pop business. However, many enterprise resource planning software developers are increasingly tailoring this software to meet the needs of small and mid-sized businesses. Most multinational mega corporations already use ERP to solve efficiency problems between various departments, including accounting, finance, manufacturing and sales. Where a bottleneck exists in the business process, management makes decisions on how to solve the problem. Similarly, a small business can use a scaled down version of an ERP program to coordinate front office and back office activities. For example, a busy diner might institute a system that shows orders on a LCD screen in the kitchen after the cashier or server inputs the order into a computerized cash register. This speeds order delivery and based on recorded service times, diner management can make decisions about improving service delivery.

Collaboration Tools

Many businesses have multiple locations that function independently from each other. Sometimes called a branch, managers and personnel in these facilities need tools that help the location stay on the same page with business practices and policies that are handed down from a headquarters. Customers expect a uniform level of service from a business that carries a name, no matter the physical location. Collaboration software tools can solve the problem of helping several small business locations conduct business on behalf of a larger corporate entity. Instead of a district manager or vice president wasting time and money traveling to each location to ensure business conformity, all branches can join a conference call or video webcast. In these settings, problems are brought to the attention of all involved and decisions are commonly made after a tally or voice vote.

Business Analysis Tools

Enterprises can afford to staff and run an entire department devoted to business analytics. However, for smaller operations, the owner and manager are all-things-at-once, including the business analyst. Instead of hiring or outsourcing this function, small companies can use business analysis tools to crunch data. For example, if the previous month's or quarter's sales performance was lackluster, based on customer traffic, a manager can plug data into a spreadsheet to run a sensitivity analysis about future performance. If sales are projected to fall again, then the business can decide to increase spending on advertising to solve this problem of falling revenues.

Decision Support System

Predictions and concerns that computers will eventually overtake and out think human intellect is upon us. The concept of a decision support system is not new, but as computer processing power increases, so does the role that these machines play in helping professionals make important decisions about business operations. DSS systems mainly focus on compiling raw business data and helping organizations foresee problems or issues that a human alone cannot predict or plan for. Another way in which businesses can use DSS is as an artificial intelligence, or AI, to help professionals, such as doctors and nurses, make informed decisions when presented with a problem in patient care.

Cisco Systems: Collaboration
Microsoft Office: Analyze Business Results With Excel 2007
University of Missouri--St. Louis: Information System Analysis 488 -- Topic: Decision Support Systems

Damarious Page is a financial transcriptionist specializing in corporate quarterly earnings and financial results. Page holds a medical transcription certificate and has participated in an extensive career analysis and outplacement group workshop through Right Management. The West Corporation trained and certified him to handle customer support for home appliance clients.

Importance of atm machines in a small business, desktop pc vs. workstation, what equipment do you need to start a restaurant, five reasons organizations develop it systems, the difference between the aviation industry and the aerospace industry, how to back up a windows embedded system, does every business need an office manager, how to format an external hard disk using ubuntu, how to start your own wheatgrass business, most popular.

1 Importance of ATM Machines in a Small Business
2 Desktop PC Vs. Workstation
3 What Equipment Do You Need to Start a Restaurant?
4 Five Reasons Organizations Develop IT Systems

Advisory boards aren’t only for executives. Join the LogRocket Content Advisory Board today →

Product Management
Solve User-Reported Issues
Find Issues Faster
Optimize Conversion and Adoption

A guide to problem-solving techniques, steps, and skills

You might associate problem-solving with the math exercises that a seven-year-old would do at school. But problem-solving isn’t just about math — it’s a crucial skill that helps everyone make better decisions in everyday life or work.

A guide to problem-solving techniques, steps, and skills

Problem-solving involves finding effective solutions to address complex challenges, in any context they may arise.

Unfortunately, structured and systematic problem-solving methods aren’t commonly taught. Instead, when solving a problem, PMs tend to rely heavily on intuition. While for simple issues this might work well, solving a complex problem with a straightforward solution is often ineffective and can even create more problems.

In this article, you’ll learn a framework for approaching problem-solving, alongside how you can improve your problem-solving skills.

The 7 steps to problem-solving

When it comes to problem-solving there are seven key steps that you should follow: define the problem, disaggregate, prioritize problem branches, create an analysis plan, conduct analysis, synthesis, and communication.

1. Define the problem

Problem-solving begins with a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Without a well-defined problem statement, confusion and misunderstandings can hinder progress. It’s crucial to ensure that the problem statement is outcome-focused, specific, measurable whenever possible, and time-bound.

Additionally, aligning the problem definition with relevant stakeholders and decision-makers is essential to ensure efforts are directed towards addressing the actual problem rather than side issues.

2. Disaggregate

Complex issues often require deeper analysis. Instead of tackling the entire problem at once, the next step is to break it down into smaller, more manageable components.

Various types of logic trees (also known as issue trees or decision trees) can be used to break down the problem. At each stage where new branches are created, it’s important for them to be “MECE” – mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. This process of breaking down continues until manageable components are identified, allowing for individual examination.

The decomposition of the problem demands looking at the problem from various perspectives. That is why collaboration within a team often yields more valuable results, as diverse viewpoints lead to a richer pool of ideas and solutions.

3. Prioritize problem branches

The next step involves prioritization. Not all branches of the problem tree have the same impact, so it’s important to understand the significance of each and focus attention on the most impactful areas. Prioritizing helps streamline efforts and minimize the time required to solve the problem.

Over 200k developers and product managers use LogRocket to create better digital experiences

4. Create an analysis plan

For prioritized components, you may need to conduct in-depth analysis. Before proceeding, a work plan is created for data gathering and analysis. If work is conducted within a team, having a plan provides guidance on what needs to be achieved, who is responsible for which tasks, and the timelines involved.

5. Conduct analysis

Data gathering and analysis are central to the problem-solving process. It’s a good practice to set time limits for this phase to prevent excessive time spent on perfecting details. You can employ heuristics and rule-of-thumb reasoning to improve efficiency and direct efforts towards the most impactful work.

6. Synthesis

After each individual branch component has been researched, the problem isn’t solved yet. The next step is synthesizing the data logically to address the initial question. The synthesis process and the logical relationship between the individual branch results depend on the logic tree used.

7. Communication

The last step is communicating the story and the solution of the problem to the stakeholders and decision-makers. Clear effective communication is necessary to build trust in the solution and facilitates understanding among all parties involved. It ensures that stakeholders grasp the intricacies of the problem and the proposed solution, leading to informed decision-making.

Exploring problem-solving in various contexts

While problem-solving has traditionally been associated with fields like engineering and science, today it has become a fundamental skill for individuals across all professions. In fact, problem-solving consistently ranks as one of the top skills required by employers.

Problem-solving techniques can be applied in diverse contexts:

Individuals — What career path should I choose? Where should I live? These are examples of simple and common personal challenges that require effective problem-solving skills
Organizations — Businesses also face many decisions that are not trivial to answer. Should we expand into new markets this year? How can we enhance the quality of our product development? Will our office accommodate the upcoming year’s growth in terms of capacity?
Societal issues — The biggest world challenges are also complex problems that can be addressed with the same technique. How can we minimize the impact of climate change? How do we fight cancer?

Despite the variation in domains and contexts, the fundamental approach to solving these questions remains the same. It starts with gaining a clear understanding of the problem, followed by decomposition, conducting analysis of the decomposed branches, and synthesizing it into a result that answers the initial problem.

Real-world examples of problem-solving

Let’s now explore some examples where we can apply the problem solving framework.

Problem: In the production of electronic devices, you observe an increasing number of defects. How can you reduce the error rate and improve the quality?

Before delving into analysis, you can deprioritize branches that you already have information for or ones you deem less important. For instance, while transportation delays may occur, the resulting material degradation is likely negligible. For other branches, additional research and data gathering may be necessary.

Once results are obtained, synthesis is crucial to address the core question: How can you decrease the defect rate?

While all factors listed may play a role, their significance varies. Your task is to prioritize effectively. Through data analysis, you may discover that altering the equipment would bring the most substantial positive outcome. However, executing a solution isn’t always straightforward. In prioritizing, you should consider both the potential impact and the level of effort needed for implementation.

By evaluating impact and effort, you can systematically prioritize areas for improvement, focusing on those with high impact and requiring minimal effort to address. This approach ensures efficient allocation of resources towards improvements that offer the greatest return on investment.

Problem : What should be my next job role?

When breaking down this problem, you need to consider various factors that are important for your future happiness in the role. This includes aspects like the company culture, our interest in the work itself, and the lifestyle that you can afford with the role.

However, not all factors carry the same weight for us. To make sense of the results, we can assign a weight factor to each branch. For instance, passion for the job role may have a weight factor of 1, while interest in the industry may have a weight factor of 0.5, because that is less important for you.

By applying these weights to a specific role and summing the values, you can have an estimate of how suitable that role is for you. Moreover, you can compare two roles and make an informed decision based on these weighted indicators.

Key problem-solving skills

This framework provides the foundation and guidance needed to effectively solve problems. However, successfully applying this framework requires the following:

Creativity — During the decomposition phase, it’s essential to approach the problem from various perspectives and think outside the box to generate innovative ideas for breaking down the problem tree
Decision-making — Throughout the process, decisions must be made, even when full confidence is lacking. Employing rules of thumb to simplify analysis or selecting one tree cut over another requires decisiveness and comfort with choices made
Analytical skills — Analytical and research skills are necessary for the phase following decomposition, involving data gathering and analysis on selected tree branches
Teamwork — Collaboration and teamwork are crucial when working within a team setting. Solving problems effectively often requires collective effort and shared responsibility
Communication — Clear and structured communication is essential to convey the problem solution to stakeholders and decision-makers and build trust

How to enhance your problem-solving skills

Problem-solving requires practice and a certain mindset. The more you practice, the easier it becomes. Here are some strategies to enhance your skills:

Practice structured thinking in your daily life — Break down problems or questions into manageable parts. You don’t need to go through the entire problem-solving process and conduct detailed analysis. When conveying a message, simplify the conversation by breaking the message into smaller, more understandable segments
Regularly challenging yourself with games and puzzles — Solving puzzles, riddles, or strategy games can boost your problem-solving skills and cognitive agility.
Engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints — Conversing with people who offer different perspectives provides fresh insights and alternative solutions to problems. This boosts creativity and helps in approaching challenges from new angles

Final thoughts

Problem-solving extends far beyond mathematics or scientific fields; it’s a critical skill for making informed decisions in every area of life and work. The seven-step framework presented here provides a systematic approach to problem-solving, relevant across various domains.

Now, consider this: What’s one question currently on your mind? Grab a piece of paper and try to apply the problem-solving framework. You might uncover fresh insights you hadn’t considered before.

Featured image source: IconScout

LogRocket generates product insights that lead to meaningful action

Get your teams on the same page — try LogRocket today.

Stop guessing about your digital experience with LogRocket

Feedback management tools and strategies

Feedback management refers to a structured process for gathering and analyzing feedback to improve products, services, or processes.

An overview of feature-driven development (FDD)

FDD is an agile framework for software development that emphasizes incremental and iterative progress on product features development.

Leader Spotlight: Making the customer feel like a regular, with Judy Yao

Judy Yao talks about creating a digital experience that makes customers feel as if they were repeat, familiar customers in a physical store.

How can PMs benefit from generative AI

AI amplifies your potential when you use it as a co-pilot. However, don’t forget you’re the driver, not the passenger.

Technological problem solving: an investigation of differences associated with levels of task success

Open access
Published: 02 June 2021
Volume 32 , pages 1725–1753, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

David Morrison-Love ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9009-4738 1

8983 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Research into technological problem solving has shown it to exist in a range of forms and draw upon different processes and knowledge types. This paper adds to this understanding by identifying procedural and epistemic differences in relation to task performance for pupils solving a well-defined technological problem. The study is theoretically grounded in a transformative epistemology of technology education. 50 pupils in small groups worked through a cantilever problem, the most and least successful solutions to which were identified using a Delphi technique. Time-interval photography, verbal interactions, observations and supplementary data formed a composite representation of activity which was analysed with successively less contrasting groups to isolate sustained differences. Analyses revealed key differences in three areas. First, more successful groups used better and more proactive process-management strategies including use of planning, role and task allocation with lower levels of group tension. Second, they made greater use of reflection in which knowledge associated with the technological solution was explicitly verblised. This was defined as ‘analytical reflection’ and reveals aspects of pupils’ qualitative technical knowledge. Third, higher-performing groups exhibited greater levels of tacit-procedural knowledge within their solutions. There was also evidence that less successful groups were less affected by competition and not as comprehensive in translating prior conceptual learning into their tangible technological solutions. Overall findings suggest that proactive management, and making contextual and technical connections, are important for pupils solving well-defined technological problems. This understanding can be used to support classroom pedagogies that help pupils learn to problem solve more effectively.

Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Educational Technology Skills: A Problem-Solving Process

Problem-Based Learning in Technology Education

Explore related subjects

Artificial Intelligence
Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Problem solving is an activity, a context and a dominant pedagogical frame for Technology Education. It constitutes a central method and a critical skill through which school pupils learn about and become proficient in technology (Custer et al., 2001 ). Research has, among other things, been able to identify and investigate sets of intellectual and cognitive processes (Buckley et al., 2019 ; Haupt, 2018 ; Johnson, 1997 ; Sung & Kelly, 2019 ) and shown there to be conceptual, procedural, relational and harder-to-get-to forms of ‘technological knowledge’ involved when pupils develop technological solutions (de Vries, 2005 ; McCormick, 1997 , 2004 ; Rauscher, 2011 ). Some authors argue that technological problem solving (and design) is a situated activity (Jackson & Strimel, 2018 ; Murphy & McCormick, 1997 ; Liddament, 1996 ), but with social and context-independent processes also playing an important role (e.g. Jones, 1997 ; Winkelmann & Hacker, 2011 ). Within and across this vista, there has been strong interest in more open-ended, creative and design-based problem-solving (Lewis, 2005 , 2009 ), which Xu et al. ( 2019 ) notes became particularly prominent after 2006. These studies have helped to understand some of the challenges and pedagogies of design (Gómez Puente et al., 2013 ; Lavonen et al., 2002 ; Mioduser & Dagan, 2007 ; Mawson, 2003 ) including those that mitigate effects such as cognitive fixation (e.g. McLellan & Nicholl, 2011 ). Problem solving, it seems, is a pervasive idea in technology education research and policy. Middleton ( 2009 ) notes that problem solving is found in almost all international technology education curricula.

The pace, nature and complexity of contemporary societal challenges make it more critical than ever that technology classrooms prepare people who can think through and respond to technological problems effectively. It requires that we strengthen our understanding in ways that will ultimately be powerful for shaping classroom learning. One way of contributing to this is to learn more about the differences between learners who are more and less successful at technological problem solving. Studies that share a comparative perspective and/or a focus upon task success are relatively few. Doornekamp ( 2001 ) compared pupils (circa 13 years old) who solved technological problems using weakly structured instructional materials with those using strongly structured materials. It was shown that the latter led to statistically significant improvements in the quality of the technical solutions. More recently, Bartholomew & Strimel ( 2018 ) were able to show that, for open-ended problem solving, there was no significant relationship between prior experience and folio creation, but that more in-school school experience of open-ended problem solving corresponded to higher ranked solutions.

This paper contributes to this work by reporting on a study that compares groups of pupils during technological problem solving in order to identify areas of difference and the factors associated with more successful outcomes. Specifically, it addresses the question: ‘In terms of intellectual processes and knowledge, what are the differences in the modi operandi between groups of pupils that produced more and less successful technological solutions to a well-defined problem?’ Theoretically grounded in a transformative epistemology of technology education (Morrison-Love, 2017 ), the study identifies prominent procedural and epistemic differences in pupils’ thinking and technical solutions. Groups of pupils engaged with a structures problem requiring them to develop a cantilever bridge system which would facilitate safe travel across a body of water.

The paper begins by setting out the theoretical basis and conceptual framework for investigation before describing the comparative methodological and analytical approaches that were adopted. Following an analysis and presentation of key findings, conclusion and implications are discussed.

A theoretical basis for the study of technological problem solving

Despite there being no single comprehensive paradigm for technological problem solving, a theoretical grounding and conceptual framework necessary for this study are presented. At the theoretical level, this study is based upon a ‘transformative epistemology’ for technology education (Morrison-Love, 2017 ). From this, a ternary conceptual framework based upon mode, epistemology and process is developed to support study design and initiate data analysis.

A transformative epistemology for technology education (Morrison-Love, ibid) proposes that pupils’ technological knowledge and capability arises from the ontological transformation of their technical solution from ‘perdurant’ (more conceptual, mutable, less well-defined, partial) in the early stages, to ‘endurant’ (comprehensive, tangible, stable over time) upon completion. It proposes that technical outcomes exist in material and tangible forms and that to be technological (rather than, for example, social, cultural or aesthetic) these must somehow enhance human capabilities in their intended systems of use. For this study, the ideas of transformative epistemology support problem solving in which pupils build technological knowledge by iteratively moving from concept to tangible, material solution. Moreover, it means pupils are successful in this when their solutions or prototypes: (1) enhance existing human capabilities in some way, and (2) are sufficiently developed to be stable over time, beyond the problem-solving activity that created it.

A conceptual framework for technological problem solving

A ternary conceptual framework (Fig. 1 ) of mode, process and epistemology was developed from the literature in which the knowledge and cognitive/intellectual processes used by pupils are enacted in the ‘process application block’. This is like the ‘problem space’ described in a model proposed by Mioduser ( 1998 ). Collectively, the goal of creating a physical artefact, the solution itself, the epistemic and procedural dimensions reflect the four dimensions of technology identified by Custer ( 1995 ).

‘A conceptual framework for technological problem solving’

Mode and forms dimension

Although problem solving may be ‘technological’, several classifications of both problem type and problem solving are found in the literature. Ill-defined and well-defined problems build upon the earlier work of information processing and cognitive psychology (see Jonassen, 1997 ). Typically, these two forms reflect different extents to which the outcome is specified to the solver at the outset. Ill-defined problems are strongly associated with design and creativity, and Twyford and Järvinen ( 2000 ) suggest that these more open briefs promote greater social interaction and use by pupils of prior knowledge and experience. Additionally, two forms of troubleshooting were identified in the literature: emergent troubleshooting and discrete troubleshooting. MacPherson ( 1998 ) argues that ‘troubleshooting’ constitutes a particular subset of technological problem solving—something earlier recognised by McCade ( 1990 ), who views it as the identification and overcoming of problems encountered during the production or use of a technical solution. In this study, emergent troubleshooting occurs in the process of developing solutions in response to emergent problems (McCormick, 1994 ). Discrete troubleshooting is a process in which significant technical understanding is applied in a structured way (Schaafstal et al., 2000 ) to resolve something about an existing artefact.

Intellectual and cognitive process dimension

Studies often conceptualise cognitive processes discretely rather than hierarchically, and different studies employ different process sets. Williams ( 2000 ), identifies evaluation, communication, modelling, generating ideas, research and investigation, producing and documenting as important to technological problem solving, while DeLuca ( 1991 ) identifies troubleshooting, the scientific process, the design process, research and development, and project management. There are also studies that employ specific, or more established, coding schemes for sets of intellectual and cognitive processes. A detailed analysis of these is given Grubbs et al. ( 2018 ), although the extent to which a particular process remains discrete or could form a sub-process of another remains problematic. In DeLuca’s ( 1991 ) break down for example, to what extent are research and investigation part of design and does this depend on the scale at which we conceptualise different processes?

Regardless of the processes a study defines, it is typically understood that pupils apply them in iterative or cyclic fashion. This is reflected across several models from Argyle’s ( 1972 ) ‘Motor Skill Process Model’ (perception-translation-motor response) through to those of Miodusre and Kipperman ( 2002 ) and Scrivener et al. ( 2002 ) (evaluation-modification cycles) which pertain specifically to technology education. All these models bridge pupils’ conceptual-internal representations with their practical-external representations as they move towards an ontologically endurant solution and this is captured by the ‘Re-Application/Transformation Loop’ of the conceptual framework. Given that little is known about where differences might lie, the process set identified by Halfin ( 1973 ) was adopted due to its rigour and the breadth of thinking it encompasses. This set was validated for technology classrooms by Hill and Wicklein ( 1999 ) and used successfully by other studies of pupils technological thinking including Hill ( 1997 ), Kelley ( 2008 ) and Strimel ( 2014 ).

Epistemology dimension

The nature and sources of knowledge play a critical role for pupils when solving technological problems, but these remain far from straightforward to conceptualise. McCormick ( 1997 ) observes that the activity of technology education, and its body of content, can be thought of as ‘procedural knowledge’ and ‘conceptual knowledge’ respectively. Vincenti ( 1990 ), in the context of Engineering, makes the case for descriptive knowledge (things as they currently are) and prescriptive knowledge (of that with is required to meet a desired state) but also recognises knowledge can take on implicit, or tacit forms relating to an individual’s skill, judgement, and practice (Polanyi, 1967 ; Schön, 1992 ; Sternberg, 1999 ; Welch, 1998 ). Arguably, moving from concept to physical solution will demand from pupils a certain level of practical skill and judgement, and Morgan ( 2008 ) observes that procedural knowledge which is explicit in the early stages becomes increasingly implicit with mastery. Notably, in addition to conceptual, procedural and tacit forms of knowledge, there is also evidence that knowledge of principles plays a role. Distinct from impoverished notions of technology as ‘applied science’, Rophol ( 1997 ) shows that it is often technological principles, laws and maxims that are applied during problem solving rather than scientific ones. Frey ( 1989 ) makes similar observations and sees this form of knowledge arising largely from practice. In this study, knowledge of principles involves knowledge of a relationship between things. It is not constrained to those that are represented scientifically.

The conceptual framework finally accounts for pupils’ sources of knowledge during problem solving, building principally on a design knowledge framework of media, community and domain presented by Erkip et al. ( 1997 ). In this study, media includes task information, representations and materials; community includes teachers and peers, and domain relates to prior technological knowledge from within technology lessons and prior personal knowledge from out with technology lessons. Finally, the developing solution is itself recognised a source of knowledge that pupils iteratively engage with and reflect upon, even when it appears that limited progress in being made (Hamel & Elshout, 2000 ).

Methodology

The research question in this study is concerned with differences in the knowledge and intellectual processes used by pupils in moving from a perdurant to an endurant technical solution. From an exploratory stance, this elicits a dualistic activity system involving pupils’ subjective constructions of reality as well as the resultant tangible and more objective material solution. The study does not aim to investigate pupils’ own subjective constructions from an emic perspective, but rather seeks to determine the nature and occurrences of any differences during observable real-time problem-solving activity. As such, content rather than thematic analysis was used (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008 ; Vaismoradi et al., 2013 ) with concurrent data collection to build a composite representation of reality (Gall et al., 2003 , p.14). Complementary data provided insights into study effects, the classrooms and contexts within which problem-solving took place.

This study assumes that should differences exist, these will be discernible in the inferred cognitive processes, external material transformations, interactions and verbalisation (even though this tends to diminish as activity becomes more practical). Absolute and objective observation is not possible. This study also accepts that data gathering and analysis are influenced by theory, researcher fallibility and bias which will be explicitly accounted for as far as possible. Finally, while the conceptual framework provides an analytical starting point, it should not preclude the capture of differences that may lie elsewhere in the data including, for example, process that lie out with those identified by Halfin ( 1973 ).

Participants, selection and grouping

To support transferability, a representative spread of pupils from low, medium and high socio-economic backgrounds took part in this study. Purposeful, four-stage criterion sampling was used (Gall et al., 2003 , p.179). Stage one identified six schools at each socio-economic level from all Scottish secondary schools that presented pupils for one or more technology subjects with the Scottish Qualifications Authority. This was done using socio-economic data from the Scottish Area Deprivation Index, the Carstairs Index and pupil eligibility for subsidised meals. Secondary school catchment areas were used to account for pupil demographics as accurately as possible. All eighteen schools were subsequently ranked with one median drawn from low, medium and high bands of socio-economic deprivation (School 1: Low, School 2: Medium, School 3: High).

One class in each school was then selected from the second year of study prior to pupils making specific subject choices to minimise variations in curricular experience. In total, 3 class teachers and 50 pupils (20 female, 30 male) aged between 12 and 13 years old took part in the study. The group rather than the individual was defined as unit of study to centralise verbal interaction.

None of the pupils participating in this study had experience of group approaches such as co-operative learning and it was likely that groups might experience participation effects including inter-group conflict and interaction effects (Harkins, 1987 ; Sherif et al., 1961 ), social loafing (Salomon & Globerson, 1989 ), free-rider (Strong & Anderson, 1990 ) and status differential effects (Rowell, 2002 ). Relevant also to this study is evidence suggesting that gender effects can take place in untrained groups undertaking practical/material manipulation activities. To maximise interaction between group members and the material solution, thirteen single sex groups averaging four pupils were formed in order to: (1) minimise the marginalisation of girls with boys’ tendency to monopolise materials and apparatus in groups (Conwell et al., 1993 ; Whyte, 1984 ); (2) recognise boys’ tendency to respond more readily to other boys (Webb, 1984 ) and, (3) maximise girls’ opportunities to interact which is seen to erode in mixed groups (Parker & Rennie, 2002 ; Rennie & Parker, 1987 ). Hong et al. ( 2012 ) examines such gender differences in detail specifically within the context of technological problem solving. Teacher participation in group allocation minimised inter-group conflict and interaction effects although groups still experienced naturally fluctuating attrition from pupil absences (School 1 = 17.6%; School 2 = 2.5% and School 3 = 8.8%).

Identification of most and least successful solutions

The research question requires differences to be identified in terms of levels of success. The overall trustworthiness of any differences therefore depends upon the credible identification of the most and least successful solutions from the thirteen produced. Wholly objective assessment of the pupils’ solutions is not possible, and material imperfections in different solutions negated reliable physical testing across the three classes. Moreover, because the researcher earlier observed pupils while problem solving, neutrality of researcher judgement in establishing a rank order of group solutions was equally problematic. Everton and Green ( 1986 ) identify this biasing risk between and early and later stages of research as a form of contamination.

To address these limitations, a Delphi technique was design using the work of Gordon ( 1994 ), Rowe and Wright ( 1999 ) and Yousuf ( 2007 ). This was undertaken anonymously prior to any analysis and, in conjunction with the results of physical testing, enabled the four most successful and four least successful solutions to be confidently identified independently of the researcher. A panel of eight secondary school teachers was convened from schools out with the study. All panel members had expertise in teaching structures with no dependent relationships or conflicts of interest. Following Delphi training, and a threshold level of 75%, the four most and four least successful solutions on outcome alone were identified after two rounds. Qualitative content validity checks confirmed that panel judgements fell within the scope of the accessible information. 37/43 reasons given were ‘High’, with six considered ‘Medium’ because the reasoning was partially speculative. When triangulated with additional evidence from physical testing, two cohorts of four groups were identified and paired to form four dyads (Table 1 ).

Study design

As noted, ‘Structures’ was chosen as a topic area and was new to all participants. It was appropriate for setting well-defined problems and allowed pupils to draw upon a sufficiently wide range of processes and knowledge types in developing a tangible, endurant solution. In discussion with the researcher, teachers did not alter their teaching style and adopted pedagogy and formative interactions that would support independent thinking, reasoning and problem solving. This study involved a learning phase, followed by a problem-solving phase.

In the learning phase, groups engaged over three fifty-minute periods with a unit of work on structures which was developed collaboratively with, and delivered by, the three classroom teachers. This allowed pupils to interact with materials and develop a qualitative understanding of key structural concepts including strength, tension and compression, triangulation, and turning moments. During this time, pupils also acclimatised to the presence of the researcher and recording equipment which helped to reduce any potential Hawthorne effect (Gall et al., 2003 ). Structured observations, teacher de-briefs and questionnaires were used in this phase to capture study effects, unit content coverage and environmental consistency between the three classrooms. Content coverage and environmental consistency were shown to be extremely high. Scores from the unit activity sheets that pupils completed were used to gauge group understanding of key concepts.

The problem-solving phase took place over two circa 50-minute periods (range: 40–52 m) in which pupils responded to a well-defined problem brief. This required them to develop a cantilever bridge enabling travel across a body of water. This bridge would enhance people’s ability to traverse terrain (conditions for being ‘technological’) with maximal span rigidity and minimal deflection (conditions for an ontologically ‘endurant’ solution). All groups had access to the same range and number of materials and resources and were issued with a base board showing water and land on which to develop their solutions.

While video capture was explored in depth (Lomax & Casey, 1998 ), challenges in reliably capturing solution detail resulted in group verbalisation being recorded as audio. This was synchronised with time interval photography and supplemented with structured observer-participant observation that focused on a sub-set of observable processes from the conceptual framework (Halfin, 1973 ). The developing technical solutions were viewed as manifestations of the knowledge and intellectual processes used by pupils at different points in time through their cognitive and material interactions. Photographs captured the results of these interactions in group solutions every 3–4 min but did not capture interactions between pupils. The structured observational approach adopted continuous coding similar to that found in the Flanders System of Interaction analysis (Amatari, 2015 ) and was refined through two pilot studies. During each problem-solving session, groups were observed at least twice between photographs and, following each session, pupil questionnaires, teacher de-briefs and solution videos (360° panoramic pivot about the solution) were completed to support future analysis. Reflexive accounts by the researcher also captured critical events, observer and study effects.

Analytical approach

All data were prepared, time-synchronised and analysed in three stages. Core verbal data (apx. 12h) and photographic data (n = 206) were triangulated with observational and other data against time. The problem-solving phase for each class was broken into a series of 3–4 min samples labelled S = 1, S = 2, S = 3…with durations in each recorded in minutes and seconds. Verbal data were analysed using NVivo software using digital waveforms rather than transcribed files to preserve immediacy, accuracy and minimise levels of interpretation (Wainwright & Russell, 2010 ; Zamawe, 2015 ). Photographic data were coded for the physical developments of the solutions (e.g. adding/removing materials in particular places) allowing solution development to be mapped for different groups over time. Triangulation of data also allowed coding to capture whether individual developments enhanced or detracted from the overall function efficacy of the solution.

The first stage of analysis was immersive, beginning with an initial codebook derived from the conceptual framework. In response to the data this iteratively shifted to a more inductive mode. To sensitise the analysis to differences, the most successful and the least successful groups were compared first as is discussed by Strauss 1987 (Miles & Huberman, 1994 , p.58). Three frameworks of differences emerged from this: (1) epistemic differences, (2) process differences, and (3) social and extrinsic differences. These were then applied to dyads of decreasing contrast and successively refined in response to how these differences were reflected in the wider data set. Seven complete passes allowed non-profitable codes to be omitted and frameworks to be finalised. A final stage summarised differences across all groups.

Analysis and findings

The analysis and findings are presented in two main parts: (1) findings from the learning phase, and (2) findings from the problem-solving phase. Verbal data forms a core data source throughout and coding includes both counts and durations (in minutes and seconds). Direct quotations are used from verbal data, although the pupils involved in the study were from regions of Scotland with differing and often very strong local dialects. Quotations are therefore presented with dialect effects removed:

Example data excerpt reflecting dialect: “See instead-e all-e-us watchin’, we could all be doin’ su-hum instead-o watchin’ Leanne..” Example data excerpt with dialect removed: “See instead of all of us watching, we could all be doing something instead of watching Leanne..”

Part 1: Findings from the Learning Phase

Both teacher and researcher observation confirmed that pupils in all three classes engaged well with the unit of work (50 pupils across 13 groups) with all 40 content indicators covered by each class. Teachers of classes 1 and 3 commented that the lesson pace was slightly faster than pupils were used to. As expected, different teaching styles and examples were between classes, but all pupils completed the same unit activity sheets. The teacher of class 2, for example, used man-made structures and insect wings to explore triangulation; and the teacher in class 3 talked about the improved stability pupils get by standing with their feet apart. The understanding reflected in activity sheets was very good overall and Table 2 illustrates the percentage of correct responses for each class in relation to each of the three core concept areas.

Though unit activity sheets are not standardised tests, the conditions of administration, scoring, standards for interpretation, fairness and concept validity discussed by Gall et al. ( 2003 , p.xx) were maintained as far as possible. Evidence did not show that representational/stylistic variations by teachers had any discernible effect on pupil understanding and was seen to maintain normality from the pupils’ perspective. Class 3 scored consistently highly across all conceptual areas, although the qualitative understanding of turning moments was least secure for all three classes. Non-completion of selected questions in the task sheets partially explains lower numerical attainment for this concept in class 1 and 2, however, it is unknown if omissions resulted from a lack of understanding. The figures in Table 2 are absence corrected to account for fluctuating pupil attendance at sessions: (17.6% pupil absence across sessions for class 1, compared with 8.8% and 2.5% for classes 3 and 3 respectively). Table 3 illustrates the percentage scores for activity sheets completed by groups in the more and less successful cohorts.

Observational and reflexive data highlighted evidence of some researcher and recorder effects. These were typically associated with pupils’ interest in understanding the roles of the researcher and class teacher, and discussion around what they could say while being recorded. These subsided over time for all but two groups in Class 1, but with no substantive effect on pupils’ technological thinking.

In summary, findings from the learning phase show that: (1) Pupils engagement was high, and all classes covered the core structural concepts in the unit; (2) pupil knowledge and understanding, as measured by activity sheet responses, was very good overall but scores for turning moments were comparatively lower, and (3) study effect subsided quite quickly for all but two groups and there was no evidence showing these to be detrimental to technological thinking. These differences are considered epistemic and are captured in the framework of difference in Fig. 5 .

Part 2: findings from the problem-solving phase

Part 2 begins by describing the differences from comparing the material solutions produced by the most and least successful groups (dyad 1). Subsequent sections report upon the three areas in which difference were found: epistemic differences, process differences and social and extrinsic differences. Each of these sections lead with the analysis from the most contrasting groups (dyad 1) before presenting the resultant framework of difference. They conclude by reporting on how the differences in these frameworks are reflected across the wider data set. As with findings across all sections, findings only account for areas of the conceptual framework in which differences were identified. For processes such as measuring and testing, no difference was found and other processes, such as computing, did not feature for any of the groups.

Differences in the solutions produced by the most & least successful groups (dyad 1)

Group 5′s solution was identified as the most successful and Group7′s solution was identified as the least successful. Overall, both of these groups engaged well with the task and produced cantilevers that are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 . The order in which different parts of the solutions were developed is indicated by colour with the lighter parts appearing earlier in problem solving than the darker parts. Figure 4 shows this cumulative physical development of each solution over time. Both groups shared a similar conceptual basis and employed triangulation above and below the road surface. Figure 4 shows that Group 5′s solution evolved through 36 developments, while Group 7 undertook 23 developments and chose to strip down and restart their solution at the beginning of the second problem solving session. Similarly, groups 6, 11 and 13 removed or rebuilt significant sections of their solution. Neither group 5 or 7 undertook any developments under the rear of the road surface, and the greatest percentage of developments applied to the road surface itself (Group 7: 30.6%; Group 5: 47.8%). For Group 5, it was only developments 5 and 6 (Fig. 2 ) which offered little to no functional structural advantage. All other developments contributed to either triangulation, rigidity or strength through configuration and material choice with no evidence of misconception, which was also noted by the Delphi panel. The orientation, configuration and choice of materials by Group 7 share similarities with Group 5 insofar as each reflected knowledge of a cognate concept or principle (e.g. triangulation). Delphi Panel Member 8 described Group 7′s solution as having a good conceptual basis. Key differences, however, lay in the overall structural integrity of the solution and the underdevelopment of the road surface (Fig. 3 , Dev.1 and Dev.5) which mean that Group 5 achieved a more ontologically endurant solution than Group 7 did. Evidence from Group 7′s discussion (S = 3, 3.34–3.37; S = 3, 3.38–3.39; S = 16, 3.26–3.30) suggests this is partly because of misconception and deficits in knowledge about materials and the task/cantilever requirements. This was also reflected in the group’s activity responses during structures unit in the learning phase. Alongside the photographic evidence and reflexive notes of the researcher, this suggest that there was some difficultly in translating concepts and ideas into a practical form. This constitutes a difference in tacit-procedural knowledge between Group 5 and Group 7.

‘Group 5 solution schematic’

‘Group 7 solution schematic’

‘Cumulative development of tangible solutions’

Epistemic differences during problem solving

As well as the knowledge differences in the learning phase and the physical solutions, analysis of the most and least successful groups revealed epistemic differences in problem solving activity related to ‘task knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of concepts and principles’. The extent to which ‘knowledge’ can be reliably coded for in this context is limited because it rapidly becomes inseparable from process. Skills are processes which, in turn, are forms of enacted knowledge. Consequently, although Halfin ( 1973 ) defines idea generation as a knowledge generating process using all the senses, attempts to code for this were unsuccessful because it was not possible to ascertain with any confidence where one idea ended, and another began. Coding was possible, however, for ‘prior personal knowledge’, ‘task knowledge’ and ‘prior technological knowledge’. The analysis of these is present along with the resulting framework of epistemic difference with prior personal knowledge omitted on the basis that no differences between groups was found. The final section looks at how epistemic differences are reflected in the activity of the remaining groups.

Epistemic differences between the most & least successful groups (dyad 1)

Task knowledge is the knowledge pupils have of the problem statement and includes relatively objective parameters, conditions, and constraints. One key difference was the extent to which groups explicitly used this to support decision making. Group 5 spent considerably more time than Group 7 discussing what they knew and understood of the task prior to construction (1m10s vs. 8 s) but during construction, had more instances where their knowledge of the task appeared uncertain or was questioned (n = 6 for Group 5 vs. n = 2 for Group 7). Differences were also found in the prior technological knowledge used by groups. This knowledge includes core structural concepts and principles explored in the learning phase. As with task knowledge, Group 5 verbalised this category of knowledge to a far greater extent than Group 7, both apart from, and as part of, formative discussions with the class teacher (18:59 s vs. 14:43 s). In only one instance was the prior technological knowledge of Group 5 incorrect or uncertain compared with four instances for Group 7. These included misconceptions about triangulation and strength despite performing well with these in the learning phase. Furthermore, some instances of erroneous knowledge impacted directly upon solution development. In response to a discussion about rigidity and the physical performance of the road surface, one pupil stated: “Yes, but it is supposed to be able to bend in the middle..” (Group 7, S = 3, 3.34–3.37) meaning that the group did not sufficient attend to this point of structural weakness which resulted in a less endurant solution. No such occurrences took place with Group 5. More prominent and accurate use of this type of knowledge supports stronger application of learning into the problem-solving context and appeared to accompany greater solution integrity.

From these findings, and those from the learning phase, the framework of difference shown in Fig. 5 was developed:

‘Framework of epistemic differences from comparative analysis of Group 5 and 7’

Epistemic differences across all groups (dyads 1–4)

As with dyad 1, the more successful groups in dyads 3 and 4 scored higher (+ 14% and + 20.7%, respectively) in the learning phase compared with their less successful partner groups. This, however, was not seen with dyad 2. The less successful group achieved a higher average score of 86.3% compared with 71% and, despite greater fluctuations in pupil attendance, scored 100% for turning moments compared with 58% for the more successful group. Although comparatively minimal across all groups, more successful groups in each dyad tended to explicitly verbalise technological and task knowledge more than less successful groups. Furthermore, it was more often correct or certain for more successful groups. This was particularly true for dyad 2, although there was some uncertainty about the strongest shapes for given materials in, for example, Group 12 which was the more successful group of dyad 3. The greatest similarity in verbalised task knowledge was observed with the least contrasting dyad, although evidence from concept sketching (Figs. 6 , 7 ) illustrated a shared misunderstanding between both groups of the cantilever and task requirements.

‘Group 2 concept sketch’

‘Group 8 concept sketch’

The differences in tacit-procedural knowledge between Group 5 and 7 were reflected quite consistently across other dyads, with more successful groups showing greater accuracy, skill and judgement in solution construction. The more successful groups in dyads 2 and 3 undertook three material developments that offered little to no functional advantage, and each of the developments these groups undertook correctly embodied knowledge of cognate structural concepts and principles. Notably, Group 8 of dyad 4 was able to achieved this with no structural redundancy at all. Less successful groups, however, were not as secure in their grasp of the functional dependencies and interrelationships between different parts of their structural systems. The starkest example of this was with Group 4 of dyad 3, who explicitly used triangulation but their failure to physically connect it with other parts of the structure rendered the triangulation redundant. Group 2 of dyad 4 were the only group not to triangulate the underside of the road surface. Less successful groups tended to focus slightly more of their material developments in areas of the bridge other than the road surface, whereas the opposite tended to be true for the other groups. Significantly, while all groups in the study included developments that offered little to no functional advantage, it was only in the case of less successful groups that these impaired the overall functional performance of solutions in some way. Table 4 summarises the sustained epistemic difference across all four dyads.

Process differences

Analysis of the most contrasting dyad yielded process differences in: (1) managing (Halfin, 1973 ), (2) planning, and (3) reflection. Groups managed role and task allocation differently, as well as engaging in different approaches to planning aspects of solution development. Reflection, as a process of drawing meaning or conclusions from past events, is not explicitly identified by Halfin or the conceptual framework. Two new forms of reflection for well-defined technological problem solving (declarative reflection and analytical reflection) were therefor developed to account for the differences found. The analysis of the process differences is presented with the resulting framework for this dyad. The final section presents sustained process differences across all groups.

Difference in managing—role & task allocation & adoption (dyad 1)

The autonomous creation of roles and allocation of tasks featured heavily in the activity of Group 5. These typically clustered around agreed tasks such as sketching (S = 2, 1.46), and points where group members were not directly engaged in construction. In total, Group 5 allocated or adopted roles or task on 31 occasions during problem solving compared with only 7 for Group 7. Both groups did so to assist other members (Group 5, S = 16, 3.33–3.38; Group 7, S = 3, 0.37–0.41), to take advantage of certain skills that group members were perceived to possess (Group 5, S = 2, 1.47- 1.49; Group 7, S = 2, 2.03–2.06) and, for one instance in Group 7, to prevent one group member from executing something incorrectly (S = 16, 2.11–2.13). There was evidence, however, that Group 5 moved beyond these quite pragmatic drivers. Member often had more of a choice and, as shown in Excerpt 5, allocation and adoption is mediated by sense of ownership and fairness.

Excerpt 5: Idea Ownership (Sketching) Pupil ?: “You can’t draw on them..” Pupil 1: “You draw Chloe, I can’t draw..” Pupil 2: “I know I can’t draw on them, that’s why I doing them; no, because you, you had the ideas… because you had…” Pupil ?: “(unclear)” Pupil 3: “Just draw your own ideas, right, you can share with mine right…. Right, you draw the thread one, I’ll do the straw thing…” (Group 5, S = 2, 1.46–1.59)

The effective use of role and task allocation appeared to play an important role in realising an effective technical solution, however, negative managerial traits were perhaps more significant.

Difference in managing—negative managerial traits (dyad 1)

Evidence of differences between Group 5 and 7 were found in relation to: (1) group involvement, and (2) fragmentation of group vision, which were found to be highly interrelated. Negative group involvement accounted for traits of dominance and dismissiveness. For Group 7, this was more prevalent earlier in the problem-solving activity where one group member tended to dominate the process. This pupil tabled 9 out of 11 proposals prior to working with physical materials and, at times, readily dismissed suggestions by other group members (See Excerpt 1). Moreover, ideas and proposals within the group were sometimes poorly communicated (Excerpt 2), which led to a growing level of disenfranchisement for some group members and a fragmented group vision for solution development.

Excerpt 1 Pupil 1:“We could do it that way…” (Pupils continue discussion without acknowledgement) Pupil 1:“You could do that..” Pupil 2:“Shut up, how are we going to do that?” Pupil 1:“Well you’re allowed glue, and you’re allowed scissors..” Several group members: “Shut-up!” (Group 7, S = 1, 2.07–2.28) Excerpt 2 “(Loud inhalation) Watch my brilliant idea… I need scissors.. Are you allowed scissors?” (Group 7, S = 1, 1.36–1.41)

The was some evidence of dismissiveness present with Group 5 also (e.g. S = 9, 1.32–1.46), however, group members were able to voice their ideas which appeared to support a better shared understanding among group members. Notably, Group 5 reached a degree of consensus about what they would do prior to constructing anything, whilst Group 7 did not. Even in these early stages, two of the four members of Group 7 made it very clear that they did not know what was happening (Excerpt 3).

Excerpt 3 Pupil 1: “What are you all up to?” Pupil 2: “Move you” Pupil 4: “No idea” Pupil 2: “You’re allowed to say hell are you not?” Pupil ?: “Helli-yeh” Pupil 2: “Hellilouya” (slight laughter) Pupil 3: “Right so were going to..(unclear) and do that..” Pupil 1: “What are you all up to?” Pupil 2: “Just… I know what he’s thinking of..” Pupil 4: “I don’t have a clue what you’re thinking of..” Pupil 3: “Neither do I..” (Group 7, S = 2, 0.15–0.33)

Occurrence like these contributed to a growing sense of fragmentation in the group. Verbal and observational data show this to have been picked up by the class teacher who tried to encourage and support the group to share and discussed ideas more fully. Despite this, the group lost their sense of shared vision about how to approach a solution and, part way through the first session, two group members attempted to begin developing a separate solution of their own (S-3, 2.52).

The final managerial difference between Group 5 and 7 was the way in which efforts were made to increase the efficiency of solution development. Seen as a positive managerial trait, both groups did this, but it was more frequent and more developed with Group 5. There were four examples of this with Group 7 in the form of simple prompts to speed the process up (E.g. S = 5:3.02–3.04; S = 6:2.22–2.23; S = 11: 1.34–1.35) and 25 examples with Group 5 involving prompts and orchestrating parallel rather than successive activity.

Differences in planning (dyad 1)

Differences emerged in how Group 5 and 7 thought about and prepared for future problem-solving activity. While the complexity of the pupils’ problem-solving prevented cause and effect from being attributed to planning decisions, four areas of difference were identified: (1) determining use of/amount of materials/resources, (2) sequencing, ordering or prioritising, (3) identification of global solution requirements, and (4) working through how an idea should be practically executed. Across both problem-solving sessions, Group 5 spent over three times as long as Group 7 did, engaging in these forms of planning (8m17s vs. 2.23 s), but Group 7 planned on almost twice as many occasions (n = 98 vs. n = 56). Both groups considered the availability of materials for, and matching of materials to, given ideas (e.g. Group 5, S = 5:3.38–3.48; Group 7, S = 4:2.20–2.34; S = 12:1.53–2.00) and both identified global solution requirements. At the start, Group 5 engaged in 12 min of planning in which they read task instructions (S = 1, 0.49–1.49), explored, tested, and compared the available materials (S = 1, 1.49–2.10), and agreed on a starting point. As shown in Excerpt 4, these discussions attempted to integrate thinking on materials, joining methods, placement. As the class teacher observed, Group 7 were eager to begin construction after 4m45s and did so without an agreed starting point. Pupils in this group explored materials in a more reactive way in response to construction.

Excerpt 4 “..a tiny bit of cardboard, right, this is the cardboard, right.. (picks up part) put glue on it so that’s on that, right.. (modelling part orientation) then put glue on it there so it sticks down.. something to stick it down, do you know what I mean?” (Group 5, S = 9, 2.10–2.20)

Despite similar types of planning processes, the planning discourse of Group 5 was more proactive, and this may have minimised inefficiencies and avoidable errors. For Group 7, two group members unintentionally drew the same idea (S = 2, 3.19–3.26), parts were taped in the wrong place (S = 17, 1.26–1.40) and others glued in the wrong order (S = 5, 1.28–1.30 and 1.48–1.56). Such occurrences, however, notably reduced after the group re-started their solution in the second session which also mirrored a 73% drop in poor group involvement. Communication played an important role in planning and there was no evidence of avoidable errors with Group 5.

Differences in reflection (dyad 1)

The most prevent differences in this study were found in how Group 5 and Group 7 reflected upon their developing solutions. Analysis revealed two main forms of reflection that were used differently by groups. ‘Declarative reflection’ lies close to observation and is defined by this study as reflection that does not explicitly reveal anything of a pupil’s knowledge of technical relationships within their solution, e.g.: “that’s not going to be strong…” (Group 7, S = 2, 0.49–0.51). This form of reflection was critical for both groups who used it heuristically to quality assure material developments, but it was used slightly more often by Group 7 (n = 164:4m30s vs. n = 145:4m07s). By contrast, ‘analytical reflection’ is defined as that which does reveal something of a pupil’s knowledge of technical relationships between two or more parts of a solution. Examples of this are shown in Excerpts 5 and 6 where pupils are reflecting upon an attempt made to support the underside of the road surface.

Excerpt 5: “It’s not going to work because it’s in compression and straws bend..” (Group 5, S = 9, 2.3–2.35) Excerpt 6: “no, that’ll be… oh, aye, because that would weight it down and it would go into the water.” (Group 5, S = 14, 3.35–3.38)

Looking across verbal and observational data, there was no consistent pattern to the use of declarative reflection but analytical reflection for both groups was almost exclusively anchored around, and promoted by, the practical enactment of an idea and could be associated with predictions about the future performance of their solution. Overall, both Group 5 and 7 reflected a similar number of times (n = 216 and n = 209, respectively) although the total amount of time spent reflecting was 17% longer for Group 5. This difference in time was accounted for by comparatively more analytical reflection in Group 5 (n = 75:3m47s vs. n = 45:2m10s for Group 7), particularly during the first half of problem solving. It was also interesting that Group 7 engaged with no analytical reflection at all prior to construction.

Findings from process management, planning and reflection led to the framework of difference in Fig. 8 . This also accounts for differences in the amount of time each group reflected upon the task detail, but this was extremely limited (Group 5: n = 7, 26 s; Group 7: n = 5, 10 s).

‘Framework of process differences from comparative analysis of Group 5 and 7’

Process differences across all groups (dyads 1–4)

Task reflection, attempts at increasing efficiency and differences of fragmented vision found with the most contrasting dyad were not sustained across remaining groups. The only sufficiently consistent difference in patterns of solution development was that more successful groups, on average, spent 18% longer in planning and discussion before beginning to construct anything.

Overall, the nature and patterns of good and poor group involvement from dyad 1 were reflected more widely, with some instances of deviation. The more successful group in dyad 4 had more significant and numerous examples of poor group involvement than did the less successful group (n = 16 vs. n = 10), although they made more effective use of roles and task allocation and spent longer engaged in planning processes. Dyad 2 deviated also insofar as the less successful group (13) actually had fewer avoidable errors than Group 6 who accidentally cut the incorrect parts (e.g. S = 15, 2.44–2.47), undertook developments that were not required (e.g. S = 6, 2.11–2.16) and integrated the wrong parts into their solution (e.g. S = 7, 1.10–1.13).

Differences in the nature and use of reflection was one of the most consistently sustained findings between the most and least successful cohorts. All four of the more successful groups engaged more heavily in reflective processes and more of this reflection was analytical in nature. This shows that reflection which explicitly integrates knowledge of technical relationships between different aspects of a solution plays an important role in more successful technical outcomes. Whilst declarative reflection remained important for all groups, it was also less prominent for groups in the less successful cohort. Table 5 summarises the sustained process difference across dyads 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Social & extrinsic differences (dyad 1)

Differences reported in this section lie out with the formal conceptual framework of the study but, nonetheless, were shown to play a role in the technological problem-solving activity of dyad 1. Differences between Group 5 and 7 emerged in three areas: (1) group tension, (2) effects of the classroom competitive dynamic, and (3) study effects. Group tension, which relates to aspects of interaction such as argumentative discourse, raised voices and exasperation, were negligible for Group 5 (n = 4, 0m24s) when compared with Group 7 (n = 38, 2m38s) and related exclusively to pupils having their voiced heard. For group 7, tension was evident during both sessions, but was more significant in the first session before re-starting the solution in session 2 and purposeful attempts to work more collaboratively with the support of the teacher (Group 7, S = 10, 0.36–1.29). Observations revealed that tension was typically caused by pupils failing to carry out practical processes to the standard of other group members, or breaking parts such as the thread supporting the road surface in the 36 th minute of Session 2.

Despite collaborative efforts within groups, there was a sense of competitive dynamic which appeared either to positively bias, negatively bias, or to not affect group activity. This competitive dynamic was present in groups comparing themselves to other groups in the class. Group 7 had 3.7 times as many instances of this as Group 5 with 73% of these negatively affecting the group. These included interference from and with other groups (S = 7, 0.07–0.12), attempting to copy other groups (S = 7, 1.14–1.22) and comparing the solutions of other groups to their own (S = 8, 2.55–2.59). In contrast, Group 5 appeared to be far less affected by perceptions of competition. Around a third of instances were coded as neutral, however, Group 7 experienced more instances of positive competitive effects than Group 5 did (n = 5 vs. n = 1).

Study effects were present for both groups often triggered by the arrival of the researcher at their table to observe or take photographs. The biggest difference in study effects was associated with the audio recorder. Recorder effects for Group 7 were three and half times that of Group 5 involving discussion about how it worked (Group 7, S = 10, 3.04–3.17), or about what was caught or not caught on tape (Group 7, S = 14, 1.01–1.45). Although questionnaire data showed that pupils in Group 5 felt that they talked less in the presence of the recorder, this was not supported by observations, verbal data, or the class teacher. From these findings, the framework of social and extrinsic difference in Fig. 9 was developed.

‘Framework of social & extrinsic differences from comparative analysis of Group 5 and 7’

Social & extrinsic differences across all groups (dyads 1–4)

Most of the social and extrinsic differences identified with Groups 5 and 7 were reflected to greater or lesser extents in other dyads. In addition to less successful groups being more susceptible to researcher and recorder effects, two specific points of interest emerged. Firstly, group tension was considerably more prominent for less successful groups than it was for more successful groups. Although no evidence of a direct relationship was established, tension appeared to accompany poor managerial traits and the changing of group composition (e.g. Group 8, Group 13). The most significant differences in tension were found with dyad 3. No occurrences were found for the most successful group and 29 were seen with the least successful group including aggressive and abrupt communication between pupils involving blame for substandard construction (S = 10, 2.28–2.38), through to name calling (S = 12, 0.20–0.22), arguing (S = 6, 1.46–2.10) and threats of physical violence (S = 11, 3.25–3.29).

Secondly, the more successful groups were influenced by the competitive class dynamic more than the less successful groups were. This is the only sustained finding that directly opposes what was found with dyad 1. These took the form of neutral or negative inter-group effects involving comparing and judging other groups (e.g. Group 6), espionage, copying or suspicion thereof (e.g. Group 6, 8 and 12). Table 6 summarises the sustained social and extrinsic differences across the more and less successful cohorts.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study established and applied three frameworks to capture the epistemic, procedural, and social and extrinsic differences between groups of pupils as they developed solutions to a well-defined technological problem. Social & extrinsic findings revealed higher levels of group tension for the less successful cohort, but that more successful groups elicited more negative responses to the competitive class dynamic created by different groups solving the same problem. Major findings about differences in knowledge and process are discussed. Thereafter, a three-part characterisation of thinking for well-defined technological problem solving is presented in support of pedagogy for Design & Technology classrooms.

The most important of those knowledge differences uncovered were found in: (1) the material development of the solution itself, and (2) the reflective processes used by groups during problem solving. The conceptual framework characterises ‘tacit-procedural knowledge’ as the implicit procedural knowledge embodied in technical skill, accuracy and judgement, and this was further refined in the solutions of more successful groups. Linked to this was the fact that several of the material developments for triangulation and strength were improperly realised by less successful groups which negatively impacted on the functional performance of their solutions. Often, this was despite evidence of a good conceptual understanding of triangulation, tension, and compression in the learning phase. An ontologically endurant solution requires stability over time and lesser developed aspects of tacit-procedural knowledge and knowledge application meant that this was not realised as fully as possible for some groups.

This can be partly explained by the challenge of learning transfer, or more accurately, learning application. Several notable studies have explored these difficulties in technology education (Brown, 2001 ; Dixon & Brown, 2012 ; Kelly & Kellam, 2009 ; Wicklein & Schell, 1995 ), but typically at a subject or interdisciplinary level. The findings of this study suggest that, even when the concepts in a learning unit are tightly aligned with a well-defined problem brief, some pupils find difficulty in applying them within a tangible, material context. It could be argued that more successful groups were better at connecting learning between different contexts associated with the problem-solving task and could apply this with more developed skill and judgement.

The second important knowledge difference arose in the various forms of reflection that groups engaged with. Reflection in this study supports pupils in cycling through the re-application/transformation loop in a similar way to the perception/translation/evaluation blocks of the iterative models of problem solving (Argyle, 1972 ; Miodusre & Kipperman, 2002 ; Scrivener et al., 2002 ). Surprisingly few studies explore ‘reflection’ as a process in technological thinking (Kavousi et al., 2020 ; Luppicini, 2003 ; Lousberg et al., 2020 ), and fewer still in the context of school-level technological problem solving. This study found that more successful groups reflected more frequently, and that more of this reflection was analytical insofar as it explicitly revealed knowledge of technical relationships between different variables or parts of their solution. Such instances are likely to have been powerful in shaping the shared understanding of the group. This type of reflection is significant because it takes place at a deeper level than declarative reflection and is amalgamated with pupils’ subject knowledge and qualitative understanding of their technical solution. This allowed pupils to look back and to predict by explicitly making connections between technical aspects of their solution.

The final area in which important differences were found was management of the problem-solving process which is accounted for by Halfin ( 1973 ) in his mental process set. When analysed, the more successful cohort exploited more positive managerial strategies, and fewer negative traits. They made more extensive and effective use of role and task allocation, spent more time planning ahead and longer in the earlier conceptual phase prior to construction. Other studies have also captured aspects of these for technology education. Hennessy and Murphy ( 1999 ) discuss peer interaction, planning, co-operation and conflict, and changing roles and responsibilities as features of collaboration with significant potential for problem solving in technology. Rowell ( 2002 ), in a study of a single pair of technology pupils, demonstrated the significance of roles and participative decisions as enablers and inhibiters of what pupils take away from learning situations. What was interesting about the groups involved in this study, was that the managerial approaches were collectively more proactive in nature for more successful groups. Less successful groups were generally more reactive to emergent successes or problems during solution development.

The problem-solving activity of pupils in this study was exceptionally complex and a fuller understanding of how these complexities interacted would have to be further explored. Yet, key differences in knowledge and process collectively suggest that effectively solving well-defined technological problems involves a combination of proactive rather than reactive process management, and an ability to make two different types of technology-specific connections: contextual connections and technical connections. Proactively managing is generic and involves planning, sequencing, and resourcing developments beyond those that are immediately in play to minimise avoidable errors with reference to problem parameters. It involves group members through agreed roles and task allocation that, where possible, capitalise on their strengths. Contextual connections involve effectively linking and applying technological knowledge, concepts, and principles to the material context that have been learnt form other contexts out with solution development. This is supported by skill and judgement in the material developments that embody this knowledge. Finally, technical connections appear to be important for better functioning solutions. These are links in understanding that pupils make between different parts of the developing solution that reveal and build knowledge of interrelationships, dependencies and how their solution works. In addition to helping pupils developing effective managerial approaches in group work, this suggests that pedagogical approaches should not assume pupils are simply able to make contextual and technical connections during technological problem solving. Rather, pedagogy should actively seek to help pupils make both forms of connection explicit in their thinking.

This study has determined that proactive management, contextual and technical connections are important characteristics of the modus operandi of pupils who successfully solve well-defined technological problems. This study does not make any claim about the learning that pupils might have taken from the problem-solving experience. It does, however, provide key findings that teachers can use to support questioning, formative assessment and pedagogies that help pupils in solving well-structured technological problems more effectively.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the School of Education Ethics Committee at the University of Glasgow and guided by the British Educational Research Association Ethical Code of Conduct. All necessary permissions and informed consents were gained, and participants knew they could withdraw at any time without giving a reason. The author declares no conflicts of interest in carrying out this study.

Argyle, M. (1972). Anlaysis of the behaviour of an interactor. In A. Morrison & D. McIntyre (Eds.), The social psychology of teaching. Cox & Wyman Ltd.

Google Scholar

Bartholomew, S. R., & Strimel, G. J. (2018). Factors influencing student success on open-ended design problems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (3), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9415-2 .

Article Google Scholar

Brown, D. (2001). Cognitive science concepts and technology teacher education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 27 (1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v27i1.a.7 .

Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (2), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9446-3 .

Conwell, C. R., Griffin, S., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Gender and racial differences in unstructured learning groups in science. International Journal of Science Education, 15 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150109 .

Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5 (3), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00769905 .

Custer, R. L., Valesey, B. G., & Burke, B. N. (2001). An Assessment model for a design approach to technological problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 12 (2), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v12i2.a.1 .

de Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: Philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15 (2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-8276-2 .

DeLuca, V. W. (1991). Implementing technology education problem-solving activities. Journal of Technology Education, 2 (2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v2i2.a.2 .

Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connecting concepts during problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24 (1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i1.a.1 .

Doornekamp, B. G. (2001). Designing teaching materials for learning problem solving in technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19 (1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120046204 .

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x .

Erkip, F., Demirkan, H., & Pultar, M. (1997). Knowledge acquisition for design education. In IDATER 97 Conference, 1997 (pp. 126-132). Loughborough: Loughborough University.

Everton, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 192–213). MacMillan.

Frey, R. E. (1989). A philosophical framework for understanding technology. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 27 (1), 23–35.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research: an introduction . (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (3), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x .

Gordon, T. J. (1994). The delphi method. Futures research methodology, 2 (3), 1–30.

Grubbs, M. E., Strimel, G. J., & Kim, E. (2018). Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 engineering/technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (4), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9427-y .

Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach. Doctoral Thesis, West Virginia University, West Virginia.

Hamel, R., & Elshout, J. J. (2000). On the development of knowledge during problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12 (3), 289–322.

Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23 (1), 1–18.

Haupt, G. (2018). Hierarchical thinking: A cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (1), 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9381-0 .

Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9 (1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008855526312 .

Hill, R. B. (1997). The design of an instrument to assess problem solving activities in technology education. Journal of Technology Education , 9 (1), 31–46.

Hill, R. B., & Wicklein, R. C. (1999). A factor analysis of primary mental processes for technological problem solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36 (2), 83–100.

Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Wong, W.-T., Lin, H.-C., & Yau, C.-M. (2012). Gender differences in social cognitive learning at a technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22 (4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9152-x .

Jackson, A., & Strimel, G. (2018). Toward a matrix of situated design cognition. CTETE Research Monograph Series, 1 (1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.21061/ctete-rms.v1.c.3 .

Johnson, S. D. (1997). Learning technological concepts and developing intellectual skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 161–180.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613 .

Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008813120391 .

Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2020). Modeling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30 (4), 709–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9 .

Kelley, T., & Kellam, N. (2009). A theoretical framework to guide the re-engineering of technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20 (2), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v20i2.a.3 .

Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19 (2), 15.

Lavonen, J., Meisalo, V., & Lattu, M. (2002). Collaborative problem solving in a control technology learning environment, a pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12 (2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015261004362 .

Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity a framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education . https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v17i1.a.3 .

Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19 (3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9051-y .

Liddament, T. (1996). Design and Problem-Solving. In IDATER 1996 Conference, 1996 (pp. 1-5). Loughborough: Loughborough University.

Lomax, H., & Casey, N. (1998). Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology. Sociological Research Online, 3 (2), 121–146.

Lousberg, L., Rooij, R., van Jansen, S., Dooren, E., & van der Zaag, E. (2020). Reflection in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30 (5), 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09532-6 .

Luppicini, R. (2003). Reflective action instructional design (raid): A designer’s aid. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13 (1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000039569.05754.a8 .

MacPherson, R. T. (1998). Factors affecting technological trouble shooting skills. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35 (4), 1–29.

Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond `the design process’: an alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13 (2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024186814591 .

McCade, J. (1990). Problem solving: Much more than just design. Journal of Technology Education, 2 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v2i1.a.5 .

McCormick, R. (1994). The problem solving in technology education (PSTE) project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5 (2), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00766816 .

Mccormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 161–180.

McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14 (1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007359.81781.7c .

McLellan, R., & Nicholl, B. (2011). “If I was going to design a chair, the last thing I would look at is a chair”: Product analysis and the causes of fixation in students’ design work 11–16 years. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21 (1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9107-7 .

Middleton, H. (2009). Problem-solving in technology education as an approach to education for sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19 (2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9075-3 .

Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Mioduser, D. (1998). Framework for the study of cognitive and curricular issues of technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8 (2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008824125352 .

Mioduser, D. (2002). Evaluation/Modification cycles in junior high students’ technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12 (2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015256928387 .

Mioduser, D., & Dagan, O. (2007). The effect of alternative approaches to design instruction (structural or functional) on students’ mental models of technological design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17 (2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-0004-z .

Morgan, K. (2008). Does Polanyi’s Tacit Knowledge Dimension Exist? In Polanyi Society Conference, 2008 . Chicago: Loyola University.

Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Towards a transformative epistemology of technology education: An epistemology of technology education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51 (1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12226 .

Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27 (3), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461765 .

Odiri Amatari, V. (2015). The instructional process: a review of flanders’ interaction analysis in a classroom setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 3 (5), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20150305.11 .

Parker, L. H., & Rennie, L. J. (2002). Teachers’ implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (9), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110078860 .

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension . Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Rauscher, W. (2011). The technological knowledge used by technology education students in capability tasks. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21 (3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9120-x .

Relations, U. o. O. I. o. G., & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10): University Book Exchange Norman, OK.

Rennie, L. J., & Parker, L. H. (1987). Detecting and accounting for gender differences in mixed-sex and single-sex groupings in science lessons. Educational Review, 39 (1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191870390107 .

Ropohl, N. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1–2), 56–72.

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15 (4), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7 .

Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013081115540 .

Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International journal of Educational research, 13 (1), 89–99.

Schaafstal, A., Schraagen, J. M., & van Berl, M. (2000). Cognitive task analysis and innovation of training: The case of structured troubleshooting. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42 (1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779656570 .

Schön, D. A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . Routledge.

Scrivener, S. A. R., Liang, K. C., & Ball, L. J. (2002). Extending the design problem-solving process model: Requirements and outcomes. In: Common Ground: Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference of the Design Research Society. Staffordshire University Press, Stoke-On-Trent.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 4 (3), 292–316.

Strimel, G. J. (2014). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach. Doctoral Thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.

Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of marketing education, 12 (2), 61–67.

Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: a sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1 .

Twyford, J., & Järvinen, E.-M. (2000). The formation of children’s technological concepts: A study of what it means to do technology from a child’s perspective. Journal of Technology Education, 12 (1), 17.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study—qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15 (3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 .

Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history . The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wainwright, M. (2010). Using NVivo audio-coding: Practical, sensorial and epistemological considerations . (pp. 1–4). Social Research Update.

Webb, N. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (2), 211.

Welch, M. (1998). Students’ use of three-dimensional modelling while designing and making a solution to a technological problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8 (3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008802927817 .

Whyte, J. (1984). Observing sex stereotypes and interactions in the school lab and workshop. Educational Review, 36 (1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191840360107 .

Wicklein, R. C., & Schell, J. W. (1995). Case studies of multidisciplinary approaches to integrating mathematics, science and technologyeducation. Journal of Technology Education, 6 (2), 18.

Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology. Journal of Technology Education . https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v11i2.a.4 .

Winkelmann, C., & Hacker, W. (2011). Generic non-technical procedures in design problem solving: Is there any benefit to the clarification of task requirements? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21 (4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9131-7 .

Xu, M., Williams, P. J., Gu, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Hotspots and trends of technology education in the international journal of technology and design education: 2000–2018. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6 .

Yousuf, M. I. (2007). Using experts` opinions through delphi technique. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12 (4), 1–8.

Zamawe, F. (2015). The Implication of Using NVivo software in qualitative data analysis: Evidence-based reflections. Malawi Medical Journal, 27 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v27i1.4 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Jane V. Magill, Dr. Alastair D. McPhee and Professor Frank Banks for their support in this work as well as the participating teachers and pupils who made this possible.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Glasgow, 11 Eldon Street, Glasgow, G3 6NH, Scotland

David Morrison-Love

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Morrison-Love .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Morrison-Love, D. Technological problem solving: an investigation of differences associated with levels of task success. Int J Technol Des Educ 32 , 1725–1753 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09675-5

Download citation

Accepted : 25 April 2021

Published : 02 June 2021

Issue Date : July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09675-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Technology education
Well-defined problem solving
Secondary school
Learning differences
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An effective problem solving process for IT professionals

1. what is the actual problem.

This should be the first question an IT professional should ask when it comes to troubleshooting various IT related issues – even if only to verify the information that has already been provided. Typically this will mean having a conversation with the individual or group of individuals that reported the problem in the first place. It’s certainly not unheard of for the reported problem to get muddied or distorted when going through multiple people or channels before you first hear of it.

People often rephrase things when dictating what someone else previously said, so it’s quite possible for the original complaint to turn into something completely different as it passes through different people:

“The Amazon website tends to lock up my web browser whenever I add items into my Cart.” Mary, Sales Department.

“Helpdesk? Mary’s internet isn’t working when she’s online shopping.” CASE STUDY This Wisconsin manufacturer needed to modernize its IT infrastructure to support rapid business growth. Discover what they did Mary’s Boss

“Please help Mary so she can browse shopping sites. I think the internet filter is probably blocking that category.” John, creating Helpdesk ticket

We’ve all encountered these types of scenarios in the past and they can be really frustrating, even more so when the issues are much more important than whether a single employee is capable of adding items to their Amazon shopping cart.

The point here being, don’t take what’s being told to you for granted . Spend the time necessary to verify that what is being reported to you is actually what’s occurring and the original reason the issue was raised in the first place. Furthermore, taking the time to speak with the source, in this case, Mary, allows you to ask important follow-up questions that can further aid in diagnosing the problem as its being reported.

2. Who is experiencing the problem?

Without knowledge of who is experiencing the problem, your ability to focus your troubleshooting efforts into a precise area will be diminished and you might wind up going off in a direction that’s not even necessary or even remotely related to the source of the problem. One of the questions that should be asked is, who exactly is experiencing the problem?

Is it (for example):

A single user
A group/department of users
The entire remote branch office location
The entire main office location –and- remote branch offices

Every organization is different as it relates to the “Who”, but there are stark differences in the following scenario and what could be the underlying issue relating to the company’s IP Phones when the IT professional called in to solve the problem has a clearer understanding of “Who” is actually affected:

Single User

Jerry’s IP phone isn’t working
This is likely an issue with Jerry’s phone specifically

A group/dept. of users

The entire 2nd floor is having problems with IP phones
This might be an issue specific to a network switch/VLAN on the 2nd floor

Remote/branch office

All users in the remote/branch office are having problems with IP phones
This might be an issue specific to the VPN connection between offices

Main and remote offices

All users in the main and remote offices are having problems with IP phones
This might be an issue specific to the core switch or IP Phone System itself

The point here is, when the IT professional starts to understand “Who” is really affected , they can eliminate having to navigate down unnecessary paths while troubleshooting and can instead work towards narrowing down their troubleshooting efforts to a more specific and concise area. In the case of the single user above, why waste time troubleshooting the VPN tunnel when only Jerry is affected by the issue? This is why knowing the “Who” is extremely important.

Here’s another example of something an IT Professional or Wireless Engineer hears from time to time. “Help! Wireless is completely down in the entire building. Everyone is reporting problems” . In these situations, do yourself a favor and pay special attention to words or phrases such as “entire”, “everyone”, and “completely down” when problems are reported. These “all-inclusive” phraseologies tend to exaggerate what’s really happening and have the potential to lead you astray.

It’s not uncommon that while investigating the problem, the IT Professional or Wireless Engineers quickly learns that the “entire” building, or “everyone”, or that the wireless network being “completely down” (which, for example, in a school, might affect 3,000+ users) turns out to be a single wireless Access Point being down in one small office that is affecting 5 actual users (not, 3,000+ users as “everyone” seems to imply).

Bear in mind, problems can sometimes be overblown and overstated , especially when a user, or group of users, is regularly frustrated with or intimated by technology (any IT professional has likely experienced those high-maintenance users that cry wolf over just about anything!).

3. When did the problem start?

Knowing when the problem actually started (with attention to finite details such as the exact day and exact time) can often provide a better understanding of the problem and help trigger more definitive ideas and potential solutions relating to the underlying root cause that a given IT professional is expected to solve. Imagine being brought into a new customer to resolve critical problems with their Internet Services and being told,

“The internet pipe is a problem. People are randomly seeing spotty performance and oddball issues whenever web surfing and we don’t know why.”

Now, a less-experienced IT professional might just start diving headfirst into firewall logs, bandwidth monitoring, opening up a trouble-ticket directly with the ISP and trying to figure out what is going on, but someone with more experience will first pause to ask additional questions , wanting more specifics as to “When” the problem started happening.

Has this ALWAYS been a problem?
WHEN were these random internet browsing issues first reported?

For a problem solving process you need to know when the problem started.

Certainly looking back into firewall logs and bandwidth utilization metrics over the last 2 week period makes sense knowing the issue presented itself within the last 10 days, but it hardly warrants spending much time at all looking back at logs and bandwidth utilization metrics from 3+ months ago. That being said, once again, try to VERIFY the information being told to you . Perhaps the person giving you the answer vaguely remembers that it was 10 days ago, but in truth, it’s only been 3 days!

In this particular situation where the internet is being reported as sporadic, it’s altogether possible that roughly 11 days ago, another on-site computer technician decided to enable the UTM (Unified Threat Management) functionality within their firewall to allow for additional Antivirus inspection, IDS (Intrusion Detection Services), Geo-IP Filtering, and a plethora of other goodies typically included in UTM feature-sets.

Unfortunately, as a direct result, the firewall’s processors/CPUs have become overloaded and cannot move traffic through it quickly enough to keep up with the additional processing demands required when the firewall’s UTM feature-set was enabled.

4. Is the problem intermittent or constant?

Another key element to an effective problem solving process is finding out if the reported issue is occurring constantly or whether it’s only occurring intermittently? Problems that are constant, or fixed , are generally (though not always) easier to troubleshoot . Whereas problems that are intermittent and seemingly random, are generally more difficult to troubleshoot.

How many times have we as IT professionals been called in to troubleshoot a problem, only to find that upon our arrival, the issue suddenly doesn’t seem to exist anymore yet no one did anything specific to actually resolve the problem!? Those situations can be really frustrating, not only for the IT professional but for the end-user as well because the likelihood of the issue reappearing is rather high (and most likely reappears just a few short moments after the IT professional has left!)

The best thing to do in these scenarios is document WHEN the issue occurred and how LONG it lasted before it miraculously “fixed itself”, so the next time that same problem is reported, you might be able to piece together some crude and basic assumptions or theories based on WHEN it happened previously and how LONG it lasted each time.

Wireless chaos only at lunchtime?!

Problem solving techniques identity odd wireless issues

5. What changed recently?

This is one question that is unfortunately not asked often enough, is just plain overlooked, or in other cases is just completely disregarded (shame on you if you fall into that category!). Technology is a very touchy and hypersensitive beast , and more often than not, it doesn’t take too kindly to introducing changes. Even the changes that are supposed to solve and prevent other known problems, often result in the introduction of new and unexpected problems.

It’s not unheard of that sometimes even routine maintenance on equipment can cause problems .

Take for example, updating firmware on a network switch . This should be a relatively trouble-free routine operation, but suddenly users are reporting that they’re occasionally having problems logging into their desktops. It’s happening to more than one user, in fact, it’s being reported sporadically throughout the building early in the morning hours when most employees arrive for the start of their shift.

“What Changed” recently? Over the weekend you decided to update the firmware on your edge switches and now the port security that was set up on the switches using AAA authentication with Radius, isn’t behaving as expected. Unfortunately, it looks like the new firmware update might have introduced a random bug! What’s the solution? Back rev your switches , or look for ever newer firmware code that might resolve the problem.

You haven’t changed anything with the VMWare software itself, still running on the same trusted vSphere 6.0 Update 1 release that has been rock solid and problem-free in your environment. So “What Changed” recently? Wait a minute, come to think of it, the host server that is regularly crashing recently had an additional 64GB of memory added to it one week ago! Might be worth removing that extra 64GB of memory and seeing if the problem goes away. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time new or additional hardware was the result of the underlying issue .

6. Can the problem be recreated?

Another helpful step for effective problem solving is trying to recreate the actual problem. As discussed before, reported problems can either be of a constant or intermittent nature. Taking the time to re-create the problem can be beneficial and especially helpful in cases where you might need to break out tools such as Wireshark to capture packets and network traffic for future analysis and evaluation. IT professionals have to make use of such tools in more complex technical support issues especially when the flow of network traffic is in question or when there’s a need to examine whether the traffic is making it from the source to destination devices.

If possible, take advantage of any sandbox or test environments that are available. Having these environments gives you the flexibility to recreate the issue and effectively “break” things on purpose, without putting your production network or systems at risk and without interrupting services that end-users are relying on during standard business hours.

Recreating the problem is also advantageous in situations where the IT professional may need to involve 3rd party technical support from a vendor as well. Often, these vendors will have the means to establish remote sessions to take control of your desktop (or the machine in which you’ve successfully recreated the problem on), which gives the vendor the ability to actually see the issue while it’s occurring to further help diagnose what is happening.

7. Are benchmarks and logs available?

Having some kind of benchmarking tool available to track and record network and server performance is beyond measure in terms of its overall value when helping an IT professional track down challenging technical issues. One of the key areas worth checking when problems are being reported is looking at the actual METRICS over a historical period of time. Metrics can prove to be invaluable when trying to figure out: Whether the problem reported actually exists or is a false positive

Maybe you’ve been in a situation where someone reports, “The file server is really slow today!” Without historical benchmarks available, taking a look at the current server performance may not yield any fruitful results because the CPU, disk, network, and memory counters all SEEM to be operating at a reasonable level, but based on and compared to what exactly?

With historical benchmarks available, there is a foundation to actually compare today’s performance on the server as it relates to the CPU, Disk, Network, and Memory (and any other metric/counter you want) VERSUS what the server has been utilizing for the past days, weeks, or months prior.

What historical benchmarks might help you discover is, that according to the historical data, perhaps there is absolutely NO difference in the server performance today versus previous days, weeks, or months? The complaint of “The file server is really slow today” turns out to be a false positive in that case, proven by the metrics an historical benchmarks. Finding the real cause and resolution to the user’s complaint is going to require you to start looking into other areas aside from the server itself. Perhaps it’s a client-side issue or networking issue.

Having benchmarks available is crucial in taking out illogical guess-work and assumptions, and replacing them with hard evidence and facts to back up your problem solving process. There are countless software options available that will give you the data you need for metrics, though we often recommend using PRTG from Paessler, which is a wonderful utility for acquiring benchmarks on your network and servers.

Logs are another important thing to consider during the troubleshooting process. Going back into log history can give a stumped IT Professional some additional clues as to what is going on, especially in cases where the question of “ When did the problem start?” remains unanswered.

Having network devices (switches, routers, firewalls, wireless, etc.) sending their log information to a dedicated syslog server (for example, Kiwi Syslog Server from SolarWinds) gives someone the opportunity to search for entries related to particular devices (by IP address) for specific warning messages or error messages.

Syslog messages and the historical information gathered here can sometimes help point the IT Professional in the right direction, not to mention, the logs themselves can be extremely valuable to the vendor of the product as well when they are involved in troubleshooting what is happening.

8. I’m officially stuck – now what?

Alright, so you find yourself in one of those rather unpleasant circumstances where you’ve asked all the right questions, dug into your resourceful bag of tricks, and find that you’ve exhausted all your technical knowledge and ability to track down the source of the problem. What do you do now? The first step is DON’T PANIC . Effective problem solving is, more often than not, substantially reduced when the IT professional is stressed out and under pressure (although in some rare cases, people tend to flourish under these “trial by fire” scenarios). Keeping panic at bay will help a person to remain calm, focused, and continue to allow them to logically walk through the problem solving process.

This is however, easier said than done, when there are countless emails and phone calls coming in demanding an update as to when the source of the problem will be fixed (and let’s not forget, potentially angry bosses that might be clueless as to why the problem is taking more than 10 minutes to resolve!).

External help can shorten your problem solving process

The second step is just that, call in the cavalry! Let’s face it, there will always be instances where even the most seasoned IT professional needs assistance from peers, vendors or other resources . None of us are capable of knowing absolutely everything. When you find yourself struggling, don’t be afraid to reach out for help! What does that mean?

Open a case with, for example, Cisco TAC support
Open a case with, for example, Microsoft PSS support
Involve a co-worker, professional colleague, or peer
Partner with a local and trusted IT vendor
Google can be your friend (be careful of “quick-fix” solutions you find)
Look into vendor specific forums (most large-vendors have them)

The problem solving process in summary

Be sure to give yourself the absolute best chance to combat those dreaded technical support issues. The next time someone contacts you and yells in a panic, “Email is broken!” understand that you can more quickly deduct what is actually going on and help minimize the amount of time necessary to resolve the problem by simply asking the right questions :

What is the Actual Problem?
Who is Experiencing the Problem?
When did the Problem Start?
Is the Problem Intermittent or Constant?
What Recently Changed?
Can the Problem be Recreated?
Are Benchmarks and Logs Available?
I’m Officially Stuck – Now What?

Keep in mind, however, that not only do you need answers to those questions, but you need answers that are accurate .

As stated earlier, this means the IT professional may need to take the necessary time to validate the answers being provided to them. Inaccurate answers and misinformed facts will send you down the wrong troubleshooting path and unnecessarily prolong the amount of time necessary to resolve complex technical support issues. So get your facts straight!

Having the answers to these questions will allow you to immediately narrow down the scope of the problem and the potential areas at fault, conduct tests, formulate conclusions, and resolve problems even faster than you may have anticipated.

You should also read:

5 practical steps to avoid a cyber attack

Understanding the e-rate process [download primer].

Jesse is the owner of Source One Technology and has been providing IT consulting services to Enterprises , SMBs , schools , and nonprofits in Waukesha , Milwaukee , Dane , Washington , Jefferson , Ozaukee , Kenosha , Racine counties and across Wisconsin for over 18 years.

Is application virtualization now a necessity?

Microsoft deployment toolkit and windows deployment services, 2 thoughts on “an effective problem solving process for it professionals”.

Found your article very interesting. I can definitely identify with all of the points you made, especially troubleshooting. Either you can or cant troubleshoot and think logically through an issue or problem. You are right in mentioning that its something you really cannot teach. One other thing that helps with a logically stepping through the process is documentation. There should always be a repository where network diagrams, server builds, OS versions etc., are kept. I understand that a lot of times these documents cannot be relied upon due to being out of date and it seems most people scoff at the idea of keeping good documentation. But I believe it to be important to help with any troubleshooting. You also mentioned the question, Did anything change? or What changed? A big issue when attempting to troubleshoot. Every place I have worked at, always used a change management process that documented every single change, no matter how small. Of course these places had to by law (SOX audits) because they were publicly traded companies. Just wanted to say, good article!

That is a great article with some excellent questions. Working with students and teachers, I’d throw in a few extra suggestions.

1. What is a reasonable timeline for solving the problem? Often times a lack of communication to this question leads to frustration and long term mistrust regarding the reliability of technology. Asking what needs to be done from the end user’s perspective, and knowing their timeline for completion is helpful. Giving them a reasonable amount of time in which they can expect the issue to be resolved sets everybody up for success around reasonable expectations.

2. Suggest potential work-arounds when necessary — Standing in front of a group of adults and attempting to present when the technology is not working is overwhelming and frustrating. The same tech failure when you are working with a group of students and you start to lose their attention — it’s a nightmare! Knowing what tools your district provides for staff and their general purpose may allow you to offer some potential work-around ideas until the problem is resolved. There is not a fix for everything, but when you can suggest a reasonable alternative in the moment, you offer more than just tech support — you offer customer service.

Comments are closed.

Source One Technology, Inc.

375 Bishops Way, Ste 223 Brookfield, WI 53005

P: (262) 432-9000

Solutions & Services

Business email

Cloud migration

Data backup

IT assessments

Networking support

Virtualization

Virtual CIO

Business - enterprise

Business - small and medium

Banking and finance

Churches and non-profits

Government and municipalities

Manufacturing

Schools and districts

Testimonials and case studies

Read our blog

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Sweepstakes
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process

Identify the Problem
Define the Problem
Form a Strategy
Organize Information
Allocate Resources
Monitor Progress
Evaluate the Results

Frequently Asked Questions

Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.

The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything they can about the issue and then using factual knowledge to come up with a solution. In other instances, creativity and insight are the best options.

It is not necessary to follow problem-solving steps sequentially, It is common to skip steps or even go back through steps multiple times until the desired solution is reached.

In order to correctly solve a problem, it is often important to follow a series of steps. Researchers sometimes refer to this as the problem-solving cycle. While this cycle is portrayed sequentially, people rarely follow a rigid series of steps to find a solution.

The following steps include developing strategies and organizing knowledge.

1. Identifying the Problem

While it may seem like an obvious step, identifying the problem is not always as simple as it sounds. In some cases, people might mistakenly identify the wrong source of a problem, which will make attempts to solve it inefficient or even useless.

Some strategies that you might use to figure out the source of a problem include :

Asking questions about the problem
Breaking the problem down into smaller pieces
Looking at the problem from different perspectives
Conducting research to figure out what relationships exist between different variables

2. Defining the Problem

After the problem has been identified, it is important to fully define the problem so that it can be solved. You can define a problem by operationally defining each aspect of the problem and setting goals for what aspects of the problem you will address

At this point, you should focus on figuring out which aspects of the problems are facts and which are opinions. State the problem clearly and identify the scope of the solution.

3. Forming a Strategy

After the problem has been identified, it is time to start brainstorming potential solutions. This step usually involves generating as many ideas as possible without judging their quality. Once several possibilities have been generated, they can be evaluated and narrowed down.

The next step is to develop a strategy to solve the problem. The approach used will vary depending upon the situation and the individual's unique preferences. Common problem-solving strategies include heuristics and algorithms.

Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are often based on solutions that have worked in the past. They can work well if the problem is similar to something you have encountered before and are often the best choice if you need a fast solution.
Algorithms are step-by-step strategies that are guaranteed to produce a correct result. While this approach is great for accuracy, it can also consume time and resources.

Heuristics are often best used when time is of the essence, while algorithms are a better choice when a decision needs to be as accurate as possible.

4. Organizing Information

Before coming up with a solution, you need to first organize the available information. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? The more information that is available the better prepared you will be to come up with an accurate solution.

When approaching a problem, it is important to make sure that you have all the data you need. Making a decision without adequate information can lead to biased or inaccurate results.

5. Allocating Resources

Of course, we don't always have unlimited money, time, and other resources to solve a problem. Before you begin to solve a problem, you need to determine how high priority it is.

If it is an important problem, it is probably worth allocating more resources to solving it. If, however, it is a fairly unimportant problem, then you do not want to spend too much of your available resources on coming up with a solution.

At this stage, it is important to consider all of the factors that might affect the problem at hand. This includes looking at the available resources, deadlines that need to be met, and any possible risks involved in each solution. After careful evaluation, a decision can be made about which solution to pursue.

6. Monitoring Progress

After selecting a problem-solving strategy, it is time to put the plan into action and see if it works. This step might involve trying out different solutions to see which one is the most effective.

It is also important to monitor the situation after implementing a solution to ensure that the problem has been solved and that no new problems have arisen as a result of the proposed solution.

Effective problem-solvers tend to monitor their progress as they work towards a solution. If they are not making good progress toward reaching their goal, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies .

7. Evaluating the Results

After a solution has been reached, it is important to evaluate the results to determine if it is the best possible solution to the problem. This evaluation might be immediate, such as checking the results of a math problem to ensure the answer is correct, or it can be delayed, such as evaluating the success of a therapy program after several months of treatment.

Once a problem has been solved, it is important to take some time to reflect on the process that was used and evaluate the results. This will help you to improve your problem-solving skills and become more efficient at solving future problems.

A Word From Verywell

It is important to remember that there are many different problem-solving processes with different steps, and this is just one example. Problem-solving in real-world situations requires a great deal of resourcefulness, flexibility, resilience, and continuous interaction with the environment.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can stop dwelling in a negative mindset.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

You can become a better problem solving by:

Practicing brainstorming and coming up with multiple potential solutions to problems
Being open-minded and considering all possible options before making a decision
Breaking down problems into smaller, more manageable pieces
Asking for help when needed
Researching different problem-solving techniques and trying out new ones
Learning from mistakes and using them as opportunities to grow

It's important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about what's going on. Try to see things from their perspective as well as your own. Work together to find a resolution that works for both of you. Be willing to compromise and accept that there may not be a perfect solution.

Take breaks if things are getting too heated, and come back to the problem when you feel calm and collected. Don't try to fix every problem on your own—consider asking a therapist or counselor for help and insight.

If you've tried everything and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the problem, you may have to learn to accept it. This can be difficult, but try to focus on the positive aspects of your life and remember that every situation is temporary. Don't dwell on what's going wrong—instead, think about what's going right. Find support by talking to friends or family. Seek professional help if you're having trouble coping.

Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ, editors. The Psychology of Problem Solving . Cambridge University Press; 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771

Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving . Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. Published 2018 Jun 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

5 Effective Problem-Solving Strategies

Got a problem you’re trying to solve? Strategies like trial and error, gut instincts, and “working backward” can help. We look at some examples and how to use them.

We all face problems daily. Some are simple, like deciding what to eat for dinner. Others are more complex, like resolving a conflict with a loved one or figuring out how to overcome barriers to your goals.

No matter what problem you’re facing, these five problem-solving strategies can help you develop an effective solution.

An infographic showing five effective problem-solving strategies

What are problem-solving strategies?

To effectively solve a problem, you need a problem-solving strategy .

If you’ve had to make a hard decision before then you know that simply ruminating on the problem isn’t likely to get you anywhere. You need an effective strategy — or a plan of action — to find a solution.

In general, effective problem-solving strategies include the following steps:

Define the problem.
Come up with alternative solutions.
Decide on a solution.
Implement the solution.

Problem-solving strategies don’t guarantee a solution, but they do help guide you through the process of finding a resolution.

Using problem-solving strategies also has other benefits . For example, having a strategy you can turn to can help you overcome anxiety and distress when you’re first faced with a problem or difficult decision.

The key is to find a problem-solving strategy that works for your specific situation, as well as your personality. One strategy may work well for one type of problem but not another. In addition, some people may prefer certain strategies over others; for example, creative people may prefer to depend on their insights than use algorithms.

It’s important to be equipped with several problem-solving strategies so you use the one that’s most effective for your current situation.

1. Trial and error

One of the most common problem-solving strategies is trial and error. In other words, you try different solutions until you find one that works.

For example, say the problem is that your Wi-Fi isn’t working. You might try different things until it starts working again, like restarting your modem or your devices until you find or resolve the problem. When one solution isn’t successful, you try another until you find what works.

Trial and error can also work for interpersonal problems . For example, if your child always stays up past their bedtime, you might try different solutions — a visual clock to remind them of the time, a reward system, or gentle punishments — to find a solution that works.

2. Heuristics

Sometimes, it’s more effective to solve a problem based on a formula than to try different solutions blindly.

Heuristics are problem-solving strategies or frameworks people use to quickly find an approximate solution. It may not be the optimal solution, but it’s faster than finding the perfect resolution, and it’s “good enough.”

Algorithms or equations are examples of heuristics.

An algorithm is a step-by-step problem-solving strategy based on a formula guaranteed to give you positive results. For example, you might use an algorithm to determine how much food is needed to feed people at a large party.

However, many life problems have no formulaic solution; for example, you may not be able to come up with an algorithm to solve the problem of making amends with your spouse after a fight.

3. Gut instincts (insight problem-solving)

While algorithm-based problem-solving is formulaic, insight problem-solving is the opposite.

When we use insight as a problem-solving strategy we depend on our “gut instincts” or what we know and feel about a situation to come up with a solution. People might describe insight-based solutions to problems as an “aha moment.”

For example, you might face the problem of whether or not to stay in a relationship. The solution to this problem may come as a sudden insight that you need to leave. In insight problem-solving, the cognitive processes that help you solve a problem happen outside your conscious awareness.

4. Working backward

Working backward is a problem-solving approach often taught to help students solve problems in mathematics. However, it’s useful for real-world problems as well.

Working backward is when you start with the solution and “work backward” to figure out how you got to the solution. For example, if you know you need to be at a party by 8 p.m., you might work backward to problem-solve when you must leave the house, when you need to start getting ready, and so on.

5. Means-end analysis

Means-end analysis is a problem-solving strategy that, to put it simply, helps you get from “point A” to “point B” by examining and coming up with solutions to obstacles.

When using means-end analysis you define the current state or situation (where you are now) and the intended goal. Then, you come up with solutions to get from where you are now to where you need to be.

For example, a student might be faced with the problem of how to successfully get through finals season . They haven’t started studying, but their end goal is to pass all of their finals. Using means-end analysis, the student can examine the obstacles that stand between their current state and their end goal (passing their finals).

They could see, for example, that one obstacle is that they get distracted from studying by their friends. They could devise a solution to this obstacle by putting their phone on “do not disturb” mode while studying.

Let’s recap

Whether they’re simple or complex, we’re faced with problems every day. To successfully solve these problems we need an effective strategy. There are many different problem-solving strategies to choose from.

Although problem-solving strategies don’t guarantee a solution, they can help you feel less anxious about problems and make it more likely that you come up with an answer.

8 sources collapsed

Chu Y, et al. (2011). Human performance on insight problem-solving: A review. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=jps
Dumper K, et al. (n.d.) Chapter 7.3: Problem-solving in introductory psychology. https://opentext.wsu.edu/psych105/chapter/7-4-problem-solving/
Foulds LR. (2017). The heuristic problem-solving approach. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1057/jors.1983.205
Gick ML. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520.1986.9653026
Montgomery ME. (2015). Problem solving using means-end analysis. https://sites.psu.edu/psych256sp15/2015/04/19/problem-solving-using-means-end-analysis/
Posamentier A, et al. (2015). Problem-solving strategies in mathematics. Chapter 3: Working backwards. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789814651646_0003
Sarathy V. (2018). Real world problem-solving. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261/full
Woods D. (2000). An evidence-based strategy for problem solving. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245332888_An_Evidence-Based_Strategy_for_Problem_Solving

7 Problem-Solving Skills That Can Help You Be a More Successful Manager

Discover what problem-solving is, and why it's important for managers. Understand the steps of the process and learn about seven problem-solving skills.

[Featured Image]: A manager wearing a black suit is talking to a team member, handling an issue utilizing the process of problem-solving

1Managers oversee the day-to-day operations of a particular department, and sometimes a whole company, using their problem-solving skills regularly. Managers with good problem-solving skills can help ensure companies run smoothly and prosper.

If you're a current manager or are striving to become one, read this guide to discover what problem-solving skills are and why it's important for managers to have them. Learn the steps of the problem-solving process, and explore seven skills that can help make problem-solving easier and more effective.

What is problem-solving?

Problem-solving is both an ability and a process. As an ability, problem-solving can aid in resolving issues faced in different environments like home, school, abroad, and social situations, among others. As a process, problem-solving involves a series of steps for finding solutions to questions or concerns that arise throughout life.

The importance of problem-solving for managers

Managers deal with problems regularly, whether supervising a staff of two or 100. When people solve problems quickly and effectively, workplaces can benefit in a number of ways. These include:

Greater creativity

Higher productivity

Increased job fulfillment

Satisfied clients or customers

Better cooperation and cohesion

Improved environments for employees and customers

7 skills that make problem-solving easier

Companies depend on managers who can solve problems adeptly. Although problem-solving is a skill in its own right, a subset of seven skills can help make the process of problem-solving easier. These include analysis, communication, emotional intelligence, resilience, creativity, adaptability, and teamwork.

1. Analysis

As a manager , you'll solve each problem by assessing the situation first. Then, you’ll use analytical skills to distinguish between ineffective and effective solutions.

2. Communication

Effective communication plays a significant role in problem-solving, particularly when others are involved. Some skills that can help enhance communication at work include active listening, speaking with an even tone and volume, and supporting verbal information with written communication.

3. Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize and manage emotions in any situation. People with emotional intelligence usually solve problems calmly and systematically, which often yields better results.

4. Resilience

Emotional intelligence and resilience are closely related traits. Resiliency is the ability to cope with and bounce back quickly from difficult situations. Those who possess resilience are often capable of accurately interpreting people and situations, which can be incredibly advantageous when difficulties arise.

5. Creativity

When brainstorming solutions to problems, creativity can help you to think outside the box. Problem-solving strategies can be enhanced with the application of creative techniques. You can use creativity to:

Approach problems from different angles

Improve your problem-solving process

Spark creativity in your employees and peers

6. Adaptability

Adaptability is the capacity to adjust to change. When a particular solution to an issue doesn't work, an adaptable person can revisit the concern to think up another one without getting frustrated.

7. Teamwork

Finding a solution to a problem regularly involves working in a team. Good teamwork requires being comfortable working with others and collaborating with them, which can result in better problem-solving overall.

Steps of the problem-solving process

Effective problem-solving involves five essential steps. One way to remember them is through the IDEAL model created in 1984 by psychology professors John D. Bransford and Barry S. Stein [ 1 ]. The steps to solving problems in this model include: identifying that there is a problem, defining the goals you hope to achieve, exploring potential solutions, choosing a solution and acting on it, and looking at (or evaluating) the outcome.

1. Identify that there is a problem and root out its cause.

To solve a problem, you must first admit that one exists to then find its root cause. Finding the cause of the problem may involve asking questions like:

Can the problem be solved?

How big of a problem is it?

Why do I think the problem is occurring?

What are some things I know about the situation?

What are some things I don't know about the situation?

Are there any people who contributed to the problem?

Are there materials or processes that contributed to the problem?

Are there any patterns I can identify?

2. Define the goals you hope to achieve.

Every problem is different. The goals you hope to achieve when problem-solving depend on the scope of the problem. Some examples of goals you might set include:

Gather as much factual information as possible.

Brainstorm many different strategies to come up with the best one.

Be flexible when considering other viewpoints.

Articulate clearly and encourage questions, so everyone involved is on the same page.

Be open to other strategies if the chosen strategy doesn't work.

Stay positive throughout the process.

3. Explore potential solutions.

Once you've defined the goals you hope to achieve when problem-solving , it's time to start the process. This involves steps that often include fact-finding, brainstorming, prioritizing solutions, and assessing the cost of top solutions in terms of time, labor, and money.

4. Choose a solution and act on it.

Evaluate the pros and cons of each potential solution, and choose the one most likely to solve the problem within your given budget, abilities, and resources. Once you choose a solution, it's important to make a commitment and see it through. Draw up a plan of action for implementation, and share it with all involved parties clearly and effectively, both verbally and in writing. Make sure everyone understands their role for a successful conclusion.

5. Look at (or evaluate) the outcome.

Evaluation offers insights into your current situation and future problem-solving. When evaluating the outcome, ask yourself questions like:

Did the solution work?

Will this solution work for other problems?

Were there any changes you would have made?

Would another solution have worked better?

As a current or future manager looking to build your problem-solving skills, it is often helpful to take a professional course. Consider Improving Communication Skills offered by the University of Pennsylvania on Coursera. You'll learn how to boost your ability to persuade, ask questions, negotiate, apologize, and more.

You might also consider taking Emotional Intelligence: Cultivating Immensely Human Interactions , offered by the University of Michigan on Coursera. You'll explore the interpersonal and intrapersonal skills common to people with emotional intelligence, and you'll learn how emotional intelligence is connected to team success and leadership.

Build job-ready skills with a Coursera Plus subscription

Get access to 7,000+ learning programs from world-class universities and companies, including Google, Yale, Salesforce, and more
Try different courses and find your best fit at no additional cost
Earn certificates for learning programs you complete
A subscription price of $59/month, cancel anytime

Article sources

Tennessee Tech. “ The Ideal Problem Solver (2nd ed.) , https://www.tntech.edu/cat/pdf/useful_links/idealproblemsolver.pdf.” Accessed December 6, 2022.

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

Learn Creative Problem Solving Techniques to Stimulate Innovation in Your Organization

By Kate Eby | October 20, 2017 (updated August 27, 2021)

Share on Facebook
Share on LinkedIn

Link copied

In today’s competitive business landscape, organizations need processes in place to make strong, well-informed, and innovative decisions. Problem solving - in particular creative problem solving (CPS) - is a key skill in learning how to accurately identify problems and their causes, generate potential solutions, and evaluate all the possibilities to arrive at a strong corrective course of action. Every team in any organization, regardless of department or industry, needs to be effective, creative, and quick when solving problems.

In this article, we’ll discuss traditional and creative problem solving, and define the steps, best practices, and common barriers associated. After that, we’ll provide helpful methods and tools to identify the cause(s) of problematic situations, so you can get to the root of the issue and start to generate solutions. Then, we offer nearly 20 creative problem solving techniques to implement at your organization, or even in your personal life. Along the way, experts weigh in on the importance of problem solving, and offer tips and tricks.

What Is Problem Solving and Decision Making?

Problem solving is the process of working through every aspect of an issue or challenge to reach a solution. Decision making is choosing one of multiple proposed solutions — therefore, this process also includes defining and evaluating all potential options. Decision making is often one step of the problem solving process, but the two concepts are distinct.

Collective problem solving is problem solving that includes many different parties and bridges the knowledge of different groups. Collective problem solving is common in business problem solving because workplace decisions typically affect more than one person.

Problem solving, especially in business, is a complicated science. Not only are business conflicts multifaceted, but they often involve different personalities, levels of authority, and group dynamics. In recent years, however, there has been a rise in psychology-driven problem solving techniques, especially for the workplace. In fact, the psychology of how people solve problems is now studied formally in academic disciplines such as psychology and cognitive science.

Joe Carella is the Assistant Dean for Executive Education at the University of Arizona . Joe has over 20 years of experience in helping executives and corporations in managing change and developing successful business strategies. His doctoral research and executive education engagements have seen him focus on corporate strategy, decision making and business performance with a variety of corporate clients including Hershey’s, Chevron, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, Intel, DP World, Essilor, BBVA Compass Bank.

He explains some of the basic psychology behind problem solving: “When our brain is engaged in the process of solving problems, it is engaged in a series of steps where it processes and organizes the information it receives while developing new knowledge it uses in future steps. Creativity is embedded in this process by incorporating diverse inputs and/or new ways of organizing the information received.”

Laura MacLeod is a Professor of Social Group Work at City University of New York, and the creator of From The Inside Out Project® , a program that coaches managers in team leadership for a variety of workplaces. She has a background in social work and over two decades of experience as a union worker, and currently leads talks on conflict resolution, problem solving, and listening skills at conferences across the country.

MacLeod thinks of problem solving as an integral practice of successful organizations. “Problem solving is a collaborative process — all voices are heard and connected, and resolution is reached by the group,” she says. “Problems and conflicts occur in all groups and teams in the workplace, but if leaders involve everyone in working through, they will foster cohesion, engagement, and buy in. Everybody wins.”

10 tips that will make you more productive.

Uncover the top three factors that are killing your productivity and 10 tips to help you overcome them.

Download the free e-book to overcome my productivity killers

Project Management Guide

Your one-stop shop for everything project management

Ready to get more out of your project management efforts? Visit our comprehensive project management guide for tips, best practices, and free resources to manage your work more effectively.

View the guide

What Is the First Step in Solving a Problem?

Although problem solving techniques vary procedurally, experts agree that the first step in solving a problem is defining the problem. Without a clear articulation of the problem at stake, it is impossible to analyze all the key factors and actors, generate possible solutions, and then evaluate them to pick the best option.

Dr. Elliott Jaffa is a behavioral and management psychologist with over 25 years of problem solving training and management experience. “Start with defining the problem you want to solve,” he says, “And then define where you want to be, what you want to come away with.” He emphasizes these are the first steps in creating an actionable, clear solution.

Bryan Mattimore is Co-Founder of Growth Engine, an 18-year old innovation agency based in Norwalk, CT. Bryan has facilitated over 1,000 ideation sessions and managed over 200 successful innovation projects leading to over $3 billion in new sales. His newest book is 21 Days to a Big Idea . When asked about the first critical component to successful problem solving, Mattimore says, “Defining the challenge correctly, or ‘solving the right problem’ … The three creative techniques we use to help our clients ‘identify the right problem to be solved’ are questioning assumptions, 20 questions, and problem redefinition. A good example of this was a new product challenge from a client to help them ‘invent a new iron. We got them to redefine the challenge as first: a) inventing new anti-wrinkle devices, and then b) inventing new garment care devices.”

What Are Problem Solving Skills?

To understand the necessary skills in problem solving, you should first understand the types of thinking often associated with strong decision making. Most problem solving techniques look for a balance between the following binaries:

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking: Convergent thinking is bringing together disparate information or ideas to determine a single best answer or solution. This thinking style values logic, speed, and accuracy, and leaves no chance for ambiguity. Divergent thinking is focused on generating new ideas to identify and evaluate multiple possible solutions, often uniting ideas in unexpected combinations. Divergent thinking is characterized by creativity, complexity, curiosity, flexibility, originality, and risk-taking.
Pragmatics vs. Semantics: Pragmatics refer to the logic of the problem at hand, and semantics is how you interpret the problem to solve it. Both are important to yield the best possible solution.
Mathematical vs. Personal Problem Solving: Mathematical problem solving involves logic (usually leading to a single correct answer), and is useful for problems that involve numbers or require an objective, clear-cut solution. However, many workplace problems also require personal problem solving, which includes interpersonal, collaborative, and emotional intuition and skills.

The following basic methods are fundamental problem solving concepts. Implement them to help balance the above thinking models.

Reproductive Thinking: Reproductive thinking uses past experience to solve a problem. However, be careful not to rely too heavily on past solutions, and to evaluate current problems individually, with their own factors and parameters.
Idea Generation: The process of generating many possible courses of action to identify a solution. This is most commonly a team exercise because putting everyone’s ideas on the table will yield the greatest number of potential solutions.

However, many of the most critical problem solving skills are “soft” skills: personal and interpersonal understanding, intuitiveness, and strong listening.

Mattimore expands on this idea: “The seven key skills to be an effective creative problem solver that I detail in my book Idea Stormers: How to Lead and Inspire Creative Breakthroughs are: 1) curiosity 2) openness 3) a willingness to embrace ambiguity 4) the ability to identify and transfer principles across categories and disciplines 5) the desire to search for integrity in ideas, 6) the ability to trust and exercise “knowingness” and 7) the ability to envision new worlds (think Dr. Seuss, Star Wars, Hunger Games, Harry Potter, etc.).”

“As an individual contributor to problem solving it is important to exercise our curiosity, questioning, and visioning abilities,” advises Carella. “As a facilitator it is essential to allow for diverse ideas to emerge, be able to synthesize and ‘translate’ other people’s thinking, and build an extensive network of available resources.”

MacLeod says the following interpersonal skills are necessary to effectively facilitate group problem solving: “The abilities to invite participation (hear all voices, encourage silent members), not take sides, manage dynamics between the monopolizer, the scapegoat, and the bully, and deal with conflict (not avoiding it or shutting down).”

Furthermore, Jaffa explains that the skills of a strong problem solver aren’t measurable. The best way to become a creative problem solver, he says, is to do regular creative exercises that keep you sharp and force you to think outside the box. Carella echoes this sentiment: “Neuroscience tells us that creativity comes from creating novel neural paths. Allow a few minutes each day to exercise your brain with novel techniques and brain ‘tricks’ – read something new, drive to work via a different route, count backwards, smell a new fragrance, etc.”

What Is Creative Problem Solving? History, Evolution, and Core Principles

Creative problem solving (CPS) is a method of problem solving in which you approach a problem or challenge in an imaginative, innovative way. The goal of CPS is to come up with innovative solutions, make a decision, and take action quickly. Sidney Parnes and Alex Osborn are credited with developing the creative problem solving process in the 1950s. The concept was further studied and developed at SUNY Buffalo State and the Creative Education Foundation.

The core principles of CPS include the following:

Balance divergent and convergent thinking
Ask problems as questions
Defer or suspend judgement
Focus on “Yes, and…” rather than “No, but…”

According to Carella, “Creative problem solving is the mental process used for generating innovative and imaginative ideas as a solution to a problem or a challenge. Creative problem solving techniques can be pursued by individuals or groups.”

When asked to define CPS, Jaffa explains that it is, by nature, difficult to create boundaries for. “Creative problem solving is not cut and dry,” he says, “If you ask 100 different people the definition of creative problem solving, you’ll get 100 different responses - it’s a non-entity.”

Business presents a unique need for creative problem solving. Especially in today’s competitive landscape, organizations need to iterate quickly, innovate with intention, and constantly be at the cutting-edge of creativity and new ideas to succeed. Developing CPS skills among your workforce not only enables you to make faster, stronger in-the-moment decisions, but also inspires a culture of collaborative work and knowledge sharing. When people work together to generate multiple novel ideas and evaluate solutions, they are also more likely to arrive at an effective decision, which will improve business processes and reduce waste over time. In fact, CPS is so important that some companies now list creative problem solving skills as a job criteria.

MacLeod reiterates the vitality of creative problem solving in the workplace. “Problem solving is crucial for all groups and teams,” she says. “Leaders need to know how to guide the process, hear all voices and involve all members - it’s not easy.”

“This mental process [of CPS] is especially helpful in work environments where individuals and teams continuously struggle with new problems and challenges posed by their continuously changing environment,” adds Carella.

Problem Solving Best Practices

By nature, creative problem solving does not have a clear-cut set of do’s and don’ts. Rather, creating a culture of strong creative problem solvers requires flexibility, adaptation, and interpersonal skills. However, there are a several best practices that you should incorporate:

Use a Systematic Approach: Regardless of the technique you use, choose a systematic method that satisfies your workplace conditions and constraints (time, resources, budget, etc.). Although you want to preserve creativity and openness to new ideas, maintaining a structured approach to the process will help you stay organized and focused.
View Problems as Opportunities: Rather than focusing on the negatives or giving up when you encounter barriers, treat problems as opportunities to enact positive change on the situation. In fact, some experts even recommend defining problems as opportunities, to remain proactive and positive.
Change Perspective: Remember that there are multiple ways to solve any problem. If you feel stuck, changing perspective can help generate fresh ideas. A perspective change might entail seeking advice of a mentor or expert, understanding the context of a situation, or taking a break and returning to the problem later. “A sterile or familiar environment can stifle new thinking and new perspectives,” says Carella. “Make sure you get out to draw inspiration from spaces and people out of your usual reach.”
Break Down Silos: To invite the greatest possible number of perspectives to any problem, encourage teams to work cross-departmentally. This not only combines diverse expertise, but also creates a more trusting and collaborative environment, which is essential to effective CPS. According to Carella, “Big challenges are always best tackled by a group of people rather than left to a single individual. Make sure you create a space where the team can concentrate and convene.”
Employ Strong Leadership or a Facilitator: Some companies choose to hire an external facilitator that teaches problem solving techniques, best practices, and practicums to stimulate creative problem solving. But, internal managers and staff can also oversee these activities. Regardless of whether the facilitator is internal or external, choose a strong leader who will value others’ ideas and make space for creative solutions. Mattimore has specific advice regarding the role of a facilitator: “When facilitating, get the group to name a promising idea (it will crystalize the idea and make it more memorable), and facilitate deeper rather than broader. Push for not only ideas, but how an idea might specifically work, some of its possible benefits, who and when would be interested in an idea, etc. This fleshing-out process with a group will generate fewer ideas, but at the end of the day will yield more useful concepts that might be profitably pursued.” Additionally, Carella says that “Executives and managers don’t necessarily have to be creative problem solvers, but need to make sure that their teams are equipped with the right tools and resources to make this happen. Also they need to be able to foster an environment where failing fast is accepted and celebrated.”
Evaluate Your Current Processes: This practice can help you unlock bottlenecks, and also identify gaps in your data and information management, both of which are common roots of business problems.

MacLeod offers the following additional advice, “Always get the facts. Don’t jump too quickly to a solution – working through [problems] takes time and patience.”

Mattimore also stresses that how you introduce creative problem solving is important. “Do not start by introducing a new company-wide innovation process,” he says. “Instead, encourage smaller teams to pursue specific creative projects, and then build a process from the ground up by emulating these smaller teams’ successful approaches. We say: ‘You don’t innovate by changing the culture, you change the culture by innovating.’”

Barriers to Effective Problem Solving

Learning how to effectively solve problems is difficult and takes time and continual adaptation. There are several common barriers to successful CPS, including:

Confirmation Bias: The tendency to only search for or interpret information that confirms a person’s existing ideas. People misinterpret or disregard data that doesn’t align with their beliefs.
Mental Set: People’s inclination to solve problems using the same tactics they have used to solve problems in the past. While this can sometimes be a useful strategy (see Analogical Thinking in a later section), it often limits inventiveness and creativity.
Functional Fixedness: This is another form of narrow thinking, where people become “stuck” thinking in a certain way and are unable to be flexible or change perspective.
Unnecessary Constraints: When people are overwhelmed with a problem, they can invent and impose additional limits on solution avenues. To avoid doing this, maintain a structured, level-headed approach to evaluating causes, effects, and potential solutions.
Groupthink: Be wary of the tendency for group members to agree with each other — this might be out of conflict avoidance, path of least resistance, or fear of speaking up. While this agreeableness might make meetings run smoothly, it can actually stunt creativity and idea generation, therefore limiting the success of your chosen solution.
Irrelevant Information: The tendency to pile on multiple problems and factors that may not even be related to the challenge at hand. This can cloud the team’s ability to find direct, targeted solutions.
Paradigm Blindness: This is found in people who are unwilling to adapt or change their worldview, outlook on a particular problem, or typical way of processing information. This can erode the effectiveness of problem solving techniques because they are not aware of the narrowness of their thinking, and therefore cannot think or act outside of their comfort zone.

According to Jaffa, the primary barrier of effective problem solving is rigidity. “The most common things people say are, ‘We’ve never done it before,’ or ‘We’ve always done it this way.’” While these feelings are natural, Jaffa explains that this rigid thinking actually precludes teams from identifying creative, inventive solutions that result in the greatest benefit.

“The biggest barrier to creative problem solving is a lack of awareness – and commitment to – training employees in state-of-the-art creative problem-solving techniques,” Mattimore explains. “We teach our clients how to use ideation techniques (as many as two-dozen different creative thinking techniques) to help them generate more and better ideas. Ideation techniques use specific and customized stimuli, or ‘thought triggers’ to inspire new thinking and new ideas.”

MacLeod adds that ineffective or rushed leadership is another common culprit. “We're always in a rush to fix quickly,” she says. “Sometimes leaders just solve problems themselves, making unilateral decisions to save time. But the investment is well worth it — leaders will have less on their plates if they can teach and eventually trust the team to resolve. Teams feel empowered and engagement and investment increases.”

Strategies for Problem Cause Identification

As discussed, most experts agree that the first and most crucial step in problem solving is defining the problem. Once you’ve done this, however, it may not be appropriate to move straight to the solution phase. Rather, it is often helpful to identify the cause(s) of the problem: This will better inform your solution planning and execution, and help ensure that you don’t fall victim to the same challenges in the future.

Below are some of the most common strategies for identifying the cause of a problem:

Root Cause Analysis: This method helps identify the most critical cause of a problem. A factor is considered a root cause if removing it prevents the problem from recurring. Performing a root cause analysis is a 12 step process that includes: define the problem, gather data on the factors contributing to the problem, group the factors based on shared characteristics, and create a cause-and-effect timeline to determine the root cause. After that, you identify and evaluate corrective actions to eliminate the root cause.

‌ Download Fishbone Diagram Template - Excel

Download 5 Whys Template Excel | Word | PDF

Problem Solving Techniques and Strategies

In this section, we’ll explain several traditional and creative problem solving methods that you can use to identify challenges, create actionable goals, and resolve problems as they arise. Although there is often procedural and objective crossover among techniques, they are grouped by theme so you can identify which method works best for your organization.

Divergent Creative Problem Solving Techniques

Brainstorming: One of the most common methods of divergent thinking, brainstorming works best in an open group setting where everyone is encouraged to share their creative ideas. The goal is to generate as many ideas as possible – you analyze, critique, and evaluate the ideas only after the brainstorming session is complete. To learn more specific brainstorming techniques, read this article .

Mind Mapping: This is a visual thinking tool where you graphically depict concepts and their relation to one another. You can use mind mapping to structure the information you have, analyze and synthesize it, and generate solutions and new ideas from there. The goal of a mind map is to simplify complicated problems so you can more clearly identify solutions.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI): The basic assumption of AI is that “an organization is a mystery to be embraced.” Using this principle, AI takes a positive, inquisitive approach to identifying the problem, analyzing the causes, and presenting possible solutions. The five principles of AI emphasize dialogue, deliberate language and outlook, and social bonding.

Lateral Thinking: This is an indirect problem solving approach centered on the momentum of idea generation. As opposed to critical thinking, where people value ideas based on their truth and the absence of errors, lateral thinking values the “movement value” of new ideas: This means that you reward team members for producing a large volume of new ideas rapidly. With this approach, you’ll generate many new ideas before approving or rejecting any.

Problem Solving Techniques to Change Perspective

Constructive Controversy: This is a structured approach to group decision making to preserve critical thinking and disagreement while maintaining order. After defining the problem and presenting multiple courses of action, the group divides into small advocacy teams who research, analyze, and refute a particular option. Once each advocacy team has presented its best-case scenario, the group has a discussion (advocacy teams still defend their presented idea). Arguing and playing devil’s advocate is encouraged to reach an understanding of the pros and cons of each option. Next, advocacy teams abandon their cause and evaluate the options openly until they reach a consensus. All team members formally commit to the decision, regardless of whether they advocated for it at the beginning. You can learn more about the goals and steps in constructive controversy here .

Carella is a fan of this approach. “Create constructive controversy by having two teams argue the pros and cons of a certain idea,” he says. “It forces unconscious biases to surface and gives space for new ideas to formulate.”

Abstraction: In this method, you apply the problem to a fictional model of the current situation. Mapping an issue to an abstract situation can shed extraneous or irrelevant factors, and reveal places where you are overlooking obvious solutions or becoming bogged down by circumstances.

Analogical Thinking: Also called analogical reasoning , this method relies on an analogy: using information from one problem to solve another problem (these separate problems are called domains). It can be difficult for teams to create analogies among unrelated problems, but it is a strong technique to help you identify repeated issues, zoom out and change perspective, and prevent the problems from occurring in the future. .

CATWOE: This framework ensures that you evaluate the perspectives of those whom your decision will impact. The factors and questions to consider include (which combine to make the acronym CATWOE):

Customers: Who is on the receiving end of your decisions? What problem do they currently have, and how will they react to your proposed solution?
Actors: Who is acting to bring your solution to fruition? How will they respond and be affected by your decision?
Transformation Process: What processes will you employ to transform your current situation and meet your goals? What are the inputs and outputs?
World View: What is the larger context of your proposed solution? What is the larger, big-picture problem you are addressing?
Owner: Who actually owns the process? How might they influence your proposed solution (positively or negatively), and how can you influence them to help you?
Environmental Constraints: What are the limits (environmental, resource- and budget-wise, ethical, legal, etc.) on your ideas? How will you revise or work around these constraints?

Complex Problem Solving

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM): For extremely complex problems, SSM can help you identify how factors interact, and determine the best course of action. SSM was borne out of organizational process modeling and general systems theory, which hold that everything is part of a greater, interconnected system: This idea works well for “hard” problems (where logic and a single correct answer are prioritized), and less so for “soft” problems (i.e., human problems where factors such as personality, emotions, and hierarchy come into play). Therefore, SSM defines a seven step process for problem solving:

Begin with the problem or problematic situation
Express the problem or situation and build a rich picture of the themes of the problem
Identify the root causes of the problem (most commonly with CATWOE)
Build conceptual models of human activity surrounding the problem or situation
Compare models with real-world happenings
Identify changes to the situation that are both feasible and desirable
Take action to implement changes and improve the problematic situation

SSM can be used for any complex soft problem, and is also a useful tool in change management .

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA): This method helps teams anticipate potential problems and take steps to mitigate them. Use FMEA when you are designing (redesigning) a complex function, process, product, or service. First, identify the failure modes, which are the possible ways that a project could fail. Then, perform an effects analysis to understand the consequences of each of the potential downfalls. This exercise is useful for internalizing the severity of each potential failure and its effects so you can make adjustments or safeties in your plan.

‌ Download FMEA Template

Problem Solving Based on Data or Logic (Heuristic Methods)

TRIZ: A Russian-developed problem solving technique that values logic, analysis, and forecasting over intuition or soft reasoning. TRIZ (translated to “theory of inventive problem solving” or TIPS in English) is a systematic approach to defining and identifying an inventive solution to difficult problems. The method offers several strategies for arriving at an inventive solution, including a contradictions matrix to assess trade-offs among solutions, a Su-Field analysis which uses formulas to describe a system by its structure, and ARIZ (algorithm of inventive problem solving) which uses algorithms to find inventive solutions.

Inductive Reasoning: A logical method that uses evidence to conclude that a certain answer is probable (this is opposed to deductive reasoning, where the answer is assumed to be true). Inductive reasoning uses a limited number of observations to make useful, logical conclusions (for example, the Scientific Method is an extreme example of inductive reasoning). However, this method doesn’t always map well to human problems in the workplace — in these instances, managers should employ intuitive inductive reasoning , which allows for more automatic, implicit conclusions so that work can progress. This, of course, retains the principle that these intuitive conclusions are not necessarily the one and only correct answer.

Process-Oriented Problem Solving Methods

Plan Do Check Act (PDCA): This is an iterative management technique used to ensure continual improvement of products or processes. First, teams plan (establish objectives to meet desired end results), then do (implement the plan, new processes, or produce the output), then check (compare expected with actual results), and finally act (define how the organization will act in the future, based on the performance and knowledge gained in the previous three steps).

Means-End Analysis (MEA): The MEA strategy is to reduce the difference between the current (problematic) state and the goal state. To do so, teams compile information on the multiple factors that contribute to the disparity between the current and goal states. Then they try to change or eliminate the factors one by one, beginning with the factor responsible for the greatest difference in current and goal state. By systematically tackling the multiple factors that cause disparity between the problem and desired outcome, teams can better focus energy and control each step of the process.

Hurson’s Productive Thinking Model: This technique was developed by Tim Hurson, and is detailed in his 2007 book Think Better: An Innovator’s Guide to Productive Thinking . The model outlines six steps that are meant to give structure while maintaining creativity and critical thinking: 1) Ask “What is going on?” 2) Ask “What is success?” 3) Ask “What is the question?” 4) Generate answers 5) Forge the solution 6) Align resources.

Control Influence Accept (CIA): The basic premise of CIA is that how you respond to problems determines how successful you will be in overcoming them. Therefore, this model is both a problem solving technique and stress-management tool that ensures you aren’t responding to problems in a reactive and unproductive way. The steps in CIA include:

Control: Identify the aspects of the problem that are within your control.
Influence: Identify the aspects of the problem that you cannot control, but that you can influence.
Accept: Identify the aspects of the problem that you can neither control nor influence, and react based on this composite information.

GROW Model: This is a straightforward problem solving method for goal setting that clearly defines your goals and current situation, and then asks you to define the potential solutions and be realistic about your chosen course of action. The steps break down as follows:

Goal: What do you want?
Reality: Where are you now?
Options: What could you do?
Will: What will you do?

OODA Loop: This acronym stands for observe, orient, decide, and act. This approach is a decision-making cycle that values agility and flexibility over raw human force. It is framed as a loop because of the understanding that any team will continually encounter problems or opponents to success and have to overcome them.

There are also many un-named creative problem solving techniques that follow a sequenced series of steps. While the exact steps vary slightly, they all follow a similar trajectory and aim to accomplish similar goals of problem, cause, and goal identification, idea generation, and active solution implementation.

Identify Goal	Define Problem	Define Problem
Gather Data	Define Causes	Identify Options
Clarify Problem	Generate Ideas	Evaluate Options
Generate Ideas	Choose the Best Solution	Implement Solution
Select Solution	Take Action	-

MacLeod offers her own problem solving procedure, which echoes the above steps:

“1. Recognize the Problem: State what you see. Sometimes the problem is covert. 2. Identify: Get the facts — What exactly happened? What is the issue? 3. and 4. Explore and Connect: Dig deeper and encourage group members to relate their similar experiences. Now you're getting more into the feelings and background [of the situation], not just the facts. 5. Possible Solutions: Consider and brainstorm ideas for resolution. 6. Implement: Choose a solution and try it out — this could be role play and/or a discussion of how the solution would be put in place. 7. Evaluate: Revisit to see if the solution was successful or not.”

Many of these problem solving techniques can be used in concert with one another, or multiple can be appropriate for any given problem. It’s less about facilitating a perfect CPS session, and more about encouraging team members to continually think outside the box and push beyond personal boundaries that inhibit their innovative thinking. So, try out several methods, find those that resonate best with your team, and continue adopting new techniques and adapting your processes along the way.

Improve Problem Solving with Work Management in Smartsheet

Empower your people to go above and beyond with a flexible platform designed to match the needs of your team — and adapt as those needs change.

The Smartsheet platform makes it easy to plan, capture, manage, and report on work from anywhere, helping your team be more effective and get more done. Report on key metrics and get real-time visibility into work as it happens with roll-up reports, dashboards, and automated workflows built to keep your team connected and informed.

When teams have clarity into the work getting done, there’s no telling how much more they can accomplish in the same amount of time. Try Smartsheet for free, today.

Discover why over 90% of Fortune 100 companies trust Smartsheet to get work done.

Search form

Critical thinking and problem solving with technology.

Brief Summary: Critical thinking and problem solving is a crucial skill in a technical world that can immediately be applied to academics and careers. A highly skilled individual in this competency can choose the appropriate tool to accomplish a task, easily switch between tools, has a basic understanding of different file types, and can troubleshoot technology when it’s not working properly. They can also differentiate between true information and falsified information online and has basic proficiency in data gathering, processing and interpretation.

Learners with proficient skills in critical thinking and problem solving should be able to:

Troubleshoot computers and mobile devices when issues arise, like restarting the device and checking if it requires a software or operating system update
Move across tools to complete a task (for example, adding PowerPoint slides into a note taking app for annotation)
Differentiate between legitimate and falsified information online
Understand basic file types and know when to use them (for example, the difference between .doc and .pdf files)

Market/Employer Trends: Employers indicate value in employee ability to problem solve using technology, particularly related to drawing information from data to identify and solve challenges. Further, knowing how to leverage technology tools to see a problem, break it down into manageable pieces, and work toward solving is of important value. Employers expect new employees to be able to navigate across common toolsets, making decisions to use the right tool for the right task.

Self-Evaluation:

Key questions for reflection:

How comfortable are you when technology doesn’t work the way you expect?
Do you know basic troubleshooting skills to solve tech issues?
Do you know the key indicators of whether information you read online is reliable?

Strong digital skills in this area could appear as:

Updating your computer after encountering a problem and resolving the issue
Discerning legitimate news sources from illegitimate ones to successfully meet goals
Converting a PowerPoint presentation into a PDF for easy access for peers who can’t use PowerPoint
Taking notes on a phone and seamlessly completing them on a computer

Ways to Upskill:

Ready to grow your strength in this competency? Try:

Reviewing University Libraries’ resources on research and information literacy
Read about troubleshooting in college in the Learner Technology Handbook
Registering for ESEPSY 1359: Critical Thinking and Collaboration in Online Learning

Educator Tips to Support Digital Skills:

Create an assignment in Carmen prompting students to find legitimate peer-reviewed research
Provide links to information literacy resources on research-related assignments or projects for student review
Develop assignments that require using more than one tech tool to accomplish a single task

Our Mission

How to Help Students Troubleshoot Technology Problems

Teaching students the basics of solving problems with tablets and laptops can empower them when things go wrong.

Teenage girl at home during remote learning on laptop

Technology has been the best thing and the worst thing when it comes to making remote learning work. It’s been a lifeline for connecting with our students during the pandemic, but it also can be a big headache when glitches pop up.

Sometimes, it feels like troubleshooting problems with technology is a job of its own. Students may ask for assistance when things go wrong, and it helps to have a process or steps to guide them. It’s also important that we empower our students to solve technology problems independently. One resource that I love to share with students and colleagues is this Edpuzzle troubleshooting article .

When I was in the classroom as a middle school teacher of Intro to Computer Science and Principles of Information Technology, I would begin the year with the Code.org Problem Solving Process lesson . I would tell my students that before we touched the computers or created programs, it was important that they understand how to solve or debug technology since they would be using it on a daily basis. We would go through a series of activities the first two weeks of school so that they would feel comfortable with the process, and then I would help them practice the process whenever issues arose throughout the year.

The problem-solving process has four steps: define, prepare, try, and reflect. As a digital learning coach, I have been using these steps in a similar way as I help students and my colleagues find solutions to their technology problems. The case study below will take you through how your students can use this process. It will also provide insight that may help in your own classroom.

Recently, I went through this process with a student who was having Chromebook issues. The student and I met through Google Meet. Clearly, her device was working, but she was unable to search for anything. I had never seen this problem. I was honest with the student that even though I didn’t have the answer, we would work to figure out something. We didn’t have a Chromebook to exchange out, so it was important to troubleshoot.

The first time we went through the cycle together, I asked the student to clear her cookies and restart the device. That didn’t resolve the issue. Then I got permission to go into her device remotely using Chrome Remote Desktop . I was able to take over the student’s device using this free software. Checking her settings and playing around with her search features didn’t solve anything. As we worked together, we took notes on what we were seeing.

Then I checked her Chrome extensions and discovered an extension that needed to be removed to solve the problem. The student said, “We spent all that time on one little extension.” I chuckled and said, “Yeah, but we got it.” Then the student said, “I learned a lot, though, and now I know what to do in the future.” I thanked her for her patience because I had learned right along with her. As educators, we may not have the answers to students’ questions about technology, but trying to solve them together will help our students learn how to do it, too.

The Problem-Solving Process

The first step is to define the problem. This will require many questions to be asked and answered about what’s occurring, especially if you seek help. When seeking help, the more details or visuals you can provide to the other person, the better. I have seen some teachers create videos using Screencastify , Loom , or Flipgrid to showcase what’s happening on their computers. This is a very good way to share information with someone who’s trying to help you.

The second step is to prepare, and the third step is to try to solve the problem. These steps require research and speaking to those you trust to help you troubleshoot. On my campus, I ask the teachers and students to always clear cookies and restart their devices as a habit. Clearing your cookies and restarting or updating your device will help avoid technology issues. Some Chrome extensions can create unexpected problems, so removing extensions that are not added by your technology department will help.

The last step is to reflect. It’s important to note what occurred should this happen again. Creating troubleshooting videos and/or guides to assist your school community is helpful. If someone on your campus is designated to do this, speak with them about how you can access these resources. Through my position, I encourage teachers to share the videos I create with their students and their students’ parents.

There will be times that you cycle through the process more than once until you find a solution, but it’s important you don’t give up. Asking for help is part of the prepare step. It’s important to reach out to colleagues and work together as everyone is learning how to troubleshoot technology together.

Submit A Post
EdTech Trainers and Consultants
Your Campus EdTech
Your EdTech Product
Your Feedback
Your Love for Us
EdTech Product Reviews

ETR Resources

Mission/Vision
Testimonials
Our Clients
Press Release

Problem-Solving Activities With the Help of Technology

Problem-solving is one of the most vital and basic skill which is required by every one of us in the 21 st century . We feel the need of this skill quite frequently in our daily lives, and especially children should develop it at quite a young age to cope up with problems in education as well as other domains, throughout their lives.

The importance of developing this skill today is such that, it is even highlighted in the Common Core standards and has become a necessary component of any curriculum. Problem-solving directly implies decision-making, which is another important skill, not only for academics but for success in life in general.

Problem-solving comes with numerous benefits. Teaching kids the art of problem-solving has many associated advantages, like, it teaches them how to avoid conflicts in school and in their daily lives, it strengthens their empathy skills, it helps them develop positive attributions and it is utmost required for school readiness and academic success. Generally, we would solve problems by identifying the problem, listing its possible solutions, weighing them one by one, choosing a solution to try, putting it into practice and evaluating it. Though this technique works for us most of the times, it has now become conventional and tedious. With the introduction of technology in every domain of our lives, why not introduce it to problem-solving as well. Now, when technology comes to aid us in problem-solving, it can quite revolutionize and rejuvenate the entire experience of it.

Technology supports problem-solving in a number of ways. It enables you to identify problems quicker and easier and helps you better analyze a complex problem. Technology students are especially encouraged to be innovative and to want to improve a current situation by encountering and solving problems, in an advanced way. There can be different approaches to teaching problem-solving with the aid of technology :

Students should be encouraged to concentrate not on whimsical wants or fanciful products, rather they should apply their considerable problem solving skills to attain something substantial that will improve their present situation and benefit them in the future.

They should be encouraged to find solutions from a broad range of technological and non-technological realms.

The focus and procedure of teaching problem solving using technology should be flexible. This can be directed by how the teacher helps the student select a problem and frame the context of a problem.

Students should examine situations (big and small, near and far, individual and societal) and use their creative problem solving abilities to try to plan what is best.

They should be taught to weigh short-term gains and costs with long-term gains and costs by keeping in view the educational reform, personal lifestyle changes it may lead to with the incorporation of new technology in regulation with governmental action.

The tendency in education should be to employ the term ‘problem solving’ generically to include such diverse activities as coping with marital problems and trouble-shooting electronic circuits.

It can be stated that, different types of problem situations (personal or technological) require different kinds and levels of knowledge and capability and one must be willing enough to adopt different approaches in different situations, which is eased by the inclusion of technology in problem-solving activities.

Effective and responsible national leaders and corporate executives are those with enough backbone to do what they believe is best for the nation or corporation, in spite of mass opinion. The select solutions that are holistic, sometimes more technology-dependent, other times involved with laws, communication and other social arenas. They do not blindly accept the premise that their current product or service is the single best solution to a problem. If this is the type of person a technology teacher hopes their students will become, then specific educational experiences should be designed to empower students with those independent, risk-taking abilities where the goal is what is best.

However, the best solution to a technological problem may be non- technological. Students who are practiced in considering this wider range of alternatives will be better prepared to face the demands of global citizenry than those who merely make yet another CD rack. It is critical for a technology teacher to revisit their definition and philosophy of technology, analyzing its assumptions and bias. That definition should be individually crafted by that teacher, so that it is honest and accurate, accommodates a variety of belief systems and lays the path for a wondrous technological journey for the student and teacher.

You’re invited to share your views, additional knowledge or clarify doubts on the context. So go ahead and comment, the Comment Box awaits you.

If you enjoyed reading the article, you can register HERE to receive weekly email alerts. Follow us

Latest EdTech News To Your Inbox

Stay connected.

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Playing technology games and making science fun helps young kids solve visual problems and grasp ideas better

Lecturer, North-West University

Disclosure statement

Dr Moleboheng Ramulumo is affiliated with the North West University, School of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

View all partners

A woman and two young children, all wearing protective goggles, doing a science experiment in a laboratory

As I watched my sons, Wavhudi and Rivhavhudi, play games on my phone before bedtime, I was captivated by their enthusiasm and how deeply they were engaged – especially when the games involved maths or science. Both boys experienced speech delays and I hoped the games would help them develop their language skills. It worked.

What I saw at home has been repeatedly underscored by research: early engagement with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) concepts through interactive tools can profoundly enhance children’s visual literacy (reading, writing and creating images) and conceptual understanding (grasping ideas).

For my Master’s degree, I’d examined how molecular biology students’ lack of visual literacy made it harder for them to grasp complex scientific concepts. This academic foundation, combined with the newfound spark in my boys, inspired my PhD research : investigating the effects of early STEM education on young children’s visual literacy and ability to grasp scientific concepts.

In a recent, related study , I explored how different types of preschool education influence children’s understanding of science and their ability to interpret visual information. The study involved children aged 4 or 5 years who were in Grade R (the year of schooling before Grade 1) from various private schools in Bloemfontein, South Africa. I observed that those exposed to STEM education were better at spatial visualisation than their peers. These children excelled in tasks that required them to recall and manipulate visual details, such as accurately reproducing elements from images, while their non-STEM counterparts often struggled.

Some people may question why all children should be exposed to STEM concepts, given that not everyone will go on to further study or careers in science, technology, engineering or mathematics fields.

But teaching these skills at a young age is not just about preparing children for specific fields. My findings underscore the profound effects of early STEM education on cognitive development, such as fostering critical thinking, problem-solving skills, creativity, innovation, logical reasoning and adaptability. These qualities are beneficial in many facets of our lives, no matter our career paths.

Testing children’s skills

In South Africa, private schools often have more flexibility than government-run (public) schools to incorporate specialised STEM curricula and innovative teaching methods tailored to early childhood education. This might include hands-on experiments like mixing colours or observing plant growth, problem-solving tasks and interactive learning through, for example, counting games and shape recognition.

Public schools, meanwhile, follow a national curriculum set by the Department of Basic Education. While this includes foundational STEM concepts, not all schools have the necessary resources, so the extent and depth of STEM instruction can vary significantly from school to school.

Though they were private institutions, the non-STEM schools in my study followed the national Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement set by the Department of Basic Education for Grade R. This does not explicitly emphasise STEM subjects. The STEM schools involved in this study, which were also private institutions, had developed their own curricula that emphasised scientific and related learning.

Drawing from study methods used elsewhere in the world , I created a special test with two main parts to measure my participants’ skills.

One tested their content knowledge. This part assessed how well the children understood basic science concepts, such as distinguishing between living and non-living things. The second evaluated the children’s ability to interpret visual information, including understanding spatial relationships and solving visual problems.

The differences between those who were STEM-educated and those who weren’t were immediately clear.

For example, I showed the children a picture of some blocks and asked them how many blocks they saw. One STEM-educated child said there were nine blocks “because some are hiding behind the others in the picture”. A non-STEM child saw “six blocks because I counted them.”

An illustration of blocks in various colours beneath the question

The child with STEM knowledge used advanced thinking skills to imagine where the hidden blocks might be, while their peer only counted the blocks they could see directly.

In another exercise I showed the children a picture with a dog, ball, tree, desk, boy, school bag, book and chicken and asked them to identify which ones were living things.

Illustrations of a dog, a beach ball, a tree, a chair and desk, a child, a schoolbag, a book and a chicken

STEM child: “The boy, the dog and the chicken are living because they can breathe and need water to grow.” The child understood what makes something alive, using ideas like breathing and needing water.

Non-STEM child: “Only the boy is living because the dog and chicken can’t talk.”

This is a more basic, less accurate concept of what constitutes a living thing.

Game-changing learning

Based on my findings, I encourage educators to integrate STEM activities into early childhood curricula to cultivate spatial thinking, visual literacy and scientific understanding. Digital educational games and interactive learning experiences can be incorporated into lessons.

Policymakers should prioritise early STEM education, recognising its long-term benefits in preparing children for academic and professional success. This involves investing in resources, training educators, and developing curricula that embed STEM principles from the start of formal education.

My PhD research was born out of my personal experience with my sons. This journey of love, learning and relentless determination reflects my deepest aspiration: to ignite the same passion and curiosity in others that I have witnessed in my own children.

Mathematics
Engineering
STEM education
Critical thinking
Problem solving
Digital games

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 189,000 academics and researchers from 5,033 institutions.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Experts Predict More Digital Innovation by 2030 Aimed at Enhancing Democracy
5. Tech causes more problems than it solves

1. The innovations these experts predict by 2030
2. Tech is (just) a tool
3. Power dynamics play a key role in problems and innovation
4. It’s all just history repeating itself
6. The net effects in 10 years will be negligible
About this canvassing of experts
Acknowledgments

A number of respondents to this canvassing about the likely future of social and civic innovation shared concerns. Some said that technology causes more problems than it solves. Some said it is likely that emerging worries over the impact of digital life will be at least somewhat mitigated as humans adapt. Some said it is possible that any remedies may create a new set of challenges. Others said humans’ uses and abuses of digital technologies are causing societal harms that are not likely to be overcome.

The following comments were selected from among all responses, regardless of an expert’s answer to this canvassing’s main question about the impact of people’s uses of technology. Some of these remarks of concern happen to also include comments about innovations that may emerge. Concerns are organized under four subthemes: Something is rotten in the state of technology; technology use often disconnects or hollows out a community; society needs to catch up and better address the threats and opportunities of tech; and despite current trends, there is reason to hope for better days.

The chapter begins with some overview insights:

Larry Masinter , internet pioneer, formerly with Adobe, AT&T Labs and Xerox PARC, who helped create internet and web standards with IETF and W3C, said, “Technology and social innovation intended to overcome the negatives of the digital age will likely cause additional negative consequences. Examples include: the decentralized web, end-to-end encryption, AI and machine learning, social media.”

James Mickens , associate professor of computer science at Harvard University, formerly with Microsoft, commented, “Technology will obviously result in ‘civic innovation.’ The real question is whether the ‘innovation’ will result in better societal outcomes. For example, the gig economy is enabled by technology; technology finds buyers for workers and their services. However, given the choice between an economy with many gig workers and an economy with an equivalent number of traditional middle-class jobs, I think that most people would prefer the latter.”

Michael Aisenberg , chair, ABA Information Security Committee, wrote, “Misappreciation of limits and genesis of, e.g., AI/machine learning will produce widely disparate results in deployment of tech innovations. Some will be dramatically beneficial; some may enable abuse of law enforcement, economic systems and other fundamental civic institutions and lead to exacerbation of gaps between tech controllers/users and underserved/under- or mis-skilled populations (‘digital divide’) in what may be a significant (embed limitations on career/economic advancement) or even life-threatening (de facto health care or health procedure rationing) manner.”

The problem is that we are becoming more and more dependent on machines and hence more susceptible to bugs and system failures. Yaakov J. Stein Yaakov J. Stein

Peter Lunenfeld , a professor of design, media arts and digital humanities at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of “Tales of the Computer as Culture Machine,” predicted, “We will use technology to solve the problems the use of technology creates, but the new fixes will bring new issues. Every design solution creates a new design problem, and so it is with the ways we have built our global networks. Highly technological societies have to be iterative if they hope to compete, and I think that societies that have experienced democracy will move to curb the slide to authoritarianism that social media has accelerated. Those curbs will bring about their own unintended consequences, however, which will start the cycle anew.”

Yaakov J. Stein , chief technology officer of RAD Data Communications, based in Israel, responded, “The problem with AI and machine learning is not the sci-fi scenario of AI taking over the world and not needing inferior humans. The problem is that we are becoming more and more dependent on machines and hence more susceptible to bugs and system failures. This is hardly a new phenomenon – once a major part of schooling was devoted to, e.g., penmanship and mental arithmetic, which have been superseded by technical means. But with the tremendous growth in the amount of information, education is more focused on how to retrieve required information rather than remembering things, resulting not only in less actual storage but less depth of knowledge and the lack of ability to make connections between disparate bits of information, which is the basis of creativity. However, in the past humankind has always developed a more-advanced technology to overcome limitations of whatever technology was current, and there is no reason to believe that it will be different this time.”

A vice president for research and economic development wrote, “The problems we see now are caused by technology, and any new technological fixes we create will inevitably cause NEW social and political problems. Attempts to police the web will cause freedom of speech conflicts, for example.”

Something is rotten in the state of technology

A large share of these experts say among the leading concerns about today’s technology platforms are the ways in which they are exploited by bad actors who spread misinformation; and the privacy issues arising out of the business model behind the systems.

Misinformation – pervasive, potent, problematic

Numerous experts described misinformation and fake news as a serious issue in digital spaces. They expressed concern over how users will sort through fact and fiction in the coming decade.

Stephanie Fierman , partner, Futureproof Strategies, said, “I believe technology will meaningfully accelerate social and civic innovation. It’s cheap, fast and able to reach huge audiences. But as long as false information is enabled by very large websites, such social and civic innovators will be shadow boxing with people, governments, organizations purposely countering truthful content with lies.”

Sam Lehman-Wilzig , a professor of communications at Bar-Ilan University specializing in Israeli politics and the impact of technological evolution, wrote, “The biggest advance will be the use of artificial intelligence to fight disinformation, deepfakes and the like. There will be an AI ‘arms race’ between those spreading disinformation and those fighting/preventing it. Overall, I see the latter gaining the upper hand.”

Greg Shatan , a lawyer with Moses & Singer LLP and self-described “internet governance wonk,” predicted, “I see success, enabled by technology, as likely. I think it will take technology to make technology more useful and more meaningful. Many of us pride ourselves on having a ‘BS-meter,’ where we believe we can tell honestly delivered information from fake news and disinformation. The instinctual BS-meter is not enough. The next version of the ‘BS-meter’ will need to be technologically based. The tricks of misinformation have far outstripped the ability of people to reliably tell whether they are receiving BS or not – not to mention that it requires a constant state of vigilance that’s exhausting to maintain. I think that the ability and usefulness of the web to enable positive grassroots civic communication will be harnessed, moving beyond mailing lists and fairly static one-way websites. Could there be ‘Slack for Community Self-Governance?’ If not that platform, perhaps something new and aimed specifically at these tasks and needs.”

Oscar Gandy , a professor emeritus of communication at the University of Pennsylvania, said, “Corporate actors will make use of technology to weaken the possibility for improvements in social and civic relationships. I am particularly concerned about the use of technology in the communications realm in order to increase the power of strategic or manipulative communications to shape the engagement of members of the public with key actors within a variety of governance relationships.”

An expert in the ethics of autonomous systems based in Europe responded, “Fake news is more and more used to manipulate a person’s opinion. This war of information is becoming so important that it can influence democracy and the opinion of people before the vote in an election for instance. Some AI tools can be developed to automatically recognize fake news, but such tools can be used in turn in the same manner to enhance the belief in some false information.”

A research leader for a U.S. federal agency wrote, “At this point in time, I don’t know how we will reduce the spread of misinformation (unknowing/individual-level) and disinformation (nefarious/group-level), but I hope that we can.”

A retired information science professional commented, “Dream on, if you think that you can equate positive change with everybody yelling and those with the most clout (i.e., power and money) using their power to see their agendas succeed. Minority views will always be that, a minority. At present and in the near future the elites manipulate and control.”

A research scientist for a major technology company whose expertise is technology design said, “We have already begun to see increased protections around personal privacy. At present, it is less clear how we might avoid the deliberate misuse of news or news-like content to manipulate political opinions or outcomes, but this does not seem impossible. The trick will be avoiding government censorship and maintaining a rich, vigorous exchange of opinions.”

Privacy issues will continue to be a hot button topic

Multiple experts see a growing need for privacy to be addressed in online spaces.

Ayden Férdeline , technology policy fellow at the Mozilla Foundation, responded, “Imagine if everyone on our planet was naked, without any clear options for obtaining privacy technology (clothing). It would not make sense to ask people what they’d pay or trade to get this technology. This is a ‘build it and they will come’ kind of scenario. We’re now on the verge, as a society, of appropriately recognizing the need to respect privacy in our Web 2.0 world, and we are designing tools and rules accordingly. Back in 1992, had you asked people if they’d want a free and open internet, or a graphical browser with a walled garden of content, most would have said they prefer AOL. What society needed was not AOL but something different. We are in a similar situation now with privacy; we’re finally starting to grasp its necessity and importance.”

We’re now on the verge, as a society, of appropriately recognizing the need to respect privacy in our Web 2.0 world, and we are designing tools and rules accordingly. Ayden Férdeline Ayden Férdeline

Graham Norris , a business psychologist with expertise in the future of work, said, “Privacy no longer exists, and yet the concept of privacy still dominates social-policy debates. The real issue is autonomy of the individual. I should own my digital identity, the online expression of myself, not the corporations and governments that collect my interactions in order to channel my behaviour. Approaches to questions of ownership of digital identity cannot shift until the realization occurs that autonomy is the central question, not privacy. Nothing currently visible suggests that shift will take place.”

Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla , an associate professor of communications at Pontificia Universidad Catolica, Peru, and editor of the Journal of Community Informatics, wrote, “I’m trying to be optimistic, by leaving some room to innovative initiatives from civic society actors. However, I don’t see this as necessarily happening; the pressure from global firms will probably too much to deal with.”

An international policy adviser on the internet and development based in Africa commented, “Technology is creating and will continue to evolve and increase the impact of social and civic innovation. With technology we will see new accountability tools and platforms to raise voices to counter societal ills, be it in leadership, business and other faculties. We must however be careful so that these innovations themselves are not used to negatively impact end users, such issues like privacy and use of data must be taken on in a way that users are protected and not exposed to cybercrime and data breaches that so often occur now.”

Jamie Grady , a business leader, wrote, “As technology companies become more scrutinized by the media and government, changes – particularly in privacy rights – will change. People will learn of these changes through social media as they do now.”

Technology use often disconnects or hollows out community

Some respondents commented on rising problems with a loss of community and the need for more-organic, in-person, human-to-human connection and the impact of digital distancing.

Jonathan Grudin , principal researcher at Microsoft, commented, “Social and civic activity will continue to change in response to technology use, but will it change its trajectory? Realignments following the Industrial Revolution resulted from the formation of new face-to-face communities, including union chapters, community service groups such as Rotary Club and League of Women Voters, church groups, bridge clubs, bowling leagues and so on. Our species is designed to thrive in modest-sized collocated communities, where everyone plays a valued part. Most primates become vulnerable and anxious when not surrounded by their band or troop. Digital media are eroding a sense of community everywhere we look. Can our fundamental human need for close community be restored or will we become more isolated, anxious and susceptible to manipulation?”

Rebecca Theobald , an assistant research professor at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, said, “Technology seems to be driving people apart, which would lead to fewer connections in society.”

The program director of a university-based informatics institute said, “There is still a widening gap between rural and urban as well as digital ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ As well, the ability to interact in a forum in which all members of society have a voice is diminishing as those with technology move faster in the digital forums than the non-tech segment of the population that use non-digital discourse (interpersonal). The idea of social fabric in a neighborhood and neighborly interactions is diminishing. Most people want innovation – it is the speed of change that creates divisions.”

An infrastructure architect and internet pioneer wrote, “The kind of social innovation required to resolve the problems caused by our current technologies relies on a movement back toward individual responsibility and a specific willingness to engage in community. As both of these work against the aims of the corporate and political elite as they exist today, there is little likelihood these kinds of social innovations are going to take place. The family and church, for instance, which must be the core institutions in any rebuilding of a culture that can teach the kind of personal responsibility required, were both hollowed out in the last few decades. The remaining outward structures are being destroyed. There is little hope either families or churches will recover without a major societal event of some sort, and it will likely take at least one generation for them to rebuild. The church could take on the task of helping rebuild families, but it is too captured in attempts to grow ever larger, and consume or ape our strongly individualistic culture, rather than standing against it.”

Angela Campbell , a professor of law and co-director of the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University, responded, “I think there will be efforts to address the social and civic impacts of technology but they may not be sufficient. In particular, I am concerned about the impact of overuse or over-reliance on technology with respect to children and teens. I am concerned about the safety of children online, not just from predators but from peers (bullying). Overuse may also contribute to physical maladies such as obesity, bad posture, eye problems, ADHD, insufficient sleep and even addiction. While technology can help to educate older children (not preschoolers who need to interact with humans and objects), it needs to be selected [and] used carefully and should not subject children to commercialism or invade their privacy. My other major concerns are job loss and discrimination. It seems inevitable that many jobs will be eliminated by technology, and while technologies may generate new jobs, I suspect there will be fewer jobs, and those that remain will require certain skills. It will be important, and difficult, to ensure that everyone is able to have employment and to make enough to live at a reasonable level. As competition for jobs increases, I am also worried about how big data allows hidden discrimination in education, health and employment.”

A researcher based in North America predicted a reining in of the digital in favor of the personal: “Between email and phones, I think we’re close to peak screen time, a waste of time, and it’s ruining our eyes. Just as we have forsaken our landlines, stopped writing letters, don’t answer our cellphones, a concept of an average daily digital budget will develop, just as we have a concept of average daily caloric intake. We’ll have warning labels that rate content against recommended daily allowances of different types of content that have been tested to be good for our mental health and socialization, moderately good, bad, and awful – the bacon of digital media. And people who engage too much will be in rehab, denied child custody and unemployable. Communities, residences and vacation areas will promote digital-free, mindfulness zones – just as they have quiet cars on the train.”

Society needs to catch up and better address the threats and opportunities of tech

Some of these experts said that the accelerating technological change of the digital age is making it difficult for humans to keep up and respond to emerging challenges.

A chair of political science based in the American South commented, “Technology always creates two new problems for every one it solves. At some point, humans’ cognitive and cooperative capacities – largely hard-wired into their brains by millennia of evolution – can’t keep up. Human technology probably overran human coping mechanisms sometime in the later 19th century. The rest is history.”

There is a gap between the rate at which technology develops and the rate at which society develops. We need to take care not to fall into that gap. Louisa Heinrich Louisa Heinrich

Larry Rosen , a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, known as an international expert on the psychology of technology, wrote, “I would like to believe that we, as citizens, will aid in innovation. Smart people are already working on many social issues, but the problem is that while society is slow to move, tech moves at lightning speed. I worry that solutions will come after the tech has either been integrated or rejected.”

Louisa Heinrich , a futurist and consultant expert in data and the Internet of Things, said, “There is a gap between the rate at which technology develops and the rate at which society develops. We need to take care not to fall into that gap. I hope we will see a shift in governance toward framework-based regulation, which will help mitigate the gap between the pace of change in technology and that in government. At the very least, we need to understand the ways in which technology can extend or undermine the rules and guidelines we set for our businesses, workplaces, public spaces and interactions. To name just one common example, recruitment professionals routinely turn to Facebook as a source of information on prospective employees. This arguably violates a number of regulations designed to protect people from being denied work based on personal details not relevant to that work. How do we unravel this conundrum, bearing in mind that there will always be another social network, another digital source to mine for information about people? Taken from another angle, there is a significant gap between what users understand about certain bits of technology and the risks they take using them. How can we educate people about these risks in a way that encourages participation and co-creation, rather than passivity? As the so-called Gen Z comes of age, we will see a whole generation of young adults who are politically engaged at a level not seen in several generations, who are also native users of technology tools. This could bring about a positive revolution in the way technology is used to facilitate civic engagement and mutually empower and assist citizens and government. Technology provides us with powerful tools that can help us advance socially and civically, but these tools need to be thoughtfully and carefully put to use – when we encode barriers and biases into the applications that people need to use in daily life, whether intentionally or no, we may exclude whole segments of society from experiencing positive outcomes. We are living through a time of rapid and radical change – as always, the early stages feel uncomfortable and chaotic. But we can already see the same tools that have been used to mislead citizens being used to educate, organise, motivate and empower them. What’s needed is a collective desire to prioritise and incentivise this. New Zealand is leading the way with the world’s first ‘well-being’ budget.”

Bulbul Gupta , founding adviser at Socos Labs, a think tank designing artificial intelligence to maximize human potential, responded, “Until government policies, regulators, can keep up with the speed of technology and AI, there is an inherent imbalance of power between technology’s potential to contribute to social and civic innovation and its execution in being used this way. If technology and AI can make decisions about people in milliseconds that can prevent their full social or civic engagement, the incentive structures to be used toward mitigating the problems of the digital age cannot then be solved by technology.”

Gene Policinski , a journalist and First Amendment law expert at the Freedom Forum Institute, observed, “We forget how new the ‘tech revolution’ really is. As we move forward in the next decade, the public’s awareness of the possibilities inherent in social and civic innovation, the creativity of the tech world working with the public sector and public acceptance of new methods of participation in democratic processes will begin to drown out and eventually will surpass the initial problems and missteps.”

Gabriel Kahn , former bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, now a professor of journalism researching innovation economics in emerging media at the University of Southern California, wrote, “We are not facing a ‘Terminator’-like scenario. Nor are we facing a tech-driven social utopia. Humans are catching up and understanding the pernicious impact of technology and how to mitigate it.”

Kathee Brewer , director of content at CANN Media Group, predicted, “Much like society developed solutions to the challenges brought about by the Industrial Revolution, society will find solutions to the challenges of the Digital Revolution. Whether that will happen by 2030 is up for debate. Change occurs much more rapidly in the digital age than it did at the turn of the 20th century, and for society to solve its problems it must catch up to them first. AND people, including self-interested politicians, must be willing to change. Groups like the Mozilla Foundation already are working on solutions to invasions of privacy. That work will continue. The U.S. government probably won’t make any major changes to the digital elections framework until after the 2020 election, but changes will be made. Sadly, those changes probably will result from some nastiness that develops due to voters of all persuasions being unwilling to accept electoral results, whatever the results may be.”

Valerie Bock of VCB Consulting, former Technical Services Lead at Q2 Learning, responded, “I think our cultures are in the process of adapting to the power our technologies wield, and that we will have developed some communal wisdom around how to evaluate new ones. There are some challenges, but because ordinary citizens have become aware that images can be ‘photoshopped’ the awareness that video can be ‘deepfaked’ is more quickly spreading. Cultural norms as well as technologies will continue to evolve to help people to apply more informed critiques to the messages they are given.”

Bach Avezdjanov , a program officer with Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression project, said, “Technological development – being driven by the Silicon Valley theory of uncontrolled growth – will continue to outpace civic and social innovation. The latter needs to happen in tandem with technological innovation, but instead plays catch-up. This will not change in the future, unless political will to heavily regulate digital tools is introduced – an unlikely occurrence.”

A computing science professor emeritus from a top U.S. technological university commented, “Social/civic innovation will occur but most likely lag well behind technological innovation. For example, face-recognition technology will spread and be used by businesses at a faster pace than social and legal norms can develop to protect citizens from any negative effects of that technology. This technology will spread quickly, due to its various positives (increased efficiencies, conveniences and generation of profits in the marketplace) while its negatives will most likely not be countered effectively through thoughtful legislation. Past Supreme Court decisions (such as treating corporations as persons, WRT unlimited funding of political candidates, along with excessive privacy of PACs) have already undermined U.S. democracy. Current populist backlashes, against the corruption of the Trump government, may also undermine democracy, such as the proposed Elizabeth Warren tax, being not on profits, but upon passive wealth itself – a tax on non-revenue-producing illiquid assets (whose valuation is highly subjective), as in her statement to ‘tax the jewelry of the rich’ at 2% annually. Illiquid assets include great private libraries, great private collections of art, antiques, coins, etc. – constituting an assault on the private sector, that if successful, will weaken democracy by strengthening the confiscatory power of government. We could swing from current excesses of the right to future excesses of the left.”

Despite current trends, there is reason to hope for better days

Many of the experts in this canvassing see a complicated and difficult road ahead, but express hope for the future.

Cheryl B. Preston , an expert in internet law and professor at Brigham Young University Law School, said, “Innovation will bring risk. Change will bring pain. Learning will bring challenges. Potential profits will bring abuse. But, as was the decision of Eve in the Garden of Eden, we need to leave the comfortable to learn and improve. If we can, by more informed voting, reduce the corruption in governmental entities and control corporate abuse, we can overcome difficulties and advance as a society. These advances will ultimately bring improvement to individuals and families.”

John Carr , a leading global expert on young people’s use of digital technologies, a former vice president of MySpace, commented, “I know of no proof for the notion that more people simply knowing more stuff, even stuff that is certifiably factually accurate, will necessarily lead to better outcomes for societies. But I do harbour a hope that if, over time, we can establish the idea that there are places on the internet that are reliable sources of information, it will in the medium to longer term help enough people in enough countries to challenge local demagogues and liars, making it harder for the demagogues and liars to succeed, particularly in times of national crisis or in times when war might be on the visible horizon. I used to think that if the internet had been around another Hitler would be impossible. Recently I have had a wobble on that but my optimism ‘trumps’ that gloomy view.”

Mike Douglass , an independent developer, wrote, “There is a significant realization that a stampede to create connections between anonymous people and devices was a bad idea. It’s up to the technologists and – more importantly – those who want to make money out of technology – to come up with a more measured approach. There’s a reason why gentlemen obtained letter of introduction to other gentlemen – one shouldn’t trust some random individual turning up on your doorstep. We need the equivalent approach. I’ve no idea what new innovations might turn up. But if we don’t get the trust/privacy/security model right we’ll end up with more social media disasters.”

Hume Winzar , an associate professor and director of the business analytics undergraduate program at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, predicted, “With more hope than evidence, I’d like to think that reason will eventually overcome the extraordinary propaganda machines that are being built. When the educated upper-middle classes realise that the ‘system’ is no longer serving them, then legal and institutional changes will be necessary. That is, only when the managers who are driving the propaganda machine(s) start to feel that they, personally, are losing privacy, autonomy, money and their children’s future, then they will need to undermine the efforts of corporate owners and government bureaucrats and officials.”

Carolyn Heinrich , a professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University, said, “My hope (not belief) is that the ‘techlash’ will help to spur social and civic innovations that can combat the negative effects of our digitization of society. Oftentimes, I think the technology developers create their products with one ideal in mind of how they will be used, overlooking that technology can be adapted and used in unintended and harmful ways. We have found this in our study of educational technology in schools. The developers of digital tools envision them as being used in classrooms in ‘blended’ ways with live instructors who work with the students to help customize instruction to their needs. Unfortunately, more often than not, we have seen the digital tools used as substitutes for higher-quality, live instruction and have observed how that contributes to student disengagement from learning. We have also found some of the content lacking in cultural relevance and responsiveness. If left unchecked, this could be harmful for far larger numbers of students exposed to these digital instructional programs in all 50 states. But if we can spur vendors to improve the content, those improvements can also extend to large numbers of students. We have our work cut out for us!”

In the field I follow, artificial intelligence, the numbers of professionals who take seriously the problems that arise as a consequence of this technology are reassuring. Pamela McCorduck Pamela McCorduck

Heywood Sloane , entrepreneur and banking and securities consultant, wrote, “I’m hopeful the it will be a positive contributor. It has the ability to alter the way we relate to our environment in ways that shrink the distances between people and help us exercise control over our personal and social spaces. We are making substantial progress, and 5G technology will accelerate that. On the flip side, we need to find mechanisms and processes to protect our data and ourselves. They need to be strong, economic and simple to deploy and use. That is going to be a challenge.”

Pamela McCorduck , writer, consultant and author of several books, including “Machines Who Think,” commented, “I am heartened by the number of organizations that have formed to enhance social and civic organization through technology. In the field I follow, artificial intelligence, the numbers of professionals who take seriously the problems that arise as a consequence of this technology are reassuring. Will they all succeed? Of course not. We will not get it right the first time. But eventually, I hope.”

Yoshihiko Nakamura , a professor of mechno-informatics at the University of Tokyo, observed, “The current information and communication technology loses diversity because it is still insufficient to enhance the affectivity or emotion side of societies. In this sense I can see the negative side of current technology to human society. However, I have a hope that we can invent uses of technology to enhance the weaker side and develop tomorrow’s technology. The focus should be on the education of society in the liberal arts.”

Ryan Sweeney , director of analytics at Ignite Social Media, commented, “In order to survive as a functioning society, we need social and civic innovation to match our use of technology. Jobs and job requirements are changing as a result of technology. Automation is increasing across a multitude of industries. Identifying how we protect citizens from these changes and help them adapt will be instrumental in building happiness and well-being.”

Miles Fidelman , founder, Center for Civic Networking and principal Protocol Technologies Group, responded, “We can see clear evidence that the internet is enabling new connections, across traditional boundaries – for the flow of information, culture and commerce. It is strengthening some traditional institutions (e.g., ties between geographically distributed family members) and weakening others (e.g., the press). Perhaps the most notable innovation is that of ad hoc, network-centric organizations – be they global project teams, or crisis response efforts. How much of this innovation will make things better, how much it will hurt us, remains an open question.”

A technology developer active in IETF said, “I hope mechanisms will evolve to exploit the advantages of new tech and mitigate the problems. I want to be optimistic, but I am far from confident.”

A renowned professor of sociology known for her research into online communications and digital literacies observed, “New groups expose the error of false equivalence and continue to challenge humans to evolve into our pre-frontal cortex. I guess I am optimistic because the downside is pretty terrible to imagine. It’s like E.O. Wilson said: ‘The real problem of humanity is the following: We have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.’”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Trust, Facts & Democracy

Most Popular

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

How To Solve Problems With Technology

Updated June 14, 2023

How to Solve Problems With Technology?

Inventing what the world needs- that is now Edison described the crux of innovation in technology. Big problems represent even bigger opportunities. To quote famous Canadian ice hockey player Wayne Gretzky, who scored many hits in his time, the trick is not to “skate where the puck is,” but to “skate where the puck is going.” Building a business or solving social problems with technology. It has come up with the most scalable solutions which can impact business across the world.

Start Your Free Software Development Course

Web development, programming languages, Software testing & others

Image source: pixabay.com

Whether it is clean energy, robotics, quantum computing, synthetic biology, telemedicine, AI, or cloud education and NUI software, it can solve all the biggest problems confronting mankind. Creating value means coming up with something people will pay for in the real world. Virtual technologies can open up a window of possibilities, given their widespread application. Starting small but thinking big…that is the key to using modern technology to solve the biggest problems in modern-day existence.

So, how can technology solve problems? Can technology pave the way for a better world? Just how far-reaching can “tech for the greater good” be? Let’s find out, bit by bit and get the right sound-bytes on how is a technology used to solve problems in the real world.

Amazing Ways to Solve Problems With Technology

Below are some of the amazing ways to solve problems with technology.

#1 Go Green: Harnessing Technology to Lower Pollution

One of the biggest ways technology has changed transportation and promoted ecological conservation is fuel cell vehicles. These are zero-emission cars that can run on electricity or hydrocarbons. Fuel cell-powered vehicles using hydrogen also have the advantage of being zero-emission. Mass-market fuel cell vehicles offer a range and convenience missing from diesel and gas-powered cars.

#2 Think Smart: The Advent of Next Generation Robotics

Robots have taken over everyday tasks. Though technology is still expanding to ensure next-generation robotics goes beyond factory assembly lines and controlled tasks, AI and technology’s real application is yet to come. This has made human-virtual machine partnership a reality in the making. Robots have become more flexible, and cloud computing revolutions have led to the creation of remote control.

So, how is this solving world problems with technology in the business world? Machines have been taken away from large assembly lines, and GPS technology has enabled the use of robotics in precision agriculture. Robots are being designed to be easily programmable and handle manufacturing tasks that are tough for human workers. Next-generation robotics is ideal for tasks that are too difficult or repetitive. Progress in design and AI have ensured that humans have advanced beyond a point of no return too.

#3 Additive Manufacturing: From Wearables to Printable Organs and Smart Clothes

Additive manufacturing helps in creating everything from printable 3D organs to wearables. This type of manufacturing starts with liquid or powder and builds into a 3-D shape through a digital template, each layer at a time. So, how does this constitute a solution? Well, such products can be customized to the end-user and take 3-D printing into a high-tech world.

Machines can print human cells and find application in the creation of living tissues in fields such as tissue repair and regeneration as well as screening. This is also a step forward in the field of personalized medicine. 3-D printing of integrated electronic parts such as nanoscale computer components and circuit boards is the next step. 4-D printing seeks to create a new generation of products that are responsive to environmental changes such as heat and humidity.

#4 AI: When a Computer Can Learn on the Job

AI involves computers being able to perform human tasks. So, how can we use AI technology to make life easy? Smartphones that recognize human speech or image recognition information technology on machines are just one instance of AI application. Driving the point home further are self-automated cars and flying drones. Machines can now outperform humans. Case in point: Watson, an AI system, beat humans at a game of Jeopardy, and the thinking computer, Deep Blue, could out do any chess grand-master.

As against the average thinking hardware or software, AI can enable machines to respond to transitions in the environment. AI systems can assimilate unlimited amounts of information, and technology solve environmental problems too.

An example is the Never-Ending Language Learning Project/NELL from Carnegie Mellon University, which reads facts and learns new information to perform better in the future. Consider a world where self-driving cars will lower the frequency of collisions. Here are some ways in which machines can take over from humans and do a better job:

#5 Distributed Manufacturing- Factory at Your Doorstep

With e-commerce on the rise and the advent of the digital age, personalized products are the order of the day. It has led to the decentralization of the method of fabrication. Distributed manufacturing encourages broad diversity and speed to varied markets and geographies.

#6 Sense and Avoid Drones: Innovation with Numerous Applications

Flying robots, UAVs, or drones can be used for checking power lines, providing emergency aid, agriculture, filming and other applications requiring comprehensive and affordable aerial surveillance. Drones have a reliable ability to avoid collision and create autonomy while carrying out tasks that are too tough or remote for humans to accomplish. Sense and avoid drones can be used for operating reliably in tough conditions such as dust storms or blizzards.

#7 Neuromorphic Technology: Computer Chips which can Mimic the Human Brain

Neuromorphic chips process information in a different way from traditional hardware and resemble the architecture of the brain. Miniaturization has resulted in an increase in conventional computing capabilities across the years, but neuromorphic chips are more beneficial because they have the following features:

Greater energy efficiency
Combined data storage, data processing into interconnected modules
Networked neutrons making a replica of the brain

Consider the neuromorphic chip True North which comprises a million-neuron network for creating power efficiency 100s of times more robust than a conventional CPU. Such machines promote number crunching, which is perfect for predicting stock exchange trends or climate forecasting.

#8 Mobile Wallets: Leave Your Purse Behind

The market has mobile payment systems such as Square, Google Wallet and Starbucks App. Leaving your wallet behind is no longer a problem now. From Paytm to its PayPal, a mobile wallet has many benefits. It is technology at its best.

# 9 Evolving Video Format: From Betamax to Blue-Ray

It has evolved video formats from Betamax to VHS, DVD, HD DVD and Blue-Ray. Advanced video formats have changed everything from communication and computing to dining, entertainment and travel.

#10 Redefining Communication: Emails, IM and Mobile Phones

From emails through Gmail to Windows, Live Hotmail and more, there are multiple options for communicating online. Want to send a greeting card? Opt for an e-postcard and save on postage too! From AOL instant messaging to Meebo, the options are endless. Mobile phones , applications such as WhatsApp and VoIP or Voice over Internet protocol are only some of the reasons why long distant charges are a thing of the past.

#11 Word Power: From Typewriters to Word Processors

Word processors have made so much more possible…from saving work and making copies to enabling editing of text. Spell checking programs and increased formatting became possible. The personal computer has become an essential part of life. Storing information, operating at lightning-fast speeds and storing terabytes of data are only some of the many benefits of using computers for work or personal use. There is so much you can do with computers, such as checking email to Microsoft Outlook, optimizing images through Adobe Photoshop, building digital libraries of musical tunes and more. Time management, handling multiple work tasks and meeting successive deadlines- this has become easy now.

#12 Making the Globe Smaller: Travel Right, Smart Flights

Websites such as TripIt organize travel plans including flights, trains, cruises, cars, hotels and a 24 to 48-hour itinerary. Search engine sites provide links to travel sites, and online travel agencies, aggregators and consolidators are there to guide you every step of the way. From TripAdvisor to SmarterTravel and LonelyPlanet, jet hopping was never easier. The airplanes and ATC also use technology to make the journey comfortable. Transport and travel have changed for the better, and we have reached miles ahead from travel books and slow trains.

#13 Technology, the Deal Maker: Revitalizing Small Businesses

It has helped businesses to increase efficiency, enhance productivity and increase the customer base. Popular cloud storage services such as Dropbox and Google Drive store data and documents online. Cloud used for business collaborations and file sharing. Social check in tools such as Foursquare and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter can revolutionize and kickstart any business. Get listed online and use services like Locu, which let you display pertinent business information in one place. E-commerce has become the perfect way to do business. There are mammoth marketing opportunities in the virtual world, from e-commerce websites to larger online sites like eBay or Amazon.

Enhancing consumer service through official website and voice mail as well as information regarding directions to the company site and information about shipping has changed the way business is done. Looking for a pocket-friendly alternative to costly business trips? You can use high tech solutions from Skype to WebEx as well as video-conferencing.

Project management tools like Basecamp and Zoho will make handling workers and collaborating on tasks a cinch. Scheduling tools such as GenBook, BookFresh or FullSlate enable clients to schedule appointments online at their own convenience. Understanding your customers was never easier with Google Analytics. Mobile payment tools (read PayPal) have made financial transactions simpler. It has also liberated businesses from print ads. Now there are numerous options for marketing online:

Informational website
Advertising on search engines
Online product sales
Email marketing

It brings business to the consumers and helps them to communicate through online chat and call centers. Telecommuting and flexitime are now perfect online collaboration tools. Teleconferencing enables businesses to reach global consumers and employees worldwide.

#14 Taking Your Business to Cloud Nine: CRM and Instant Responses

Cloud or delivering hardware and software services through a network involves cheap and amazingly advanced technology solutions for businesses. Online customer relationship management and subscription-based software as a service provide pay by use basis, cutting down on upfront investment.

#15 Technology and Portability: Mobile Apps on the Go

Mobile is on the move, and apps on smartphones download music and provide maps as well as directions. Well designed apps help you to expand the reach of your business.

#16 Technology in a Business Organization: Optimizing Performance

It helps businesses improve communication , optimize production, manage inventories and maintain financial records. From internal and external business communication to marketing communication , it has reshaped every which way companies reach out to customers and workers.

Swifter, efficient and interactive communication platforms plus enhanced operational efficiency will work wonders for business profits. It makes complex inventory management and organization simple. Minimizing inventory costs and meeting customer demands has become easy too. Programs are available to sync and merge accounting with PoS terminals and bookkeeping programs in that each purchase or sale transaction is well recorded.

#17 Solving the World’s Problems One by One: Technology on the Move

Telemedicine: This helps patients in rural and isolated areas communicate with doctors and get the medical help they urgently need.

Multifaceted Tablet Devices: Game-changing tablet devices make it easy to take a business to the next level. Tablet devices can work as an all in one device, from getting the latest technology news to checking emails.

Augmented Reality- Navigating the world through this wave of technology will shape and mould business vision.

#18 Innovations Across Urban Infrastructure: SMART Cities Pave the Way for Better Living

Innovations in technology have reduced the consumption of resources by transforming urban infrastructure into intelligent and interconnected grids. Smart cities have redefined urban living and made it more possible through technology. Smart cities can solve the biggest problems such as climate change, rising population, increasing waste and massive pollution.

#19 Revolution in Technology: Moulding Lives, Bringing Change

Healthcare latest technology has undergone a massive revolution. Genomics has changed the identification of disease and its treatments. Networked devices have made the world smaller and ensured that medical solutions reach people faster.

#20 Winning the Hunger Games: Technology Provides Solutions for Food Scarcity

Crop yields have declined due to extreme weather and pests. It offers a way out through genetic engineering and using farmbots. Game changers such as fine-tuning food supply chains through smart technologies and vertical farms have transformed agriculture.

#21: Cutting Down on Water Shortage: Technology Makes Every Drop Count

From desalination to energy efficiency and environment-friendly solutions, it has made water shortage a problem with limitations.

#22 Sustainable Energy: Big Technology Breakthrough

How To Solve Problems With Technology-sustainable energy

The ability to produce energy in sustainable ways is the biggest problem technology provides a solution for. Solar to wind, nuclear, and thermal energy have reformulated energy consumption patterns and made eco-friendly energy-generation possible.

Using technology to solve problems does not involve “thinking outside the box.” It involves thinking from a different box, one that harnesses knowledge to bring about a radical change. Technology for transformation redefines human life and makes the impossible possible. Small technologies can solve big problems. From famine to poverty, water scarcity to business management, or healthcare to education, it has all the answers…just ask any question!

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Machine learning
Sustainability
Black holes
Classes and programs

Departments

Aeronautics and Astronautics
Brain and Cognitive Sciences
Architecture
Political Science
Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
Lincoln Laboratory
School of Architecture + Planning
School of Engineering
School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Sloan School of Management
School of Science
MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

A framework for solving parabolic partial differential equations

Press contact :.

Illustration of 5 spheres with purple and brown swirls. Below that, a white koala with insets showing just its head. Each koala has one purple point on either the forehead, ears, and nose.

Previous image Next image

Computer graphics and geometry processing research provide the tools needed to simulate physical phenomena like fire and flames, aiding the creation of visual effects in video games and movies as well as the fabrication of complex geometric shapes using tools like 3D printing.

Under the hood, mathematical problems called partial differential equations (PDEs) model these natural processes. Among the many PDEs used in physics and computer graphics, a class called second-order parabolic PDEs explain how phenomena can become smooth over time. The most famous example in this class is the heat equation, which predicts how heat diffuses along a surface or in a volume over time.

Researchers in geometry processing have designed numerous algorithms to solve these problems on curved surfaces, but their methods often apply only to linear problems or to a single PDE. A more general approach by researchers from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) tackles a general class of these potentially nonlinear problems. In a paper recently published in the Transactions on Graphics journal and presented at the SIGGRAPH conference, they describe an algorithm that solves different nonlinear parabolic PDEs on triangle meshes by splitting them into three simpler equations that can be solved with techniques graphics researchers already have in their software toolkit. This framework can help better analyze shapes and model complex dynamical processes.

“We provide a recipe: If you want to numerically solve a second-order parabolic PDE, you can follow a set of three steps,” says lead author Leticia Mattos Da Silva SM ’23, an MIT PhD student in electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) and CSAIL affiliate. “For each of the steps in this approach, you’re solving a simpler problem using simpler tools from geometry processing, but at the end, you get a solution to the more challenging second-order parabolic PDE.” To accomplish this, Da Silva and her coauthors used Strang splitting, a technique that allows geometry processing researchers to break the PDE down into problems they know how to solve efficiently.

First, their algorithm advances a solution forward in time by solving the heat equation (also called the “diffusion equation”), which models how heat from a source spreads over a shape. Picture using a blow torch to warm up a metal plate — this equation describes how heat from that spot would diffuse over it.  This step can be completed easily with linear algebra.

Now, imagine that the parabolic PDE has additional nonlinear behaviors that are not described by the spread of heat. This is where the second step of the algorithm comes in: it accounts for the nonlinear piece by solving a Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) equation, a first-order nonlinear PDE. While generic HJ equations can be hard to solve, Mattos Da Silva and coauthors prove that their splitting method applied to many important PDEs yields an HJ equation that can be solved via convex optimization algorithms. Convex optimization is a standard tool for which researchers in geometry processing already have efficient and reliable software. In the final step, the algorithm advances a solution forward in time using the heat equation again to advance the more complex second-order parabolic PDE forward in time. 

Among other applications, the framework could help simulate fire and flames more efficiently. “There’s a huge pipeline that creates a video with flames being simulated, but at the heart of it is a PDE solver,” says Mattos Da Silva. For these pipelines, an essential step is solving the G-equation, a nonlinear parabolic PDE that models the front propagation of the flame and can be solved using the researchers’ framework.

The team’s algorithm can also solve the diffusion equation in the logarithmic domain, where it becomes nonlinear. Senior author Justin Solomon, associate professor of EECS and leader of the CSAIL Geometric Data Processing Group, previously developed a state-of-the-art technique for optimal transport that requires taking the logarithm of the result of heat diffusion. Mattos Da Silva’s framework provided more reliable computations by doing diffusion directly in the logarithmic domain. This enabled a more stable way to, for example, find a geometric notion of average among distributions on surface meshes like a model of a koala. Even though their framework focuses on general, nonlinear problems, it can also be used to solve linear PDE. For instance, the method solves the Fokker-Planck equation, where heat diffuses in a linear way, but there are additional terms that drift in the same direction heat is spreading. In a straightforward application, the approach modeled how swirls would evolve over the surface of a triangulated sphere. The result resembles purple-and-brown latte art.

The researchers note that this project is a starting point for tackling the nonlinearity in other PDEs that appear in graphics and geometry processing head-on. For example, they focused on static surfaces but would like to apply their work to moving ones, too. Moreover, their framework solves problems involving a single parabolic PDE, but the team would also like to tackle problems involving coupled parabolic PDE. These types of problems arise in biology and chemistry, where the equation describing the evolution of each agent in a mixture, for example, is linked to the others’ equations.

Mattos Da Silva and Solomon wrote the paper with Oded Stein, assistant professor at the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering. Their work was supported, in part, by an MIT Schwarzman College of Computing Fellowship funded by Google, a MathWorks Fellowship, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the U.S. Army Research Office, the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the U.S. National Science Foundation, MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, the Toyota-CSAIL Joint Research Center, Adobe Systems, and Google Research.

Share this news article on:

A flexible solution to help artists improve animation

Justin Solomon stands in front of a wall and is lit with dramatic pink and blue light, with grid-like shadows on the wall.

A computer scientist pushes the boundaries of geometry

2 rows of 3 images each. The images compare models of a horse and cow’s volume. The 3D models are sliced like clay, and the inside of the figures show a checkerboard of white and green or blue patterns. In the images comparing the volume of the two sliced figures, the checkerboards show the same number of squares, but the squares are stretched and pulled.

A better way to match 3D volumes

Recent work from MIT CSAIL addresses how computers divide objects into sets of smaller elements, a procedure known as “meshing.” Zhang et al. produced a range of detailed 2D images without depending on unreliable methods that try to trace out features like curves and edges ahead of time.

Better simulation meshes well for design software (and more)

At left, EdgeConv, a method developed at MIT, successfully finds meaningful parts of 3D shapes, like the surface of a table, wings of an airplane, and wheels of a skateboard. At right is the ground-truth comparison.

Deep learning with point clouds

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Five square slices show glimpse of LLMs, and the final one is green with a thumbs up.

Study: Transparency is often lacking in datasets used to train large language models

Read full story →

Charalampos Sampalis wears a headset while looking at the camera

How MIT’s online resources provide a “highly motivating, even transformative experience”

A small model shows a wooden man in a sparse room, with dramatic lighting from the windows.

Students learn theater design through the power of play

Feyisayo Eweje wears lab coat and gloves while sitting in a lab.

Designing better delivery for medical therapies

Saeed Miganeh poses standing in a hallway. A street scene is visible through windows in the background

Making a measurable economic impact

Faces of MIT: Jessica Tam

More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

Map (opens in new window)
Events (opens in new window)
People (opens in new window)
Careers (opens in new window)
Accessibility
Social Media Hub
MIT on Facebook
MIT on YouTube
MIT on Instagram

Home Resource Library Media Center Solving the Elusive Baseband to Antenna Problem using RFDAC Technology

Solving the Elusive Baseband to Antenna Problem using RFDAC Technology

We’ll start by exploring RF transmitter architectures, then we’ll concentrate on the Direct to RF Transmitter architecture enabled by RFDAC technology. Aspects of direct to RF transmitter system design will be explored including gain, signal bandwidth, digital signal processing requirements, frequency planning, thermal noise, clock synthesis + phase noise, harmonics, sampling images, pre-distortion techniques and deterministic latency.

Larry Welch Sr. Applications Engineer, High Speed Converter Group

Larry Welch is a Senior Applications Engineer in the High Speed Converter Group at Analog Devices, Inc. (Wilmington, MA). He joined ADI in 1996 and has held a variety of systems engineering and applications engineering roles in wired communications, wireless communications and high speed data converter groups. He holds BSEE and MSEE degrees from Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts and earned an MBA in 2002 also from Northeastern University.

Modal title

IMAGES

3 Ways 3D Technology Is Effective for Problem Solving
Artificial intelligence for problem solving. Artificial brain network
What role does modern technology play in solving problems in new ways
computer algorithm science problem solving process with programming
3 Ways Tech Builds Problem Solving Skills
PROBLEM SOLVING and businessman working with modern technology Stock

VIDEO

CCTE Robotics Camp Teaches Students Tech Skills
2023 Jan CSEC Information Technology Problem Solving & Programming
Welcome to Design-2-Part TradeShows
FAA's Data Challenge asks contestants to find and solve problems
Concrete Technology Problem Solving Session Meeting Recording 24_02_2024
What Makes AI Products Fail and Its Solution

COMMENTS

Solve Problems Faster with Technology
Today, technology is an increasingly important problem-solving tool for project professionals. Devyn Colson, PMI's Director of IT Operations, discusses the role technology can play in tackling tougher and more complex project management challenges. Written by Devyn Colson • 15 September 2021. Image by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash.
14 Major Tech Issues & How To Solve Them
Too Much Focus on Automation. Data Mixups Due to AI Implementation. Poor User Experience. 1. Employee Productivity Measurement. As most companies switched to 100 percent remote almost overnight, many realized that they lacked an efficient way to measure employee productivity. Technology with " user productivity reports " has become ...
40 problem-solving techniques and processes
7. Solution evaluation. 1. Problem identification. The first stage of any problem solving process is to identify the problem (s) you need to solve. This often looks like using group discussions and activities to help a group surface and effectively articulate the challenges they're facing and wish to resolve.
What is Problem Solving? (Steps, Techniques, Examples)
The problem-solving process typically includes the following steps: Identify the issue: Recognize the problem that needs to be solved. Analyze the situation: Examine the issue in depth, gather all relevant information, and consider any limitations or constraints that may be present. Generate potential solutions: Brainstorm a list of possible ...
How Technology Can Help Solve Problems & Make Decisions
By Damarious Page. Technology is one of many tools that organizations use to help solve problems. The entire process of problem solving involves gathering and analyzing data, and then putting ...
A guide to problem-solving techniques, steps, and skills
The 7 steps to problem-solving. When it comes to problem-solving there are seven key steps that you should follow: define the problem, disaggregate, prioritize problem branches, create an analysis plan, conduct analysis, synthesis, and communication. 1. Define the problem. Problem-solving begins with a clear understanding of the issue at hand.
Technological problem solving: an investigation of differences
Problem solving is an activity, a context and a dominant pedagogical frame for Technology Education. It constitutes a central method and a critical skill through which school pupils learn about and become proficient in technology (Custer et al., 2001).Research has, among other things, been able to identify and investigate sets of intellectual and cognitive processes (Buckley et al., 2019 ...
An effective problem solving process for IT professionals
Technology is a very touchy and hypersensitive beast, and more often than not, it doesn't take too kindly to introducing changes. Even the changes that are supposed to solve and prevent other known problems, often result in the introduction of new and unexpected problems. ... Effective problem solving is, more often than not, substantially ...
What is Problem Solving? Steps, Process & Techniques
Finding a suitable solution for issues can be accomplished by following the basic four-step problem-solving process and methodology outlined below. Step. Characteristics. 1. Define the problem. Differentiate fact from opinion. Specify underlying causes. Consult each faction involved for information. State the problem specifically.
Problem-Solving Strategies and Obstacles
Problem-solving is a vital skill for coping with various challenges in life. This webpage explains the different strategies and obstacles that can affect how you solve problems, and offers tips on how to improve your problem-solving skills. Learn how to identify, analyze, and overcome problems with Verywell Mind.
Problem Solving and Teaching How to Solve Problems in Technology-Rich
By drawing from the literature on technological pedagogical content knowledge, design thinking, general and specific methods of problem solving, and role of technologies for solving problems, this article highlights the importance of problem solving for future teachers and discusses strategies that can help them become good problem solvers and ...
The Problem-Solving Process
Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue. The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything ...
Problem-Solving Strategies: Definition and 5 Techniques to Try
In insight problem-solving, the cognitive processes that help you solve a problem happen outside your conscious awareness. 4. Working backward. Working backward is a problem-solving approach often ...
7 Problem-Solving Skills That Can Help You Be a More ...
Although problem-solving is a skill in its own right, a subset of seven skills can help make the process of problem-solving easier. These include analysis, communication, emotional intelligence, resilience, creativity, adaptability, and teamwork. 1. Analysis. As a manager, you'll solve each problem by assessing the situation first.
Definitive Guide to Problem Solving Techniques
Defer or suspend judgement. Focus on "Yes, and…" rather than "No, but…". According to Carella, "Creative problem solving is the mental process used for generating innovative and imaginative ideas as a solution to a problem or a challenge. Creative problem solving techniques can be pursued by individuals or groups.".
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving with Technology
Brief Summary: Critical thinking and problem solving is a crucial skill in a technical world that can immediately be applied to academics and careers.A highly skilled individual in this competency can choose the appropriate tool to accomplish a task, easily switch between tools, has a basic understanding of different file types, and can troubleshoot technology when it's not working properly.
How to Help Students Troubleshoot Technology Problems
The problem-solving process has four steps: define, prepare, try, and reflect. As a digital learning coach, I have been using these steps in a similar way as I help students and my colleagues find solutions to their technology problems. The case study below will take you through how your students can use this process.
Problem-Solving Skills: What They Are and How to Improve Yours
Problem-solving skills defined. Problem-solving skills are skills that allow individuals to efficiently and effectively find solutions to issues. This attribute is a primary skill that employers look for in job candidates and is essential in a variety of careers. This skill is considered to be a soft skill, or an individual strength, as opposed ...
Problem-Solving Activities With the Help of Technology
The focus and procedure of teaching problem solving using technology should be flexible. This can be directed by how the teacher helps the student select a problem and frame the context of a problem. Students should examine situations (big and small, near and far, individual and societal) and use their creative problem solving abilities to try ...
Playing technology games and making science fun helps young kids solve
This might include hands-on experiments like mixing colours or observing plant growth, problem-solving tasks and interactive learning through, for example, counting games and shape recognition.
How digital technologies can be used to solve the world's challenges
If businesses choose to use digital technologies in a responsible and sustainable way, it can indeed be a powerful force in solving the great challenges we face. Image: United Nations. Meeting these goals by 2030 will require a steady stream of innovations and the deployment of advanced digital technologies on a massive scale over a long time.
5. Tech causes more problems than it solves
Tech causes more problems than it solves. A number of respondents to this canvassing about the likely future of social and civic innovation shared concerns. Some said that technology causes more problems than it solves. Some said it is likely that emerging worries over the impact of digital life will be at least somewhat mitigated as humans adapt.
How To Solve Problems With Technology
The ability to produce energy in sustainable ways is the biggest problem technology provides a solution for. Solar to wind, nuclear, and thermal energy have reformulated energy consumption patterns and made eco-friendly energy-generation possible. Conclusion. Using technology to solve problems does not involve "thinking outside the box."
A framework for solving parabolic partial differential equations
"There's a huge pipeline that creates a video with flames being simulated, but at the heart of it is a PDE solver," says Mattos Da Silva. For these pipelines, an essential step is solving the G-equation, a nonlinear parabolic PDE that models the front propagation of the flame and can be solved using the researchers' framework.
Solving the Elusive Baseband to Antenna Problem using RFDAC Technology
Solving the Elusive Baseband to Antenna Problem using RFDAC Technology Back to Webcast. Presenter Larry Welch, Sr. Applications Engineer, High Speed Converter Group. Solving the Elusive Baseband to Antenna Problem using RFDAC Technology. We'll start by exploring RF transmitter architectures, then we'll concentrate on the Direct to RF ...

14 Major Tech Issues — and the Innovations That Will Resolve Them

Current Major Technology Issues

1. Employee Productivity Measurement

2. Digital Industry Conference Platforms

3. Remote Internet Speed and Equipment

4. Too Much Focus on Automation

5. Phishing Sites

6. Data Privacy

7. Mobile Security

8. Deepfake Content

9. Poor User Experience

10. Cybersecurity Threats

11. Data Backup and Recovery

12. Multiple Ad and Marketing Platforms

13. Location-Based Innovation

14. Artificial Intelligence Implementation

Recent Corporate Innovation Articles

40 problem-solving techniques and processes

Design your next session with SessionLab

Recommended Articles

What is problem solving?

What is the seven step problem solving process?

1. Problem identification

2. Problem analysis and refinement

3. Solution generation

4. Solution development

5. Decision making and planning

6. Solution implementation

7. Solution evaluation

What does an effective problem solving process look like?

Complete problem-solving methods

Six Thinking Hats

Lightning Decision Jam

Problem Definition Process

The 5 Whys

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

Open space technology

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

Fishbone Analysis

Problem Tree

SWOT Analysis

Agreement-Certainty Matrix

The Journalistic Six

LEGO Challenge

What, So What, Now What?

Journalists

Problem-solving techniques for brainstorming solutions

Mindspin

The Creativity Dice

Idea and Concept Development

Problem-solving techniques for developing and refining solutions

Improved Solutions

Four Step Sketch

15% Solutions

Problem-solving techniques for making decisions and planning

How-Now-Wow Matrix

Impact and Effort Matrix

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Check-in / Check-out

Doodling Together

Show and Tell

Constellations

Draw a Tree

Closing activities for a problem-solving process

One Breath Feedback

Who What When Matrix

Response cards

Tips for effective problem solving

Clearly define the problem

Don’t jump to conclusions

Try different approaches

Don’t take it personally

Get the right people in the room

Create psychologically safe spaces for discussion

Document everything

Bring a facilitator

Develop your problem-solving skills

Design a great agenda

Save time and effort creating an effective problem solving process

Over to you