Category: Problem examples

Worked problem examples detailing how to deconstruct a problem into the component parts and how they were resolved.

Slow Software Deployment

Background: A tech company experiences slow software deployment, causing frequent delays in launching updates. This has led to customer dissatisfaction and a decline in product reliability perception.

Workaround:

The development team decides to increase manual testing and patching before each release to catch and fix issues quickly. This helps minimise the delays and ensures the software works as expected, but it’s not a perfect solution. It still consumes a lot of time and resources, adding to costs.

Symptom: Slow software deployment and frequent delays.
Workaround Applied: Manually patching and increasing testing time to catch last-minute issues.

Deeper Analysis:

Upon investigation, it is found that the cause of frequent delays is frequent bugs and integration issues appearing late in the development cycle. The manual patching helps to catch some of these issues, but it doesn’t address why they happen in the first place.

Cause: Frequent bugs and integration issues late in the development process.

Root Cause:

Looking further, the root cause was discovered to be a lack of proper code review and integration testing throughout the development process. Developers worked in silos, leading to a buildup of conflicts that were only noticed during final integration.

Root Cause: Lack of continuous integration and code reviews during development.

Solution:

The company decides to implement a Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipeline with automated testing and regular code reviews. This allows bugs to be detected earlier and fixed immediately, avoiding the last-minute rush to patch things up. Additionally, it encourages collaboration among developers, ensuring that code conflicts are resolved quickly and cleanly.

Solution: Implementing a CI/CD pipeline with automated testing and regular code reviews.

Outcome: With the new solution in place, the team can deploy software more reliably and quickly. The need for manual patches is reduced, and customers are happier with the timely, high-quality updates.

Summary:

Workaround: Manual patching and extended testing time.
Symptom Addressed: Slow software deployment.
Cause: Bugs and integration issues detected late.
Root Cause: Lack of continuous integration and code reviews.
Solution: Implementing a CI/CD pipeline with automated testing.

This scenario illustrates how a workaround can temporarily relieve symptoms but doesn’t solve the underlying issue. Giving developers greater access to testing tools and avoiding manual steps is a winner.

Problem examples

The case of the Late Homework

Background:
A school teacher notices that many students consistently turn in their work late, the late homework disrupts the class schedule and affects the students’ marks.

Workaround:

To address this, the teacher starts offering extra marks to students who turn in their homework on time. This motivates some students to be more punctual, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem, and many students still struggle to meet the deadlines.

Symptom: Students turning in homework late.
Workaround Applied: Offering extra marks for on-time submissions.

Deeper Analysis:

After talking to students, the teacher discovers that the cause is that students often forget about the homework or feel overwhelmed by the amount of work they have. Many students do their homework at the last minute or not at all because they can’t organise their time effectively.

Cause: Students forget about homework or feel overwhelmed, leading to procrastination.

Root Cause:

Going deeper, the root cause is found to be that students lack time management skills and do not use planners effectively. They aren’t taught how to break down assignments into smaller, manageable tasks, and as a result, they get overwhelmed and miss deadlines.

Root Cause: Poor time management skills and lack of guidance on using planners to organise assignments.

Solution:

The teacher implements a two-part solution. First, they teach a mini-lesson on time management skills, showing students how to use a planner and break down big assignments into smaller steps. Second, they introduce a classroom routine where students spend the last few minutes of each class updating their planners and setting goals for when they will complete their homework.

Solution: Teaching time management skills and incorporating planner use into the daily routine.

Outcome: With these changes, students learn to organise their time better and keep track of their assignments, leading to a significant improvement in on-time homework submissions. The extra marks incentive becomes less necessary, as students have developed the skills to manage their workload more effectively.

Summary:

Workaround: Offering extra marks for on-time homework submissions.
Symptom Addressed: Students consistently turning in homework late.
Cause: Students forget about homework or feel overwhelmed by their workload.
Root Cause: Poor time management skills and lack of guidance on using planners.
Solution: Teaching time management skills and incorporating planner use into the daily routine.

This example shows how applying a workaround can temporarily address a problem, but teaching students better habits and skills (the root cause) leads to a long-term solution.

Problem examples

The case of the Delayed Programme milestones

Background: A large enterprise is undergoing a multi-year IT transformation program, which includes several projects aimed at modernising its core systems, migrating data to the cloud, and improving cybersecurity. However, the program is experiencing repeated delays, with milestones being missed across multiple projects. This leads to budget overruns, delayed programme milestones, frustrated stakeholders, and concerns about the feasibility of completing the program on time.

Workaround:

To deal with the delays, the program management office (PMO) starts reallocating resources between projects on an ad-hoc basis. Whenever a project falls behind, resources are borrowed from other projects to catch up. This helps address immediate issues, but it causes disruptions across other projects, leading to further delays and inefficiencies.

Symptom: Repeated delays and missed milestones across multiple projects in the program.
Workaround Applied: Reallocating resources between projects to address delays.

Deeper Analysis:

A deeper investigation reveals that the cause of the delays is poor coordination between projects and unclear dependencies. Many projects are interdependent, but they operate in silos, with little communication or alignment on shared milestones. For example, a data migration project might need to wait for a core system upgrade, but delays in one project cascade into others, creating a domino effect of missed deadlines.

Cause: Lack of coordination and communication between projects, leading to delays in shared milestones.

Root Cause:

The root cause of the issue is identified as the absence of a robust program governance framework that can effectively oversee and align multiple projects. The program lacks a centralised system for tracking dependencies and managing risks across projects. Additionally, there are no clear escalation procedures for when issues arise, leading to delays being addressed too late.

Root Cause: Lack of a centralised governance framework, ineffective tracking of dependencies, and unclear escalation procedures.

Solution:

The program management office (PMO) decides to implement a centralised program management framework to improve oversight and coordination. This includes the use of program management software that allows for comprehensive tracking of project dependencies, timelines, and risks across the program. The PMO also introduces program-level governance meetings, where project managers can report on progress, identify potential delays, and align on shared milestones. Clear escalation procedures are established, so issues can be addressed quickly and efficiently.

Solution: Centralised program management framework, comprehensive tracking software, regular governance meetings, and clear escalation procedures.

Outcome: With the new framework in place, projects within the program are better coordinated, and shared milestones are clearly defined and tracked. Dependencies between projects are managed proactively, reducing the risk of delays cascading across the program. Regular governance meetings help ensure that all projects are aligned, and issues are escalated and resolved in a timely manner. This leads to improved program performance, reduced budget overruns, and greater confidence among stakeholders.

Summary:

Workaround: Reallocating resources between projects to address delays.
Symptom Addressed: Repeated delays and missed milestones across multiple projects.
Cause: Lack of coordination and communication between projects, leading to delays in shared milestones.
Root Cause: Lack of a centralised governance framework, ineffective tracking of dependencies, and unclear escalation procedures.
Solution: Implementing a centralised program management framework, using tracking software, holding regular governance meetings, and establishing clear escalation procedures.

This example illustrates how addressing the root cause of poor program governance can lead to better coordination across projects, more efficient resource use, and successful program delivery, rather than relying on short-term fixes like ad-hoc resource reallocation.

Problem examples Symptom

The case of the Coffee Shop Customer Complaints

Background: A popular coffee shop has been receiving frequent customer complaints about long wait times during peak hours. Many customers express frustration, and some even leave without ordering, affecting sales.

Workaround:

The shop manager decides to offer free coffee vouchers to customers who have to wait too long. This helps reduce complaints because customers feel compensated for the inconvenience, but it doesn’t solve the core issue of long wait times.

Symptom: Long wait times for customers during peak hours.
Workaround Applied: Offering free coffee vouchers to appease customers who wait too long.

Deeper Analysis:

On further investigation, the cause of the long wait times is found to be bottlenecks at the order-taking counter. The baristas are quick at making drinks, but there is only one register, so customers have to queue up to place their orders.

Cause: Bottlenecks at the order counter, leading to slow order processing.

Root Cause:

Digging even deeper, the root cause is discovered to be the lack of staff training on how to efficiently take orders and use the register. Additionally, the shop’s layout has the counter placed in a way that creates congestion, making it difficult for staff to move around freely during busy periods.

Root Cause: Inefficient staff training and poorly planned shop layout.

Solution:

The coffee shop implements two key changes. First, they retrain staff to handle orders more quickly, using clear scripts to minimise confusion. Second, they redesign the shop layout to add a second register and create a more streamlined space, so the staff can move efficiently even during rush hours.

Solution: Improved staff training and a redesigned layout with an additional register.

Outcome: With the new measures, customers are served faster, and wait times are reduced significantly. The shop no longer needs to rely on free vouchers to keep customers happy, as the main problem of long waits has been effectively addressed.

Summary:

Workaround: Offering free coffee vouchers to compensate for long wait times.
Symptom Addressed: Customer dissatisfaction due to long wait times.
Cause: Bottlenecks at the order counter.
Root Cause: Inefficient staff training and poor shop layout.
Solution: Retrain staff and redesign shop layout to improve workflow.

This example demonstrates how addressing the root cause, rather than just applying a quick fix, can lead to a more sustainable and effective solution.

Problem examples

High Employee Turnover from a Micro-managing Leader

Background: Sarah works in the marketing department of a company where her boss, James, is known for his micro-managing style. James constantly checks on each team member’s work, gives excessive instructions, and often redoes work himself because he believes his way is best. As a result, team members feel frustrated and undervalued. Productivity is low, and projects are frequently delayed because of all the extra reviews and corrections.

Workaround:

To address the delays, James starts scheduling even more frequent check-ins with his team to “stay on top” of things. He believes that by micromanaging even more closely, he can catch issues early and keep the project on track. This workaround only worsens the situation: team members feel even more stifled, their morale drops, and they begin taking longer to complete their tasks because they feel pressured and unmotivated.

Symptom: Low productivity and frequent project delays.
Workaround Applied: Scheduling more check-ins and micromanaging more intensively.

Deeper Analysis:

After a few months of low productivity, the company’s HR department conducts a survey and finds that team members feel they lack autonomy in their roles. Many report feeling micromanaged and unable to work freely or make decisions, which causes them to be less engaged and take longer to complete tasks.

Cause: Team members feel frustrated and demotivated due to excessive oversight and lack of autonomy.

Root Cause:

Upon further investigation, HR realises that James’s micro-managing behavior stems from a lack of trust in his team’s abilities. James fears that if he lets go of control, the quality of work will suffer, leading to mistakes. This fear of losing control is why he micromanages every detail, even though it actually reduces productivity and effectiveness.

Root Cause: James’s lack of trust in his team, leading to a need to control every aspect of the team’s work.

Solution:

The HR department recommends leadership coaching for James to help him build trust with his team, learn effective delegation, and develop a more supportive management style. James learns to set clear goals, trust his team to complete their work, and give constructive feedback without excessive oversight. Additionally, the team introduces a system where each member can provide regular project updates, so James feels informed without needing constant check-ins.

Solution: Leadership coaching to build trust and improve delegation, along with a system for regular project updates.

Outcome: With the new approach, James steps back and allows his team more freedom to work autonomously. Team members feel empowered, morale improves, and productivity rises significantly. Project timelines are met more consistently, and the team is more engaged and motivated. James sees that he can rely on his team without constantly overseeing every task.

Summary:

Workaround: Scheduling more frequent check-ins and micromanaging even more closely.
Symptom Addressed: Low productivity and frequent project delays.
Cause: Team members feel demotivated and frustrated by lack of autonomy.
Root Cause: James’s lack of trust in his team, leading him to micro-manage excessively.
Solution: Leadership coaching for James to improve delegation and trust, plus a system for regular updates.

Anecdote Explanation: This story shows how a workaround like more frequent check-ins doesn’t resolve the underlying problem of low productivity. The real root cause was James’s lack of trust in his team, leading him to micromanage, which actually demotivated his team. Only by addressing this root cause through leadership training and new communication practices was the team able to improve its productivity and meet project goals more effectively.