The Art of Problem Solving: Defining the Gap and Trusting the Process

Do you have friends who seem naturally better at problem-solving? They possess sharper intuition and judgment. They appear smart and decisive, and in hindsight, they always seem to take the right steps. How can we emulate them and become better problem solvers ourselves?

We often say things like, “Meetings occupy too much of my time,” “We need a dashboard,” or “Sales are down.” We call these “problems.” But symptoms, solutions, tasks, or wishes are not problems. These are merely our observations or reactions. We cannot be better problem solvers if we cannot clearly define what a problem actually is.

A problem is simply the distance between reality and expectation—the gap between the current state and the desired state. There are frameworks to help us define this, such as the CRIC framework (Context, Reality, Ideal, Consequences) or the 5-factor framework (Context, Criteria, Boundaries, Constraints, Stakeholders). Ultimately, to define a problem, we just need to ask: What is expected? Where are we now? And what stops us from moving from here to there?

A good problem-solver not only defines the problem clearly but also solves it. Since a problem is the gap between reality and expectation, good problem-solvers are often high achievers because they possess the means to get what they desire. Solving a problem is, at its heart, a decision-making process.

While discussing decision-making could fill another post, there are a few common pitfalls worth mentioning. First, do not judge a decision solely by its outcome. Uncertainty is inevitable; even a great decision-maker isn’t right every time. While you can look at their track record, remember that good decision-makers are often assigned the most difficult, uncertain tasks. It is easier said than done to separate process from outcome—especially when reward systems are outcome-based—but you must evaluate your decisions based on the process used to make them. This is why I write down my major decisions: so I can revisit the logic later, regardless of the result.

Another common error is “analysis paralysis”—indefinitely collecting information without acting. We must ask: Will knowing this extra piece of information change the decision? If the answer is no, we shouldn’t spend time or money acquiring it. Also, remember that decisions aren’t always binary (do it vs. don’t do it); they can be continuous, like deciding how much to invest.

Finally, a poor problem solver fails to consider the full range of outcomes. They do not treat decision-making as a matter of expected value. No action guarantees a specific result; there is always a probability of an undesired outcome. Estimating these probabilities requires experience, but the more you try to calibrate your estimates, the accurate you will be. You can even leverage existing data to build a model as a starting point.

Although natural intelligence plays a role, I believe problem-solving is a skill that can be improved through awareness and training. By doing so, we can raise the lower limit of our capability—assuming we agree that capability is a range, not a fixed number.