It has taken me years to understand one thing about problem solving. Sometimes the hardest problems become surprisingly easy to solve.

I remember looking back at situations where a team had struggled with a persistent problem for months and sometimes years. There had been plenty of effort. Meetings had been held. Different ideas had been tried. People had opinions about what was wrong and what should be done about it.

Then something changed. The problem seemed to almost disappear.

Even more surprising was how little direction the team needed once things started moving. People took ownership. They became engaged. Instead of being pushed toward a solution, they began driving it themselves.

And, believe it or not, they actually seemed to enjoy the process. That bothered my understanding of problem-solving for a while.

Isn't problem-solving supposed to be hard work? Isn't a difficult problem supposed to require lots of meetings? Should the word enjoyable even enter the equation?

Eventually, I began to understand what was happening: clarity, the right people and full fact alignment.

The answer may already be in the room

One particular experience has stayed with me.

There was a person involved who was reluctant to participate. He wasn't the person dominating the conversation. In fact, he appeared almost withdrawn from it. Yet as we worked through an affinity diagram, something remarkable happened.

This reluctant participant gradually became one of the most vocal people in the room. More importantly, he began contributing facts that were critical to understanding the problem.

The person who had almost looked like an outsider became one of the team's most valuable problem solvers. What changed?

His knowledge hadn't suddenly appeared. He knew those things when he walked into the meeting.

The difference was that now there was a way for him to contribute what he knew without having to compete with stronger personalities.

Manufacturing organizations are full of experts. The operator understands what happens at the machine every day. Maintenance knows its history. Engineering understands why the process was designed the way it was. Quality has measurement and inspection information. Programming knows what has been changed. Suppliers understand their products. Management understands the expectations, history and business pressures surrounding the project.

Each person may be holding an important piece of the puzzle. The problem is that those pieces aren't always on the same table.

Turning opinions into data

This is where an affinity diagram can become much more than sticky notes on a wall. Used properly, it gives everyone an opportunity to put what they know in front of the group.

That changes the dynamics of the conversation. Instead of one person presenting an opinion and another person immediately challenging it, information becomes something the group can examine together. An opinion becomes a data point.

Is it true? Can we verify it? Does another fact support it? Does something contradict it? What does it tell us about the larger system?

The objective isn't to determine who is right or wrong. It is to determine what is true. That may sound like a small difference. In practice, it can change everything.

Good people can still get stuck

When a problem has existed for months, it is tempting to assume that somebody isn't doing their job. I have often found the opposite. Good people are working very hard. They're troubleshooting. They're changing tools. They're modifying programs. They're collecting measurements. They're talking to suppliers. They're scheduling meetings and assigning action items. There is plenty of activity.

Get your subscription to Control Design’s daily newsletter.

But activity and understanding aren't necessarily the same thing. Sometimes every department is working diligently on its own part of the problem without anyone stepping back far enough to understand the entire system.

It reminds me of a jigsaw puzzle divided among several people. Engineering has some pieces. Production has some. Quality has others. Maintenance and suppliers have a few more.

Everybody may be accurately describing the pieces in front of them, but nobody can see the picture until those pieces are brought together. That is why fact-finding has become so important to the way I approach problems.

Before asking, "What should we do?" I want to ask, "What do we actually know?"

Why psychological safety matters

There is another part of this that cannot be ignored. People have to feel safe enough to contribute what they know.

We've probably all been in meetings where two or three strong personalities control the discussion. That doesn't necessarily make them bad people. They may simply be confident in their experience and passionate about solving the problem.

But eventually quieter participants can stop contributing. That is dangerous. The quietest person in the meeting may be holding the fact that changes everyone's understanding of the problem.

When people know they can contribute without being immediately dismissed, talked over or embarrassed, something changes.

The stony face begins to soften. The withdrawn participant starts talking. People begin building on one another's information rather than defending their own positions. Ownership follows understanding.

And that is when problem-solving can actually become enjoyable.

Maybe it doesn’t have to be so hard

I no longer believe the measure of good problem-solving is how difficult the process looked. More meetings don't necessarily produce better answers. More experts don't necessarily produce greater understanding. And working harder at the wrong problem certainly doesn't guarantee a solution. Sometimes the breakthrough is much simpler.

Get the right people together. Create an environment where everyone can contribute. Get the facts onto the table. Separate what is known from what is assumed. Understand how the pieces interact as a system. Then let the people who know the process help solve the problem. It sounds almost too simple. But I've watched it work.

Sometimes the answer isn't another expert coming into the room with another opinion. Sometimes the answer is getting the experts who are already there to finally hear each other.