This image was generated with the help of Gemini

Innovation managers hate the line “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions.”

They insist that before the problem-solving process starts, a thorough analysis of the underlying problem must take place; collecting solutions can only ensue when a root cause of the problems has been identified and properly defined.

Albert Einstein’s quote is often invoked in this context: “If I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem, and only five minutes finding the solution.”

I absolutely support this point of view. I like to argue that you can’t successfully cure a disease (solve the problem) unless you diagnose its real cause (define the problem). I call it the 80:20 rule of successful problem-solving: in my experience, 80% of unsuccessful problem-solving campaigns fail because the problem presented to the group of solvers was not properly defined; only 20% do so because of a poor match between the problem and the solvers.

And yet, I’m not ready to replace the hegemony of the “solution-first” orthodoxy with the “problem-first” one. Taking sides in the “problem-solution” dilemma reminds me of the centuries-old philosophical battle over which came first, the chicken or the egg.

I believe that we should adopt a more holistic approach by establishing instead a sustained problem-solving process.

With such a process in place, the question of what is more important, a problem or a solution, will simply lose its relevance. Firms and teams will be constantly looking for problems, both old and emerging, and then define these problems in a specific and actionable way. A solution-generating phase, involving various techniques (brainstorming, co-creation with customers, internal and external crowdsourcing, etc.) will follow, with the best solutions being selected and implemented. A solved problem will be immediately replaced with the one waiting for a solution — or by the one emerging from the implementation of a newly-acquired solution.

The problem-solving process based on a sustainable portfolio of problems-to-be-solved will extract the best from the employees. Some people are better at spotting trends and sensing troubles, whereas others excel at finding fixes; with a constant flow of problems and solutions, everyone will find something to get excited and engaged.

As for managers, they may try this line: “Bring me problems, then solutions, then problems again…” Or can anyone propose a shorter version of the same?