in general problem solving steps benefits substantially from

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.

in general problem solving steps benefits substantially from

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

Leader Spotlight: Creating dynamic product content, with Nacho Nart

Nacho Nart talks about using modify existing product assets, such as photos and advertisements, to cater to different geographies and markets.

What makes for a habit-forming product?

The job of the product is to get that first win to establish trust and then create a loop with nudges for further engagement.

Leader Spotlight: Gaining context in new industries and verticals, with Boris Logvinsky

Boris Logvinsky talks about the importance of building context and understanding customer challenges when you move between industries.

Techniques for running customer behavior analysis

Customer behavior analysis (CBA) is the study of how individual customers, groups, or segments act when interacting with your product.

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

By Status.net Editorial Team on May 7, 2023 — 5 minutes to read

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)

The Art of Effective Problem Solving: A Step-by-Step Guide

Daniel Croft

Daniel Croft is an experienced continuous improvement manager with a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management. With more than ten years of experience applying his skills across various industries, Daniel specializes in optimizing processes and improving efficiency. His approach combines practical experience with a deep understanding of business fundamentals to drive meaningful change.

Last Updated: February 6, 2023
Learn Lean Sigma
Problem Solving

Whether we realise it or not, problem solving skills are an important part of our daily lives. From resolving a minor annoyance at home to tackling complex business challenges at work, our ability to solve problems has a significant impact on our success and happiness. However, not everyone is naturally gifted at problem-solving, and even those who are can always improve their skills. In this blog post, we will go over the art of effective problem-solving step by step.

You will learn how to define a problem, gather information, assess alternatives, and implement a solution, all while honing your critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills. Whether you’re a seasoned problem solver or just getting started, this guide will arm you with the knowledge and tools you need to face any challenge with confidence. So let’s get started!

Problem Solving Methodologies

Individuals and organisations can use a variety of problem-solving methodologies to address complex challenges. 8D and A3 problem solving techniques are two popular methodologies in the Lean Six Sigma framework.

Methodology of 8D (Eight Discipline) Problem Solving:

The 8D problem solving methodology is a systematic, team-based approach to problem solving. It is a method that guides a team through eight distinct steps to solve a problem in a systematic and comprehensive manner.

The 8D process consists of the following steps:

Form a team: Assemble a group of people who have the necessary expertise to work on the problem.
Define the issue: Clearly identify and define the problem, including the root cause and the customer impact.
Create a temporary containment plan: Put in place a plan to lessen the impact of the problem until a permanent solution can be found.
Identify the root cause: To identify the underlying causes of the problem, use root cause analysis techniques such as Fishbone diagrams and Pareto charts.
Create and test long-term corrective actions: Create and test a long-term solution to eliminate the root cause of the problem.
Implement and validate the permanent solution: Implement and validate the permanent solution’s effectiveness.
Prevent recurrence: Put in place measures to keep the problem from recurring.
Recognize and reward the team: Recognize and reward the team for its efforts.

Download the 8D Problem Solving Template

A3 Problem Solving Method:

The A3 problem solving technique is a visual, team-based problem-solving approach that is frequently used in Lean Six Sigma projects. The A3 report is a one-page document that clearly and concisely outlines the problem, root cause analysis, and proposed solution.

The A3 problem-solving procedure consists of the following steps:

Determine the issue: Define the issue clearly, including its impact on the customer.
Perform root cause analysis: Identify the underlying causes of the problem using root cause analysis techniques.
Create and implement a solution: Create and implement a solution that addresses the problem’s root cause.
Monitor and improve the solution: Keep an eye on the solution’s effectiveness and make any necessary changes.

Subsequently, in the Lean Six Sigma framework, the 8D and A3 problem solving methodologies are two popular approaches to problem solving. Both methodologies provide a structured, team-based problem-solving approach that guides individuals through a comprehensive and systematic process of identifying, analysing, and resolving problems in an effective and efficient manner.

Step 1 – Define the Problem

The definition of the problem is the first step in effective problem solving. This may appear to be a simple task, but it is actually quite difficult. This is because problems are frequently complex and multi-layered, making it easy to confuse symptoms with the underlying cause. To avoid this pitfall, it is critical to thoroughly understand the problem.

To begin, ask yourself some clarifying questions:

What exactly is the issue?
What are the problem’s symptoms or consequences?
Who or what is impacted by the issue?
When and where does the issue arise?

Answering these questions will assist you in determining the scope of the problem. However, simply describing the problem is not always sufficient; you must also identify the root cause. The root cause is the underlying cause of the problem and is usually the key to resolving it permanently.

Try asking “why” questions to find the root cause:

What causes the problem?
Why does it continue?
Why does it have the effects that it does?

By repeatedly asking “ why ,” you’ll eventually get to the bottom of the problem. This is an important step in the problem-solving process because it ensures that you’re dealing with the root cause rather than just the symptoms.

Once you have a firm grasp on the issue, it is time to divide it into smaller, more manageable chunks. This makes tackling the problem easier and reduces the risk of becoming overwhelmed. For example, if you’re attempting to solve a complex business problem, you might divide it into smaller components like market research, product development, and sales strategies.

To summarise step 1, defining the problem is an important first step in effective problem-solving. You will be able to identify the root cause and break it down into manageable parts if you take the time to thoroughly understand the problem. This will prepare you for the next step in the problem-solving process, which is gathering information and brainstorming ideas.

Step 2 – Gather Information and Brainstorm Ideas

Gathering information and brainstorming ideas is the next step in effective problem solving. This entails researching the problem and relevant information, collaborating with others, and coming up with a variety of potential solutions. This increases your chances of finding the best solution to the problem.

Begin by researching the problem and relevant information. This could include reading articles, conducting surveys, or consulting with experts. The goal is to collect as much information as possible in order to better understand the problem and possible solutions.

Next, work with others to gather a variety of perspectives. Brainstorming with others can be an excellent way to come up with new and creative ideas. Encourage everyone to share their thoughts and ideas when working in a group, and make an effort to actively listen to what others have to say. Be open to new and unconventional ideas and resist the urge to dismiss them too quickly.

Finally, use brainstorming to generate a wide range of potential solutions. This is the place where you can let your imagination run wild. At this stage, don’t worry about the feasibility or practicality of the solutions; instead, focus on generating as many ideas as possible. Write down everything that comes to mind, no matter how ridiculous or unusual it may appear. This can be done individually or in groups.

Once you’ve compiled a list of potential solutions, it’s time to assess them and select the best one. This is the next step in the problem-solving process, which we’ll go over in greater detail in the following section.

Step 3 – Evaluate Options and Choose the Best Solution

Once you’ve compiled a list of potential solutions, it’s time to assess them and select the best one. This is the third step in effective problem solving, and it entails weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each solution, considering their feasibility and practicability, and selecting the solution that is most likely to solve the problem effectively.

To begin, weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each solution. This will assist you in determining the potential outcomes of each solution and deciding which is the best option. For example, a quick and easy solution may not be the most effective in the long run, whereas a more complex and time-consuming solution may be more effective in solving the problem in the long run.

Consider each solution’s feasibility and practicability. Consider the following:

Can the solution be implemented within the available resources, time, and budget?
What are the possible barriers to implementing the solution?
Is the solution feasible in today’s political, economic, and social environment?

You’ll be able to tell which solutions are likely to succeed and which aren’t by assessing their feasibility and practicability.

Finally, choose the solution that is most likely to effectively solve the problem. This solution should be based on the criteria you’ve established, such as the advantages and disadvantages of each solution, their feasibility and practicability, and your overall goals.

It is critical to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to problems. What is effective for one person or situation may not be effective for another. This is why it is critical to consider a wide range of solutions and evaluate each one based on its ability to effectively solve the problem.

Step 4 – Implement and Monitor the Solution

Communication the missing peice from Lean Six Sigma - Learnleansigma

When you’ve decided on the best solution, it’s time to put it into action. The fourth and final step in effective problem solving is to put the solution into action, monitor its progress, and make any necessary adjustments.

To begin, implement the solution. This may entail delegating tasks, developing a strategy, and allocating resources. Ascertain that everyone involved understands their role and responsibilities in the solution’s implementation.

Next, keep an eye on the solution’s progress. This may entail scheduling regular check-ins, tracking metrics, and soliciting feedback from others. You will be able to identify any potential roadblocks and make any necessary adjustments in a timely manner if you monitor the progress of the solution.

Finally, make any necessary modifications to the solution. This could entail changing the solution, altering the plan of action, or delegating different tasks. Be willing to make changes if they will improve the solution or help it solve the problem more effectively.

It’s important to remember that problem solving is an iterative process, and there may be times when you need to start from scratch. This is especially true if the initial solution does not effectively solve the problem. In these situations, it’s critical to be adaptable and flexible and to keep trying new solutions until you find the one that works best.

To summarise, effective problem solving is a critical skill that can assist individuals and organisations in overcoming challenges and achieving their objectives. Effective problem solving consists of four key steps: defining the problem, generating potential solutions, evaluating alternatives and selecting the best solution, and implementing the solution.

You can increase your chances of success in problem solving by following these steps and considering factors such as the pros and cons of each solution, their feasibility and practicability, and making any necessary adjustments. Furthermore, keep in mind that problem solving is an iterative process, and there may be times when you need to go back to the beginning and restart. Maintain your adaptability and try new solutions until you find the one that works best for you.

Novick, L.R. and Bassok, M., 2005. Problem Solving . Cambridge University Press.

Was this helpful?

Daniel Croft is a seasoned continuous improvement manager with a Black Belt in Lean Six Sigma. With over 10 years of real-world application experience across diverse sectors, Daniel has a passion for optimizing processes and fostering a culture of efficiency. He's not just a practitioner but also an avid learner, constantly seeking to expand his knowledge. Outside of his professional life, Daniel has a keen Investing, statistics and knowledge-sharing, which led him to create the website learnleansigma.com, a platform dedicated to Lean Six Sigma and process improvement insights.

5S Floor marking best practice - Feature Image - Learn Lean Sigma

5S Floor Marking Best Practices

The Kaizen Event - Rapid Process Improvement - Feature Image - Learn Lean Sigma

The Kaizen Event: A Powerful Approach for Rapid Process Improvement

Free lean six sigma templates.

Improve your Lean Six Sigma projects with our free templates. They're designed to make implementation and management easier, helping you achieve better results.

In lean manufacturing, the 5S System is a foundational tool, involving the steps: Sort, Set…

How to Measure the ROI of Continuous Improvement Initiatives

When it comes to business, knowing the value you’re getting for your money is crucial,…

8D Problem-Solving: Common Mistakes to Avoid

In today’s competitive business landscape, effective problem-solving is the cornerstone of organizational success. The 8D…

The Evolution of 8D Problem-Solving: From Basics to Excellence

In a world where efficiency and effectiveness are more than just buzzwords, the need for…

8D: Tools and Techniques

Are you grappling with recurring problems in your organization and searching for a structured way…

How to Select the Right Lean Six Sigma Projects: A Comprehensive Guide

Going on a Lean Six Sigma journey is an invigorating experience filled with opportunities for…

How to improve your problem solving skills and build effective problem solving strategies

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators  using SessionLab.

What is a problem solving process?

What are the problem solving steps I need to follow?

Problem solving strategies

What skills do i need to be an effective problem solver, how can i improve my problem solving skills.

Solving problems is like baking a cake. You can go straight into the kitchen without a recipe or the right ingredients and do your best, but the end result is unlikely to be very tasty!

Using a process to bake a cake allows you to use the best ingredients without waste, collect the right tools, account for allergies, decide whether it is a birthday or wedding cake, and then bake efficiently and on time. The result is a better cake that is fit for purpose, tastes better and has created less mess in the kitchen. Also, it should have chocolate sprinkles. Having a step by step process to solve organizational problems allows you to go through each stage methodically and ensure you are trying to solve the right problems and select the most appropriate, effective solutions.

What are the problem solving steps I need to follow?

All problem solving processes go through a number of steps in order to move from identifying a problem to resolving it.

Depending on your problem solving model and who you ask, there can be anything between four and nine problem solving steps you should follow in order to find the right solution. Whatever framework you and your group use, there are some key items that should be addressed in order to have an effective process.

We’ve looked at problem solving processes from sources such as the American Society for Quality and their four step approach , and Mediate ‘s six step process. By reflecting on those and our own problem solving processes, we’ve come up with a sequence of seven problem solving steps we feel best covers everything you need in order to effectively solve problems.

1. Problem identification

The first stage of any problem solving process is to identify the problem or problems you might want to solve. Effective problem solving strategies always begin by allowing a group scope to articulate what they believe the problem to be and then coming to some consensus over which problem they approach first. Problem solving activities used at this stage often have a focus on creating frank, open discussion so that potential problems can be brought to the surface.

2. Problem analysis

Though this step is not a million miles from problem identification, problem analysis deserves to be considered separately. It can often be an overlooked part of the process and is instrumental when it comes to developing effective solutions.

The process of problem analysis means ensuring that the problem you are seeking to solve is the right problem . As part of this stage, you may look deeper and try to find the root cause of a specific problem at a team or organizational level.

Remember that problem solving strategies should not only be focused on putting out fires in the short term but developing long term solutions that deal with the root cause of organizational challenges.

Whatever your approach, analyzing a problem is crucial in being able to select an appropriate solution and the problem solving skills deployed in this stage are beneficial for the rest of the process and ensuring the solutions you create are fit for purpose.

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 problem solving activities 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 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 likely to be 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 frontrunning 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

Nearly there! Once your group has reached consensus and selected a solution that applies to the problem at hand you have some decisions to make. You will 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.

The decision making stage is a part of the problem solving process that can get missed or taken as for granted. Fail to properly allocate roles and plan out how a solution will actually be implemented and it less likely to be successful in solving the problem.

Have clear accountabilities, actions, timeframes, and follow-ups. 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 strategies have the end goal of implementing a solution and solving a problem in mind.

Remember that in order for any solution to be successful, you need to help your group through all of the previous problem solving steps thoughtfully. Only then can you ensure that you are solving the right problem but also that you have developed the correct solution and can then successfully implement and measure the impact of that solution.

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.

7. Solution evaluation

So you and your team developed a great solution to a problem and have a gut feeling its 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 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. Data and insight is invaluable at every stage of the problem solving process and this one is no different.

Problem solving workshops made easy

Problem solving strategies are methods of approaching and facilitating the process of problem-solving with a set of techniques , actions, and processes. Different strategies are more effective if you are trying to solve broad problems such as achieving higher growth versus more focused problems like, how do we improve our customer onboarding process?

Broadly, the problem solving steps outlined above should be included in any problem solving strategy though choosing where to focus your time and what approaches should be taken is where they begin to differ. You might find that some strategies ask for the problem identification to be done prior to the session or that everything happens in the course of a one day workshop.

The key similarity is that all good problem solving strategies are structured and designed. Four hours of open discussion is never going to be as productive as a four-hour workshop designed to lead a group through a problem solving process.

Good problem solving strategies are tailored to the team, organization and problem you will be attempting to solve. Here are some example problem solving strategies you can learn from or use to get started.

Use a workshop to lead a team through a group process

Often, the first step to solving problems or organizational challenges is bringing a group together effectively. Most teams have the tools, knowledge, and expertise necessary to solve their challenges – they just need some guidance in how to use leverage those skills and a structure and format that allows people to focus their energies.

Facilitated workshops are one of the most effective ways of solving problems of any scale. By designing and planning your workshop carefully, you can tailor the approach and scope to best fit the needs of your team and organization.

Problem solving workshop

Creating a bespoke, tailored process
Tackling problems of any size
Building in-house workshop ability and encouraging their use

Workshops are an effective strategy for solving problems. By using tried and test facilitation techniques and methods, you can design and deliver a workshop that is perfectly suited to the unique variables of your organization. You may only have the capacity for a half-day workshop and so need a problem solving process to match.

By using our session planner tool and importing methods from our library of 700+ facilitation techniques, you can create the right problem solving workshop for your team. It might be that you want to encourage creative thinking or look at things from a new angle to unblock your groups approach to problem solving. By tailoring your workshop design to the purpose, you can help ensure great results.

One of the main benefits of a workshop is the structured approach to problem solving. Not only does this mean that the workshop itself will be successful, but many of the methods and techniques will help your team improve their working processes outside of the workshop.

We believe that workshops are one of the best tools you can use to improve the way your team works together. Start with a problem solving workshop and then see what team building, culture or design workshops can do for your organization!

Run a design sprint

Great for:

aligning large, multi-discipline teams
quickly designing and testing solutions
tackling large, complex organizational challenges and breaking them down into smaller tasks

By using design thinking principles and methods, a design sprint is a great way of identifying, prioritizing and prototyping solutions to long term challenges that can help solve major organizational problems with quick action and measurable results.

Some familiarity with design thinking is useful, though not integral, and this strategy can really help a team align if there is some discussion around which problems should be approached first.

The stage-based structure of the design sprint is also very useful for teams new to design thinking. The inspiration phase, where you look to competitors that have solved your problem, and the rapid prototyping and testing phases are great for introducing new concepts that will benefit a team in all their future work.

It can be common for teams to look inward for solutions and so looking to the market for solutions you can iterate on can be very productive. Instilling an agile prototyping and testing mindset can also be great when helping teams move forwards – generating and testing solutions quickly can help save time in the long run and is also pretty exciting!

Break problems down into smaller issues

Organizational challenges and problems are often complicated and large scale in nature. Sometimes, trying to resolve such an issue in one swoop is simply unachievable or overwhelming. Try breaking down such problems into smaller issues that you can work on step by step. You may not be able to solve the problem of churning customers off the bat, but you can work with your team to identify smaller effort but high impact elements and work on those first.

This problem solving strategy can help a team generate momentum, prioritize and get some easy wins. It’s also a great strategy to employ with teams who are just beginning to learn how to approach the problem solving process. If you want some insight into a way to employ this strategy, we recommend looking at our design sprint template below!

Use guiding frameworks or try new methodologies

Some problems are best solved by introducing a major shift in perspective or by using new methodologies that encourage your team to think differently.

Props and tools such as Methodkit , which uses a card-based toolkit for facilitation, or Lego Serious Play can be great ways to engage your team and find an inclusive, democratic problem solving strategy. Remember that play and creativity are great tools for achieving change and whatever the challenge, engaging your participants can be very effective where other strategies may have failed.

LEGO Serious Play

Improving core problem solving skills
Thinking outside of the box
Encouraging creative solutions

LEGO Serious Play is a problem solving methodology designed to get participants thinking differently by using 3D models and kinesthetic learning styles. By physically building LEGO models based on questions and exercises, participants are encouraged to think outside of the box and create their own responses.

Collaborate LEGO Serious Play exercises are also used to encourage communication and build problem solving skills in a group. By using this problem solving process, you can often help different kinds of learners and personality types contribute and unblock organizational problems with creative thinking.

Problem solving strategies like LEGO Serious Play are super effective at helping a team solve more skills-based problems such as communication between teams or a lack of creative thinking. Some problems are not suited to LEGO Serious Play and require a different problem solving strategy.

Card Decks and Method Kits

New facilitators or non-facilitators
Approaching difficult subjects with a simple, creative framework
Engaging those with varied learning styles

Card decks and method kids are great tools for those new to facilitation or for whom facilitation is not the primary role. Card decks such as the emotional culture deck can be used for complete workshops and in many cases, can be used right out of the box. Methodkit has a variety of kits designed for scenarios ranging from personal development through to personas and global challenges so you can find the right deck for your particular needs.

Having an easy to use framework that encourages creativity or a new approach can take some of the friction or planning difficulties out of the workshop process and energize a team in any setting. Simplicity is the key with these methods. By ensuring everyone on your team can get involved and engage with the process as quickly as possible can really contribute to the success of your problem solving strategy.

Source external advice

Looking to peers, experts and external facilitators can be a great way of approaching the problem solving process. Your team may not have the necessary expertise, insights of experience to tackle some issues, or you might simply benefit from a fresh perspective. Some problems may require bringing together an entire team, and coaching managers or team members individually might be the right approach. Remember that not all problems are best resolved in the same manner.

If you’re a solo entrepreneur, peer groups, coaches and mentors can also be invaluable at not only solving specific business problems, but in providing a support network for resolving future challenges. One great approach is to join a Mastermind Group and link up with like-minded individuals and all grow together. Remember that however you approach the sourcing of external advice, do so thoughtfully, respectfully and honestly. Reciprocate where you can and prepare to be surprised by just how kind and helpful your peers can be!

Mastermind Group

Solo entrepreneurs or small teams with low capacity
Peer learning and gaining outside expertise
Getting multiple external points of view quickly

Problem solving in large organizations with lots of skilled team members is one thing, but how about if you work for yourself or in a very small team without the capacity to get the most from a design sprint or LEGO Serious Play session?

A mastermind group – sometimes known as a peer advisory board – is where a group of people come together to support one another in their own goals, challenges, and businesses. Each participant comes to the group with their own purpose and the other members of the group will help them create solutions, brainstorm ideas, and support one another.

Mastermind groups are very effective in creating an energized, supportive atmosphere that can deliver meaningful results. Learning from peers from outside of your organization or industry can really help unlock new ways of thinking and drive growth. Access to the experience and skills of your peers can be invaluable in helping fill the gaps in your own ability, particularly in young companies.

A mastermind group is a great solution for solo entrepreneurs, small teams, or for organizations that feel that external expertise or fresh perspectives will be beneficial for them. It is worth noting that Mastermind groups are often only as good as the participants and what they can bring to the group. Participants need to be committed, engaged and understand how to work in this context.

Coaching and mentoring

Focused learning and development
Filling skills gaps
Working on a range of challenges over time

Receiving advice from a business coach or building a mentor/mentee relationship can be an effective way of resolving certain challenges. The one-to-one format of most coaching and mentor relationships can really help solve the challenges those individuals are having and benefit the organization as a result.

A great mentor can be invaluable when it comes to spotting potential problems before they arise and coming to understand a mentee very well has a host of other business benefits. You might run an internal mentorship program to help develop your team’s problem solving skills and strategies or as part of a large learning and development program. External coaches can also be an important part of your problem solving strategy, filling skills gaps for your management team or helping with specific business issues.

Now we’ve explored the problem solving process and the steps you will want to go through in order to have an effective session, let’s look at the skills you and your team need to be more effective problem solvers.

Problem solving skills are highly sought after, whatever industry or team you work in. Organizations are keen to employ people who are able to approach problems thoughtfully and find strong, realistic solutions. Whether you are a facilitator , a team leader or a developer, being an effective problem solver is a skill you’ll want to develop.

Problem solving skills form a whole suite of techniques and approaches that an individual uses to not only identify problems but to discuss them productively before then developing appropriate solutions.

Here are some of the most important problem solving skills everyone from executives to junior staff members should learn. We’ve also included an activity or exercise from the SessionLab library that can help you and your team develop that skill.

If you’re running a workshop or training session to try and improve problem solving skills in your team, try using these methods to supercharge your process!

Active listening

Active listening is one of the most important skills anyone who works with people can possess. In short, active listening is a technique used to not only better understand what is being said by an individual, but also to be more aware of the underlying message the speaker is trying to convey. When it comes to problem solving, active listening is integral for understanding the position of every participant and to clarify the challenges, ideas and solutions they bring to the table.

Some active listening skills include:

Paying complete attention to the speaker.
Removing distractions.
Avoid interruption.
Taking the time to fully understand before preparing a rebuttal.
Responding respectfully and appropriately.
Demonstrate attentiveness and positivity with an open posture, making eye contact with the speaker, smiling and nodding if appropriate. Show that you are listening and encourage them to continue.
Be aware of and respectful of feelings. Judge the situation and respond appropriately. You can disagree without being disrespectful.
Observe body language.
Paraphrase what was said in your own words, either mentally or verbally.
Remain neutral.
Reflect and take a moment before responding.
Ask deeper questions based on what is said and clarify points where necessary.

Active Listening #hyperisland #skills #active listening #remote-friendly This activity supports participants to reflect on a question and generate their own solutions using simple principles of active listening and peer coaching. It’s an excellent introduction to active listening but can also be used with groups that are already familiar with it. Participants work in groups of three and take turns being: “the subject”, the listener, and the observer.

Analytical skills

All problem solving models require strong analytical skills, particularly during the beginning of the process and when it comes to analyzing how solutions have performed.

Analytical skills are primarily focused on performing an effective analysis by collecting, studying and parsing data related to a problem or opportunity.

It often involves spotting patterns, being able to see things from different perspectives and using observable facts and data to make suggestions or produce insight.

Analytical skills are also important at every stage of the problem solving process and by having these skills, you can ensure that any ideas or solutions you create or backed up analytically and have been sufficiently thought out.

Nine Whys #innovation #issue analysis #liberating structures With breathtaking simplicity, you can rapidly clarify for individuals and a group what is essentially important in their work. You can quickly reveal when a compelling purpose is missing in a gathering and avoid moving forward without clarity. When a group discovers an unambiguous shared purpose, more freedom and more responsibility are unleashed. You have laid the foundation for spreading and scaling innovations with fidelity.

Collaboration

Trying to solve problems on your own is difficult. Being able to collaborate effectively, with a free exchange of ideas, to delegate and be a productive member of a team is hugely important to all problem solving strategies.

Remember that whatever your role, collaboration is integral, and in a problem solving process, you are all working together to find the best solution for everyone.

Marshmallow challenge with debriefing #teamwork #team #leadership #collaboration In eighteen minutes, teams must build the tallest free-standing structure out of 20 sticks of spaghetti, one yard of tape, one yard of string, and one marshmallow. The marshmallow needs to be on top. The Marshmallow Challenge was developed by Tom Wujec, who has done the activity with hundreds of groups around the world. Visit the Marshmallow Challenge website for more information. This version has an extra debriefing question added with sample questions focusing on roles within the team.

Communication

Being an effective communicator means being empathetic, clear and succinct, asking the right questions, and demonstrating active listening skills throughout any discussion or meeting.

In a problem solving setting, you need to communicate well in order to progress through each stage of the process effectively. As a team leader, it may also fall to you to facilitate communication between parties who may not see eye to eye. Effective communication also means helping others to express themselves and be heard in a group.

Bus Trip #feedback #communication #appreciation #closing #thiagi #team This is one of my favourite feedback games. I use Bus Trip at the end of a training session or a meeting, and I use it all the time. The game creates a massive amount of energy with lots of smiles, laughs, and sometimes even a teardrop or two.

Creative problem solving skills can be some of the best tools in your arsenal. Thinking creatively, being able to generate lots of ideas and come up with out of the box solutions is useful at every step of the process.

The kinds of problems you will likely discuss in a problem solving workshop are often difficult to solve, and by approaching things in a fresh, creative manner, you can often create more innovative solutions.

Having practical creative skills is also a boon when it comes to problem solving. If you can help create quality design sketches and prototypes in record time, it can help bring a team to alignment more quickly or provide a base for further iteration.

The paper clip method #sharing #creativity #warm up #idea generation #brainstorming The power of brainstorming. A training for project leaders, creativity training, and to catalyse getting new solutions.

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is one of the fundamental problem solving skills you’ll want to develop when working on developing solutions. Critical thinking is the ability to analyze, rationalize and evaluate while being aware of personal bias, outlying factors and remaining open-minded.

Defining and analyzing problems without deploying critical thinking skills can mean you and your team go down the wrong path. Developing solutions to complex issues requires critical thinking too – ensuring your team considers all possibilities and rationally evaluating them.

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.

Data analysis

Though it shares lots of space with general analytical skills, data analysis skills are something you want to cultivate in their own right in order to be an effective problem solver.

Being good at data analysis doesn’t just mean being able to find insights from data, but also selecting the appropriate data for a given issue, interpreting it effectively and knowing how to model and present that data. Depending on the problem at hand, it might also include a working knowledge of specific data analysis tools and procedures.

Having a solid grasp of data analysis techniques is useful if you’re leading a problem solving workshop but if you’re not an expert, don’t worry. Bring people into the group who has this skill set and help your team be more effective as a result.

Decision making

All problems need a solution and all solutions require that someone make the decision to implement them. Without strong decision making skills, teams can become bogged down in discussion and less effective as a result.

Making decisions is a key part of the problem solving process. It’s important to remember that decision making is not restricted to the leadership team. Every staff member makes decisions every day and developing these skills ensures that your team is able to solve problems at any scale. Remember that making decisions does not mean leaping to the first solution but weighing up the options and coming to an informed, well thought out solution to any given problem that works for the whole team.

Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ) #action #decision making #problem solving #issue analysis #innovation #design #remote-friendly The problem with anything that requires creative thinking is that it’s easy to get lost—lose focus and fall into the trap of having useless, open-ended, unstructured discussions. Here’s the most effective solution I’ve found: Replace all open, unstructured discussion with a clear process. What to use this exercise for: Anything which requires a group of people to make decisions, solve problems or discuss challenges. It’s always good to frame an LDJ session with a broad topic, here are some examples: The conversion flow of our checkout Our internal design process How we organise events Keeping up with our competition Improving sales flow

Dependability

Most complex organizational problems require multiple people to be involved in delivering the solution. Ensuring that the team and organization can depend on you to take the necessary actions and communicate where necessary is key to ensuring problems are solved effectively.

Being dependable also means working to deadlines and to brief. It is often a matter of creating trust in a team so that everyone can depend on one another to complete the agreed actions in the agreed time frame so that the team can move forward together. Being undependable can create problems of friction and can limit the effectiveness of your solutions so be sure to bear this in mind throughout a project.

Team Purpose & Culture #team #hyperisland #culture #remote-friendly This is an essential process designed to help teams define their purpose (why they exist) and their culture (how they work together to achieve that purpose). Defining these two things will help any team to be more focused and aligned. With support of tangible examples from other companies, the team members work as individuals and a group to codify the way they work together. The goal is a visual manifestation of both the purpose and culture that can be put up in the team’s work space.

Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence is an important skill for any successful team member, whether communicating internally or with clients or users. In the problem solving process, emotional intelligence means being attuned to how people are feeling and thinking, communicating effectively and being self-aware of what you bring to a room.

There are often differences of opinion when working through problem solving processes, and it can be easy to let things become impassioned or combative. Developing your emotional intelligence means being empathetic to your colleagues and managing your own emotions throughout the problem and solution process. Be kind, be thoughtful and put your points across care and attention.

Being emotionally intelligent is a skill for life and by deploying it at work, you can not only work efficiently but empathetically. Check out the emotional culture workshop template for more!

Facilitation

As we’ve clarified in our facilitation skills post, facilitation is the art of leading people through processes towards agreed-upon objectives in a manner that encourages participation, ownership, and creativity by all those involved. While facilitation is a set of interrelated skills in itself, the broad definition of facilitation can be invaluable when it comes to problem solving. Leading a team through a problem solving process is made more effective if you improve and utilize facilitation skills – whether you’re a manager, team leader or external stakeholder.

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.

Flexibility

Being flexible is a vital skill when it comes to problem solving. This does not mean immediately bowing to pressure or changing your opinion quickly: instead, being flexible is all about seeing things from new perspectives, receiving new information and factoring it into your thought process.

Flexibility is also important when it comes to rolling out solutions. It might be that other organizational projects have greater priority or require the same resources as your chosen solution. Being flexible means understanding needs and challenges across the team and being open to shifting or arranging your own schedule as necessary. Again, this does not mean immediately making way for other projects. It’s about articulating your own needs, understanding the needs of others and being able to come to a meaningful compromise.

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.

Working in any group can lead to unconscious elements of groupthink or situations in which you may not wish to be entirely honest. Disagreeing with the opinions of the executive team or wishing to save the feelings of a coworker can be tricky to navigate, but being honest is absolutely vital when to comes to developing effective solutions and ensuring your voice is heard.

Remember that being honest does not mean being brutally candid. You can deliver your honest feedback and opinions thoughtfully and without creating friction by using other skills such as emotional intelligence.

Explore your Values #hyperisland #skills #values #remote-friendly Your Values is an exercise for participants to explore what their most important values are. It’s done in an intuitive and rapid way to encourage participants to follow their intuitive feeling rather than over-thinking and finding the “correct” values. It is a good exercise to use to initiate reflection and dialogue around personal values.

Initiative

The problem solving process is multi-faceted and requires different approaches at certain points of the process. Taking initiative to bring problems to the attention of the team, collect data or lead the solution creating process is always valuable. You might even roadtest your own small scale solutions or brainstorm before a session. Taking initiative is particularly effective if you have good deal of knowledge in that area or have ownership of a particular project and want to get things kickstarted.

That said, be sure to remember to honor the process and work in service of the team. If you are asked to own one part of the problem solving process and you don’t complete that task because your initiative leads you to work on something else, that’s not an effective method of solving business challenges.

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.

Impartiality

A particularly useful problem solving skill for product owners or managers is the ability to remain impartial throughout much of the process. In practice, this means treating all points of view and ideas brought forward in a meeting equally and ensuring that your own areas of interest or ownership are not favored over others.

There may be a stage in the process where a decision maker has to weigh the cost and ROI of possible solutions against the company roadmap though even then, ensuring that the decision made is based on merit and not personal opinion.

Empathy map #frame insights #create #design #issue analysis An empathy map is a tool to help a design team to empathize with the people they are designing for. You can make an empathy map for a group of people or for a persona. To be used after doing personas when more insights are needed.

Being a good leader means getting a team aligned, energized and focused around a common goal. In the problem solving process, strong leadership helps ensure that the process is efficient, that any conflicts are resolved and that a team is managed in the direction of success.

It’s common for managers or executives to assume this role in a problem solving workshop, though it’s important that the leader maintains impartiality and does not bulldoze the group in a particular direction. Remember that good leadership means working in service of the purpose and team and ensuring the workshop is a safe space for employees of any level to contribute. Take a look at our leadership games and activities post for more exercises and methods to help improve leadership in your organization.

Leadership Pizza #leadership #team #remote-friendly This leadership development activity offers a self-assessment framework for people to first identify what skills, attributes and attitudes they find important for effective leadership, and then assess their own development and initiate goal setting.

In the context of problem solving, mediation is important in keeping a team engaged, happy and free of conflict. When leading or facilitating a problem solving workshop, you are likely to run into differences of opinion. Depending on the nature of the problem, certain issues may be brought up that are emotive in nature.

Being an effective mediator means helping those people on either side of such a divide are heard, listen to one another and encouraged to find common ground and a resolution. Mediating skills are useful for leaders and managers in many situations and the problem solving process is no different.

Conflict Responses #hyperisland #team #issue resolution A workshop for a team to reflect on past conflicts, and use them to generate guidelines for effective conflict handling. The workshop uses the Thomas-Killman model of conflict responses to frame a reflective discussion. Use it to open up a discussion around conflict with a team.

Planning

Solving organizational problems is much more effective when following a process or problem solving model. Planning skills are vital in order to structure, deliver and follow-through on a problem solving workshop and ensure your solutions are intelligently deployed.

Planning skills include the ability to organize tasks and a team, plan and design the process and take into account any potential challenges. Taking the time to plan carefully can save time and frustration later in the process and is valuable for ensuring a team is positioned for success.

3 Action Steps #hyperisland #action #remote-friendly This is a small-scale strategic planning session that helps groups and individuals to take action toward a desired change. It is often used at the end of a workshop or programme. The group discusses and agrees on a vision, then creates some action steps that will lead them towards that vision. The scope of the challenge is also defined, through discussion of the helpful and harmful factors influencing the group.

Prioritization

As organisations grow, the scale and variation of problems they face multiplies. Your team or is likely to face numerous challenges in different areas and so having the skills to analyze and prioritize becomes very important, particularly for those in leadership roles.

A thorough problem solving process is likely to deliver multiple solutions and you may have several different problems you wish to solve simultaneously. Prioritization is the ability to measure the importance, value, and effectiveness of those possible solutions and choose which to enact and in what order. The process of prioritization is integral in ensuring the biggest challenges are addressed with the most impactful solutions.

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.

Project management

Some problem solving skills are utilized in a workshop or ideation phases, while others come in useful when it comes to decision making. Overseeing an entire problem solving process and ensuring its success requires strong project management skills.

While project management incorporates many of the other skills listed here, it is important to note the distinction of considering all of the factors of a project and managing them successfully. Being able to negotiate with stakeholders, manage tasks, time and people, consider costs and ROI, and tie everything together is massively helpful when going through the problem solving process.

Record keeping

Working out meaningful solutions to organizational challenges is only one part of the process. Thoughtfully documenting and keeping records of each problem solving step for future consultation is important in ensuring efficiency and meaningful change.

For example, some problems may be lower priority than others but can be revisited in the future. If the team has ideated on solutions and found some are not up to the task, record those so you can rule them out and avoiding repeating work. Keeping records of the process also helps you improve and refine your problem solving model next time around!

Personal Kanban #gamestorming #action #agile #project planning Personal Kanban is a tool for organizing your work to be more efficient and productive. It is based on agile methods and principles.

Research skills

Conducting research to support both the identification of problems and the development of appropriate solutions is important for an effective process. Knowing where to go to collect research, how to conduct research efficiently, and identifying pieces of research are relevant are all things a good researcher can do well.

In larger groups, not everyone has to demonstrate this ability in order for a problem solving workshop to be effective. That said, having people with research skills involved in the process, particularly if they have existing area knowledge, can help ensure the solutions that are developed with data that supports their intention. Remember that being able to deliver the results of research efficiently and in a way the team can easily understand is also important. The best data in the world is only as effective as how it is delivered and interpreted.

Customer experience map #ideation #concepts #research #design #issue analysis #remote-friendly Customer experience mapping is a method of documenting and visualizing the experience a customer has as they use the product or service. It also maps out their responses to their experiences. To be used when there is a solution (even in a conceptual stage) that can be analyzed.

Risk management

Managing risk is an often overlooked part of the problem solving process. Solutions are often developed with the intention of reducing exposure to risk or solving issues that create risk but sometimes, great solutions are more experimental in nature and as such, deploying them needs to be carefully considered.

Managing risk means acknowledging that there may be risks associated with more out of the box solutions or trying new things, but that this must be measured against the possible benefits and other organizational factors.

Be informed, get the right data and stakeholders in the room and you can appropriately factor risk into your decision making process.

Decisions, Decisions… #communication #decision making #thiagi #action #issue analysis When it comes to decision-making, why are some of us more prone to take risks while others are risk-averse? One explanation might be the way the decision and options were presented. This exercise, based on Kahneman and Tversky’s classic study , illustrates how the framing effect influences our judgement and our ability to make decisions . The participants are divided into two groups. Both groups are presented with the same problem and two alternative programs for solving them. The two programs both have the same consequences but are presented differently. The debriefing discussion examines how the framing of the program impacted the participant’s decision.

Team-building

No single person is as good at problem solving as a team. Building an effective team and helping them come together around a common purpose is one of the most important problem solving skills, doubly so for leaders. By bringing a team together and helping them work efficiently, you pave the way for team ownership of a problem and the development of effective solutions.

In a problem solving workshop, it can be tempting to jump right into the deep end, though taking the time to break the ice, energize the team and align them with a game or exercise will pay off over the course of the day.

Remember that you will likely go through the problem solving process multiple times over an organization’s lifespan and building a strong team culture will make future problem solving more effective. It’s also great to work with people you know, trust and have fun with. Working on team building in and out of the problem solving process is a hallmark of successful teams that can work together to solve business problems.

9 Dimensions Team Building Activity #ice breaker #teambuilding #team #remote-friendly 9 Dimensions is a powerful activity designed to build relationships and trust among team members. There are 2 variations of this icebreaker. The first version is for teams who want to get to know each other better. The second version is for teams who want to explore how they are working together as a team.

Time management

The problem solving process is designed to lead a team from identifying a problem through to delivering a solution and evaluating its effectiveness. Without effective time management skills or timeboxing of tasks, it can be easy for a team to get bogged down or be inefficient.

By using a problem solving model and carefully designing your workshop, you can allocate time efficiently and trust that the process will deliver the results you need in a good timeframe.

Time management also comes into play when it comes to rolling out solutions, particularly those that are experimental in nature. Having a clear timeframe for implementing and evaluating solutions is vital for ensuring their success and being able to pivot if necessary.

Improving your skills at problem solving is often a career-long pursuit though there are methods you can use to make the learning process more efficient and to supercharge your problem solving skillset.

Remember that the skills you need to be a great problem solver have a large overlap with those skills you need to be effective in any role. Investing time and effort to develop your active listening or critical thinking skills is valuable in any context. Here are 7 ways to improve your problem solving skills.

Share best practices

Remember that your team is an excellent source of skills, wisdom, and techniques and that you should all take advantage of one another where possible. Best practices that one team has for solving problems, conducting research or making decisions should be shared across the organization. If you have in-house staff that have done active listening training or are data analysis pros, have them lead a training session.

Your team is one of your best resources. Create space and internal processes for the sharing of skills so that you can all grow together.

Ask for help and attend training

Once you’ve figured out you have a skills gap, the next step is to take action to fill that skills gap. That might be by asking your superior for training or coaching, or liaising with team members with that skill set. You might even attend specialized training for certain skills – active listening or critical thinking, for example, are business-critical skills that are regularly offered as part of a training scheme.

Whatever method you choose, remember that taking action of some description is necessary for growth. Whether that means practicing, getting help, attending training or doing some background reading, taking active steps to improve your skills is the way to go.

Learn a process

Problem solving can be complicated, particularly when attempting to solve large problems for the first time. Using a problem solving process helps give structure to your problem solving efforts and focus on creating outcomes, rather than worrying about the format.

Tools such as the seven-step problem solving process above are effective because not only do they feature steps that will help a team solve problems, they also develop skills along the way. Each step asks for people to engage with the process using different skills and in doing so, helps the team learn and grow together. Group processes of varying complexity and purpose can also be found in the SessionLab library of facilitation techniques . Using a tried and tested process and really help ease the learning curve for both those leading such a process, as well as those undergoing the purpose.

Effective teams make decisions about where they should and shouldn’t expend additional effort. By using a problem solving process, you can focus on the things that matter, rather than stumbling towards a solution haphazardly.

Create a feedback loop

Some skills gaps are more obvious than others. It’s possible that your perception of your active listening skills differs from those of your colleagues.

It’s valuable to create a system where team members can provide feedback in an ordered and friendly manner so they can all learn from one another. Only by identifying areas of improvement can you then work to improve them.

Remember that feedback systems require oversight and consideration so that they don’t turn into a place to complain about colleagues. Design the system intelligently so that you encourage the creation of learning opportunities, rather than encouraging people to list their pet peeves.

While practice might not make perfect, it does make the problem solving process easier. If you are having trouble with critical thinking, don’t shy away from doing it. Get involved where you can and stretch those muscles as regularly as possible.

Problem solving skills come more naturally to some than to others and that’s okay. Take opportunities to get involved and see where you can practice your skills in situations outside of a workshop context. Try collaborating in other circumstances at work or conduct data analysis on your own projects. You can often develop those skills you need for problem solving simply by doing them. Get involved!

Use expert exercises and methods

Learn from the best. Our library of 700+ facilitation techniques is full of activities and methods that help develop the skills you need to be an effective problem solver. Check out our templates to see how to approach problem solving and other organizational challenges in a structured and intelligent manner.

There is no single approach to improving problem solving skills, but by using the techniques employed by others you can learn from their example and develop processes that have seen proven results.

Try new ways of thinking and change your mindset

Using tried and tested exercises that you know well can help deliver results, but you do run the risk of missing out on the learning opportunities offered by new approaches. As with the problem solving process, changing your mindset can remove blockages and be used to develop your problem solving skills.

Most teams have members with mixed skill sets and specialties. Mix people from different teams and share skills and different points of view. Teach your customer support team how to use design thinking methods or help your developers with conflict resolution techniques. Try switching perspectives with facilitation techniques like Flip It! or by using new problem solving methodologies or models. Give design thinking, liberating structures or lego serious play a try if you want to try a new approach. You will find that framing problems in new ways and using existing skills in new contexts can be hugely useful for personal development and improving your skillset. It’s also a lot of fun to try new things. Give it a go!

Encountering business challenges and needing to find appropriate solutions is not unique to your organization. Lots of very smart people have developed methods, theories and approaches to help develop problem solving skills and create effective solutions. Learn from them!

Books like The Art of Thinking Clearly , Think Smarter, or Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow are great places to start, though it’s also worth looking at blogs related to organizations facing similar problems to yours, or browsing for success stories. Seeing how Dropbox massively increased growth and working backward can help you see the skills or approach you might be lacking to solve that same problem. Learning from others by reading their stories or approaches can be time-consuming but ultimately rewarding.

A tired, distracted mind is not in the best position to learn new skills. It can be tempted to burn the candle at both ends and develop problem solving skills outside of work. Absolutely use your time effectively and take opportunities for self-improvement, though remember that rest is hugely important and that without letting your brain rest, you cannot be at your most effective.

Creating distance between yourself and the problem you might be facing can also be useful. By letting an idea sit, you can find that a better one presents itself or you can develop it further. Take regular breaks when working and create a space for downtime. Remember that working smarter is preferable to working harder and that self-care is important for any effective learning or improvement process.

Want to design better group processes?

Over to you

Now we’ve explored some of the key problem solving skills and the problem solving steps necessary for an effective process, you’re ready to begin developing more effective solutions and leading problem solving workshops.

Need more inspiration? Check out our post on problem solving activities you can use when guiding a group towards a great solution in your next workshop or meeting. Have questions? Did you have a great problem solving technique you use with your team? Get in touch in the comments below. We’d love to chat!

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

7.3 Problem-Solving

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Describe problem solving strategies
Define algorithm and heuristic
Explain some common roadblocks to effective problem solving

People face problems every day—usually, multiple problems throughout the day. Sometimes these problems are straightforward: To double a recipe for pizza dough, for example, all that is required is that each ingredient in the recipe be doubled. Sometimes, however, the problems we encounter are more complex. For example, say you have a work deadline, and you must mail a printed copy of a report to your supervisor by the end of the business day. The report is time-sensitive and must be sent overnight. You finished the report last night, but your printer will not work today. What should you do? First, you need to identify the problem and then apply a strategy for solving the problem.

The study of human and animal problem solving processes has provided much insight toward the understanding of our conscious experience and led to advancements in computer science and artificial intelligence. Essentially much of cognitive science today represents studies of how we consciously and unconsciously make decisions and solve problems. For instance, when encountered with a large amount of information, how do we go about making decisions about the most efficient way of sorting and analyzing all the information in order to find what you are looking for as in visual search paradigms in cognitive psychology. Or in a situation where a piece of machinery is not working properly, how do we go about organizing how to address the issue and understand what the cause of the problem might be. How do we sort the procedures that will be needed and focus attention on what is important in order to solve problems efficiently. Within this section we will discuss some of these issues and examine processes related to human, animal and computer problem solving.

PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES

When people are presented with a problem—whether it is a complex mathematical problem or a broken printer, how do you solve it? Before finding a solution to the problem, the problem must first be clearly identified. After that, one of many problem solving strategies can be applied, hopefully resulting in a solution.

Problems themselves can be classified into two different categories known as ill-defined and well-defined problems (Schacter, 2009). Ill-defined problems represent issues that do not have clear goals, solution paths, or expected solutions whereas well-defined problems have specific goals, clearly defined solutions, and clear expected solutions. Problem solving often incorporates pragmatics (logical reasoning) and semantics (interpretation of meanings behind the problem), and also in many cases require abstract thinking and creativity in order to find novel solutions. Within psychology, problem solving refers to a motivational drive for reading a definite “goal” from a present situation or condition that is either not moving toward that goal, is distant from it, or requires more complex logical analysis for finding a missing description of conditions or steps toward that goal. Processes relating to problem solving include problem finding also known as problem analysis, problem shaping where the organization of the problem occurs, generating alternative strategies, implementation of attempted solutions, and verification of the selected solution. Various methods of studying problem solving exist within the field of psychology including introspection, behavior analysis and behaviorism, simulation, computer modeling, and experimentation.

A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have different action plans associated with them (table below). For example, a well-known strategy is trial and error. The old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” describes trial and error. In terms of your broken printer, you could try checking the ink levels, and if that doesn’t work, you could check to make sure the paper tray isn’t jammed. Or maybe the printer isn’t actually connected to your laptop. When using trial and error, you would continue to try different solutions until you solved your problem. Although trial and error is not typically one of the most time-efficient strategies, it is a commonly used one.

Another type of strategy is an algorithm. An algorithm is a problem-solving formula that provides you with step-by-step instructions used to achieve a desired outcome (Kahneman, 2011). You can think of an algorithm as a recipe with highly detailed instructions that produce the same result every time they are performed. Algorithms are used frequently in our everyday lives, especially in computer science. When you run a search on the Internet, search engines like Google use algorithms to decide which entries will appear first in your list of results. Facebook also uses algorithms to decide which posts to display on your newsfeed. Can you identify other situations in which algorithms are used?

A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A “rule of thumb” is an example of a heuristic. Such a rule saves the person time and energy when making a decision, but despite its time-saving characteristics, it is not always the best method for making a rational decision. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, but the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):

When one is faced with too much information
When the time to make a decision is limited
When the decision to be made is unimportant
When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind in the same moment

Working backwards is a useful heuristic in which you begin solving the problem by focusing on the end result. Consider this example: You live in Washington, D.C. and have been invited to a wedding at 4 PM on Saturday in Philadelphia. Knowing that Interstate 95 tends to back up any day of the week, you need to plan your route and time your departure accordingly. If you want to be at the wedding service by 3:30 PM, and it takes 2.5 hours to get to Philadelphia without traffic, what time should you leave your house? You use the working backwards heuristic to plan the events of your day on a regular basis, probably without even thinking about it.

Another useful heuristic is the practice of accomplishing a large goal or task by breaking it into a series of smaller steps. Students often use this common method to complete a large research project or long essay for school. For example, students typically brainstorm, develop a thesis or main topic, research the chosen topic, organize their information into an outline, write a rough draft, revise and edit the rough draft, develop a final draft, organize the references list, and proofread their work before turning in the project. The large task becomes less overwhelming when it is broken down into a series of small steps.

Further problem solving strategies have been identified (listed below) that incorporate flexible and creative thinking in order to reach solutions efficiently.

Additional Problem Solving Strategies :

Abstraction – refers to solving the problem within a model of the situation before applying it to reality.
Analogy – is using a solution that solves a similar problem.
Brainstorming – refers to collecting an analyzing a large amount of solutions, especially within a group of people, to combine the solutions and developing them until an optimal solution is reached.
Divide and conquer – breaking down large complex problems into smaller more manageable problems.
Hypothesis testing – method used in experimentation where an assumption about what would happen in response to manipulating an independent variable is made, and analysis of the affects of the manipulation are made and compared to the original hypothesis.
Lateral thinking – approaching problems indirectly and creatively by viewing the problem in a new and unusual light.
Means-ends analysis – choosing and analyzing an action at a series of smaller steps to move closer to the goal.
Method of focal objects – putting seemingly non-matching characteristics of different procedures together to make something new that will get you closer to the goal.
Morphological analysis – analyzing the outputs of and interactions of many pieces that together make up a whole system.
Proof – trying to prove that a problem cannot be solved. Where the proof fails becomes the starting point or solving the problem.
Reduction – adapting the problem to be as similar problems where a solution exists.
Research – using existing knowledge or solutions to similar problems to solve the problem.
Root cause analysis – trying to identify the cause of the problem.

The strategies listed above outline a short summary of methods we use in working toward solutions and also demonstrate how the mind works when being faced with barriers preventing goals to be reached.

One example of means-end analysis can be found by using the Tower of Hanoi paradigm . This paradigm can be modeled as a word problems as demonstrated by the Missionary-Cannibal Problem :

Missionary-Cannibal Problem

Three missionaries and three cannibals are on one side of a river and need to cross to the other side. The only means of crossing is a boat, and the boat can only hold two people at a time. Your goal is to devise a set of moves that will transport all six of the people across the river, being in mind the following constraint: The number of cannibals can never exceed the number of missionaries in any location. Remember that someone will have to also row that boat back across each time.

Hint : At one point in your solution, you will have to send more people back to the original side than you just sent to the destination.

The actual Tower of Hanoi problem consists of three rods sitting vertically on a base with a number of disks of different sizes that can slide onto any rod. The puzzle starts with the disks in a neat stack in ascending order of size on one rod, the smallest at the top making a conical shape. The objective of the puzzle is to move the entire stack to another rod obeying the following rules:

1. Only one disk can be moved at a time.
2. Each move consists of taking the upper disk from one of the stacks and placing it on top of another stack or on an empty rod.
3. No disc may be placed on top of a smaller disk.

Figure 7.02. Steps for solving the Tower of Hanoi in the minimum number of moves when there are 3 disks.

Figure 7.03. Graphical representation of nodes (circles) and moves (lines) of Tower of Hanoi.

The Tower of Hanoi is a frequently used psychological technique to study problem solving and procedure analysis. A variation of the Tower of Hanoi known as the Tower of London has been developed which has been an important tool in the neuropsychological diagnosis of executive function disorders and their treatment.

GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY AND PROBLEM SOLVING

As you may recall from the sensation and perception chapter, Gestalt psychology describes whole patterns, forms and configurations of perception and cognition such as closure, good continuation, and figure-ground. In addition to patterns of perception, Wolfgang Kohler, a German Gestalt psychologist traveled to the Spanish island of Tenerife in order to study animals behavior and problem solving in the anthropoid ape.

As an interesting side note to Kohler’s studies of chimp problem solving, Dr. Ronald Ley, professor of psychology at State University of New York provides evidence in his book A Whisper of Espionage (1990) suggesting that while collecting data for what would later be his book The Mentality of Apes (1925) on Tenerife in the Canary Islands between 1914 and 1920, Kohler was additionally an active spy for the German government alerting Germany to ships that were sailing around the Canary Islands. Ley suggests his investigations in England, Germany and elsewhere in Europe confirm that Kohler had served in the German military by building, maintaining and operating a concealed radio that contributed to Germany’s war effort acting as a strategic outpost in the Canary Islands that could monitor naval military activity approaching the north African coast.

While trapped on the island over the course of World War 1, Kohler applied Gestalt principles to animal perception in order to understand how they solve problems. He recognized that the apes on the islands also perceive relations between stimuli and the environment in Gestalt patterns and understand these patterns as wholes as opposed to pieces that make up a whole. Kohler based his theories of animal intelligence on the ability to understand relations between stimuli, and spent much of his time while trapped on the island investigation what he described as insight , the sudden perception of useful or proper relations. In order to study insight in animals, Kohler would present problems to chimpanzee’s by hanging some banana’s or some kind of food so it was suspended higher than the apes could reach. Within the room, Kohler would arrange a variety of boxes, sticks or other tools the chimpanzees could use by combining in patterns or organizing in a way that would allow them to obtain the food (Kohler & Winter, 1925).

While viewing the chimpanzee’s, Kohler noticed one chimp that was more efficient at solving problems than some of the others. The chimp, named Sultan, was able to use long poles to reach through bars and organize objects in specific patterns to obtain food or other desirables that were originally out of reach. In order to study insight within these chimps, Kohler would remove objects from the room to systematically make the food more difficult to obtain. As the story goes, after removing many of the objects Sultan was used to using to obtain the food, he sat down ad sulked for a while, and then suddenly got up going over to two poles lying on the ground. Without hesitation Sultan put one pole inside the end of the other creating a longer pole that he could use to obtain the food demonstrating an ideal example of what Kohler described as insight. In another situation, Sultan discovered how to stand on a box to reach a banana that was suspended from the rafters illustrating Sultan’s perception of relations and the importance of insight in problem solving.

Grande (another chimp in the group studied by Kohler) builds a three-box structure to reach the bananas, while Sultan watches from the ground. Insight , sometimes referred to as an “Ah-ha” experience, was the term Kohler used for the sudden perception of useful relations among objects during problem solving (Kohler, 1927; Radvansky & Ashcraft, 2013).

Solving puzzles.

Problem-solving abilities can improve with practice. Many people challenge themselves every day with puzzles and other mental exercises to sharpen their problem-solving skills. Sudoku puzzles appear daily in most newspapers. Typically, a sudoku puzzle is a 9×9 grid. The simple sudoku below (see figure) is a 4×4 grid. To solve the puzzle, fill in the empty boxes with a single digit: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Here are the rules: The numbers must total 10 in each bolded box, each row, and each column; however, each digit can only appear once in a bolded box, row, and column. Time yourself as you solve this puzzle and compare your time with a classmate.

How long did it take you to solve this sudoku puzzle? (You can see the answer at the end of this section.)

Here is another popular type of puzzle (figure below) that challenges your spatial reasoning skills. Connect all nine dots with four connecting straight lines without lifting your pencil from the paper:

Did you figure it out? (The answer is at the end of this section.) Once you understand how to crack this puzzle, you won’t forget.

Take a look at the “Puzzling Scales” logic puzzle below (figure below). Sam Loyd, a well-known puzzle master, created and refined countless puzzles throughout his lifetime (Cyclopedia of Puzzles, n.d.).

A puzzle involving a scale is shown. At the top of the figure it reads: “Sam Loyds Puzzling Scales.” The first row of the puzzle shows a balanced scale with 3 blocks and a top on the left and 12 marbles on the right. Below this row it reads: “Since the scales now balance.” The next row of the puzzle shows a balanced scale with just the top on the left, and 1 block and 8 marbles on the right. Below this row it reads: “And balance when arranged this way.” The third row shows an unbalanced scale with the top on the left side, which is much lower than the right side. The right side is empty. Below this row it reads: “Then how many marbles will it require to balance with that top?”

What steps did you take to solve this puzzle? You can read the solution at the end of this section.

Pitfalls to problem solving.

Not all problems are successfully solved, however. What challenges stop us from successfully solving a problem? Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Imagine a person in a room that has four doorways. One doorway that has always been open in the past is now locked. The person, accustomed to exiting the room by that particular doorway, keeps trying to get out through the same doorway even though the other three doorways are open. The person is stuck—but she just needs to go to another doorway, instead of trying to get out through the locked doorway. A mental set is where you persist in approaching a problem in a way that has worked in the past but is clearly not working now.

Functional fixedness is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for. During the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, NASA engineers at Mission Control had to overcome functional fixedness to save the lives of the astronauts aboard the spacecraft. An explosion in a module of the spacecraft damaged multiple systems. The astronauts were in danger of being poisoned by rising levels of carbon dioxide because of problems with the carbon dioxide filters. The engineers found a way for the astronauts to use spare plastic bags, tape, and air hoses to create a makeshift air filter, which saved the lives of the astronauts.

Researchers have investigated whether functional fixedness is affected by culture. In one experiment, individuals from the Shuar group in Ecuador were asked to use an object for a purpose other than that for which the object was originally intended. For example, the participants were told a story about a bear and a rabbit that were separated by a river and asked to select among various objects, including a spoon, a cup, erasers, and so on, to help the animals. The spoon was the only object long enough to span the imaginary river, but if the spoon was presented in a way that reflected its normal usage, it took participants longer to choose the spoon to solve the problem. (German & Barrett, 2005). The researchers wanted to know if exposure to highly specialized tools, as occurs with individuals in industrialized nations, affects their ability to transcend functional fixedness. It was determined that functional fixedness is experienced in both industrialized and nonindustrialized cultures (German & Barrett, 2005).

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. Sometimes, however, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the $2,000 home? Why would the realtor show you the run-down houses and the nice house? The realtor may be challenging your anchoring bias. An anchoring bias occurs when you focus on one piece of information when making a decision or solving a problem. In this case, you’re so focused on the amount of money you are willing to spend that you may not recognize what kinds of houses are available at that price point.

The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms your existing beliefs. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Representative bias describes a faulty way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something; for example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.

Finally, the availability heuristic is a heuristic in which you make a decision based on an example, information, or recent experience that is that readily available to you, even though it may not be the best example to inform your decision . Biases tend to “preserve that which is already established—to maintain our preexisting knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and hypotheses” (Aronson, 1995; Kahneman, 2011). These biases are summarized in the table below.

Were you able to determine how many marbles are needed to balance the scales in the figure below? You need nine. Were you able to solve the problems in the figures above? Here are the answers.

The first puzzle is a Sudoku grid of 16 squares (4 rows of 4 squares) is shown. Half of the numbers were supplied to start the puzzle and are colored blue, and half have been filled in as the puzzle’s solution and are colored red. The numbers in each row of the grid, left to right, are as follows. Row 1: blue 3, red 1, red 4, blue 2. Row 2: red 2, blue 4, blue 1, red 3. Row 3: red 1, blue 3, blue 2, red 4. Row 4: blue 4, red 2, red 3, blue 1.The second puzzle consists of 9 dots arranged in 3 rows of 3 inside of a square. The solution, four straight lines made without lifting the pencil, is shown in a red line with arrows indicating the direction of movement. In order to solve the puzzle, the lines must extend beyond the borders of the box. The four connecting lines are drawn as follows. Line 1 begins at the top left dot, proceeds through the middle and right dots of the top row, and extends to the right beyond the border of the square. Line 2 extends from the end of line 1, through the right dot of the horizontally centered row, through the middle dot of the bottom row, and beyond the square’s border ending in the space beneath the left dot of the bottom row. Line 3 extends from the end of line 2 upwards through the left dots of the bottom, middle, and top rows. Line 4 extends from the end of line 3 through the middle dot in the middle row and ends at the right dot of the bottom row.

Many different strategies exist for solving problems. Typical strategies include trial and error, applying algorithms, and using heuristics. To solve a large, complicated problem, it often helps to break the problem into smaller steps that can be accomplished individually, leading to an overall solution. Roadblocks to problem solving include a mental set, functional fixedness, and various biases that can cloud decision making skills.

References:

Openstax Psychology text by Kathryn Dumper, William Jenkins, Arlene Lacombe, Marilyn Lovett and Marion Perlmutter licensed under CC BY v4.0. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology

Review Questions:

1. A specific formula for solving a problem is called ________.

a. an algorithm

b. a heuristic

c. a mental set

d. trial and error

2. Solving the Tower of Hanoi problem tends to utilize a ________ strategy of problem solving.

a. divide and conquer

b. means-end analysis

d. experiment

3. A mental shortcut in the form of a general problem-solving framework is called ________.

4. Which type of bias involves becoming fixated on a single trait of a problem?

a. anchoring bias

b. confirmation bias

c. representative bias

d. availability bias

5. Which type of bias involves relying on a false stereotype to make a decision?

6. Wolfgang Kohler analyzed behavior of chimpanzees by applying Gestalt principles to describe ________.

a. social adjustment

b. student load payment options

c. emotional learning

d. insight learning

7. ________ is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for.

a. functional fixedness

c. working memory

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. What is functional fixedness and how can overcoming it help you solve problems?

2. How does an algorithm save you time and energy when solving a problem?

Personal Application Question:

1. Which type of bias do you recognize in your own decision making processes? How has this bias affected how you’ve made decisions in the past and how can you use your awareness of it to improve your decisions making skills in the future?

anchoring bias

availability heuristic

confirmation bias

functional fixedness

hindsight bias

problem-solving strategy

representative bias

trial and error

working backwards

Answers to Exercises

algorithm: problem-solving strategy characterized by a specific set of instructions

anchoring bias: faulty heuristic in which you fixate on a single aspect of a problem to find a solution

availability heuristic: faulty heuristic in which you make a decision based on information readily available to you

confirmation bias: faulty heuristic in which you focus on information that confirms your beliefs

functional fixedness: inability to see an object as useful for any other use other than the one for which it was intended

heuristic: mental shortcut that saves time when solving a problem

hindsight bias: belief that the event just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t

mental set: continually using an old solution to a problem without results

problem-solving strategy: method for solving problems

representative bias: faulty heuristic in which you stereotype someone or something without a valid basis for your judgment

trial and error: problem-solving strategy in which multiple solutions are attempted until the correct one is found

working backwards: heuristic in which you begin to solve a problem by focusing on the end result

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

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

What Is Problem-Solving Therapy?

Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Daniel B. Block, MD, is an award-winning, board-certified psychiatrist who operates a private practice in Pennsylvania.

Verywell / Madelyn Goodnight

Problem-Solving Therapy Techniques

How effective is problem-solving therapy, things to consider, how to get started.

Problem-solving therapy is a brief intervention that provides people with the tools they need to identify and solve problems that arise from big and small life stressors. It aims to improve your overall quality of life and reduce the negative impact of psychological and physical illness.

Problem-solving therapy can be used to treat depression , among other conditions. It can be administered by a doctor or mental health professional and may be combined with other treatment approaches.

At a Glance

Problem-solving therapy is a short-term treatment used to help people who are experiencing depression, stress, PTSD, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health problems develop the tools they need to deal with challenges. This approach teaches people to identify problems, generate solutions, and implement those solutions. Let's take a closer look at how problem-solving therapy can help people be more resilient and adaptive in the face of stress.

Problem-solving therapy is based on a model that takes into account the importance of real-life problem-solving. In other words, the key to managing the impact of stressful life events is to know how to address issues as they arise. Problem-solving therapy is very practical in its approach and is only concerned with the present, rather than delving into your past.

This form of therapy can take place one-on-one or in a group format and may be offered in person or online via telehealth . Sessions can be anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours long.

Key Components

There are two major components that make up the problem-solving therapy framework:

Applying a positive problem-solving orientation to your life
Using problem-solving skills

A positive problem-solving orientation means viewing things in an optimistic light, embracing self-efficacy , and accepting the idea that problems are a normal part of life. Problem-solving skills are behaviors that you can rely on to help you navigate conflict, even during times of stress. This includes skills like:

Knowing how to identify a problem
Defining the problem in a helpful way
Trying to understand the problem more deeply
Setting goals related to the problem
Generating alternative, creative solutions to the problem
Choosing the best course of action
Implementing the choice you have made
Evaluating the outcome to determine next steps

Problem-solving therapy is all about training you to become adaptive in your life so that you will start to see problems as challenges to be solved instead of insurmountable obstacles. It also means that you will recognize the action that is required to engage in effective problem-solving techniques.

Planful Problem-Solving

One problem-solving technique, called planful problem-solving, involves following a series of steps to fix issues in a healthy, constructive way:

Problem definition and formulation : This step involves identifying the real-life problem that needs to be solved and formulating it in a way that allows you to generate potential solutions.
Generation of alternative solutions : This stage involves coming up with various potential solutions to the problem at hand. The goal in this step is to brainstorm options to creatively address the life stressor in ways that you may not have previously considered.
Decision-making strategies : This stage involves discussing different strategies for making decisions as well as identifying obstacles that may get in the way of solving the problem at hand.
Solution implementation and verification : This stage involves implementing a chosen solution and then verifying whether it was effective in addressing the problem.

Other Techniques

Other techniques your therapist may go over include:

Problem-solving multitasking , which helps you learn to think clearly and solve problems effectively even during times of stress
Stop, slow down, think, and act (SSTA) , which is meant to encourage you to become more emotionally mindful when faced with conflict
Healthy thinking and imagery , which teaches you how to embrace more positive self-talk while problem-solving

What Problem-Solving Therapy Can Help With

Problem-solving therapy addresses life stress issues and focuses on helping you find solutions to concrete issues. This approach can be applied to problems associated with various psychological and physiological symptoms.

Mental Health Issues

Problem-solving therapy may help address mental health issues, like:

Chronic stress due to accumulating minor issues
Complications associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI)
Emotional distress
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Problems associated with a chronic disease like cancer, heart disease, or diabetes
Self-harm and feelings of hopelessness
Substance use
Suicidal ideation

Specific Life Challenges

This form of therapy is also helpful for dealing with specific life problems, such as:

Death of a loved one
Dissatisfaction at work
Everyday life stressors
Family problems
Financial difficulties
Relationship conflicts

Your doctor or mental healthcare professional will be able to advise whether problem-solving therapy could be helpful for your particular issue. In general, if you are struggling with specific, concrete problems that you are having trouble finding solutions for, problem-solving therapy could be helpful for you.

Benefits of Problem-Solving Therapy

The skills learned in problem-solving therapy can be helpful for managing all areas of your life. These can include:

Being able to identify which stressors trigger your negative emotions (e.g., sadness, anger)
Confidence that you can handle problems that you face
Having a systematic approach on how to deal with life's problems
Having a toolbox of strategies to solve the issues you face
Increased confidence to find creative solutions
Knowing how to identify which barriers will impede your progress
Knowing how to manage emotions when they arise
Reduced avoidance and increased action-taking
The ability to accept life problems that can't be solved
The ability to make effective decisions
The development of patience (realizing that not all problems have a "quick fix")

Problem-solving therapy can help people feel more empowered to deal with the problems they face in their lives. Rather than feeling overwhelmed when stressors begin to take a toll, this therapy introduces new coping skills that can boost self-efficacy and resilience .

Other Types of Therapy

Other similar types of therapy include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) . While these therapies work to change thinking and behaviors, they work a bit differently. Both CBT and SFBT are less structured than problem-solving therapy and may focus on broader issues. CBT focuses on identifying and changing maladaptive thoughts, and SFBT works to help people look for solutions and build self-efficacy based on strengths.

This form of therapy was initially developed to help people combat stress through effective problem-solving, and it was later adapted to address clinical depression specifically. Today, much of the research on problem-solving therapy deals with its effectiveness in treating depression.

Problem-solving therapy has been shown to help depression in:

Older adults
People coping with serious illnesses like cancer

Problem-solving therapy also appears to be effective as a brief treatment for depression, offering benefits in as little as six to eight sessions with a therapist or another healthcare professional. This may make it a good option for someone unable to commit to a lengthier treatment for depression.

Problem-solving therapy is not a good fit for everyone. It may not be effective at addressing issues that don't have clear solutions, like seeking meaning or purpose in life. Problem-solving therapy is also intended to treat specific problems, not general habits or thought patterns .

In general, it's also important to remember that problem-solving therapy is not a primary treatment for mental disorders. If you are living with the symptoms of a serious mental illness such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia , you may need additional treatment with evidence-based approaches for your particular concern.

Problem-solving therapy is best aimed at someone who has a mental or physical issue that is being treated separately, but who also has life issues that go along with that problem that has yet to be addressed.

For example, it could help if you can't clean your house or pay your bills because of your depression, or if a cancer diagnosis is interfering with your quality of life.

Your doctor may be able to recommend therapists in your area who utilize this approach, or they may offer it themselves as part of their practice. You can also search for a problem-solving therapist with help from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Society of Clinical Psychology .

If receiving problem-solving therapy from a doctor or mental healthcare professional is not an option for you, you could also consider implementing it as a self-help strategy using a workbook designed to help you learn problem-solving skills on your own.

During your first session, your therapist may spend some time explaining their process and approach. They may ask you to identify the problem you’re currently facing, and they’ll likely discuss your goals for therapy .

Keep In Mind

Problem-solving therapy may be a short-term intervention that's focused on solving a specific issue in your life. If you need further help with something more pervasive, it can also become a longer-term treatment option.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

Shang P, Cao X, You S, Feng X, Li N, Jia Y. Problem-solving therapy for major depressive disorders in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials . Aging Clin Exp Res . 2021;33(6):1465-1475. doi:10.1007/s40520-020-01672-3

Cuijpers P, Wit L de, Kleiboer A, Karyotaki E, Ebert DD. Problem-solving therapy for adult depression: An updated meta-analysis . Eur Psychiatry . 2018;48(1):27-37. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.11.006

Nezu AM, Nezu CM, D'Zurilla TJ. Problem-Solving Therapy: A Treatment Manual . New York; 2013. doi:10.1891/9780826109415.0001

Owens D, Wright-Hughes A, Graham L, et al. Problem-solving therapy rather than treatment as usual for adults after self-harm: a pragmatic, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (the MIDSHIPS trial) . Pilot Feasibility Stud . 2020;6:119. doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00668-0

Sorsdahl K, Stein DJ, Corrigall J, et al. The efficacy of a blended motivational interviewing and problem solving therapy intervention to reduce substance use among patients presenting for emergency services in South Africa: A randomized controlled trial . Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy . 2015;10(1):46. doi:doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0042-1

Margolis SA, Osborne P, Gonzalez JS. Problem solving . In: Gellman MD, ed. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine . Springer International Publishing; 2020:1745-1747. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39903-0_208

Kirkham JG, Choi N, Seitz DP. Meta-analysis of problem solving therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder in older adults . Int J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2016;31(5):526-535. doi:10.1002/gps.4358

Garand L, Rinaldo DE, Alberth MM, et al. Effects of problem solving therapy on mental health outcomes in family caregivers of persons with a new diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or early dementia: A randomized controlled trial . Am J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2014;22(8):771-781. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2013.07.007

Noyes K, Zapf AL, Depner RM, et al. Problem-solving skills training in adult cancer survivors: Bright IDEAS-AC pilot study . Cancer Treat Res Commun . 2022;31:100552. doi:10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100552

Albert SM, King J, Anderson S, et al. Depression agency-based collaborative: effect of problem-solving therapy on risk of common mental disorders in older adults with home care needs . The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry . 2019;27(6):619-624. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2019.01.002

By Arlin Cuncic, MA Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Insight problem solving is not that special, but business is not quite 'as usual': typical versus exceptional problem-solving strategies

Original Article
Open access
Published: 08 January 2023
Volume 87 , pages 1995–2009, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Nirit Salmon-Mordekovich ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4433-3304 1 , 2 &
Mark Leikin 2 , 3

3347 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The intriguing phenomenon of insight (also known as the "Aha!" moment) has provoked a long-standing conflict over its cognitive mechanism. The special-process theory posits insight as a unique, unconscious mechanism. Conversely, the business-as-usual theory conceptualizes insight processing as ordinary and similar to non-insight, i.e., analytic, incremental, and attention demanding. To resolve this conflict, participants completed cognitive tests and solved four types of problems: verbal insight, spatial insight, verbal non-insight, and spatial non-insight. These problems were solved under three conditions: silence (control), inner speech suppression (articulatory suppression), and non-verbal attentional demands (spatial tapping). Interestingly, insight problem solving differed from verbal non-insight, but resembled spatial non-insight problem solving. Solving insight and spatial non-insight problems substantially benefitted from spatial and near verbal analogical thinking and convergent thinking, and little from divergent thinking. Both were unaffected by secondary tasks. Analogical thinking was associated more strongly with the generation of new solution procedures than with the retrieval of known procedures from memory, as in verbal non-insight problem solving. Analogical and convergent thinking seem to be key skills for the creation of new solutions, whether or not they are insight based. The results indicate a typical, analytic solution method consistent with the business-as-usual theory. Yet, there is also evidence for an exceptional solving method that includes rare attributes of the insightful process delineated by the special-process theory. Thus, we endorse an unequally integrated assertion that each theory reflects a different mode of thinking, the common versus the uncommon, by which insightful solutions can be produced.

Insight Problem Solving and Unconscious Analytic Thought. New Lines of Research

The involvement of working memory and inhibition functions in the different phases of insight problem solving.

Verbal interference paradigms: A systematic review investigating the role of language in cognition

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Insight, also known as the "Eureka!" or "Aha!" moment, refers to the sudden revelation of how to solve a problem (Weisberg, 2015 ). Insight problems (IPs) typically present unclear information that may lead to inappropriate solutions or to no solution at all. The solver feels that the problem is unsolvable. To overcome this impasse, the problem representation should be restructured to enable reinterpretations and new directions of search for a solution (Ash & Wiley, 2006 ). The sudden realization of a path to a quick solution generates a surprise effect accompanied by complete confidence that the solution is indeed correct (Webb et al., 2016 ).

Conversely, non-insight problems (NIPs), also referred to as standard, routine, incremental, or analytic problems, contain sufficient information to allow one to clearly specify a goal and a plan, and to progress incrementally towards one absolute correct solution (Wieth & Burns, 2006 ). The steps towards the goal are clear and systematically evaluated, so the solver feels confident about their progress, but less confident about the final solution (Danek et al., 2014 ).

"Insight" and "non-insight" denote not only types of problems, but also types of solution strategies (Kounios et al., 2008 ). The insight strategy involves automatic restructuring of the initial problem representation outside of awareness and only the solution surges suddenly into consciousness. Thus, the means of solution do not rely on inner speech and are ineffable (Ball et al., 2015 ). Conversely, the analytic non-insight strategy involves a conscious, step-by-step search for a solution. It relies on reasoning and working memory (WM), which maintains the active record of the solving plan (Chuderski & Jastrzębski, 2018 ), and on inner speech, which supports retention of the sequential information (Baddeley, 2000 ).

Both strategies can result in successful IP solving (Salmon-Mordekovich & Leikin, 2022 ; Weisberg, 2015 ). Tasks that are traditionally categorized as "insight" can be solved without an accompanying "Aha!" experience (Danek et al., 2016 ). Therefore, the traditional classification of tasks into insight and non-insight is insufficient. In the current study, defining IPs and NIPs was based on both forms of classification: task and strategy, as indicated by self-reports of solvers' solution experience. Problems that were analyzed as "insight" met these two conditions; not only were they previously labeled as pure or classic in the literature, but participants reported having solved them by insight.

The phenomenon of insight has intrigued theorists and researchers for at least a century. It lies at the heart of a long-standing conflict between the early “special-process” theory that emphasizes insightful processing as unique, associative, unconscious thus, non-reportable (Ash & Wiley, 2006 ; Ball et al., 2015 ; Danek et al., 2014 ), and the “business-as-usual” theory that claims that similar incremental, controlled cognitive processes are involved in both IP and NIP solving (Chuderski & Jastrzębski, 2018 ; Fleck & Weisberg, 2013 ; Gilhooly et al., 2010 ). This conflict is still relevant for discussion as neither theory can fully account for IP solving.

In an attempt to resolve this theoretical conflict, studies often compare the role of individual cognitive functions in IP solving with their critical role in NIP solving. Such studies assume that differences and/or contributions of associative and divergent thinking, and of inner speech suppression support the special-process theory (e.g., DeYoung et al., 2008 ), whereas similarities and/or contributions of inner speech, WM, reasoning, convergent, and analytic skills support the business-as-usual (e.g., Chuderski & Jastrzębski, 2018 ). These assumptions are supposedly easy to test but, as the review below shows, the findings of these comparative studies are controversial.

Individual cognitive differences underpinning problem solving

Divergent thinking and convergent thinking.

Since Guilford ( 1958 ) first differentiated between divergent and convergent thinking and designated the former as critical to creativity, these abilities have been discussed in the field of problem solving. Divergent thinking refers to the ability to generate a variety of answers, some unconventional, whereas convergent thinking entails arriving at a single correct solution.

Although divergent thinking was assumed to be unique to insight (DeYoung et al., 2008 ), some evidence showed that it is associated with both IP and NIP solving (Gilhooly & Murphy, 2005 ). Moreover, recently, convergent thinking was found to be a stronger predictor of successful IP solving than divergent thinking (Webb et al., 2017 ). Convergent thinking may support the assessment of the appropriateness and quality of ideas generated through divergent thinking, creating logical connections between them and enabling incremental progress toward the best solution (Lee & Therriault, 2013 ). This study contrasts the relationship of divergent thinking and IP with NIP solving. To date, research in this field has been scant and results often conflicting.

Analogical thinking

The notion that reasoning by analogy may underlie insight is contentious. According to the business-as-usual view, both IP and NIP solving begin by searching the memory for a compatible analogous problem similar in structure or principle. If found, the solution might be retrieved from the memory and applied to the current problem. If the solution fails, then the new information obtained from the failure prompts a new analysis of the problem (i.e., restructuring) (Weisberg, 2015 ). Conversely, according to the special-process theory, analogical thinking produces solutions based on existing information; therefore, it is probably ineffective in generating novel insightful solutions.

Most studies on analogical thinking and insight have explored historic anecdotes of insightful discoveries or experiments of primed contexts (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980 ). In these experiments, first, anecdotal information about a problem and its solution is presented; only then is it followed by the current problem. To solve the problem, the initial information needs to be applied analogously. Apparently, with no salient, superficial similarity between problems, noticing the connection between them is difficult. Retrieval and transfer of analogous elements are neither automatic nor spontaneous (George & Wiley, 2018 ). Thus, the contribution of analogical thinking to IP solving remains ambiguous. This study examines the relationship between IP solving and analogical thinking, however, as a person's individual ability since few studies have tested this ability for purposes other than assessing its potential role in insight.

Inductive reasoning

Analytic problem solving typically relies on systematic reasoning of complex data based on the solvers' experiences and learning. Solvers are often required to generalize their observations into a hypothetic principle then, integrate it within the solving process, and finally, validate the principle as suitable. A typical measure of problem solving through abstract reasoning is Raven’s advanced progressive matrices (RAPM) (Raven et al., 1996 ). Findings of testing the RAPM alongside IPs have been contradictory as to whether abstract reasoning contributes to IP solving (Fleck, 2008 ) or not (Gilhooly & Murphy, 2005 ).

Inner speech and problem solving

Inner speech was modeled as a subcomponent of WM (Baddeley, 2000 ). This model includes the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad, which temporarily store auditory–verbal and visuospatial representations, respectively. Content represented in the phonological loop decays rapidly. To revive it, it must be rearticulated by inner speech. Inner speech supports multi-step task planning and maintains incomplete plans in WM, while they are being assessed and revised (Lidstone et al., 2010 ).

The role of inner speech in IP solving is controversial. Schooler et al. ( 1993 ) provided influential evidence supporting the special-process view by demonstrating that verbalizing thoughts aloud while trying to solve problems impaired performance on IPs, but did not affect NIPs. Macchi and Bagassi ( 2012 ) further clarified that it is the imposition of an explicit stepwise process, rather than language itself, that hinders insight. Ball et al. ( 2015 ) reinforced these conclusions by demonstrating facilitation of insightful solutions when opportunities for internalized speech-based processing were reduced, thereby enabling more effective unconscious, non-reportable processes.

Gilhooly et al. ( 2010 ), however, disagreed, and noted that the majority of IPs in the Schooler et al. study were spatial, while the NIPs were mostly verbal. The researchers claimed that verbalization is presumed to impair performance on spatial problems since it imposes inefficient verbal coding rather than appropriate spatial coding. This argument might also counter the later studies mentioned above, which applied spatial IPs only. For this reason, Gilhooly et al. examined spatial and verbal IPs and NIPs separately, showing a greater verbalization effect on performance of spatial versus verbal problems regardless of whether or not they were insight based. This evidence supports the business-as-usual theory, which argues that restructuring occurs through incremental reportable steps.

In summary, studies that present contributions of inner speech, reasoning, convergent and analogical thinking to IP solving support the business-as-usual theory, whereas contributions of divergent thinking and the suppression of inner speech support the special-process theory. The goal of this study is to provide an integrative account that reconciles these theories. Based on this literature review, we proposed that each theory reflects a different solution strategy, both of which can produce successful solutions. The business-as-usual theory indicates the analytic strategy, which is the typical problem-solving method, whereas the special-process theory presents the insight strategy, which is exceptional. We assumed that IPs are solved routinely through analytic strategies as are NIPs. Seldom is the insight strategy used. Furthermore, the combination of the two theories at the process level, that is, the combination of insight and analytic strategies or divergent and convergent thinking, could reflect these uncommon cases. Divergent thinking produces diverse ideas, but it is insufficient on its own. Insight is probably not a product of fluent retrieval of ideas or free associations. It is the convergence of these ideas based on a new concept that is critical and would ultimately form an insightful solution.

Accordingly, we investigated the controversial involvement of inner speech, convergent and divergent thinking in IP solving, as well as the role of analogical thinking, which has been under-addressed.

We tested the following hypotheses:

The business-as-usual theory advocates the common, routine, analytic strategy. Thus, we anticipate similar connections between the tasks of inductive reasoning and analogical thinking with both IP and NIP solving, and we expect convergent thinking to be more substantial than divergent thinking.

The special-process theory presents the uncommon, special strategy of solving IPs. We therefore expect the core milestones of the theory, impasse and insight, to be rare and the contribution of divergent thinking to be negligible although statistically significant.

Precluding inner speech and distracting attention should not interfere with IP solving since it requires the generation of new, non-linear procedures. Conversely, NIPs are solved through retrieval of sequential, pre-prepared, planned procedures. Therefore, NIP solving would benefit from enabling inner speech and optimal attention since they support storing and following sub-goals and interim solutions in WM.

Participants

We recruited 115 undergraduate students (92 women, M age = 26.25) as paid volunteers. This sample size was calculated using G*Power software based on RM MANOVA (medium effect size f = 0.25, α = 0.01, power = 0.95). Sample size based on a one-tailed correlation (medium effect size ρ = 0.3, α = 0.01, power = 0.80) was estimated to be 107. Sample size based on a four-step regression and five predictors (medium effect size f 2 = 0.15, α = 0.05, power = 0.80) was estimated to be 85. Participants were native Hebrew-speakers, who reported no prior diagnosis of language and learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, or chronic hearing impairments. All participants gave their written informed consent.

Other researchers previously used the problems, and labeled the IPs as pure or classic and the NIPs as analytic or incremental. Problems were attempted to match with an approximately 50% solution rate. However, since solution rates of most problems were unspecified or inconclusive across studies, problems from online sources were added after being evaluated by a preliminary pilot study. Appendix A presents sample problems.

Verbal insight problems. “Car”, “Checkers”, “Ladder” (DeYoung et al., 2008 ), “Prisoner” (Schooler et al., 1993 ), “Lake” and “Blind” (Gilhooly et al., 2010 ).

Spatial insight problems. “Triangle of Coins” (solved concretely), “Pigpen” (Schooler et al., 1993 ), “Farm” (Gilhooly et al., 2010 ), “Four Dots” (Chuderski & Jastrzębski, 2018 ), “Bus” and “Matchsticks” (online sources).

Verbal non-insight problems . “Bachelors”, “Committee”, “Flowers” (Wieth & Burns, 2006 ), “Schedule” (Gilhooly et al., 2010 ), “Sisters” and “Ski” (online sources).

Spatial non-insight problems. “ Four Coins” (Schooler et al., 1993 ), “Tower of Hanoi” (5-disc, solved concretely) (Fleck, 2008 ), “Trace” (Webb et al., 2017 ), “Wolf, Sheep and Cabbage” (Gilhooly et al., 2010 ), “Squares” and “Cubes” (online sources).

Individual difference measures

Divergent thinking test. The alternate uses task (AUT, Guilford, 1967 ). Participants generated as many unusual uses as possible for two everyday items in three minutes each. The total number of suggestions given determined the fluency score. The flexibility score was the number of different categories used. Originality was scored by giving one point for responses by 3–10% of the respondents, two points for responses by less than 3%, and three points to unique responses (DeYoung et al., 2008 ).

Convergent thinking test. Remote associates test (RAT, Nevo & Levin, 1978 ) comprises 25 items. Each item displays three unrelated words (e.g., lie, flag, egg). The task is to retrieve a single word association that relates to each word in the triad (e.g., white).

Inductive thinking test. Raven’s advanced progressive matrices (RAPM, Raven et al., 1996 ) (shortened version, Salmon-Mordekovich & Leikin, 2022 ) comprises a series of abstract figures arranged in a 3 × 3 matrix in which one figure is missing. The task is to discover rules by which to identify which one of eight alternatives completes the matrix. RAPM has also been used as a non-verbal estimate of convergent thinking (Akbari Chermahini et al., 2012 ; Webb et al., 2017 ).

Analogical thinking tests. Verbal analogy task includes 18 items adapted from admission exams for universities. Each item consists of two-word pairs sharing a common relationship. The fourth word is missing and should be identified from among five options. Analogies are of two types: semantically far, in which both pairs are of different domains (e.g., juice: beverage–coin: money), and semantically near, in which both pairs share the same domain (e.g., juice: beverage–marshmallow: candy). Visuospatial Analogy task . Eighteen visuospatial items, collected from psycho-technical screening tests, are displayed in the form of A:B–C:D, with element D missing. The task is to complete the missing object with one of four options so that both pairs share an analogous visuospatial relationship.

All of the tests except the AUT were scored by the percentage of correct solutions.

Participants were randomly assigned to two sessions, held within a week. Each session included three subtests of problems to be solved with paper and pencil under three randomized conditions, and in-between computerized cognitive tests (Fig. 1 ). Problems of four types—verbal IP, spatial IP, verbal NIP, and spatial NIP—were randomized so that every subtest included one of each. One practice problem of each type preceded these subtests. Each problem was allotted up to four minutes. Problems were solved silently (control), while counting from 2001 to 2005 repeatedly aloud (articulatory suppression), and while repeatedly tapping the numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 5, 4 on a keyboard, forming a rectangular pattern (spatial tapping). Participants tapped with their non-dominant hand hidden by a box. They were encouraged to count and tap at a constant rate and were monitored by the researcher. The purpose of the second condition was to suppress the phonological loop (Baddeley, 2000 ), thereby precluding inner speech. The third condition was to suppress the visuospatial sketchpad (Robbins et al., 1996 ), thereby imposing comparable attentional demands, but not affecting inner speech.

Experiment's structure. Note: Order of conditions and problems were randomized within and across subtests. IP insight problems, NIP non-insight problems

Prior to the experiment, participants were briefed on how to distinguish IP from NIP solving and on impasses they might encounter. They were instructed to report impasses by clicking a button and to indicate after each problem retrospectively whether they experienced an insight (instructions as in Webb et al., 2016 ). Finally, participants were asked if they were familiar with the problem and if so, we removed it from the analyses.

IPs were classified not only by the task, but also by its solving process. The classic IPs were analyzed as IPs provided the subject reported experiencing an insight. A composite solution score for IP solving (IP score) was computed for each of the participants based on their averaged success in solving verbal and spatial IPs in each of the three experimental conditions. Similarly, a composite score for NIP solving (NIP score) was computed for each solver. We removed problems that yielded solution rates greater than 85% (Schedule) or lower than 15% (Farm, Ski) from the analyses. In addition, the Triangle problem strikingly presented an exceptional 39% decline in success rates in the spatial tapping condition vs. the silent condition. This problem was the only IP that used accessories. Participants were required to form a triangle from coins and move them with one hand while tapping a rectangular pattern with the other hand. It is likely that these two concurrent motor tasks presented a significant obstacle to coordination substantially impairing participants’ ability to solve this problem. Therefore, we eliminated its performance from the analyses under this condition.

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationships between IP and NIP scores and each of the individual cognitive tests. The significance level was set at 0.01. Since effect sizes in social sciences are often small, to represent a practical significant effect size, Pearson's r is recommended to be anchored to a minimum of 0.20 (Ferguson, 2009 ). In the context of the research questions, significant ( p < 0.01) correlation coefficients larger than 0.25 were assumed to indicate significant relationships between variables and values over 0.40 to indicate moderate relationships. Fisher's Z -tests were performed to test the significance of the differences between correlation coefficients of the cognitive measures with IP vs. NIP scores.

Additionally, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine whether the same cognitive skills would predict IP and NIP solving. IP and NIP solving were separately regressed on the cognitive variables including a compound score of divergent thinking, which was computed as the average of the Z -scores of fluency, flexibility, and originality.

In case the two theories reflect contradictory discrete models of IP solving, then, according to the special-process theory, out of all the individual difference measures, the AUT indices (i.e., measures of divergent thinking) would present the highest Pearson correlation coefficients, and substantially account for the largest portion of the variance in IP solving, however would be insignificant factors in NIP solving. Fisher's Z -tests would confirm these differences. Conversely, the business-as-usual theory would predict that all of the individual difference measures, except for the AUT indices, would present moderate correlations with both IP and NIP solving, and would explain a substantial portion of the variance in both types of solving.

Nevertheless, we endorse an unequally combined account in which both IPs and NIPs are routinely solved via common analytic strategies, as the business-as-usual theory posits, and rarely by insight strategy. That is, the unique insight strategy, delineated by the special-process theory, is special in terms of how uncommon it is, but it is not that special since it is not unique to IP solving and could also be applied in successful NIP solving. Thus, we expected both the IP and NIP performances to similarly show significant, positive, moderate correlations with the test scores of RAPM, RAT, and analogies. These variables should substantially account for the variance of both IP and NIP solving. Moreover, AUT indices should also present significant relationships with both IP and NIP solving; however, it is expected to account for a very small portion of their variance.

We also computed performance scores for verbal IPs, spatial IPs, verbal NIPs, and spatial NIPs to more fully examine the similarities and differences between them. Each score is the average of the scores achieved in each of the experimental conditions. Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between these performance scores and the cognitive tests. Path analysis was used to reveal predictive cognitive measures of successful problem solving.

Finally, we conducted a Friedman test and a post hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a Bonferroni correction for each problem type to compare the effects of the three experimental conditions on performance.

Individual cognitive differences

Table 1 presents correlations between the individual cognitive measures and performance on IPs and NIPs. All tasks except for the far verbal analogy were significantly correlated with both IP and NIP solving. Fisher's Z -tests were performed to examine differences between correlations of the cognitive tests with IP vs. NIP scores. Results showed stronger correlations for spatial ( p = 0.01) and near verbal ( p = 0.04) analogical thinking with IP than with NIP scores.

** p < 0.01

We conducted two hierarchical multiple regression analyses: one on the IP score and the other on the NIP score as the dependent variables. The cognitive measures were the independent variables in both analyses (Table 2 ). Since both types of problem solving converge in a closed-ended solution, RAT being a measure of convergent thinking was included in the first block. RAPM, which is also convergent in nature, captures inductive reasoning typical of analytic solving, and it was entered in the second block. Analogical thinking, typically attributed to analytic solving, was entered in the third block. Divergent thinking, typically attributed to insight solving, was entered last. As shown in Table 2 , RAT and RAPM significantly explained 26% of the variance in IP solving. Analogical thinking explained an incremental 21% of the variance above the variance accounted for by the measures of convergent and inductive thinking. Adding divergent thinking to the regression model accounted for an additional 2% of the variance.

The regression analysis of NIP solving showed that RAT and RAPM explained 27% of its variance. Analogical thinking explained an additional 5% of the variance. Divergent thinking accounted for an additional 2%. However, its contribution was insignificant. Accordingly, individuals with better convergent, inductive, and analogical skills are more likely to succeed in solving both IPs and NIPs.

Results of the regression and correlational analyses support the business-as-usual theory. Nevertheless, analogical thinking is associated more substantially with IP than with NIP solving. This finding suggests the need for a deeper examination of potential differences between subtypes of IP and NIP solving. Therefore, correlational analyses were conducted according to problem modality (Table 3 ). Solution scores of all subtypes—verbal and spatial IPs and NIPs—were significantly positively correlated with the convergent and inductive thinking measures. Verbal and spatial IP solving had significant, albeit weak, correlations with the fluency and originality indices of divergent thinking; flexibility was more substantial. These indices also correlated with the spatial NIP score, however not with the verbal NIP score. Both spatial and near analogical tasks were significantly correlated with both verbal and spatial IP solving as well as spatial NIP solving. However, these tasks were not associated with verbal NIP solving. Fisher's Z -tests confirmed the stronger associations for spatial ( p = 0.008, p = 0.001, p = 0.003) and near verbal ( p = 0.007, p = 0.003, p = 0.001) analogical thinking with verbal IP, spatial IP, and spatial NIP, respectively, than with verbal NIP scores.

Analogical and divergent thinking differentiated IP and spatial NIP from verbal NIP solving. Seemingly, IP solving was similar to spatial NIP solving but different from verbal NIP solving. Based on these unexpected results, we hypothesized that solving verbal IPs, spatial IPs, and spatial NIPs benefits from analogical thinking and flexible thinking. However, these cognitive measures are insignificant for verbal NIP solving since they are not correlated. Out of all the cognitive variables tested, verbal NIP solving should rely only on convergent and inductive thinking. We conducted path analysis to examine these hypothesized relationships simultaneously. Figure 2 presents the resulting standardized regression weights of the significant paths for each type of problem solving. This path model fits the data well ( χ 2 (6) = 3.65, p = 0.72; CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.07, RMSEA < 0.001, SRMR = 0.02).

Cognitive predictors of verbal and spatial insight and non-insight problem solving. RAPM Raven’s advanced progressive matrices, RAT remote associates test, AUT alternate uses task. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

IP and spatial NIP solving were predicted by flexibility, verbal and spatial analogical thinking, and convergent thinking with the last being verbal (RAT) for verbal IP and spatial (RAPM) for spatial IP and NIP. These variables explained 32, 37, and 34% of the variance in verbal IP, spatial IP, and spatial NIP solving, respectively.

Insight and impasse

Inspection of the successfully solved IPs showed that 88.5% elicited insight as reported by the participants. However, only 7.97% of the problems reported as eliciting insight included a state of an impasse.

Two participants (1.7%) reported an impasse while silently solving verbal NIPs whereas 37, 41, and 21% of participants reported impasses while silently solving verbal IPs, spatial IPs, and spatial NIPs, respectively.

Effects of experimental conditions

The Friedman test results on problem-solving accuracy across the experimental conditions are shown in Table 4 . Verbal NIP scores differed significantly across the experimental conditions, as expected. Post hoc analysis with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that solving these problems while repeatedly reciting ( p < 0.001) or repeatedly typing a series of numbers ( p < 0.001) was significantly different than solving problems silently. The performance was significantly reduced by 29% in the articulatory suppression condition and 24% in the spatial tapping condition. There was no significant difference between the two secondary-task conditions ( p > 0.05). Thus, solving verbal NIPs seems to be equally vulnerable when performed concurrently with either a verbal or a motor task. Conversely, solution rates of verbal IPs, spatial IPs, and spatial NIPs did not significantly differ across the experimental conditions. Figure 3 summarizes the results of solution scores of the four types of problems across the three conditions.

Mean solution scores of verbal and spatial insight and non-insight problems across experimental conditions. Error bars represent the standard errors of the mean

In summary, considering that 92% of the IPs successfully solved did not include a state of impasse, and given the resemblance of IP to spatial NIP processing shown by the path analysis, the correlational findings, and the dual-task analysis, insight processing is not unique and exhibits analytic processing as posited by the business-as-usual theory. Still, we cannot overlook that both types of IPs differed from verbal NIP solving, which could corroborate the special-process theory and illustrate the conflicting evidence in the literature.

The aim of this study was to provide an integrative account of IP solving that would advance a resolution of the conflict between the special-process and the business-as-usual theories. This study presents novel findings: IP solving was consistently similar to spatial NIP solving, but consistently different from verbal NIP solving. Spatial and near verbal analogical thinking, flexibility (divergent thinking), and the effects of articulatory suppression and non-verbal attentional load differentiated IP from verbal NIP solving. However, the mechanism of IP solving is not unique since it shared these cognitive processes and conditions' effects with spatial NIP solving. Accordingly, while insight processing is not that ''special'', business is not totally ''as usual''.

Results showed that spatial and near verbal analogical thinking were significant predictors of IP solving, explaining one-fifth of its variance. Participants who excelled in the near analogical thinking task also excelled in solving both types of IPs. This finding confirms that analogical thinking does lead to innovative solutions, not only to existing ones.

Far verbal analogy thinking was not associated with problem solving. The near and far analogy tasks seem to capture different aspects of thinking. Near analogies share surface features of a similar knowledge domain so they are easier to detect and access (Holyoak & Koh, 1987 ). Inference and transfer of relations between pairs are faster and nearly effortless; hence, the near-analogy strategy may account for the quick-solving nature of IPs. Far analogies, on the other hand, contain a pair whose relationship is more abstract, and mapping it onto the second pair in a different domain is more difficult and less obvious. Far analogical thinking may have been expected to correlate with IP solving since both challenge the solver requiring an extreme change of perspective. However, without a prompt to connect remote analogies that differ in their surface features, making such connections is unlikely (George & Wiley, 2018 ). Our findings are compatible with Dunbar's ( 1995 ) conclusion that near rather than far analogies should be employed as a problem-solving strategy, as they lead to a conceptual change more efficiently. Successful solvers possess a richer semantic domain; they discern more similarities within it, thus making more productive analogies. Comparing the analogous problems strengthens their common features and correspondent differences (Gentner et al., 2003 ), consequently reinforcing the focus on certain aspects of the problem or making new assumptions about others, which leads to problem restructuring.

Interestingly, results showed that spatial analogical thinking also predicted success in solving IPs. Hence, solving IPs seems to benefit from efficient retrieval of both verbal and visuospatial representations from long-term memory and relies heavily on reasoning. Since spatial IPs were presented with diagrams, one may expect a spontaneous triggering of visuospatial analogical thinking (Casakin & Goldschmidt, 2000 ). However, given that solving verbal IPs also significantly benefited from spatial analogical thinking implies the possibility that non-verbal reasoning supports the insightful process in general, and that certain aspects of insight are abstract and non-linguistic.

Analogical thinking is typical of the solution search stage in which the solver first attempts to match the problem with prior knowledge and experience in long-term memory (Weisberg, 2015 ). Since the insightful solution should be innovative, the revelation that analogical thinking is such a strong contributor to IP solving may seem surprising. We propose that this significant contribution extends beyond the initial search stage. Analogical thinking is liable to highlight elements of the problem that could be linked in an exceptional way to new ideas raised at a later stage of restructuring the representation of the problem (i.e., convergent thinking). Thus, the insightful solution may be a product of this remote association. The combination and reorganization of knowledge structures into new knowledge rely substantially on analogical reasoning (Mumford & Martin, 2020 ). Indeed, in our study, convergent and analogical thinking explained nearly half of the variance in IP solving. Our proposal corresponds with the business-as-usual notion that analytic processing may underlie insightful solutions, including the stage of restructuring (Fleck & Weisberg, 2013 ; Weisberg, 2015 ), but this idea requires further testing.

Divergent and convergent thinking

Consistent with previous research, this study found that flexibility is a significant predictor of insight (DeYoung et al., 2008 ), while fluency and originality are associated with IP solving, but they lack predictive power. We conclude that insight is not necessarily a product of generating original ideas or as many ideas as possible; rather, insight relies more significantly on the ability to generate distant ideas across different categories.

Although divergent thinking is typically attributed to IP solving (DeYoung et al., 2008 ), in our study, it explained only 2% of the variance. Thus, applying divergent thinking in IP solving seems atypical. Flexible thinking is insufficient on its own, and convergent thinking seems to contribute more substantially to insight processing. More precisely, insight appears to be a product of a convergent association rather than of free associations that are flexibly generated.

If divergent thinking is utilized to retrieve distant ideas, probably the convergence of a few of these ideas into a completely different concept, ultimately forming the insightful solution, might be more critical. The more diverse these ideas are, the more likely that an unusual connection between them will be revealed, thus arriving at an unconventional solution. In other words, flexible (divergent) thinking seemingly activates remote elements, whereas convergent thinking connects them via a novel insightful association. Creativity studies substantiate this; retrieving associations from distant clusters, and selecting and recombining semantic knowledge increase the probability of generating creative solutions (Benedek et al., 2012 ; Mednick, 1962 ).

Inner speech and attention

Participants in this study solved problems under three conditions: silence (control), suppression of inner speech (articulatory suppression), and non-verbal attentional load (spatial tapping). Comparing the effects of these conditions on success rates distinguished verbal NIP from IP and spatial NIP solving, as did the correlational analyses and the path model. Only verbal NIP solving was significantly impaired by the articulatory suppression and spatial tapping tasks compared to the controls. Inner speech aids in planning solutions (Lidstone et al., 2010 ). When suppressed, success in solving multi-step NIPs is expected to diminish. These results demonstrate how vulnerable the processes involved in solving verbal NIPs are to attentional overload in general. Having fewer cognitive resources available significantly disrupted performance.

In contrast, performance on IPs was not significantly affected by secondary tasks. Neither suppression of the phonological loop nor the visuospatial sketchpad disrupted their performance, indicating that these two components of WM, although critical to verbal NIP solving, are not significantly involved in insight processing. This result is compatible with our findings that insightful solvers seem to rely on analogical thinking and, to a lesser extent, on flexible thinking. They retrieve analogies and ideas in a multi-directional manner rather than retrieving a linear planned procedure, as in the case of verbal non-insight processing. Thus, ongoing plans include less information to retain, to assess, or to revise in WM. Moreover, only near analogical thinking predicted successful IP solving, whereas far analogical thinking was unrelated. Since associations that characterize the near analogies are stronger, the analogous process should be rapid, effortless, and not place a heavy load on WM.

Insight processing appears to rely less on resource-demanding and linguistic strategies. It endures interference in verbal or spatial encoding regardless of whether the problems are verbal or spatial. Concurrent spatial tasks did not impair solving spatial IPs, nor did a concurrent verbal task impair solving verbal IPs. The mechanism of insight appears to be modality-general and of higher-order cognitive functioning. It involves an abstraction of input and its integration in memory. This argument is supported by our previously described results that both verbal and spatial IP solving rely on non-verbal analogical reasoning, thereby reinforcing evidence that insight, at least in part, is not speech-based.

Insight and spatial non-insight problem solving: a general competence

Our findings unexpectedly revealed that solving spatial NIPs resembled solving IPs rather than verbal NIPs, since both benefited from similar cognitive contributors and endured the suppression of inner speech and the non-verbal attentional load. Twenty-one percent of the participants reported experiencing an impasse when solving spatial NIPs, whereas fewer than 2% experienced an impasse when solving verbal NIPs. These findings suggest that as the individual progresses through the process of solving spatial NIPs, they may arrive at problematic states, and consequently, should either switch or update the current sub-goal and procedure. When solving verbal NIPs, however, the individuals, who follow a known procedure, progress and feel that they know what to do. They are not stuck at an impasse and it is likely that failing to solve the problem results from insufficient time to complete the procedure or from an error made along the way.

NIPs are considered routine problems for which solvers retrieve an incremental solution procedure they already know; as in multiplying two-digit numbers (Dow & Mayer, 2004 ). Participants in this study solved verbal NIPs through a planned series of steps seemingly retrieved as known techniques, probably based on abundant experience with such problems widely practiced in educational settings (DeYoung et al., 2008 ). Conversely, spatial NIPs are less common in academic settings and not routinely practiced as verbal NIPs. Participants might not have solved these problems previously or had no stored, pre-prepared solving procedures in their memory. Hence, as in IPs, spatial NIPs can be considered as non-routine problems requiring unfamiliar solving methods.

This study showed that solving spatial NIPs does not depend on attention resources; reinforcing our argument that they are not solved by retrieving a multi-step procedure that needs to be retained in WM, but by creating new procedures or by trial and error. Lidstone et al. ( 2010 ) reached a similar conclusion when the Tower of Hanoi, a classic spatial NIP, showed no articulatory suppression effect on its performance. The researchers suspected that its solution did not rely on planning, so they conducted a second experiment in which participants had to plan the solution rather than concretely performing it. In the latter experiment, articulatory suppression was detrimental to performance. Hence, the standard Tower of Hanoi, which was also applied in the current study with other typical spatial NIPs, did not elicit advance planning.

Apparently, both spatial NIP and IP solving are neither speech-based nor attention demanding. They require generating new paths to solutions rather than retrieving known procedures. They significantly rely on convergent, near and spatial analogical skills, and flexible thinking. Seemingly, these cognitive skills underlie the ability to generate new procedures and/or solutions in general, regardless of the nature of the problem. One might conclude that insight might not be a special ability, but a general competence.

Examining concurrent models of insight problem solving: a composite theory

The ostensible conflicting results of our research reflect the existing controversies in the literature. On the one hand, this study provides evidence that insight processing is unique, not attention demanding, and not speech reliant, as IP solving was consistently differentiated from verbal NIP solving and was affected neither by articulatory nor visuospatial sketchpad suppressions. These findings support the special-process theory. On the other hand, our findings consistently showed that spatial NIP solving resembles IP solving, thus suggesting that insight might not be that special. Both spatial NIP and IP solving significantly benefited from analogical and convergent thinking, and only to a lesser extent by flexible thinking, thus, indicating analytic processing, as posited by the business-as-usual theory.

In addition, approximately 60% of participants did not experience an impasse while trying to solve IPs silently, and only 8% of the problems reported as solved via insight evoked an impasse. Similarly, Fleck and Weisberg ( 2013 ) reported that 53% of their participants did not encounter an impasse, and 7% of insightful solutions were obtained following one. These findings appear to contradict the special-process theory, which conceptualizes an impasse as a crucial stage that typically gives rise to restructuring and, in turn, leads to the insightful solution. Moreover, impasses do not exclusively characterize IP solving as results of this study showed that processes involved in spatial NIP solving might also include a state of an impasse. Stuyck et al. ( 2021 ) reached similar conclusions because in their study the experience of impasse was associated with word puzzles solved with or without insight. Nonetheless, impasses are not accounted for by the business-as-usual theory.

Clearly, neither theory can fully explain the mechanism of insight, yet results of this study suggest that neither of them should be rejected. We propose that these theories are unequally complementary: the business-as-usual theory accounts for the major role in IP solving, similar to NIP solving, while the special-process theory plays a more minor role. Each theory relates to a different aspect of the insightful process as well a different way of reaching the insightful solution. The business-as-usual theory features the core typical analytic mode of solving that stresses the contributions of analogical and convergent skills as shown in this study. The special-process theory presents the milestones of insight: impasse and a sudden "Aha!" moment thus, addresses the unconventional insightful mode of thinking as only a minor portion of solutions included both experiences. Overall, the present findings are consistent with the business-as-usual theory, supporting IP and NIP solving as analytic in nature. Analytic thinking explained nearly half of the variance in IP solving, whereas divergent thinking explained only 2%. The associative, unconscious, special solution process, delineated by the special-process theory, is indeed unique. However, while proponents of this theory, claim it is unique since IPs alone are solved via this special process, the current results contradict their view. The special process can support NIP solving as well. Thus, it is special simply because it is rare.

Weisberg ( 2015 ) also addressed IP solving from the cognitive process perspective, suggesting an integrated outline of four-stage problem solving. In his model, the first three stages are analytic in nature. Each of them may produce a solution otherwise, either different solving methods are applied, or the representation of the problem is restructured due to the new information brought by the failure. This dynamic analytic process may recycle itself until it triggers an appropriate restructuring and an insightful solution. Only if the process exhausts itself, and the solver enters an impasse, should stage four occur evoking a solution through insight. Similarly, Chuderski and Jastrzębski ( 2018 ) proposed that only occasionally do the standard analytic problem-solving methods require additional insight processing. They described IP solving as "nothing special with special add-ons". In their study, special add-ons such as increased tendencies to decouple from ineffective approaches, and to restart the solving process, only marginally contributed to IP solving. The stage four in Weisberg's model, the Chuderski and Jastrzębski's special add-ons, and the fluency, flexibility, and originality factors (i.e., divergent thinking) in our study reflect less frequently used solution strategies whereas the analytic strategies are standard. Therefore, based on these studies, we may combine the special-process and the business-as-usual theories at the process level.

The current study not only reinforces previous conclusions, but also gives rise to new findings. In contrast to verbal NIPs, solutions of IPs and spatial NIPs benefited from analogical thinking, as predicted by the business-as-usual theory, and benefited less from divergent thinking, which characterizes the special-process theory. Analogical thinking yields new assumptions about the problem and divergent thinking produces disparate ideas. Connecting these assumptions and ideas by a new association via convergent thinking might surprisingly lead to a solution. Figure 4 presents an example of an optional solution procedure that combines divergent and convergent thinking for the following IP used in this study: A man was reading a book when the lights went out. Although the room was completely dark, the man continued to read. How was that possible? Initially, varied associations could be triggered by "darkness" through divergent thinking, for example, blackout , cannot see , etc. Then a few could be linked together by a new association through convergent thinking, for example, " blinds ", as window covers in times of blackouts, and as people with visual impairments. Once reaching the idea of "blinds", the problem is quickly solved—the man was reading Braille.

Plausible solution procedure that combines divergent (1) and convergent (2) thinking for the "blind" insight problem

Results of this study suggest that the combined account explains not only solutions of IPs, but also solutions of spatial NIPs. Apparently, it accounts for the generation of new solutions rather than the retrieval of known solution procedures. Thus, insight can be considered a particular case of the former. The combined strategies support the generation of unfamiliar solutions to both problems that require lateral thinking and linear thinking. Whether the problems are classified as "insight problems" or not is irrelevant. We conclude that the definition of insight should be shifted towards focusing on the strategy rather than on the task. Task-related considerations should include whether the tasks require retrieving of existing solution procedures or creating new ones.

A new question may arise as to whether insight is rare for other than process-related factors? In our previous study, we attempted to answer this question by addressing IP solving from a person-centered perspective (Salmon-Mordekovich & Leikin, 2022 ). Results showed that experts on IP solving, constituting 12% of the sample, had unique characteristics related to creative and intellectual competencies. They demonstrated higher abilities on verbal divergent thinking and associative combination than successful IP solvers, who were somewhat less successful than the experts and than poor IP solvers. Not only did they retrieve creative ideas more fluently, but they also were better at combining ideas through novel association. Therefore, this small group of individuals was characterized as "highly associative and verbally creative". Moreover, while the successful solvers benefited from excellent WM capacity, the experts did not. Thus, we suggested that although experts and successful solvers have excellent analytic skills, the experts prefer to utilize insight strategy, while successful solvers, to a lesser extent, tend to apply analytic strategy. Thus, the special-process and business-as-usual theories may be combined at the individual level as well. Although each individual is endowed with both analytic and insight thinking, only a small group seems to favor or excel in the insight strategy.

The theoretical conflict in the literature might also stem from task-related differences among studies (e.g., modality, size of solution search space). According to this study, a study that compares solving IPs with spatial NIPs may find similarities between the two and thus would confirm the business-as-usual theory, whereas a study that contrasts solving IPs with verbal NIPs may find significant differences and therefore would support the special-process theory. Moreover, even two variants of the same problem may trigger different solution strategies, analytic or insight, due to size differences in the solution search space (Ash & Wiley, 2006 ). Additionally, demonstrating that the experimental conditions had no effects on IP solving can be viewed as support for automatic, unconscious processing, as the special-process theory posits. However, it could stem from a small initial solution search space that does not burden attentional capacity (Ash & Wiley, 2006 ) or from generating solutions by lateral thinking rather than retrieving multi-step solutions, as the results of this study suggest.

Conclusions

From a theoretical perspective, this study reinforces an integrative approach: each theory relates to a different mode of thinking by which insightful solutions can be produced as well as to different features of the problem-solving process. To the best of our knowledge, no study has directly tested the role of analogical thinking as a person’s individual ability in IP solving. This study differentiated near from far verbal analogical thinking, a distinction that proved to be essential, and identified the near and spatial analogical abilities as substantial contributors to insight in particular, and to the creation of new solutions in general, including analytic ones. Analogous information is retrieved and processed in a multi-directional manner, as ideas produced by associative and flexible thinking. We believe that an insightful solution is the product of the convergence of these analogous inferences and ideas and not of spontaneous associations. We assert that both analogical and convergent thinking are key skills of insight.

Empirically, we provide novel evidence: IP solving consistently resembles spatial NIP but differs from verbal NIP solving. The similarities may substantiate the business-as-usual theory while the differences support the special-process theory. Thus, from a practical perspective, the results alert us to methodological susceptibility to non-meticulous problem selection. Distinguishing problems by modality is essential to avoid misleading findings. Furthermore, the traditional classification of problems into insight and non-insight seems irrelevant. The appropriate distinction should consider whether the problems require the retrieval of existing solution procedures or the creation of new ones.

Spatial NIPs, like IPs, do not involve linguistic processing and are more abstract than verbal NIPs. Solving these problems requires different thinking than solving verbal NIPs, since, in solving IPs and spatial NIPs the individual generates the solution procedure rather than retrieving it from long-term memory. Although the nature of these solutions is different; i.e., linear for spatial NIP processing while more lateral for IP, they both rely on similar cognitive skills. We suggest that nurturing both verbal and spatial analogical skills and convergent thinking in students might enhance the individual's ability to produce novel solutions regardless of the problem type. One should not teach someone how to be a good spatial NIP solver or to be insightful, but rather should instill cognitive foundations that enable an individual to become one.

Akbari Chermahini, S., Hickendorff, M., & Hommel, B. (2012). Development and validity of a Dutch version of the remote associates task: an item-response theory approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (3), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.02.003

Article Google Scholar

Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: an individual-differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13 (1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193814

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (11), 417–423.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Ball, L. J., Marsh, J. E., Litchfield, D., Cook, R. L., & Booth, N. (2015). When distraction helps: evidence that concurrent articulation and irrelevant speech can facilitate insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 21 (1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.934399

Benedek, M., Könen, T., & Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Associative abilities underlying creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6 (3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027059

Casakin, H. P., & Goldschmidt, G. (2000). Reasoning by visual analogy in design problem-solving: the role of guidance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27 (1), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2565

Chuderski, A., & Jastrzębski, J. (2018). Much ado about aha!: Insight problem solving is strongly related to working memory capacity and reasoning ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147 (2), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000378

Danek, A. H., Fraps, T., Mueller, A. V., Grothe, B., & Öllinger, M. (2014). Working wonders? Investigating insight with magic tricks. Cognition, 130 (2), 174–185.

Danek, A. H., Wiley, J., & Öllinger, M. (2016). Solving classical insight problems without Aha! experience: 9 Dot, 8 Coin, and matchstick arithmetic problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 9 (1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1183

DeYoung, C. G., Flanders, J. L., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Cognitive abilities involved in insight problem solving: an individual differences model. Creativity Research Journal, 20 (3), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802278719

Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534550

Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4879.003.0017

Chapter Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40 (5), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808

Fleck, J. I. (2008). Working memory demands in insight versus analytic problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20 (1), 139–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601016954

Fleck, J. I., & Weisberg, R. W. (2013). Insight versus analysis: evidence for diverse methods in problem solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (4), 436–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.779248

Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: a general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393

George, T., & Wiley, J. (2018). Remote analogical transfer as creative insight. In F. Vallee-Tourangeau (Ed.), Insight: on the origins of new ideas (pp. 143–168). Routledge.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12 (3), 306–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4

Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., & Henretty, N. (2010). Verbalization and problem solving: insight and spatial factors. British Journal of Psychology, 101 (1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X422656

Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 11 (3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780442000187

Guilford, J. P. (1958). Can creativity be developed? Art Education, 11 (6), 3–18.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence . McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar

Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15 (4), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197035

Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2008). The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 46 (1), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013

Lee, C. S., & Therriault, D. J. (2013). The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: a latent variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking processes. Intelligence, 41 (5), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.008

Lidstone, J. S. M., Meins, E., & Fernyhough, C. (2010). The roles of private speech and inner speech in planning during middle childhood: evidence from a dual task paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107 (4), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.06.002

Macchi, L., & Bagassi, M. (2012). Intuitive and analytical processes in insight problem solving: a psycho-rhetorical approach to the study of reasoning. Mind & Society, 11 (1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0103-3

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 (3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850

Mumford, M. D., & Martin, R. W. (2020). Analogies. Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 37–41). Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.23692-4

Nevo, B., & Levin, I. (1978). Remote associates test: assessment of creativity in Hebrew. Megamot, 24 , 87–98.

Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1996). Raven manual: section 3 standard progressive matrices with adult US norms . Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Robbins, T. W., Anderson, E. J., Barker, D. R., Bradley, A. C., Fearnyhough, C., Henson, R., Hudson, S. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Working memory in chess. Memory & Cognition, 24 (1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197274

Salmon-Mordekovich, N., & Leikin, M. (2022). The cognitive – creative profiles of insightful problem solvers: a person-centered insight study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56 (3), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.536

Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: when language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122 (2), 166–183.

Stuyck, H., Aben, B., Cleeremans, A., & Van den Bussche, E. (2021). The Aha! moment: is insight a different form of problem solving? Consciousness and Cognition, 90 (2021), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103055

Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., & Cropper, S. J. (2016). Insight is not in the problem: investigating insight in problem solving across task types. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01424

Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., Cropper, S. J., & Roze, K. (2017). The contributions of convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and schizotypy to solving insight and non-insight problems. Thinking and Reasoning, 23 (3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1295105

Weisberg, R. W. (2015). Toward an integrated theory of insight in problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 21 (1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.886625

Wieth, M., & Burns, B. D. (2006). Incentives improve performance on both incremental and insight problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59 (8), 1378–1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500234026

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Gordon College of Education, 73 Tchernichovsky St, 3570503, Haifa, Israel

Nirit Salmon-Mordekovich

RANGE Center, Neuro-Cognitive Laboratory for the Investigation of Creativity, Ability and Giftedness, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Nirit Salmon-Mordekovich & Mark Leikin

The Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Mark Leikin

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nirit Salmon-Mordekovich .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

Nirit Salmon-Mordekovich declares that she has no conflict of interest. Mark Leikin declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Sample Verbal and Spatial Insight Problems

Checkers. Two men played five games of checkers and each won an even number of games, with no ties or forfeits. How is that possible?

(Solution: They were not playing against each other.)

Four dots. Connect all 4 dots with two straight lines without lifting your pencil from the paper.

Sample Verbal and Spatial Non-Insight Problems

Committee. Smith is a butcher and president of the street storekeepers’ committee, which also includes the grocer, the baker, and the pharmacist. They sit around a table.

Smith sits on Jones’ left.

Davis sits at the grocer’s right.

Bailey, who faces Jones, is not the baker.

Assign each storekeeper to the correct store.

(Solution: Smith-butcher, Davis-baker, Bailey-pharmacist, Jones-grocer)

Trace. Without lifting your pencil from the paper, trace the figure below. No line cannot be traced more than once.

(One of the extreme points on either side must be the starting point.)

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

Salmon-Mordekovich, N., Leikin, M. Insight problem solving is not that special, but business is not quite 'as usual': typical versus exceptional problem-solving strategies. Psychological Research 87 , 1995–2009 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01786-5

Download citation

Received : 20 April 2022

Accepted : 22 December 2022

Published : 08 January 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01786-5

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

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Chapter 7: Thinking and Intelligence

Solving problems.

Problem-Solving Strategies

When you are presented with a problem—whether it is a complex mathematical problem or a broken printer, how do you solve it? Before finding a solution to the problem, the problem must first be clearly identified. After that, one of many problem-solving strategies can be applied, hopefully resulting in a solution.

Video 1. Problem Solving explains strategies used for solving problems.

A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have different action plans associated with them. For example, a well-known strategy is trial and error . The old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” describes trial and error. In terms of your broken printer, you could try checking the ink levels, and if that doesn’t work, you could check to make sure the paper tray isn’t jammed. Or maybe the printer isn’t actually connected to your laptop. When using trial and error, you would continue to try different solutions until you solved your problem. Although trial and error is not typically one of the most time-efficient strategies, it is a commonly used one.

Another type of strategy is an algorithm. An algorithm is a problem-solving formula that provides you with step-by-step instructions used to achieve the desired outcome (Kahneman, 2011). You can think of an algorithm as a recipe with highly detailed instructions that produce the same result every time they are performed. Algorithms are used frequently in our everyday lives, especially in computer science. When you run a search on the Internet, search engines like Google use algorithms to decide which entries will appear first in your list of results. Facebook also uses algorithms to decide which posts to display on your newsfeed. Can you identify other situations in which algorithms are used?

When one is faced with too much information
When the time to make a decision is limited
When the decision to be made is unimportant
When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind in the same moment

Working backward is a useful heuristic in which you begin solving the problem by focusing on the end result. Consider this example: You live in Washington, D.C., and have been invited to a wedding at 4 PM on Saturday in Philadelphia. Knowing that Interstate 95 tends to back up any day of the week, you need to plan your route and time your departure accordingly. If you want to be at the wedding service by 3:30 PM, and it takes 2.5 hours to get to Philadelphia without traffic, what time should you leave your house? You use the working backward heuristic to plan the events of your day on a regular basis, probably without even thinking about it.

Video 2. What problem-solving method could you use to solve Einstein’s famous riddle?

Everyday Connections: Solving Puzzles

Problem-solving abilities can improve with practice. Many people challenge themselves every day with puzzles and other mental exercises to sharpen their problem-solving skills. Sudoku puzzles appear daily in most newspapers. Typically, a sudoku puzzle is a 9×9 grid. The simple sudoku below (Figure 1) is a 4×4 grid. To solve the puzzle, fill in the empty boxes with a single digit: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Here are the rules: The numbers must total 10 in each bolded box, each row, and each column; however, each digit can only appear once in a bolded box, row, and column. Time yourself as you solve this puzzle and compare your time with a classmate.

A four column by four row Sudoku puzzle is shown. The top left cell contains the number 3. The top right cell contains the number 2. The bottom right cell contains the number 1. The bottom left cell contains the number 4. The cell at the intersection of the second row and the second column contains the number 4. The cell to the right of that contains the number 1. The cell below the cell containing the number 1 contains the number 2. The cell to the left of the cell containing the number 2 contains the number 3.

Figure 1 . How long did it take you to solve this sudoku puzzle? (You can see the answer at the end of this section.)

Here is another popular type of puzzle that challenges your spatial reasoning skills. Connect all nine dots with four connecting straight lines without lifting your pencil from the paper:

A square shaped outline contains three rows and three columns of dots with equal space between them.

Figure 2. Did you figure it out? (The answer is at the end of this section.) Once you understand how to crack this puzzle, you won’t forget.

Take a look at the “Puzzling Scales” logic puzzle below (Figure 3). Sam Loyd, a well-known puzzle master, created and refined countless puzzles throughout his lifetime (Cyclopedia of Puzzles, n.d.).

Figure 3 . The puzzle reads, “Since the scales now balance…and balance when arranged this way, then how many marbles will it require to balance with that top?

Were you able to determine how many marbles are needed to balance the scales in the Puzzling Scales? You need nine. Were you able to solve the other problems above? Here are the answers:

Pitfalls to Problem-Solving

Not all problems are successfully solved, however. What challenges stop us from successfully solving a problem?

Video 3. Cognitive Biases: What They Are , Why They’re Important provides an introduction to the many cognitive biases that prevent us from always thinking clearly and rationally.

Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Imagine a person in a room that has four doorways. One doorway that has always been open in the past is now locked. The person, accustomed to exiting the room by that particular doorway, keeps trying to get out through the same doorway even though the other three doorways are open. The person is stuck—but she just needs to go to another doorway, instead of trying to get out through the locked doorway. A mental set is where you persist in approaching a problem in a way that has worked in the past but is clearly not working now. Functional fixedness is a type of mental set where you cannot perceive an object being used for something other than what it was designed for. During the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, NASA engineers at Mission Control had to overcome functional fixedness to save the lives of the astronauts aboard the spacecraft. An explosion in a module of the spacecraft damaged multiple systems. The astronauts were in danger of being poisoned by rising levels of carbon dioxide because of problems with the carbon dioxide filters. The engineers found a way for the astronauts to use spare plastic bags, tape, and air hoses to create a makeshift air filter, which saved the lives of the astronauts.

Link to Learning

Check out this Apollo 13 scene where a group of NASA engineers is given the task of overcoming functional fixedness.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms your existing beliefs. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. This bias proves that first impressions do matter and that we tend to look for information to confirm our initial judgments of others.

Video 4. Watch this video from the Big Think to learn more about confirmation bias.

Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Representative bias describes a faulty way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something; for example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.

Finally, the availability heuristic is a heuristic in which you make a decision based on an example, information, or recent experience that is that readily available to you, even though it may not be the best example to inform your decision . To use a common example, would you guess there are more murders or more suicides in America each year? When asked, most people would guess there are more murders. In truth, there are twice as many suicides as there are murders each year. However, murders seem more common because we hear a lot more about murders on an average day. Unless someone we know or someone famous takes their own life, it does not make the news. Murders, on the other hand, we see in the news every day. This leads to the erroneous assumption that the easier it is to think of instances of something, the more often that thing occurs.

Video 5. Watch the following video for an example of the availability heuristic.

Biases tend to “preserve that which is already established—to maintain our preexisting knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and hypotheses” (Aronson, 1995; Kahneman, 2011). These biases are summarized in Table 2 below.

Learn more about heuristics and common biases through the article, “ 8 Common Thinking Mistakes Our Brains Make Every Day and How to Prevent Them ” by Belle Beth Cooper.

You can also watch this clever music video explaining these and other cognitive biases.

Modification and adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Psychology in Real Life: Choice Blindness. Authored by : Patrick Carroll for Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Problem-Solving. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:Lk3YnvuC@6/Problem-Solving . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11629/latest/.
Actors Headshots . Authored by : Vanity Studios. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/149481436@N03/34277183806/in/photostream/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of man. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/en/boy-portrait-outdoors-facial-men-s-3566903/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved
https://pixabay.com/en/boy-portrait-outdoors-facial-men-s-3566903/. Authored by : Simon Robben. Provided by : Pexels. Located at : https://www.pexels.com/photo/face-facial-hair-fine-looking-guy-614810/ . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
image of businessman. Authored by : RoyalAnwar. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/en/model-businessman-corporate-2911332/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved
man in black shirt. Authored by : songjayjay. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/en/face-men-s-asia-shirts-blacj-young-1391628/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved
woman headshot. Authored by : Richard Ha. Provided by : Flickr. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/richardha101/31951459743/in/photolist-QFrzNX-V9Amf2-UM2ZU5-HMQxnd-WmpZx1-5ztiGT-ovm92d-28C1Eyi-qhwZzM-8szjMV-YRsM5B-LCTNFR-LtgVC9-LCUgd8-8gRLbQ-REArrY-WQNThG-ph52sx-2bC2DwH-qE61yp-28NspiC-21h8cj4-RVoBBc-29GiNJ3-21QEU6M-M1YTcp-PePwTJ-LALKtr-RVoBtg-Ry1bpy-FVr9BB-282GDDG-V7zSQJ-NwmdK9-29bSs5N-29mSb5G-272dN8p-26brtas-28tTQWf-RS1osg-WHoUSc-25uETMH-D7crwK-28m9fEh-25taZPB-JCwqE7-241e8Xp-265Ce4A-22V7VVo-25N7i4q . License : CC BY: Attribution
businesswoman headshot. Authored by : Richard Rives. Provided by : Flickr. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/richpat2/38251159285/in/photostream/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
Can you solve Einsteinu2019s Riddle? . Authored by : Dan Van der Vieren. Provided by : Ted-Ed. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rDVz_Fb6HQ&index=3&list=PLUmyCeox8XCwB8FrEfDQtQZmCc2qYMS5a . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
BBC Choice Blindness. Authored by : BBC. Provided by : ChoiceBlindnessLab. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRqyw-EwgTk . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Using Choice Blindness to Shift Political Attitudes and Voter Intentions. Provided by : ChoiceBlindnessLab. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_htNx0eWmgs . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

COMMENTS

Solved In general, problem-solving steps benefits
In general, problem - solving steps benefits substantially from: A: Overthinking about the problem. B : Rethinking about the problem. C: Teamwork. D: Solo practitioners. Here's the best way to solve it. Created by Chegg. 100% (1 rating) Share Share.
Solved In general, problem-solving steps benefits
Question: In general, problem-solving steps benefits substantially from: In general, problem-solving steps benefits substantially from: Here's the best way to solve it. Powered by Chegg AI. Problem-solving steps benefit substantially from the following: 1. Clear definition: Start by clear... View the full answer.
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: Definition and 5 Techniques to Try
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 ...
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.
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 ...
Why It Matters: General Problem Solving
Problem-solving can be an efficient and rewarding process, especially if you are organized and mindful of critical steps and strategies. Remember, too, to assume the attributes of a good critical thinker. If you are curious, reflective, knowledge-seeking, open to change, probing, organized, and ethical, your challenge or problem will be less of ...
How to master the seven-step problem-solving process
To discuss the art of problem solving, I sat down in California with McKinsey senior partner Hugo Sarrazin and also with Charles Conn. Charles is a former McKinsey partner, entrepreneur, executive, and coauthor of the book Bulletproof Problem Solving: The One Skill That Changes Everything [John Wiley & Sons, 2018].
The Art of Effective Problem Solving: A Step-by-Step Guide
Step 1 - Define the Problem. The definition of the problem is the first step in effective problem solving. This may appear to be a simple task, but it is actually quite difficult. This is because problems are frequently complex and multi-layered, making it easy to confuse symptoms with the underlying cause.
Adopting the right problem-solving approach
In our 2013 classic from the Quarterly, senior partner Olivier Leclerc highlights the value of taking a number of different approaches simultaneously to solve difficult problems. Read on to discover the five flexons, or problem-solving languages, that can be applied to the same problem to generate richer insights and more innovative solutions.
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 ...
How to improve your problem solving skills and strategies
6. Solution implementation. This is what we were waiting for! All problem solving strategies have the end goal of implementing a solution and solving a problem in mind. Remember that in order for any solution to be successful, you need to help your group through all of the previous problem solving steps thoughtfully.
Problem Solving
A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A "rule of thumb" is an example of a heuristic.
The McKinsey guide to problem solving
The McKinsey guide to problem solving. Become a better problem solver with insights and advice from leaders around the world on topics including developing a problem-solving mindset, solving problems in uncertain times, problem solving with AI, and much more.
7.3 Problem-Solving
A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A "rule of thumb" is an example of a heuristic.
WPC Flashcards
The tools and elements in this frame are those from, In general, problem-solving steps benefits substantially from:, Which of the following chart type is generally not used for data exploration? and more. ... In general, problem-solving steps benefits substantially from: Teamwork.
Problem-Solving Therapy: Definition, Techniques, and Efficacy
Problem-solving therapy is a brief intervention that provides people with the tools they need to identify and solve problems that arise from big and small life stressors. It aims to improve your overall quality of life and reduce the negative impact of psychological and physical illness. Problem-solving therapy can be used to treat depression ...
Solved In general, problem-solving steps benefits
Question: In general, problem-solving steps benefits substantially from: Overthinking about the problem O Rethinking about the problem O Teamwork O Solo practitioners SUBMIT. There are 2 steps to solve this one.
Insight problem solving is not that special, but business is ...
The intriguing phenomenon of insight (also known as the "Aha!" moment) has provoked a long-standing conflict over its cognitive mechanism. The special-process theory posits insight as a unique, unconscious mechanism. Conversely, the business-as-usual theory conceptualizes insight processing as ordinary and similar to non-insight, i.e., analytic, incremental, and attention demanding. To resolve ...
Solved In general, problem-solving steps benefits
Question: In general, problem-solving steps benefits substantially from:A) Overthinking about the problemB) Rethinking about the problemC) TeamworkD) Solo practitioners In general, problem - solving steps benefits substantially from:
In general, what benefits problem-solving steps substantially? A
Teamwork substantially benefits problem-solving steps by bringing together diverse perspectives and collective knowledge, leading to more innovative and effective solutions compared to overthinking or solo efforts. Explanation: In general, what benefits problem-solving steps substantially? The correct answer to this question is teamwork. The ...
Solving Problems
Many people challenge themselves every day with puzzles and other mental exercises to sharpen their problem-solving skills. Sudoku puzzles appear daily in most newspapers. Typically, a sudoku puzzle is a 9×9 grid. The simple sudoku below (Figure 1) is a 4×4 grid. To solve the puzzle, fill in the empty boxes with a single digit: 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Solved steps in the problem solving process
Step 1. Problem-solving is a fundamental skill used in various aspects of life, from tackling everyday chall... View the full answer Step 2. Unlock. Answer. Unlock.