problem solving workshop more effective than traditional lessons learned documents

Kaizen is about changing the way things are. If you assume that things are all right the way they are, you can’t do kaizen. So change something! —Taiichi Ohno

Inspect and Adapt

Inspect & adapt: overview.

The Inspect and Adapt (I&A) is a significant event held at the end of each PI, where the current state of the Solution is demonstrated and evaluated. Teams then reflect and identify improvement backlog items via a structured problem-solving workshop.

The Agile Manifesto emphasizes the importance of continuous improvement through the following principle: “At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.”

In addition, SAFe includes ‘relentless improvement’ as one of the four SAFe Core Values as well as a dimension of the Continuous Learning Culture core competency. While opportunities to improve can and should occur continuously throughout the PI (e.g., Iteration Retrospectives ), applying some structure, cadence, and synchronization helps ensure that there is also time set aside to identify improvements across multiple teams and Agile Release Trains .

All ART stakeholders participate along with the Agile Teams in the I&A event. The result is a set of improvement backlog items that go into the ART Backlog for the next PI Planning event. In this way, every ART improves every PI. A similar I&A event is held by Solution Trains .

The I&A event consists of three parts:

PI System Demo

• Quantitative and qualitative measurement
• Retrospective and problem-solving workshop

Participants in the I&A should be, wherever possible, all the people involved in building the solution. For an ART, this includes:

• The Agile teams
• Release Train Engineer (RTE)
• System and Solution Architects
• Product Management ,  Business Owners , and other stakeholders

Additionally, Solution Train stakeholders may also attend this event.

The PI System Demo is the first part of the I&A, and it’s a little different from the regular system demos after every iteration. This demo shows all the Features the ART has developed during the PI. Typically the audience is broader; for example, Customers or Portfolio representatives are more likely to attend this demo. Therefore, the PI system demo tends to be a little more formal, and extra preparation and setup are usually required. But like any other system demo, it should be timeboxed to an hour or less, with the level of abstraction high enough to keep stakeholders actively engaged and providing feedback.

Before or as part of the PI system demo, Business Owners collaborate with each Agile Team to score the actual business value achieved for each of their Team PI Objectives , as illustrated in Figure 1.

The achievement score is calculated by separately totaling the business value for the plan and actual columns. The uncommitted objectives are not included in the total plan. However, they are part of the total actual. Then divide the actual total by the planned total to calculate the achievement score illustrated in Figure 1.

Quantitative and Qualitative Measurement

In the second part of the I&A event, teams collectively review any quantitative and qualitative metrics they have agreed to collect, then discuss the data and trends. In preparation for this, the RTE and the Solution Train Engineer are often responsible for gathering the information, analyzing it to identify potential issues, and facilitating the presentation of the findings to the ART.

Each team’s planned vs. actual business value is rolled up to create the ART predictability measure, as shown in Figure 2.

Reliable trains should operate in the 80–100 percent range; this allows the business and its external stakeholders to plan effectively. (Note: Uncommitted objectives are excluded from the planned commitment. However, they are included in the actual business value achievement, as can also be seen in Figure 1.)

Retrospective

The teams then run a brief (30 minutes or less) retrospective to identify a few significant issues they would like to address during the problem-solving workshop . There is no one way to do this; several different Agile retrospective formats can be used [3].

Based on the retrospective and the nature of the problems identified, the facilitator helps the group decide which issues they want to tackle. Each team may work on a problem, or, more typically, new groups are formed from individuals across different teams who wish to work on the same issue. This self-selection helps provide cross-functional and differing views of the problem and brings together those impacted and those best motivated to address the issue.

Key ART stakeholders—including Business Owners, customers, and management—join the retrospective and problem-solving workshop teams. The Business Owners can often unblock the impediments outside the team’s control.

Problem-Solving Workshop

The ART holds a structured, root-cause problem-solving workshop to address systemic problems. Root cause analysis provides a set of problem-solving tools used to identify the actual causes of a problem rather than just fixing the symptoms. The RTE typically facilitates the session in a timebox of two hours or less.

Figure 3 illustrates the steps in the problem-solving workshop.

The following sections describe each step of the process.

Agree on the Problem(s) to Solve

American inventor Charles Kettering is credited with saying that “a problem well stated is a problem half solved.” At this point, the teams have self-selected the problem they want to address. But do they agree on the details of the problem, or is it more likely that they have differing perspectives? To this end, the teams should spend a few minutes clearly stating the problem, highlighting the ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘impact’ as concisely as possible. Figure 4 illustrates a well-written problem statement.

Perform Root Cause Analysis

Effective problem-solving tools include the fishbone diagram and the ‘5 Whys.’ Also known as an Ishikawa Diagram , a fishbone diagram is a visual tool to explore the causes of specific events or sources of variation in a process. Figure 5 illustrates the fishbone diagram with a summary of the previous problem statement written at the head of the ‘fish.’

For our problem-solving workshop, the main bones often start with the default categories of people, processes, tools, program, and environment. However, these categories should be adapted as appropriate.

Team members then brainstorm causes that they think contribute to solving the problem and group them into these categories. Once a potential cause is identified, its root cause is explored with the 5 Whys technique. By asking ‘why’ five times, the cause of the previous cause is uncovered and added to the diagram. The process stops once a suitable root cause has been identified, and the same process is then applied to the next cause.

Identify the Biggest Root Cause

Pareto Analysis, also known as the 80/20 rule, is used to narrow down the number of actions that produce the most significant overall effect. It uses the principle that 20 percent of the causes are responsible for 80 percent of the problem. It’s beneficial when many possible courses of action compete for attention, which is almost always the case with complex, systemic issues.

Once all the possible causes-of-causes are identified, team members then cumulatively vote on the item they think is the most significant factor contributing to the original problem. They can do this by dot voting. For example, each person gets five votes to choose one or more causes they think are most problematic. The team then summarizes the votes in a Pareto chart, such as the example in Figure 6, which illustrates their collective consensus on the most significant root cause.

Restate the New Problem

The next step is to pick the cause with the most votes and restate it clearly as a problem. Restating it should take only a few minutes, as the teams clearly understand the root cause.

Brainstorm Solutions

At this point, the restated problem will start to imply some potential solutions. The team brainstorms as many possible corrective actions as possible within a fixed timebox (about 15–30 minutes). The rules of brainstorming apply here:

• Generate as many ideas as possible
• Do not allow criticism or debate
• Let the imagination soar
• Explore and combine ideas

Create Improvement Backlog Items

The team then cumulatively votes on up to three most viable solutions. These potential solutions are written as improvement stories and features, planned in the following PI Planning event. During that event, the RTE helps ensure that the relevant work needed to deliver the identified improvements is planned. This approach closes the loop, thus ensuring that action will be taken and that people and resources are dedicated as necessary to improve the current state.

Following this practice, problem-solving becomes routine and systematic, and team members and ART stakeholders can ensure that the train is solidly on its journey of relentless improvement.

Inspect and Adapt for Solution Trains

The above describes a rigorous approach to problem-solving in the context of a single ART. If the ART is part of a Solution Train, the I&A event will often include key stakeholders from the Solution Train. In larger value streams, however, an additional Solution Train I&A event may be required, following the same format.

Due to the number of people in a Solution Train, attendees at the large solution I&A event cannot include everyone, so stakeholders are selected that are best suited to address the problems. This subset of people consists of the Solution Train’s primary stakeholders and representatives from the various ARTs and Suppliers .

Last update: 22 January 2023

Privacy Overview

• Shop Card Decks
• Video Libary

Engineering , Leadership , User experience , User experience , Product management

Problem-Solving Workshop

A collaborative learning environment designed to help participants develop skills to identify and solve problems. product glossary problem-solving workshop also called: problem-solving session and problem-solving exercise see also: how might we , hypothesis statement , premortem , problem statement , six thinking hats , swot analysis , affinity diagram , circles method , design thinking , jobs-to-be-done framework (jtbd) relevant metrics: attendance and engagement, pre- and post-workshop assessments, goal achievement, participant satisfaction, knowledge retention, application of skills, networking and collaboration, and commitment to continuous improvement in this article what is a problem-solving workshop.

A Problem-Solving Workshop is a collaborative event in which a group of people come together to identify and solve a problem. It is a structured process that involves brainstorming, analyzing, and developing solutions to a problem. A problem-solving workshop is a rapid session that helps you:

• Unlocking the Core of the Issue . A problem-solving workshop serves as an accelerated session designed to delve into the underlying cause of a dilemma, enabling participants to better comprehend its complexities.
• Generate ideas . With a deeper understanding of the problem at hand, participants rapidly brainstorm potential solutions. They then carefully assess these ideas, ensuring their feasibility and effectiveness in addressing the issue.
• Evaluating ideas . Participants scrutinize their proposed ideas, determining their robustness and ability to withstand potential challenges to ensure that only the most viable and reliable solutions are considered for implementation, enhancing the likelihood of successfully resolving the problem.
• Make a plan to test or implement . Equipped with a well-rounded perspective and carefully evaluated solutions, the workshop empowers attendees to devise a strategic plan for testing or implementing their chosen resolution, ultimately guiding them toward the ideal solution to their problem.

The workshop typically begins with a discussion of the problem and its context. Participants then brainstorm potential solutions and evaluate them based on their feasibility and potential impact. After the brainstorming session, the group works together to develop a plan of action to address the problem. This plan may include changes to existing processes, new procedures, or other solutions.

The Problem-Solving Workshop is an effective way to identify and solve problems in the context of Product Management and User Experience. It allows for a collaborative approach to problem-solving, which can lead to more creative and effective solutions. It also allows for a structured approach to problem-solving, which can help ensure that the problem is addressed in a timely and efficient manner.

Where did Problem-Solving Workshops come from?

The idea of coming together to solve problems can be traced back to ancient human societies that held gatherings to discuss issues and find solutions. In modern times, problem-solving workshops have been shaped by developments in various fields like psychology, education, management, design, and innovation.

Some significant influences on problem-solving workshops include:

• Brainstorming . Alex Osborn, an advertising executive, introduced brainstorming in the 1940s as a group creativity technique to generate ideas and solve problems. This method encouraged people to share their ideas freely, no matter how wild, and suspend judgment during the idea-generation process. Brainstorming has since been incorporated into many problem-solving workshops.
• Quality circles . In the 1960s, Japanese companies introduced quality circles, which are small groups of employees who meet regularly to discuss and solve work-related problems. These circles aimed to improve the quality of products and processes by involving employees in problem-solving and decision-making. The concept of quality circles has inspired many problem-solving workshops in various industries.
• Design thinking . The design thinking methodology, pioneered by companies like IDEO and Stanford University’s d.school, has played a crucial role in shaping modern problem-solving workshops. Design thinking is a human-centered approach to problem-solving that encourages empathy, experimentation, and collaboration. It involves a series of steps, such as empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing, which can be adapted to various problem-solving workshop formats.
• Lean and Agile methodologies . Lean and Agile methodologies, which originated in the manufacturing and software development sectors, respectively, have also influenced problem-solving workshops. These approaches emphasize collaboration, continuous improvement, and rapid iteration to achieve better results.
• Facilitation techniques . The growth of professional facilitation has also impacted problem-solving workshops. Skilled facilitators use various tools and techniques to guide groups through problem-solving processes, ensuring that the workshop’s objectives are met and that participants stay engaged and focused.

Why should I conduct a problem-solving workshop?

Conducting a problem-solving exercise can be beneficial in several ways. It can help individuals or teams to:

• Identify the root cause of a problem . By engaging in a structured problem-solving exercise, participants can gain a deeper understanding of the issue and identify the underlying causes.
• Generate new ideas and solutions . By brainstorming and evaluating various solutions, individuals or teams can develop creative and effective solutions that they may not have thought of otherwise.
• Encourage collaboration and teamwork . Collaborative problem-solving exercises can foster a sense of teamwork and create a shared sense of ownership and responsibility for the problem and the solution.
• Improve decision-making . By evaluating various options and considering different perspectives, participants can make informed and effective decisions that take into account a wide range of factors.
• Enhance learning and development . Problem-solving exercises can provide opportunities for individuals or teams to learn new skills, practice critical thinking, and develop problem-solving abilities that can be applied to future challenges.

How to run a problem-solving workshop

Step 1: assemble a well-rounded team.

Gather individuals with diverse backgrounds, skill sets, and perspectives who are relevant to the problem at hand. This may include team members, cross-functional collaborators, subject matter experts, or stakeholders. A diverse group will enhance the ideation process and facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Consider the following factors:

• Diversity . Assemble a team with a mix of expertise, backgrounds, perspectives, and roles relevant to the problem. Diversity encourages creative thinking and helps avoid groupthink or blind spots.
• Relevant stakeholders . Ensure that key stakeholders, including decision-makers, subject matter experts, and those directly affected by the problem, are included in the workshop. Their insights and buy-in are crucial for the success of the proposed solutions.
• Size of the group . Aim for a group size that allows for effective collaboration and communication. Ideally, the group should be large enough to generate a variety of ideas but small enough to facilitate productive discussions. Typically, a group of 6-10 participants is considered optimal for a problem-solving workshop.
• Team dynamics . Select participants who are open-minded, willing to collaborate, and capable of engaging in constructive discussions. The right balance of personalities is essential for fostering a positive atmosphere and effective teamwork.
• Establish clear roles . Assign roles and responsibilities to participants, such as a facilitator to guide the workshop, a timekeeper to monitor progress, and a note-taker to document key points and decisions. Clearly defined roles help ensure the smooth flow of the workshop.
• Preparation . Communicate the workshop’s purpose, goals, and expectations to participants beforehand. Encourage them to familiarize themselves with the problem and come prepared with any relevant data or insights. This will enable a more focused and productive discussion during the workshop.

Step 2: Establish the Objective and Scope

Clearly define the purpose and goals of the workshop. Ensure that all participants understand the problem to be addressed, its context, and any constraints or limitations. Set a time limit for the workshop to maintain focus and efficiency.

Consider the following:

• Preparation and research . A facilitator should be well-prepared with a thorough understanding of the problem, its context, and the workshop’s objectives. This may involve conducting research, reviewing relevant materials, and consulting with key stakeholders or subject matter experts beforehand.
• Active listening . Practice active listening during the workshop to ensure participants feel heard and understood. Encourage questions and clarifications to address any misunderstandings or ambiguities regarding the problem, scope, or objectives.
• Flexibility and adaptability . Be prepared to adjust the workshop’s objectives or scope if new information or insights emerge during the discussion. Maintain an open-minded approach and adapt to the needs of the group while ensuring that the workshop remains focused and productive.
• Time management . Monitor the workshop’s progress and allocate time appropriately for each stage. If necessary, intervene to refocus the discussion, maintain momentum, or transition to the next step in the problem-solving process.

Each of the following workshop exercises can contribute to the success of establishing a clear objective and scope by helping participants gain a deeper understanding of the problem, its context, and the needs of those affected, leading to a clearer definition of the objective and scope:

• Six Thinking Hats . This exercise, developed by Edward de Bono, encourages participants to approach the problem from six different perspectives, represented by metaphorical “hats.” These perspectives are: facts and information (white hat), emotions and feelings (red hat), cautious and critical thinking (black hat), optimistic and positive thinking (yellow hat), creative and alternative thinking (green hat), and process and organization (blue hat). This technique can help the group establish a more comprehensive understanding of the problem, its context, and potential constraints, leading to a clearer definition of the objective and scope.
• Stakeholder Mapping . In this exercise, participants identify and analyze the key stakeholders involved in or affected by the problem. This helps the group understand the different perspectives, priorities, and needs of these stakeholders, providing valuable context for the problem-solving process. By considering stakeholder needs and concerns, the workshop can better define the objective and scope while ensuring that potential solutions address relevant issues.
• Empathy Mapping . This exercise helps participants gain insight into the needs, motivations, and challenges of the individuals affected by the problem, such as customers, users, or team members. By creating an empathy map, the group can better understand the problem from the perspective of those who are directly impacted. This understanding can help the group establish a clearer and more focused objective and scope for the workshop, ensuring that potential solutions address the most critical concerns of the affected individuals.

Step 3: Identify the Right Problem and Root Cause

Begin the workshop by collectively discussing the problem to gain a deeper understanding of its nuances. Use techniques like the 5 Whys or Fishbone Diagram to identify the root cause of the problem, ensuring that the team’s efforts are directed towards solving the underlying issue rather than merely addressing symptoms.

Approach this step with a well-defined strategy that guides participants through the process of understanding the problem and its underlying factors. The facilitator plays a pivotal role in creating an environment that encourages open and honest dialogue, allowing participants to share their insights and collectively work towards identifying the root cause.

Strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for discussions and ensuring that the workshop maintains momentum and stays on track. The facilitator may need to intervene occasionally to refocus the conversation or steer the group towards the desired outcome.

Be prepared to adapt to the evolving dynamics of the workshop. They must be flexible and responsive to new insights or challenges that emerge during the discussions. If necessary, the facilitator may need to adjust the workshop’s objectives, scope, or methodology to ensure that the group remains focused on addressing the problem’s root cause.

Consider using one of these workshop exercises to identify the right problem:

• Five Whys . This technique involves asking “Why?” repeatedly to dig deeper into the problem and uncover the root cause. By using this approach in the workshop, participants can move beyond surface-level symptoms to identify the true source of the issue. The facilitator can guide the group through the Five Whys exercise, ensuring that the discussion stays focused and productive.
• Fishbone Diagram . Also known as the Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram, this tool visually represents the relationship between a problem and its potential causes. Participants brainstorm and categorize potential causes into distinct branches, which can help the group identify the root cause. The facilitator can lead the group through the Fishbone Diagram exercise, encouraging them to consider various aspects of the problem and promoting a comprehensive understanding.
• Round Robin . This brainstorming technique involves giving each participant a chance to contribute an idea or perspective on the problem in a structured and organized manner. This ensures equal participation and helps to gather diverse insights. Using the Round Robin method, the facilitator can facilitate discussions on the problem’s root cause by encouraging participants to share their thoughts and perspectives without interruption.
• Force Field Analysis . This exercise helps participants identify the driving and restraining forces that influence a problem. By analyzing these forces, the group can gain a deeper understanding of the underlying factors contributing to the issue. The facilitator can guide participants through the Force Field Analysis, helping them to identify and assess the various forces at play and facilitating discussions on how these forces might relate to the root cause of the problem.

Step 4: Generate Ideas to Solve the Problem

Encourage participants to brainstorm solutions, emphasizing the importance of open-mindedness and creativity. Utilize techniques like mind mapping, round-robin, or the six thinking hats to foster an environment conducive to idea generation. Ensure that all participants have an opportunity to share their thoughts, and discourage judgment or criticism during this stage.

Make sure that all participants feel comfortable sharing their ideas, no matter how unconventional they may seem. This requires the facilitator to create a non-judgmental and supportive atmosphere that promotes inclusivity and equal participation.

One critical aspect for the facilitator is the use of various brainstorming techniques and ideation exercises that can stimulate creative thinking and encourage diverse perspectives. By employing a mix of individual and group activities, the facilitator can cater to different thinking styles and preferences, ensuring that everyone contributes to the ideation process.

These workshop exercises are great for generating ideas to solve the problem you identified:

• Mind Mapping . This technique helps to visually organize information around a central concept, allowing participants to generate ideas in a structured manner. It encourages them to think about the problem from different perspectives and make connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, which can lead to creative solutions.
• Crazy Eights . In this exercise, participants are given eight minutes to sketch out eight different ideas on a piece of paper. The time constraint forces them to think quickly and encourages them to generate a wide variety of ideas. By sharing and discussing their sketches afterward, the group can build upon each other’s ideas and develop more innovative solutions.
• Reverse Brainstorming . This technique prompts participants to think about the problem from an opposite perspective, by asking them to come up with ways to make the situation worse. By challenging conventional thinking, reverse brainstorming helps uncover new insights and approaches that may not have been considered otherwise.
• How Might We . This exercise frames the problem as an open-ended question, starting with the phrase “How might we…?”. This positive and optimistic framing encourages participants to think creatively and generate ideas without constraints. The open-ended nature of the question also promotes collaboration, as participants can build on each other’s ideas to find innovative solutions.
• Forced Analogy . In this exercise, participants are asked to draw analogies between the problem at hand and unrelated objects or scenarios. This encourages them to think about the problem from a new perspective and come up with creative ideas that they may not have considered otherwise. The forced analogy technique can reveal hidden connections and inspire innovative solutions.
• SCAMPER . This is an acronym for Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Reverse. Participants are prompted to think about the problem and generate ideas using each of these seven approaches. The SCAMPER technique encourages participants to look at the problem from different angles and find unique solutions.

Step 5: Evaluate and Refine Ideas

Once a range of potential solutions has been generated, evaluate their robustness and viability. Encourage participants to consider potential challenges, drawbacks, and risks associated with each idea. Use a decision matrix, SWOT analysis, or other evaluation tools to help compare and prioritize the proposed solutions.

Seek to create an environment where participants feel comfortable sharing their opinions and ideas while also being open to constructive feedback. The facilitator must balance encouragement and critical thinking, promoting an atmosphere where ideas are assessed objectively, and their merits and drawbacks are examined thoroughly.

Be aware of any biases, power imbalances, or dominant personalities that may influence the evaluation process. By skillfully navigating these dynamics, the facilitator can ensure that all voices are heard and that the evaluation process remains objective and fair.

These workshop exercises are great for evaluating and refining ideas.

• SWOT Analysis . This exercise requires participants to analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with each proposed solution. By conducting a SWOT Analysis, the group can thoroughly evaluate the viability and potential impact of each idea, identifying potential challenges and opportunities.
• Pros and Cons . In this exercise, participants list the advantages and disadvantages of each proposed solution. This method encourages participants to think critically about the potential outcomes of each idea, enabling the group to make a more informed decision.
• Poster Session . In this exercise, each proposed solution is presented on a poster, and participants are given time to review and provide feedback on each idea. The Poster Session promotes thoughtful consideration of each solution and allows for open discussion and collaborative evaluation.
• Plus/Delta . This exercise involves participants identifying the positive and negative aspects of an idea or solution. It can help to refine ideas by focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of each one.
• Affinity Mapping . This exercise involves grouping similar ideas together and can help to identify common themes and patterns. It can help to refine ideas by clarifying the relationships between different solutions.
• Assumptions Collection . This exercise involves identifying assumptions that have been made about the problem or solution and testing them to see if they are valid. It can help to refine ideas by identifying any flawed assumptions and correcting them.
• Force Field Analysis . This exercise involves identifying the forces that are supporting and opposing a proposed solution. It can help to refine ideas by addressing the barriers and challenges that need to be overcome for the solution to be successful.

By incorporating these workshop exercises, participants can thoroughly evaluate the proposed ideas to ensure they are robust and viable. These

Step 6: Select the Best Solution

As a group, decide on the most promising solution(s) based on the evaluation process. Discuss the reasoning behind the selection and ensure that all participants are on board with the decision.

To promote objectivity, encourage the use of predefined criteria or frameworks for evaluating the proposed solutions. By providing a structured approach to decision-making, participants will be better equipped to weigh the pros and cons of each idea, ultimately leading to a more informed choice.

This will also help you maintain a neutral stance throughout the selection process, allowing the group to discuss and debate the merits of each solution without bias. As a facilitator, your goal is to ensure that the group focuses on the problem at hand and avoids getting sidetracked by personal preferences or interpersonal conflicts.

If you see that the group is struggling to reach a consensus, you might need to guide them toward a decision. By summarizing the key points of the discussion and highlighting the most promising solutions, the facilitator can help the group make a well-informed decision that best addresses the problem.

The following workshop exercises are great for facilitating the selection process:

• Dot Voting . This method helps participants prioritize solutions by giving them a limited number of dots or stickers that they can distribute among the proposed ideas. The solutions with the most votes are considered the most promising and can be further discussed or refined.
• Fist to Five . This technique allows the group to quickly gauge the level of support for each solution. Participants indicate their level of agreement by raising a certain number of fingers (1 to 5), with five fingers signifying strong support. The solutions with the highest average scores are deemed the most favorable.
• Stack Ranking . In this exercise, participants rank the proposed solutions in order of preference, assigning a unique position to each idea. The facilitator then tallies the rankings and determines the overall order of preference for the group. This helps identify the top solutions based on collective input.
• Trade-off Sliders . This method encourages participants to consider the pros and cons of each solution by using sliders to represent various criteria, such as cost, time, or quality. Participants adjust the sliders to visually represent the trade-offs they are willing to make, and the facilitator synthesizes the results to identify the most viable solutions.
• SWOT Analysis . By evaluating each solution’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, participants can gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential outcomes and risks associated with each idea. This structured analysis helps the group make a more informed decision about which solution is best suited to address the problem.
• Decision Matrix . The facilitator creates a matrix with the proposed solutions as rows and the evaluation criteria as columns. Participants then score each solution based on how well it meets the criteria. The solution with the highest total score is considered the best option. This method promotes objective decision-making and allows for a clear comparison of the proposed solutions.
• Priority Mapping . This technique involves visually mapping ideas based on their importance and urgency. By using Priority Mapping, the group can quickly identify the most critical and time-sensitive ideas, ensuring that the most pressing solutions are prioritized for implementation.

Step 7: Develop a Plan for Implementation or Testing

With the chosen solution(s) in hand, create a detailed plan outlining the steps required for implementation or testing. Assign responsibilities, establish deadlines, and set milestones to ensure accountability and progress. Consider creating a pilot project or running tests to validate the effectiveness of the solution before a full-scale implementation.

Seek to guide the group in setting realistic timelines and defining clear roles and responsibilities. This involves promoting open communication, ensuring that everyone’s input is valued, and addressing any concerns that may emerge.

You might also consider to spend time establishing key metrics for monitoring success and setting up checkpoints to evaluate the success of the implementation, enabling the team to learn from their experiences and iterate on the solution as necessary.

The following workshop exercises work great for exploring an creating an implementation plan.

• Project timeline . A project timeline is an effective way to help the team map out the key milestones, tasks, and deadlines involved in implementing the chosen solution. It allows the team to visualize the project’s overall progress and identify potential issues that may arise during the implementation process.
• Future-Back Planning . Future-Back Planning is a technique that helps the team envision what success will look like in the future and work backward to identify the necessary steps to achieve that success. This approach can help the team develop a clear vision and strategy for implementing the solution.
• RACI Matrix . A RACI Matrix is a tool that can be used to clarify roles and responsibilities during the implementation process. It helps ensure that each team member understands their role in the project and can help prevent confusion or misunderstandings.
• Dependency Map . A Dependency Map is a visual tool that helps the team identify the interdependencies between different tasks or components of the project. This can help the team develop a more realistic and feasible plan for implementing the solution.
• Sailboat . The Sailboat exercise can be used to help the team identify potential obstacles or challenges that may arise during the implementation process. It involves visualizing the solution as a sailboat and identifying the factors that may help or hinder its progress towards the desired destination. This exercise can help the team proactively address any potential roadblocks and develop a plan to overcome them.

Step 8: Follow Up and Iterate

After the workshop, monitor the progress of the solution’s implementation or testing. Gather feedback, evaluate results, and make any necessary adjustments or refinements. Encourage open communication among participants, and consider scheduling follow-up meetings to review progress and address any emerging challenges.

The solution that was chosen may need to be adjusted or refined based on feedback or unexpected challenges that arise. As a facilitator, you should encourage team members to share their thoughts and ideas and foster an environment where experimentation and iteration are encouraged.

Find ways celebrate successes and acknowledge the efforts of the team throughout the process. This can help maintain morale and motivation for continued improvement and innovation.

Typical pitfalls when running a Problem-Solving Workshop

• Finding the Right Facilitator . Finding a facilitator who is knowledgeable and experienced in problem-solving techniques can be a challenge. It is important to find someone who can effectively lead the workshop and ensure that all participants are engaged and productive.
• Establishing Clear Goals . Establishing clear goals for the workshop is essential for its success. Without a clear understanding of the objectives, it can be difficult to ensure that the workshop is productive and successful.
• Creating an Engaging Environment . Creating an engaging environment for the workshop is key to its success. Participants need to feel comfortable and be able to focus on the task at hand.
• Managing Time . Time management is essential for a successful workshop. It is important to ensure that the workshop is structured in a way that allows for productive discussion and problem-solving.
• Ensuring Participation . Ensuring that all participants are actively engaged in the workshop is essential. It is important to create an environment where everyone feels comfortable to contribute and share their ideas.

Google is known for its commitment to fostering a culture of innovation and continuous improvement. The company regularly conducts workshops, hackathons, and brainstorming sessions to encourage creative problem-solving among employees. Google’s “20% time” policy, which allowed employees to dedicate 20% of their time to side projects, has led to the development of successful products like Gmail and Google Maps.

IDEO, a global design consultancy, is renowned for its human-centered, collaborative approach to problem-solving called “design thinking.” The company conducts workshops, both internally and for clients, to tackle complex challenges and create innovative solutions. This approach has helped IDEO to develop breakthrough products, such as the Apple mouse and the Palm V PDA.

Procter & Gamble (P&G)

P&G is a consumer goods company that has leveraged problem-solving workshops and open innovation programs to drive growth. They have held workshops and innovation sessions, such as the “Clay Street Project,” where cross-functional teams come together to tackle complex challenges and create new products. The company’s innovation initiatives have resulted in successful products like Swiffer, Febreze, and Mr. Clean Magic Eraser.

LEGO, the toy company known for its iconic plastic bricks, has used problem-solving workshops to foster innovation and drive business growth. The company has employed design thinking workshops to explore new product ideas and refine existing ones. LEGO’s commitment to problem-solving and innovation has led to the creation of successful product lines such as LEGO Mindstorms, LEGO Architecture, and LEGO Ideas.

• What is the purpose of the workshop?
• What are the objectives of the workshop?
• Who will be attending the workshop?
• What topics will be covered in the workshop?
• What methods will be used to facilitate problem-solving?
• What is the expected outcome of the workshop?
• How will the success of the workshop be measured?
• What is the timeline for the workshop?
• What is the budget for the workshop?

You might also be interested in reading up on:

• How Might We
• Hypothesis Statement
• Problem Statement
• Six Thinking Hats
• SWOT Analysis
• Affinity Diagram
• CIRCLES Method
• Design Thinking
• Jobs-To-Be-Done Framework (JTBD)
• Tim Brown @tceb62
• Tom Kelley @TomKelley74
• Jeanne Liedtka @jeanneliedtka
• Tendayi Viki @tendayiviki
• Dave Gray @davegray
• Lateral Thinking : Creativity Step by Step by Edward de Bono (1970)
• Thinkertoys : A Handbook of CreativeThinking Techniques by Michael Michalko (1991)
• Problem Solving and Decision Making : A Guide for Managers by Barry K. Baines (2000)
• The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking by Edward B. Burger and Michael Starbird (2012)
• Six Thinking Hats by Edward de Bono (1985)
• Innovation Games : Creating Breakthrough Products Through Collaborative Play by Luke Hohmann (2006)
• Gamestorming by Dave Gray (2010)

Want to learn more?

Receive a hand picked list of the best reads on building products that matter every week. Curated by Anders Toxboe. Published every Tuesday.

No spam! Unsubscribe with a single click at any time.

Community events Product Loop

Product Loop provides an opportunity for Product professionals and their peers to exchange ideas and experiences about Product Design, Development and Management, Business Modelling, Metrics, User Experience and all the other things that get us excited.

• Become a mentee
• Become a mentor
• Product Management glossary
• User Experience glossary
• Product playbooks
• Product & UX video library
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Code of Ethics

Made with in Copenhagen, Denmark

Want to learn more about about good product development, then browse our product playbooks .

Members-only Content

• Monthly Member Events
• Event Session Videos
• Experience Reports
• Research Papers
• Share a Community Event
• Submit an Article to the Blog
• Submit a Member Initiative
• Promote a Training Event

Become an Agile Alliance member!

Your membership enables us to offer a wealth of resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and so much more! And, while you’re supporting our non-profit mission, you’ll also gain access to a range of valuable member benefits. Learn more

• Join Us Today
• Member Portal
• Membership FAQs
• Terms and Conditions
• Corporate Members

Agile Conferences

• Agile en Chile 2024
• Agile Executive Forum
• Agile2024 European Experience
• All Agile Alliance Events
• Past Conferences
• Become an Event Sponsor

Virtual Events

• Member Events Calendar
• Agile MiniCon
• BYOC Lean Coffee
• Agile Tech Talks
• Member Meet & Greet
• Agile Coaching Network
• Full Events Calendar
• Community Events
• Non-profit Events
• Agile Training
• Sponsored Meetup Groups
• Submit a Non-profit Event
• Submit a For-profit Training
• Event Funding Request
• Global Events Calendars

• Events Calendar
• BYOC – Lean Coffee
• Member Meet & Greet
• View All Events
• Submit an Event
• Meetup Groups
• Past Conferences & Events

Agile Essentials is designed to bring you up to speed on the basic concepts and principles of Agile with articles, videos, glossary terms, and more.

Agile Essentials

Download the Agile Manifesto

To download a free PDF copy of the Agile Manifesto and 12 Principles of Agile, simply sign-up for our newsletter. Agile Alliance members can download it for free.

• Agile Essentials Overview
• Agile Manifesto
• 12 Principles Behind the Manifesto
• A Short History of Agile
• Subway Map to Agile Practices
• Agile Glossary
• Introductory Videos

Recent Blog Posts

Agile – One conversation, two views

Agile Coach Camp Worldwide is going to Costa Rica

Agile Alliance Call for Nominations for the Board of Directors

View all blog posts

Agile Resources

The new agile resource guide.

Find Agile services and products from our member companies in our new Agile Resource Guide . Many listings in the guide feature exclusive offers just for Agile Alliance members. View the guide 

• Remote Working Guide
• Event Sessions
• Content Library

Sustainability Manifesto

The  Agile Sustainability Initiative has created the Agile Sustainability Manifesto in an effort to grow awareness about sustainability within the Agile community and inspire a more sustainable way of working. Read and sign now

MEMBER INITIATIVES

• Agile Sustainability Initiative
• Principle 12 Initiative
• Agile in Color Initiative
• Agile Coach Camp Worldwide
• Agile Coaching Ethics

View all initiatives

Your Community

Global development.

• LATAM Community
• India Community

Global Affiliates

• Community Groups
• Community Services
• Member Initiatives
• LATAM Community Development
• India Community Development
• Volunteer Signup

OUR POLICIES

Become a sponsor.

Being an Agile Alliance sponsor is a great way to introduce your company to our members to build awareness around your products and services. The Call for Agile2024 Sponsorships is now open, and there are great options and opportunities still available! Learn more >

• About Agile Alliance
• Code of Conduct
• Board of Directors
• Agile Alliance Brazil
• Agile Alliance New Zealand
• Policies, Reports & Bylaws
• Logo and Media Files
• Become a Sponsor

Experience Report

The sun never sets on the problem-solving workshop, about this publication.

A fundamental agile principle is  “…the team reflects at regular intervals how to become more effective”  The SAFe Inspect and Adapt Problem Solving workshop is a wonderful opportunity for everyone on an Agile Release Train (ART) to reflect on becoming more effective. However, what happens when the ART teams are massively distributed, such that the Sun truly never sets on the ART? How do you provide everyone on the ART an opportunity to reflect and collaborate with others who have similar interests, and not just their local cohorts? How do you enable all to participate in the problem-solving session, to raise and solve problems that are important to them, and not just the problems that are important and visible to “home base” or as we called it, the mother ship? This is the situation we faced at a large multi-national energy company preparing to conduct their first SAFe problem-solving workshop. This is our story for how we executed a problem-solving workshop for an ART on which the Sun never set.

1.     INTRODUCTION: “ The Team Reflects at Regular Intervals How to Become More Effective ” – Agile Principles

Agility is not just about continuously learning and adapting the work product, but also reflecting on and adapting the work process itself. Continuous improvement is fundamental to high performing teams and most agile methodologies have a built-in process review like Scrum’s retrospective. The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe  tm ) builds on top of this team level view with a problem-solving workshop that is conducted at the end of a Program Increment (big time box) to understand the opportunities for improvement across all teams on the Agile Release Train (ART).

2.     BACKGROUND

Our client is a marquee multi-national energy company with operations around the globe and with an ART spanning the globe. While headquartered in US, teams are located across the US and around the world including London, Buenos Aires, Manila, Perth, and Kazakhstan. Literally, the Sun does no set on the program. Our program was moving applications from the on-premise data center to the cloud. While our program was organized on paper as SAFe Solution Train (a train of trains), it operated very much like an oversized single ART, with over 30 teams and with nearly 400 people involved. Our “train” ran 6 two-week iterations, including a 2-week IP sprint. This was our sixth PI and to date, and while the individual teams conducted team level retrospectives, there had not been an overall review of how the train(s) worked together. As the trains were growing rapidly beyond what heroic ad hoc problem solving could resolve, we decided it was important to start systematically “reflecting at regular intervals how to become more effective” and began planning a SAFe problem solving workshop.

3.     NO MOTHERSHIP

The SAFe problem-solving workshop is part of the SAFe Inspect and Adapt event. General guidance for the problem-solving workshop is that it is about a two-hour process, where all members of the ART participate. This creates a fantastic opportunity for people to collaborate with others beyond their immediate team members. There is an implied assumption that everyone is in the same room. This, of course, was totally impossible for us, unless we wanted to fly everyone to corporate head office in the US.

A typical solution to this distribution problem is what we sometimes referred to as the “mothership” approach. We could hold the problem-solving session at the head office – the mothership – and use video collaboration tools like WebEx or GotoMeeting or Zoom to engage everyone else. Unfortunately, this approach was most likely to only give us a North American point of view and not a true global view. We wanted to avoid a North America centric problem-solving session for as one plucky Australian noted, more than 50% of the value of the train came from outside of North America. Experience suggests when there is a face to face mothership style meeting with other members engaging online, the online members are not engaged and are at best lurkers.

Conducting a “mothership” problem solving workshop, could have reinforced the perception that head office was the center of the universe as most of the senior staff such as the RTEs, Program Managers, Architects, were located there. Finally, scheduling a single “mothership” session is not respectful of people because we would be asking a fair portion of the train to participate in the middle of their night. Therefore, we did not want to conduct a “mothership” style of problem-solving workshop. We needed an approach that created the same opportunity for everyone to participate.

4.     EVERYONE ONLINE

While co-location and face to face conversations are much touted in the agile community, the reality of large-scale systems development is that many people from around the world collaborate to create those large systems. The Agile Principles were written nearly 20 years ago when collaboration technology was at its infancy. Ideally teams that must work closely together are physically close together, but they still need to interact with their global colleagues. Online collaboration is a fact of life and modern tools offer a fair approximation of a physical face to face meeting. With the decision made to conduct the problem-solving workshop online, the next issue was determining how to run the meeting on a program with a never setting Sun.

5.     AN AGENDA FOR A GLOBAL WORKSHOP

SAFe outlines a six-step agenda for the two-hour problem-solving workshop:

• Agree on the problem to solve
• Apply root cause analysis (5 Whys)
• Identify the biggest root cause using Pareto analysis
• Restate the problem for the biggest root-cause
• Brainstorm solutions
• Identify improvement backlog items

It was apparent that we were not going to execute this agenda as a two-hour workshop, at least not if we wanted the entire train to actively participate. Instead, we devised a 1 week rolling agenda:

• Dec 12th by this date the teams are expected to have conducted a “mini retrospective” identifying what each team sees as the program level issues.
• Dec 13th Publish and collate Issues discovered during the mini retrospectives.
• Dec 13th Vote on the published issue list to select the top 5 issues.
• Dec 14th Schedule the problem-solving workshop published and name the facilitators.
• Dec 17th Conduct problem solving sessions
• Dec 19th Present a summary of the workshop

5.1       Step 0: Train the Scrum Masters on the Process

We were relying on the Scrum Masters to “fly solo” and work with their teams to facilitate the event. Thus, we trained our Scrum Masters with the intention behind the SAFe problem-solving workshop, our multi-day rolling agenda, and their role in making it happen. This was a two-hour training session with the agenda dates and activities.

5.2       Step 1: Agreeing on the problem to solve.

Step one in the SAFe problem-solving agenda is to come up with the three to five problems that are of the highest interest to everyone on the train. The intention of this step is to give everyone in the room a voice. In a text book problem-solving session, everyone is in the same room and usually writes issues of concern to them on a sticky note. These are posted on a board and everyone dot votes on the top five or so issues. Groups of people with a common interest can then collaborate. This creates a wonderful opportunity for greater social cohesion because people can collaborate with others who share a common interest rather than just their familiars.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, corporate IT is conservative While there are numerous cloud-based shared document tools, access to these tools are blocked through the corporate firewall due to security concerns. While this is often annoying, as one IT manager once remarked “we haven’t been in the news, and we don’t intend to be” Conservatism certainly has its virtues, but we needed the equivalent of an electronic flipchart. Fortunately, the organization used Microsoft OneNote which worked quite admirably for us.

Instead of writing issues on post-it notes and sticking the notes onto a flip chart sheet, the Scrum Master worked with their team to capture in Microsoft OneNote the issues the team believed were impeding progress at the “program level”. In our distributed agenda, we gave the Scrum Master three days to gather candidate issues and get them into a OneNote team page. After the issues were captured by the teams in OneNote, the three authors of this paper consolidated the issues and created a list of 20 program level issues. In retrospect it may have been more appropriate to have the teams themselves perform an affinity mapping exercise to consolidate the team issues. However, in our opinion at this time, this would have been a significant coordination effort with very little gain.

For the dot voting, we used PollEv.com and asked people vote on their top issues over a 2-day period. PollEv.com enables people to respond to online questionnaires using either their mobile device or desktop computer. We ran a quick spike to test PollEv.com to create familiarity with the tool by asking people to vote for their favourite science fiction movie. The poll response was at best disappointing, only 20 people responded to the poll or about 5% of the train. While we were disappointed by the lack of interest, we were also thankful that nearly 400 people were not eagerly waiting to collectively jump into the workshop.

Despite the low polling response, this problem identification step was an important step for us because the problems raised were the problems the teams were experiencing and not necessarily the problems program management at the mothership thought were relevant. Without this step, we would have had a very limited view of the problems the widely-distributed teams were experiencing.

The top 5 problems identified were:

• There is no visibility for which team owns certain features (e.g. monitoring and alerts). This has led to duplication of work.
• Dependencies between teams are not clear during sprints.
• Lack of team objectives and identity make it hard to understand what a team does.
• Compliance activities take a long time.
• How should support be structured for cloud migrations?

The benefit of this step was these issues caught head office – the mothership – a bit by surprise. For example, head office had good visibility into team ownership of features and therefore assumed that of course the teams must also have good visibility. By giving voice to all members of the train, we were able to draw attention to a real problem that was not on the management radar.

5.3       Steps 2 to 5: The Workshops

In the textbook version of the problem-solving workshop, after agreeing on the problem to solve, the group immediately rolls into the root cause analysis. That is the benefit of co-location and face to face communication: rapid decision-making action. Distribution across time zones, unfortunately, extends decision making time because of the coordination delays. It took us 3 days to get set up for the root cause analysis. The first day was spent setting up and verifying access to our pages in OneNote. The second day was spent scheduling the workshops. The third day was used to conduct the training to prepare the participants for the workshop.

Scheduling the workshop was at best a compromise between having the whole team present and respect for people. A consequence of having a program on which the Sun never sets is if we wanted to create the opportunity for everyone to simultaneously participate on the issue of their choice, then someone was losing sleep. This is not showing respect for people. The best compromise we came up with, was to schedule three, two-hour workshops throughout one day: one at noon central time (GMT-6), one at 6 pm central, and the final one at 10 pm central. While we had started with 5 issues, we reduced our list to the top three because we did not have enough facilitators to cover 5 workshops.

The intention behind our scheduling was to have at least one workshop scheduled for a time that someone could attend that would be reasonably convenient for them in their time zone. Of course, the topic for the reasonably convenient workshop may not be of interest to the participant. In addition, for someone who had a keen interest in a specific problem that was scheduled at an inconvenient time may have to choose between sleep and collaborating. Not ideal, but at least that would be their choice.

We continued to use Microsoft OneNote as our collaboration tool. In a OneNote document we created three sections, one for each problem and set up the SAFe fishbone diagram for each. OneNote allows multiple individuals to simultaneously create and edit content on the page; very much an electronic flip chart. The workshops were conducted in WebEx and we had two facilitators per workshop. One facilitator was the “driver” actively engaging and facilitating the session, while the other was the “navigator” keeping an eye on the chat window and engaging with individuals through chat.

Participation was voluntary for this first problem-solving session because we only needed to validate whether our agenda and tooling worked. While we were disappointed by the low participation rate of 20-30 per workshop, we were also grateful that we did not have to facilitate an interactive online workshop with 100+ people in it with our initial attempt in combining all the different technologies.

We timeboxed the root cause analysis to 20 minutes. Participants were initially a little hesitant to engage with the fishbone diagram but that is what the facilitators are for: to help participants move out of their comfort zones. Soon, issues began to, almost magically, appear on the shared page. It was fun to watch as participants engaged in the root cause analysis.

After root cause analysis, we moved to the next agenda item – identify the biggest root cause. We identified the biggest root cause by requesting participants “dot vote” on the fishbone diagram and simply place an “X” on what they believed was the biggest root cause. This was in a word, messy. It would certainly have not work well if we had a large group to work with. For future workshops we would have to transcribe the analysis to another OneNote page for the dot voting.

Once we identified the biggest root causes, we moved onto re-writing the problem statement. The SAFe training materials remind people that a problem well-stated is a problem half solved. In one workshop, the original problem “lack of team objectives make it hard to understand what a team does” was re-written as “I don’t know what other teams are doing and therefore I do not know who I depend on and therefore who I need to talk to” As facilitators, we probably overstepped our boundaries: rather than asking “powerful questions” we almost took the wheel ourselves. It is one thing to ask people to post their thoughts on a fishbone diagram. It is quite another to get people to collaboratively write a statement online. Part of our motivation to “grab the wheel” was to get something done within the timebox. This behaviour on our parts is something we will have to be more cautious about in future. We also took note that future participants will be more familiar with the process and will hopefully be less hesitant to participate.

After restating the problem, we moved to the next agenda item and brainstormed solutions. We simply used a blank page in OneNote to let everyone write their solutions, and then we followed up with a dot vote to pick the actions for us to take. These actions were either implemented as new “working agreements” or added to the program backlog:

• Establish a regular meeting between business owners and their POs where the business owners can make their goals clear to the PO
• Highlight the team’s objectives and benefits during PI Planning
• Scrum Masters add their team objectives to their team descriptions in MS Teams
• Build and maintain a SAFe program board

A day after the workshop we consolidated the contributions and outcomes in the problem-solving workshop page in OneNote and broadcast a summary to all members of the train.

6.     LESSONS LEARNED

This experience highlighted the importance of the problem-solving workshop and creating an opportunity for all voices to be heard. This was the sixth PI for these trains and yet this was their first problem solving workshop. The workshop revealed problems that the members of the trains were experiencing but were not on the management radar. Even with the best of intentions, on a very large distributed train, it is all too easy to become disconnected from the needs of the far-flung teams. This problem-solving workshop is a massive opportunity to mitigate this “mothership” syndrome. Our experience demonstrates the value of a globally distributed problem-solving workshop that creates equal opportunity for all voices to be heard.

While we were able to validate our global agenda, the next lesson learned is running a highly distributed workshop is a significant logistical undertaking. Potentially two orders of magnitude more planning than a comparable co-located workshop. The logistics for running the workshop had long been an impediment to scheduling the workshop. For a large distributed train, there will be considerable effort required to prepare and coordinate all teams around the globe. SAFe suggests the workshop only requires two hours. It took us over a week to plan and execute the workshop. One person was almost fully dedicated to this effort. The price of a large distributed team is an order of magnitude increase in both coordination effort and coordination delays. The value in learning what is really impeding work can be priceless.

Some other lessons learned:

• Surprise – a large logistically complex workshop will not happen unless leadership drives it.
• People do not mind losing sleep to solve a problem if the problem is of interest to them and it is their choice to participate or not.
• The problem causing the teams the most pain are often not what management thinks are the problems causing the teams the most pain.
• Managing the logistics of a globally distributed workshop are easily an order of magnitude more time consuming and complex than running a local face-to-face workshop.
• Even primitive collaboration tools can help you run a distributed problem-solving workshop(s).
• People require additional training ahead of time to run an effective distributed problem-solving workshop

Was it worth it? Yes, for if the Sun never sets on your program, then you owe it to everyone in the program to discover what their concerns and issues are and not what the mothership thinks they are.

7.     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would to thank Lise Hvatum our shepherd whose guidance and recommendation was greatly appreciated. Also we wish to express our gratitude to Rebecca Wirfs-Brock for her support and help.

• Download the Experience Report
• Rochelle Tan
• Steve Adolph
• Report Source
• Download Report

You must be an Agile Alliance member to download the report. Please log in to your account now, or join us to take advantage of all our members-only events and resources.

Your Bookmarks

No favorites to display. You must have cookies enabled to add bookmarks.

Have a comment? Join the conversation

Related agile experience reports, restarting scaled agile development at austrian post, navigating mobile robotics development & delivery using agile, making it stick: driving agile behaviours with influence, not authority, luck, design, tears & passion – my story of building an agile consulting practice in africa, discover the many benefits of membership.

Your membership enables Agile Alliance to offer a wealth of first-rate resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and more — all geared toward helping Agile practitioners reach their full potential and deliver innovative, Agile solutions.

Thank you to our valued Agile Alliance Annual Partners

Our new Annual Partner Program offers a new and exciting level of engagement beyond event sponsorship.

Our Cornerstone Corporate Supporting Members

Our Corporate Supporting Members are vital to the mission of Agile Alliance.  Click here to view all corporate members.

©2024 Agile Alliance  |  All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

©2024 Agile Alliance All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

• Welcome back!

Not yet a member? Sign up now

• Renew Membership
• Agile Alliance Events
• Agile en Español
• Agile en Chile
• Resources Overview
• Agile Books
• Content Library by Category
• Content Standards
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Privacy Overview

10 Tips for Facilitating Your Problem-Solving Workshop

A problem-solving workshop is a structured approach to address a particular challenge or issue that a team or organization is facing. The workshop is designed to bring together a diverse group of individuals with different perspectives, skills, and knowledge to collaborate on identifying and solving the problem at hand.

The workshop typically involves a series of activities and exercises designed to help participants understand the problem, generate ideas for potential solutions, and evaluate and prioritise those solutions based on a set of criteria or metrics . Depending on the nature of the problem and the desired outcomes of the workshop, the exercises may include brainstorming sessions, group discussions, role-playing exercises, prototyping, or other activities.

The goal of a problem-solving workshop is to create a collaborative, creative, and open environment where participants feel empowered to share their ideas, challenge assumptions, and work together towards a common goal. By bringing together a diverse group of individuals with different perspectives and expertise, the workshop can tap into a wide range of knowledge and experience, which can lead to more innovative and effective solutions.

The workshop may be facilitated by an internal or external facilitator, who can help to guide the participants through the process and keep them focused on the problem at hand. Depending on the complexity of the problem and the size of the group, the workshop may take anywhere from a few hours to several days to complete.

Our top tips for facilitating a problem solving workshop are:

• Clearly define the problem: Before starting the workshop, make sure the problem is clearly defined and understood by all participants.
• Establish ground rule s: Set clear guidelines for how the workshop will be conducted, including rules for respectful communication and decision-making.
• Encourage diverse perspectives: Encourage participants to share their diverse perspectives and experiences, and consider using techniques such as brainstorming to generate a wide range of ideas.
• Use a structured process: Utilize a structured problem-solving process, such as the six-step process outlined by the International Association of Facilitators, to guide the workshop.
• Promote active listening : Encourage participants to actively listen to each other and seek to understand different viewpoints.
• Encourage collaboration : Foster a collaborative atmosphere by encouraging teamwork and shared ownership of the problem-solving process.
• Facilitate decision making : Help participants make informed decisions by providing them with the necessary information and resources.
• Encourage creativity : Encourage participants to think creatively and outside the box to generate new ideas and solutions.
• Monitor and manage group dynamics : Pay attention to group dynamics and intervene as needed to keep the workshop on track and prevent conflicts.
• Follow up and review: Follow up on the outcomes of the workshop and review the results to continually improve the problem-solving process.

Here are some exercises that may be more fun and engaging for a problem-solving workshop:

• Escape room : Create an escape room-style challenge that requires participants to solve a series of problems to escape the room.
• Treasure hunt: Create a treasure hunt that requires participants to solve clues and riddles to find hidden objects or reach a goal.
• Charades: Have participants act out different scenarios related to the problem and have the rest of the group guess what they are trying to communicate.
• Jigsaw puzzles : Use jigsaw puzzles as a metaphor for solving problems and have participants work together to piece the puzzle together.
• Improv games: Use improv games, such as “Yes, And,” to encourage creativity and build teamwork skills.
• Scavenger hunt : Create a scavenger hunt that requires participants to solve clues and challenges to find hidden objects or complete tasks.
• Board games : Use board games that require problem-solving skills, such as escape room-style games or strategy games, to make problem-solving more interactive and fun.
• Puzzle-based challenges: Create puzzle-based challenges that require participants to solve a series of interconnected problems to reach a goal.
• Role-playing games : Use role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons, to encourage creative problem solving and teamwork.
• Creativity challenges : Use creativity challenges, such as “the Marshmallow Challenge,” to encourage out-of-the-box thinking and teamwork.

In conclusion, a problem-solving workshop can be a powerful tool for teams and organisations looking to tackle complex challenges and drive innovation. By bringing together a diverse group of individuals with different perspectives and expertise, the workshop can create a collaborative, creative, and open environment where participants feel empowered to share their ideas, challenge assumptions, and work towards a common goal.

While the success of a problem-solving workshop depends on many factors, such as the facilitation, the quality of the problem statement, and the engagement of the participants, the potential benefits are significant. By tapping into the collective intelligence of the group, the workshop can generate new ideas, identify blind spots, and build consensus around potential solutions. Moreover, the workshop can help to foster a culture of collaboration, learning, and innovation that can have a lasting impact on the team or organization.

Related Posts

The 16th Annual State of Agile Report

How Do Web3 and Agile Combine To Enhance Development

Difference Between Agile and Explain Organic Agile

Why Spillover Happens and Why You Shouldn’t Worry

The Johari Window and Agile Methodologies – An Explosive Combo

“Dual Track” Agile

Main Differences Between Three Concepts – Agile, Scrum, And Kanban

Why Teams Outcome Is More Important Than Its Velocity or Even Output

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Copyright © 2023 Agile Heuristics. All rights reserved. Agile Heuristics Ltd is a private limited company, registered in the United Kingdom, with company number 14699131

Back to Guides

How to run a problem-solving workshop.

What is a problem-solving workshop?

A problem-solving workshop is a rapid session that helps you:

• Understand the root cause of a problem
• Quickly generate ideas to solve it
• Evaluate the ideas to ensure they’re robust
• Make a plan to test or implement the solution

This workshop critically assesses what’s going wrong and helps you find out what your options are to solve it, before you decide on the perfect solution.

Who should run a problem-solving workshop?

Product team leads, such as designers, product managers or engineers can run this type of workshop. There’s no one right person to lead something as important as this.

In fact, the core of your product development should start with the problem rather than the solution itself. It can be tempting to jump straight into features, but until you understand the problem well, you can’t begin to solve it.

When to run a problem-solving workshop

This workshop can be used in various circumstances:

• A show-stopping problem that grinds everything to a halt
• An intermittent problem that you want to get to the bottom of
• A customer or user problem, such as a pain point when using a service or product
• A high-level business problem, for example “too many customer complaints”, “conversion rate is too low”, or “operating costs are too high”

1. Get the right people together

2. identify the right problem.

• 3. Come up with ideas to solve the problem

4. Evaluate the ideas to ensure they’re robust

5. make a plan to test or implement the solution.

Read on to find out how to do all that, and more.

Invite all affected parties to a session. These are people that the problem has a direct impact on. Including those that aren’t impacted may offer a more objective view, but ultimately; more people equals more time. We want to solve problems with haste, so we can find out if it’s the right solution sooner rather than later!

What may appear like the problem, could be one of many observable results of a deeper underlying problem. To identify the ‘right’ or ‘true’ problem, we need to delve into it. This method is often called “Root Cause Analysis”.

There are many ways to conduct a Root Cause Analysis, but the easiest and most pragmatic way is to use the  Five Whys Analysis tactic .

Simply put, asking “why?” at least five times will lead you to the real problem. Solving this root problem subsequently solves all of the surface problems associated with it.

Learn how to run the Five Whys Analysis tactic

3. Come up with ideas to solve your problem

What normally follows identifying the right problem is a flurry of ideas. This usually takes the form of blurting them out at each other – but there are better, more structured ways to capture ideas.  Generating ideas in a structured way gives you time and space to think, as well as building on others’ ideas. The result means more thorough and refined ideas, over a back of the napkin sketch that the loudest person in the room decides is the best thing to do.

Idea-generation tactics for problem solving:

• Mind Map  – Get your brain on to paper, so you can start to form ideas for the methods below.
• Crazy Eights  – Eight ideas in eight minutes
• Reverse Brainstorm  – Come up with ways to make the problem  worse,  then reverse it to get the solution
• Round Robin  – Generate an idea, then have the person next to you build on it
• Storyboard  – Turn your idea into a sequence of events to understand how it might actually work in reality

Once you have a suite of ideas, you’ll want to review them and try some  evaluative tactics .

If you have a lot of ideas, you might want to prioritise the most promising ones to take forward with a decision tactic such as  Priority Map  or  Blind Vote .

Once you have a shortlist of ideas it can be tempting to go with the one that appears most promising. If time is of the essence, and it’s low risk – it might be the right call to just try it out.

However, it’s vital to evaluate ideas for solutions that may be more costly or complicated. Kick the tyres, so to speak.

Evaluating ideas gives you the confidence that your promising idea truly is promising, and is worthy of taking forward to the next stage: prototyping and implementation.

Evaluation tactics for ideas:

• Idea Beetle  –  a set of questions that help you assess if your idea is robust before you progress with it
• Rose, Thorn, Bud  –  a way to review the good, the bad and the potential of an idea
• SWOT Analysis  –  articulate an idea’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats

If you still have a lot of ideas, you might want to prioritise the most promising ones to take forward with a decision tactic such as  Priority Map  or  Blind Vote .

Now you should have one or two (or more!) evaluated, robust and promising ideas that you want to try out to solve the problem.

Whether you need to work out how to prototype and test the idea, or go ahead and implement the solution right away – you need a plan.

To work out a plan, use the  Sticky Steps tactic , which mentally starts you off at having the solution implemented or prototype tested, then works backwards to today in order to see what steps you need to take.

Once you have a solid plan, create accountability by creating a list of tasks to do, and assigning them to people with a deadline. You can do this with the  Who, What, When tactic .

2 thoughts on “How to run a problem-solving workshop”

Hi I’d love to know approx about how long it should take to run one of these workshops. If you could include that in your very helpful summaries – I think that would be very helpful to plan and market these types of servies.

Appreciate all you do! R

All activities are very helpful.

Appreciate you Nazia Psychologist

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Let us know what thoughts or questions you have about this guide so we can improve it.

If you leave us your email, we'll let you know if we update this guide based on your feedback.

• Skip to content

Problem-solving workshop: Step-by-Step

A problem-solving workshop is held by the Agile Release Train and its purpose is to address systematic problems. The workshop that concentrates on identifying the problems, not just addressing the symptoms, is facilitated by the Release Train Engineer and time-boxed to maximum of two hours. What are the six steps of the workshop?

In SAFe® (Scaled Agile Framework for Enterprises®), problem-solving workshop is done during the Inspect & Adapt (I & A) event. I & A  is held at the end of each Program Increment, and it forms the basis for relentless improvement, one of the four pillars of the SAFe House of Lean , and a dimension of the Continuous Learning Culture core competency.

During the three parts of I & A event (PI System Demo, Quantitative and Qualitative measurement, and Retrospective and problem-solving workshop), the ART demonstrates and evaluates the current state of the solution and teams reflect and identify improvement backlog items. In this article we are going to concentrate on the last part of the event, problem-solving workshop, during which teams systematically address the larger impediments that are limiting velocity.

Problem-solving workshop consists of 6 steps

Step 1: agree on the problem to solve.

Clearly stating the problem is key to problem identification and correction. It enables more focused investigation, time-saving, and avoids ‘ready, fire, aim’ approach. On the other hand, a problem that is not well defined, may result in failure to reach the proper countermeasure. To identify and agree on the problem to solve, the teams should spend a few minutes clearly stating the problem, highlighting the ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, and ‘impact’ as succinctly as they can.

Step 2: Apply root-cause analysis and 5 whys

The Root-cause analysis and the ‘5 Whys’ technique is used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem. It helps to avoid assumptions and logic traps, trace the chain of causality in direct increments from the effect to a root cause.

The root cause analysis (fishbone or Ishikawa) diagram features 5 main ‘bones’ that represent typical sources of problems in development (tools, people, program, process, environment). Team members then brainstorm causes that they think contribute to the problem to be solved and group them into these categories. Once a cause is identified, its root cause is explored with the 5 Whys technique. By simply asking ‘why’ multiple times, the cause of the previous cause is uncovered, and added to the diagram. The process stops once a suitable root cause has been identified and the same process is then applied to the next cause (© Scaled Agile, Inc.).

Step 3: Identify the biggest root-cause using Pareto analysis

Team uses Pareto analysis (or 80/20 rule) to narrow down the number of actions that produce the most significant overall effect. It is based on the principle that 20% of root causes can cause 80% of problems and it has proved useful where many possible sources and actions are competing. Once the team writes down all the causes-of-causes, they identify the biggest root-cause using dot-voting – every team member has five dots on its disposal, and he can allocate them to one or more items he thinks are most problematic. Then they summarize votes in Pareto chart that shows collective consensus on the most significant root-cause.

Step 4: Restate the new problem for the biggest root-cause

Team picks the most voted item from Pareto chart. They restate it clearly as a problem and add economic impact of the problem to the description.

Step 5: Brainstorm solutions

During the brainstorming activity that lasts about 15 – 30 minutes, team brainstorms as many possible corrective actions as possible. The goal of activity is to generate as many ideas as possible, without criticism or debate. Team members should let their imagination soar and explore and combine all the ideas that arise and in the end dot-vote to identify top contenders.

Step 6: Identify improvement backlog items (NRFs)

In the end of the problem-solving workshop, up to three most voted solutions are identified. Solutions are then rephrased as improvement stories and features to be fed directly into the PI Planning event that follows the I & A event. During that event, the RTE helps ensure that the relevant work needed to deliver the identified improvements is planned. This closes the loop, thus ensuring that action will be taken, and that people and resources are dedicated as necessary to improve the current state. In this way, problem-solving becomes routine and systematic, and team members and ART stakeholders can be assured that the train is solidly on its journey of relentless improvement (© Scaled Agile, Inc. ).

You may also like

Business Agility Elevated: The Integral Role of SPCs

• Uncategorized

5 ways a Scrum Master can encourage learning

How To Prepare For A Problem-solving Workshop

Imagine sitting in a room with a firm of doctors. Each specialist carefully analyses every facet of a patient’s case. Everyone with their knowledge at play is geared to provide viable solutions to address the challenges they face.

Although the software design world may seem like a far cry from the medical field, they share a fundamental similarity: both revolve around problem-solving. Designers apply multiple practices to validate and authenticate solutions with our partners.

To align everyone, we set up Problem-Solving Workshops (PSWs). At its core, PSWs are a space to solve problems. Our team will dissect every aspect of the problem, identify potential challenges, and find the best solutions. Finally, we validate the process through testing.

Neil Webb, Design Producer and problem-solving workshop facilitator at MOHARA, shed light on how this process works by answering a few of our probing questions.

What Are Problem-Solving Workshops?

A problem-solving workshop is a collaborative event or session where participants come together to identify, analyse, and develop solutions for a specific problem or set of problems.

It could be a show-stopper of a problem that has stopped work or a way to identify improvement backlog items for your next sprint. The main goal of this process is to foster creative thinking, encourage teamwork, and facilitate learning by sharing ideas, experiences, and perspectives.

A typical problem-solving workshop can take many forms but include the following steps:

➡️ Define the problem: Clearly define and understand the problem(s) to be addressed.

➡️ Brainstorming: Encourage open discussion and the sharing of ideas, allowing participants to think freely and creatively.

➡️ Analysis and evaluation: Analyse and evaluate the proposed ideas, considering their feasibility, effectiveness, and potential impact.

➡️ Solution development: While considering available resources and constraints, develop and refine the most promising ideas into actionable solutions.

➡️ Implementation planning: Create a detailed plan for implementing the chosen solution(s), including timelines, responsibilities, and resource allocation.

At MOHARA, our problem-solving workshops are our take on a Google design sprint . It is a time-constrained, rapid five-stage process to answer essential product questions. It speeds up the design process and lets you quickly test and iterate your ideas.

As a result, you can shortcut the endless debate cycle and compress months of thinking and iteration into a single idea. Therefore, you are reducing risk at a basic level and saving a founder time and money.

What Are the Fundamentals of Setting Up a Problem-Solving Workshop?

Running a successful problem-solving workshop needs the founder’s support. Given that it is their idea and they have already devoted considerable time and effort to research, their insights are extremely valuable. Communicate the workshop’s objectives and deliverables to get the founder’s buy-in.

Assemble a workshop team of five to seven people including a Facilitator, a Lead Designer, a Lead Engineer, and possibly an Engagement Lead. In the case of a large organisation, including more than one stakeholder from the company – ideally subject matter experts – enriches the collaboration and decision-making process.

How Do You Facilitate a Problem-Solving Workshop?

The process should begin with a week of research, onboarding, and setup. To start with, one has to understand the most significant root cause of any given problem.

To achieve this, we interview the client and other key stakeholders and ask them to fill out a pre-workshop questionnaire. This information helps the MOHARA team understand the founder’s vision and long-term goals.

A traditional in-person workshop happens over four to five days. The activities on the first day are all about aligning ourselves as a team to understand the users, their needs, and the different challenges they may face during the product development cycle.

Several problem-solving techniques can be used to brainstorm solutions and get the best outcome. The idea is to choose your product’s most suitable and effective strategy.

How Does Conducting Remote Problem-Solving Workshops Impact the Process?

The shift to remote work has altered our approach to conducting workshops. While we at MOHARA are accustomed to working remotely, the absence of in-person sessions does pose some challenges.

Usually, we can go through the different phases within a week. But, remotely, it’s slightly different: you can’t have someone in a workshop call all day long; the sessions are intense and require a lot of focus.

We must slow things down for the sake of everyone taking part because these sessions help us understand whether users will receive a feature or product well.

We split the PSWs into one or two workshops a week. We then build the prototype, providing daily feedback and ensuring the founder understands what we’re doing, and why.

Having the Right Setup Is Essential for a Remote PSW

For a problem-solving workshop to be successful, the right setup is critical. When we are conducting a session remotely, we do the following:

➡️ Prebuilt templates: Templates are designed in advance for different sessions. The templates help guide all participants through multiple activities and checkpoints and revisit relevant information at any point.

➡️ Set up whiteboard software: We also use interactive whiteboard products to create a space for collaboration and review. Timelines, key deliverables, and communication are other significant factors in ensuring the process is smooth, and that the client feels comfortable and understands where we are going.

What Are the Next Steps?

Participants envision the solution to an identified problem during an ideation session where they sketch out ideas and concepts. The aim is to look for as many ideas as possible and examine examples and relevant cases they have come across elsewhere.

The team will then consider how certain features could resolve a critical challenge. There may be many ideas on how to solve the challenge faced, so the next decision-making stage is very valuable. The team and stakeholders decide which solution and critical features they would like to test and then turn that solution into a high-fidelity prototype.

The last part of the problem-solving workshop focuses on qualitative testing. We want to gain valuable feedback from actual users, so selecting them carefully is imperative. We ask participants to perform tasks, usually using specific user interfaces. While the participant completes each task, we observe the participant’s behaviour and listen for feedback.

What Role Does Prototyping Have in a Workshop Process?

Much of this process is about speed. We do not want to start building anything in code at this stage. Instead, using Figma – our prototyping tool of choice – the designer will lay out various screens and connect them with the specific steps we want users to take.

Based on some of the critical questions defined in our sessions, we will share a link with the users and then give them particular tasks we want them to carry out. We can then test which, if any, of our assumptions were correct, and start to think about some of the primary user journeys, the user experience, and other core features.

What Are the Most Overlooked Aspects of a Problem-Solving Workshop?

There are three aspects of a problem-solving workshop that is often overlooked:

🔶 It’s not a design sprint

It’s important to understand that the entire process is not just about design. There needs to be some technical expertise as well. That is why we don’t call these Design Sprints but rather PSWs. It’s about using design and engineering to solve a problem.

🔶 It’s essential to keep the energy up

One of the significant challenges regarding remote workshops is how much energy is required. If you’re in a room full of people like we used to be, you could generate solutions, get everyone together and build up the excitement.

However, doing it over a screen is tricky. It’s challenging to keep things energised and to avoid reviewing the same points and using valuable time.

🔶 Inclusion is also essential

The idea, especially with remote PSWs, is to ensure everyone has a voice. Only some people will speak up in a session. Naturally, some people are more vocal than others, and these people will generally lead the conversation.

If someone else, however, is given the opportunity to share even the slightest valuable insight, it could change the whole direction of the team’s solutions. It only takes one comment, or perhaps a note. For this reason, everyone must have a voice.

Are There Any Pitfalls?

Several things can go wrong during the process. Someone might drop off a call or have connectivity issues interrupting the flow. We’ve also had situations where the hardware doesn’t work correctly.

From a facilitation point of view, having a plan for each product-solving workshop and a clear outline of what will take place, are essential. That means mapping out the different activities and ensuring people know how long each activity will take. This plan keeps everyone aligned, and the PSW will only be successful with it completed ahead of time.

Lastly, user testing has to be qualitative rather than quantitative because, at this point, you’re asking for detailed information and feedback on the tasks they’ve had to do, particularly to identify any problems. You would need more than quantitative research to get that kind of data.

Do You Have to Check In with Various Stakeholders After the Workshop?

Yes. Client feedback is always valuable. It’s essential to get an update on how they are getting on from a product perspective, as well as gather their insights and feedback on the PSWs process.

Suppose we agree with the client to do further design work post-prototyping or engineering (or both). We would already have discussed those later-stage design phases in more detail during some of the sessions. By the way, this is another reason why having an engineering representative there during these sessions is so valuable.

During the PSWs, we would then compile a list of challenges to write up as questions that we aim to answer with our solution by the end of the workshops. After the PSWs have concluded, we provide feedback in the form of reports with user testing results, including data, a breakdown, and evidence of all the conducted activities.

What Do You Enjoy Most About Setting Up Problem-Solving Workshops?

It’s creative problem-solving at its finest! I enjoy engaging with founders and experiencing their passion for their products. It’s also great to work with the engineers, watch how they engage in the sessions, and identify solutions; having those different viewpoints is essential.

Setting up the workshop is enjoyable, too, because it involves using design tools that are constantly evolving; I am a designer at heart, after all.

Effective planning is the way to foresee risks and aim for success. Now that you have the lowdown on Problem-Solving Workshops, we suggest calling the relevant troops to get started.

It takes a team of experts to navigate challenges and produce a product that makes one proud. So get your tools packed; with Neil’s guidance and tips, you’re certainly off to a good start!

If you find you need more help with problem-solving, why not get in touch with MOHARA?

Related Insights

Prompt Engineering: The Key to Enhancing AI’s Contextual Understanding

Optimising Artificial Intelligence: The Power of Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Diversity in Tech: How We #InspireInclusion at MOHARA

Pioneering together.

Laxmi Building 57 Bermondsey Street London SE1 3XJ

6th Floor, The Hudson 30 Hudson St De Waterkant Cape Town 8001

26th Floor, 246 Times Square Shopping Center Sukhumvit 12-14 Road Khlong Toei Thailand 10110

WeWork, 5th Ave, Manila, 1634 Metro Manila, Philippines

Guadalajara

Colabora Av Chapultepec Sur 480, 44140 Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico

WeWork, 240 Richmond Street W, Toronto, ON, M5V 1V6

Join our newsletter

We’ll bring you the latest updates from our ventures, share exciting news from MOHARA and offer insights from our latest blog posts.

Our Partners

© MOHARA 2024. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy   |  Cookie Policy   |  Terms and Conditions

• Guide: Lessons Learned
• June 5, 2023
• Learn Lean Sigma

Lessons Learned sessions are an important yet often overlooked part of project management and continuous improvement. They provide a structured way to reflect on both the successes and challenges of a project, ensuring valuable insights are captured and integrated into future initiatives. By planning for, collecting, and applying these lessons, businesses can foster a culture of learning and adaptation, leading to more effective and efficient outcomes.

Table of Contents

What are lessons learned.

Lessons learned are a valuable process of obtaining knowledge through experience performing tasks or managing projects. They are used as evidence that informs both current and future projects. Lessons can be learned at any project stage, including insights from project management practices, technical processes, stakeholder engagement, etc.

What Forms Lessons learned?

When conducting a Lessons Learned session, you can gain insights into positive outcomes ; these will be successes that you will seek to repeat. Such as, if a particular approach to stakeholder communication resulted in effective engagement and positive feedback, that would be documented as a Lesson Learned.

Areas for improvement are another form of lesson that can be learned from experiance. Maybe a process didn’t go as smoothly as expected, or an error occurred that could have been avoided. These lessons are particularly valuable because they help refine processes and prevent future issues.

Sometimes, you learn something you weren’t even looking for. Unexpected discoveries are great forms of lessons learned to be documented. For example, a workaround developed to solve an unforeseen problem may lead to a more efficient process than the one originally planned.

Finally, we should not forget to learn about team dynamics , including communication, coordination, and conflict resolution.

Why do Lessons Learned?

Lessons learned are often overlooked, as once a project is complete, people tend not to want to look back at it. They may talk about the success of the overall project and ignore any failures or challenges along the way. Furthermore, if a project fails, it is rare for project teams to analyze it to truly understand why.

Valuable insights from lessons learned can be understood to improve future project success, such as:

Preventing the Recurrence of Errors: Documenting what went wrong in a project is a proactive approach to risk management. It helps ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in future work. This can range from technical errors to misjudgments in planning or communication. By learning from past errors, organizations can develop more robust systems and processes.

Promote Replication of Success : When teams do something well, it’s important to recognize and understand what led to that success. This could be a particular methodology, technology, or approach that proved effective. By identifying and understanding these successes, they can be replicated and adapted for new projects, which results in increasing efficiency and effectiveness across the business.

Knowledge Sharing : Lessons Learned should be shared not just within the project team but across the business. This sharing helps break down information silos and ensures that all parts of the business can benefit from individual projects’ experiences. It can also help new team members come up to speed more quickly and facilitate cross-departmental collaboration.

Support Decision Making : They provide evidence-based insights that can inform future project decisions. When faced with similar challenges or opportunities, project teams can reference the Lessons Learned to guide their choices. This not only reduces the reliance on trial and error but also helps to streamline decision-making processes.

The Process of Capturing Lessons Learned

The process of capturing lessons learned is important in continuous improvement and project management. It should be done as a structured approach that ensures experiences and lessons are recorded, analyzed and communicated to minimize the chances of repeating the same mistakes but also to leverage success for future benefit.

Step 1: Plan for Lessons Learned

The planning phase of lessons learned should begin at the start of the project to ensure that capturing lessons learned is an intentional part of the project lifecycle and not forgotten.

As part of the planning phase, you should consider who is going to capture the lessons. This can often be assigned to someone in a specific role , rather than everyone expecting someone else to capture lessons. This person will also be responsible for noting down observations, organizing sessions, and ensuring that the insights are documented and communicated.

Schedule sessions at specific times throughout the project to reflect on progress and outcomes. These can be major milestones, after significant deliverables, or at the project conclusion.

You may also use tools or templates that can be used to collect and record lessons, such as our lessons learned template. This will help capture information and structure it into a document that is easy to review.

Step 2: Collect Data

The next step in Lessons Learned is to capture data through observations, interviews, surveys, and project metrics. The range of methods used should be tailored to suit the project scale.

In reality, it could be as simple as the project team meeting up to discuss the project’s progress and highlight anything to be raised. But larger-scale projects with many stakeholders should seek input from as many sources as possible, making interviews and surveys a suitable method. 

Step 3: Conduct Lessons Learned Sessions

Next is conducting lessons learned sessions; these should be done at the pre-determined milestones that were stated at the initial planning phase of the project. 

Consider the participants of the sessions; this should include a diverse group of stakeholders, not only the project team but also support staff, clients, and end users where possible.

Finally, ensure you have a neutral facilitator who can help manage the discussion, give everyone a chance to speak and keep the conversation on track.

Step 4: Document Lessons Learned

Now to document the lessons learned, which can be done with the lessons learned template that we provide, When doing this, ensure to capture descriptive information about the project, including the title, dates, and team member roles.

Ensure that each lesson learned includes clear and actionable recommendations for future projects.

Step 5: Share and Apply Lessons Learned

Finally, the last step of the process should be to share and apply the lessons that were learned; capturing them is useless if they are not learned from.  To apply, you should consider if lessons learned can be embedded in processes and documents such as training materials, onboarding programs, and standard operating procedures.

When working on the next project you should ensure to review previous relevant lessons learned to inform planning and execution. Incorporate the recommendations from lessons learned into project plans and process updates, then continue to track the implementation of lessons learned in new projects to ensure they are being applied effectively. 

The process of capturing Lessons Learned is more than a procedural step at the end of a project; it’s a strategic tool for growth and improvement. By carefully planning, collecting diverse forms of data, facilitating structured sessions, and documenting actionable insights, organizations can turn past experiences into future successes. Sharing and applying these lessons ensures continuous advancement, embedding a culture of learning that can significantly impact a business’s adaptive capabilities and overall performance.

Referenences

• Rhodes, L. and Dawson, R., 2013. Lessons learned from lessons learned.   Knowledge and process management ,  20 (3), pp.154-160.
• Weber, R., Aha, D.W. and Becerra-Fernandez, I., 2001. Intelligent lessons learned systems.   Expert systems with applications ,  20 (1), pp.17-34.

A: Lessons learned are valuable insights gained from experiences, projects, or activities that provide guidance and learning for future endeavours.

A: Documenting lessons learned ensures that knowledge is captured, preserved, and can be shared with others. It allows organizations and individuals to avoid repeating past mistakes and make informed decisions based on previous experiences.

A: To define the purpose and scope, determine what you want to achieve with the lessons learned, such as improving processes, avoiding pitfalls, or enhancing future performance. Identify the specific activities, projects, or events that will be the focus of capturing lessons learned.

A: It is beneficial to involve a diverse team of individuals who were directly involved in the activities or projects being reviewed. This can include key stakeholders, subject matter experts, and team members who can provide valuable insights.

A: When capturing lessons learned, make sure to record each lesson concisely and specifically. Provide context by describing the situation or event that led to the lesson. Identify the impact and consequences of the lesson, document the root cause, and suggest actionable improvements or recommendations.

A: Lessons learned can be organized into meaningful categories or themes based on project phases, functional areas, or specific topics. This helps in easy navigation and retrieval of relevant lessons in the future and allows for identifying patterns or recurring issues.

A: Assign responsibility for implementing the recommended actions or best practices derived from the lessons learned. Establish a follow-up process to track progress and incorporate the lessons into future projects or activities. Regularly revisit and update the lessons learned repository to ensure continuous improvement.

A: Lessons learned, when shared and applied, foster a culture of continuous learning and improvement. By leveraging the insights gained from past experiences, organizations and individuals can make more informed decisions, avoid pitfalls, and continuously evolve for greater success.

Daniel Croft

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.

Download Template

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.

Other Guides

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

10 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

Anger is eliminated with the disposal of a paper written because of provocation

Yuta Kanaya & Nobuyuki Kawai

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Heesup Han, … Antonio Ariza-Montes

An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success

Reed T. Sutton, David Pincock, … Karen I. Kroeker

Introduction

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, 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 license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

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

This article is cited by

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis.

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators 
using SessionLab.

Recommended Articles

A step-by-step guide to planning a workshop, how to create an unforgettable training session in 8 simple steps, 47 useful online tools for workshop planning and meeting facilitation.

All teams and organizations encounter challenges as they grow. There are problems that might occur for teams when it comes to miscommunication or resolving business-critical issues . You may face challenges around growth , design , user engagement, and even team culture and happiness. In short, problem-solving techniques should be part of every team’s skillset.

Problem-solving methods are primarily designed to help a group or team through a process of first identifying problems and challenges , ideating possible solutions , and then evaluating the most suitable .

Finding effective solutions to complex problems isn’t easy, but by using the right process and techniques, you can help your team be more efficient in the process.

So how do you develop strategies that are engaging, and empower your team to solve problems effectively?

In this blog post, we share a series of problem-solving tools you can use in your next workshop or team meeting. You’ll also find some tips for facilitating the process and how to enable others to solve complex problems.

Let’s get started! 

How do you identify problems?

How do you identify the right solution.

• Tips for more effective problem-solving

Complete problem-solving methods

• Problem-solving techniques to identify and analyze problems
• Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Closing activities for a problem-solving process.

Before you can move towards finding the right solution for a given problem, you first need to identify and define the problem you wish to solve. 

Here, you want to clearly articulate what the problem is and allow your group to do the same. Remember that everyone in a group is likely to have differing perspectives and alignment is necessary in order to help the group move forward. 

Identifying a problem accurately also requires that all members of a group are able to contribute their views in an open and safe manner. It can be scary for people to stand up and contribute, especially if the problems or challenges are emotive or personal in nature. Be sure to try and create a psychologically safe space for these kinds of discussions.

Remember that problem analysis and further discussion are also important. Not taking the time to fully analyze and discuss a challenge can result in the development of solutions that are not fit for purpose or do not address the underlying issue.

Successfully identifying and then analyzing a problem means facilitating a group through activities designed to help them clearly and honestly articulate their thoughts and produce usable insight.

With this data, you might then produce a problem statement that clearly describes the problem you wish to be addressed and also state the goal of any process you undertake to tackle this issue.  

Finding solutions is the end goal of any process. Complex organizational challenges can only be solved with an appropriate solution but discovering them requires using the right problem-solving tool.

After you’ve explored a problem and discussed ideas, you need to help a team discuss and choose the right solution. Consensus tools and methods such as those below help a group explore possible solutions before then voting for the best. They’re a great way to tap into the collective intelligence of the group for great results!

Remember that the process is often iterative. Great problem solvers often roadtest a viable solution in a measured way to see what works too. While you might not get the right solution on your first try, the methods below help teams land on the most likely to succeed solution while also holding space for improvement.

Every effective problem solving process begins with an agenda . A well-structured workshop is one of the best methods for successfully guiding a group from exploring a problem to implementing a solution.

In SessionLab, it’s easy to go from an idea to a complete agenda . Start by dragging and dropping your core problem solving activities into place . Add timings, breaks and necessary materials before sharing your agenda with your colleagues.

The resulting agenda will be your guide to an effective and productive problem solving session that will also help you stay organized on the day!

Tips for more effective problem solving

Problem-solving activities are only one part of the puzzle. While a great method can help unlock your team’s ability to solve problems, without a thoughtful approach and strong facilitation the solutions may not be fit for purpose.

Let’s take a look at some problem-solving tips you can apply to any process to help it be a success!

Clearly define the problem

Jumping straight to solutions can be tempting, though without first clearly articulating a problem, the solution might not be the right one. Many of the problem-solving activities below include sections where the problem is explored and clearly defined before moving on.

This is a vital part of the problem-solving process and taking the time to fully define an issue can save time and effort later. A clear definition helps identify irrelevant information and it also ensures that your team sets off on the right track.

Don’t jump to conclusions

It’s easy for groups to exhibit cognitive bias or have preconceived ideas about both problems and potential solutions. Be sure to back up any problem statements or potential solutions with facts, research, and adequate forethought.

The best techniques ask participants to be methodical and challenge preconceived notions. Make sure you give the group enough time and space to collect relevant information and consider the problem in a new way. By approaching the process with a clear, rational mindset, you’ll often find that better solutions are more forthcoming.  

Try different approaches  

Problems come in all shapes and sizes and so too should the methods you use to solve them. If you find that one approach isn’t yielding results and your team isn’t finding different solutions, try mixing it up. You’ll be surprised at how using a new creative activity can unblock your team and generate great solutions.

Don’t take it personally 

Depending on the nature of your team or organizational problems, it’s easy for conversations to get heated. While it’s good for participants to be engaged in the discussions, ensure that emotions don’t run too high and that blame isn’t thrown around while finding solutions.

You’re all in it together, and even if your team or area is seeing problems, that isn’t necessarily a disparagement of you personally. Using facilitation skills to manage group dynamics is one effective method of helping conversations be more constructive.

Get the right people in the room

Your problem-solving method is often only as effective as the group using it. Getting the right people on the job and managing the number of people present is important too!

If the group is too small, you may not get enough different perspectives to effectively solve a problem. If the group is too large, you can go round and round during the ideation stages.

Creating the right group makeup is also important in ensuring you have the necessary expertise and skillset to both identify and follow up on potential solutions. Carefully consider who to include at each stage to help ensure your problem-solving method is followed and positioned for success.

Document everything

The best solutions can take refinement, iteration, and reflection to come out. Get into a habit of documenting your process in order to keep all the learnings from the session and to allow ideas to mature and develop. Many of the methods below involve the creation of documents or shared resources. Be sure to keep and share these so everyone can benefit from the work done!

Bring a facilitator 

Facilitation is all about making group processes easier. With a subject as potentially emotive and important as problem-solving, having an impartial third party in the form of a facilitator can make all the difference in finding great solutions and keeping the process moving. Consider bringing a facilitator to your problem-solving session to get better results and generate meaningful solutions!

Develop your problem-solving skills

It takes time and practice to be an effective problem solver. While some roles or participants might more naturally gravitate towards problem-solving, it can take development and planning to help everyone create better solutions.

You might develop a training program, run a problem-solving workshop or simply ask your team to practice using the techniques below. Check out our post on problem-solving skills to see how you and your group can develop the right mental process and be more resilient to issues too!

Design a great agenda

Workshops are a great format for solving problems. With the right approach, you can focus a group and help them find the solutions to their own problems. But designing a process can be time-consuming and finding the right activities can be difficult.

Check out our workshop planning guide to level-up your agenda design and start running more effective workshops. Need inspiration? Check out templates designed by expert facilitators to help you kickstart your process!

In this section, we’ll look at in-depth problem-solving methods that provide a complete end-to-end process for developing effective solutions. These will help guide your team from the discovery and definition of a problem through to delivering the right solution.

If you’re looking for an all-encompassing method or problem-solving model, these processes are a great place to start. They’ll ask your team to challenge preconceived ideas and adopt a mindset for solving problems more effectively.

• Six Thinking Hats
• Lightning Decision Jam
• Problem Definition Process
• Discovery & Action Dialogue

Design Sprint 2.0

• Open Space Technology

1. Six Thinking Hats

Individual approaches to solving a problem can be very different based on what team or role an individual holds. It can be easy for existing biases or perspectives to find their way into the mix, or for internal politics to direct a conversation.

Six Thinking Hats is a classic method for identifying the problems that need to be solved and enables your team to consider them from different angles, whether that is by focusing on facts and data, creative solutions, or by considering why a particular solution might not work.

Like all problem-solving frameworks, Six Thinking Hats is effective at helping teams remove roadblocks from a conversation or discussion and come to terms with all the aspects necessary to solve complex problems.

2. Lightning Decision Jam

Featured courtesy of Jonathan Courtney of AJ&Smart Berlin, Lightning Decision Jam is one of those strategies that should be in every facilitation toolbox. Exploring problems and finding solutions is often creative in nature, though as with any creative process, there is the potential to lose focus and get lost.

Unstructured discussions might get you there in the end, but it’s much more effective to use a method that creates a clear process and team focus.

In Lightning Decision Jam, participants are invited to begin by writing challenges, concerns, or mistakes on post-its without discussing them before then being invited by the moderator to present them to the group.

From there, the team vote on which problems to solve and are guided through steps that will allow them to reframe those problems, create solutions and then decide what to execute on. 

By deciding the problems that need to be solved as a team before moving on, this group process is great for ensuring the whole team is aligned and can take ownership over the next stages. 

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

3. Problem Definition Process

While problems can be complex, the problem-solving methods you use to identify and solve those problems can often be simple in design. 

By taking the time to truly identify and define a problem before asking the group to reframe the challenge as an opportunity, this method is a great way to enable change.

Begin by identifying a focus question and exploring the ways in which it manifests before splitting into five teams who will each consider the problem using a different method: escape, reversal, exaggeration, distortion or wishful. Teams develop a problem objective and create ideas in line with their method before then feeding them back to the group.

This method is great for enabling in-depth discussions while also creating space for finding creative solutions too!

Problem Definition   #problem solving   #idea generation   #creativity   #online   #remote-friendly   A problem solving technique to define a problem, challenge or opportunity and to generate ideas.

4. The 5 Whys 

Sometimes, a group needs to go further with their strategies and analyze the root cause at the heart of organizational issues. An RCA or root cause analysis is the process of identifying what is at the heart of business problems or recurring challenges. 

The 5 Whys is a simple and effective method of helping a group go find the root cause of any problem or challenge and conduct analysis that will deliver results. 

By beginning with the creation of a problem statement and going through five stages to refine it, The 5 Whys provides everything you need to truly discover the cause of an issue.

The 5 Whys   #hyperisland   #innovation   This simple and powerful method is useful for getting to the core of a problem or challenge. As the title suggests, the group defines a problems, then asks the question “why” five times, often using the resulting explanation as a starting point for creative problem solving.

5. World Cafe

World Cafe is a simple but powerful facilitation technique to help bigger groups to focus their energy and attention on solving complex problems.

World Cafe enables this approach by creating a relaxed atmosphere where participants are able to self-organize and explore topics relevant and important to them which are themed around a central problem-solving purpose. Create the right atmosphere by modeling your space after a cafe and after guiding the group through the method, let them take the lead!

Making problem-solving a part of your organization’s culture in the long term can be a difficult undertaking. More approachable formats like World Cafe can be especially effective in bringing people unfamiliar with workshops into the fold. 

World Cafe   #hyperisland   #innovation   #issue analysis   World Café is a simple yet powerful method, originated by Juanita Brown, for enabling meaningful conversations driven completely by participants and the topics that are relevant and important to them. Facilitators create a cafe-style space and provide simple guidelines. Participants then self-organize and explore a set of relevant topics or questions for conversation.

6. Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

One of the best approaches is to create a safe space for a group to share and discover practices and behaviors that can help them find their own solutions.

With DAD, you can help a group choose which problems they wish to solve and which approaches they will take to do so. It’s great at helping remove resistance to change and can help get buy-in at every level too!

This process of enabling frontline ownership is great in ensuring follow-through and is one of the methods you will want in your toolbox as a facilitator.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)   #idea generation   #liberating structures   #action   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   DADs make it easy for a group or community to discover practices and behaviors that enable some individuals (without access to special resources and facing the same constraints) to find better solutions than their peers to common problems. These are called positive deviant (PD) behaviors and practices. DADs make it possible for people in the group, unit, or community to discover by themselves these PD practices. DADs also create favorable conditions for stimulating participants’ creativity in spaces where they can feel safe to invent new and more effective practices. Resistance to change evaporates as participants are unleashed to choose freely which practices they will adopt or try and which problems they will tackle. DADs make it possible to achieve frontline ownership of solutions.

7. Design Sprint 2.0

Want to see how a team can solve big problems and move forward with prototyping and testing solutions in a few days? The Design Sprint 2.0 template from Jake Knapp, author of Sprint, is a complete agenda for a with proven results.

Developing the right agenda can involve difficult but necessary planning. Ensuring all the correct steps are followed can also be stressful or time-consuming depending on your level of experience.

Use this complete 4-day workshop template if you are finding there is no obvious solution to your challenge and want to focus your team around a specific problem that might require a shortcut to launching a minimum viable product or waiting for the organization-wide implementation of a solution.

8. Open space technology

Open space technology- developed by Harrison Owen – creates a space where large groups are invited to take ownership of their problem solving and lead individual sessions. Open space technology is a great format when you have a great deal of expertise and insight in the room and want to allow for different takes and approaches on a particular theme or problem you need to be solved.

Start by bringing your participants together to align around a central theme and focus their efforts. Explain the ground rules to help guide the problem-solving process and then invite members to identify any issue connecting to the central theme that they are interested in and are prepared to take responsibility for.

Once participants have decided on their approach to the core theme, they write their issue on a piece of paper, announce it to the group, pick a session time and place, and post the paper on the wall. As the wall fills up with sessions, the group is then invited to join the sessions that interest them the most and which they can contribute to, then you’re ready to begin!

Everyone joins the problem-solving group they’ve signed up to, record the discussion and if appropriate, findings can then be shared with the rest of the group afterward.

Open Space Technology   #action plan   #idea generation   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #large group   #online   #remote-friendly   Open Space is a methodology for large groups to create their agenda discerning important topics for discussion, suitable for conferences, community gatherings and whole system facilitation

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

Using a problem-solving method to help a team identify and analyze a problem can be a quick and effective addition to any workshop or meeting.

While further actions are always necessary, you can generate momentum and alignment easily, and these activities are a great place to get started.

We’ve put together this list of techniques to help you and your team with problem identification, analysis, and discussion that sets the foundation for developing effective solutions.

Let’s take a look!

• The Creativity Dice
• Fishbone Analysis
• Problem Tree
• SWOT Analysis
• Agreement-Certainty Matrix
• The Journalistic Six
• LEGO Challenge
• What, So What, Now What?
• Journalists

Individual and group perspectives are incredibly important, but what happens if people are set in their minds and need a change of perspective in order to approach a problem more effectively?

Flip It is a method we love because it is both simple to understand and run, and allows groups to understand how their perspectives and biases are formed. 

Participants in Flip It are first invited to consider concerns, issues, or problems from a perspective of fear and write them on a flip chart. Then, the group is asked to consider those same issues from a perspective of hope and flip their understanding.  

No problem and solution is free from existing bias and by changing perspectives with Flip It, you can then develop a problem solving model quickly and effectively.

Flip It!   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Often, a change in a problem or situation comes simply from a change in our perspectives. Flip It! is a quick game designed to show players that perspectives are made, not born.

10. The Creativity Dice

One of the most useful problem solving skills you can teach your team is of approaching challenges with creativity, flexibility, and openness. Games like The Creativity Dice allow teams to overcome the potential hurdle of too much linear thinking and approach the process with a sense of fun and speed. 

In The Creativity Dice, participants are organized around a topic and roll a dice to determine what they will work on for a period of 3 minutes at a time. They might roll a 3 and work on investigating factual information on the chosen topic. They might roll a 1 and work on identifying the specific goals, standards, or criteria for the session.

Encouraging rapid work and iteration while asking participants to be flexible are great skills to cultivate. Having a stage for idea incubation in this game is also important. Moments of pause can help ensure the ideas that are put forward are the most suitable. 

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.

11. Fishbone Analysis

Organizational or team challenges are rarely simple, and it’s important to remember that one problem can be an indication of something that goes deeper and may require further consideration to be solved.

Fishbone Analysis helps groups to dig deeper and understand the origins of a problem. It’s a great example of a root cause analysis method that is simple for everyone on a team to get their head around. 

Participants in this activity are asked to annotate a diagram of a fish, first adding the problem or issue to be worked on at the head of a fish before then brainstorming the root causes of the problem and adding them as bones on the fish. 

Using abstractions such as a diagram of a fish can really help a team break out of their regular thinking and develop a creative approach.

Fishbone Analysis   #problem solving   ##root cause analysis   #decision making   #online facilitation   A process to help identify and understand the origins of problems, issues or observations.

12. Problem Tree 

Encouraging visual thinking can be an essential part of many strategies. By simply reframing and clarifying problems, a group can move towards developing a problem solving model that works for them. 

In Problem Tree, groups are asked to first brainstorm a list of problems – these can be design problems, team problems or larger business problems – and then organize them into a hierarchy. The hierarchy could be from most important to least important or abstract to practical, though the key thing with problem solving games that involve this aspect is that your group has some way of managing and sorting all the issues that are raised.

Once you have a list of problems that need to be solved and have organized them accordingly, you’re then well-positioned for the next problem solving steps.

Problem tree   #define intentions   #create   #design   #issue analysis   A problem tree is a tool to clarify the hierarchy of problems addressed by the team within a design project; it represents high level problems or related sublevel problems.

13. SWOT Analysis

Chances are you’ve heard of the SWOT Analysis before. This problem-solving method focuses on identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is a tried and tested method for both individuals and teams.

Start by creating a desired end state or outcome and bare this in mind – any process solving model is made more effective by knowing what you are moving towards. Create a quadrant made up of the four categories of a SWOT analysis and ask participants to generate ideas based on each of those quadrants.

Once you have those ideas assembled in their quadrants, cluster them together based on their affinity with other ideas. These clusters are then used to facilitate group conversations and move things forward. 

SWOT analysis   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   #meeting facilitation   The SWOT Analysis is a long-standing technique of looking at what we have, with respect to the desired end state, as well as what we could improve on. It gives us an opportunity to gauge approaching opportunities and dangers, and assess the seriousness of the conditions that affect our future. When we understand those conditions, we can influence what comes next.

14. Agreement-Certainty Matrix

Not every problem-solving approach is right for every challenge, and deciding on the right method for the challenge at hand is a key part of being an effective team.

The Agreement Certainty matrix helps teams align on the nature of the challenges facing them. By sorting problems from simple to chaotic, your team can understand what methods are suitable for each problem and what they can do to ensure effective results. 

If you are already using Liberating Structures techniques as part of your problem-solving strategy, the Agreement-Certainty Matrix can be an invaluable addition to your process. We’ve found it particularly if you are having issues with recurring problems in your organization and want to go deeper in understanding the root cause. 

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.

Organizing and charting a team’s progress can be important in ensuring its success. SQUID (Sequential Question and Insight Diagram) is a great model that allows a team to effectively switch between giving questions and answers and develop the skills they need to stay on track throughout the process. 

Begin with two different colored sticky notes – one for questions and one for answers – and with your central topic (the head of the squid) on the board. Ask the group to first come up with a series of questions connected to their best guess of how to approach the topic. Ask the group to come up with answers to those questions, fix them to the board and connect them with a line. After some discussion, go back to question mode by responding to the generated answers or other points on the board.

It’s rewarding to see a diagram grow throughout the exercise, and a completed SQUID can provide a visual resource for future effort and as an example for other teams.

SQUID   #gamestorming   #project planning   #issue analysis   #problem solving   When exploring an information space, it’s important for a group to know where they are at any given time. By using SQUID, a group charts out the territory as they go and can navigate accordingly. SQUID stands for Sequential Question and Insight Diagram.

16. Speed Boat

To continue with our nautical theme, Speed Boat is a short and sweet activity that can help a team quickly identify what employees, clients or service users might have a problem with and analyze what might be standing in the way of achieving a solution.

Methods that allow for a group to make observations, have insights and obtain those eureka moments quickly are invaluable when trying to solve complex problems.

In Speed Boat, the approach is to first consider what anchors and challenges might be holding an organization (or boat) back. Bonus points if you are able to identify any sharks in the water and develop ideas that can also deal with competitors!   

Speed Boat   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Speedboat is a short and sweet way to identify what your employees or clients don’t like about your product/service or what’s standing in the way of a desired goal.

17. The Journalistic Six

Some of the most effective ways of solving problems is by encouraging teams to be more inclusive and diverse in their thinking.

Based on the six key questions journalism students are taught to answer in articles and news stories, The Journalistic Six helps create teams to see the whole picture. By using who, what, when, where, why, and how to facilitate the conversation and encourage creative thinking, your team can make sure that the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the are covered exhaustively and thoughtfully. Reporter’s notebook and dictaphone optional.

The Journalistic Six – Who What When Where Why How   #idea generation   #issue analysis   #problem solving   #online   #creative thinking   #remote-friendly   A questioning method for generating, explaining, investigating ideas.

18. LEGO Challenge

Now for an activity that is a little out of the (toy) box. LEGO Serious Play is a facilitation methodology that can be used to improve creative thinking and problem-solving skills. 

The LEGO Challenge includes giving each member of the team an assignment that is hidden from the rest of the group while they create a structure without speaking.

What the LEGO challenge brings to the table is a fun working example of working with stakeholders who might not be on the same page to solve problems. Also, it’s LEGO! Who doesn’t love LEGO! 

LEGO Challenge   #hyperisland   #team   A team-building activity in which groups must work together to build a structure out of LEGO, but each individual has a secret “assignment” which makes the collaborative process more challenging. It emphasizes group communication, leadership dynamics, conflict, cooperation, patience and problem solving strategy.

19. What, So What, Now What?

If not carefully managed, the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the problem-solving process can actually create more problems and misunderstandings.

The What, So What, Now What? problem-solving activity is designed to help collect insights and move forward while also eliminating the possibility of disagreement when it comes to identifying, clarifying, and analyzing organizational or work problems. 

Facilitation is all about bringing groups together so that might work on a shared goal and the best problem-solving strategies ensure that teams are aligned in purpose, if not initially in opinion or insight.

Throughout the three steps of this game, you give everyone on a team to reflect on a problem by asking what happened, why it is important, and what actions should then be taken. 

This can be a great activity for bringing our individual perceptions about a problem or challenge and contextualizing it in a larger group setting. This is one of the most important problem-solving skills you can bring to your organization.

W³ – What, So What, Now What?   #issue analysis   #innovation   #liberating structures   You can help groups reflect on a shared experience in a way that builds understanding and spurs coordinated action while avoiding unproductive conflict. It is possible for every voice to be heard while simultaneously sifting for insights and shaping new direction. Progressing in stages makes this practical—from collecting facts about What Happened to making sense of these facts with So What and finally to what actions logically follow with Now What . The shared progression eliminates most of the misunderstandings that otherwise fuel disagreements about what to do. Voila!

20. Journalists  

Problem analysis can be one of the most important and decisive stages of all problem-solving tools. Sometimes, a team can become bogged down in the details and are unable to move forward.

Journalists is an activity that can avoid a group from getting stuck in the problem identification or problem analysis stages of the process.

In Journalists, the group is invited to draft the front page of a fictional newspaper and figure out what stories deserve to be on the cover and what headlines those stories will have. By reframing how your problems and challenges are approached, you can help a team move productively through the process and be better prepared for the steps to follow.

Journalists   #vision   #big picture   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   This is an exercise to use when the group gets stuck in details and struggles to see the big picture. Also good for defining a vision.

Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions 

The success of any problem-solving process can be measured by the solutions it produces. After you’ve defined the issue, explored existing ideas, and ideated, it’s time to narrow down to the correct solution.

Use these problem-solving techniques when you want to help your team find consensus, compare possible solutions, and move towards taking action on a particular problem.

• Improved Solutions
• Four-Step Sketch
• 15% Solutions
• How-Now-Wow matrix
• Impact Effort Matrix

21. Mindspin  

Brainstorming is part of the bread and butter of the problem-solving process and all problem-solving strategies benefit from getting ideas out and challenging a team to generate solutions quickly. 

With Mindspin, participants are encouraged not only to generate ideas but to do so under time constraints and by slamming down cards and passing them on. By doing multiple rounds, your team can begin with a free generation of possible solutions before moving on to developing those solutions and encouraging further ideation. 

This is one of our favorite problem-solving activities and can be great for keeping the energy up throughout the workshop. Remember the importance of helping people become engaged in the process – energizing problem-solving techniques like Mindspin can help ensure your team stays engaged and happy, even when the problems they’re coming together to solve are complex. 

MindSpin   #teampedia   #idea generation   #problem solving   #action   A fast and loud method to enhance brainstorming within a team. Since this activity has more than round ideas that are repetitive can be ruled out leaving more creative and innovative answers to the challenge.

22. Improved Solutions

After a team has successfully identified a problem and come up with a few solutions, it can be tempting to call the work of the problem-solving process complete. That said, the first solution is not necessarily the best, and by including a further review and reflection activity into your problem-solving model, you can ensure your group reaches the best possible result. 

One of a number of problem-solving games from Thiagi Group, Improved Solutions helps you go the extra mile and develop suggested solutions with close consideration and peer review. By supporting the discussion of several problems at once and by shifting team roles throughout, this problem-solving technique is a dynamic way of finding the best solution. 

Improved Solutions   #creativity   #thiagi   #problem solving   #action   #team   You can improve any solution by objectively reviewing its strengths and weaknesses and making suitable adjustments. In this creativity framegame, you improve the solutions to several problems. To maintain objective detachment, you deal with a different problem during each of six rounds and assume different roles (problem owner, consultant, basher, booster, enhancer, and evaluator) during each round. At the conclusion of the activity, each player ends up with two solutions to her problem.

23. Four Step Sketch

Creative thinking and visual ideation does not need to be confined to the opening stages of your problem-solving strategies. Exercises that include sketching and prototyping on paper can be effective at the solution finding and development stage of the process, and can be great for keeping a team engaged. 

By going from simple notes to a crazy 8s round that involves rapidly sketching 8 variations on their ideas before then producing a final solution sketch, the group is able to iterate quickly and visually. Problem-solving techniques like Four-Step Sketch are great if you have a group of different thinkers and want to change things up from a more textual or discussion-based approach.

Four-Step Sketch   #design sprint   #innovation   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   The four-step sketch is an exercise that helps people to create well-formed concepts through a structured process that includes: Review key information Start design work on paper,  Consider multiple variations , Create a detailed solution . This exercise is preceded by a set of other activities allowing the group to clarify the challenge they want to solve. See how the Four Step Sketch exercise fits into a Design Sprint

24. 15% Solutions

Some problems are simpler than others and with the right problem-solving activities, you can empower people to take immediate actions that can help create organizational change. 

Part of the liberating structures toolkit, 15% solutions is a problem-solving technique that focuses on finding and implementing solutions quickly. A process of iterating and making small changes quickly can help generate momentum and an appetite for solving complex problems.

Problem-solving strategies can live and die on whether people are onboard. Getting some quick wins is a great way of getting people behind the process.   

It can be extremely empowering for a team to realize that problem-solving techniques can be deployed quickly and easily and delineate between things they can positively impact and those things they cannot change. 

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.

25. How-Now-Wow Matrix

The problem-solving process is often creative, as complex problems usually require a change of thinking and creative response in order to find the best solutions. While it’s common for the first stages to encourage creative thinking, groups can often gravitate to familiar solutions when it comes to the end of the process. 

When selecting solutions, you don’t want to lose your creative energy! The How-Now-Wow Matrix from Gamestorming is a great problem-solving activity that enables a group to stay creative and think out of the box when it comes to selecting the right solution for a given problem.

Problem-solving techniques that encourage creative thinking and the ideation and selection of new solutions can be the most effective in organisational change. Give the How-Now-Wow Matrix a go, and not just for how pleasant it is to say out loud. 

How-Now-Wow Matrix   #gamestorming   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   When people want to develop new ideas, they most often think out of the box in the brainstorming or divergent phase. However, when it comes to convergence, people often end up picking ideas that are most familiar to them. This is called a ‘creative paradox’ or a ‘creadox’. The How-Now-Wow matrix is an idea selection tool that breaks the creadox by forcing people to weigh each idea on 2 parameters.

26. Impact and Effort Matrix

All problem-solving techniques hope to not only find solutions to a given problem or challenge but to find the best solution. When it comes to finding a solution, groups are invited to put on their decision-making hats and really think about how a proposed idea would work in practice. 

The Impact and Effort Matrix is one of the problem-solving techniques that fall into this camp, empowering participants to first generate ideas and then categorize them into a 2×2 matrix based on impact and effort.

Activities that invite critical thinking while remaining simple are invaluable. Use the Impact and Effort Matrix to move from ideation and towards evaluating potential solutions before then committing to them. 

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.

27. Dotmocracy

If you’ve followed each of the problem-solving steps with your group successfully, you should move towards the end of your process with heaps of possible solutions developed with a specific problem in mind. But how do you help a group go from ideation to putting a solution into action? 

Dotmocracy – or Dot Voting -is a tried and tested method of helping a team in the problem-solving process make decisions and put actions in place with a degree of oversight and consensus. 

One of the problem-solving techniques that should be in every facilitator’s toolbox, Dot Voting is fast and effective and can help identify the most popular and best solutions and help bring a group to a decision effectively. 

Dotmocracy   #action   #decision making   #group prioritization   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Dotmocracy is a simple method for group prioritization or decision-making. It is not an activity on its own, but a method to use in processes where prioritization or decision-making is the aim. The method supports a group to quickly see which options are most popular or relevant. The options or ideas are written on post-its and stuck up on a wall for the whole group to see. Each person votes for the options they think are the strongest, and that information is used to inform a decision.

All facilitators know that warm-ups and icebreakers are useful for any workshop or group process. Problem-solving workshops are no different.

Use these problem-solving techniques to warm up a group and prepare them for the rest of the process. Activating your group by tapping into some of the top problem-solving skills can be one of the best ways to see great outcomes from your session.

• Check-in/Check-out
• Doodling Together
• Show and Tell
• Constellations
• Draw a Tree

28. Check-in / Check-out

Solid processes are planned from beginning to end, and the best facilitators know that setting the tone and establishing a safe, open environment can be integral to a successful problem-solving process.

Check-in / Check-out is a great way to begin and/or bookend a problem-solving workshop. Checking in to a session emphasizes that everyone will be seen, heard, and expected to contribute. 

If you are running a series of meetings, setting a consistent pattern of checking in and checking out can really help your team get into a groove. We recommend this opening-closing activity for small to medium-sized groups though it can work with large groups if they’re disciplined!

Check-in / Check-out   #team   #opening   #closing   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Either checking-in or checking-out is a simple way for a team to open or close a process, symbolically and in a collaborative way. Checking-in/out invites each member in a group to be present, seen and heard, and to express a reflection or a feeling. Checking-in emphasizes presence, focus and group commitment; checking-out emphasizes reflection and symbolic closure.

29. Doodling Together  

Thinking creatively and not being afraid to make suggestions are important problem-solving skills for any group or team, and warming up by encouraging these behaviors is a great way to start. 

Doodling Together is one of our favorite creative ice breaker games – it’s quick, effective, and fun and can make all following problem-solving steps easier by encouraging a group to collaborate visually. By passing cards and adding additional items as they go, the workshop group gets into a groove of co-creation and idea development that is crucial to finding solutions to problems. 

Doodling Together   #collaboration   #creativity   #teamwork   #fun   #team   #visual methods   #energiser   #icebreaker   #remote-friendly   Create wild, weird and often funny postcards together & establish a group’s creative confidence.

30. Show and Tell

You might remember some version of Show and Tell from being a kid in school and it’s a great problem-solving activity to kick off a session.

Asking participants to prepare a little something before a workshop by bringing an object for show and tell can help them warm up before the session has even begun! Games that include a physical object can also help encourage early engagement before moving onto more big-picture thinking.

By asking your participants to tell stories about why they chose to bring a particular item to the group, you can help teams see things from new perspectives and see both differences and similarities in the way they approach a topic. Great groundwork for approaching a problem-solving process as a team! 

Show and Tell   #gamestorming   #action   #opening   #meeting facilitation   Show and Tell taps into the power of metaphors to reveal players’ underlying assumptions and associations around a topic The aim of the game is to get a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on anything—a new project, an organizational restructuring, a shift in the company’s vision or team dynamic.

31. Constellations

Who doesn’t love stars? Constellations is a great warm-up activity for any workshop as it gets people up off their feet, energized, and ready to engage in new ways with established topics. It’s also great for showing existing beliefs, biases, and patterns that can come into play as part of your session.

Using warm-up games that help build trust and connection while also allowing for non-verbal responses can be great for easing people into the problem-solving process and encouraging engagement from everyone in the group. Constellations is great in large spaces that allow for movement and is definitely a practical exercise to allow the group to see patterns that are otherwise invisible. 

Constellations   #trust   #connection   #opening   #coaching   #patterns   #system   Individuals express their response to a statement or idea by standing closer or further from a central object. Used with teams to reveal system, hidden patterns, perspectives.

32. Draw a Tree

Problem-solving games that help raise group awareness through a central, unifying metaphor can be effective ways to warm-up a group in any problem-solving model.

Draw a Tree is a simple warm-up activity you can use in any group and which can provide a quick jolt of energy. Start by asking your participants to draw a tree in just 45 seconds – they can choose whether it will be abstract or realistic. 

Once the timer is up, ask the group how many people included the roots of the tree and use this as a means to discuss how we can ignore important parts of any system simply because they are not visible.

All problem-solving strategies are made more effective by thinking of problems critically and by exposing things that may not normally come to light. Warm-up games like Draw a Tree are great in that they quickly demonstrate some key problem-solving skills in an accessible and effective way.

Draw a Tree   #thiagi   #opening   #perspectives   #remote-friendly   With this game you can raise awarness about being more mindful, and aware of the environment we live in.

Each step of the problem-solving workshop benefits from an intelligent deployment of activities, games, and techniques. Bringing your session to an effective close helps ensure that solutions are followed through on and that you also celebrate what has been achieved.

Here are some problem-solving activities you can use to effectively close a workshop or meeting and ensure the great work you’ve done can continue afterward.

• One Breath Feedback
• Who What When Matrix
• Response Cards

How do I conclude a problem-solving process?

All good things must come to an end. With the bulk of the work done, it can be tempting to conclude your workshop swiftly and without a moment to debrief and align. This can be problematic in that it doesn’t allow your team to fully process the results or reflect on the process.

At the end of an effective session, your team will have gone through a process that, while productive, can be exhausting. It’s important to give your group a moment to take a breath, ensure that they are clear on future actions, and provide short feedback before leaving the space. 

The primary purpose of any problem-solving method is to generate solutions and then implement them. Be sure to take the opportunity to ensure everyone is aligned and ready to effectively implement the solutions you produced in the workshop.

Remember that every process can be improved and by giving a short moment to collect feedback in the session, you can further refine your problem-solving methods and see further success in the future too.

33. One Breath Feedback

Maintaining attention and focus during the closing stages of a problem-solving workshop can be tricky and so being concise when giving feedback can be important. It’s easy to incur “death by feedback” should some team members go on for too long sharing their perspectives in a quick feedback round. 

One Breath Feedback is a great closing activity for workshops. You give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback on what they’ve done but only in the space of a single breath. This keeps feedback short and to the point and means that everyone is encouraged to provide the most important piece of feedback to them. 

One breath feedback   #closing   #feedback   #action   This is a feedback round in just one breath that excels in maintaining attention: each participants is able to speak during just one breath … for most people that’s around 20 to 25 seconds … unless of course you’ve been a deep sea diver in which case you’ll be able to do it for longer.

34. Who What When Matrix 

Matrices feature as part of many effective problem-solving strategies and with good reason. They are easily recognizable, simple to use, and generate results.

The Who What When Matrix is a great tool to use when closing your problem-solving session by attributing a who, what and when to the actions and solutions you have decided upon. The resulting matrix is a simple, easy-to-follow way of ensuring your team can move forward. 

Great solutions can’t be enacted without action and ownership. Your problem-solving process should include a stage for allocating tasks to individuals or teams and creating a realistic timeframe for those solutions to be implemented or checked out. Use this method to keep the solution implementation process clear and simple for all involved. 

Who/What/When Matrix   #gamestorming   #action   #project planning   With Who/What/When matrix, you can connect people with clear actions they have defined and have committed to.

35. Response cards

Group discussion can comprise the bulk of most problem-solving activities and by the end of the process, you might find that your team is talked out! 

Providing a means for your team to give feedback with short written notes can ensure everyone is head and can contribute without the need to stand up and talk. Depending on the needs of the group, giving an alternative can help ensure everyone can contribute to your problem-solving model in the way that makes the most sense for them.

Response Cards is a great way to close a workshop if you are looking for a gentle warm-down and want to get some swift discussion around some of the feedback that is raised. 

Response Cards   #debriefing   #closing   #structured sharing   #questions and answers   #thiagi   #action   It can be hard to involve everyone during a closing of a session. Some might stay in the background or get unheard because of louder participants. However, with the use of Response Cards, everyone will be involved in providing feedback or clarify questions at the end of a session.

Save time and effort discovering the right solutions

A structured problem solving process is a surefire way of solving tough problems, discovering creative solutions and driving organizational change. But how can you design for successful outcomes?

With SessionLab, it’s easy to design engaging workshops that deliver results. Drag, drop and reorder blocks  to build your agenda. When you make changes or update your agenda, your session  timing   adjusts automatically , saving you time on manual adjustments.

Collaborating with stakeholders or clients? Share your agenda with a single click and collaborate in real-time. No more sending documents back and forth over email.

Explore  how to use SessionLab  to design effective problem solving workshops or  watch this five minute video  to see the planner in action!

Over to you

The problem-solving process can often be as complicated and multifaceted as the problems they are set-up to solve. With the right problem-solving techniques and a mix of creative exercises designed to guide discussion and generate purposeful ideas, we hope we’ve given you the tools to find the best solutions as simply and easily as possible.

Is there a problem-solving technique that you are missing here? Do you have a favorite activity or method you use when facilitating? Let us know in the comments below, we’d love to hear from you! 

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Going from a mere idea to a workshop that delivers results for your clients can feel like a daunting task. In this piece, we will shine a light on all the work behind the scenes and help you learn how to plan a workshop from start to finish. On a good day, facilitation can feel like effortless magic, but that is mostly the result of backstage work, foresight, and a lot of careful planning. Read on to learn a step-by-step approach to breaking the process of planning a workshop into small, manageable chunks.  The flow starts with the first meeting with a client to define the purposes of a workshop.…

How does learning work? A clever 9-year-old once told me: “I know I am learning something new when I am surprised.” The science of adult learning tells us that, in order to learn new skills (which, unsurprisingly, is harder for adults to do than kids) grown-ups need to first get into a specific headspace.  In a business, this approach is often employed in a training session where employees learn new skills or work on professional development. But how do you ensure your training is effective? In this guide, we'll explore how to create an effective training session plan and run engaging training sessions. As team leader, project manager, or consultant,…

Effective online tools are a necessity for smooth and engaging virtual workshops and meetings. But how do you choose the right ones? Do you sometimes feel that the good old pen and paper or MS Office toolkit and email leaves you struggling to stay on top of managing and delivering your workshop? Fortunately, there are plenty of online tools to make your life easier when you need to facilitate a meeting and lead workshops. In this post, we’ll share our favorite online tools you can use to make your job as a facilitator easier. In fact, there are plenty of free online workshop tools and meeting facilitation software you can…

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Sign up for free

How to Improve Problem Solving with Lessons Learned

So you’ve got a problem. It’s on the issue log. You’ve pulled together the key subject matter experts who can help get the project over this hurdle.

But how do you come up with the answer?

Sometimes, the answer to a problem is staring you in the face. There is only one sensible solution to fixing an issue. You are confident that using that approach is going to get you where you need to be. And the project can carry on.

However, that isn’t always the case.

In this article, I’ll share a secret weapon for improving problem solving in project management. And you don’t have to do anything different to use it.

I’ve been involved on many projects where seemingly simple problems turned out to be vast caverns of knotty issues, and unpicking one led to something else unraveling. Can you relate?

I find that this is particularly the case with complex processes or projects with lots of moving parts and many stakeholders. In those situations, it’s hard for the subject matter expert in the ‘problem’ area to see exactly what the impact of their solution might be on other departments or downstream processes.

The fact is that many knowledge workers don’t have a perfect working knowledge of the entire business, and why would they? That’s not their job. However, not having that bigger picture view can make it harder to sort out tricky issues.

2 ways to resolve tricky project issues

So how do you get over these hurdles? As I see it, there are two options for unpicking those large, knotty problems that you face on a project — the ones that touch multiple business areas. Actually, these approaches work even for small problems.

Option 1: Work with a skilled business analyst to help you dig into the operational processes and uncover a solution that works the whole length and breadth of the problem.

Option 2: Do problem solving the best you can, calling in subject matter experts as required and checking and testing before you take any action.

Unfortunately, in many businesses, the BA skill set is sadly lacking. Experienced BAs are hard to come by and very valuable (so if you have the opportunity to have a business analysis expert on your team, grab it!).

You are left with the alternative of facilitating the problem solving yourself, as the project manager.

Lessons learned: your secret weapon for problem solving

So here’s the secret: in this article I’m going to show you how to expand your problem solving toolkit by using your lessons learned log to uncover potential solutions.

There is so much rich information available in your lessons learned log. It already exists, so you don’t have to create anything new. And it’s packed with tips and tricks that will help you resolve issues.

Here’s how to use the project management lessons learned information to improve your project, specifically coming up with ideas for tackling issues when you can’t easily see what route might be the best option.

1. Review the lessons learned log

When you first identify a problem, quickly scan through the lessons learned log or minutes from lessons learned meetings and see if you’ve come across this issue before.

While you are checking project documentation , you may as well review the risk and issue logs too, just in case something similar has come up in the past.

This step should be the first thing you do when someone asks you something or flags a potential problem. It may just be that you or someone else on the team already had this on their radar and there is a plan to deal with it.

2. Look for relevant information

As you review your project management documentation, look for relevant information, contacts, facts, data sources and more. If you find something relevant, see what you can draw from that.

Your current problem might be caused by:

• A lesson that was uncovered earlier in the project or on a different project, but the underlying process was never updated with the suggested improvement
• A process that was changed as the result of a lesson learned, and your current problem is the result of that poorly-thought-through change
• Something you thought the team had already learned and improved on but is still happening.

Or, of course, anything else. Problems have roots that go deep! See if you can find anything that links to or informs the issue you are currently having.

Read next: Your complete guide to lessons learned in project management .

3. Use the lessons learned information

If your lessons learned log gives you a nugget of information you can use to fix this problem, then go ahead and discuss what you’ve found with the team.

I find that often this solves the problem straightaway. I can’t speak for all businesses, obviously, but I do talk to and mentor many project managers and there are common threads across many teams – one of which is that we aren’t good at managing organizational knowledge.

The better we get at accessing and using what we know, the easier it will be to resolve problems in the future.

Use other sources of information too

Let’s be realistic: your lessons learned database isn’t going to magically solve all your problems. You’ll be coming across new and unique problems specific to the stage of the project you are in.

There will be situations where you can derive something useful from the lessons learned log, but that it doesn’t quite solve the problem, and situations where there’s nothing helpful in there at all.

In those cases, you need to move on to other problem solving techniques to fully resolve the issue you are having. Techniques like data analysis, root cause analysis, reviewing risks and issues, digging into processes, spotting where results are outside of control limits and more will help you better understand the problem and therefore have more chance of coming up with a reasonable and successful solution.

Capturing lessons learned

This technique of using lessons learned for problem solving ideas is great. But there is one catch. It only works if you have a lessons learned log to refer to! Let’s look briefly at getting started capturing lessons learned so you have an archive of rich ideas to return to as and when you look to improve processes or learn from issues.

You know how to run a brainstorming session to help with problem solving; brainstorming for lessons learned is exactly the same process.

Most lessons learned capture is, in my experience, carried out after a piece of work. You might do this as part of a retrospective, or in a more linear project methodology, at the end of the stage or project.

Create an agenda for lessons learned discussions . I find it helps keep the conversation on track and focused on lessons, and it helps remove any blame because the agenda makes the meeting feel more formal and structured. Structuring your meeting will help you get something useful out of it.

Talk about what worked, what didn’t go so well and what you have learned from that as individuals and as a team. Document the lessons.

Moving beyond lessons learned

Documenting the lessons learned is one thing – you’ve now got them in your log so you can refer back to it if necessary. However, you haven’t actually solved anything or prevented problems from happening in the future. Lessons captured are not the same as lessons learned!

If you want to truly benefit from what you’ve covered in the lessons learned session, please take action as a result of what you uncovered!

Using lessons learned proactively this way will also help you cut down on future problems because you are picking off and improving things as you go.

A version of this article first appeared on Project Bliss .

Project manager, author, mentor

Elizabeth Harrin is a Fellow of the Association for Project Management in the UK. She holds degrees from the University of York and Roehampton University, and several project management certifications including APM PMQ. She first took her PRINCE2 Practitioner exam in 2004 and has worked extensively in project delivery for over 20 years. Elizabeth is also the founder of the Project Management Rebels community, a mentoring group for professionals. She's written several books for project managers including Managing Multiple Projects .

• Destination & venue discovery
• Team trip management

How it works

• Team trip planners
• Team trip attendees
• Budget estimator
• Visa requirements
• Featured venues for teams
• Destinations for teams

What is a Problem Solving Workshop And How It Can Help Your Team Achieve Goals Easily

Problems arise within any company or startup and in many forms. Whether in production, services, implementation or within teams, problems not addressed only get bigger. Problem solving is designed to target a problem’s root causes and move toward a solution while improving the solving process skills of a team.

The advantages for teams in this workshop are obvious. Not only will they learn new problem solving methods for future use and actually solve a problem, the team building aspect is considerable. Communication through group brainstorming and co-development of the solution include everyone, making for closer-knit members and higher morale through achievement.

What is problem solving workshop?

Problem solving workshops are managed discussion, in which a neutral facilitator, with no stake in the outcome, helps participants to achieve an agreed goal. It is structured process of using Lean Six Sigma techniques and approach and ensure a team-based discussion, commitment of participants and buy-in to the outcome.

It has been proven that Facilitation is the most effective and productive way of achieving results while having matured and goal aiming communication. More and more organisations achieve success by collaboration, interaction and teamwork through Problem solving workshops/facilitation.

Challenges you can resolve together at NextRetreat

• Create Strategy / Business Plan

Would you like to expand your business? Explore the best ideas how to get more clients or find new segments. Looking for improving your marketing strategy? Do you need to set a new product or service while maintaining your quality? Set the priorities for the next period or stage of your business.

• Improvements / Innovation

Would you like to set up faster delivery? Decrease error rate and failures? Get ideas on how to make internal processes more effective? Define what the most critical quality factor for your customer and how to improve it? Improve operational efficiencies?

• Problem solving

Do you know that something is wrong but you don´t know exactly what is it? Do you feel like number of customer complaints is going up? Do you feel lack of engagement and / or misunderstanding at your firm?

• Set up new processes

Set up processes for new products, services, applications or changes in cooperation with third parties.

• Decomposition of key management goals

Would you like to define specific actions, metrics, KPI for teams/processes? How to effectively gather requirements and make important decisions.

Why workshops and facilitation

During usual discussions, most of ideas are lost or not recorded; people switch from one idea to another, turn away from the main topic and sometimes develop ideas, that doesn’t have high added value. Sometimes they follow up with actions that are not accurate and people assume that “somebody” will do the the necessary execution, but the result is often waste of time and money.

Problem solving workshops are..

• An effective, structured and managed way of communication
• Focusing on the goal while giving everyone the necessary space & time for explaining opinions and co-developing solutions
• Stop turning away, external disturbances and developing non productive topics/ideas
• Only ideas that have the biggest value and lowest cost are developed
• Building consensus, better understanding,  avoiding disagreements, assumptions, directivity and dissatisfaction
• All participants develop ideas together, get and share all the information, see how the ideas are developed, the benefits, possibilities and limitations
• The workshop benefits result in participants building on each other’s ideas and gaining a better understanding of each other’s viewpoints, all while reducing paradigm effect and misunderstanding as everything is visually recorded
• An opportunity for participants to discuss issues and problems, and reach a consensus on important decisions in a safe environment managed by the facilitator
• Buy-in from all stakeholders – participants feel engaged, involved and committed to the result, contributing to both content and decisions that will be made
• Task list with specific actions points (who-when-what) is developed in order to achieve the goal after workshop
• Team work and cooperation– spend effective time together as a team, with one common and agreed upon target

Tools and techniques used during workshops

Facilitation, tools of Lean Six Sigma and project management will be used exactly according to your needs and specific challenges.

• Brainstorming as many ideas as possible ( different types of managed brainstorming/brainwriting, discussion,…), visually recorded and grouped (affinity diagram)
• Filtering and reducing the list of ideas in order to ensure important ones are developed and time is not wasted (impact/effort matrix, voting, 1-3-9 evaluation, …)
• Developing selected ideas in mind map
• Project management (task list creation, Who-when-what do, tracking)
• Assessing waste (value stream map, 8 wastes of lean, Added Value/not added value analyses); Risk analysis (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis); Root causes analyses of problem (5 why, fishbone); mapping process/change, sipoc

More from blog

Avoid These 4 Common Mistakes When Planning Your Next Team Retreat

Planning a team retreat offers a unique opportunity to strengthen team bonds, boost productivity and rejuvenate spirits. However, it’s crucial to avoid some common planning pitfalls to ensure a fulfilling and effective team trip. Here are four key mistakes to avoid for your next team retreat.

Need Venue Suggestions and Estimated Budget for a Team Trip? Here is How You Can Do it in 5 Minutes

When it comes to organizing a memorable team trip, the excitement often comes hand in hand with the challenge of meticulous planning. But worry not, as NextRetreat has a duo of useful and free tools ready to transform your planning process. In a mere 5 minutes, you can unlock venue suggestions and budget estimates that will set your team trip planning on a smooth and successful course.

Destination Search 2.0 – New Design, Features & More Destinations

We’ve now supercharged our Destination Search Tool with some new upgrades. Our algorithm has been revamped to consider not only the factors we mentioned above but also two game-changers: jet lag and VISA requirements. Yep, you read that right. Let’s dive in..

Project Bliss

How to improve problem solving with lessons learned.

This is a guest article by Elizabeth Harrin from  GirlsGuideToPM.com .

So you’ve got a problem. It’s on the issue log. You’ve pulled together the key subject matter experts who can help get the project over this hurdle.

But how do you come up with the answer?

Sometimes, the answer to a problem is staring you in the face. There is only one sensible solution to fixing an issue. You are confident that using that approach is going to get you where you need to be. And the project can carry on.

However, that isn’t always the case.

I’ve been involved on many projects where seemingly simple problems turned out to be vast caverns of knotty issues, and unpicking one led to something else unravelling. This is particularly the case with complex processes or projects with lots of moving parts and many stakeholders. In those situations, it’s hard for the expert in the ‘problem’ area to see exactly what the impact of their solution might be on other departments or downstream processes. Unless they’ve got a perfect working knowledge of the entire business, which in my experience is rare.

So how do you get over these hurdles?

Option 1:  Work with a skilled business analyst to help you dig into the operational processes and uncover a solution that works the whole length and breadth of the problem.

Option 2:  Do problem solving the best you can, calling in subject matter experts as required and checking and testing before you take any action. 

Unfortunately, in many businesses, the BA skill set is sadly lacking. Experienced BAs are hard to come by and very valuable (so if you have the opportunity to have one on your team, grab it!). So you are left with the alternative of facilitating the problem solving yourself, as the project manager.

Lessons Learned: Your Secret Weapon for Problem Solving

This blog has already looked at some core skills for problem solving including the  5 Whys and a simple  step-by-step process for solving problems .

In this article I’m going to show you how to expand your problem solving toolkit by using your lessons learned log to uncover potential solutions. Let’s dive in.

Review Lessons Learned Log

When you first identify a problem, quickly scan through the lessons learned log and see if you’ve come across this issue before. While you are checking project documentation, you may as well review the risk and issue logs too, just in case something similar has come up in the past.

Look for Relevant Information

If you find something relevant, see what you can draw from that. Your current problem might be caused by:

• A lesson that was uncovered earlier in the project or on a different project, but the underlying process was never updated with the suggested improvement 
• A process that was changed as the result of a lesson learned, and your current problem is the result of that poorly-thought-through change
• Something you thought the team had already learned and improved on but is still happening

Or, of course, anything else. Problems have roots that go deep!

Use What’s There

If your lessons learned log gives you a nugget of information you can use to fix this problem, then go ahead and discuss what you’ve found with the team.

I find that often this solves the problem straightaway. I can’t speak for all businesses, obviously, but I do talk to and mentor many project managers and there are common threads across many teams – one of which is that we aren’t good at managing organisational knowledge. The better we get at accessing and using what we know, the easier it will be to resolve problems in the future.

Use Other Sources of Information Too

Let’s be realistic: your lessons learned database isn’t going to magically solve all your problems. You’ll be coming across new and unique problems specific to the stage of the project you are in. there will be situations where you can derive something useful from the lessons learned log, but that it doesn’t quite solve the problem, and situations where there’s nothing helpful in there at all.

In those cases, you need to move on to other problem-solving techniques to fully resolve the issue you are having. 

Capturing Lessons Learned

This technique of using lessons learned for problem solving ideas is great. But there is one catch. It only works if you have a lessons learned log to refer to! Let’s look briefly at getting started capturing lessons learned so you have an archive of rich ideas to return to as and when you look to improve processes or learn from issues.

You know  how to run a brainstorming session to help with problem solving ; brainstorming for lessons learned is exactly the same process.

Most lessons learned capture is, in my experience, carried out after a piece of work. You might do this as part of a retrospective, or in a more linear project methodology, at the end of the stage or project.

Create an  agenda for lessons learned discussions . I find it helps keep the conversation on track and focused on lessons, and it helps remove any blame because the agenda makes the meeting feel more formal and structured. Structuring your meeting will help you get something useful out of it.

Talk about what worked, what didn’t go so well and what you have learned from that as individuals and as a team. Document the lessons.

Moving Beyond Lessons Learned

Documenting the lessons learned is one thing – you’ve now got them in your log so you can refer back to it if necessary. However, you haven’t actually solved anything or prevented problems from happening in the future. Lessons captured are not the same as lessons learned! 

If you want to truly benefit from what you’ve covered in the lessons learned session, please take action as a result of what you uncovered!

Using lessons learned proactively this way will also help you cut down on future problems because you are picking off and improving things as you go.

Elizabeth Harrin is the author of  several project management books and writes the award-winning blog  A Girl’s Guide to Project Management . Find  her on Facebook . 

To read more about what to look out for in advance, read 10 Reasons Why Projects Fail

10 Reasons Why Projects Fail

About The Author

Leigh Espy is a project manager and coach with experience working in startups, government, and the corporate world. She works with project managers who want to improve their skills and grow in their career, and entrepreneurs and small businesses to help them get more done. She also remembers her early career days and loves working with new project managers and those who want to make a career move into project management.

No Responses

• Pingback: Project Manager Roles and Responsibilities: What does a PM Really Do? - Project Bliss April 7, 2019
• Pingback: New PM Articles for the Week of March 18 – 24 | The Practicing IT Project Manager March 24, 2019