Bulletproof Problem Solving

“Our customer satisfaction is too low – we need to improve service.” This sounds like a problem but contains no clear working question yet. Which customer group? Which period? How is satisfaction measured? Which decision should the analysis enable?

In Bulletproof Problem Solving , Charles Conn and Robert McLean describe a disciplined seven-step process. It runs from problem definition and disaggregation through prioritisation, work planning and analysis to synthesis and persuasive communication. The core idea is not to overload every problem with more data, but to address the right question logically and with focus.

1. Formulate a problem question that supports a decision

A robust definition makes the gap between the current and desired state visible. Wherever possible, it identifies the relevant group, timeframe, important constraints and the final decision. “Reduce costs”, for example, becomes: “How can we reduce processing costs by ten per cent by year-end without worsening error rates or accessibility?”

This precision also prevents an assumed solution from masquerading as a problem. “We need new software” rules out alternatives too early. A more open question might be: “Which causes extend processing time, and which intervention reliably reduces it?”

2. Structure the question with an issue tree

An issue tree breaks the main question into subquestions. Branches should overlap as little as possible while collectively covering the relevant breadth. For long processing times, for example, demand, available capacity, process steps and rework might be investigated separately.

The structure is a working hypothesis, not a definitive picture of reality. It is revised as new information emerges. Its value lies in making gaps, duplicated work and differing assumptions within the team visible.

3. Test the decisive uncertainties first

Not every branch deserves the same amount of analysis. Priority goes to subquestions that strongly influence the decision and remain uncertain. Hypotheses, required data, responsible people and a clear work plan are then established.

The outcome is not a collection of material, but a synthesis: what have we learnt, what conclusion follows and what action do we recommend? Good communication shows the logic and the key evidence. It also identifies uncertainties and assumptions instead of creating false certainty.

Your exercise: from uncertainty to a first analysis

Take a current challenge and work for three minutes:

1. Minute 1 – question. Formulate the problem with the goal, the gap from the current state, the timeframe and the decision to be prepared.
2. Minute 2 – tree. Break the question into three subquestions that are as distinct as possible. Check: is an important area missing, or do branches overlap?
3. Minute 3 – priority. Mark the subquestion with high influence and high uncertainty. What is the smallest piece of information that would change your decision about it?

Begin not with the most readily available number, but with evidence that distinguishes between genuine courses of action.

What we take from this

The approach strengthens problem recognition, analysis and decision-making. The book's seven-step process is not identical to WEITER7: Conn and McLean structure the resolution of a substantive problem; WEITER7 structures personal skill development. Within WEITER7, the issue tree can serve as a tool for the reality check and for planning a learning experiment.

Which challenge am I already addressing with solutions even though I have not yet precisely formulated the question that would support a decision?

Context: This insight summarises selected elements of the book's practical model in our own words. The example, exercise and WEITER7 connection are our own adaptations. The method does not guarantee an “unbreakable” solution. Logical trees can simplify interactions, value questions and power relations; complex societal problems also require participation, a systems perspective and specialist expertise.

Sources and further reading: Official Wiley publisher page ↗ · Conversation with Robert McLean about the approach ↗