What are the best methods for identifying the root cause of a problem in a Thought Leadership role?

Listen. Don't pre-judge.Live with ambiguity. Enourage others to do the same. Involve as many stakeholders as possible in designing a solution to the problem. Encourage co-ownership of the solution and iterative engagement in monitoring the response.

Ideally you should follow the DMAIC approach where you define the problem, analyse data, come up with path breaking solutions, implement, monitor and then decide if that’s the right solution. It’s always good to have a two way door for any problem so that if you fail, you have other options. And failure is not bad at all, you learn from it. And if you haven’t failed at all, then you haven’t tried enough:)

Here's How I Deal With: Defining the problem is a skill that comes with a blend of technique and empathy. First off, I always start by defining the issue as clearly as possible. Trust me, vague problem statements will lead you astray. I often use frameworks like SMART or even a simple Five WHY's exercise to get to the heart of it. But I believe there's more to it than just methodology. Listening to people who are directly impacted often provides invaluable insights that I might not have considered. Bottom line: Defining your problem is step one, but please don't underestimate the power of empathy and collaborative insight. Together, they make for a potent mix that can help you unravel even the trickiest problems.

Involve your team and identify the root cause collaboratively by listening to team's perspectives. A leader can bring in the big picture perspective to the problem on hand, while listening to the team to understand the nuances on the ground. This will ensure root cause is identified and corrective actions are put in place with buy-in from the team. There are many popular techniques available to perform RCA - Fish bone analysis, 5 whys, Pareto etc....

This is the most crucial step because an incorrectly defined problem will be a waste of time when one has to change the statement down the line. After this, thinking from first principles is, to me, the way of life. We often uncover the flaws in the current system. This approach brings a fresh look and does not often work from inside the system but looks at the system. It brings radical solutions.

-Backtracking helps in identifying the root cause. Go back every step in the approach implemented and analyze the result produced in each step. - This will help in finding the deviation on what went wrong, where and why! - Discuss and do not escalate. This is when people can have their minds aligned in making the root cause analysis. Pressure will not help.

The 5 Whys technique is one of my favorites. Partially because it's very easy to implement and understand so you don't waste time deciding which of the methods are the best. Also, technology isn't a factor - you can use a piece of paper or just uncover in a Teams Chat. I say this is a good go-to especially if you feel paralyzed by all the different techniques/boards/approaches of problem identification.

Ask “why” as many times as necessary to find the root cause , then prepare the problem statement and list of feasible options to avoid it later.. and record it as 'Lessons learnt' else we forget.

SWOT Analysis: Conduct a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis to assess internal and external factors that may contribute to the problem.

Ensuring the root cause of the problems are thoroughly questioned will prevent them from happening in the future. Such as SWOT analysis can be useful here and it is common and easy as well. Why... Where...What..When...etc will give power to identify the gap and evaluate declining impact.

Having visual aids can be helpful at this stage to organize and display the possible cause of a problem in a structured way. A Fishbone Diagram, concept map, or flow chart can reveal connections quickly and help you collect and analyze information in a contextual way.

Validating the root cause is like confirming a key theorem in mathematics. Just as mathematicians rigorously prove theorems with logical steps and evidence, thought leaders should methodically verify the root cause with data and analysis. It's the cornerstone of a robust thought leadership stance, much like a mathematical proof forms the basis of a theory. This ensures the integrity of your insights and guides your thought leadership effectively.

In the realm of problem-solving, jumping to conclusions without thorough validation can be a costly misstep. The validation phase acts as a safeguard, ensuring that our efforts are directed towards genuine issues rather than perceived ones. It reminds me of the adage, "Measure twice, cut once." By delving deeper into data, seeking diverse perspectives, and challenging our own biases, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.

Upon validation of the root cause using data analysis, it would be easier to interprete and strategise for a better approach in thought leadership

Remember thought leadership is changing the terms of the debate. There is data to analyse on why things don't work, but your greatest insight is from asking people. Dig into their pain, how it feels, what it costs them, what it would mean to solve the problem and why it matters to them. In this context you design experiments that will determine whether your theory is right, rather than conduct existing experiments testing old theories. The critical distinction between knowledge creation and empiricism is laid out in "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch. He is as good as his word because when he laid the foundations for quantum computing he also explained the experiments that would be necessary to prove himself right or wrong.

It is critical to make this a "collective intelligence" step. Rarely thought leaders generate truly novel and effective solutions in isolation. Real breakthroughs happen because of recombination of existing, disparate perspectives.

Now, let's come back to the warped cover problem again. It turns out other causes of the problems also include the tight design specifications and the long inventory days of the parts which cummulated the warping before the part assembly. So which one is the real root cause? The team compared the various solutions with both ROI analysis and reliability evaluation, and finally chose to control the inventory days of this plastic cover as a separate component, instead of adding locks, reworking the products, or redesigning the molds, which all add tremendous costs to the factory. For more case studies and best practices sharing, please feel free to write to support@invisibleconsultancy.com and I'll be happy to answer.

Once the problem is clearly defined and established, I always step back a little. I summon the "Brainstorming Brigade" and let them run the show with close monitoring to ensure that solutions are being discussed within constraints or facts. A problem is also an opportunity, to hone the next line of leadership. So take them along with you on this quest to solve problems.

There are diverse ways to generate solutions outside SWOT which can bring about improvement. - Changing the contents of delivery to what can resonate better with your audience and what is more relevant in the age you live.

Generating solutions is similar to creating a diverse portfolio of investments. Just as a savvy investor spreads their assets across different vehicles to minimize risk, thought leaders should explore various approaches to address the root cause. This diversity in solutions acts as a safety net, increasing the chances of finding the most effective response to the problem. Like a well-balanced investment portfolio, a range of solutions hedges against uncertainty in the thought leadership journey.

Put a review strategy in place so as to implement after your survey been shared with peers and your audience, so you can monitor the impact of your messages and how it increase your influence. This is an active monitoring technique.

Implementation is where plans meet action. In diverse team settings, a clear progress overview is key. While larger teams can divide tasks, a central system avoids disjointed efforts. Smaller teams must prioritize effectively. Beyond task mechanics, a holistic approach ensures solutions are deeply integrated. Once deployed, monitoring solution performance is vital, but gauging its acceptance within the company is paramount. A solution's success isn't just in its design but in its adoption. Effective implementation today can avert issues tomorrow, but its impact hinges on team embrace.

The aim is to design a process because this: - may be tested - will be improved - has an audit trail - can be automated - delivers scale efficiency and of course if it's a big enough issue it can be patented. Most issues fall short of this but remain important nonetheless.

Documenting integrated solutions is a crucial step that's frequently overlooked. It acts as a bridge, ensuring consistency and clarity for all parties involved. One effective strategy I've noticed to ensure comprehensive documentation is to link it to financial rewards. This approach transforms what might seem like an added task into an opportunity. Moreover, lucid communication regarding the solution is vital for its success, promoting broad acceptance and a shared understanding. This isn't merely about jotting down a solution; it's about establishing its significance for generations to come.

I have a different perspective on thought leadership. I believe there is a lot of thought leadership occurring which is not original or leadership. The thought leadership that I value is from people who have vast knowledge on the topic, deep actual experience in the area, and the soul of an innovator. Many people can create content they coalesce from research and analysis much like AI generation. Exceptional thought leadership, however, comes from those people who have extensive experience in the field and can innovate a solution. Not just something that leaders pay content writers to do for them.

When I read the initial title, one of my first thoughts was to not forget to look outside your industry or workplace for solutions. See how others do things in different fields, compare it to what you're doing and see if there is value to be gained.

I have to agree with Jennifer Horton's comment on this article. Thought leadership has lost its way a little, becoming a bit of a buzzword and even something to be bought through brand collaboration. However, true thought leadership is earned and the role of a communications professional is to help bring it out for someone with genuine expertise and opinions worth sharing. So, while this article starts by focusing on the problem, it would be good to see a separate discussion about getting out ahead of trends and issues to influence a debate about the road ahead rather than responding to problems that have already taken hold.

EXAMPLE: In a Strategy Thought Leadership capacity, my focus is on addressing a decline in market share. After a rigorous application of the following steps, I pinpoint the root cause as a misalignment between product development and customer preferences. This disconnect is traced back to resource allocation within R&D, which has been skewed toward features that don't align with customer needs. DEFINE PROBLEM DATA COLLECTION: includes market research and financial metrics DEEP DIVING: Challenge assumptions and probe deeply into the problem COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTED RCA: Regression Analysis,Machine Learning Algorithms HYPOTHESIS TESTING: product misalignment with customer needs COMMUNICATE FINDINGS TO INSPIRE STRATEGIC CHANGE

Identifying the root cause of a problem is akin to peeling an onion layer by layer. Just as you unveil the core of an onion by removing each layer, use methods like the '5 Whys' technique to uncover underlying issues. Go beyond surface symptoms and ask 'why' repeatedly to delve deeper into the problem. This approach allows you to understand the complexities and nuances, offering insights to drive thought leadership. Like peeling an onion, you get closer to the heart of the matter by systematically digging into the 'whys' of the problem.