Question before solving

How can we check that we are addressing the right problem before looking for a solution?

1250 € per session, excl. VAT

In short

This half-day session of 3 hours raises awareness of the reflexes that lead people to solve a poorly defined problem too quickly. Through a fictional case study, role plays and feedback, participants learn to distinguish symptoms from causes, question the obvious and reframe a difficulty without prematurely imposing a solution.

Why this training?

A request such as ‘we need more resources’ already contains a solution. Accepting it without clarification can conceal several different difficulties: a poorly defined expectation, missing information or a genuine malfunction. Returning to the facts makes it possible to discuss the problem rather than immediately defend an answer. Questioning the obvious also requires an interpersonal approach: listening without interrupting, expressing doubt without accusing and accepting several explanations. The simulations make these behaviours visible and allow them to be adjusted through precise observations. Running case study: At ‘Rivage Colis’, a fictional delivery company, complaints about delays are increasing. The manager wants to strengthen delivery rounds. Information sheets gradually reveal ambiguous promised delivery times, incomplete handovers and parcels that have actually been delayed. Participants must determine what needs to be checked before supporting this solution. Transfer to the workplace: At a forthcoming meeting about a difficulty, suggest five minutes of clarification before any search for a solution. Use three open questions, distinguish facts from assumptions, then seek agreement on a shared formulation. Afterwards, ask a colleague for feedback on the neutrality of the questions.

Objectives of this training

  • Distinguish an observable fact, an interpretation and a proposed solution.
  • Reframe a problem by specifying the gap between the observed situation and the expected situation.
  • Ask open questions without suggesting an answer or looking for someone to blame.
  • Explore several possible causes and identify missing information.
  • Express disagreement over the diagnosis in factual language.

Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?

Roles and tasks concerned

  • Staff from all departments who need to report or address recurring difficulties.
  • Managers and team leaders wishing to frame discussions more effectively before making decisions.

Prior skills

  • No prior knowledge of cause analysis methods is required.
  • Be able to describe a simple situation involving coordination or service quality.

What you will work on

  1. Spotting the jump to a solution

    Objective: Recognise an insufficiently defined difficulty. Differences between symptom, problem and solution; confirmation bias and the effect of urgency.

  2. Questioning without leading

    Objective: Clarify a request while preserving cooperation. Open questions, listening, reframing and distinguishing assumed intention from observable behaviour.

  3. Exploring without inventing a cause

    Objective: Treat explanations as hypotheses to be checked. Introduction to successive why questions and their limitations; multiple causes, missing evidence and the search for contradictory evidence.

  4. Agreeing on the problem to address

    Objective: Present a provisional framing without closing the investigation. Scope, people concerned, gap between expected and observed situations, and remaining uncertainties.

What you take away

  • A sheet distinguishing facts, interpretations and solutions.
  • An open-question framework for clarifying a difficulty.
  • A map of possible causes and necessary checks.
  • A reframed statement of the Rivage Colis problem.

Method and assessment

  • Short inputs followed by immediate practice using the running case study.
  • Individual work followed by work in pairs, with participants reviewing each other’s outputs.
  • Guided group discussion: what works, what needs correcting and what remains a human decision.
  • Preparation: Prepare an anonymised example of a difficulty for which a solution was proposed too quickly. Remove confidential information; use only materials and tools authorised by the organisation.

Observable criteria: The reframing describes a concrete gap without incorporating a solution. ; The participant asks three open questions without accusation. ; At least two possible explanations are explored. ; Each cause retained as a hypothesis is linked to a check. ; The feedback cites an observed behaviour rather than a personal judgement..

Frequently asked questions

Do I need to bring a real problem?

No. The fictional case study is sufficient; an anonymised example can enrich the discussions.

Will I learn a complete method of cause analysis?

No. The session introduces guiding principles and their limitations, without aiming at expert investigation.

What should I do when urgent action is needed?

Distinguish the immediate protective measure from the investigation into the causes, which remains necessary.

How can I prevent why questions from sounding like an interrogation?

Explain the intention, question the circumstances rather than the people, and reframe without accusation.

Last updated: