WRIT6000 Chap.5 Defining Problems Worth Solving
Defining Problems Worth Solving
Professional problem solving begins by converting a broad situation into an observable gap, naming the people affected, identifying the authorised decision-maker and acknowledging practical constraints. A statement such as communication is poor is too broad to guide action because it does not establish what currently happens, what should happen or how the difference is observed.
The first task is diagnosis, not advocacy for a preferred solution. Symptoms may have several causes, and a new platform, campaign or training program can fail if it addresses the most visible symptom rather than the underlying condition. This chapter uses a problem chain that moves from evidence of the gap through possible causes, responsible authority, bounded action and evaluation.
Local knowledge is valuable when it is translated into verifiable detail about services, constraints, prior attempts and stakeholder experience. It cannot substitute for checking factual claims. Scope also carries an ethical dimension: a proposal should not promise broad transformation when a writer controls only a small trial.
A pilot, audit or consultation can be a strong recommendation if it names the uncertainty it will reduce and the later decision its results will support. The final problem frame connects a specific observation to an authorised audience, a feasible next action and a measure of success. This makes persuasion accountable because readers can inspect the evidence and judge whether the proposed scale fits what is known.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Situations, symptoms, causes and problems
- 02
Stakeholder groups and responsible framing
- 03
Decision authority and organisational fit
- 04
Local knowledge as checkable evidence
- 05
Scope, constraints and feasible action
- 06
Evaluation measures and staged decisions
Worked example · free
Bound a weekend waste problem
- 1Identify where and when overflow occurs.
- 1Name the operational evidence and affected users.
- 1Identify the responsible council team and constraints.
- 1Compare more than one feasible response.
- 1Define measures that support a later decision.
Key terms
- Problem statement
- A bounded account of an observable gap, affected people, consequence and decision context.
- Symptom
- A visible effect that may have several competing causes.
- Constraint
- A practical limit involving authority, resources, timing, policy or evidence.
- Decision-maker
- The person or body with authority to approve the requested action.
- Pilot
- A bounded implementation used to test feasibility and collect evidence before wider action.
Defining Problems Worth Solving FAQ
Why should I delay choosing a solution?
A visible symptom can have several causes, and each cause may need a different response. Choosing technology or a campaign too early makes later evidence serve the idea rather than test it. Define the gap, compare explanations and identify decision authority before committing to a method.
How does local knowledge become persuasive evidence?
Translate familiarity into verifiable detail: the responsible organisation, actual site conditions, existing services, stakeholder experience and credible contextual sources. Local expertise matters when it changes scope, feasibility, audience or benefit. Unchecked memory remains an assertion even when the writer knows the place well.
When is further research an acceptable recommendation?
When available evidence cannot distinguish causes or justify implementation, a targeted audit, consultation or trial can be the responsible next action. Specify what uncertainty it addresses, who will perform it, how long it takes and which result will guide the later decision.
Assessment move
Take a broad issue and write a four-part problem statement: current condition, desired condition, observable gap and consequence for a named group. Highlight any word that is evaluative but not yet measurable, such as inefficient, confusing or inadequate, and replace it with evidence a reader could inspect. List at least three possible causes.
For each cause, write what evidence would increase or decrease your confidence in it. This prevents the preferred response from controlling the diagnosis. Next, map authority. Identify who experiences the problem, who holds relevant knowledge, who can approve action and who must implement it. Rewrite the proposed audience if the original reader cannot make the requested decision.
Check local details against reliable sources and note what remains uncertain. Now generate two responses at different scales, such as a limited trial and full implementation. Compare them for evidence, time, resources, reversibility and likely consequence. If the larger action exceeds what the evidence supports, design a pilot, audit or consultation.
Specify the uncertainty it addresses, the people involved, the duration, the information collected and the decision that follows each plausible result. Draft the proposal opening only after completing these checks. It should move from evidence of the gap to its consequence and then to a bounded request. Ask a peer to identify the first unsupported causal jump and the first place where scope becomes vague.
Revise those points before polishing language. Keep a decision log showing why you rejected other framings or methods. At the end, test the chain backwards: can the evaluation measure the promised outcome, can the action plausibly produce it, can the authorised reader approve the action, and does the original evidence establish a problem at that scale?
