STOP SOLVING THE SAME PROBLEMS: WHY ORGANISATIONS NEED TO LEARN FROM THEM

Every organisation has problems. A customer complaint, a delayed delivery, a system failure, an error in a report or a breakdown in communication can disrupt work and demand immediate attention.

A problem does not necessarily mean an organisation is failing. What matters is how it responds, what it learns and whether recurrence becomes less likely.

In some workplaces, people become skilled at dealing with recurring problems without removing the conditions that cause them. The immediate issue is resolved, everyone returns to work, and the same difficulty appears days or weeks later. The organisation remains busy, yet its underlying performance does not improve.

This is costly. It consumes time, frustrates employees, affects customers and makes firefighting seem like a normal part of the job.

Indeed, an organisation should not measure its problem-solving capability only by how quickly it fixes problems. It should also consider how effectively it learns from them.

WHEN FIRE-FIGHTING BECOMES NORMAL

An immediate response is sometimes essential. If a customer is waiting, a production line has stopped or a safety risk has emerged, stabilising the situation comes first.

The difficulty arises when the immediate response becomes the whole response. A team may repeatedly correct the same error, arrange another urgent delivery, apologise for another delay or ask someone to work late to recover lost time. Each intervention may be necessary in the moment, but if the cause remains untouched, the organisation is likely to pay for the same problem again.

Over time, employees may become known for rescuing difficult situations while the system creating them receives less scrutiny.

There is a difference between responding well to an unexpected event and relying on repeated rescue efforts to keep everyday work functioning.

FIXING THE SYMPTOM IS NOT ALWAYS SOLVING THE PROBLEM

When a problem appears, our first instinct is often to remove the visible difficulty. That is understandable, particularly when the pressure to restore service or meet a deadline is high. However, the visible symptom may not reveal the underlying cause.

If reports are repeatedly submitted late, reminding people about deadlines may not solve the problem. The information required to complete the reports may arrive late from another department, responsibilities may be unclear, or the process may contain unnecessary steps.

If customer orders repeatedly contain errors, telling employees to be more careful may have limited effect if the system makes it easy to select the wrong item or if information is transferred manually between disconnected systems.

Individual behaviour can matter, but a useful investigation considers the work system as well as the people operating within it. Ask what is happening, where the process is breaking down and what conditions contribute to the result.

GO CLOSER TO THE WORK

Reports and dashboards can tell us where a problem has occurred, but they may not provide a complete picture of why it happened.

This is one reason the gemba (the place where the work is actually done) is important. Going to the gemba allows leaders and problem-solvers to observe the process, understand the sequence of activities and listen to the people who experience the difficulties directly.

The purpose is not to catch people making mistakes or find someone to blame! It is to understand reality before deciding what needs to change.

People closest to the work may know where information is missing, where unnecessary waiting occurs, which steps create confusion or what workaround employees have developed to keep the process moving. These insights can be difficult to see from a report alone.

Listening means taking people’s experience seriously and testing explanations against what actually happens.

ASK WHY, THEN KEEP INVESTIGATING

A recurring problem deserves more than a quick assumption about its cause.

One practical approach is to ask ‘why’ repeatedly, examining each answer rather than stopping at the first plausible explanation. This is often associated with the Five Whys technique, although the number of questions is less important than the discipline of following the evidence.

Suppose a delivery is late, the initial explanation may be that dispatch happened too late. Further investigation may reveal that packing started late because the order was not ready, which may have happened because stock information was inaccurate. The stock information may have been inaccurate because updates were not made consistently when materials were used.

The original problem appeared to be a dispatch issue. The investigation may point towards inventory controls and the way information is maintained.

This is an illustration, not a formula. Some problems have several causes and require data or more detailed analysis. The essential principle is to avoid treating the first explanation as the final answer.

MAKE IT SAFE TO REPORT PROBLEMS

An organisation cannot learn from problems it does not know about.

If employees expect to be embarrassed, punished or blamed whenever they raise a concern, they may keep quiet, conceal errors or quietly work around difficulties. The organisation then loses access to information that could help it improve.

Accountability still matters, so deliberate misconduct or repeated disregard for agreed standards may require a different response from an honest mistake or a process weakness.

Leaders need to create conditions in which people can raise problems early, explain what they have observed and contribute to finding a solution. The response should prioritise understanding what happened and preventing recurrence, while addressing responsibility appropriately.

When people see that raising a problem leads to constructive action rather than automatic blame, they are more likely to speak up before a small issue becomes a larger one. This is also why employee involvement matters: people who are encouraged to contribute to solutions can help the organisation learn from the work itself.

TURN THE SOLUTION INTO A BETTER WAY OF WORKING

Finding a likely cause is certainly not enough. The organisation must implement a response and determine whether it works.

That may involve changing a procedure, improving the layout of a workspace, clarifying responsibilities, adjusting a system, providing training or changing how information is shared. The solution should address the cause identified, rather than simply adding another instruction or reminder.

It is also important to check whether the change has produced the intended result. If the problem recurs, the investigation may have been incomplete, the action may not have been implemented as intended, or other factors may be involved.

Where a solution works, the learning should be made available to the people who need it. Relevant procedures, visual controls, checklists or training materials may need to be updated so that the improvement becomes part of normal work rather than remaining in the memory of the person who solved the problem.

This is how an individual solution can become organisational learning.

DO NOT CONFUSE MORE ACTION WITH MORE IMPROVEMENT

When a problem occurs, organisations sometimes respond by adding another approval, form, check or meeting. These measures may be appropriate in particular circumstances, but each new control can also add complexity.

The question is whether the action makes the process more reliable and prevents recurrence without creating unnecessary difficulties elsewhere.

A good solution considers the wider process. Improving one department’s result at the expense of another department or the customer is not a genuine improvement in overall performance. This is why problem-solving should connect with operational excellence and continuous improvement. The objective is not to create activity around every problem, but to understand the causes, improve the work and sustain the gains.

LEADERSHIP SETS THE TONE

The way leaders respond to problems influences whether an organisation learns or merely reacts.

If leaders demand instant answers, blame the first person involved or treat every reported difficulty as evidence of poor performance, employees may focus on protecting themselves. If leaders ignore recurring issues because someone always manages to resolve them, firefighting can become an accepted operating model.

Leaders can take a different approach by asking what the organisation has learned, whether the underlying cause has been addressed and how recurrence will be prevented. They can make time for investigation, support people who raise concerns and ensure that responsibility for corrective action is clear.

This does not mean every minor problem needs a formal project. The response should be proportionate to the problem’s impact, frequency and risk. However, recurring or significant problems deserve enough attention to produce lasting learning.

FROM REPEATED REACTION TO ORGANISATIONAL CAPABILITY

An organisation that learns from problems gradually changes its relationship with them. Problems become information about how work is functioning, rather than merely interruptions to be overcome.

This is closely connected with the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. The organisation identifies an issue, tests a response, checks the result and acts on what has been learned. The cycle is repeated when the evidence shows that further improvement is needed.

The aim is not a workplace where nothing ever goes wrong, which is unrealistic, but one capable of recognising problems, understanding causes and improving the system. Over time, this can reduce avoidable rework, make processes more reliable and free people to spend less time rescuing work and more time improving it.

A QUESTION FOR REFLECTION

Think about a problem that your organisation has dealt with more than once.

Has it been resolved each time, only to return later? If so, what has the organisation learned about why it keeps happening? Has the underlying cause been addressed, and has the solution become part of the normal way of working?

If the same problem repeatedly demands another urgent intervention, perhaps the issue is not simply that people need to respond faster. Perhaps the organisation needs to learn more effectively.

The real measure of problem-solving is not only how well we recover when something goes wrong. It is whether we use what happened to make the next occurrence less likely.

—

ABOUT KOLA OLUTIMEHIN

Kola Olutimehin (getKOLA) is a Business Excellence Consultant who helps organisations achieve operational excellence through effective leadership, employee engagement, continuous improvement and organisational transformation.

If you find these reflections useful, follow Kola Olutimehin (getKOLA) for more thoughts on leadership, business excellence, organisational transformation, achievement and purposeful growth. You may also subscribe to our newsletters here, and connect with Kola via getKOLA.

Kola Olutimehin is a Business Excellence Consultant, who assists organisations in the achievement of operational excellence. He is a Director with the International Lean Six Sigma Institute (ILSSI), the David Hutchins International Quality College (DHIQC), and the Global Excellence Team (GET).

The International Lean Six Sigma Institute (ILSSI) is one of the leading international Lean Six Sigma professional and certification organisations, recognised globally. Kola’s involvement with ILSSI, DHIQC and GET reflects his continuing work in business excellence, operational excellence, quality and continuous improvement.

_____________________________________________________________________

For enquiries: send us a message HERE or via email at training@makewayglobal.com

Follow us on – LinkedIn | Instagram | X | Facebook

At MakeWay Global, we listen to what your desires are and work towards helping you to attain this with our expertise.

📩 Email: training@makewayglobal.com 🌐 Website: www.makewayglobal.com