1 Greg Edit Problem Definition

Step 2: Issues identification

Write the issues identified by the group on either a separate whiteboard/flip chart or on the right-hand side of the whiteboard under the Changes and Assets columns. Once your issues list reaches a natural conclusion, try to identify themes and categorise the list under these themes, for example: inefficiency, service quality, reputation, injury and safety, cost, risk, productivity or waste. The most important issue will become the starting point for the first problem.

Step 3: Problem statements

The problem(s) is/are recorded in the first column of the ILM.

A problem is the reason action needs to be considered at this time. Generally, it is couched in negative terms and is made up of two parts – cause and effect. The problem(s) statements are critical to understanding the need for this investment and should enable the reader to get a sense of the level and significance of the investment.

For example :

Cause: High levels of toxicity

Effect: Threaten the presence of rare flora and fauna in the park

A problem statement should be:

• 
  expressed in plain English and have a clearly defined cause and effect;
  
• 
  supported by evidence to verify both the problem and the ‘cause and effect’; and
  
• 
  compelling and something that we care about (i.e. if the effect or consequence are of little importance or concern, the problem is not compelling).
  

Getting good problem statements

At the heart of a good problem statement is the articulation of the cause or what’s broken and the evidentially linked effect or consequence that we care about.

Key questions

• 
  What is the cause and what is the effect or consequence?
  
• 
  What are the imperatives for this investment?
  
• 
  What will happen if we do nothing?
  
• 
  What trigger has made us think that we need to respond now?
  
• 
  What is the effect or consequence that we really care about and can we do something about remedying the cause or what is broken?
  
• 
  What evidence is there to support the relationship between the cause and the effect that we care about?
  

Participants often come with some firm views about the cause or need for investment. These may or may not be true. Often they are symptoms of the problem rather than the heart of the problem. Sometimes they initially see a problem statement within a political context, for example, it’s an election promise or a Ministers request or it’s a compliance requirement. Good facilitation should work hard to identify the community need that stimulated the election promise, Ministerial request or compliance requirement. Typically all of these situations have a real and evidence-based need that can be described in the problem statement. On other occasions participants arrive with a view of the problem that starts at a very low level such as a broken or outdated asset. If you start here then you are forced too early and often inaccurately down a solution pathway. You will need to work with the group to lift the discussion to a more strategic level.

Getting a better understanding of cause and effect will help sharpen the problem statement and provide a better understanding of the problem story. A useful way to do this is to try to unpack an issue by exploring the relationship between cause and effect. The fictional example below demonstrates how carefully unpacking an issue gives an understanding of not only the real problem but also the benefit, potential KPIs and some of the strategic interventions that might be considered.

A maximum of four problems are permitted, but in most instances two to three problem statements are sufficient to provide clarity in the problem space.

Weightings

It is often useful to rank and then allocate weightings at this stage. It ensures only the most compelling problems continue to be discussed.

In an ILM a total of 100 per cent is distributed within each of the Problem, Benefit and Strategic response columns. This is distributed to indicate the relative importance of the various elements within each column. To ensure clarity and ease of prioritisation, no items should have the same weighting within each column.

Problems rated less than 10 per cent should be questioned regarding the need to mention them at all. The aim is to capture those things that really matter and eliminate the rest.

Step 4: Benefits

This step focuses on determining and articulating the benefits to the community, enterprise or organisation that will be delivered as a result of this investment. The Benefit column articulates the value proposition or successful outcomes that are expected from addressing the negative consequences identified in the problem statements. They should look at the potential to deliver increased value, where possible, while addressing the immediate problem.

The benefit statement is made up of an overarching statement that provides line-of-sight to the outcomes the organisation is seeking and is supported by two high-quality KPIs. Benefit statements should provide an obvious connection to government or the organisation’s outcomes but be contextualised to indicate their local impact. This alignment between the high-level enterprise benefits and specific investment benefits is described in the benefit framework (see Appendix 3.).

A benefit needs to pass three tests:

• 
  the benefits remove or mitigate the defined problems and are aligned to the outcomes valued and articulated by the organisation;
  
• 
  it is supported by two KPIs that are meaningful, measurable and attributable to this investment; and
  
• 
  it is cost-effective – the effort required to track the benefit and the KPIs are commensurate with the value and insight that they provide to the organisation.
  

Key questions

• 
  What value will we get out of this investment and how will we know whether value has been delivered?
  
• 
  What benefits will the organisation expect in successfully responding to the problem?
  
• 
  What outcomes will we get from remedying this problem?
  
• 
  What benefit will government and citizens get from this investment?
  
• 
  What part of the government agenda will this investment support?
  
• 
  What KPIs will demonstrate value and are outcome focused?
  

Create the links between the problems and the benefits that they respond to. Figure 5 demonstrates this relationship.



Figure 5: Problem to benefit relationship

It is critical any benefits claimed are supported by reasonable KPIs – ones that are meaningful, attributable and measurable. These KPIs should be outcome rather than output or activity focused. The emphasis should be on the results or impact of the work that is done to deliver the benefit and remediate the problem. Aim for a maximum of four benefits and a maximum of two KPIs for each benefit.

Weightings

The benefits are weighted in the same way as the problems. If time is short it is often useful to at least rank the benefits at this stage.