Why Starting with “Defining the Problem” in Public Services is a Mistake

Defining the problem is usually the very first step in most public sector projects and initiatives. However, starting by creating a fixed definition of the problem often leads the work to failure. Why? Because this approach limits decision making thinking agency and innovation, fosters top-down control, and frequently exacerbates the very issues it aims to resolve.

The Pitfalls of Defining Problems

Defining a Problem Isolates it From Reality.

The challenge is the very act of ‘defining a problem’ puts it in a box. The act of definition means putting a line around a problem and separating it from the system from which it emerges. The real world is interconnected so isolating a problem from it’s environment stop us from understanding why and how the problem came to be. When we define projects in the public services we need to understand that all too often we are dealing with wicked social problems. Not our tame imaginations.

Defining a Problems Limits us Considering Potential Solutions.

When we define a problem we stop people conceiving and understanding things in different ways. We limit the possibilities of answers, to a narrow slice of solutions. It stops people getting creative and viewing problems from different angles. Identifying new ways of framing problems is often the best way to identify fresh solutions.

Defining a Problem for Someone Else is Paternalistic

By starting a project or intervention with a problem statement becomes a paternalistic top down approach. Who defines the problem for whom? In public services such as healthcare where engaging frontline staff is essential for implementing most solutions. Whilst making reasonable adjustments for disadvantaged groups and addressing healthcare inequalities are ongoing problems not consulting the users from the start only exasperates existing problems.

When You Define a Problem You limit it’s Reality.

When we start defining a problem we limit our understanding of a problem as well as what options are available to us to fix the problem. The easiest way to address a problem in the public sector is to pass it on to someone else. The easiest way to do that is to define the service user as somebody else’s problem. This is why there are always assessments, scans and applications to complete before accessing services, all so the system can pass service users onto somebody else. When we define a problem, we are also deciding who we help and who we don’t.

Understanding the Problem with Defining the Problem

Data Shows That Heavily Defined Projects Perform More Poorly.

Data shows that starting with an intervention by defining the problem leads to all kinds of challenges: Rigid scoped projects have a failure rate above 30% vs less than 20% for more agile projects. (Gallup)  70% more scope creep vs 35% for flexible scoped projects (PMI). Flexible scope projects have a 25% higher stakeholder satisfaction rate.  (International Journal of Project Management) and results in a 20% increase in productivity (Gallup). Furthermore, rigid projects are 35% more likely to experience rigid time delays and 25% (IJPM) more likely to have cost overruns. (PMI)

Top Down Decision Making

This narrow framing is a hallmark of paternalistic, top-down approaches where decision makers determine problems without fully understanding the lived experiences of those affected. It sidelines broader perspectives and limits creative, systemic focused solutions. It s so often one group of people with resources defining problems for those without. When the reality of those making decisions is different from those experiencing it.

Defining Problems Often Focuses Symptom Not The Cause

When you define a problem too rigidly, you often see the symptom and not the cause. For example, in the public sector, we may focus on the capacity problems caused by people attending a job centre, calling the police and attending A&E. However, we are putting a wide range of causes into the same box and never getting around to understanding and making sense of the problem.

Defining the Problem of NHS Hospital Waiting Times

The terrible performance of hospital waiting times is a case in point. The hospital waiting times in the UK, are a challenge that has been increasing over many years in the NHS resulting in a waiting list 7.5 million strong now. (BMA) It is a perennial challenge in public healthcare. By defining it solely as a “hospital problem,” interventions have focused on squeezing more capacity and flow from overstretched hospitals. 

Hospital Problems Are Problems With Our Society Systems

These approaches largely ignore the societal factors like diet, mental health, and economic conditions, that drive demand for healthcare in the first place​​. It’s a stark fact that since 2010 the number of hospital clinicians has increased by 48% at the same time the number of GPs has REDUCED by 12%. (NHS Digital). This is not the result of a single decision, but a large number of decisions over several NHS reform plans.

Problems in The Public Sector Are Not Easy To Fix

If the problem was easy to fix it would have been fixed already. When someone comes to the public sector with a problem it’s because they can’t fix it themselves. This manifests itself as a need. Often these are not easy to fix or understand in the rush to process people as fast as possible to be productive. The problem may be oblique (psychological issues) or hard to address such as parents caring for a child involved with crime. 

Solving The Problem of Definition.

Instead, solutions should target service user needs and the deeper causes in our healthcare system and wider society: fostering healthier lifestyles, addressing inequality, and integrating community support networks. Viewing challenges through a lens of a range of service users’ needs ensures interventions align with broader societal well-being​​.

Why Problem Definition Stifles Progress

1. Failure Demand: Systems designed to solve narrowly defined problems often create “failure demand”: the cost of treating but never addressing service users’ unmet needs.
2. Symptom Treatment: Projects target symptoms while ignoring systemic drivers, leaving the underlying issues untouched. We need to focus on preventing the problems in the first place
3. Interagency Fragmentation: Services pass the buck, redefining service users as someone else’s problem, which fractures efforts and wastes resources​​. Leaving many too simply fall between the gaps in the system and endlessly waiting.

The Public Sector Needs to Focus on the Social Impact of Our Projects and Interventions.

All to often the public sector initiative focuses on hitting a narrow band of KPIS targets and milestones. We don’t look at the wider social impact of our work and optimise for it. Social impact describes the broader impact of what the effect of the public sector interventions are. Until we understand and try to work towards it. The public sector will be forever bailing itself harder and harder to address problems. (Read my guide to leading social impact here).

Reframing Approaches with Systemic Thinking 

Addressing public service challenges effectively requires adopting systemic thinking. Models like Edge of Possible’s “Pulse of Change” emphasise the interconnected nature of problems and the need for adaptive, flexible approaches. Instead of drawing rigid boundaries, this model fosters:

• Feedback loops for real-time understanding of needs.
• Adaptable structures that allow interventions to evolve as conditions change.
• Relational approaches to build trust and shared understanding​​​.

Moving Forward: Practical Solutions

1. Start with People’s Needs: Begin projects by understanding the lived experiences of communities. What are their actual needs? How do those needs intersect with broader systemic factors like housing, education, or employment?
2. Embrace Feedback and Adaptation: Implement interventions as part of an iterative process. Test small-scale solutions, gather feedback, and adjust as necessary.
3. Empower Collaboration: Shift from siloed efforts to integrated approaches that unite healthcare, social services, and community organisations.
4. Measure Holistically: Move beyond metrics that simply count activities (e.g., patients treated) use diverse perspectives to evaluate long-term outcomes like quality of life and community well-being​​​
5. Make Sense of the System: The Cynefin Framework is an excellent tool for making sense of the situation and adapting the project to it.
6. Manage Tradeoffs: Polarity management builds onto the idea that when you optimise for one thing you lose something else. It helps us adapt the project to keep it in a Goldilocks zone.

Conclusion: The Opportunity for Change

By breaking free from the traditional rigid problem defining approach, public services can shift toward more inclusive, adaptive strategies. These methods align with the complex realities of modern society, helping us create more integrated interventions to make a bigger social impact. The real purpose of the public sector, and prioritising systemic understanding and long term well being over short term fixes.