The six problem solving activities
The activities run in this order inside the 90-minute plan, with a five-minute opening, a five-minute break and a four-minute close.
| # | Activity | Minutes | What the group produces |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sort facts from assumptions | 15 | Statements marked as checked fact, assumption or opinion, with sources |
| 2 | Rewrite the problem statement | 12 | One statement with numbers, no cause and no solution |
| 3 | Map causes with evidence | 15 | Four likely causes with evidence and a way to check each |
| 4 | Generate options | 12 | Up to six options to compare |
| 5 | Compare options | 14 | A weighted score and a rank for each option |
| 6 | Design a small test | 8 | An experiment card with owner, measure, target and review date |
Filled example: fact and assumption sort
The problem as first stated was “People are lazy about pre-work”. Sorting showed one opinion and two untested assumptions.
| Statement | Sorted as | Source, or how to check |
|---|---|---|
| People are not interested in the course. | Opinion | No evidence yet. Ask three participants why they did not start. |
| 11 of 24 participants had not opened the module by the start of session 1. | Checked fact | Learning platform report, 6 October |
| The invitation email went out two days before session 1. | Checked fact | Sent log in the course mailbox |
| The module takes 20 minutes. | Assumption | Time three colleagues who have not seen it |
| Managers know that pre-work counts as paid time. | Assumption | Ask two managers |
| Trainers spend about 15 minutes repeating the pre-work in session 1. | Checked fact | Trainer notes from two sessions |
Filled example: cause and evidence map
The team checked the module time during the workshop. The other three causes each have a check that takes less than a week.
| Possible cause | Evidence for | Evidence against | How we can check |
|---|---|---|---|
| The invitation arrives too late | Sent two days before; 7 of the 11 opened the email on the day of the session | 4 people opened the email early and still did not start | Compare open dates with module starts |
| The separate login stops people | 3 support tickets about passwords in October | 13 people logged in without a ticket | Ask the 11 in a two-question poll |
| Managers do not treat it as paid time | 2 participants said they did it at home | Only two comments; no manager asked | Ask two managers what they were told |
| The module takes longer than stated | Three colleagues took 38, 44 and 51 minutes | — | Already checked: the stated time is wrong |
Optional root cause extension: five whys in 20 minutes
Not part of the 90-minute plan. Run it after the break, at the test review, or as a separate short session. The fishbone (cause-and-effect) diagram is commonly credited to Kaoru Ishikawa. The five whys is commonly credited to Sakichi Toyoda and the Toyota Production System. The categories, sheets and evidence check here were written for this kit.
| Minutes | What happens | Sheet |
|---|---|---|
| 0–2 | Choose one cause from the fishbone or the cause map that is a checked fact or to check. Read the stop rule aloud. | Five whys chain |
| 2–12 | In pairs or threes, ask why and write one answer per level. At each level, also write one other answer in the “Other answer” row. | Five whys chain |
| 12–17 | Mark every answer: checked fact, to check or assumption. Stop the chain at the first answer that is not a checked fact. | Five whys chain |
| 17–20 | Agree who checks the open links, and by when. Add the checks to the cause map. | Cause and evidence map |
Filled example: fishbone
The deeper version of activity 3, same 15 minutes. 4 checked facts, 3 to check, 2 assumptions. Checked fact: someone has seen the source. To check: there is a lead and a check that someone can do this week. Assumption: no source and no quick check yet; it stays as a question and nothing is built on it.
| Category | Possible cause | Evidence check | Source, or how to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| People and roles | Managers do not treat pre-work as paid time | To check | 2 participants said they did it at home. Ask two managers what they were told. |
| People and roles | People are not interested in the course | Assumption | No source. The fact sort marked it as an opinion. |
| Process and timing | The invitation goes out two days before session 1 | Checked fact | Sent log in the course mailbox |
| Process and timing | Nobody reminds people who have not started | Checked fact | Sent log: no reminder for the October cohort |
| Tools and systems | The separate login stops people | To check | 3 password tickets in October. Two-question poll to the 11. |
| Information and communication | The invitation says 20 minutes; the module takes 38 to 51 | Checked fact | Three colleagues timed it during the workshop |
| Workload and setting | Peak weeks on the service desk leave no free 45 minutes | To check | Compare the desk rota for 28 September to 6 October with the 11 names |
| Workload and setting | There is no quiet place to do online learning at work | Assumption | No source yet |
| Measures and follow-up | Nobody looks at the start report before session 1 | Checked fact | The coordinator first runs the report on the day of session 1 |
Filled example: five whys
The chain stopped at level 4, the first answer that is not a checked fact. Five whys can stop at a single cause; the “Other answer” rows and the evidence check keep the other causes in view.
| Level | Why…? | Answer | Evidence check | Source, or how to check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Why 1 | Why had 11 of 24 participants not opened the module by session 1? | 7 of the 11 opened the invitation only on the day of session 1. | Checked fact | Email open dates in the course mailbox |
| Other answer | What else could explain it at level 1? | The other 4 opened the invitation early and still did not start. The separate login may stop them. | To check | Two-question poll to the 4. Not followed in this chain; it is on the fishbone. |
| Why 2 | Why did 7 people open the invitation only on the day? | It went out two days before session 1. | Checked fact | Sent log in the course mailbox |
| Other answer | What else could explain it at level 2? | People leave pre-work until the last moment because the invitation says 20 minutes. | Assumption | No source yet |
| Why 3 | Why did the invitation go out only two days before? | The coordinator waits for the final list of names, and the last manager confirmed names three days before session 1. | Checked fact | Confirmation emails in the course mailbox |
| Why 4 | Why did the last manager confirm names so late? | Managers are asked for names two weeks before the course, with no reply date. | To check | The coordinator finds the request email and its date before the test starts. |
| Why 5 | Not asked yet | Stop here. Level 4 is not checked. Ask the next why only when it is. | – | – |
Filled example: option comparison
Weighted score = 3 × effect + 2 × effort + 2 × speed + 1 × fit, out of 24. A and C share rank 1 and can run together; E stays as a fallback.
| # | Option | Effect (× 3) | Effort, 3 = least (× 2) | Speed (× 2) | Fit (× 1) | Weighted score | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Send the invitation seven days before session 1, not two | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 21 | 1 |
| B | Replace the separate login with a direct link | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 4 |
| C | Send each manager a two-line note that pre-work is paid time | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 21 | 1 |
| D | Cut the module from 45 to 20 minutes | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 4 |
| E | Do the pre-work together in the first 20 minutes of session 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 20 | 3 |
Filled example: experiment card
The test runs for one cohort. If it meets the target, the team keeps it and tests the direct link next.
| Part | Our test |
|---|---|
| We believe that… | People start the pre-work when they get it earlier and their manager confirms it is paid time. |
| So we will try… | Options A and C: send the invitation seven days before session 1, with a two-line note to each manager. |
| For whom, and for how long | The November cohort of 24 people, session 1 on Tuesday 3 November. |
| We will measure… | The share of participants who opened the module by the start of session 1, from the platform report. |
| Baseline today | 13 of 24 (54%) in the October cohort. |
| Target | At least 18 of 24 (75%). |
| We will stop early if… | Two or more managers say the note is unclear. We will then call those managers instead. |
| Owner | Course coordinator. |
| Review date and who attends | Wednesday 4 November, 20 minutes: coordinator, two trainers and the problem owner. |
What you'll leave with
By the end of 90 minutes the team has a problem statement with evidence, causes with a way to check each, scored options and one small test with an owner, a measure, a target and a review date.
Before the session
- For facilitators, trainers and team leads who help 4–16 people with a real, recurring problem that the team can influence. Not for a crisis.
- Ask the owner for the problem in their own words, with any figures. Agree who decides if needed.
- Put the worksheets in one shared document, or print one set per small group, with the filled examples.
- Turn on captions, send the worksheets a day early to people who use screen readers, and give silent writing time before each discussion for people who think in writing or in a second language.
The run of show
Open with the problem as first stated
Read the problem as the owner first stated it. Say: “We will not solve this in the first hour. We will make sure we are solving the right thing, and we will leave with one test.” Show the six steps and the output of each. Name who decides if the group cannot agree.
Activity 1: sort facts from assumptions
Give four minutes of silent writing: each person writes what they believe about the problem, one statement per line. Collect the statements for five minutes. Spend six minutes sorting each one as a checked fact, an assumption or an opinion, and write a source or a way to check it. Nobody has to defend a statement; the column shows only what we know.
Activity 2: rewrite the problem statement
In pairs, spend five minutes rewriting the problem with the builder: who is affected, what happens, how often or how much, the effect and the evidence. The statement must not contain a solution or a cause. Compare the versions for four minutes and agree one in the last three. Keep the words that someone could check.
Activity 3: map causes with evidence
List possible causes for five minutes without judging them. For the four most likely causes, fill the map for eight minutes: evidence for, evidence against and how to check. Spend two minutes agreeing which cause the team can check this week. A cause without evidence stays on the map as a question. Optional deeper version, same 15 minutes: list the causes on the fishbone sheet instead of a blank list, one category at a time, and mark each cause as a checked fact, to check or an assumption. Then fill the map for the four most likely. To follow one cause further with five whys, add the separate 20-minute extension after the break or at the review; it is not part of the 90 minutes.
Break
Five minutes away from the screen. The facilitator copies the problem statement and the checked causes to the top of the options sheet.
Activity 4: generate options
Give four minutes of silent writing: each person writes options that answer the problem statement, including small and odd ones. Share for five minutes without comment. Spend three minutes grouping similar options and choosing up to six to compare.
Activity 5: compare options
Agree the weights first: effect on the problem 3, effort 2, speed to try 2, fit with constraints 1, or your own. Score each option from 1 to 3 on each criterion for eight minutes; for effort, 3 means least effort. Calculate the weighted score and discuss the top two for four minutes. The score orders the discussion; it does not make the decision.
Activity 6: design a small test
Fill the experiment card for the chosen option: what we believe, what we will try, for whom and for how long, the measure, the baseline, the target, when we stop early and who owns it. Choose a test that can run within four weeks.
Read back and close
Read back the problem statement, the cause the team will check and the test with its owner and review date. Ask each person for one word about the problem now, or a pass.
Participant worksheet
Copy this table into a document, or print the worksheet from the bundle. Share only what you choose.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Activity 1 | One statement per line: checked fact, assumption or opinion, with a source |
| Activity 2 | Who is affected, what happens, how often, the effect and the evidence |
| Activity 3 | Possible cause, evidence for, evidence against, how to check |
| Activity 3, deeper | Fishbone by category and a five-whys chain, each cause marked checked fact, to check or assumption |
| Activity 5 | Score each option 1–3 on effect, effort, speed and fit |
| Activity 6 | We believe, we will try, we measure, we stop if, owner and review date |
Debrief questions
- What did we believe at the start that turned out to be an assumption?
- How did the problem statement change, and what does the new version rule out?
- Which option scored lower than we expected, and was the score or our instinct right?
- What would make us stop the test early, and who will notice?
Adapt it for your group
- For a 60-minute version, do activities 1 and 2 as pre-work in a shared document, then run activities 3 to 6 in the session.
- For more than eight people, run activities 1, 3 and 5 in groups of three or four, and bring back only the top results. For the fishbone, give each group two or three categories and combine the sheets.
- Online, keep one shared document on screen and paste each activity’s question in the chat. Use silent writing in the document before open discussion. Make cameras optional.
- If the team cannot influence the main cause, say so in activity 3 and choose an option the team controls, or write a request to the person who owns that cause.
- For people who prefer not to speak in a group, collect statements and options in writing first, and let the facilitator read them out without names.
After the session
Send the problem statement, the cause map and the experiment card within one working day. Run the checks on the causes before the test starts. If you used the fishbone or the five whys, re-mark each cause when its check is done. At the review date, compare the result with the target and decide to keep, adapt or drop the test. Record the decision and, if the problem remains, bring the next option from the comparison to the next meeting.
Questions people ask
What are good problem solving activities for teams at work?
Activities that follow the order of real work: sort facts from assumptions, state the problem with evidence, check causes, compare options and test one. This kit links six such activities in a 90-minute workshop and gives a worksheet for each.
How do you write a good problem statement?
Say who is affected, what happens, how often or how much, the effect and how you know. Leave out causes and solutions. “11 of 24 participants had not opened the pre-work by session 1” is a problem statement; “people are lazy about pre-work” is an opinion.
How does the option comparison work?
Score each option from 1 to 3 on effect, effort, speed and fit, then multiply by the weights 3, 2, 2 and 1. The highest possible score is 24. The score orders the discussion; the team, or the named decider, still makes the decision.
Are these problem solving games or a workshop method?
A workshop method. Each activity works on the team’s real problem, so the output is a problem statement, a cause map and a test that the team can run the next week. For a warm-up game, use a short cooperative activity first.
Is there a root cause analysis template in this kit?
Yes, as an optional deeper version of activity 3: a fishbone sheet that lists causes by category, and a five-whys chain for one cause. Each cause or answer is marked as a checked fact, to check or an assumption. Five whys can stop at a single cause when several act together; the evidence check stops the chain at the first unchecked answer, and an “Other answer” row at each level keeps the other causes in view. The fishbone diagram is commonly credited to Kaoru Ishikawa, and the five whys to Sakichi Toyoda and the Toyota Production System. It is a team workshop tool, not a formal incident, safety or quality investigation. Follow your own procedure for those.
What is included in the free and editable files?
The open PDF has the six worksheets, the optional fishbone sheet and five-whys chain, filled examples and the 90-minute facilitator plan. Subscribers also receive the editable Word file, an Excel workbook with an option comparison that calculates weighted scores and ranks, fishbone and five-whys sheets that count facts, causes to check and assumptions, an experiment tracker and filled examples, and a CSV of the plan.
How to use the files
Print the PDF, edit the Word file in Word or Google Docs, or open the CSV or XLSX in a spreadsheet. Open files need no email.
Can I use this with paying clients?
Yes. Use and adapt this original Superglue kit in your own training, including paid client sessions. Please share this page rather than redistributing the unmodified kit. Read the full usage terms.