The Job to Be Done Is Problem Framing in Complex Business Systems
In solution selling, enterprise transformation, and business systems architecture, most failures do not occur because organisations choose the wrong technology or the wrong implementation partner. They occur because teams solve the wrong problem.
- They solve it quickly.
- They solve it confidently.
- They solve it with strong executive sponsorship.
And they solve it incorrectly.
This pattern is so common that it has become normalised. Organisations repeatedly invest significant capital, time, and political energy into well-designed solutions that never fully deliver because the original problem was never properly framed.
In complex environments, the primary job of a professional is not problem solving. It is problem framing.
The Most Dangerous Moment in Any Engagement
There is a predictable moment in almost every major engagement when discovery quietly stops.
Someone says:
“So what we really need is…”
“Why don’t we just…”
“The solution here is…”
From that moment onward, the conversation narrows. Alternative interpretations disappear. Questions slow down. Evidence becomes selective. The organisation begins organising itself around a provisional idea.
This feels productive. It creates momentum and reassurance. It signals leadership.
In reality, it often marks the end of learning.
Problem Solving Versus Problem Framing
Most professionals are trained to solve problems. From early education through to technical and professional training, performance is measured by how effectively people produce answers.
Very few people are trained to frame problems.
Problem solving focuses on execution.
Problem framing focuses on understanding.
Problem solving asks, “How do we fix this?”
Problem framing asks, “What is really happening here?”
In complex systems, the quality of the solution will never exceed the quality of the framing.
Why Intelligent Teams Frame Problems Poorly
It is tempting to assume that poor framing is caused by lack of capability. In practice, the opposite is often true. Highly capable teams are particularly vulnerable to premature framing.
Strong analytical ability allows people to generate plausible solutions quickly. Those solutions feel coherent. They sound credible. They reduce uncertainty.
This creates a false sense of clarity.
Once a reasonable narrative exists, organisations become psychologically invested in it. Contradictory information is discounted. Dissent weakens. Exploration narrows.
The framing hardens before it has been tested.
What It Means to “Suspend the Problem”
To suspend the problem is to deliberately resist premature closure.
It means holding uncertainty longer than feels comfortable.
It means staying curious when others want certainty.
It means delaying design until understanding stabilises.
This is not indecision.
It is professional discipline.
It reflects confidence in process rather than dependence on early answers.
In high-performing environments, “we don’t know enough yet” is a strength, not a weakness.
The Core Responsibility of the Systems Architect
In solution architecture and enterprise design, the primary responsibility is not producing diagrams, specifications, or platforms.
It is stabilising shared understanding.
Before any solution can succeed, there must be alignment around:
- what success means
- who it is for
- what constraints are real
- what trade-offs exist
- what risks are unavoidable
Until these elements are clear, every design remains provisional.
The Double Diamond and Structured Problem Framing
One of the most practical models for understanding disciplined discovery is the Double Diamond framework:
Discover → Define → Develop → Deliver
Most organisations rush to Develop.
Effective teams invest in Discover and Define.
Discover focuses on exploration.
Define focuses on synthesis.
Together, they create a stable foundation for design.
Without them, execution becomes guesswork.
A Common Failure Pattern in Enterprise Transformation
Consider a typical digital transformation scenario.
The stated problem is “We need better visibility.”
The immediate response is “We need better dashboards.”
What is often ignored is that visibility problems usually reflect deeper issues: inconsistent data governance, misaligned incentives, unclear accountability, and political sensitivities around performance.
By framing the issue as a technical reporting problem, organisations avoid confronting these underlying dynamics. The resulting solution looks sophisticated but fails to change behaviour.
Over time, manual reporting resurfaces and confidence declines.
The system did not fail.
The framing did.
Framing Requires Multiple Perspectives
Effective problem framing is multi-dimensional.
It requires understanding how an issue appears to:
- executives
- operational teams
- finance
- risk and compliance
- IT
- external stakeholders
- future employees
Each group experiences the system differently. Ignoring any perspective creates blind spots.
True framing integrates these views into a coherent narrative.
The Discipline of Question-Based Inquiry
Problem framing is built through questions, not opinions.
High-quality discovery relies on systematic inquiry, including:
- Who experiences this problem most strongly?
- When does it not occur?
- What has been tried previously?
- What assumptions are being made?
- Who disagrees with this interpretation?
- What would invalidate this view?
These questions destabilise superficial explanations and reveal structural drivers.
Why Requirements Are Not Understanding
Many organisations believe they are conducting discovery because they gather requirements.
Requirements are interpretations of needs, not explanations of behaviour.
They rarely capture motivations, fears, power relationships, or incentive structures.
True understanding sits beneath formal requirements.
Without this deeper layer, specifications become unreliable.
Holding Tension Without Forcing Resolution
Complex systems involve unavoidable tensions: speed versus control, autonomy versus consistency, innovation versus risk, flexibility versus standardisation.
Strong architects do not try to eliminate these tensions prematurely. They acknowledge them and design around them.
Premature resolution is usually intellectual avoidance.
The Organisational Cost of Poor Framing
Weak problem framing produces long-term organisational friction, including:
- persistent scope creep
- governance breakdown
- low system adoption
- political conflict
- declining leadership trust
- entrenched workarounds
These are not delivery failures. They are thinking failures.
From Expert to Integrator: The Identity Shift
Early careers reward expertise and quick answers.
Senior influence is built through integration.
High-impact professionals synthesise perspectives, reconcile constraints, and contextualise decisions. Their authority comes from understanding the whole system.
They are trusted not because they speak first, but because they speak accurately.
A Practical Framing Readiness Test
Before proposing a solution, ask:
- Can I describe this problem from three perspectives?
- Do I understand what has failed before?
- Have I tested this framing with others?
- Can I articulate the real constraints?
- What would disconfirm my view?
If these questions cannot be answered, the problem is not yet framed.
Earn the Right to Design
Design is a privilege in complex environments.
It must be earned through disciplined inquiry, intellectual humility, and systems thinking.
Professionals who rush to impress with solutions rarely create lasting value. Those who suspend judgement and deepen understanding consistently outperform.
Final Thought: Hold the Problem Until It Is Ready
In solution selling and business systems architecture, leverage does not come from having ideas. It comes from framing reality accurately.
The quality of your solutions will never exceed the quality of your understanding.
Suspend the problem.
Let it mature.
Let it reveal its structure.
Then — and only then — design.
