problem solving in the army

Thesoldiersproject is supported by its audience. When you buy through our links, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

All About the 7-Step Military Problem Solving Process

Written by Everett Bledsoe / Fact checked by Brain Bartell

In addition to power and strength, the military relies on quick and decisive thinking. Members in service must be able to think on their feet and craft solutions in the blink of an eye. Obviously, this is not easy to do. But it is not too far-fetched when you realize that countless lives depend on a single personnel’s decision and course of action.

As such, every recruit coming into the military is taught and trained about the 7-step military problem solving process. This systematic approach is believed to be the best way for military members to address any problems that they encounter.

In short, the 7 steps to solve problems are:

• Pinpoint the Problem
• Identify the Facts and Assumptions
• Craft Alternatives
• Analyze the Generated Alternatives
• Weigh Between the Generated Alternatives
• Make and Carry Out Your Final Decision
• Evaluate the Results From Your Decision

To make it easier for you to comprehend and follow along, we have elaborated on each of the above steps in this article. So, continue reading by scrolling down!

Table of Contents

Step 1: Pinpoint the Problem

Step 2: identify the facts and assumptions, step 3: craft alternatives, step 4: analyze the generated alternatives, step 5: weigh between the generated alternatives, step 6: make and carry out your final decision, step 7: evaluate the results from your decision, army problem solving & decision making process, seven step military problem solving process.

The first step is to ID the problem, which means recognizing and identifying what needs fixing. Needless to say, you cannot attempt to seek a solution without first knowing what has to be addressed. By pinpointing your problem, you will have a clear goal or end destination in mind. Only then can you come up with the right steps to take.

To effectively define the problem, ask yourself the 5Ws—who, what, where, and when. In detail:

• Who is affected? Who is involved?
• What is affected? What is in the overall picture?
• When is/did this happen?
• Where is/did this happen?

Always be crystal clear about the problem and try to view it in the most objective way as much as possible. Imagine you are the third person looking at It rather than from it. It also helps to organize your answers into a coherent and concise problem statement.

The next step is to ID the facts and assumptions. This entails that you get whatever additional information you can in the time that you have. Try to garner more facts than assumptions by reviewing all the possible factors, internal and external, and use them together with what you have thought out in the step above to determine the cause of the problem. You should also be aware of the nature and scope of the problem from this step.

From here, you take a sub-step: think about what you want the final result to be. This does not have to be complicated but it has to be very clear. For instance, one of your troop members may be lost and uncontactable. Your ultimate goal is to find him/her and return to your base together. Remember, having a wishy-washy end state will only make your problem solving process more difficult.

These first two steps constitute situation assessment, which serves as the basis for you to work towards the remaining steps of the military problem solving process.

Onto the third step, strive to develop as many potential solutions as possible. Here, you will have to exercise your imagining and visualizing skills. Brainstorm and refine any ideas simultaneously. Engage both critical and critical thinking in this step. If possible, take note of what you have come up with. Do not be hesitant and brush off any ideas.

Then, analyze your options. Consider all of your possible courses of action with all the available information that you have compiled in the previous steps. Take into account your experiences, intuitions, and emotions. This does not have to be a purely rational or mathematical procedure. Nevertheless, this does not mean that you are 100% guided by your instincts and emotions. You must have a good balance between the two.

This step naturally lends itself to the next: compare between your generated alternatives. Weigh between their respective pros and cons. In particular, look at their cost and benefit of success. Are there any limiting factors or potential for unintended consequences? Evaluate carefully and ask yourself a lot of questions. You can also consider using a table, T-chart, or matrix to compare visually.

Try to settle for the “best” solution or course of action that is both logical and feels “right”. Apart from picking the best, select two or three more workable solutions as backups. Keep them handy in case you need to refer back to them. During this process, you may merge ideas and mix-match bits and pieces—that’s perfectly fine!

Once you have made your decision, craft your action plans. Know the details—what exactly do you have to do to solve the problem? If it is a long-term problem that you have to address, set milestones and timelines with clear methods of measuring progress and success. On the other hand, if it is a short, instantaneous problem, communicate your plans clearly to anyone else involved. Be aware of the specifics and be brutally honest. Execute your course of action with care. But do not be rigid. If something happens out of the plan, be willing to adjust and adapt.

After your solution implementation, wrap up by assessing the results. Was it what you envisioned? Were there deviations? What did you take away? Answer all of the questions so you can be even more equipped for future endeavors. Think of it as a reflection stage. The 7 steps to problem solving in the military are a continuous process—you will be confronted with challenges over and over, so do not skip this strengthening step. It will further your skills and expertise to handle problems going forward.

Another set of seven steps that you may come across during your service is the army problem solving steps. Needless to say, this is applied to the army problem solving process.

• Receiving the Mission
• Analyzing the Mission
• Developing the Course of Action
• Analyzing the Course of Action
• Comparing the Course of Action
• Getting Approval for the Course of Action
• Producing, Disseminating, and Transitioning Orders

This is a part of the MDMP, short for the military decision making process. In each step, there are inputs and outputs. In general, it is more specific than the above set of steps.

These seven steps focus on collaborative planning and performance. Plus, set the stage for interactions between different military agents, including commanders, staff, headquarters, etc.

COA is an abbreviation for a course of action. Thus, these steps are relatively similar to the steps that we have gone through earlier; specifically steps two: mission analysis, three: COA development, four: COA analysis, and five: COA comparison. Like the previous seven steps, these are carried out sequentially but can be revisited when needed.

The main difference is that these 7 steps to problem solving in the army are more explicitly directed to junior personnel. Hence, the mentioning of orders from higher-ranks, the significant role of commanders, and the need to earn approval before execution.

A mnemonic that service members use to remember this process is M.A.D.A.C.A.P. for:

• A: Analysis

You might want to remember this for an exam at military school, at NCO, or soldier of the month board.

You can learn more about the MDMP here:

So, there you have it—the 7-step military problem solving process. You should now be aware of two different but equally important sets of steps to problem solving and decision making. If you have any follow-up questions or thoughts, let us know in the comments. We look forward to hearing from you!

I am Everett Bledsoe, taking on the responsibility of content producer for The Soldiers Project. My purpose in this project is to give honest reviews on the gear utilized and tested over time. Of course, you cannot go wrong when checking out our package of information and guide, too, as they come from reliable sources and years of experience.

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

Voice for the army - support for the soldier, ‘thinking about thinking’: soldiers have a better way to solve problems.

A new field of systems thinking has emerged with the potential to transform the U.S. Army and its professional military education system. This new field could create emergent and adaptive leaders by placing a high value on creative and critical thinkers. It offers a new way to view problems and build intuitive thinking. Essentially, it could be the next frontier for the Army to create a superior cognitive force or, more specifically, a metacognitive force.

This new approach is called Systems Thinking v2.0, and it has the potential to fundamentally change and improve how leaders can think through, identify and solve problems in the Army. It is a new approach to problem-solving and concept mapping that can help build a new metacognitive warfighter.

Systems Thinking v2.0 is predicated on new discoveries and ideas:

• Systems thinking is the emergent property of four simple rules known as DSRP, an acronym for distinctions, systems, relationships and perspectives. That is, systems thinking itself is not a linear method or framework but an emergent property of the four simple rules from which systems thinking emerges. This is predicated on the idea that systems thinking is a complex adaptive system with underlying rules.
• There are many systems thinking and design frameworks (System Dynamics, Soft Systems Methodology, Systems Engineering, Army Design Methodology, etc.) and still other nonsystems thinking frameworks (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats [SWOT]; Observe, Orient, Decide and Act [OODA]; etc.) but these frameworks are built on the common set of simple rules of DSRP.
• The four rules of DSRP are a simple cognitive algorithm not only for how humans think and can think more systemically about any system but also for how we understand existing knowledge and create new knowledge.

As a field, systems thinking attempts to understand how to think better about real-world systems and real-world problems. For the past 100 years, but especially since the 1950s, the field of systems thinking has amassed specialized methods and frameworks to better understand the real world, what systems theorists call Systems Thinking v1.0. Systems Thinking v2.0 instead supplies universal rules that can be used to more closely align human mental models with the real world (i.e., the process of metacognition).

Supporting Military Work

People across the military use Systems Thinking v2.0 to support their work. Systems Thinking v2.0 is taught at West Point within the systems engineering program to prepare future warfighters with necessary metacognitive skills. It also has been used to problem-solve during recent Army missions, and it should be examined as a way to transform professional military education across the Army.

Cornell University, N.Y., professors Derek and Laura Cabrera are the brains behind the Systems Thinking v2.0 model. They’ve also launched Plectica, a visual systems mapping software based on this approach. This free software (available at www.Plectica.com) allows you to do systems thinking and visualize, analyze and synthesize concepts to gain a greater understanding of ideas or concepts in their entirety.

Derek Cabrera, who teaches systems thinking, modeling and leadership at Cornell and is on the board of advisers for the Department of Systems Engineering at West Point, explained in an interview:

“The more we learn about systems thinking and how it works, the more it is clear that it dovetails with the field of metacognition. There is a growing research base in the interdisciplinary field of metacognition that demonstrates the far-ranging effects of increasing metacognition. … Metacognition sits at the crossroads of cognitive science, learning science, neuroscience, psychology, sociology and epistemology [the theory of knowledge]. Metacognition—meta equals self-referential plus cognition equals thinking—can be thought of as ‘thinking about thinking,’ or keeping a watchful eye on how one’s thinking affects how we feel, think further, and behave in the world. When we become aware of the simple underlying rules we use to think—DSRP—we are better able to use these patterned rules to think more systemically about any domain or problem.”

The world is increasingly more complex and uncertain than ever. Cabrera possesses a deep understanding of complexity and discovered four underlying patterns of metacognition universal to systemic thinking: making distinctions, organizing part/whole systems, recognizing relationships and taking perspectives—DSRP. These patterns of thought have successfully brought the field of systems thinking together and offer the building blocks of metacognition; hence, version 2.0. He has demonstrated that systemic thinking and metacognition are not only similar in their underlying structure and dynamics, but also their purpose. He said:

“Both physically and conceptually, we split whole things down into parts or alternatively lump things together to form a new whole. We sometimes say there are just two kinds of scientists, splitters and lumpers. Those who split stuff up and those who lump stuff together. In this new … volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world, we need folks who can do both. We need a new kind of amphibious mind I call a splumper .”

A Better HQ

An element of a NATO-led mission in Afghanistan demonstrates Systems Thinking v2.0 at work. This element involved moving Resolute Support headquarters to a more resilient structure fit to handle emerging strategic requirements—force manning, Mission Command and flexibility for future missions. While the Napoleonic organizational model that reorganized the military corps remains relevant, Gen. John W. Nicholson, then-commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan and the Resolute Support mission, realized that the Resolute Support headquarters no longer fit the purpose of sustained multinational stability operations. He wanted to adapt the headquarters to be able to address emerging localized strategic requirements.

Resolute Support was launched after NATO’s International Security Assistance Force ended in 2014. Its mission is to focus on training, advising and assisting at the security-related ministries in Afghanistan’s institutions, and among the senior ranks of the Afghan army and police. 

After a recent shift in U.S. South Asia policy, as well as an enduring commitment from NATO and its partnering nations, changes have been made to the force manning-level constraints of Resolute Support headquarters. Under Nicholson’s guidance, these changes afforded Resolute Support headquarters an opportunity to reorganize staff and subordinate commands into a three-pillar functional headquarters that delivers capability to the operational, institutional and strategic areas. The new structure emphasizes perspectives of force generation and functional allocation (work processes and battle rhythm) and codifies these changes by amending existing organizational documentation.

To support the reorganization effort, Systems Thinking v2.0 was used to perform a functional and requirements analysis, and to identify potential measures of effectiveness for the final headquarters structure. Without Systems Thinking v2.0 and Plectica software to map out the current system, it would have been difficult to isolate the systems, relationships and perspectives requiring attention. The DSRP approach to systems thinking helped create a shared understanding that transcended personalities within the greater Resolute Support headquarters as documents were amended and people communicated through mission orders.

Anyone with military experience understands that reorganizing is nothing new; however, Resolute Support did something innovative. Executing such a reorganization is a monumental task and Resolute Support headquarters is expected to maintain a level of workflow that supports train-advise-assist down to the multiple commands, and to continue to plan, assess and coordinate with superior headquarters. This simultaneous effort can sometimes create opportunities to leverage the capacity of other organizations such as the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, or any of the intellectual capital throughout the military. These consulting opportunities afford a fresh perspective, can be unbiased and allow for operations to be minimally disrupted.

Improving PME

Using and understanding Systems Thinking v2.0 would also allow professional military education to adapt quickly to the changing environment. In essence, it would provide a complex adaptive curriculum allowing us to see learning for what it is: the process of making sense of information and connecting knowledge, leading to a better understanding of our environment. It offers simple rules—DSRP—that could bring about emergent learning.

Systems Thinking v2.0 would move the U.S. military past simple drill and rote memorization and allow it to learn by forming connections between ideas. It would allow the military to analyze and synthesize concepts bringing about emergent learning. In physics, the mass of an object does not equal the mass of all its parts as it also requires energy to bind it together. Here we can think of energy as intelligent thinking.

For example, if we break apart the principles of Mission Command, we cannot gain an understanding by simply putting the pieces back together. We must insert “thinking,” which is essentially the binding energy allowing us to truly understand a concept. By using DSRP, we can insert “thinking” into the equation. The sum of its parts does not provide an understanding of Mission Command, but the sum of its parts plus DSRP does.

The Army is a superior fighting force. However, to remain superior, it must evolve and adapt. It must create a superior cognitive and metacognitive force. To do this, the service must build knowledge in order to possess it. Systems Thinking v2.0 helps do this by structuring, organizing and making meaning out of information. By thinking metacognitively (thinking about thinking) and visually mapping our thinking, Systems Thinking v2.0 in concert with proven Army methods—Army design methodology, the Military Decision Making Process and Mission Command—will yield far greater results that are more holistic, traceable and implementable. In the case of Resolute Support, Systems Thinking v2.0 helped elucidate the structure of the complex Resolute Support headquarters system and enabled innovation and a shared understanding. 

Systems Thinking v2.0 provides the Army warfighter a better way to identify and solve any problem. Systems Thinking v2.0 allows warfighters to transform information into meaning by adding deliberate thinking (information plus thinking equals knowledge) into the existing processes. Army warfighters who think about their thinking are better prepared to solve any problem that comes their way.

Essentially, Systems Thinking v2.0 plus U.S. Army equals metacognitive force.

• Mission Command

The 7 Steps in Problem Solving

The MDMP (Military Decision Making Process) and TLPs (Troop Leading Procedures) are both based on the Army Problem Solving Process , which is described in FM 22-100.  In this article, we will explore the sequence of steps that will help any leader work through a problem.  Here are the 7 Steps in Problem Solving.

#1. ID the Problem: This involves recognizing what the root problem really is and defining that problem precisely.  It is often easy to be distracted by the symptoms of a problem but it is essential to determine the root cause.  You can define the problem by asking yourself these questions:

• Who is affected?
• What is affected?
• When did it occur?
• Where is the problem?
• Why did it occur?

Also, consider the end state that you want.  How will things look when everything is done?

#2. ID Facts and Assumptions: Get whatever facts you can in the time you have.  Remember, facts are what you know about the situation.  Some good resources for facts are ARs, policies, and doctrine.  Assumptions are what you believe about the situation but do not have facts to support.  As a general rule, try to assume as little as possible.  Analyze the facts and assumptions you ID to determine the scope of the problem.

#3. Generate Alternatives: This is where you develop the ways to solve the problem.  Always try to develop more than one approach.  You can’t possibly ID the best solution without considering more than one alternative and these alternatives should have significant differences.  Sometimes, if time permits, include input from your peers and subordinates.  This brainstorming promotes a faster free flow of ideas and generally can avoid rejecting promising alternatives.

#4. Analyze the Alternatives:  Obvious, right?  However, many fail to ID the intended and unintended consequences, resources and other limitations and each alternative’s advantages and disadvantages.  Be sure to consider all your alternatives according to your screening and evaluation criteria (i.e. factors that a solution must have for you to consider it a feasible option).  If a COA fails to meet your screening criteria, reject it, regardless of its other advantages.

#5. Compare Alternatives: Evaluate each alternative’s cost and benefit of success.  Think past the immediate future.  How will this decision change things tomorrow?  Next week? Next year?  Compare your alternatives simultaneously if you can.  Try utilizing a table or matrix that will lay out each COA and how each compares to the evaluation criteria.

#6. Make and Execute Your Decision: To help you make a decision, it may be helpful to assign a numerical value to your criteria as a way of ranking them.  For most decisions, a quick review of the weighted criteria will be enough to reveal the best solution.  Make your decision, prepare a plan of action and put it into motion!

#7. Assess the Results: It isn’t over just because you made a decision.  After all, we all make mistakes.  You will need to monitor the execution of your plan and be prepared to change it as necessary.  This step can be made easier by establishing critical steps or milestones that must take place on time in order to guarantee success.  Follow up on results and make further adjustments as needed.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Think of a decision you have made recently.  Did you follow all these steps?  Would your decision have been different if you had?

Leave your comments below. If you have any questions, you can ask those here too.

Recommended Products

4 thoughts on “the 7 steps in problem solving”.

The 7 steps to solve problems are: pinpoint the problem, identify the eacts and assumptions, craft alternatives, analyze the generated alternatives, weigh between the generated alternatives, make and carry out your final decision, evaluate the results from your decision.

When problems arise it’s easy to panic and throw caution to the wind. An organized list like this can help you analyze the situation and make the best possible decisions. Keeping a rational mind is important and thinking of all the possible outcomes will help identify the risk vs. reward ratio.

This process makes solving problems so much simpler. I use the 7 Steps in Problem Solving in my business and civilian life too. It works great.

Thanks for the post.

This is a good summary about the problem solving process. One of the major issues I have observed with regard to leaders involved in the problem solving process is that leaders fail to understand or analyze the unintended consequences of their actions. Our military is currently experiencing a major downsizing. As a result Soldiers are being separated from service for issues that previously would have been seen as an honest mistake or as a learning experience for an immature Soldier. In paragraph one you state:

“How will things look when everything is done?” When Leaders ask themselves this question they must also understand that their actions or recommendations could result in the issue being removed from their level of responsibility. Let’s say a Soldier is consistently late to formation. In the past the leader may have recommended an Article 15 to get the Soldier’s attention. Previously a Soldier could survive an Article 15 and go on to have a successful and productive career.

Recommending an Article 15 in today’s environment is almost a guarantee the Soldier will be separated from service. Therefore it is incredibly important the leader understand the unintended consequences of their decisions. When they ask themselves “How will things look when everything is done?” If that visions includes the Soldier being retained in service they must seek other alternatives to correcting substandard performance such as: verbal counseling, written counseling, corrective training, revocation of privileges, local letters of reprimand, etc.

Fully understanding the consequences of your decisions and how they impact your subordinates ensures you are making a decision that is in the best interest of the Soldier and the Army. For more information on revocation of privileges read The Mentor- Everything you need to know about leadership and counseling. It is available at your local military clothing and sales store or online at GIpubs.com

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Privacy Overview