Framework/Structures | Should you include 'Possible Solutions' as a bucket?

Hi Henk Baarsjes (again),

I think this is an interesting question that may be relevant for many people. I would be happy to share my thoughts on it:

• It's not uncommon to struggle with achieving complete mutual exclusivity and completeness (MECE) in a consulting case structure, especially when dealing with complex issues. In situations like this, it can be helpful to consider the following best practices:
  • Be specific: Make sure that each bucket in your structure is clearly defined and addresses a specific aspect of the problem. This can help to avoid overlap and ensure that all relevant considerations are addressed.
  • Prioritize the buckets: Consider which buckets are the most important or relevant to the client's needs and prioritize them accordingly. It may not be meaningful to provide details on potential solutions before completing a root-cause analysis. Therefore, it's important to prioritize the root-cause analysis bucket and communicate an approach for transitioning from the root-cause analysis to the solutions.
  • Use sub-buckets: If you are having trouble achieving MECE within a particular bucket, you may want to consider using sub-buckets to break the bucket down into more specific and distinct areas of focus.
  • Refine the structure: If you are still having trouble achieving MECE, consider revising the structure to make it more logical and coherent. You may need to combine or split buckets, or consider alternative ways of organizing the information.
• Overall, the key is to be as specific and focused as possible in your structure and to prioritize the most important and relevant buckets. By following these best practices, you can help to ensure that your structure is MECE and effectively addresses the client's needs.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to address your specific situation, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen