Analytical Thinking

From the problem to the evidence, and from the evidence to a reasoned recommendation.

When a business problem appears, the first explanation usually sets the direction of the solution as well. This programme offers a working method for defining the problem clearly, structuring the possible causes, and weighing them against the available evidence to build a recommendation that can actually be applied.

Duration

1 day

Approach

Applied session; case work and an individual final exercise

Target group

Specialists, senior specialists, team and project leads, future managers, middle managers

Let's talk about this programme Back to all programmes

When Is It Needed?

In which situations does it help?

The same problem keeps recurring, and the interventions made do not produce a lasting improvement.
Teams define the same situation differently and struggle to work on one shared problem.
One explanation is accepted quickly, and other possible causes are not examined enough.
Analyses produce findings but do not settle the priority or the next step.

Outcomes

What can a participant do better?

By the end of the session, the aim is for the participant to carry out the following steps on a case:

Separate the symptom from the problem, and settle the scope and the question to be answered.
Develop more than one possible cause, and identify the evidence needed to test each of them.
Assess which explanations the available findings support, and which questions they leave open.
Compare the options against explicit criteria, and give reasons for the priority and the recommendation.

Content

What is worked on?

Defining the problem

The observed state, the expected state, the scope and the decision needed. Establishing a shared starting point without embedding a proposed solution in the definition of the problem.

Structuring the possible causes

Developing more than one hypothesis, grouping causes meaningfully, and avoiding early attachment to the first explanation.

Identifying what evidence is needed

Separating what is known, what is assumed and what is missing. Establishing which data tests which hypothesis, and where the analysis reaches its limits.

Moving from findings to explanation

Assessing explanations through comparisons, breakdowns and relationships. Separating the conclusion the evidence supports from the interpretation that is not yet verified.

Setting priority and building a recommendation

Comparing alternatives on impact, feasibility and other criteria that fit the context; presenting the recommendation together with its reasoning, its uncertainties and the next step.

In the Session

How is the session run?

Brief conceptual frameworks are followed by case discussion and exercises. Participants redefine the problem, develop alternative causes, work out what evidence they need, and give reasons for their recommendation.

Example of a classroom case

In a service team, the time taken to complete transactions has increased. The first explanation offered is insufficient staff experience. Participants weigh findings on workload, transaction type, approval steps and the distribution of experience together, then establish how far each explanation is supported and which intervention should be tried first.

This is a teaching case written for the programme; it does not describe a project carried out at any particular organization. The context of the case can be adapted to yours.

The day closes with an individual transfer exercise, applying the method to a new problem.

What does a participant produce?

A short analysis and recommendation note: problem definition, possible causes, supporting and missing evidence, evaluation criteria and the proposed next step.

The output is examined through the clarity of the problem definition, the separation of evidence from interpretation, the treatment of alternative explanations and the reasoning behind the recommendation. The point is not to score, but to make the participant's steps of thinking visible.

How does it carry over to the job?

Each participant identifies a business problem on which they will use the method, and the first step of applying it. In wider journeys, real work application, peer feedback and manager review can be planned in addition.

Contact

Which problem is your team working on?

Tell me about the target group and the problems they meet in daily work, and we will set the examples and the scope of the exercises together.

Hakkı Yıldırmaz, PhD — management consultant and executive educator. More than 30 years of corporate experience in banking, retail, fintech and technology, with senior management responsibility for a large part of it. Much of what is worked on in the sessions comes from situations encountered first-hand in those roles.

info@hakkiyildirmaz.com Back to all programmes About the instructor

Topic of interest: Analytical Thinking