Prioritizing Workflow Problems: Which Problem Should You Solve First?

I'd like to share a past work experience that changed the way I think about prioritizing workflow problems.

I was part of a team reviewing a procedure to understand customer complaints, internal pain points, and places where the workflow was slowing down.

The discussion was productive, and we identified several real problems.

But when the conversation shifted from identifying problems to solving them, I noticed something interesting.

We spent a surprising amount of time discussing solutions to relatively minor issues, while some of the larger problems remained on the list without a clear path forward.

That experience reminded me that identifying workflow problems is only half the work.

The next question is:

Which problem should we solve first?

Not Every Workflow Problem Deserves Equal Attention

When we analyze a workflow, we may uncover many problems at once: unnecessary steps, delays, unclear responsibilities, repeated errors, communication gaps, bottlenecks, duplicate work, or customer complaints.

It is tempting to start proposing solutions as soon as the first problem appears.

But doing that can create another problem.

The team may spend its limited time and attention improving something that has relatively little effect on the overall workflow while a much more significant issue remains unresolved.

Finding a problem does not automatically make it a priority.

Why Do Smaller Problems Sometimes Get More Attention?

Minor problems often have one advantage: they are easier to talk about.

The cause may be obvious. Someone already has an idea for fixing it. The solution may require little money, authority, or coordination.

Larger problems can be different.

A major bottleneck may involve several departments. Fixing it may require management approval, system changes, additional resources, or decisions that the people in the meeting cannot make themselves.

As a result, teams can naturally gravitate toward the problems they know how to solve rather than the problems that matter most.

This does not mean quick wins should be ignored. A small improvement that requires little effort can absolutely be worthwhile.

The important distinction is this:

A problem should not become the highest priority simply because its solution is the easiest to discuss.

Prioritize Before You Start Solving

One practical way to avoid this is to separate two activities that often become mixed together:

Problem identification and solution development.

First, build the problem list.

Then step back and compare the problems before allowing the conversation to become dominated by possible solutions.

For each problem, consider four questions.

1. Impact - How Much Does This Problem Matter?

Consider what the problem affects.

Does it create significant delays? Does it affect customers? Does it increase errors, rework, cost, or employee workload? Does it interfere with an important business outcome?

A problem that creates a minor inconvenience and a problem that repeatedly prevents work from being completed are not equivalent simply because both appear on the same list.

2. Frequency - How Often Does It Happen?

Frequency also helps reveal the cumulative effect of apparently small problems.

A five-minute delay may seem insignificant. But if it happens dozens of times each week across several employees, its operational impact can become substantial.

3. Urgency - What Happens If We Don't Address It?

Ask what happens if the organization leaves the problem unchanged for another month or another quarter.

Urgency helps distinguish between something that is merely irritating and something that requires timely intervention.

4. Feasibility — What Can We Realistically Change?

Priority cannot be based on impact alone.

A significant problem may require technology changes, budget, executive approval, cross-department coordination, or resources that are not immediately available.

Feasibility asks what can realistically be done with the authority, resources, time, and information available.

But feasibility should help shape the response—not make an important problem disappear from the discussion.

If the team cannot solve a high-impact problem itself, the appropriate next step may be escalation, additional analysis, a longer-term improvement project, or a request for resources.

Quick Wins Still Have a Place

Prioritization does not mean working only on the largest problems.

Suppose a team identifies one major bottleneck that will take several months to address and a smaller issue that can be corrected this afternoon.

There may be a good reason to do both.

The difference is that the team makes a deliberate decision.

The smaller problem is selected as a quick win because the effort is low and the benefit is worthwhile—not because everyone becomes distracted by the first easy solution.

That distinction protects attention for the larger problem.

A Better Sequence for Workflow Improvement

A simple sequence can help keep improvement discussions focused:

1. Identify the problems.

What is actually going wrong?

2. Prioritize the problems.

Which issues matter most when we consider impact, frequency, urgency, and feasibility?

3. Develop solutions.

4. Decide and act.

Which improvements will we implement now, which require escalation or further work, and which can wait?

Separating these stages makes it less likely that solution brainstorming will determine priorities accidentally.

The Question Worth Asking

When a team has identified ten workflow problems, the goal should not necessarily be to solve all ten at once.

The more useful question is:

Which problem deserves our attention first—and why?