Some recurring problems survive for years not because the evidence is missing, but because nobody has assembled enough of it to see the problem whole.
The customer team has seen the complaints.
Finance has measured the cost.
Operations has normalised the workaround.
Project teams have managed the dependency.
Risk has watched the exception return.
Leadership may conclude that the organisation needs better information.
Perhaps it doesn't.
Perhaps the information is already everywhere.
The organisation is not blind.
It has pieces.
Everyone Sees a Different Problem
The difficulty is that functions interpret the same underlying problem through different lenses.
Customer Service sees dissatisfaction.
Finance sees cost.
Operations sees friction.
Risk sees exposure.
Projects see delay.
Technology sees integration.
Each perspective can be completely accurate.
But accuracy in pieces does not automatically produce understanding of the whole.
In fact, functional expertise can make fragmentation worse because each team becomes exceptionally good at explaining the part of the problem visible from where it stands.
Nobody is necessarily wrong.
Nobody is sufficiently right.
Recurring Problems Keep Changing Their Clothes
Persistent problems rarely return looking identical.
This time the project failed because of capacity.
Last time it was a handover.
Before that, changing scope.
Earlier, poor communication.
Before that, unclear ownership.
Each explanation may contain truth.
So leadership addresses it.
Capacity planning improves.
Handoffs are redesigned.
Scope controls tighten.
Communication increases.
Accountability is clarified.
Then the outcome returns wearing another costume.
That should trigger a different question.
Not:
"What caused this incident?"
But:
"What has every version of this incident had in common?"
The Organisation Responds Responsibly
This is what makes these problems so frustrating for CEOs.
People are often doing exactly what they should.
The customer complaint is contained.
The financial variance is explained.
The operational workaround keeps things moving.
The risk is assessed.
The project milestone is moved.
The technology team fixes the immediate fault.
Each function acts responsibly within what it can see and control.
Yet the people closest to the evidence may not have authority over the conditions creating the pattern.
Meanwhile, those who do have authority often receive only compressed versions of reality.
A metric.
A variance.
A status.
A risk rating.
A slide.
By the time reality reaches the executive table, much of the context connecting one event to another has disappeared.
The Problem May Live Between the Responses
This is where Karamawari emerges.
空回り describes wheels spinning without traction, substantial effort without equivalent forward movement.
Every function responds.
Every incident closes.
Every action gets completed.
Yet the problem returns.
Why?
Because the pattern may not exist neatly inside any one function.
It may exist between them.
Sales commits before Operations tests capacity.
Technology changes something that alters a customer process.
Finance incentives encourage behaviour that Risk later controls.
Projects optimise milestones while operational teams inherit unresolved dependencies.
Everyone can successfully perform their part while the enterprise repeatedly produces the same unwanted outcome.
The missing capability is not necessarily response.
It is synthesis.
Stop Comparing Incidents. Compare What Survived Them
Take one recurring problem and lay its last five appearances beside one another.
For each, ask four questions:
What happened?
Where did evidence appear?
What explanation was attached?
What remained unchanged after the response?
The final question matters most.
Circumstances make incidents look different.
Survival reveals patterns.
Perhaps different customer failures all involved the same handoff.
Perhaps several project overruns shared the same commitment process.
Perhaps apparently unrelated operational failures occurred whenever priorities changed without capacity being released elsewhere.
Perhaps every accountability problem happened where authority and responsibility were separated.
The recurring condition becomes visible not by finding identical incidents, but by identifying what repeatedly survives their resolution.
More Dashboards May Make It Worse
When leadership lacks visibility, the instinct is often to demand more reporting.
Another dashboard.
Another review.
Another governance forum.
Another metric.
But if the evidence already exists in fragments, producing more fragments does not necessarily create understanding.
It can create more noise.
The CEO receives increasingly sophisticated information about individual symptoms while the relationship between them remains invisible.
What is needed may be someone capable of holding evidence across functions and across time.
Customer's complaint.
Finance's cost.
Operations' workaround.
Risk's exception.
Project's dependency.
Technology's constraint.
Individually, they are observations.
Together, they may be the diagnosis.
The Organisation Doesn't Need to Know More. It Needs to See More
Persistent problems often create enormous amounts of evidence because they keep happening.
That should be an advantage.
Every recurrence is another opportunity to understand what the previous intervention failed to change.
But only if someone connects the events.
Otherwise, organisational memory resets with every incident.
The latest explanation becomes the problem.
The latest response becomes the solution.
The action closes.
And the underlying condition survives.
Nobody necessarily failed to respond.
Nobody held the responses together long enough to see what they collectively left untouched.
For CEOs fed up with paying repeatedly for problems they thought had already been solved, that is an important distinction.
Before commissioning another review, dashboard or transformation, perhaps the first task is simpler.
Gather what the organisation already knows.
Then stop looking at it function by function and incident by incident.
What evidence does your organisation already possess that would change your understanding of its most expensive recurring problem if someone finally held all the pieces together as one pattern?
0 Comments