I came across Bulletproof Problem Solving by Charles Conn and Robert McLean… two men shaped by decades inside McKinsey & Company, strategy rooms, and high-stakes decision environments. Their work is built on what they describe as a seven-step, “bulletproof” problem-solving process… a method refined in consulting environments where rigor is non-negotiable and conclusions must hold under scrutiny.

The work is strong. It teaches you how to:

• define the problem clearly
• break it into structured components
• prioritize using 80/20
• build disciplined work plans
• test hypotheses
• avoid over-analysis
• synthesize into action

It is, in many ways, a masterclass in how to think once the problem is already in front of you.

Where their work begins… and where mine starts

Their starting point is clear:

Define the problem well, and you are halfway to solving it.

And in a controlled environment… I wouldn’t disagree. However what might seem as a clear starting point is actually an assumption that we’ve framed, named and shaped as the correct problem.

Their method asks: “What is the problem?” I think it’s necessary to ask:
“How did this become the problem?” followed by “What has already been decided that no one examined?”

The difference is not disagreement… it’s depth

Take logic trees for example. They are clean, structured, mutually exclusive, but collectively exhaustive. They help you organize complexity but what I see in practice is this:

Sometimes the issue is not that the problem hasn’t been broken down…it’s that the system itself is misaligned, and the pieces don’t behave independently at all.

So instead of asking: “How do we break this apart?”, I’m often asking:
“What is creating friction?” There is a need to understand not just complexity but the structure and what is happening within that system.

On prioritization…

Conn and McClean teach the discipline of 80/20. Focus on what matters.

But what I see more often is not a lack of prioritization…it’s a mislocated constraint. Everything feels like 100% effort…because one thing upstream is misaligned.

So instead of: “What 20% matters most?” I’m looking for: “What is the single constraint distorting everything else?”

On hypotheses and analysis…

The book suggests we push for hypothesis-driven thinking…start with a best guess. But under pressure… hypotheses don’t always behave like tools, they become strong positions.

People stop testing… and start defending.

So the work, for me, becomes:

• surfacing assumptions
• slowing premature certainty
• allowing the problem to fully reveal itself

The part that matters most…

Their framework is built for solving problems. In my world before any problem can be solved, I need to look at the following:

• the problem may be wrong
• the pressure is distorting perception
• the organization is reacting to symptoms
• everyone is moving… but no one is certain why

This body of work is incomplete… without this understanding:

A strong process applied to the wrong problem will still produce a clear answer…it just won’t be the
right one.

Where it actually comes together

Once the problem is correctly identified and seen…their framework becomes incredibly powerful.

1. Clean thinking.
2. Structured movement.
3. Disciplined execution.

Strategic Reflection Prompt

Before you define the problem…What has already been assumed, named, or decided about this situation…that may not actually be true?

About Giselle

I’m Giselle Hudson, a Pre-Decision Diagnostic Advisor. I work with leaders when something feels off — where results, decisions, or team response don’t match what was expected. I examine what’s shaping outcomes beneath the surface, so the next move is grounded, not reactive.

If this feels familiar, don’t rush your next decision. We can look at your situation properly before you take action.