If you have two potential solutions to a problem, a simple rule of thumb is: if executing one of the solutions repeatedly does not solve the problem, it was not addressing the root cause, and was at best, an interim solution, and at worst, a waste of time. It was just addressing a proximate cause.

If executing a solution “kills dead” the problem, it addressed the root cause. Why it was not readily apparent that it was the best solution: A mix of fear, inexperience, incompetence, politics, cost, time to implement, and so on.

When faced with a range of solutions, SWOT analysis is commonly used, but it often yields similarly weighed options. Use the test outlined above to eliminate options “If I repeated this solution over and over again, would it kill dead the problem?”

Where to use this: If you have to get back to a customer while you are busy fixing their problem, do you focus on informing your management and the customer, or on deep troubleshooting unknown unknowns?

• The best answer is both. But if you had to choose only one due to time constraints? Obviously, if the customer is an external, paying customer, keep them informed. Customer satisfaction and revenue are the larger problems here.

• If the time to solution is long, send regular updates as you keep working.

• If the customer is internal, and the demand for frequent updates is more due to a middle manager or gopher trying to suck up to his management, trying to add “value” by showing he “drives” projects? Politely point him to this post on proximate cause vs root cause. Frequent updates, no matter how many, will not fix the problem. Troubleshooting will.(Exceptions do apply where updates yield additional expertise or resources)