Why solutions fail when organisations solve problems that don’t exist

Insight  |  August 18, 2026

At a glance

  • Organisations resist change for rational reasons - the problem often isn't real yet
  • The best solution creates no value if the conditions to use it aren't in place
  • Problem-led thinking reduces implementation risk and increases the likelihood of adoption

Featuring Max Rogers
Global Strategic Solution Architect

It’s 2020, and a large, asset-intensive organisation in the mining sector is still faxing its purchase orders, not because it can’t change, or because the technology isn’t available, but because why change when you don’t need to?

Vendors were receiving the orders, processes were moving, and from the organisation’s perspective, nothing was broken. Then COVID hit, offices closed, and suddenly no one was there to send the faxes, or to receive them. What had quietly worked for years became an immediate constraint.

“It’s a pattern we’ve seen repeatedly across asset-intensive industries,” says Max Rogers, Global Strategic Solution Architect at COSOL. “Not every example is as extreme as still relying on fax machines in 2020, but it’s not unusual for organisations to resist change because, in their environment, there is no problem to solve yet.

“If we have the best solution in the world but the customer doesn’t have that problem, then the value isn’t there,” he continues. “And if they don’t realise they have the problem, that becomes an uphill battle.”

Change follows pressure, not potential

In many organisations, the pressure to improve is constant. New technologies emerge, competitors adopt new approaches, and internal teams look for ways to modernise. The instinct is to move quickly toward a solution.

What often gets missed is whether the problem has reached a point where change is justified.

In the case of faxed purchase orders, the inefficiency was obvious from the outside, but within the organisation, the system functioned well enough. Vendors received what they needed. Transactions were completed and there was no operational friction forcing a rethink.

Introducing a new process in that context would have required effort, cost, and disruption without delivering a clear improvement in outcomes. The problem existed in theory, but not in practice.

Then COVID came along and didn’t introduce a new inefficiency, but exposed an existing one under different conditions.

Once offices closed, the same process that had worked for years stopped functioning. The organisation no longer needed convincing because the problem was immediate, visible, and unavoidable. Change followed quickly.

“This pattern plays out across asset-intensive industries,” says Max. “Equipment generates more data than teams can process. Systems contain workarounds that have accumulated over time. Manual processes sit alongside digital ones. From an external perspective, there is clear room for improvement, but internally, those same conditions may be stable enough to sustain operations.”

According to Max, until something shifts, whether through external pressure, operational failure, or changing constraints, the organisation continues to function within its current model.

That is the point at which many solution-led approaches break down. They attempt to introduce change before the conditions that justify it are in place.

Resistance is often a signal, not a barrier

When organisations push back on new technology or new ways of working, the response is often framed as resistance to change.

Max sees it differently.

“You can’t just walk in and say, ‘You shouldn’t be doing this anymore.’ That approach doesn’t work,” he says. “In fact, what looks like resistance is often a rational response to the absence of a clear problem. If the current process delivers acceptable outcomes, the cost of change outweighs the perceived benefit.”

This is particularly true in industries like mining and public transportation, where operations are complex, margins are tight, and the consequences of disruption are significant. Change introduces risk and without a clear return, that risk is difficult to justify.

Understanding that dynamic shifts the role of the advisor. The task is not to persuade the organisation to adopt a solution, but to understand how the business actually operates and where friction genuinely exists.

One of the challenges in these environments is that problems are often framed externally before they are fully understood internally.

A technology provider may identify inefficiencies. A competitor may adopt a new system. A leadership team may set a transformation agenda. These inputs shape how problems are defined, sometimes before they are experienced.

Max’s approach is to reverse that sequence.

“We focus on listening carefully to our customers and identifying their actual problems, and then we work to solve those,” he explains.

Having started his career in mining before moving into technology, his perspective has been shaped by first-hand exposure to how work is actually executed in complex operating environments, where decisions carry operational and financial consequences. That grounding also underpinned the acquisition of his business by COSOL, where a shared focus on solving real customer problems, rather than applying pre-defined solutions, made the fit a natural extension of how both organisations already operated.

Based on Max’s experience, the distinction between perceived and actual problems becomes critical when dealing with complex systems. What appears to be a limitation in technology may be a function of process. What looks like a data issue may stem from how work is executed. What is framed as a need for automation may reflect a lack of clarity in decision-making.

Without understanding the operating reality behind the request, solutions risk addressing the wrong layer of the problem.

Without understanding the operating reality behind the request, solutions risk addressing the wrong layer of the problem.
“There is a tendency in technology-led environments to assume that better capability automatically translates into better outcomes, but our experience has taught us otherwise,” says Max. “A solution, no matter how advanced, only creates value when it aligns with a problem the organisation is ready to solve. Without that alignment, even well-designed systems struggle to deliver impact.”
This is why some implementations underperform. The technology works as intended, but the organisation does not change how it operates. Processes remain the same. Decisions are made in the same way. The solution exists, but the conditions required for it to deliver value are absent.

Timing, conditions, and readiness

The effectiveness of any solution is shaped by timing as much as capability.

In the fax example, the underlying inefficiency was present for years but it only became actionable when external conditions changed. At that point, the organisation was ready to adopt a new approach because the problem was both real and urgent.

Across asset-intensive industries, similar inflection points occur:

  • Supply chain disruptions expose weaknesses in inventory strategies
  • Cost pressures highlight inefficiencies in asset utilisation
  • Regulatory changes force improvements in compliance and reporting
  • Operational failures reveal gaps in maintenance and reliability
In each case, the problem moves from theoretical to practical and that shift creates the conditions for meaningful change. Understanding where an organisation sits in that cycle determines whether a solution will gain traction or stall.
“Working across multiple organisations and industries creates a different vantage point,” explains Max. “Patterns begin to emerge, similar challenges appear in different forms, and the conditions that trigger change become more recognisable.”
According to Max, the need to understand the problem before introducing the solution requires slowing the conversation down rather than accelerating it.
“It means asking how work is actually done, where constraints sit, and what is driving current behaviour,” he says. “It means distinguishing between what could be improved and what needs to be improved.”

In fact, in environments defined by complexity, the most effective improvements rarely start with technology. They start with clarity on how the business operates, where value is created or lost, and which constraints are limiting performance and which are simply part of the system.

From there, solutions take on a different role. They are no longer the starting point but become the mechanism through which a clearly defined problem is addressed.

“This shift from solution-led to problem-led thinking changes how organisations approach change,” says Max. “It reduces the risk of misalignment. It increases the likelihood that new systems will be adopted and used effectively and ensures that effort is directed toward areas that will deliver measurable outcomes.”

About COSOL

COSOL is built on one belief: in asset-centric industries, reliability is everything. We’re a trusted, data-led asset management partner for organisations around the world who can’t afford to fail. And known for our deep expertise, dependable delivery, and ability to keep critical assets performing at their best. 

The company recently celebrated 25 years in business, are Australian-owned and operated, and  recognised as reliable partners by their clients across the globe.