Focus on Solutions

Empower customers by presenting tailored solutions that address their unique challenges and needs

Introduction

Use it in formal debates, panels, public discourse, internal reviews, media interviews, and executive meetings. This guide explains when solution focus fits, how to execute it, how to answer critics without derailing, and the ethical guardrails that keep it credible.

In sales settings like bake-offs, steering-committee reviews, and RFP defenses, solution focus protects clarity and collaboration by turning claims into testable commitments.

Debate vs. Negotiation - why the difference matters

Primary aim

•Debate: Optimize truth-seeking and audience persuasion. Solutions are compared under a decision rule.

•Negotiation: Optimize agreement creation. Solutions are packaged into trades, timelines, and safeguards.

Success criteria

•Debate: Argument quality, clarity, and audience judgment against explicit criteria.

•Negotiation: Mutual value, executable terms, and verifiable safeguards.

Moves and tone

•Debate: Claims, evidence, logic, refutation. Present alternatives and compare them.

•Negotiation: Offers, concessions, timing, reciprocity. Keep tone cooperative.

Guardrail

Do not import combative debate tone into cooperative negotiation moments. In deals, solution focus should open options and reduce risk, not corner the other side.

Definition and placement in argumentation frameworks

•Claim - Warrant - Impact: The claim is the solution. The warrant is why it works. The impact is the measured benefit.

•Toulmin: Provide data and warrants for each option, with qualifiers and known limits.

•Burden of proof: The proposer carries burden to show feasibility and outcomes.

•Weighing and clash: Compare solution A vs B on the same baselines, time windows, and metrics.

Different from

•Problem lamenting: Naming harms without an executable path.

•Vision pitching: Inspiring end states without mechanism, cost, or safeguards.

Mechanism of action - step by step

1) Setup

•Name the rule: cost per outcome, reliability, fairness, feasibility.

•List alternatives: include a credible status quo.

•Define metrics and baselines: absolute numbers, time frames, and quality thresholds.

2) Deployment

•Explain the mechanism: how the solution causes the result.

•Show evidence: trials, benchmarks, or close analogs.

•State limits and safeguards: boundary conditions, monitoring, and stop-loss triggers.

•Compare worlds: A vs B vs status quo under the same rule.

3) Audience processing

Solution focus increases relevance and coherence. Clear mechanisms and metrics improve processing fluency and reduce reactance. Two-sided acknowledgment of costs raises perceived fairness.

4) Impact

•Less time on blame cycles.

•Faster convergence on a decision.

•Higher adoption because steps are clear and risks are managed.

Do not use when

Situation	Why it backfires	Better move
Facts are unclear	Premature solutions collapse	Clarify definitions, baseline, and causality first
Crisis directive is needed now	Options can feel evasive	Give direct orders and safety steps, then revisit options
Stakeholders are not aligned on the rule	Talk past each other	Negotiate the decision rule before comparing solutions
Bad-faith forum seeks performative conflict	Solutions are mocked	Keep neutral tone, state one testable plan, exit side alleys

Cognitive links: People judge proposals more fairly when mechanisms are explained and numbers are easy to process (Kahneman, 2011; Reber et al., 2004). Side-by-side comparisons support better choices than isolated claims (Tufte, 1997). Two-sided messages can increase credibility with skeptical audiences (Hovland et al., 1953).

Preparation: Argument Architecture

Thesis and burden of proof

Write a one-line thesis and the burden it implies.

Example:

Thesis: Targeted bus lanes cut commute times at acceptable cost.

Burden: Show time savings, budget control, and equitable access.

Structure

Claims → warrants → data → impacts → anticipated counter-cases → safeguards. For each proposed solution:

•Mechanism summary in one sentence

•One decisive metric with baseline and time frame

•One limit and one mitigation

Steel-man first

State the best version of rival options. It strengthens credibility and sets a fair comparison.

Evidence pack

•1 to 2 audit-friendly sources per solution

•A table with comparable units and ranges

•A monitoring plan with thresholds and stop-loss actions

Audience map

•Executives: want crisp comparisons and risk controls.

•Analysts: want method notes and definitions.

•Public or media: want human impact and fairness.

•Students: want step-by-step mapping from mechanism to metric.

Optional sales prep

Map evaluator roles to solution criteria:

•Technical evaluator - reliability and performance thresholds.

•Sponsor - outcomes for customers and teams.

•Procurement - total cost, exit clauses, and service levels.

Practical application - playbooks by forum

Formal debate or panels

Moves

1.Open with the rule and names of the options.

2.Explain your mechanism in plain words.

3.Compare options using the same metric and time frame.

4.In clash, concede a narrow strength of the other side, then show net result under the rule.

5.Crystallize with a short verdict and safeguard.

Phrases

•"Under the reliability rule, A meets threshold while B does not."

•"Even if B launches faster, uptime decides this round."

Executive or board reviews

Moves

•Title slides are verdict lines, not topics.

•For each option: mechanism, metric, limit, safeguard.

•In Q&A, re-anchor to the rule before answering.

Phrases

•"We recommend Option A. If metric M drops below X, we revert to B."

Written formats - op-eds, memos, position papers

Template

•Lead: rule and options.

•Body: mechanism, evidence, limits, and comparison.

•Close: verdict and monitoring plan.

Fill-in-the-blank templates

•"The decision turns on ___ measured by ___."

•"This works because ___ causes ___."

•"From ___ to ___ equals ___ percent over ___ weeks."

•"Limit: ___; safeguard: ___ with stop-loss at ___."

•"Compared with B and status quo, A yields ___ on the rule."

Optional sales forums - RFP defense, bake-off demo, security review

Mini-script - 8 lines

1."Your rubric is reliability, cost, and compliance - confirmed."

2."Options: our platform, Vendor B, status quo."

3."Mechanism: fewer false positives reduce MTTR and weekend callouts."

4."Evidence: 24-month uptime 99.98 percent, false positives 4x fewer on your sample."

5."Limit: single-region pilots can mask failover risk."

6."Safeguard: cancel option if uptime under 99.9 percent in month 2."

7."Weighing: if reliability rules, our option wins; if speed-to-pilot rules, B is faster."

8."We will publish monthly metrics to your PMO."

Why it works: clear rule, shared data, explicit limits, and a remedy.

Examples across contexts

Public policy or media

•Setup: Congestion pricing.

•Move: Compare three solutions: do nothing, peak-time fee, or staggered work hours. Mechanisms: price signals, demand shift, and scheduling. Metrics: peak speed, travel time variance, equity rebates.

•Why it works: Apples-to-apples comparison with safeguards.

•Ethical safeguard: Tiered credits and a 12-month sunset review.

Product or UX review

•Setup: Add progressive disclosure in onboarding.

•Move: Compare current flow vs staged steps. Mechanism: reduce cognitive load. Metric: completion rate and error rates.

•Why it works: Puts user impact and cost in the same frame.

•Safeguard: Power-user fast path and a revert threshold.

Internal strategy meeting

•Setup: Centralize data access.

•Move: Compare hub model vs team autonomy. Mechanism: consistent schemas and access control. Metrics: incident severity, request wait times.

•Why it works: Quantifies total cost of delay and quality.

•Safeguard: SLAs, pilot, and rollback criteria.

Sales comparison panel

•Setup: Choose an analytics vendor.

•Move: Compare our model vs Vendor A vs status quo using the buyer’s validation set. Metrics: precision, recall, MTTR.

•Why it works: Buyer-centered tests in shared units.

•Safeguard: 90-day validation with early termination clause.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Pitfall	Why it backfires	Corrective action or phrasing
Problem dumping	Drains time and morale	Name the rule and present 2 to 3 options
Vision without mechanism	Sounds like wishful thinking	State cause-effect in one sentence
Cherry-picked metrics	Looks manipulative	Use shared baselines and time frames
Ignoring limits	Breaks trust later	State boundary conditions and add stop-loss
Jargon fog	Excludes non-experts	Define terms once in plain language
Moving goalposts	Undermines fairness	Fix the decision rule in the opening and keep it
Gish gallop of features	Overloads memory	One decisive metric per claim

Ethics, respect, and culture

•Rigor vs performance: Solutions must be testable. No hiding uncertainty.

•Respect: Critique ideas and trade-offs, not motives.

•Accessibility: Short sentences, clear visuals, and one-line definitions.

•Cross-cultural notes:

•Direct cultures accept firm comparisons if respectful.

•Indirect cultures prefer face-saving phrasing like "Another workable path is..."

•In hierarchical settings, align the decision rule with the chair and document outcomes precisely.

Move/Step	When to use	What to say/do	Audience cue to pivot	Risk & safeguard
Set the rule	Opening	"Judge this by ___."	Nods, note-taking	Do not change later
Name options	Early body	A vs B vs status quo	Clarifying questions	Keep options credible
Explain mechanism	Mid-case	"Because ___, then ___."	Pens down, listening	Avoid vague causality
Show evidence	Mid-case	One metric with baseline	Focus increases	Give range and time frame
State limits	Clash	"Holds except when ___."	Trust rises	Publish stop-loss triggers
Compare fairly	Crystallization	Side-by-side on same metric	Agreement on verdict	No scope shifts
Sales row	Evaluation	"If ___ rules, choose ___."	Scorers align	Add shared tests and exit clauses

Review and improvement

•Post-debate debrief: Did the audience quote your rule and the comparison, not just the problem.

•Red-team drills: Have peers attack mechanism, metric, and limit. Strengthen or cut weak parts.

•Timing drills: 10 second rule, 20 second mechanism, 20 second metric, 10 second safeguard.

•Crystallization sprints: Summarize options, rule, and verdict in 45 seconds.

•Evidence hygiene: Refresh baselines and ranges. Retire stale stats.

Conclusion

Actionable takeaway: For your next debate-like setting, write down two credible options and the status quo. Fix one decision rule, one decisive metric, and one safeguard for each. Practice a 60 second comparison that ends with a clear verdict.

Checklist

Do

•Fix a clear decision rule

•Present 2 to 3 credible options plus status quo

•Explain mechanism in one sentence per option

•Show one decisive metric with baseline and time frame

•State limits and add stop-loss safeguards

•Compare options on the same scale

•Use plain language and stable definitions

•Debrief and update your comparison table

Avoid

•Problem-only speeches

•Vision without mechanism

•Cherry-picked baselines

•Moving goalposts mid-argument

•Jargon fog or speed-talk

•Data dumps without interpretation

•Disparagement in sales settings

•Ending without a monitoring plan

References

•Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion - on two-sided messages and credibility.**

•Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow - clarity, bias, and decision rules.

•Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument - claims, warrants, backing, qualifiers.

•Tufte, E. (1997). Visual Explanations - fair comparisons and clear evidence.

•Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and judgments of truth.