One of the speed bumps in choosing a strategy is the search for problem-free. In fact, the notion that there is a problem-free solution almost always delays the implementation of strategy. Why? As your team discusses how to do what they’ve decided they need to do…there will almost always be sides chosen around at least a couple possibilities. As the discussion/argument develops both groups will make their case based only on the upside of their plan (and ignoring the downside).
Is there a way around this pattern? What if you enter the discussion with the assumption that there is no problem-free? What if instead you begin the discussion determined to list the problems of each solution and choose the problem set you’d rather have?