Problem Framing & How Might We

The Problem With Problems

Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying that if he had an hour to solve a problem, he would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem. Whether or not he said it, the advice holds for product design. How you frame a problem decides which solutions you will even consider.

A badly framed problem sends a team straight to the wrong answer. A well framed one opens up possibilities.

---

From Insight to Problem Statement

After research, personas and journey maps, you have insights: surprising truths about users. A problem statement packages an insight so the team can act on it.

A reliable format is the Point of View (POV) statement:

[User] needs [need] because [insight].

Example:

First-time POS agents in rural Kaduna need a way to prove a failed transfer to angry customers, because customers assume the agent kept the money.

Compare that with the vague version: "Improve the POS app." The POV statement tells you who, what and why. It does not tell you how, and that is deliberate.

Good problem statements are:

• Human-centred: about a user, not about your company's metrics.
• Specific enough to guide work, but broad enough to allow many solutions.
• Free of solutions. "Users need a chatbot" is not a problem. It is a solution in disguise.

---

How Might We (HMW)

A How Might We question turns a problem statement into an invitation to brainstorm. It was popularised at Procter & Gamble and IDEO and is now used by teams at Google, Meta and many African startups.

• How: assumes there are answers out there.
• Might: says it is fine if some ideas do not work.
• We: makes it a team effort.

From the POS agent statement you might write:

• HMW help agents prove a transfer failed in under ten seconds?
• HMW make the customer trust the agent even when the network fails?
• HMW reverse failed transfers so fast that proof is not needed?
• HMW turn a failed transfer into a moment that builds loyalty?

Each one points in a different direction. That variety is exactly what you want before ideation.

---

Getting the Scope Right

The most common HMW mistake is getting the scope wrong.

• Too narrow already contains the solution. There is nothing left to brainstorm.
• Too broad is so big nobody knows where to start.
• Just right can produce ten different ideas in five minutes.

---

Techniques for Generating HMWs

Take one insight and push it in different directions:

• Amplify the good: HMW make agents feel like heroes when things go wrong?
• Remove the bad: HMW eliminate the waiting time entirely?
• Flip it: HMW make failed transfers the customer's favourite part?
• Change the context: HMW handle this when there is no network at all?
• Borrow an analogy: HMW make proof as simple as a WhatsApp tick?

Write lots, then vote on the three most promising before moving into ideation.

---

Try It in the Lab

The HMW generator on the right takes a user, a need and an insight and produces questions using the techniques above. Rate each question as too narrow, just right or too broad. The lab gives feedback on its scope and builds you a shortlist to carry into ideation.