problem-framing-canvas

$27

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ LOOK INWARD                                                     │

│ - What is the problem? (symptoms)                              │

│ - Why haven't we solved it? (new, hard, low priority, etc.)   │

│ - How are we part of the problem? (assumptions, biases)       │

└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ LOOK OUTWARD                                                    │

│ - Who experiences the problem? When/where/consequences?        │

│ - Who else has it? Who doesn't have it?                       │

│ - Who's been left out?                                        │

│ - Who benefits when problem exists/doesn't exist?             │

└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ REFRAME                                                         │

│ - Stated another way, the problem is: [restatement]           │

│ - How might we [action] as we aim to [objective]?             │

└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Why This Works

• Broadens perspective: Forces you to look beyond your own assumptions

• Equity-driven: Centers marginalized voices and asks "who's been left out?"

• Challenges biases: Requires explicit examination of assumptions before framing problem

• Actionable output: Produces HMW statement ready for solution exploration

Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)

• Not a solution brainstorm: Canvas frames the problem; solutions come later

• Not a feature request list: Focuses on underlying problems, not surface symptoms

• Not a one-person exercise: Requires diverse perspectives to challenge groupthink

When to Use This

• Starting discovery for a new initiative

• Reframing an existing problem (suspect you're solving the wrong thing)

• Challenging assumptions before building solutions

• Aligning cross-functional teams on problem definition

When NOT to Use This

• When the problem is already well-understood and validated

• For tactical bug fixes or technical debt (no deep framing needed)

• When stakeholders have already committed to a solution (address alignment first)

Facilitation Source of Truth

Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.

It defines:

• session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)

• one-question turns with plain-language prompts

• progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)

• interruption handling and pause/resume behavior

• numbered recommendations at decision points

• quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include Other (specify) when useful)

This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.

Application

Use template.md for the full fill-in structure.

This interactive skill follows a three-phase process, asking adaptive questions in each phase.

Step 0: Gather Context (Before Questions)

Agent suggests:

Before we frame your problem, let's gather context:

Problem Context:

• Initial problem statement or stakeholder request

• Symptoms you've observed (support tickets, churn data, user complaints)

• Existing research (user interviews, surveys, analytics)

• Assumptions you're making about the problem

Stakeholder Context:

• Who's affected by this problem? (users, customers, internal teams)

• Who's asking for this to be solved? (execs, sales, customers)

• Who might have been overlooked?

You can paste this content directly, or describe the problem briefly.

Phase 1: Look Inward

Goal: Examine your own assumptions, biases, and how you might be part of the problem.

Question 1: What is the problem? (Describe symptoms)

Agent asks:

"What is the problem as you currently understand it? Describe the symptoms."

Offer 4 enumerated options:

• Customer pain point — "Customers struggle with [specific task/outcome]" (e.g., "Customers can't find features they need")

• Business metric problem — "We're seeing [metric decline]" (e.g., "Churn increased 15% last quarter")

• Stakeholder request — "Stakeholders say we need [feature/change]" (e.g., "Sales team says we need better reporting")

• Observed behavior — "We've noticed [pattern/trend]" (e.g., "Users abandon onboarding at step 3")

Or describe your problem/symptoms.

User response: [Selection or custom]

Agent extracts:

• Problem (initial framing): [Description from user]

Question 2: Why haven't we solved it?

Agent asks:

"Why hasn't this problem been solved yet?"

Offer 6 enumerated options (can select multiple):

• It's new — "Problem recently emerged"

• It's hard — "Technically complex or resource-intensive"

• It's low priority — "Other initiatives took precedence"

• Lack of resources — "Not enough budget, people, or time"

• Lack of authority — "Can't make the decision or get buy-in"

• A systemic inequity — "Problem disproportionately affects marginalized groups, overlooked"

Or describe your own reason.

User response: [Selection or custom]

Agent captures:

• Barriers to solving: [List of reasons]

Question 3: How are we part of the problem? (Assumptions & biases)

Agent asks:

"How might you (or your team) be part of the problem? What assumptions or biases are you bringing?"

Offer 4 enumerated options:

• Assuming we know what customers want — "We haven't validated with real users" (Confirmation bias)

• Optimizing for ourselves, not users — "Building what's easy for us, not what's valuable for them" (Internal bias)

• Overlooking specific user segments — "Focused on majority users, ignored edge cases or marginalized groups" (Survivorship bias)

• Solution-first thinking — "Jumped to 'we need [feature X]' before understanding root problem" (Premature convergence)

Or describe your specific assumptions/biases.

User response: [Selection or custom]

Agent captures:

• Assumptions to challenge: [List of biases]

Phase 2: Look Outward

Goal: Understand who experiences the problem, who benefits from it, and who's been left out.

Question 4: Who experiences the problem? (When, where, consequences)

Agent asks:

"Who experiences this problem? When and where do they experience it? What consequences do they face?"

Agent prompts user to describe:

• Who: Specific personas, user segments, or roles

• When: Triggering events or contexts (e.g., "during onboarding," "at month-end close")

• Where: Physical or digital locations (e.g., "mobile app," "enterprise deployments")

• Consequences: Impact on users (e.g., "waste 2 hours/week," "miss deadlines," "churn")

Adaptation: Use personas from context (proto-personas, JTBD, customer research)

User response: [Detailed description]

Agent captures:

• Who experiences it: [Personas/segments]

• When/where: [Context]

• Consequences: [Impact]

Question 5: Who else has this problem? Who doesn't have it?

Agent asks:

"Who else has this problem? (Colleagues, competitors, other domains?) And who doesn't have it?"

Agent prompts:

• Who else has it: Other companies, industries, or domains with similar problems

• How do they deal with it: Workarounds, solutions, or adaptations

• Who doesn't have it: Users/companies that avoid the problem (what's different about them?)

User response: [Detailed description]

Agent captures:

• Who else has it: [Examples]

• Who doesn't have it: [Counter-examples]

Question 6: Who's been left out? Who benefits?

Agent asks:

"Who's been left out of the conversation so far? And who benefits when this problem exists or doesn't exist?"

Agent prompts:

• Who's been left out: Marginalized voices, edge cases, overlooked stakeholders

• Who benefits when problem exists: Who gains from the status quo?

• Who benefits when problem doesn't exist: Who loses if problem is solved?

Example:

• "Who benefits when onboarding is broken?" → "Sales team doesn't have to support complex workflows; engineering doesn't have to build guided flows"

• "Who's been left out?" → "Non-technical users, international customers (onboarding in English only)"

User response: [Detailed description]

Agent captures:

• Who's been left out: [List]

• Who benefits (problem exists): [List]

• Who benefits (problem solved): [List]

Phase 3: Reframe

Goal: Synthesize insights into a clear, actionable problem statement and "How Might We" question.

Question 7: Restate the problem

Agent says:

"Based on everything we've explored, let's restate the problem in a new way."

Agent generates a refined problem statement using insights from Phases 1-2:

Template:

"The problem is: [Who] struggles to [accomplish what] because [root cause], which leads to [consequence]. This affects [specific segments] and has been overlooked because [bias/assumption from Phase 1]."

Example (SaaS onboarding):

"The problem is: Non-technical small business owners struggle to activate our product during onboarding because we use jargon-heavy UI and lack guided workflows, which leads to 60% abandonment within 24 hours. This disproportionately affects solopreneurs without technical support, and has been overlooked because our team optimizes for enterprise users who have IT departments."

Agent asks:

"Does this restatement capture the core problem? Should we refine it?"

User response: [Approve or modify]

Question 8: Create "How Might We" statement

Agent says:

"Now let's make it actionable with a 'How Might We' statement."

Template:

"How might we [action that addresses the problem] as we aim to [objective/desired condition]?"

Example (SaaS onboarding):

"How might we guide non-technical users through onboarding with plain-language prompts as we aim to increase activation from 40% to 70%?"

Agent asks:

"Does this HMW statement set up the right solution space? Should we adjust?"

User response: [Approve or modify]

Output: Problem Framing Canvas + HMW Statement

After completing the flow, the agent outputs:

# Problem Framing Canvas: [Problem Name]

**Date:** [Today's date]

---

## Phase 1: Look Inward

### What is the problem? (Symptoms)

[Description from Q1]

### Why haven't we solved it?

- [Barrier 1 from Q2]

- [Barrier 2]

- [Barrier 3]

### How are we part of the problem? (Assumptions & biases)

- [Assumption 1 from Q3]

- [Assumption 2]

- [Assumption 3]

**Which of these might be redesigned, reframed, or removed?**

[Reflection on biases to challenge]

---

## Phase 2: Look Outward

### Who experiences the problem?

**Who:** [Personas/segments from Q4]

**When/Where:** [Context]

**Consequences:** [Impact on users]

**Lived experience varies:** [How different users experience it differently]

### Who else has this problem?

**Who else:** [Examples from Q5]

**How they deal with it:** [Workarounds]

### Who doesn't have it?

[Counter-examples from Q5]

### Who's been left out?

[Marginalized voices from Q6]

### Who benefits?

**When problem exists:** [Beneficiaries of status quo]

**When problem doesn't exist:** [Who loses if solved]

---

## Phase 3: Reframe

### Stated another way, the problem is:

[Refined problem statement from Q7]

### How Might We...

**How might we** [action from Q8] **as we aim to** [objective from Q8]?

---

## Next Steps

1. **Validate with users:** Use `skills/discovery-interview-prep/SKILL.md` to test reframed problem with customers

2. **Generate solutions:** Use `skills/opportunity-solution-tree/SKILL.md` to explore solution space

3. **Create problem statement:** Use `skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md` to formalize for PRD/roadmap

4. **Identify opportunities:** Use HMW statement to brainstorm solution ideas

---

**Ready to explore solutions? Let me know if you'd like to refine the problem framing or move to solution generation.**

Examples

See examples/sample.md for full problem framing examples.

Mini example excerpt:

**Look Inward:** Churn spiked after onboarding change

**Look Outward:** New SMB users are most affected

**Reframe:** How might we reduce onboarding friction for first-time users?

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Skipping "Look Inward" (Assuming You're Neutral)

Symptom: Team jumps straight to "Look Outward" without examining biases

Consequence: Groupthink persists, assumptions unchallenged

Fix: Force explicit discussion of assumptions and biases (Q2-Q3)

Pitfall 2: Ignoring "Who Benefits" Question

Symptom: Canvas completed without exploring who benefits from problem existing

Consequence: Miss political dynamics, resistance to change

Fix: Always ask "Who loses if this problem is solved?" (Q6)

Pitfall 3: Generic Problem Statement

Symptom: Reframed problem is vague ("Improve user experience")

Consequence: HMW statement isn't actionable

Fix: Make problem specific (who, what, when, consequence, root cause)

Pitfall 4: HMW Statement Is Too Narrow

Symptom: "How might we add a mobile app?"

Consequence: Constrains solution space to one idea

Fix: Keep HMW broad: "How might we enable mobile-first users to access core workflows on any device?"

Pitfall 5: Solo Exercise (No Diverse Perspectives)

Symptom: PM fills out canvas alone

Consequence: Biases persist, marginalized voices still left out

Fix: Facilitate canvas workshop with cross-functional team + customer input

References

Related Skills

• skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md — Converts reframed problem into formal problem statement

• skills/opportunity-solution-tree/SKILL.md — Uses HMW statement to generate solution options

• skills/discovery-interview-prep/SKILL.md — Validates reframed problem with customers

External Frameworks

• MITRE Innovation Toolkit, "Problem Framing Canvas v3" (2021) — Origin of canvas, equity-driven design thinking

• Stanford d.school, "How Might We" statements — Actionable problem framing

Dean's Work

• [If Dean has problem framing resources, link here]

Skill type: Interactive

Suggested filename: problem-framing-canvas.md

Suggested placement: /skills/interactive/

Dependencies: Uses skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md