Held April 30th at "Design to Align", DMI / Intersection15 conference for Strategic Enterprise Design, Berlin http://2015.intersectionconf.com
The purpose of design is to solve problems. Its added value is not only derived from shaping good solutions: it is equally about getting the problem right in the first place.
Often enough in practice though, gaining an accurate, shared understanding of a design problem is neglected in favour of intense involvement with potential solutions. Which can lead to situations later in the process where it turns out everyone involved has a completely different set of unspoken assumptions on the underlying issue, or you may even discover you've developing the perfect response to the wrong question.
In his talk, Rupert will outline the benefits of (re-) framing problems as a universal design technique and share practical tips for shaping precise and actionable problem statements.
Sesión 4: Innovación centrada en el usuarioOmar Vite
Similar to "The problem is we don't understand the problem": Problem Framing as a tool to align stakeholders and develop accurate design solutions (20)
4. Paul McCready:
“The problem is we don’t understand the problem”
Wrong problem: How do we build a plane that will fly around the poles?
Right problem: How do we build a plane that can be rebuilt quickly
over and over again?
pictures.propdesigner.co.uk
uxmag.com/articles/you-are-solving-the-wrong-problem
5. 1977:
McCreadys plane flies and wins the prize
http://uxmag.com/articles/you-are-solving-the-wrong-problem
pictures.propdesigner.co.uk
uxmag.com/articles/you-are-solving-the-wrong-problem
The Gossamer Condor: A lightweight plane that could quickly be
reassembled and flewn again up to three times in a single day.
The prize was won by re-framing the problem and asking the
appropriate question in the first place.
7. Figuring out the key problem together by aswering the who, what,
where and why
Collective Problem Framing in Lean Product Design
lean.org/LeanPost/Posting.cfm?LeanPostId=260
15. #1 Avoiding to design the perfect, yet wrong thing.
necrophone.com/2014/02/15/yes-you-can-sell-ice-to-eskimos-part-i/
16. Extrinsic / defensive
motivation:
„Something is going wrong.
How can we fix it again?“
#2 Discovering problems can point to opportunities.
Intrinsic / transformative
motivation:
„We want to evolve and grow.
How can we find a new
perspective?“
17. #3 Turn isolated assumptions into a common
commitment.
flickr.com/photos/atheism_christian_apologetics/11078762214
19. Complex Complicated
Chaotic Obvious
Complex
Unknown unknowns:
Experiment to determine the problem &
solve it
Complicated
The unknowns are known
Good practices exist
Experts can help
Chaotic
Situation is out of hand
Regain control first,
evaluate later
Obvious
Problem is well understood
Apply best practices
Chances are you‘re in the „complex“ quadrant.
(The Cynefin Framework: Situation types & their solution strategies)
everydaykanban.com/2013/09/29/understanding-the-cynefin-framework/
Disorder
20. We‘ve gone from classic one-way-waterfall …
Define the
problem
to solve
Define the
solution
to implement
Execute
Open
idea
space
Narrow
down
Analyze
21. … to validating and iterating our solutions.
Define the
problem
to solve
Define the
solution
to validate
Validate,decide:
Right solution?
Open
idea
space
Narrow
down
22. But problems are a part of the design process, and
should be validated as well.
Define the
problem
to validate
Define the
solution
to validate
Validate, decide:
Right solution?
Right problem?
Open
problem
space
Narrow
down
Open
idea
space
Narrow
down
23. In the process, be ready to change both.
Open
problem
space
Narrow
down
Open
idea
space
Narrow
down
25. • Verbalize unspoken thoughts and assumptions of stakeholders
• Create shared understanding of the issue
Gather assumptions and
interpretations
Example #1: The problem is felt, but fuzzy
„Our recruiting platform is outdated.“
Make
collective
sense
Define the
key problem
26. Evaluate potentially
relevant problems
Example #2: Insights galore, key problem needed
„We need the right focus to get our offering to the next level.“
Prioritize,
sharpen
• Find the problem that‘s the most promising
• Know what you‘ll want to solve and why
Define the
key problem
27. Example #3: Step back to revise a planned solution
„So we‘ll have a social intranet platform – but what for actually?“
Revise underlying
problems
Prioritize,
sharpen
• Tough, but common: Become less determined about the solution
and more accurate about the problem
• Be ready to revise or even dismiss the initial solution
Define the
key problem
Revised
solution
Initial
solution
28. Example #4: A known problem needs re-framing
„How do we build a better mp3 player?“
Prioritize,
sharpen
• Take the problem out of its box and illuminate its context
• iPod & iTunes: From „Building a new mp3 player“ to „fixing the
whole experience of obtaining and enjoying digital music“
Given
problem
Expand / abstract the
problem space
Define new
key problem
31. Who What
Where Why
WHO is having the problem?
Who
• Who are the „customers“ – the ones having the
problem and benefitting from its future solution?
• Can you narrow them down to a segment?
• What do you know about them?
32. Who What
Where Why
WHAT is the nature of the problem?
What
• Are you sure it‘s a problem?
• Is it a task or a need?
• Is it functional or social or emotional?
• Is it openly stated or unconscious?
• How do you know? Is there evidence?
• Can you explain is simply?
33. Who What
Where Why
• In which context / situation do your „customers“
experience the problem?
• Have you observed the problem in context?
• Can you describe it?
WHERE does the problem arise?
Where
34. Who What
Where Why
• Is it acute enough to put other problems aside?
(impact, frequency, …?)
• What would be the key value for them?
• How would it improve their situation (make sth.
more efficient, cheap, enjoyable, reassuring, …)?
WHY do you believe we should solve it? (for them)
Why #1
35. Who What
Where Why
• Is it promising enough to put other problems
aside?
• What would be the key value for us to solve it?
• How will it help achieve our business goals?
• How does it align with our strategy / brand?
WHY do you believe we should solve it? (for us)
Why #2
36. A simple Problem Statement template:
Who
What
Where
Why #1
Why #2
[customer segment, persona]
[issue, task, need, „job“]
[context, situation].
[benefit of solution for them]
[benefit of solution for us].
has the problem that
when / while
An ideal solution would
while
Our
38. A possible Problem Statement:
Who
What
Where
Why #1
Why #2
long distance family holiday
passengers
they have to spend a highly
uncomfortable time
waiting in transit lounges for
delayed connecting flights.
help them make the best of
the wait/ arrive less exhausted
creating new revenues and
raising customer satisfaction.
have the problem that
when
An ideal solution would
while
Our
flickr.com/photos/jump4joy/2940124563/
39. This helps pave the way for a good Solution Statement:
Family relaxation rooms for rent with
wake up service
staying in the airport hall /
in an airport hotel
be way more comfortable /
be availiable for a shorter timespan
Unlike
this will
Our solution: What
Current
solutions
Difference
flickr.com/photos/jump4joy/2940124563/
41. Name causes, not symptoms.
Who
What
help desk staff
support calls take too long.have the problem that
Our
they lose time searching
through multiple databases.
42. A lack of solution X is not the real problem.
Who
What
help desk staff
there is no unified search
across our CRM systems
have the problem that
Our
they lose time searching
through multiple databases.
43. Don‘t take goals and targets for design problems.
Who
What
recruiting department
they need to raise successful
senior staff engagement by
10% next year.
has the problem that
Our
long-term relationships with
young management talents
are lost over time.
Why #2help raise successful senior
staff engagement.
A ideal solution would
44. Avoid wishful thinking from inside the building.
Whofemale fashion customers
there is no convenient way to
stay informed about our
latest sales offerings.
have the problem that
Our
they feel overwhelmed with
putting together their casual
office outfit every morning.
What
45. Don‘t blame.
Whoservice suppliers
our IT have implemented a
new, inadequate purchasing
platform that won ‘t work.
have the problem that
Our
our new platform does not
match their routine needs.
What
46. Be specific and avoid industry buzzwords.
Who
What
teenage usersOur
they miss delightful
experiences that match their
digital lifestye aspirations.
they want to keep track of
up to six different social
networks during class.
have the problem that
47. Keep it short.
Whocarrier clients
although appropiate
measures had been taken by
BHCL in alignment with the
KC5 programme and
approved by KK-12, an
internal study conducted in
2013 found out that carriers
should be limited or excluded
in cases where an event has
been caused by
extraordinary circumstances
which could not have been
avoided even if all
reasonable measures had
been taken.
have the problem that
Our
What
49. • Take 8 to 24 people for 1 to 3 hours
• Mix disciples and divide into teams no larger than 4
• Have a neutral designer-facilitator for each team
Ingredients
The ones to
have the
problem
The ones to
find & design
the solution
The ones to
implement it
The ones
responsible for
the biz outcome
50. • What‘s our goal today?
• What is the known problem scope?
• What are our targets / strategy / brand values?
• What do we know about the „customer“?
• What‘s the course of action now?
Short introduction and illumination
51. Why #1
Why #2
• Examine each quadrant
& write two post-its for each
• Present & discuss within
your team
• Start the conversation so
that a shared understanding
emerges
First round: Do the 4W individually
Who What
Where
52. • Use the problem statement
template card
• Read them to the rest of the
team & have the others vote
• The strongest one or two
problem statements emerge
from each team
Second round: Write a problem statement
[ ____________ ]
[ ____________ ]
[ ____________ ]
[ ____________ ]
[ ____________ ]
has the problem that
when / while
An ideal solution would
while
Our Who
What
Where
Why #1
Why #2
53. • Present your team problem
statements to the others
• Critique and question
• Check the problem
statements for clarity and
coherence
Third round: Feedback with the other groups
54. • Don‘t expect immediate consensus. It‘s about voicing different
assumptions and collaborative sensemaking first.
• Don‘t expect turnkey statements. You will still have to formulate
and validate the problem yourself.
• Be strict about the do‘s and don‘ts
• Expecially don‘t allow solution statements and fake needs
• Keep an idea pool ready to put solution ideas aside
• Mix the groups well. Avoid putting multiple supporters of a certain
solution in the same group
Some tips & suggestions
56. https://www.flickr.com/photos/11325321@N08/6822409862
So, care about your problem if …
• you‘re in the „complex situation“ domain and the problem just
isn‘t that obvious
• you can‘t afford solving the wrong problem
• everybody involved has different unspoken assumptions about
the issue
• you want to create common purpose and commitment for the
solution work („culture of shared ownership“)
• you want to know how to validate your solution‘s success
• you are ready to experiment, learn and re-frame
57. Thank you and have a good flight!
flickr.com/photos/tom-margie/1429937325
twitter.com/r000pert / xing.com/profile/rupert_platz / linkedin.com/in/rupertplatz
Editor's Notes
About me – im an IA & interaction designer & i find it important for designers to co-shape the strategy of things – define & understand why I‘m building stuff & for whom & what makes it successful
In that context … Stumbled upon 2011
It's 1959, British billionaire Henry Kremer offered an award of 50.000 Pound for the first person to build an airplane that could fly a figure eight around two poles 800 meters apart.
Dozens of engineering teams tried and failed to build that airplane, years went by.
Paul McCready, aeronautical engineer, decided to take the challenge in the seventies, and he allegedly coined the phrase “The problem is we don’t understand the problem”
His insight was about the problem, not the solution.
He found out that everyone would spend more than a year planning and building an airplane that would then crash within minutes of its first test flight, and then the team had to spend another year building the next version.
Mc Cready came up with a new problem that he set out to solve: how can you build a plane that can be rebuilt in hours not months?
In 1977, eighteen years after the prize was awareded and within just half a year, McCready won the prize.
He built this thing here, the Gossamer Condor,with new lightweight materials that could be re-built easily
Sometimes he would fly three or four different planes in a single day.
Two years later he won the second Kremer Prize with another man powered plane for flying across the english channel.
Great legend to convey the benefits of agile and lean thinking - iterating through quick builds, fail fast & often, Build Measure, learn and so on
But the Story struck me for a different reason –
According to this story, McCready didnt win the prize for designing the best plane but for being the only one to ask the right question.
Regardless of the process, regardless of the respective design domain we‘re in – taking a close look at the problem to solve is a step that is often rushed by, and this bears the risk of designing the wrong solutions.
Comes from Lean Startup thinking, - the startup world, where building the right product (not just: a good product but the right one) is a matter of life and death
Helped me figure out how to put this into practice
Major german corporation hired me as a designer for a new major digital project
As it goes often times, it was more or less technically predefined what was going to be built. But it was unclear what the whole thing really was going to be good for
There was substantial mgmt attention on the project and lots of stakeholders needed to be aligned and everybody had a different idea about this upcoming new product.
The lead designer in the project who hired me said: “We need to figure out what problem this thing will solve. I stumbled upon this problem framing technique called 4Ws by the Lean UX Guru Will Evans, let’s try this.”
it really helped to get people on the same page, figure out the actual purpose and the goal of the product and get a clear vision of the design challenge.
It didn’t all work out pefectly and it didn’t have that huge enterprise transforming impact I’d love to tell you about, but I was struck how powerful this approach of collectively framing a problem at the start of a project can be. So I kept delving into the topic ever since and I’m seizing the opportunity here and now to share with you what I’ve learned and figured out so far.
Of course you can spend ages on diagnosing a problem.
But getting your fingers dirty right away instead of ana
Nobody really likes dealing with problems. in the problem-solution couple, it‘s the unattractive one.
You dont want to examine it, you want to kill it with your solution. But in reality, you shold embrace it.
Ist a question of motivation
6 Blind men from Indostan
Cynefin framework situation typology
The problem comes from just somewhere
Either black Black Box, or if its transparent, in both cases we dont validate & change it
Classic Problem-Problem in the COMPLEX domain, where theres no troubleshooting manual or expert to help you
Get all the assumptions together & work to the core
Share and challenge analyses drawn so far
Get everybody on the same page
Verbalize
There are many problems, which ones important?
Discuss to narrow down
Frequency, impact are good criteria
There are many problems, which ones important?
Discuss to narrow down
Frequency, impact are good criteria
Nobody really likes dealing with problems. in the problem-solution couple, it‘s the unattractive one.
You dont want to examine it, you want to kill it with your solution. But in reality, you shold embrace it.
Nobody really likes dealing with problems. in the problem-solution couple, it‘s the unattractive one.
You dont want to examine it, you want to kill it with your solution. But in reality, you shold embrace it.