The Complete Guide to Problem Framing

Innovation often fails for a surprisingly simple reason:

People solve the wrong problem.

Organisations invest significant time, money and effort creating new products, services, technologies and programs only to discover that the challenge they addressed was not the challenge that actually mattered.

This happens because humans naturally focus on solutions.

When confronted with a difficulty, our instinct is often to respond immediately:

• Let's build something.
• Let's launch a new initiative.
• Let's implement a new system.
• Let's add more features.

However, effective innovators pause before acting.

They examine the situation carefully.

They question assumptions.

They explore perspectives.

Most importantly, they ensure they understand the problem before attempting to solve it.

Within the Evaluate stage of the 5E Design Thinking Framework, problem framing helps innovators define challenges clearly, uncover hidden assumptions and identify opportunities that deserve attention.

Problem framing is not about finding answers.

It is about asking better questions.

A poorly framed problem can produce excellent solutions that deliver little value.

Consider the following examples.

Poor Frame

How can we improve lecture attendance?

Better Frame

How might we improve student engagement and learning experiences?

The first frame assumes attendance is the issue.

The second explores a broader learning challenge.

The framing changes the direction of innovation.

Similarly:

Poor Frame

How can we sell more products?

Better Frame

How might we help customers achieve their goals more effectively?

The first focuses on organisational needs.

The second focuses on human needs.

Problem framing determines where attention is directed.

It shapes every decision that follows.

Problem framing is the process of defining, exploring and interpreting a challenge before generating solutions.

It involves:

• Clarifying the issue
• Examining assumptions
• Understanding context
• Exploring perspectives
• Identifying opportunities

A problem frame acts as a lens through which a challenge is viewed.

Different frames reveal different possibilities.

The same situation can produce dramatically different outcomes depending on how it is framed.

Many people assume problems are fixed.

In reality, problems are often interpreted differently depending on perspective.

Consider a city experiencing traffic congestion.

A commuter may frame the challenge as:

Roads are too crowded.

An environmental advocate may frame the challenge as:

Car dependency is too high.

A public transport planner may frame the challenge as:

Alternative transport systems are insufficient.

Each frame reveals different opportunities.

Framing influences innovation.

One of the most common mistakes in innovation is treating symptoms as problems.

Symptoms are visible effects.

Causes are underlying drivers.

Symptom

Students submit assessments late.

Possible Cause

Assessment instructions are unclear.

Possible Cause

Students lack confidence.

Possible Cause

Workloads are poorly balanced.

Possible Cause

Support resources are difficult to access.

Focusing exclusively on the symptom may produce ineffective solutions.

Understanding causes creates deeper opportunities.

Experienced innovators often ask:

What problem sits beneath this problem?

Examples include:

Surface Problem

Customers contact support frequently.

Deeper Problem

The product experience is confusing.

Surface Problem

Employees miss deadlines.

Deeper Problem

Priorities and responsibilities are unclear.

Surface Problem

Students rarely participate.

Deeper Problem

Learning activities feel disconnected from their goals.

The most valuable opportunities often exist below the surface.

The Iceberg Model is a useful way to understand complexity.

Visible events represent only a small portion of reality.

Beneath the surface often exist:

Events

What happened?

Patterns

What occurs repeatedly?

Structures

What systems influence outcomes?

Mental Models

What beliefs shape behaviour?

Innovation becomes more effective when deeper layers are explored.

Problem statements provide structure and clarity.

A useful problem statement should describe:

• Who is affected
• What challenge exists
• Why it matters

Example:

MBA students often struggle to receive timely formative feedback during project development, limiting opportunities for continuous improvement and reflection.

This statement focuses attention on a meaningful challenge.

Opportunity statements transform problems into possibility.

Instead of focusing solely on difficulty, they focus on potential.

Example:

There is an opportunity to help MBA students receive more timely, personalised project feedback throughout the learning journey.

Opportunity framing encourages innovation rather than simply problem identification.

One of the most powerful tools in design thinking is the "How Might We" question.

This format reframes challenges into opportunities for exploration.

Examples:

Traditional Problem

Customer onboarding is confusing.

How Might We

How might we create a more intuitive onboarding experience for new customers?

Traditional Problem

Students struggle with reflection.

How Might We

How might we make reflective learning more engaging and meaningful?

A good How Might We question should feel:

• Open
• Positive
• Exploratory
• Actionable

Reframing involves deliberately viewing a challenge from a different perspective.

This technique often reveals opportunities that remain hidden under conventional assumptions.

Reframe the User

Instead of:

How can lecturers provide better feedback?

Try:

How might students generate feedback for themselves?

Reframe the Outcome

Instead of:

How can we improve attendance?

Try:

How might we improve participation and engagement?

Reframe the Timescale

Instead of:

How do we solve this problem today?

Try:

How might this challenge evolve over the next five years?

Reframe the Context

Instead of:

How can we improve classrooms?

Try:

How might learning occur beyond classrooms?

Many problem statements contain hidden assumptions.

For example:

Employees resist change.

This assumes resistance originates with employees.

Alternative assumptions may include:

• Communication is poor.
• Incentives are misaligned.
• The change lacks relevance.
• Trust is low.

Good problem framers actively challenge assumptions.

Design thinking encourages innovators to frame challenges around people.

Questions include:

• Who is affected?
• What are they trying to achieve?
• What frustrations exist?
• What outcomes matter?

Human-centred framing increases relevance and impact.

Educational challenges are often framed too narrowly.

Consider:

Narrow Frame

Students are not paying attention.

Better Frame

Students are not finding the learning experience meaningful.

The improved frame creates more opportunities for innovation.

Organisations frequently focus on operational symptoms.

Examples include:

• Declining engagement
• Low productivity
• Increased turnover

Effective framing explores:

• Experiences
• Motivations
• Systems
• Culture
• Relationships

Problems rarely exist in isolation.

Complex problems typically involve multiple influences.

Examples include:

• Policies
• Behaviours
• Incentives
• Technologies
• Stakeholders

Systems thinking helps innovators avoid oversimplification and consider broader contexts.

Starting with Solutions

A solution is not a problem statement.

Defining Problems Too Narrowly

Narrow frames limit possibilities.

Defining Problems Too Broadly

Overly broad challenges can become unmanageable.

Ignoring Stakeholders

Different people experience problems differently.

Treating Symptoms as Causes

Surface observations rarely tell the whole story.

Falling in Love with Existing Assumptions

Good framing requires curiosity and humility.

A simple team activity.

Step 1

Write the problem as currently understood.

Step 2

Ask "Why?" five times.

Step 3

Identify hidden assumptions.

Step 4

Generate three alternative problem frames.

Step 5

Create three How Might We questions.

Step 6

Discuss which framing creates the most opportunity.

Problem Reframing Challenge

Objective

Explore alternative interpretations of a challenge.

Instructions

• Select a current problem.
• Write a traditional problem statement.
• Develop five alternative problem frames.
• Create three How Might We questions.
• Compare the opportunities each frame generates.

Expected Outcome

Greater awareness of how framing influences innovation.

Estimated Time

45 minutes.

• Are you solving a symptom or a cause?
• What assumptions exist in your problem statement?
• How might another stakeholder frame the challenge?
• What opportunities emerge when the problem is reframed?
• Are you focusing on people or solutions?

• Problem framing determines innovation direction.
• The wrong problem can lead to ineffective solutions.
• Symptoms and causes are not the same.
• Multiple problem frames are usually possible.
• How Might We questions encourage exploration.
• Assumptions should be challenged.
• Human-centred framing improves relevance.
• Better questions often produce better innovations.

Choose a challenge you are currently working on and create three completely different problem statements for it. Then generate a set of How Might We questions for each framing and compare the opportunities that emerge.