Why I Stopped Saying ‘Problem to Solve’ and Reframed it

‍

I’ve often struggled with the separation of problems from solutions when using the phrase ‘problems to solve’. In practice, it can force us into defining a solution when we’re only just starting to discover our user needs. 

‍

Lately I’ve been re-framing this to: 

‘What’s the problem?’ 

‍

Here’s why I changed and the difference it’s made.

‍

Unintended Friction

As a researcher, I’ve definitely observed and been a part of conversations where friction occurs around the phrase ‘problem to solve’. Insights will be presented that are intended to clearly show a problem to be solved or an insight into why something is a problem only to hear: 

‍

‘Yes, but what’s the problem to solve?’ 

‍

It can be a source of frustration but on reflection, I believe it’s because of mismatched expectations. Research insights are meant to present pain points, needs, what and why problems exist. The phrase ‘problem to solve’ infers that for it to be solved it requires a solution. 

‍

Jumping to solutions

When I hear ‘what’s the problem to solve?’ I ask myself, are they really saying, ‘What do we need to build?’ 

These conversations might sound something like: 

‍

“We discovered that users are hesitant to use the new feature because they don’t understand what it does.

“OK, but what’s the problem we’re solving for?”

“We need to solve for the problem of understanding”

“OK, how do we get people to understand it?” 

‍

There is is, the ‘how’, the word that pushes us towards a solution.

‍

What usually follows might be a productive conversation about more design, research and testing. Or it could lead to frustration and more misunderstanding.

‍

What’s the problem?

Let’s explore shifting from ‘problem to solve’ to ‘what’s the problem?’ using a simple analogy: Making a cup of coffee.

‍

Using ‘problem to solve’ we might end up with a statement that looks something like:

“I need to make a cup of coffee but I want a machine to do it for me” 

This is a poor problem statement because it implies the solution - a coffee machine. 

‍

Using ‘what’s the problem’ it’s easier to explain multiple pain points or perceived problems. In a user interview, the interviewer would probe using a series of ‘why’ based questions.

‍

What’s the problem?

“I need a cup of coffee”

“I don’t feel like leaving the house - it’s too cold” 

“I want something that is more like what I get at the cafe but without the effort.” 

‍

We can determine our solution criteria based on the problems identified in our research. 

Our solution criteria is: 

• The ability to make at home - not wanting to leave the house
• Cafe like in its taste, texture and appearance - like what I get at the cafe
• Easy to use - without the effort

‍

We have now identified the user problems and the solution criteria that guides what a solution must do without jumping to what that might be.

‍

Business fit

Connecting the solution criteria to what your business is uniquely placed to do gives the solution context. 

If your company specialises in machines or has the ability to invest in machine making this could be a good route to go down.

If your company specialises in packaged food products and powders then the solution could be research and development into a make at home product that only requires hot water.

This encourages more flexible thinking and strategic thinking while still being grounded in user needs.

‍

Identifying solvable problems

Another benefit of asking ‘what’s the problem’ is that it helps us to identify problems that can actually be solved for. 

“I need a cup of coffee” 

If we stop here, we haven’t yet identified a problem to solve that we can act on. Needing a cup of coffee can already be solved in a number of different ways. 

‍

Using ‘what’s the problem’ to help us go deeper, we uncover more context and information. 

“I don’t feel like leaving the house”

“I want something that is more like what I get at the cafe but without the effort”

‍

This provides a rich context that helps us to identify meaningful, solvable problems. The problem isn’t that they can’t get a cup of coffee, it’s obtaining a coffee that is cafe-like without leaving the house.

‍

Conclusion

I’ve found that reframing ‘problem to solve’ as ‘what’s the problem’ with solution criteria helps to keep the focus on discovery and understanding. 

It guides what a solution must do without jumping straight into figuring out what the solution is.

‍

Do you think this could work for you? If you do try it in your own work I’d love to hear how you get on and what you learnt!

‍

Need Help?

If you’re new to user research or want expert input, we’d love to support you. Whether you're looking for advice or a full independent review, get in touch - we’re here to help make your product better.