Framing the Problem

Problem framing is the process of clearly and comprehensively defining a problem to guide solution development. This process includes clarifying goals, constraints, and perspectives.

An important principle of problem solving is to solve the problem at the highest possible level. Often, the most granular and local solutions are not optimal for the larger organization or system. What makes sense for a single unit does not necessarily make sense for the whole company. Wherever possible, problem-solving efforts should target the highest level at which you can work rather than focusing only on the interests of smaller units.

1. The Importance of Problem Framing

In the realm of structured problem solving, few steps are as seemingly simple yet fundamentally important as framing the problem. This foundational step marks the beginning of the Iterative Eight Steps for Solving Problems (see Exhibit 1) and lays the groundwork for everything that follows, including hypothesis generation, data gathering, solution development, and stakeholder buy-in.

Framing a problem is more than just describing an issue. Rather, it involves aligning perspectives, clarifying the decision-making context, and ensuring subsequent analyses and actions focus on the correct objective(s). A well-framed problem acts as a compass for the entire problem-solving process. Without proper framing, even the most thorough analysis can become irrelevant or misleading.

All too often, problem-solving teams jump into data collection or brainstorming solutions without taking the time to clearly and precisely define the problem. This premature action is inefficient and potentially dangerous. It results in a “scattergun” approach—collecting indiscriminate data, conducting unnecessary interviews, and ultimately proposing solutions that fail to meet the expectations of the actual decision maker(s). The result is wasted time, squandered resources, and disappointed stakeholders.

1.1 A Smart Start: The Payoff of Getting It Right

Taking the time upfront to carefully define the problem yields substantial benefits throughout the problem-solving process. First and foremost, it establishes clarity of purpose. It sharpens focus, reduces ambiguity, and aligns team members around a shared understanding of what success looks like. It also minimizes the need for rework later by helping teams avoid addressing the wrong issues or developing ineffective solutions.

A well-framed problem has such a significant impact that seasoned consultants often refer to it as a problem that is “half-solved.” It provides structure, coherence, and direction. It enables decision makers to clearly articulate expectations and empowers problem solvers to work more effectively and efficiently.

1.2 The Danger of Poor Framing

Conversely, when a problem is framed poorly—if it is vague, general, or ambiguous—every subsequent step in the process suffers. Decision makers may struggle to see the value of proposed solutions. Analysts may be unsure what data to collect. The final recommendations may even solve the wrong problem entirely.

A common mistake is to define the problem in terms of a presumed solution. This “solution confirmation pitfall” limits creativity and increases the risk of confirmation bias. When a problem is narrowly framed around a specific solution, teams often unconsciously seek data that validates that solution rather than exploring potentially better alternatives.

1.3 Framing as a Creative Catalyst: Embracing Flexibility in Problem Definition

Importantly, problem framing is a creative act, not a constraint. Rather than reducing the problem space to a narrow point of view, it is about opening new avenues for insight by deliberately defining the boundaries, objectives, and assumptions. Questioning the initial framing and scope of the problem can unleash creativity and lead to novel solutions that would otherwise be overlooked.

The ability to iterate and refine the problem definition is essential. As new facts emerge, stakeholder perspectives shift, and the problem-solving process deepens, the original problem definition may need to evolve. This adaptability is not a flaw; it is a hallmark of robust problem solving. Returning to and revisiting the problem definition throughout the process ensures continued alignment and relevance.

1.4 The Benefits of Effective Problem Framing in a Nutshell

Clarifies the scope and objectives:
A well-framed problem defines the issue’s boundaries, helping to avoid scope creep and misalignment.
Provides decision-maker relevance:
A well-framed problem is aligned with the concerns and goals of those accountable for action.
Improves stakeholder alignment:
When all parties agree on the problem definition, decision-making becomes more efficient and collaborative.
Encourages creative thinking:
Defining the problem contextually—with constraints and aspirations—creates space for breakthrough ideas.
Guides hypothesis development:
A focused problem statement provides a solid foundation for structured hypothesis-based exploration.
Supports prioritization:
Clearly understanding the problem enables smarter decisions about what to tackle and in what order.
Saves time and effort:
Teams that understand the problem clearly avoid redundant or irrelevant data collection and analysis.
Enables efficient communication:
Stakeholders and teams can more easily understand and discuss problems framed with clarity and intent.

2. The Six Key Elements of a Problem Statement

A problem statement is a structured articulation of a problem that guides the problem-solving process by clearly defining its six key elements. It includes:

Worry:
The observable symptom prompting action
Concerned party:
The person or group responsible for solving the problem
Success criteria:
Measurable indicators of what a successful solution looks like
Other stakeholders:
Additional parties affected by or involved in the issue
Boundaries and constraints:
Limits within which the solution must be found
Core question:
A focused, actionable inquiry that synthesizes all the above

Effectively defining a problem is both a science and an art. It requires the problem solver to simplify complexity while maintaining the richness of the original context. A strong problem statement captures the nature of the issue and the expectations of those involved in solving it. To achieve this level of comprehensiveness, a structured approach is necessary—one that considers six interdependent elements (see Exhibit 2).

These six elements are not just a checklist; they are lenses through which a problem can be examined and refined to make it actionable. Each element adds a necessary dimension to the definition, ensuring the problem is framed in a decision-relevant, specific, and outcome-oriented way.

2.1 Worry: The Triggering Symptom

The worry is a symptom that reflects the gap between observed reality and an aspirational state. It is important not to jump to conclusions or solutions.

The worry represents the initial prompt for problem solving—the symptom that signals something is wrong or an opportunity exists. It is important to describe the worry as an observable gap between what is and what should be without making assumptions about its cause or possible solutions.

Effective worries are precise and current. Vague expressions such as “low morale” or “insufficient innovation” are too general to effectively solve problems. Instead, frame the concern as a specific change or discrepancy. For example, “Employee engagement scores have dropped 15 percent over two quarters” is more useful and testable.

Avoid letting interpretation or solutions creep into this stage. Focus on the surface-level symptoms and resist the urge to diagnose. A helpful test question is, “Why now?” If the problem could have been framed at any time, then it may not be an actionable worry.

Observing symptoms, i.e., the worry, leads to the question of whose job it is to take care of them.

2.2 Concerned Party: Who Owns the Problem?

The concerned party is the person or group that has the authority and responsibility to address the problem or find a solution.

It is critical to identify the concerned party because it determines whose perspective shapes the problem definition and whose judgment defines success. In practice, the person or group posing the challenge or who will ultimately approve the solution may be the problem’s owner.

This step often prompts valuable reflection: “Who is truly responsible for solving this problem?” In organizations, this may not be obvious. However, defining the problem from the perspective of the relevant concerned party ensures that the work will align with decision-making authority and relevant goals.

It also prevents a common pitfall: solving the wrong person’s problem. For example, what may appear to be a marketing issue could be a pricing issue for the CFO. Mistaking one for the other can lead to wasted effort and irrelevant recommendations.

2.3 Success Criteria: What Does “Solved” Look Like?

Success criteria are the objective(s) and measurable indicators, where possible, that define a satisfactory outcome from the concerned party’s perspective.

Once the concerned party is identified, the next challenge is to understand what they would consider a “successful” resolution. Asking what success looks like helps avoid restating the worry in different words and shifts the focus from symptoms to desired outcomes.

One effective method is to ask, “Imagine it’s six months from now and this problem has been solved brilliantly. What would we see?” This technique gives the decision maker space to articulate their aspirations in concrete terms.

Success criteria can be open-ended or numeric. Quantification provides a sharp focus. For example, it could be stated as, “Increase the conversion rate by 20 percent while maintaining the customer acquisition cost.” However, numbers should be used carefully and revised as new facts emerge. Even an arbitrary target can be helpful if treated as flexible.

2.4 Other Stakeholders: Who Else Has a Say?

Other stakeholders are individuals or groups affected by the problem or its solution, beyond the concerned party.

No problem exists in a vacuum. Other stakeholders, such as customers, regulators, internal departments, and external partners, often have different or conflicting interests. Their influence can determine whether a solution is accepted or resisted.

Identifying other stakeholders early on helps the team navigate competing interests and design effective, implementable solutions. For example, a marketing initiative that does not consider the constraints of the IT department may stall during implementation.

A stakeholder analysis maps out who matters, what they want, and how their interests relate to the problem at hand. This analysis provides leverage for aligning interests and preventing friction later in the process.

2.5 Boundaries and Constraints: What Limits Must Be Respected?

A constraint is a limitation—whether structural, temporal, financial, or political—within which a solution must be developed.

Constraints provide essential guardrails. They define what is off-limits, which resources are available, and which trade-offs are non-negotiable. Constraints can be imposed by organizational policy, external regulations, technological limitations, or social norms.

Identifying constraints early on prevents the waste of time exploring infeasible solutions. It also encourages creativity by forcing teams to think within meaningful parameters. Common types include:

Constraints on the success criteria, i.e., trade-offs arising from conflicts with other objectives and commitments. For example: “We must maintain our profit margin while entering new markets.”
Constraints on the solution, i.e., limits imposed by the concerned party’s recources and capabilities. For example: “The proposed marketing strategy must be executed within a USD 50,000 budget and using only the existing in-house design team.”
Constraints on the (problem-solving) process, i.e., limitations on the time and budget devoted to solving the problem and other boundaries, such as: “We have only three analysts for the next four weeks,” or “Any change must be approved by the legal department.”

2.6 Core Question: The Guiding Inquiry

The core question is precisely formulated and action-oriented. It reflects the other five elements of the problem statement and drives the entire problem-solving process.

The core question condenses everything into one decision-relevant inquiry. It should be phrased from the perspective of the concerned party, address the worry, aim to satisfy the success criteria, account for stakeholder input, and remain within the given constraints.

The most important decision at this stage is the scope of the question. There is no perfect formula for a core question. It can be broad or narrow, exploratory or binary. However, it must be useful for its intended purpose. A weak core question often leads to misdirected analysis. A strong one becomes the backbone of your problem-solving structure.

Since new insights emerge as data is collected and hypotheses are tested, it is normal to revise the core question multiple times. Iterating on the core question should be seen as a strength, not a weakness. You know you are on the right track when the concerned party agrees that solving the core question would solve the problem.

2.7 The Interconnectedness of the Six Elements

Although the six elements of the problem statement are described sequentially, they interact continuously. Clarifying the worry may lead to the discovery of other stakeholders. Understanding constraints may shift success criteria. Formulating a core question may necessitate redefining the concerned party. Exhibit 2 illustrates this by connecting the five elements from which the core question is derived.

This interconnectedness is not a flaw. Rather, it reflects the real-world complexity of problems. The most important thing is not the order in which the elements are addressed, but that all six are ultimately considered and integrated into a coherent, testable, decision-focused problem statement.

3. Iteration and Empathy: A Process, Not a Checklist

Although it may be tempting to view problem framing as a linear process—from identifying a symptom to articulating a core question—the reality is far more complex. In practice, problem framing is an iterative and collaborative process that thrives on dialogue, discovery, and repeated refinement. Stakeholders must be consulted, hypotheses must be challenged, and perspectives must be understood. Therefore, problem framing is not a solitary task performed in isolation but rather a collaborative exercise grounded in empathy for the people involved, including decision makers and affected stakeholders.

You will likely need to rewrite your core question several times and consult with the concerned party multiple times to refine it. It is this spirit of openness and exploration that transforms a good problem solver into a great one.

3.1 Iteration: Reframing as a Sign of Maturity

Problem statements rarely emerge perfectly formed. Instead, they evolve as the team gathers information, explores implications, and considers different viewpoints. Initial definitions are often provisional. As new facts surface or stakeholder input is gathered, the problem statement is revised—sometimes subtly and sometimes dramatically.

This procedure is known as “porpoising”: diving deep into data, resurfacing to reassess the framework, and then diving back in with new insight. This back-and-forth is a sign of analytical maturity, not a flaw. With each iteration, the problem is defined more sharply and robustly, becoming better aligned with the organization’s reality and the needs of its decision makers.

It is not uncommon for the concerned party to change their view of the problem after seeing the initial findings. This underscores the importance of regularly revisiting the framing, especially before major project milestones. An iterative mindset enables continuous adjustments and prevents the team from becoming locked into an initial, potentially flawed framing.

Iteration in problem framing is not rework; it is progress.

3.2 Empathy: Seeing the Problem from Multiple Angles

Effective problem framing demands empathy—the ability to understand and appreciate the perspectives, motivations, and needs of those who experience, influence, or are affected by the problem. This includes the concerned party as well as other stakeholders, such as team members, customers, regulators, and internal departments.

Empathy is essential because different stakeholders often define success differently, face different constraints, and perceive the worry in different ways. By actively engaging with these viewpoints, problem solvers gain a fuller picture of the issue and often uncover opportunities or risks that would otherwise be missed. In practice, empathy can be cultivated through the following:

Problem definition interviews:
Early, open-ended conversations with diverse stakeholders. Ask: “What do you see as the core issue?” or “What would success look like to you?”
Design thinking integration:
Empathy is foundational to design thinking, which begins with understanding users’ experiences and progresses through cycles of insight, prototyping, and testing. When interviews are insufficient, careful observation of behaviors and immersion in environments can reveal unstated needs. This approach is especially useful in user-centered design contexts.

Empathizing does not mean agreeing with every perspective. Rather, it means understanding them well enough to integrate or manage them within the problem-solving effort.

3.3 Collaborative Framing: A Collective Endeavor

Framing the problem well is rarely a solo achievement. It requires input from across the organization, including insights from people who experience the problem firsthand, feedback from people who are likely to resist change, and guidance from people who will ultimately decide on the solution. The most resilient problem definitions emerge from a collaborative, inclusive, and informed process.

Furthermore, stakeholders who participate in defining the problem are more likely to support the final solution. This sense of co-ownership enhances the success of implementation and builds trust throughout the process. Therefore, invite diverse voices early on. Resistance is often a symptom of exclusion.

3.4 Embracing Ambiguity While Seeking Clarity

The early stages of problem solving are marked by ambiguity. Initially, you may not know which data is relevant, which constraints are real, or what success should look like. Empathy helps you understand others’ interests in the issue, and iteration helps you test and refine your assumptions. Together, these strategies provide a way to navigate uncertainty while gradually building clarity.

Good problem solvers learn to work within ambiguity rather than rushing to eliminate it. They ask probing questions, test multiple formulations, and critically reflect before finalizing their core question. This balance between openness and precision is the hallmark of a rigorous, adaptive problem-framing process.

4. Practical Techniques and Tools

Effectively framing a problem involves more than asking the right questions; it also requires using the appropriate tools and techniques to guide the questions, capture insights, and engage stakeholders. While the six key elements of a problem statement provide a conceptual framework, this section introduces practical methods to help structure, test, and improve that framework in real-world settings.

Each of the following techniques plays a distinct role in promoting clarity, alignment, and creativity when defining a problem. These techniques are not meant to replace structured logic or business acumen, but rather, enhance them. They help teams move beyond gut feeling and assumption by encouraging the application of discipline, curiosity, and creativity to the process of framing a problem.

Problem solvers who combine rigorous analysis with empathetic design thinking and agile iteration are better equipped to define and solve the right problems in the right way.

4.1 The Problem Statement Worksheet

Due to the complexity and interdependence of the six problem statement elements, a structured worksheet is an effective organizational tool. The worksheet provides a place to record your current understanding of each element:

Worry
Concerned party
Success criteria
Other stakeholders
Boundaries and constraints
Core question

This one-page visual (see Exhibit 3) ensures that no element is overlooked. It can also serve as a “living document” that evolves alongside the problem-solving process. Throughout the project, teams can revisit the worksheet and update elements as new facts and insights emerge.

4.2 Problem Definition Interviews

One of the most effective ways to start defining a problem is to speak directly with stakeholders. Structured interviews, especially in the early stages, help uncover divergent views on the problem, clarify who is responsible for solving it, and reveal unspoken assumptions or constraints.

Instead of looking for definitive answers in each interview, the goal is to gather raw material, such as perspectives, pain points, aspirations, and contextual knowledge. These inputs directly inform a richer, more empathetic, and more complete problem statement. Good questions to ask include:

“What do you see as the problem here?”
“Why is this an issue now?”
“Whose problem is this, and who is responsible for solving it?”
“What would a successful resolution look like to you?”
“What do you think is standing in the way?”

Capturing the language used by different stakeholders can help refine the final problem framing and ensure that it resonates with the concerned party.

However, interviews alone are sometimes insufficient to identify real needs and wants, especially when some stakeholders are unable or unwilling to express them. In such cases, putting yourself in their shoes or carefully observing the stakeholders’ behaviors may reveal their needs and expectations. Design thinking practitioners call this approach “immersion.”

4.3 Stakeholder Mapping

Although the concerned party anchors the problem-solving effort, other stakeholders play a vital role in determining what is feasible, acceptable, and sustainable. Stakeholder mapping helps problem solvers systematically identify these actors and understand their objectives, influence, and interests.

A simple 2×2 matrix (e.g., power versus interest) can be used to prioritize attention and engagement strategies (see Exhibit 4). Stakeholder maps offer a strategic perspective on alignment risks and facilitate coalition-building around the problem statement and its eventual resolution.

4.4 SMART Criteria for Success Definition

SMART is a well-known acronym used to evaluate whether success criteria are:

Specific: Clearly articulated and unambiguous
Measurable: Quantifiable and observable
Actionable: Within the control of the decision maker(s) or team
Relevant: Aligned with broader goals and values
Timely: Bound to a concrete timeframe

Using the SMART lens ensures that success criteria are not just abstract hopes, but rather operational indicators that guide analysis and shape the solution space. This approach also prevents circular definitions, such as “success means solving the problem,” from offering no real guidance.

SMART covers most, but not all, of these factors. Aditionally, make sure to:

Focus on outcomes and
Work at the highest possible level

4.5 Antithesis and Counterfactual Testing

A more advanced framing technique involves deliberately challenging the current problem definition. This can be achieved by imagining the opposite of the assumed problem, known as the antithesis, or by exploring a counterfactual scenario. For example:

Antithesis:
“What if the problem isn’t declining sales, but rather overly narrow customer targeting?”

Counterfactual:
“What would we do differently if we had unlimited resources?”

These mental exercises are not fantasies; they reveal hidden assumptions, invite alternative perspectives, and foster creativity. They are particularly useful when a team feels “stuck” or constrained by existing narratives.

4.6 Integrating Design Thinking Techniques

Although the Iterative Eight Steps approach is grounded in structured analysis, it is fully compatible with design thinking. Design thinking emphasizes user empathy, iterative discovery, and creative problem reframing. Key contributions of design thinking to problem framing include:

Empathize:
Deeply understand decision maker, stakeholder or user needs through interviews, shadowing, or immersion.
Define:
Synthesize observations into a refined problem statement.
Reframe:
Decisions can evolve, based on evidence from users’ reactions to successful or failed prototypes. Articulate “How might we…?” questions that invite innovative solutions.

Design thinking is especially powerful when the problem involves user experience, product design, or customer interaction. However, its emphasis on open-mindedness and learning makes it broadly applicable.

5. Summary of Key Points

The essential first step in any successful problem-solving effort is framing the problem. Without a clear, shared understanding of the problem, even the most sophisticated analysis may be misguided or irrelevant. Problem framing is a strategic and creative process involving critical thinking, empathy, and iteration.

A strong problem statement is more than just a concise sentence. You need to understand the scope of the problem, the timeframe for finding a solution, the level of accuracy required, and any other factors that could affect the decision. Therefore, a problem statement is a structured articulation of six key elements: the observable worry, the concerned party who owns the problem, the success criteria that define what “solved” looks like, the other stakeholders whose views and interests shape the context, the constraints that bound possible solutions, and the core question that synthesizes all elements into a clear, actionable inquiry.

Correctly framing the problem offers enormous benefits. It prevents wasted effort, ensures stakeholder alignment, guides effective analysis, and establishes a foundation for creative, targeted solutions. It also helps teams avoid common pitfalls, such as solving the wrong problem or defining the problem based on a proposed solution.

Problem framing is an ongoing process. It is an iterative process that requires teams to revisit and refine their problem definition as new facts, insights, and stakeholder feedback emerge. Empathy and collaboration are essential in this process, ensuring the problem is viewed from various perspectives and accurately reflects the experiences of those affected. Therefore, incorporate creativity into the problem definition process by broadening your perspective, relaxing constraints, and adding diversity to your team.

A well-framed problem is half solved, while a poorly framed one is multiplied.

Good problem statements have several characteristics:

Outcomes focused: A clear statement of the problem to be solved, expressed in outcomes, not activities or intermediate outputs
Specific and measurable wherever possible
Clearly time-bound
Designed to explicitly address the xoncerned party’s and other stakeholders motivations and boundaries, including the accuracy needed and the scale of aspirations
Structured to allow sufficient scope for creativity and unexpected results—too narrowly scoped problems can artificially constrain solutions
Solved at the highest possible level, meaning for the whole organization, not just optimized for a part or partial solution
Summarized in a concise core question that reflects all relevant aspects

References

Conn C, McLean R (2018) Bulletproof Problem Solving (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).

Garrette B, Phelps C, Sibony O (2018) Cracked it! How to Solve Big Problems and Sell Solutions Like Top Strategy Consultants (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland).