By the end of the lesson, you can write a problem statement from research insights, form "How Might We" questions from it, brainstorm solution directions, and, with a justified method (impact–feasibility matrix), choose which direction you take forward.
Why is a step needed between research and solution?
After research, two traps lurk. One: we cling to the first good idea, and from then on we do not search further. The other: there are so many insights and ideas that we cannot choose. The problem statement, the HMW questions, and prioritization handle these two risks. They help to widen the possibilities (more solution directions), then to narrow them (a justified choice). This alternating movement is called diverge–converge thinking.
flowchart LR
A["Research<br>insights"] --> B["Problem statement<br>(narrowing)"]
B --> C["HMW questions<br>(widening)"]
C --> D["Ideation<br>(widening)"]
D --> E["Prioritization<br>(narrowing)"]
E --> F["Chosen direction"]
Problem statement
A problem statement is a concise formulation of the user, the situation or obstacle, and the consequence. The structure from the homework:
The problem of the [user type] is that [situation or obstacle], because of which [negative consequence].
The problem frame of chapter 1 was more detailed (user, situation, goal, obstacle, consequence). The problem statement is its condensed version after research. The difference: now we are working from evidence.
How to check it?
Does it come from research? There is an insight behind it, and you know which.
Does it contain no solution? If it says "app", "filter", "chatbot", rewrite it.
Is it narrow enough? It refers to a single task.
Is it broad enough? It does not exclude good solutions.
Example: "The problem of the student looking for a spontaneous program is that the basic data needed for the decision (price, language, registration requirement) are available scattered across several places or incompletely, because of which they give up the search or go to an event that does not suit them."
How Might We (HMW)
A How Might We (HMW) is an open question formed from the problem statement that calls out a solution direction without naming a specific solution. The trick is in three words:
How: assumes that the solution exists.
Might: permits experimentation, does not commit.
We: shared, teamwork.
The size of the HMW matters. Too broad: "How might we make program search better?" (gives no direction). Too narrow: "How might we put a red marker on the card?" (a solution). Good: "How might we make the price, language, and registration requirement visible at the same time in the search results?"
Technique: take one element of the problem statement (the obstacle, the consequence, the situation), and turn it into a question. 5–10 HMW questions can be made from one problem statement, of which you pick 3–5 to take forward.
Ideation
The goal of ideation is to collect many different solution directions before you choose. The first rule: quantity comes before quality. Criticism comes later, because early criticism stops thinking.
A quick method that can also be used individually is Crazy 8s: fold a sheet three times (8 boxes), and in eight minutes draw eight different ideas for the chosen HMW. Each box gets one minute. Thanks to the speed, you get beyond the initial, obvious ideas.
Digitally: in FigJam write one idea per sticky, and mark with color which HMW it belongs to.
Important rules:
Do not evaluate during ideation.
Build on others' ideas ("yes, and…").
Allow unusual ideas too; we examine feasibility later.
One idea on one sticky, with a short description (what it does, for whom, when).
Prioritization: the impact–feasibility matrix
There will be many ideas and little capacity. Prioritization is the justified ordering of ideas. One of the simplest tools is the 2×2 impact–feasibility matrix (impact–effort):
horizontal axis: feasibility (how easy it is to implement in the semester project);
vertical axis: impact (how much of the user's problem it solves, based on the research).
quadrantChart
title Impact–feasibility matrix
x-axis Hard to implement --> Easy to implement
y-axis Low impact --> High impact
quadrant-1 Do this first
quadrant-2 Plan and test
quadrant-3 Later or never
quadrant-4 Quick small wins
Unified card: [0.75, 0.85]
Map view: [0.25, 0.45]
Saved filters: [0.7, 0.3]
Organizer reviews: [0.2, 0.2]
Four typical quadrants:
High impact, easy: these first.
High impact, hard: worth examining, possibly narrowing.
Low impact, easy: small "bonuses", only if time remains.
Low impact, hard: generally dropped.
Positioning is a debate, not a calculation: the point is to base the impact on the research (which insight does it solve?), and the feasibility on the frames of the semester project. Mark what is evidence and what is assumption (for example "easy to implement" can be an assumption).
A supplementary method: dot voting. Everyone gets the same number of dots and distributes them among the ideas; the vote does not decide, but shows interest.
Worked example: the directions of Mai program
From the problem statement the team writes three HMWs:
How might we make the data needed for comparison visible at a glance?
How might we make the registration requirement understandable before the decision?
How might we also handle the missing organizer data?
The ideation yields twelve ideas: a unified event card, a map view, saved filters, a "tonight" quick filter, a registration icon on the card, an organizer template, and so on. On the matrix the unified event card has high impact (it solves three insights) and is easy to implement; the map view is less important and harder. The team chooses the unified card as the first direction, and builds a prototype to check it.
The justification records: "The card answers insights 2 and 3; the map is based on an assumption that the interviews did not confirm."
Common misconceptions
Claim
Clarification
"HMW is a tricky choice of words."
The purpose of the wording is not to exclude a direction, and to make thinking as a team possible.
"In ideation you have to find the best idea."
The goal is many and varied ideas; choosing is a separate step.
"The matrix is objective."
The positions are estimates; the value is in stating the evidence and the assumption.
"Once we have chosen the direction, we are done."
The chosen direction is a hypothesis; the prototype and the test decide whether it works.
In brief
The problem statement is a one-sentence summary following from the research: user, obstacle, consequence.
An HMW question is open but gives direction: not too broad and not a solution.
In ideation, quantity and the absence of criticism count; choosing is a separate step.
The impact–feasibility matrix gives a justified order if we state the evidence and the assumption.
Review questions
Which insight is your problem statement built on?
Why is the question "How might we put a red marker on the card?" too narrow?
Which of your ideas is in the "high impact, easy" quadrant, and what supports it?
What assumption does your matrix contain that should be checked?
Problem statement, ideation, and prioritization
Objectives
By the end of the lesson, you can write a problem statement from research insights, form "How Might We" questions from it, brainstorm solution directions, and, with a justified method (impact–feasibility matrix), choose which direction you take forward.
Why is a step needed between research and solution?
After research, two traps lurk. One: we cling to the first good idea, and from then on we do not search further. The other: there are so many insights and ideas that we cannot choose. The problem statement, the HMW questions, and prioritization handle these two risks. They help to widen the possibilities (more solution directions), then to narrow them (a justified choice). This alternating movement is called diverge–converge thinking.
flowchart LR A["Research<br>insights"] --> B["Problem statement<br>(narrowing)"] B --> C["HMW questions<br>(widening)"] C --> D["Ideation<br>(widening)"] D --> E["Prioritization<br>(narrowing)"] E --> F["Chosen direction"]Problem statement
A problem statement is a concise formulation of the user, the situation or obstacle, and the consequence. The structure from the homework:
The problem frame of chapter 1 was more detailed (user, situation, goal, obstacle, consequence). The problem statement is its condensed version after research. The difference: now we are working from evidence.
How to check it?
Example: "The problem of the student looking for a spontaneous program is that the basic data needed for the decision (price, language, registration requirement) are available scattered across several places or incompletely, because of which they give up the search or go to an event that does not suit them."
How Might We (HMW)
A How Might We (HMW) is an open question formed from the problem statement that calls out a solution direction without naming a specific solution. The trick is in three words:
The size of the HMW matters. Too broad: "How might we make program search better?" (gives no direction). Too narrow: "How might we put a red marker on the card?" (a solution). Good: "How might we make the price, language, and registration requirement visible at the same time in the search results?"
Technique: take one element of the problem statement (the obstacle, the consequence, the situation), and turn it into a question. 5–10 HMW questions can be made from one problem statement, of which you pick 3–5 to take forward.
Ideation
The goal of ideation is to collect many different solution directions before you choose. The first rule: quantity comes before quality. Criticism comes later, because early criticism stops thinking.
A quick method that can also be used individually is Crazy 8s: fold a sheet three times (8 boxes), and in eight minutes draw eight different ideas for the chosen HMW. Each box gets one minute. Thanks to the speed, you get beyond the initial, obvious ideas.
Digitally: in FigJam write one idea per sticky, and mark with color which HMW it belongs to.
Important rules:
Prioritization: the impact–feasibility matrix
There will be many ideas and little capacity. Prioritization is the justified ordering of ideas. One of the simplest tools is the 2×2 impact–feasibility matrix (impact–effort):
quadrantChart title Impact–feasibility matrix x-axis Hard to implement --> Easy to implement y-axis Low impact --> High impact quadrant-1 Do this first quadrant-2 Plan and test quadrant-3 Later or never quadrant-4 Quick small wins Unified card: [0.75, 0.85] Map view: [0.25, 0.45] Saved filters: [0.7, 0.3] Organizer reviews: [0.2, 0.2]Four typical quadrants:
Positioning is a debate, not a calculation: the point is to base the impact on the research (which insight does it solve?), and the feasibility on the frames of the semester project. Mark what is evidence and what is assumption (for example "easy to implement" can be an assumption).
A supplementary method: dot voting. Everyone gets the same number of dots and distributes them among the ideas; the vote does not decide, but shows interest.
Worked example: the directions of Mai program
From the problem statement the team writes three HMWs:
The ideation yields twelve ideas: a unified event card, a map view, saved filters, a "tonight" quick filter, a registration icon on the card, an organizer template, and so on. On the matrix the unified event card has high impact (it solves three insights) and is easy to implement; the map view is less important and harder. The team chooses the unified card as the first direction, and builds a prototype to check it.
The justification records: "The card answers insights 2 and 3; the map is based on an assumption that the interviews did not confirm."
Common misconceptions
In brief
Review questions