Design Thinking Part 4: Framing and Reframing Design Problems
Context
An essential message is woven throughout the first three parts of this series on Design Thinking – but it is subtle and easily missed [1-3]. This article faces it head on. It is the concept of Framing and Reframing the design problem.
In short, problem framing is about uncovering the actual problem worth solving – which is often hidden to everyone when the design process begins. Framing and reframing are essential elements of design because “it is often not at all clear what ‘the problem’ is, it may have been only loosely defined by the client, many constraints and criteria may be un-defined, and everyone involved in the project may know that goals may be re-defined during the project” [5].
What is problem framing?
Ways-of-thinking, such as how we frame a problem, are difficult to define because they are cognitive processes, which are often a complex mix of multiple facets executed simultaneously. Attempts to define them capture an element of the cognitive process, but fail to capture it in its entirety. Therefore, I find it helpful to consider various definitions of framing, which in aggregate describe it well.
“In Design Thinking, design is primarily about reframing problems, not just solving them. It’s learning what the problem really is, and not accepting it without first asking a lot of questions” [5].
“Problem framing is a process of discovery to understand and define a problem” [6]. “It is [a process] of challenging preconceived assumptions and considering different perspectives to a problem [6]”. "The problem is opened up through the analysis of the wider problem arena, and its complexity is increased by potentially involving a greater group of possible stake holders" [7].
“Problem framing requires intense engagement in sensemaking to develop deep understanding of the problem to be solved” [8]. “Framing requires understanding current mental models and developing alternative ones” [9].
“Most of the great breakthroughs in human history have been a result of people thinking differently about the problems, not the solutions” [11].
“Problem framing is the art of finding a better problem to solve.” [10]
An example [11]:
Suppose you are the owner of an older multistory office building in New York City, where tenants complain about the elevators being too slow, and as a result threaten to break their lease.
Pause to think about how you would approach this problem.
If your mind has jumped to solutions, you are doing as most engineers do. Sure, we could increase the velocity of the elevator, we could optimize the pick-up sequence, we could dedicate particular elevators to specific floors to reduce the number of stops. It is natural to begin solving the problem in this way. But recall that design is about reframing the problem, not just solving it. Jumping to solutions is dangerous because it implies a certain level of trust in the problem statement and formulation. Even the great Albert Einstein said “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.” This is a sentiment I can only assume was learned by solving the wrong problem too many times in the past.
Framing the elevator speed complaints as a technical problem is one approach, but it is not the only approach. Framing it as a human problem reveals different opportunities. In this case it is particularly valuable to recognize that complaints about speed are a human problem, whereas the elevator speed is a technical problem.
In the classic story surrounding this example, Ackoff and Greenberg [12] describe the problem as having been analyzed by engineers as a technical one with no economically viable solution given the age of the building. After the building managers were told they would have to live with the problem permanently, a “desperate manager called a meeting of his staff… to find a feasible solution to the problem. Despite the rules of brainstorming… each initial suggestion was beaten down by pointing out its deficiencies…” [12].
After some time a reluctant young man, a psychologist, offered a solution.
“The young man had not focused on elevator performance but on the fact that people complained about waiting only a few minutes. Why, he asked himself, were they complaining for waiting only a very short time? He concluded that the complaints were a consequence of boredom. Therefore, he took the problem to be one of giving those waiting something to occupy their time pleasantly. He suggested installing mirrors in the elevator boarding areas so that those waiting could look at each other or themselves without appearing to do so. The manager took up his suggestion. The installations of mirrors was made quickly and at a relatively low cost. The complaints about waiting stopped” [12].
In this simple example, the problem was framed to be human-centric: Tenants don’t like waiting for the elevator. A simple human-centric framing allows for various how-might-we (HMW) statements including: How might we make it more enjoyable for tenants while they wait for the elevator?
What is reframing?
Problem framing is not a one-time activity at the beginning of a project. Problem framing is an iterative process that will continue throughout the design process, hence the notion of reframing. We should expect our understanding of the problem to change multiple times throughout the design process. If it is not changing, there is something we are likely missing. Each time our understanding changes we reframe the problem. As one prominent designer said, “Being able to question and shift your frame of reference is an important key to enhancing your imagination because it reveals completely different insights” [13].
This is why empathy is a key element of design thinking -- it puts us in the shoes of someone else and it allows us to reframe the problem from their perspective. It is useful to take any design brief and consider it from different perspectives: How would the elderly see this problem compared to how a child sees the problem? What perspective would the reluctant user have? Or the user who had to save a portion of their paycheck for a year to afford the product?
“Design thinking will always involve reframing the question or problem you are trying to solve… Design Thinking by nature extends the perimeter around a problem helping us to think of the experience holistically” [14].
Preventing Endless Reframing
If reframing continues throughout the design process, what keeps us from endlessly reframing the problem every time we get close to a solution? To answer this question it is helpful to accept one additional definition: a frame. Dorst describes a frame as “a coherent set of statements [about the problem] that are useful to think with [7].” So, part of the elevator problem frame is that people are bored while they wait for the elevator. This is a coherent statement about the problem that is useful when thinking about what the actual problem might be. With this definition of a frame, we can further learn from Dorst that reframing “involves the ongoing activity of monitoring the field for themes that emerge, as well as the initiation of frame creation projects when the need arises [7].”
To benefit from reframing, yet avoid endless reframing, try the following:
At the beginning of a project, accept that problem statement should be challenged, and that additional stakeholder views should be considered.
Throughout a project, accept that the situation is likely dynamic and that stakeholders and their needs may change. Always be open to and consider the implications of new information.
If there is any indication that there is more to the problem than originally thought, or when it appears the proposed solutions don’t fully excite the stakeholders consider this an indication that the problem frame may benefit from refinement.
Only reframe when it improves the solution for your core stakeholders; don’t reframe at the whim of every/any comment from a single person.
Importantly, “reframing involves the dynamics for integrating old frames with new frames rather than simply replacing the old with the new” [15].
Co-evolution of the Problem and the Solution
A fundamental part of Design Thinking is the belief that an understanding of the problem evolves as the solution evolves. This is noticeably different than how nearly all engineering textbook problems are formed, where the problem is assumed to be correct and there exists only one possible solution.
Tina Seelig uses the simple but powerful example [13]:
5+5 = ? versus What two numbers sum to 10?
For the first question there is one answer – this is an analysis problem. For the second there are an infinite number of solutions – this is a design problem. Notice that the second question is simply a reframing of the first. In fact the second question allows us to expand our understanding of the problem: Is it what two integers sum to 10, or are non-integers allowed? Is the problem limited to positive numbers? Are there any limits on the two numbers that are supposed to sum to 10?
To be clear, a preliminary understanding of the problem is needed before solution finding begins – but it is only after a preliminary solution is found that a deeper understanding of the problem can emerge. Therefore, a significant challenge for the designer is to proceed with a non-perfect understanding of the problem, and to be willing to share half-formed solutions just to kickstart the reframing process.
How to Frame and Reframe
Below are two methods for problem framing. Many other methods are also useful.
The 5W Problem Framing Canvas [6]
This is a group or individual activity. Doing it in a group brings different perspectives to the problem. The five W’s are: Who, What, Why, Where, When.
Who is facing this problem?
What is the problem they are facing right now?
Where does this problem happen?
When does this problem arise?
Why is this problem worth solving?
Consider the famous urban legend that NASA spent millions creating a space pen, while the Russians just used a pencil [16]. Whether the creation of a space pen was ridiculous or not depends on how the problem is framed. Using the 5W Problem Framing Canvas for the NASA problem we see two candidate problem frames:
5W Problem Framing Example
Considering these two frames, can you guess which one dominated NASA’s decisions?
NASA chose to use a pen because the risk of loose debris (mechanical pencil led) floating through the spacecraft posed an appreciable risk. It turns out that NASA did not develop the pen, but chose to use a pressurized ball point pen already developed by the Fisher Pen Company [17]. Although the Cosmonauts originally used a pencil, they too switched to using a pen in 1969 [16].
The 5W Problem Framing Canvas is useful because it encourages the identification of various candidate frames. The way to get a good problem frame is to consider various problem frames and pick the one that most readily captures the problem worth solving. With the NASA example, the problem frame in the middle column seems reasonable until you see the one on the right.
Fisher Pen Company’s original Space Pen used by NASA, 1967.
Empathy Mapping [6]
A key part of framing and reframing is to see the problem from various perspectives. To do this well, you need to be able to place yourself in the shoes of various people. To facilitate this, Empathy Mapping is useful. As shown in the figure below [18], an empathy map lists out what a user or group of similar users Says, Thinks, Does and Feels. These are not chronologically or sequentially occurring. To capture multiple perspectives, create three or more empathy maps for different personas / for a variety of people / for a variety of stakeholders. Base these maps on real – not made up – data.
Example of Empathy Mapping, Image from NNGroup [18].
The mindset for reframing
To be effective at problem framing and reframing, adopt the following into your design practice.
The true problem worth solving is generally hidden to everyone at the beginning of the design process. Blindly solving the problem as initially stated will likely result in solving the wrong problem.
The true problem needs to be uncovered, which requires work. This will be done by considering various human perspectives on the problem. The 5W Framing Canvas and Empathy Maps can help with this.
The problem and the solution will evolve together. This means that the problem formulation will change, even as the solution takes form. If you find that your problem formulation is not changing, you have likely missed something important. Abandon the idea that the complete problem frame is set, then a solution is found.
Even when you have a good solution, challenge the problem it solves. Allow yourself to discover a more important problem to be solved.
When these 4 items are thoughtfully done: (i) A true collaboration between problem framing and solution finding is experienced. (ii) At the onset of a project, solution-leaning team members refrain from jumping to solutions, and near the end of a project, the problem framers refrain from engaging in endless reframing. (iii) Framing and reframing is taken seriously, is informed and facilitated by an evolving solution, and is done with the goal of identifying the best match between the problem frames and the solution candidates.
Access Part 5 of this series on Design Thinking, or access the entire free short course here.
Exercises:
Try the 5W Problem Framing method for a problem you are beginning to work on now. Allow the method to lead you to meaningful insights. If you don’t have a problem you are currently work on, try doing this exercise for the problem of frustrated parents of teenagers who break curfew.
Try the Empathy Mapping method to discover perspectives for at least two different stakeholders. Do this for a problem you are beginning to work on now. If needed use the frustrated parent example for this exercise.
References:
[1] C. Mattson, “Design Thinking Part 1: Basic Concepts and Principles,” The BYU Design Review, 21 Jul 2021, https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/design-thinking-part-1-basic-concepts-and-principles, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[2] C. Mattson, “Design Thinking Part 2: Design Thinking as a Step-by-Step Process,” https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/design-thinking-part-2-design-thinking-as-a-step-by-step-process, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[3] C. Mattson, “Design Thinking Part 3: Design Thinking as a Way of Thinking,” https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/design-thinking-part-3-design-thinking-as-a-mindset, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[4] N. Cross, Designerly ways of knowing, Springer London, 2006.
[5] R. Quinlan, “The Design of Everyday Things (a review),” Q Media Solutions, 13 May 2014, https://qmediasolutions.com/the-design-of-everyday-things/, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[6] A. Hermanto, “Problem Framing: What it is and How to Write a Problem Statement ,” Medium, 25 Apr 2021, https://alvinhermanto.medium.com/problem-framing-what-it-is-and-how-to-write-a-problem-statement-401720cd5a41, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[7] K. Dorst, Frame Innovation, MIT Press, 2015.
[b] S. Beckman, “To Frame or Reframe: Where Might Design Thinking Research Go Next?,” California Management Review, 62(2), 01 Feb 2020, https://escholarship.org/content/qt5zx787h7/qt5zx787h7.pdf
[9] P. Senge, “The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,” Performance + Instruction, 30/5, May/June 1991.
[10] C. Wooding, “Problem Framing, and Why It Matters,” Grounded Curiosity, 21 Oct 2021, https://groundedcuriosity.com/problem-framing-and-why-it-matters/
[11] J. Roberts, “Design Thinking and Problem Framing with Jess Roberts,” Extraordinary Podcast, Host B. Pelletier, 16 Jul 2020.
[12] R. Ackoff and D. Greenberg, Turning Learning Right Side Up, Putting Education Back on Track, Wharton School Pub, 2008.
[13] T. Seelig, “How Reframing A Problem Unlocks Innovation,” Innovation Engine, Fast Company, 19 Apr 2013, https://www.fastcompany.com/1672354/how-reframing-a-problem-unlocks-innovation, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[14] F. Brill, “A Design Thinker’s Toolkit,” Medium, 10 May 2017, https://medium.muz.li/a-design-thinkers-toolkit-2c3ca9884464, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[15] G. Wang, “Digital Reframing: The Design Thinking of Redesigning Traditional Products into Innovative Digital Products,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 39: 95–118, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12605.
[16] NASA, “Space Pens, Pencils, and How NASA Takes Notes in Space: The real story behind the iconic Space Pen and how NASA testing helped it soar,” NASA Spinoff, 27 Aug 2021, https://spinoff.nasa.gov/space-pens, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[17] Fisher Pen Company, “Our Story,” Fisher Pen Company Website, https://www.spacepen.com/our-story, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[18] S. Gibbons, “Empathy Mapping: The First Step in Design Thinking,” Nielsen Norman Group, 14 Jan 2018, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/empathy-mapping/, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
