Problem framing is the key to innovation
Why you should spend time exploring the problem instead of brainstoming multiple solutions
When most people think of innovation, they visualize the end result, the cool and shiny solution that came out of “trusting the creative process”. The reason Design Thinking has become so famous, is because the methodology can help anyone come up with new and innovative ideas (with the help of a great facilitator of course!). What people tend to forget, is how important framing the problem is. Quoting Einstein:
You might have seen different variations of the quote but the core of the message is the same: spending time understanding the problem is the most important step if we want our solutions to be effective. If you don’t understand the problem, how do you even begin to find solutions for it? I think the successes Einstein has had in his career speaks to the fact that there has to be some truth in spending so much time exploring the problem.
Einstein did a lot of research work, and it is understood that it’s all about experimenting before getting to a solution. In my world, corporate innovation, everything must yield business results. Spending time understanding the problem is not a good enough business result; what makes a successful innovation is an implemented solution and a lasting one; as such, we cannot linger on exploring the problem for too long.
I’ve recently had to work on projects with other parts of the organization, and here are some of the pushback I have come across (please share yours in the comments as I’m curious to see what pushback scenarios are yet to come!):
- We already understand the problem well enough, I don’t think we need to spend time diving deeper into the problem.
2. (Referring to applying human centered techniques) we can’t afford to spend time on this, this will impact production.
3. (Referring to design thinking / the innovation process) what will I get at the end of this vague process? Can you give me the step by step?
And so we always find a new way to frame our communication, with the hopes that people will understand what we are trying to achieve.
To address point #1: How do you convince people that spending more time to better understand the problem is necessary, and that we’re not quite ready to start looking at solutions yet?
I’ve always believed it was important to spend time understanding and analyzing the problem, but I could never give a good upfront explanation pertaining to the reason why. Clearly, we can’t wait for the solution to fail to now spend time exploring the problem. So I decided to go on a little quest to find some answers for this challenge. In that quest, I came across an AMAZING book that I recommend you to read, if you’re interested in becoming a better problem solver (read: skilled at problem framing).
I will share some of my aha-moments here, that helped me find some arguments to present to my stakeholders next time; I hope they will be useful to you if you’re facing similar challenges.
Point #1:
We already understand the problem well enough, I don’t think we need to spend time diving deeper into the problem.
The way you frame a problem opens the door to the type of solutions you will get. If you’re familiar with design thinking, one of the key mantras in creating a “how might we” statement is that it should not be too big, or too narrow. This sounds a bit vague right? But break that down and it’s basically saying, make sure your framing is well done. And trust me, this is a skill that needs to be developed and polished.
We all have biases and the way we present a problem is never neutral; it embeds some of our assumptions, as well as our perceived pain points. As such, spending time exploring the underlying assumptions in the problem framing, as well as exploring the problem from different perspectives is key to unlocking more innovative solutions. A good example that was shared in the book:
Point #2:
(Referring to applying human centered techniques) we can’t afford to spend time on this, this will impact production.
There were many techniques shared to help you in reframing, and one of them was to take their perspective. This is everything design thinking and HCD preaches: empathize with your user, learn to see the problem from their perspective and accept that it might be very different from the way you see the problem.
In my reality, someone from business will often say “we don’t need their perspective, we understand the problem well enough.” To which, this point mentioned in the book is a tip I will try next time:
In trying to take their perspective, there are 2 key things to consider:
- Anchoring, which is about stepping in their shoes and asking “How would I feel if I were in this situation?”
- Effective perspective, which is about adjusting not to see how you would feel from their perspective, but how they would feel. And this part is extremely difficult
The tip here is to go beyond the first answer that comes to mind, because it takes some energy to rise above your own view points. Also consider a mix of their emotions, context, the information they have access to, and other aspects of their lives (this is why personas are such a handy tool!)
Of this form of reframing still doesn’t convince your stakeholder, you can also try this
People don’t care about your solution. They care about their own problems. Or you might have heard “People don’t want a drill, they want a hole!”
If we exclude the people who will use the solution in the problem solving process, we are likely to end up selecting a solution that doesn’t take their perspective into consideration. For them to deliver results effectively, we need to solve their problems effectively. And no one can better explain a problem than the person facing the problem first-hand (a related management issue is only second hand in my opinion).
One last piece: the name “human centered design” really says it all — the human is at the center. So if stakeholders want to follow the human centric innovation approach, they have to be willing to accept the methods that come with it. Solve the human need before you consider the commercial or technical frames.
No longer related to the book…
Point #3:
(Referring to applying human centered techniques) what will I get at the end of this vague process? Can you give me the step by step?
I am still looking for a good answer for this one, if you have any please let me know! But for now, here is something (paraphrased) I read somewhere else, that really resonated with me: the innovation process is a guided exploration of the unknown.
The tools and methodologies used for design thinking and the innovation process relate to the “guided” part — we know what the outcomes of each tool and process will be. However, because we are exploring the unknown, we cannot clearly state what that outcome will look like. And we really don’t know a lot, as this chart visually shows:
I emphasize on this a lot, but in my opinion exploring that green zone requires some very unique skills, hence the importance of hiring skilled design researchers. Most organizations however don’t understand the nuance of this skill, and believe anybody who can ask questions can take the role of a design researcher. The nuance is expressed in the iceberg below wherein different techniques and skills are required. Most people can explore the explicit needs, and perhaps some of the visible needs, but the real gold lies in the latent needs; and that requires some specialized design research / anthropology skills.
If you’ve found this article interesting follow me on Medium or LinkedIn as I continue to learn and explore different topics around innovation, diversity and technology. I look forward to having asynchronous and engaging conversations with you!
Sincerely,
Suzanne.
Also feel free to check-out my portfolio and/or reach out to grab a tea (or coffee) with me — if you know me well though, I’m a tea lover!
