2.
Problem Definition
Scott Wible
University of Maryland, College Park
Definition and Background
Design thinkers aim to create innovative solutions for users, but truly innovative
problem-solving only starts with a clear, focused, insightful definition of the user’s
problem. The second phase of design thinking, problem definition, is the process of
translating insights from user research into meaningful and actionable statements.
As they carry out empathy research about users’ experiences, design thinkers
go broad, expanding and deepening their contextual understanding of user expe-
riences in all their complexity (see wicked problems). Designers then use analytical
techniques such as empathy mapping and journey mapping in order to narrow
their focus, generate insights about users’ experiences, and define the specific user
problem they will try to solve. Design thinkers frame the problem statement from
the perspective or vantage point of the user or community for whom they are de-
signing. That is, the problem definition should be cast in terms of keyword clusters
that emerged during empathy mapping––“saying,” “doing,” “thinking,” and “feel-
ing” words and phrases from the designer’s observation of user actions and inter-
views with stakeholders. Drawing on one’s empathy research in this way can ensure
the problem statement includes a unique insight about the user’s context-specific
experiences or needs.
Framing a problem statement is challenging but critically important (see expe-
riences of scholars working on problem definition in Cooke et al., 2020; Tham, 2021;
and Wible, 2020). Define a problem too narrowly, and it will constrain the solutions
that designers feel free to generate in their ideation and prototyping; frame the
problem too broadly or vaguely, however, and the designer’s not likely to be creat-
ing a solution that addresses the user’s deeply rooted problems or that captures a
potential design opportunity. Design thinkers often draft several different problem
statements in order to shed light on different aspects of the users’ experiences—
and perhaps even to focus on different types of users—and this experimentation
can help design thinkers to see, early on, which problem definitions energize their
ideation in the most vigorous ways. Problem definition also highlights the iterative
nature of design thinking, for designers might generate insights through prototype
testing that lead them to revise their definition of the user’s problem in new ways.
Design Application
One useful tool for framing a problem definition is called a point-of-view (POV)
statement (Cross, 2011). A POV statement offers an abductive-reasoning ap-
DOI: [Link] 25
26 Wible
proach to unpack puzzling situations. Design theorist Kees Dorst (2011) argued
that “it may be strategic to temporarily suspend the generation of ‘rich’ descrip-
tions of design and instead take a ‘sparse’ account as [the] starting point” (p. 522),
but more importantly, designers need “strategies to tackle the complex creative
challenge coming up with both a ‘thing’ and its ‘working principle’ that are linked
to the attainment of a certain value” (p. 524). Dorst (2011) presented the following
frame of abduction, shown in Figure 2.1.
Since design thinking is first and foremost a human-centered methodology,
POV statements replace the “thing” (what) with actual user personas (who) in the
abductive reasoning situation to guide designers in framing a problem that focus-
es on what users need and value. Typically, POV statements take the templated
shape shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.3 shows an example of a POV statement created by professional writ-
ing students working to improve the experience of first-year faculty on campus.
There are three important tasks to keep in mind in crafting an effective POV
statement with this template. First, write the POV statement from the perspec-
tive of the user, reflecting the user’s experiences, perspectives, values, and lan-
guage; consequently, good problem definitions only take shape after empathy
research and never at the very beginning of the design thinking process when the
designer only has their own ideas and hunches about what the problem is.
Second, define the need using verbs, not nouns. Put a slightly different way,
problem definition should not include the solution (the noun) in it, for that
would severely constrain––indeed, even eliminate the need for––a designer’s ide-
ation. Instead, the POV statement should be crafted in a way to focus on the ideal
end goal that the user should be able to achieve or experience (the verb) with any
new solution.
Figure 2.1. Dorst’s (2011) abductive reasoning frame.
Figure 2.2. A template for writing POV statements.
Problem Definition 27
Figure 2.3. A sample POV statement.
Third, incorporate a surprising insight from the empathy research and em-
pathy mapping, particularly those deep insights about how a user thinks or feels
about their experiences, as these insights too often get overlooked or ignored in
favor of more material needs and constraints that users experience.
While designers should be guided by their problem definition as they work
through the stages of brainstorming and developing solutions, they should also
know that a problem definition statement should not be seen as finished once it’s
first composed. During ideation, for example, a design team might discover that
the problem statement has been crafted either too narrowly or too broadly to
focus brainstorming in productive ways. Or, as designers are testing their solution
prototypes with users, they might discover unique insights about users’ experi-
ences or perspectives that add nuance and depth to––or perhaps even radically
redirect––the problem definition.
Pedagogical Integration
While problem definition may seem parallel to the formation of a research prob-
lem in conventional TPC pedagogy, the design thinking approach requires stu-
dents to employ a continuous questioning that differs from a linear progressive
manner to the characterization of problems. To foster a design thinking mindset,
instructors may encourage students to create a preliminary framing of the prob-
lem using the POV statement exercise. For example:
Let’s say you are working to help senior (older) users attend online
courses. You have observed a few users and spoken to them about
their online learning experience, and you’ve learned about some of
their struggles.
Read the following persona that emerged from your empathy re-
search:
“Maggie Smith is a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel. She
has been spending a lot of time at home since retirement and would
28 Wible
like to participate in local nonprofit organizing efforts using her
expertise in finance and accounting. However, she realized there’s
a plethora of new accounting software that she needs to learn in
order to help her local organizations. She found out there are free
online courses she can take through providers like edX, Udacity,
and Coursera, but it has been a difficult experience for her to nav-
igate those websites. She is particularly frustrated by the confusing
course modules and assignment requirements. She would like to
see a more straightforward structure in these online courses.”
Use the template presented in this chapter to write a POV state-
ment for Maggie.
Guided by the user requirement enlightened in the POV statement, students
can formulate an initial set of design questions that would serve as an anchor to
their innovation process. Given the iterative nature of design thinking, students
should revisit the definition of the problem in every design review and project
update meeting so they may align their effort with the exigency (i.e., need and
motivation) of the project. To revisit their problem definition, students should
consider a regular debrief meeting that examines the alignment of their empathy
research, problem statements, and solution development, asking questions such
as “What have we done so far to address the problem? That step hasn’t been done,
and what needs to be done?” Later in the design thinking process, as students test
their prototypes with users, they should use these debrief meetings to ask, “What
new empathy insights have we discovered that prompt us to see our problem
definition in a new light?”
References and Recommended Readings
Cooke, L., Dusenberry, L., & Robinson, J. (2020). Gaming design thinking: Wicked
problems, sufficient solutions, and the possibility space of games. Technical
Communication Quarterly, 29(4), 327-340.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
Gregersen, H. (2018). Questions are the answer: A breakthrough approach to your most
vexing problems at work and life. Harper.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Spark: From blank page to insight. In T. Kelly & D. Kelly
(Eds.), Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all (pp. 67-107).
Crown.
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis.
Design Issues, 26(1), 15-28.
Lewrick, M., Link, P., & Leifer, L. (2018a). How to find the right focus. In M.
Lewrick, P. Link, & L. Leifer (Eds.), The design thinking playbook: Mindful digital
transformation of teams, products, services, businesses and ecosystems (pp. 80-89). Wiley.
Problem Definition 29
Lewrick, M., Link, P., & Leifer, L. (2018b). How to get a good problem statement. In
M. Lewrick, P. Link, & L. Leifer (Eds.), The design thinking playbook: Mindful digital
transformation of teams, products, services, businesses and ecosystems (pp. 50-58). Wiley.
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies,
32(6), 573-587.
Tham, J. (2021). Engaging design thinking and making in technical and professional
communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 392-409. https://
[Link]/10.1080/10572252.2020.1804619
Wible, S. (2020). Using design thinking to teach creative problem solving in writing
courses. College Composition and Communication, 71(3), 339-425.