Week 4 Guide: Defining the Problem
The Real Problem This Solves
The most expensive mistake in design is solving the wrong problem beautifully. You can have great research and still waste weeks if you never sharpen it into a single clear aim. This week you take the messy pile of insight from Week 3 and shape it into one sentence that everything else in the project will answer.
- Design track: the desk organiser or creative learner toolkit.
- Architecture and spatial track: the compact creative learning pod.
Key Ideas You Need First
1. Symptom versus root cause
A symptom is what people complain about on the surface. The root cause is what is really going on underneath. "My pens keep falling over" is a symptom. "Nothing on the shared desk has a fixed home" is closer to the root cause. Design at the root and you fix many symptoms at once.
2. A problem statement is not a solution in disguise
Weak framing hides an answer inside the problem. "How do we build a bigger storage box?" has already chosen the box. Strong framing stays open: "How might we help a learner start work quickly on a shared desk?" invites many answers.
3. The "How Might We" format
Designers phrase problems as How Might We questions. The three words do useful work:
- How assumes a solution exists to be found.
- Might keeps it open, there could be many answers.
- We makes it a shared challenge to work on.
A good statement is specific enough to act on, but open enough to allow several designs.
Tools And Materials Needed
- Your Week 3 research: interview notes, empathy map, and 3 insight statements.
- The Problem Statement Template.
- One other person who can react to your statements (a "too broad or too narrow" check).
Step-By-Step Walkthrough
- Re-read your research. Highlight the two or three insights that felt most important or most surprising. Ignore the rest for now.
- Name the root cause. For your strongest insight, ask "why?" three times until you reach something underneath the surface complaint. Write the root cause in one line.
- Draft three How Might We statements. Write three different angles on the same problem. Vary how wide they are. Use the template.
- Run the too broad / too narrow test. If a statement could describe almost any project, it is too broad. If it names a single fixed object, it is too narrow. Aim for the middle.
- Check for a hidden solution. Cross out any statement that already names the answer (a box, an app, a shelf). Re-open it.
- Get one reaction. Read your top statement to another person and ask: "Does this feel like a real problem worth solving, and can you imagine more than one way to solve it?"
- Choose one and justify it. Pick the statement that is real, human, and open. Write two sentences on why you chose it over the others.
Demonstrated Example
Project: desk organiser for a creative learner (design track).
Insight carried from Week 3: "I noticed the real cost is setup and pack-away time on a shared desk, not mess."
Three drafted statements:
- How might we help a learner keep their tools tidy? (too broad, could be any project)
- How might we design a pen box with more compartments? (too narrow, names the solution)
- How might we help a learner on a shared desk start and pack away creative work in under a minute? (clear, human, open)
Chosen statement: number 3.
Why: it names a real user (a learner on a shared desk), a real measure of success (under a minute), and it leaves the form of the solution open, so a tray, a roll-up mat, a caddy, or a wall rail could all answer it.
Your Task This Week
- Write the root cause behind your strongest Week 3 insight.
- Draft three different How Might We statements.
- Test them for too broad, too narrow, and hidden solutions.
- Choose one and write two sentences on why.
Submission Checklist
| Upload item | Pass standard |
|---|---|
| Three How Might We statements | Three genuinely different angles, not three rewordings of one. |
| Chosen statement | Human centred, specific, and open to more than one solution. |
| Reason for the choice | Explains why it beats the other two, referencing your research. |
Assessment And Pass Criteria
Your Week 4 evidence passes when a reviewer can answer yes to all of these:
- The statement is grounded in real Week 3 research, not invented.
- It names or clearly implies a real user.
- It does not smuggle in a finished solution.
- It is neither so broad it fits any project nor so narrow it names one object.
- The reasoning shows you compared options and chose deliberately.
Common Mistakes
- Hiding the solution in the problem. "How might we build a shelf" has already decided. Keep it open.
- Going too broad. "How might we improve creativity" could mean anything and guides nothing.
- Ignoring the research. If your statement does not trace back to something a real person said or did, it is a guess.
- Writing one statement. You need options to compare, or you cannot know yours is the strongest.
- Solving a symptom. Fixing "pens fall over" misses the deeper "nothing has a home" problem.
Extension Challenge
Write your chosen statement two more ways: one narrower and one wider than your final choice. Notice how the narrow version limits your ideas and the wide version makes them vague. This trains your eye for the right level, which is the real skill of framing.
When To Ask For Tutor Help
- Every statement you write keeps naming the same solution and you cannot open it up.
- You cannot tell whether your statement is too broad or about right.
- Your research does not seem to point to any single clear problem.
- You have several strong candidates and cannot decide between them.