Session Brief: Problem Framing Workshop

Goal

Artifact: Problem Statement

Working Question

Which concrete problem, for which affected people, with which impact should be worked on next?

Context

Reason and trigger for the workshop; relevant data or tickets from the last 90 days; current team hypotheses; known taboos or political sensitivities with the sponsor.

Setup

• Format: Method session
• Duration: 90-120 min
• Mode: Workshop
• Participants: One facilitator (neutral, without solution preference); one sponsor with decision authority (present for at least 60 min); 4-8 participants from functions that experience the problem differently; one scribe for verbatim notes.
• Owner: One facilitator (neutral, without solution preference)
• Participation mode: Team round, shared work and alignment
• Outcome logic: Finish artifact

Participation Logic

Use the session for shared understanding. Contributions are collected visibly, assumptions are aligned, and open differences remain traceable in the artifact.

Outcome Logic

The session works directly toward Problem Statement. After the session, the artifact should be shareable, reviewable, or reusable.

Input

Whiteboard or Miro board with four zones (symptoms, affected people, impact, problem statement); colored stickies; timer; pre-briefing as PDF; list of previously failed solution attempts.

Preparation

Set up room so everyone can see the wall. Label four zones in advance. State workshop rule: separate symptoms from causes, no solutions before problem definition. Timer visible for every phase.

Agenda

1. Phase 1: Collect symptoms (20 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Each person silently notes observed symptoms on stickies, one statement per sticky. Then present round-robin and cluster in Zone 1. No discussion about causes. Hint: If stickies already contain causes or solutions, move them to a parking zone. Otherwise the group jumps into solution mode too early. Output: Problem Statement

2. Phase 2: Affected people and impact (25 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: For each symptom cluster, name concrete affected roles (role, not person) and describe measurable impact (money, time, risk). Document in Zones 2 and 3. Hint: If impact cannot be formulated in numbers or clear consequences, the symptom is probably not a problem but a matter of taste. Output: Scope Boundaries

3. Phase 3: Draft problem statement (25 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Formulate two to three competing problem statements in the format 'who has which difficulty in which situation with which consequence'. Run heatmap voting per statement (3 points per person). Hint: Avoid solution wording in the statement. A good statement does not solve yet; it only describes. If all statements look the same, perspective diversity is missing. Output: Assumption List

4. Phase 4: Sharpen and assign owner (20 min) Owner: Owner Action: Take the top statement, define terms, document out of scope, capture success criterion for 'problem solved', name owner and next step. Hint: If the sponsor cannot approve the statement, either the wrong person is in the room or the sponsor does not want commitment. Clarify, do not gloss over it. Output: Next Analysis Questions

5. Publish artifact (10 min) Owner: Owner Action: Check the artifact for completeness, define location, set version or status, and name review recipients. Output: Problem Statement

Closeout

• Update result artifact: Problem Statement
• Define location, version, and review recipients.
• Define owner, next step, and review date.

Problem Statement: Problem Framing Workshop

Working Question

Which concrete problem, for which affected people, with which impact should be worked on next?

Context

Reason and trigger for the workshop; relevant data or tickets from the last 90 days; current team hypotheses; known taboos or political sensitivities with the sponsor.

Participants

• Owner: One facilitator (neutral, without solution preference)
• Participants: One facilitator (neutral, without solution preference); one sponsor with decision authority (present for at least 60 min); 4-8 participants from functions that experience the problem differently; one scribe for verbatim notes.

Input

Whiteboard or Miro board with four zones (symptoms, affected people, impact, problem statement); colored stickies; timer; pre-briefing as PDF; list of previously failed solution attempts.

Template

Problem Frame

Problem statement

For whom is which problem relevant in which context?

Affected audience

Who experiences the problem, how often, and how do we notice it?

Evidence

Which data, observations, or examples support the problem?

Impact

Which costs, risks, or missed opportunities arise?

Non-goals

What are we deliberately not solving?

Next learning question

What do we need to find out next?

Completion Check

• Problem Statement is complete enough for review:
• Location:
• Version / status:
• Review by:
• Next step:

Next Step

• Review result
• Mark open questions
• Schedule review or decision