Method guideProduct Discovery

Problem Interview

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium

Time30-60 min je Interview

Participants5-12 Interviews

FormatWorkshop + async

MaturityEstablished

Plan

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstHypothesis

Name segment, suspected problem and a disconfirming finding.

Without disconfirmation criteria, every answer confirms the idea.

Complete firstExperience

Select people by real context rather than agreement.

Friends without relevant experience provide no segment evidence.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Neutral guide, evidence record, recruitment criteria.

People / roles

Target participant, interviewer, note-taker.

Pre-read

Write the problem hypothesis internally; recruit people with relevant experience.

Time needed

30–45 minutes conversation plus 15 minutes analysis.

Setup

Keep the hypothesis visible internally; organise notes by incident, consequence and alternative. Keep solution materials outside the conversation.

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which real problem matters enough to this target group that they already act on it?

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

A Problem Interview investigates whether a suspected difficulty actually occurs in a target group’s life and examines consequences, alternatives and effort already spent.

Problem Interview· worksheet

Fictional example

A Problem Interview investigates whether a suspected difficulty actually occurs in a target group’s life and examines consequences, alternatives and effort already spent.

Segment and hypothesis

What problem is suspected for whom? Which finding would contradict it?

Fictional: part-time instructors lose time reconciling changing course rooms. Counterevidence would be an already reliable, effortless process.

Incident and consequences

Document the latest incident, sequence, consequences and basis for estimates.

P07 received a room change by email on Monday, noticed it only on arrival and recalls starting ten minutes late. The preceding week went smoothly.

Alternatives and effort

What is currently done, paid for, worked around or deliberately tolerated?

P07 checks email before leaving; no tool purchased. This change arrived after departure. Timely change information matters more than another calendar view.

Evidence and next case

What supports or weakens the hypothesis? Which alternative explanation and gap remain?

The incident supports a notification problem, not yet a recurring reconciliation problem. Next case: an instructor with frequent changes; also examine change timing and channel.

All example details are fictional and illustrate the application.

Ash Maurya: Interview zu Running Lean

1
Context
Context
Goal
Context profile
Inputs for this step
- Segment criteria
Actions
- Clarify purpose and consent; explore role, workflow and last relevant occasion.
- Do not initially state the problem hypothesis as a fact.
Output
Context profile
Is the person speaking from experience?
Quality check
Is the person speaking from experience?
Pitfall
Agreement questions reveal the desired answer. Ask neutrally about workflow and event.
Timing: 5–10 minutes
2
Incident
Incident
Goal
Problem incident
Inputs for this step
- Specific occasion
Actions
- Reconstruct a specific incident with trigger, obstacle, frequency context and consequences.
- Ask when it last went smoothly; mark cost and time as recalled estimates.
Output
Problem incident
Is there a contrasting case without the problem?
Quality check
Is there a contrasting case without the problem?
Pitfall
A general annoyance is treated as urgent demand. Ask about consequences and actual response.
Timing: 10–15 minutes
3
Alternatives
Alternatives
Goal
Alternatives profile
Inputs for this step
- Problem incident
Actions
- Explore workarounds, existing solutions and effort actually invested.
- Include doing nothing and reasons against switching; do not offer your solution.
Output
Alternatives profile
Are effort and switching barriers concrete?
Quality check
Are effort and switching barriers concrete?
Pitfall
Hypothetical purchase intent is requested. Ask about past purchases, attempts and abandoned efforts.
Timing: 10–15 minutes
4
Synthesis
Synthesis
Goal
Problem profile
Inputs for this step
- Notes and hypothesis
Actions
- Relate evidence, counterevidence and open assumptions separately to the hypothesis.
- Interpret relevance qualitatively and choose targeted next cases; do not infer population rates from a few interviews.
Output
Problem profile
Could counterevidence change our direction?
Quality check
Could counterevidence change our direction?
Pitfall
Only confirming quotes are retained. Give contradictions equal visibility.
Timing: 15 minutes

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Problem Interview · Lean StartupValidate problem hypotheses through past situations, pain, frequency, and current workarounds

Form

Problem profile with concrete incidents, consequences, alternatives and counterevidence.

Versioning / ownership

Record date and scope; retain the previous version and reason when changing it.

Tool alternatives

Neutral discussion guide
Evidence and counterevidence register
Interview notes with case IDs

problem-interview-working-template.md

Write the problem hypothesis internally; recruit people with relevant experience.

Problem Interview: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Complete cycle Time: 30–45 minutes conversation plus 15 minutes analysis.

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Materials: Neutral guide, evidence record, recruitment criteria.
Roles: Target participant, interviewer, note-taker.
Advance information: Write the problem hypothesis internally; recruit people with relevant experience.
Overall time needed: 30–45 minutes conversation plus 15 minutes analysis.
Setup: Keep the hypothesis visible internally; organise notes by incident, consequence and alternative. Keep solution materials outside the conversation.

Prepare for the work steps

Context: Context

Segment criteria

Incident: Incident

Specific occasion

Alternatives: Alternatives

Problem incident

Synthesis: Synthesis

Notes and hypothesis

Problem Interview· worksheet

Segment and hypothesis

What problem is suspected for whom? Which finding would contradict it?

...

Incident and consequences

Document the latest incident, sequence, consequences and basis for estimates.

...

Alternatives and effort

What is currently done, paid for, worked around or deliberately tolerated?

...

Evidence and next case

What supports or weakens the hypothesis? Which alternative explanation and gap remain?

...

Answer the prompts with your own information. Explicitly mark unknowns and assumptions.

Ash Maurya: Interview zu Running Lean

Context: Context

Expected artifact: Context profile

Is the person speaking from experience?

Entry:

...

Is the person speaking from experience?

Incident: Incident

Expected artifact: Problem incident

Is there a contrasting case without the problem?

Entry:

...

Is there a contrasting case without the problem?

Alternatives: Alternatives

Expected artifact: Alternatives profile

Are effort and switching barriers concrete?

Entry:

...

Are effort and switching barriers concrete?

Synthesis: Synthesis

Expected artifact: Problem profile

Could counterevidence change our direction?

Entry:

...

Could counterevidence change our direction?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/problem-interview/run-sheet

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

problem-interview-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example

Segment and hypothesis: Fictional: part-time instructors lose time reconciling changing course rooms. Counterevidence would be an already reliable, effortless process.

Incident and consequences: P07 received a room change by email on Monday, noticed it only on arrival and recalls starting ten minutes late. The preceding week went smoothly.

Alternatives and effort: P07 checks email before leaving; no tool purchased. This change arrived after departure. Timely change information matters more than another calendar view.

Evidence and next case: The incident supports a notification problem, not yet a recurring reconciliation problem. Next case: an instructor with frequent changes; also examine change timing and channel.