Move from a vague product idea to a clear target group, problem hypotheses, and first learning steps.
A prioritized learning plan with target group, opportunity, assumptions, and first test.
You can decide which opportunity should be learned about or tested first and which solution ideas are not yet ready for delivery.
Run the test, evaluate evidence, and then update the opportunity, assumptions, or solution hypothesis.
Which concrete problem for which people in which context is evidenced, meaningfully bounded, and open to several solutions?
The problem frame prevents the team from jumping into solutions before target group, problem, and decision need are clear.
The sharpened problem space is then split into opportunities, solutions, and experiments.
Which evidence-grounded paths can achieve the desired outcome through customer needs and tested solutions?
The opportunity solution tree connects outcome, user needs, solution ideas, and experiments in one shared map.
The map shows which assumptions sit behind the most attractive paths.
Which assumptions are critical to the idea and have the least supporting evidence?
Assumption mapping prioritizes assumptions where risk and knowledge gap are largest.
The riskiest assumption is then translated into a concrete learning step.
Which assumption would damage the idea most if false and currently has the weakest credible evidence?
The test focuses discovery on the assumption most likely to invalidate a solution idea.
The test result decides whether the path continues, changes, or is discarded.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# Problem Framing Workshop: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 90–150 minutes with evidence collected beforehand.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Research and operations evidence, stakeholder and context map, assumption log, problem frame, and How Might We question
- **Roles:** Facilitator · problem owner · affected/customer perspective · domain and delivery perspectives · decision owner
- **Advance information:** Gather the decision trigger, available evidence, and hard constraints; park solution ideas initially.
- **Overall time needed:** 90–150 minutes with evidence collected beforehand.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Evidence · Actors · Impact · Boundary · Question; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Evidence: Evidence view
- Gather the decision trigger, available evidence, and hard constraints; park solution ideas initially.
- Research and operations evidence, stakeholder and context map, assumption log, problem frame, and How Might We question
#### Actors: Actor context
- Evidence view
#### Impact: Problem core
- Actor context
#### Boundary: Scope
- Problem core
#### Question: Working question
- Scope
## Problem Framing Workshop · working structure
### Evidence view
Gather observations, data, and quotes; separate facts, interpretations, and solutions.
...
### Actor context
Describe affected people, context, desired progress, and current obstacles concretely.
...
### Problem core
State undesired outcome, significance, and observable impact without presuming cause or solution.
...
### Scope
Negotiate in-scope, out-of-scope, constraints, assumptions, and knowledge gaps.
...
### Working question
Translate the frame into an open How Might We question and test evidence, solution openness, and agency.
...
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/)
## Evidence: Evidence view
Expected artifact: Evidence view
Gather observations, data, and quotes; separate facts, interpretations, and solutions.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can every finding be traced to a source or case?
## Actors: Actor context
Expected artifact: Actor context
Describe affected people, context, desired progress, and current obstacles concretely.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is a concrete group in a situation named rather than a market segment?
## Impact: Problem core
Expected artifact: Problem core
State undesired outcome, significance, and observable impact without presuming cause or solution.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does it describe outcome and impact rather than a symptom label or solution wish?
## Boundary: Scope
Expected artifact: Scope
Negotiate in-scope, out-of-scope, constraints, assumptions, and knowledge gaps.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are boundary and exclusions relevant and traceable?
## Question: Working question
Expected artifact: Working question
Translate the frame into an open How Might We question and test evidence, solution openness, and agency.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does it permit several paths while staying with the evidenced need?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/problem-framing-workshop/run-sheet
Plan the initial setup and ongoing rhythm for outcomes, opportunities, solutions and tests.
# Opportunity Solution Tree: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Structure continuous discovery
Time: Ongoing practice; no total timebox
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Outcome definition, sourced research notes, opportunity clusters, a shared tree and space for solution hypotheses and experiment cards.
- **Roles:** A product trio or cross-functional team with product, design/research and engineering; discovery ownership keeps the tree and evidence current.
- **Advance information:** Gather the outcome, target user and current product or customer evidence. Separate customer statements from interpretation.
- **Overall time needed:** Not a one-off workshop. Allow about 1–2 hours to frame the first tree; interviews, tests and updates continue across discovery cycles.
- **Setup:** Place the outcome above opportunities, solutions under the selected opportunity and experiments against solution assumptions. Deepen one target opportunity at a time.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Outcome: Define a team-controllable outcome
- Product strategy and target user
- Available metric or observable behavior indicator
#### Opportunities: Structure customer opportunities
- Story-based customer interviews or observations
- Outcome and existing opportunity notes
#### Focus: Choose a target opportunity
- Outcome
- Opportunity map and related customer notes
#### Solutions: Explore multiple solution paths
- Target opportunity and outcome signal
- Product, design and technical perspectives
#### Learn: Test assumptions and update the tree
- Solution options and explicit assumptions
- Access to suitable users or data
## Opportunity Solution Tree
### Outcome
Which team-controllable result should improve?
...
### Customer opportunities
Which needs, pain points or desires from concrete customer situations could influence the outcome?
...
### Target opportunity
Which opportunity will guide the next discovery cycle, and why?
...
### Solution options
What different approaches could address this opportunity?
...
### Assumptions and tests
Which risky assumption will each test examine, and what decision follows?
...
Blank worksheet: choose one outcome, connect opportunities to evidence, select a target opportunity, then record solution hypotheses and tests.
[Source: Teresa Torres, Product Talk](https://www.producttalk.org/opportunity-solution-trees/)
## Outcome: Define a team-controllable outcome
Expected artifact: Outcome as the root of the tree
Outcome · target user · signal
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can the team influence the outcome through product decisions?
## Opportunities: Structure customer opportunities
Expected artifact: Customer opportunities with evidence
Need or obstacle · source · open question
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is each opportunity grounded in customer learning?
- [ ] Does it still hide a solution?
## Focus: Choose a target opportunity
Expected artifact: Selected target opportunity with rationale
Opportunity · evidence · rationale
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is the opportunity relevant and understood well enough to explore ideas?
## Solutions: Explore multiple solution paths
Expected artifact: Solution options with assumptions
Option · opportunity addressed · key assumption
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are there different ways to address the opportunity?
## Learn: Test assumptions and update the tree
Expected artifact: Updated tree with tests and decisions
Assumption · test · evidence · decision
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the test examine an important solution assumption?
- [ ] Is the next decision stated before the test?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/opportunity-solution-tree/run-sheet
Checklist for critical assumptions by risk and knowledge level.
- [ ] Formulate assumption as a testable statement
- [ ] Assess risk
- [ ] Assess level of knowledge
- [ ] Add data source or test idea
- [ ] Mark riskiest assumption
- [ ] Define success criterion
- [ ] Set owner and dateShort plan for hypothesis, test design, success criteria, and decision.
# Experiment Plan
## Hypothesis
We believe that ...
## Target audience
Who are we testing for?
## Test design
What exactly will participants or users do?
## Success criterion
We count the test as positive if ...
## Risks and limits
What can the test not prove?
## Decision afterward
If positive: ...
If negative: ...
## Owner and date
...