Move from symptom to contributing causes, patterns, and effective countermeasures.
A clear cause hypothesis with evidence, countermeasures, and effectiveness checks.
You can decide which cause or cause group to address first and where effectiveness is recognized.
Implement the countermeasure, measure impact, and update A3 or improvement log.
Which concrete problem for which people in which context is evidenced, meaningfully bounded, and open to several solutions?
The problem frame prevents root-cause investigation from starting with fuzzy symptoms or too wide a scope.
The sharpened symptom is then deepened using initial why-chains.
Which controllable cause behind the symptom can the team fix with a concrete countermeasure?
5 Whys creates an initial cause-and-effect chain and makes assumptions in thinking visible.
The linear chain is then expanded with a broader cause map.
Which possible causes and mechanisms could create this observed effect, and how will we test them?
Fishbone Diagram systematically collects possible causes across categories.
Cause hypotheses are then prioritized by frequency or impact.
Which categories contribute most to the measured total burden?
Pareto Analysis focuses on causes that explain the largest share of the observed problem.
The prioritized cause is then documented in an A3 with countermeasure and follow-up.
Which gap between current and target condition is evidenced, and which countermeasure will we test first?
A3 Problem Solving connects problem, analysis, countermeasure, and effectiveness checks in a lean improvement document.
The A3 becomes the basis for implementation, review, and further learning.
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