Move from unclear research questions to reliable qualitative insights and next decisions.
A research summary with research question, interview or observation data, clusters, insights, and next learning steps.
You can decide which user needs and problems are relevant for the next product decision.
Review insights with stakeholders and derive next product decisions, tests, or research questions.
Which concrete problem for which people in which context is evidenced, meaningfully bounded, and open to several solutions?
The research frame ensures the investigation targets a real decision or learning question.
The scope then determines who is interviewed and which contexts are observed.
Which experiences, needs and motivations shape this situation, and what do we still need to learn?
User interviews provide qualitative evidence from real situations instead of assumptions about behavior.
Raw notes are then condensed into patterns and themes.
What patterns emerge from individual notes, which outliers matter, and what question follows?
Affinity Diagramming groups observations into patterns while preserving the evidence base.
The patterns can then be consolidated into work models for target groups or usage profiles.
Which recurring needs and behaviors must decisions account for, and who is not represented by the current evidence?
Personas bring recurring needs, goals, and contexts together as a practical product working model.
Personas are then linked to decisions, assumptions, or additional research questions.
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