Clarifying the real problem before solving the wrong one

Many failed initiatives did not fail because of poor solutions. They failed because they solved the wrong problem. A company invests in a new customer portal when customers actually wanted a quicker phone answer. A team redesigns its reporting process when the real issue was that nobody used the reports. A manager organises training when the underlying problem was unclear priorities.

In each case, the team worked hard and competently on a problem that had been framed too quickly. The way a problem is framed determines which solutions are considered, which are ignored and what success will look like. Problem framing is therefore one of the most important, and most neglected, steps in any creative or change process.

Why problems arrive pre-framed

Problems rarely reach a team as open questions. They arrive as requests, complaints or instructions: “we need a new tool”, “sales are down”, “the team is unmotivated”. These statements carry assumptions about causes and solutions. “We need a new tool” already assumes that the problem is technical. “The team is unmotivated” already assumes that the issue lies with the people rather than with the situation they are in.

Under time pressure, teams accept these framings and move straight to solutions. It feels efficient. But it locks the team into a narrow set of options before anyone has checked whether the framing is right.

Signs that a problem needs reframing

A few signals suggest that it is worth stepping back:

• the problem has been “solved” before, but keeps coming back;
• different stakeholders describe the problem in very different ways;
• the proposed solution was decided before the problem was explored;
• the team feels stuck, generating only small variations of the same ideas;
• the problem statement contains a solution (“we need to…”).

Techniques for clarifying the challenge

Explore before defining

Before writing any problem statement, gather information. What exactly is happening? Who is affected, and how? What has been tried? What do different people believe is going on? This exploration is a divergent activity: the aim is to collect many perspectives, not to reach a conclusion.

Ask “why?” to move up

Asking why a problem matters helps move to a broader framing. “We need a new tool.” Why? “Because our process is slow.” Why does that matter? “Because customers wait too long for an answer.” The challenge now becomes “How might we give customers faster answers?”, which opens many more solutions than buying a tool.

Ask “what’s stopping us?” to move down

The opposite question helps make a broad challenge more concrete. “How might we improve customer experience?” What’s stopping us? “Customers don’t know who to contact.” This produces a narrower, more actionable challenge: “How might we make it obvious to customers who to contact?”

Moving up and down in this way creates a ladder of possible framings, from the very broad to the very specific. The team can then choose the level that best matches its scope and resources.

Write several versions

Generating several formulations of the challenge, rather than settling on the first, is one of the simplest and most effective techniques. Phrasing each version as an open question starting with “How might we…?” keeps them focused on possibilities. The team then converges, choosing the formulation that best captures what matters.

This alternation between generating framings and choosing among them follows the logic of divergent and convergent thinking, applied to the problem itself rather than to solutions.

Check the framing with stakeholders

Before investing in solutions, test the chosen framing with the people affected. Does it capture what they care about? Is anything important missing? This step often reveals assumptions that the team did not notice.

Framing in practice

Problem framing does not have to take long. In a well-run session, twenty or thirty minutes spent clarifying the challenge can save weeks of work on the wrong problem. It is the first stage of Creative Problem Solving, and in many ways the stage that determines the quality of everything that follows.

Online, framing works well as a separate short session, held before idea generation. Participants can contribute information and possible framings in writing, then discuss and choose together. The approaches described for running online ideation sessions apply here too: short, structured, with silent writing before discussion.

The leader’s role

Leaders have a particular responsibility in problem framing, because the problems they hand to their teams carry their own assumptions. A leader who says “we need to restructure the team” has already framed the problem. A leader who says “I’m concerned that we are not responding fast enough to customers; let’s understand why” invites the team to frame it together.

This does not mean leaders should never have a view. It means distinguishing between the outcome they want and the solution they imagine, and being willing to have the solution challenged. Teams that are trusted to frame problems often find better solutions, and they commit more fully to implementing them.

Reframing during change

In periods of change, problems shift constantly. What looked like a technical issue turns out to be a question of roles; what looked like resistance turns out to be confusion. Leaders who regularly ask “are we still working on the right problem?” keep their teams focused on what matters.