Problem Framing Strategies

My favorite problem-solving tool is a way to find the most critical question to solve for in any decision. That’s the idea behind eigenquestions, a concept that Matt Hudson and I developed over years of working together, and it's one of the frameworks I rely on most for getting teams through hard decisions. I borrowed the concept from linear algebra because of my love for math, but there’s no math involved. An eigenquestion is simply the question where, if answered, it also answers the subsequent, related questions. When your team has a list of open decisions, the instinct is to start with whatever feels most urgent or most contentious. Eigenquestions says to do something different: look at your full list and ask which question, if answered first, would make the rest of the list dramatically shorter. Start there! At YouTube, we had a long list of tough product decisions that kept going in circles. Should we link users off-site for content we didn't have? Should we allow third-party video players? Should we let creators opt content out of certain devices? Each one generated heated debate on its own. But when we reframed around a single question (will the video market reward consistency or comprehensiveness?), we reached a clear answer, and every one of those downstream decisions became simple. That's the power of a good eigenquestion. Great framing starts by searching for the most discriminating question of a set, so that one answer cascades into many. A few ways to get better at finding eigenquestions: 1️⃣ Start with low-stakes situations. We're all born with the ability to simplify problems down to what matters, and we tend to lose it over time. Kids are still great at it. Give them a hard problem and they'll quickly zero in on the right question. Working through smaller problems is a great way to rebuild that skill. 2️⃣ Framing problems doesn’t need to be solitary. Great eigenquestions can come from anywhere, and involving your team helps them buy into the decision because they understand the framing. 3️⃣ Train yourself with questions as you encounter them. For example: you'd like to shift your company's communication patterns from being primarily "sync" to primarily "async," what do you do? Make a list of questions and considerations, then rank them. Which ones, if answered first, would provide answers for most of the others? Truly, eigenquestions show up everywhere. You can take almost anything and say, what is the question that really drives the answer? If you want to go deeper, here’s our guide on eigenquestions and the broader skill of framing problems here: https://lnkd.in/gwndrND

Teams often implement solutions that do not fix the problem they were trying to address. That's because the issue wasn’t framed correctly in the first place. This is especially true in complex or unfamiliar situations, where quick conclusions feel comforting but are often wrong. When I work with teams on decision-making, I turn to a framework developed by Julia Binder and Michael Watkins. Their E5 approach helps leaders define the right problem before trying to solve it. Phase 1: EXPAND Suspend early judgments and deliberately broaden how the challenge is understood. By exploring multiple interpretations of the issue, teams uncover hidden assumptions, surface blind spots, and create the conditions for more original thinking before jumping to answers. Phase 2: EXAMINE Shift from scope to depth. Teams analyze the problem rigorously, moving beyond visible symptoms to identify behavioral patterns, structural drivers, and underlying beliefs that reveal what is truly at play. Phase 3: EMPATHIZE Center on the perspectives of those most affected by the issue. Through (real) listening and reflection, teams gain insight into stakeholders’ motivations, emotions, concerns, and behaviors, often uncovering needs that data alone cannot reveal. Phase 4: ELEVATE Step back to see how it fits within the broader organization. Viewing the challenge through lenses such as structure, people, power, and culture exposes interdependencies and systemic tensions that shape outcomes. Phase 5: ENVISION Articulate a clear future state and map a path to reach it. Working backward from a shared definition of success, teams prioritize initiatives, sequence efforts, and align resources to move from understanding to execution. I've found that when leaders take the time to frame problems well, they increase the likelihood that those solutions will actually matter. #decisionMaking #leadership #perspective #learning #problems Source: The model is described in more details in this Harvard Business Review article: https://lnkd.in/gAeBb5uT

Most project failures aren’t execution errors. They’re upstream misunderstandings. Your Gantt chart is already in trouble if the problem isn’t framed right. In matrix environments, the pressure to move often overrides the need to understand. So, projects get scoped before anyone agrees on what’s actually broken. That’s why top-performing PMs use something called Phase Zero. A short, high-leverage pre-kickoff moment focused on problem framing, not just planning. This isn’t fluffy. It’s structured. Here’s how you know problem framing is working: ✔️ Context is documented: Why this problem matters now ✔️ Success is defined: What done looks like, clearly and measurably ✔️ Constraints are visible: Time, tech, political, or data limitations ✔️ Assumptions are surfaced: What’s being taken for granted and tested early ✔️ Stakeholder perspectives are aligned: You’ve validated that everyone sees the same issue Skipping this feels faster. But it costs you alignment, momentum, and team trust when change hits mid-execution. Execution doesn’t start at kickoff. It starts with shared clarity. And problem framing is how you get there. → Found this helpful? Repost and follow Jesus Romero for frameworks that make execution smarter, not just faster.

Problemeering: Engineering the Problem Before the Solution What is it? Problemeering (problem + engineering) is the art and science of identifying, defining, and framing problems so they can be solved more creatively and efficiently. Why it matters Many product launches, business strategies, and even personal projects flop because they target the wrong problem or never define one at all. Problemeering helps you: • Understand the real issue • Avoid premature “band‑aid” fixes • Uncover root causes and hidden opportunities • Frame challenges in a way that sparks breakthrough ideas Key steps Observe & Empathize – Listen to users and spot pain points. Define – State the core problem in one crisp sentence. Reframe – Challenge every assumption: “Is this really the problem?” Explore Context – Map the ecosystem, constraints, and stakeholders. Ask “How might we…?” – Turn the problem frame into innovation prompts. Quick example Late‑delivery complaints in a food‑delivery app. Instead of jumping straight to route optimization, a problemeering mindset asks: • Are customer expectations realistic? • Does the UI overpromise delivery times? • Are restaurants accepting orders they can’t fulfill? Addressing these upstream issues often fixes “late deliveries” more effectively than tweaking maps alone. Origin Not yet in the dictionary it just reminds us: engineer the problem first, then engineer the solution.

McKinsey taught me that brilliant people fail when they answer the wrong question. Don’t just answer questions. Frame them. Because a brilliant answer to the wrong question is still wrong. Ask, “How do we make customer support more efficient?” and everyone races to cut headcount or automate. You might save dollars and bleed trust. Try this instead: “What service approach builds loyalty while balancing cost?” Now you are designing for humans, not just a spreadsheet. How you frame a question shapes what you notice, what you measure and what you ship. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky called this the framing effect. It’s one of the most underrated leadership skills. I learnt the value of spending time on framing the question in my 10 years at McKinsey. At first it felt forced. But projects where we invested serious time up front to define the question led to sharper insights, faster decisions and happier teams & clients. When we didn’t take the time, chaos reigned. Put it into practice this week: 1. Question the question. ↳ What assumptions are baked in? What if you flipped it on its head? 2. Start at the finish line. ↳ Define outcome or experience you want, then trace back the decisions and actions that create it. 3. Make space for the devil’s advocate. ↳ Assign someone to challenge whether you’re even solving the right problem. If you work with data or roll out new tech, your analysis is already shaping outcomes. Make sure you’re shaping the right ones. Have you ever felt like you’ve missed the mark on the question you’re answering? What's one question your team has been wrestling with that might need a reframe? ♻️ Repost to help someone get their question right. 🔔 Follow Clare Kitching for insights on unlocking value with data & AI.

The hardest part of strategy isn't finding answers, it's asking the right questions. I've become convinced that how we frame a problem essentially IS the solution. Get the definition wrong, and even brilliant execution leads nowhere. Get it right, and the path forward often becomes obvious. Recently, I've been experimenting in this space to stress-test my problem framing. After trying complex prompts and frameworks, the approach that's delivered the most surprising insights is actually ridiculously simple. This is the prompt I use: “Take this problem and break it open. I don’t want just new perspectives,I want possibility spaces. For each reframing, do four things: Name the tension or contradiction inside the problem. Articulate a provocative ‘what if’ that questions an assumption, inverts the logic, or pushes the idea to an extreme. Redefine the problem based on this tension - not descriptively, but creatively: as a new opportunity, a cultural opening, or a shifted lens that forces us to reimagine what we’re really solving for. Give me true range. Distinct dimensions. Real difference. Framings that don’t just vary tone or metaphor, but shift the plane of thought altogether — economic vs emotional vs spatial vs systemic vs relational vs historical, etc.” Then just add your initial problem articulation afterwards - e.g. I've used a generic 'legacy bank vs challenger bank' brief, so you can see how it works. "We’re a legacy financial institution losing ground with younger customers, who are leaving us for challenger banks." I've then screenshotted the results, so you can see how it works. Worth trying on whatever challenge has you stuck right now.

Are you solving the wrong problem? Solving the wrong problem feels productive but quietly compounds failure. You burn time, resources, and credibility while the real issue continues to grow, often becoming harder and more expensive to solve. Worse, you may optimize the wrong solution, reinforcing bad assumptions and creating the illusion of progress. This leads teams to get stuck treating symptoms, not causes. To identify the correct problem, start by separating symptoms from root causes. 1. Ask “what must be true for this to happen?” and keep drilling down. 2. Reframe the problem multiple ways and test each against evidence, not intuition alone. Seek disconfirming data, not just supporting data. 3. Talk to people closest to the issue. Map cause-and-effect relationships. 4. Define success clearly. If solving the "problem" does not lead to an outcome that matters, you are likely trying to "solve" the wrong problem. #problemsolving #understanding #progress

Two months into my VP of Technology role, I'm on a plane to evaluate a multi-million dollar acquisition. This was my moment to prove myself. I spent three days interviewing their team, analyzing their infrastructure, documenting every technical issue. Walking into my CEO's office, I was confident: "I don't think we should buy this company." I laid out all the technical problems—legacy code, infrastructure gaps, integration nightmares. His response? "Okay, we're going to buy it anyway." Wait, what? The visible factors looked like textbook due diligence: Technical analysis, stakeholder interviews, system evaluation. I thought I was being thorough and strategic. But the invisible factors I was missing were everything: Problem framing, value recognition, asset evaluation paradigms. I was analyzing this as a "technology acquisition" when it was actually a "customer acquisition." My CEO walked me through the real analysis: "You'll never find perfect technology. But look at these customers paying monthly despite those issues. We're buying a customer base, not a tech platform." He was right. We acquired the company, ran their technology for two years, migrated customers to our platform, lost maybe 15% in the transition, but grew revenue enough that it didn't matter. Huge success. Here's what really happened: My problem framing determined what evidence I saw and valued. Frame it as "technology acquisition" and every bug becomes a red flag. Frame it as "revenue asset acquisition" and paying customers become the primary signal. The sequence mattered: You have to get the frame right before you collect evidence, or you'll just gather data that confirms the wrong conclusion. The broader insight? How you frame the problem determines the solution you see. This applies everywhere—hiring decisions, product features, market strategy, team performance issues. To replicate this: First ask "What type of problem am I actually solving?" Then collect evidence. Not the other way around. Most people reverse this sequence and wonder why their thorough analysis leads to poor decisions.

Passionate problem solvers are easy to label as "too negative" or "having an agenda". Here's a good approach to bringing people on the journey: 1. Start with what you see and hear Describe specific behaviors, patterns, or outcomes as objectively as possible (knowing that we can never be truly objective). Be mindful of your potential biases. Are your emotions and perspective narrowing what you bring up? Avoid using loaded or triggering language. Keep it neutral and clear. 2. Invite others to share what they see and hear By starting with your own observations, you are setting an example for the rest of the team. Invite the team to share their perspectives and observations in ways that focus on understanding, rather than labeling or jumping to conclusions. In the right context, it might be better to start here. 3. Look inwards, observe, and listen Just as you describe outward behaviors, turn inward and notice how you feel about what you’re seeing and hearing. Instead of saying, “This place is a pressure cooker,” try, “I feel a lot of pressure.” Avoid jumping to conclusions or ascribing blame. Again, invite other people to do the same. 4. Spot areas to explore With observations and emotions on the table, identify areas worth examining. Avoid rushing to label them as problems or opportunities. Instead, frame them as questions or areas to look into. This keeps the tone open and focused on discovery. 5. Explore and go deeper As potential areas emerge, repeat the earlier steps: describe what you see, invite others to share, and observe how you feel. It is a recursive/iterative process—moving up and down levels of detail. 6. Look for alignment and patterns Notice where people are starting to align on what they’d like to see more—or less—of. Pay attention to areas where there’s consistent divergence—these are opportunities as well. Ask, “What might it take to narrow the divide?” 7. Frame clear opportunities Once patterns emerge, focus on turning them into clear opportunities. These are not solutions—they’re starting points for exploration. For example: “We could improve this handoff process” or “We’re not all on the same page about priorities.” Keep it actionable and forward-looking. 8. Brainstorm small experiments Use opportunities as a springboard to brainstorm simple, manageable experiments. Think of these as ways to test and learn, not perfect fixes. For example: “What if we tried a weekly check-in for this process?” Keep the ideas practical and easy to implement. 9. Stay grounded and flexible Be mindful of how the group is feeling and responding as you brainstorm. Are people rushing to solutions or becoming stuck? If so, take a step back and revisit earlier steps to re-center the group. 10. Step back. Let the group own it Once there’s momentum, step back and hand over ownership to the group. Avoid holding onto the issue as “your problem.” Trust the process you’ve built and the team’s ability to move things forward collectively.

The first framing is almost always wrong. The initial problem statement handed to an optimization team almost never reflects the actual decision problem. It reflects what leadership feels comfortable discussing, what the requesting team thinks optimization can do, and what the organization has historically measured. These are different from what actually needs to be decided. First framings are shaped by urgency, fear, and politics. A request to minimize inventory cost is often a disguised request to reduce working capital for a quarterly earnings target. A request to optimize delivery routes is often a disguised request to reduce headcount. A request to improve forecast accuracy is often a misdirected attempt to fix a planning process that is broken for reasons unrelated to forecasts. The stated problem is the socially acceptable version of the real problem. This is why the first model should never be treated as definitive. It should be treated as a diagnostic instrument. Build it quickly, solve it, and examine what it reveals. Which constraints bind? Where does the objective want to push? What does the solution look like, and does it resemble anything the organization would actually do? The answers to these questions expose hidden assumptions and uncomfortable truths about what the organization actually cares about. The most valuable output of a first model is often not a solution but a conversation. When stakeholders see what the math produces under their stated assumptions, they frequently revise those assumptions. The minimum purchase constraint turns out to be negotiable. The demand forecast turns out to encode political commitments rather than statistical estimates. The capacity limit turns out to include a safety margin that nobody documented. Treat every first framing as a working hypothesis. Expect to revise it. Budget time for revision. The real problem will emerge, but only if you build something fast enough to learn from.