How to solve the right problems

Kotryna Zukauskaite on dribbble

Designers are commonly referred to as problem-solvers. We use different design process models, and there are plenty to choose from, to generate better outcomes.

Setting the context — the Double Diamond design process

The Double Diamond model, in its simplicity, demonstrates that problem-solving isn’t limited to idea generation and execution.

The ‘problem space’ or, the first diamond, is about problem-finding. The second diamond represents the ‘solution space’, which addresses problem-solving. But why are they diamonds? This particular shape captures the essence of the dance we do as designers — constantly switching between divergent and convergent thinking. Diverge, converge, diverge, converge. Thus, the Double Diamond consists of 4 parts or the 4Ds -

• discover
• define
• develop
• deliver

This piece will delve primarily into the ‘develop’ side of things. While we are using the double diamond to talk about problem-solving, any other design process model, and its ‘develop’ phase, would be a perfect fit too.

So what are problem statements?

Great design comes from solving the right problem. The ‘develop’ phase only begins once you have a focused problem statement. A problem statement is a clear and succinct description of the problem that needs to be solved. Try one of the below techniques to generate a problem statement once you have your research in place -

Hypotheses generation

A hypothesis is a prediction of what you think you might find through your research. Generating hypotheses is a great way to understand your initial challenge better, thereby disproving some assumptions, and arriving at a more informed and precise problem statement. List down your assumptions, user motivations, and all key questions on one table, and then evaluate that table to derive your final problem statement.

HMWs

‘How might we…’ is a great exercise to get yourself to look at your initial brief in a problem-first way. Start with just rephrasing your existing challenges into a question that begins with HMW. Keep making such questions until you get to one that works.

5Ws

Who, what, when, where, why — Answering these 5 questions will generally bring you closer to understanding the problem you’re tackling.

3 steps

Background, who it affects, and its impact. Similar to the 5Ws, but not as rigid, this process allows you to go deeper with your ‘discover’ phase.

An easy checklist to make sure your problem statement works -

• it should not be a list of problems
• it should not include a solution
• it should be concise

Once you have your problem statement, your long-winded journey through the ‘problem space’ is complete. The time has come to diverge again — and venture into the uncharted territories of the ‘solution space’. But it isn’t always apparent where to begin, and it’s hardly ever a one-size-fits-all situation. While most designers seem to complain about ‘the groan zone’ — transitioning from the divergent to the convergent mindset, my unpopular opinion is that transitioning from the ‘problem space’ to the ‘solution space’ is significantly more demanding. Defining a problem entails exploring and defining through evidence and insights, whereas developing a solution is all about generating potential solutions and iterating. While this shift of mindset and approach can be challenging, there are many mental models that you can leverage to combat the effects of this transition.

Mental Models

A mental model is an explanation of thought processes and how they work in the real world. Each mental model you can find is derived from belief systems and ideas collated from years of experience. A few mental models to try out -

First Principles

This mental model can be traced back to Aristotle’s writings. He defined it as “the first basis from which a thing is known.” First Principles can be described simply as breaking a problem into its fundamental parts and then reconfiguring those parts individually as smaller problems to come to a holistic solution. It is a good mental model to fall back on when the problem statement, no matter how concise, seems insurmountable, or in other words when you’re too overwhelmed and don’t know where to begin.

Source

A notable spokesperson for First Principles today would be Elon Musk.

“It’s important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy.”

SpaceX is the product of him embodying that mental model — wanting to get people to Mars, realising that what’s stopping most people is that rockets are supposedly crazy expensive, using First Principles to break every process down into components, tackling each component individually, realising rockets only cost about 2% of the cost projected, and building rockets himself from scratch.

Some tools that can help you embody First Principles — Mind maps, Value proposition canvas, Socratic questioning, and Value webs.

Opposite Thinking

Can’t shake the feeling that you’re running in circles while brainstorming? You’re not alone. This is a very common ailment that researchers suffer from — the writer’s block of the design industry, if you will. Part of the reason why — is you haven’t been able to shake off the mindset of the first diamond / the problem space. Or maybe it’s the pressure of delivering something great — internal or external. Regardless, if you feel like you’ve hit a wall, opposite thinking can help you break that wall down. Also known as thinking through inversion, the goal is to consider the opposite of what you want the outcome to be.

Stoics believed that by anticipating the worst-case scenario ahead of time, they could prevent many failures. So while most people were wondering how to be successful, the Stoics were thinking about managing their failures. Doubtful? Marcus Aurelius ran a whole empire while employing this mental model.

The goal is simple — if you can’t think of fresh ideas, or feel like you’re stagnating — start to intentionally think of bad answers, bad ideas, and bad solutions. Then figure out how to avoid all those possibilities.

Some tools that you can use to build your own empire — Brainstorming through opposite thinking (assumption, opposite, solutions), Reverse Brainstorming (problem, reverse, collect, reverse, evaluate)

Source

And if Marcus Aurelius isn’t the one for you, think of Marie Kondo. She uses inversion to help in decluttering personal spaces. Focus on what you want to keep rather than what you want to discard.

Cluster Thinking

Cluster thinking is a very natural approach for a lot of people. A basic explanation of this is to approach the problem from various perspectives simultaneously, weighing each perspective against the other, and then coming to a final solution that satisfies most variables(if not all). This model helps a lot when there are still some uncertainties, even after rigorous research.

Affinity mapping is a quick technique to employ this model. But one tool that is a must-have in every designer’s arsenal, and just, conveniently, happens to be the poster child of cluster thinking — Edward de Bono’s six thinking hats. This technique uses six roles represented by the six hats, to consider the problem from six different lenses. This helps in structuring abstract problems, by amplifying conversation during the creative process. Back in 1985, Dr. Edward de Bono, a reputed psychologist was one of the few that empathised with us. He observed the disagreement and confusion that teams go through during the design and development process, and was inspired to structure creative thinking.

Since first published in 1985, his thinking hats have taken many different names. But they are always classified into colours, with each colour representing a different perspective -

• The white hat — objective hat — What are the facts we know?
• The red hat — intuitive/emotional hat — What does it make you feel? What is your immediate reaction?
• The yellow hat — optimistic hat — Why should we be optimistic? What are our successes?
• The green hat — creative hat — What do users wish for? How can we create those opportunities?
• The blue hat — management hat — What are the systems we need to make this work? What are the processes we need to follow?
• The black hat — cautious hat — What are the potential risks?

This technique can allow for focused collaboration within smaller groups taking one perspective each, which can later join up with goals and objectives that are better aligned.

Sequential Thinking

This involves approaching a problem statement in a step-by-step manner, which is prescribed, and orderly. Each new step requires you to have drawn certain insights or conclusions from the previous step. But unlike cluster thinking, you’d still be considering each parameter independently. This is a great model to use when some certainties have already been established. Maybe you have a certain framework already in place? Maybe the client has finally revealed their pre-requisites to you? Perfect time to use tools like — the Disney Brainstorm, or the waterfall model. While both these methods come under linear or sequential thinking, that’s where their similarities stop.

The Disney Brainstorm technique was originally developed by Robert Dilts in 1994. This technique involves three stages — dreamer, realist, and critic.

“Creativity as a total process involves the coordination of these three subprocesses: dreamer, realist, and critic. A dreamer without a realist cannot turn ideas into tangible expressions. A critic and a dreamer without a realist just become stuck in perpetual conflict. The dreamer and a realist might create things, but they might not achieve a high degree of quality without a critic. The critic helps to evaluate and refine the products of creativity.” — Robert. B. Dilts., Strategies of Genius: Volume 1.

Over time, another role has been added — that of the moderator. While this technique is cyclical, one still needs to follow the order of the processes.

The waterfall model came about as a software development life cycle model. Till date, dev teams use it a lot. But it has been adopted by design teams too. It follows a very strict linear process wherein each stage informs the next, and there is generally, no revisiting of a stage. There are many flows that professionals have devised over time. A rough flow for design teams would be:

Conception — Initiation — Analysis — Design — Construction — Testing — Implementation — Maintenance

While this rigid approach allows for planned reviews, and easy definition of timelines, it can tend to be a little high-risk, especially if your problem statement is continually evolving.

Conclusion

While there are several mental models that one could employ, learning to recognise which one to choose when is key. As a community, we’re getting very good at identifying problems and figuring out exactly which problem to solve. But are we bringing that same level of rigour to understanding how we’re solving these problems? Why stop after the problem diamond? Spending some time figuring out the approach to a problem before delving into it, can set you on the right course very early on. We tend to embody the empirical mindset quite often; trial and error, and constant reiteration; are second nature to us already. All for the final step of the second diamond. Try not shedding that skin for the crucial ‘develop’ phase either, you’ll find it makes the ‘deliver’ phase easier.

Canvs Editorial regularly brings you insightful reads on design and anything related. Check out the work we do at Canvs Club.

The Canvs Editorial team comprises of Editorial Writer and Researcher — Harleen Chatha, the Editor’s Desk- Aalhad Joshi and Debprotim Roy, and Content Operations- Abin Rajan

Follow Canvs on Instagram and Medium as well for more design-related content.