You see a problem and you fix it. That is how most teams work, and most of the time it is fine. The trouble starts when the problem on the table is not quite the problem that exists. A team can then work hard, hit every target, and still solve the wrong thing.
"How you frame the problem is part of the solution." (the title of an IESE Insight article; this piece did not review the article's full argument) IESE Insight
Why the Starting Question Matters
Speed is often treated as a virtue. Harvard Business Review argues that companies spend too little effort examining a problem before they try to solve it, and that jumping straight into problem-solving limits the ability to design innovative solutions [2]. This is the authors' argument, not controlled data. The sources reviewed here show no study proving that reframing produces better outcomes.
Still, the logic is easy to follow. A familiar-looking issue invites a familiar response. Assumptions go untested because nobody remembers making them. Digital.gov puts the point plainly: how a problem is defined largely defines its solution [3]. If that is even roughly true, the definition is the first real decision a team makes, and it usually gets made without anyone noticing.
Frames as Lenses
HBR offers a camera comparison. The scene stays put, but a wide-angle lens and a telephoto lens give very different pictures, and adjusting angle, aperture and focus changes what stands out [2]. Every photograph leaves something out. A problem statement does the same, even when nobody writes it down.
Digital.gov adds a practical benefit. Reframing a broad problem into a more specific one can help a team preserve resources for field research, and good framing can keep effort from going to the wrong problem while widening the range of possible solutions [3]. It also treats the first starting point with caution, since new knowledge may show it was off.
Tools for Checking a Frame
The sources are more useful here than on theory. Digital.gov suggests answering four questions before moving on [3]:
- Who is the project for?
- What are you trying to understand?
- Why is this a problem?
- What is the goal?
It then recommends writing the result as a "How might we..." statement. "How" points toward action, "might" leaves room for options, and "we" makes the work shared. The guide also advises checking the frame against desk research, so a team does not retread ground others have already covered.
Perspective matters too. A NASA study of early-stage engineering design, presented at the 24th International Conference on Engineering Design in Bordeaux in 2023, describes a spectrum of perspective taking during problem framing. At one end the designer fully adopts a stakeholder's point of view. At the other, the designer fully adopts their own [6]. The study treats stakeholder perspective taking as a critical skill in early problem exploration. A useful check follows from it: whose point of view is missing from the frame?
A Hypothetical: Same Facts, Different Frame
This example is invented for illustration. None of the sources provide a worked case. Suppose a subscription company sees revenue slipping. One team frames it as a cost shortfall. Their questions turn to budgets, vendor contracts and headcount. Another team frames the same numbers as a question: how might we help customers get more value in their first month? Their questions turn to onboarding, support and who actually uses the product.
Neither frame is automatically right. The point is that each one makes certain solutions visible and hides others. The four questions above would force the first team to say who the work is for and why the shortfall is a problem at all. That may or may not change their answer. It would at least make the choice a conscious one.
The Case for Moving Fast, and What the Evidence Leaves Out
A fair counterpoint deserves space. Plenty of teams work in settings where a good-enough frame, acted on quickly, teaches more than another week of debate. A first attempt often exposes a bad frame faster than discussion does. Endless reframing can also become a way to avoid commitment. The sources reviewed here do not say how much upfront framing is enough, so that balance stays a judgment call.
Other gaps remain. The sources give no step-by-step example of one problem being reframed from start to finish. They say little about biases that may shape which frame people choose, such as anchoring or confirmation bias, and they do not link framing to those effects. They also offer no guidance on resolving disagreement when stakeholders hold conflicting frames. The IESE article was not examined in full, so its title is cited here as a title and nothing more.
What remains is a modest, usable habit. Before work begins, spend a short, fixed amount of time on the four questions. Write the "How might we..." statement. Name one person whose view is missing. Then act, and be ready to revise the frame when the first results come back.
Sources
- How you frame the problem is part of the solution | IESE Insight
- To Solve a Tough Problem, Reframe It
- Reframing | Digital.gov
- Systems approaches in public health: beyond mapping the causes - PubMed
- Shaping the Future of Policy with Behavioural Science: Key Takeaways from the 9th OECD BRAIN Meeting - Observatory of Public Sector Innovation
- A Spectrum of Stakeholder Perspective Taking in Early-Stage Design - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
- A framework for determining when AI can make decisions | MIT Sloan
- Problem-solving methods | MIT Sloan Executive Education
Siobhan O'Reilly investigates the friction between urban decay and digital expansion for Deeperpectives. She spent a decade reporting from transit hubs and temporary settlements across the rust belt. Her work prioritizes the raw data of lived experience over polished corporate narratives.
