Back to Details

problem-framing-canvas

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Purpose

目的

Guide product managers through the MITRE Problem Framing Canvas process by asking structured questions across three phases: Look Inward (examine your own assumptions and biases), Look Outward (understand who experiences the problem and who doesn't), and Reframe (synthesize insights into an actionable problem statement and "How Might We" question). Use this to ensure you're solving the right problem before jumping to solutions—avoiding confirmation bias, overlooked stakeholders, and solution-first thinking.
This is not a solution brainstorm—it's a problem framing tool that broadens perspective, challenges assumptions, and produces a clear, equity-driven problem statement.
通过三个阶段的结构化问题引导产品经理完成MITRE问题框架画布流程：向内审视（审视自身假设与偏见）、向外洞察（了解受问题影响的群体与未受影响的群体）、重新定义（将洞察整合为可落地的问题陈述和“How Might We”（HMW）问题）。使用该工具可确保在着手解决方案前先找准问题，避免确认偏差、忽略相关利益方以及先入为主的解决方案思维。
这不是解决方案头脑风暴工具——它是一个问题框架工具，用于拓宽视角、挑战假设，并生成以公平为导向的清晰问题陈述。

Key Concepts

核心概念

What is the MITRE Problem Framing Canvas?

什么是MITRE问题框架画布？

The Problem Framing Canvas (MITRE Innovation Toolkit, v3) is a structured framework that helps teams explore a problem space comprehensively before proposing solutions. It's partitioned into three areas:
  1. Look Inward — Examine your own assumptions, biases, and how you might be part of the problem
  2. Look Outward — Understand who experiences the problem, who benefits from it, and who's been left out
  3. Reframe — Synthesize insights into a clear, actionable problem statement and "How Might We" question
问题框架画布（MITRE创新工具包第3版）是一个结构化框架，帮助团队在提出解决方案前全面探索问题空间。它分为三个核心区域：
  1. 向内审视 —— 审视自身的假设、偏见，以及自身可能如何成为问题的一部分
  2. 向外洞察 —— 了解谁受问题影响、谁从问题中获益，以及谁被排除在外
  3. 重新定义 —— 将洞察整合为清晰、可落地的问题陈述和“How Might We”问题

Canvas Structure

画布结构

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ LOOK INWARD                                                     │
│ - What is the problem? (symptoms)                              │
│ - Why haven't we solved it? (new, hard, low priority, etc.)   │
│ - How are we part of the problem? (assumptions, biases)       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ LOOK OUTWARD                                                    │
│ - Who experiences the problem? When/where/consequences?        │
│ - Who else has it? Who doesn't have it?                       │
│ - Who's been left out?                                        │
│ - Who benefits when problem exists/doesn't exist?             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ REFRAME                                                         │
│ - Stated another way, the problem is: [restatement]           │
│ - How might we [action] as we aim to [objective]?             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ LOOK INWARD                                                     │
│ - What is the problem? (symptoms)                              │
│ - Why haven't we solved it? (new, hard, low priority, etc.)   │
│ - How are we part of the problem? (assumptions, biases)       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ LOOK OUTWARD                                                    │
│ - Who experiences the problem? When/where/consequences?        │
│ - Who else has it? Who doesn't have it?                       │
│ - Who's been left out?                                        │
│ - Who benefits when problem exists/doesn't exist?             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ REFRAME                                                         │
│ - Stated another way, the problem is: [restatement]           │
│ - How might we [action] as we aim to [objective]?             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Why This Works

为何该工具有效

  • Broadens perspective: Forces you to look beyond your own assumptions
  • Equity-driven: Centers marginalized voices and asks "who's been left out?"
  • Challenges biases: Requires explicit examination of assumptions before framing problem
  • Actionable output: Produces HMW statement ready for solution exploration
  • 拓宽视角： 迫使你跳出自身假设的局限
  • 公平导向： 聚焦边缘化群体的声音，提出“谁被排除在外？”的问题
  • 挑战偏见： 要求在定义问题前明确审视自身假设
  • 输出可落地： 生成可直接用于解决方案探索的HMW陈述

Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)

反模式（该工具不是什么）

  • Not a solution brainstorm: Canvas frames the problem; solutions come later
  • Not a feature request list: Focuses on underlying problems, not surface symptoms
  • Not a one-person exercise: Requires diverse perspectives to challenge groupthink
  • 不是解决方案头脑风暴： 画布用于定义问题，解决方案需后续开展
  • 不是功能需求列表： 聚焦底层问题，而非表面症状
  • 不是单人练习： 需要多元视角来挑战群体思维

When to Use This

何时使用该工具

  • Starting discovery for a new initiative
  • Reframing an existing problem (suspect you're solving the wrong thing)
  • Challenging assumptions before building solutions
  • Aligning cross-functional teams on problem definition
  • 启动新举措的探索阶段
  • 重新定义现有问题（怀疑当前解决的是错误问题）
  • 在构建解决方案前挑战假设
  • 让跨职能团队就问题定义达成共识

When NOT to Use This

何时不使用该工具

  • When the problem is already well-understood and validated
  • For tactical bug fixes or technical debt (no deep framing needed)
  • When stakeholders have already committed to a solution (address alignment first)
  • 问题已被充分理解并验证
  • 用于战术性bug修复或技术债务处理（无需深度框架搭建）
  • 利益相关方已承诺采用某一解决方案（需先解决共识问题）

Facilitation Source of Truth

引导工作坊的参考标准

Use 
workshop-facilitation
 as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
It defines:
  • session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)
  • one-question turns with plain-language prompts
  • progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)
  • interruption handling and pause/resume behavior
  • numbered recommendations at decision points
  • quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include 
    Other (specify)
    when useful)
This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
将
workshop-facilitation
作为该技能的默认交互协议。
它定义了：
  • 会议预告与参与模式（引导式、情境导入式、最佳猜测式）
  • 单轮提问与平实语言提示
  • 进度标签（例如：情境问题X/8、评分问题X/5）
  • 中断处理与暂停/恢复机制
  • 决策点的编号建议
  • 常规问题的快速选择编号响应选项（必要时包含“其他（请说明）”）
本文件定义了领域特定的评估内容。若存在冲突，以本文件的领域逻辑为准。

Application

应用

Use 
template.md
for the full fill-in structure.
This interactive skill follows a three-phase process, asking adaptive questions in each phase.
使用
template.md
获取完整的填写模板。
该交互式技能遵循三阶段流程，在每个阶段提出适应性问题。

Step 0: Gather Context (Before Questions)

步骤0：收集情境信息（提问前）

Agent suggests:
Before we frame your problem, let's gather context:
Problem Context:
  • Initial problem statement or stakeholder request
  • Symptoms you've observed (support tickets, churn data, user complaints)
  • Existing research (user interviews, surveys, analytics)
  • Assumptions you're making about the problem
Stakeholder Context:
  • Who's affected by this problem? (users, customers, internal teams)
  • Who's asking for this to be solved? (execs, sales, customers)
  • Who might have been overlooked?
You can paste this content directly, or describe the problem briefly.
Agent建议：
在定义问题前，我们先收集一些情境信息：
问题情境：
  • 初始问题陈述或利益相关方需求
  • 已观察到的症状（支持工单、用户流失数据、用户投诉）
  • 现有研究（用户访谈、调研、分析数据）
  • 你对该问题的假设
利益相关方情境：
  • 谁受该问题影响？（用户、客户、内部团队）
  • 谁要求解决该问题？（高管、销售团队、客户）
  • 谁可能被忽略了？
你可以直接粘贴上述内容，或简要描述问题。

Phase 1: Look Inward

阶段1：向内审视

Goal: Examine your own assumptions, biases, and how you might be part of the problem.
目标： 审视自身的假设、偏见，以及自身可能如何成为问题的一部分。

Question 1: What is the problem? (Describe symptoms)

问题1：当前的问题是什么？（描述症状）

Agent asks: "What is the problem as you currently understand it? Describe the symptoms."
Offer 4 enumerated options:
  1. Customer pain point — "Customers struggle with [specific task/outcome]" (e.g., "Customers can't find features they need")
  2. Business metric problem — "We're seeing [metric decline]" (e.g., "Churn increased 15% last quarter")
  3. Stakeholder request — "Stakeholders say we need [feature/change]" (e.g., "Sales team says we need better reporting")
  4. Observed behavior — "We've noticed [pattern/trend]" (e.g., "Users abandon onboarding at step 3")
Or describe your problem/symptoms.
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent extracts:
  • Problem (initial framing): [Description from user]
Agent提问： “你当前理解的问题是什么？请描述症状。”
提供4个选项：
  1. 客户痛点 —— “客户在[特定任务/结果]上存在困难”（例如：“客户无法找到所需功能”）
  2. 业务指标问题 —— “我们观察到[指标下滑]”（例如：“上季度用户流失率上升15%”）
  3. 利益相关方需求 —— “利益相关方表示我们需要[功能/变更]”（例如：“销售团队要求我们优化报告功能”）
  4. 观察到的行为模式 —— “我们注意到[模式/趋势]”（例如：“用户在注册流程第3步放弃”）
或自行描述问题/症状。
用户回复： [选择或自定义内容]
Agent提取信息：
  • 初始问题定义： [用户提供的描述]

Question 2: Why haven't we solved it?

问题2：为何该问题尚未解决？

Agent asks: "Why hasn't this problem been solved yet?"
Offer 6 enumerated options (can select multiple):
  1. It's new — "Problem recently emerged"
  2. It's hard — "Technically complex or resource-intensive"
  3. It's low priority — "Other initiatives took precedence"
  4. Lack of resources — "Not enough budget, people, or time"
  5. Lack of authority — "Can't make the decision or get buy-in"
  6. A systemic inequity — "Problem disproportionately affects marginalized groups, overlooked"
Or describe your own reason.
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent captures:
  • Barriers to solving: [List of reasons]
Agent提问： “为何该问题至今未得到解决？”
提供6个可多选的选项：
  1. 问题是新出现的 —— “问题最近才浮现”
  2. 问题难度大 —— “技术复杂或资源投入要求高”
  3. 优先级低 —— “其他举措占据了优先位置”
  4. 资源不足 —— “预算、人员或时间不足”
  5. 缺乏决策权 —— “无法做出决策或获得支持”
  6. 系统性不公平 —— “问题对边缘化群体影响更大，被忽略了”
或自行描述原因。
用户回复： [选择或自定义内容]
Agent记录：
  • 解决障碍： [原因列表]

Question 3: How are we part of the problem? (Assumptions & biases)

问题3：我们如何成为问题的一部分？（假设与偏见）

Agent asks: "How might you (or your team) be part of the problem? What assumptions or biases are you bringing?"
Offer 4 enumerated options:
  1. Assuming we know what customers want — "We haven't validated with real users" (Confirmation bias)
  2. Optimizing for ourselves, not users — "Building what's easy for us, not what's valuable for them" (Internal bias)
  3. Overlooking specific user segments — "Focused on majority users, ignored edge cases or marginalized groups" (Survivorship bias)
  4. Solution-first thinking — "Jumped to 'we need [feature X]' before understanding root problem" (Premature convergence)
Or describe your specific assumptions/biases.
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent captures:
  • Assumptions to challenge: [List of biases]
Agent提问： “你（或你的团队）可能如何成为问题的一部分？你带有哪些假设或偏见？”
提供4个选项：
  1. 假设我们了解客户需求 —— “我们未与真实用户验证”（确认偏差）
  2. 优先优化自身需求而非用户需求 —— “构建对我们来说容易的功能，而非对用户有价值的功能”（内部偏差）
  3. 忽略特定用户群体 —— “聚焦主流用户，忽略边缘案例或边缘化群体”（幸存者偏差）
  4. 先入为主的解决方案思维 —— “在理解根本问题前就提出‘我们需要[功能X]’”（过早收敛）
或自行描述具体的假设/偏见。
用户回复： [选择或自定义内容]
Agent记录：
  • 需挑战的假设： [偏见列表]

Phase 2: Look Outward

阶段2：向外洞察

Goal: Understand who experiences the problem, who benefits from it, and who's been left out.
目标： 了解谁受问题影响、谁从问题中获益，以及谁被排除在外。

Question 4: Who experiences the problem? (When, where, consequences)

问题4：谁受该问题影响？（时间、场景、后果）

Agent asks: "Who experiences this problem? When and where do they experience it? What consequences do they face?"
Agent prompts user to describe:
  • Who: Specific personas, user segments, or roles
  • When: Triggering events or contexts (e.g., "during onboarding," "at month-end close")
  • Where: Physical or digital locations (e.g., "mobile app," "enterprise deployments")
  • Consequences: Impact on users (e.g., "waste 2 hours/week," "miss deadlines," "churn")
Adaptation: Use personas from context (proto-personas, JTBD, customer research)
User response: [Detailed description]
Agent captures:
  • Who experiences it: [Personas/segments]
  • When/where: [Context]
  • Consequences: [Impact]
Agent提问： “谁受该问题影响？他们在何时、何地遇到该问题？会产生什么后果？”
Agent引导用户描述：
  • 人群： 特定用户画像、用户群体或角色
  • 时间： 触发事件或场景（例如：“注册流程中”“月末结账时”）
  • 地点： 物理或数字场景（例如：“移动应用”“企业部署环境”）
  • 后果： 对用户的影响（例如：“每周浪费2小时”“错过截止日期”“用户流失”）
适配调整： 使用情境信息中的用户画像（原型画像、JTBD、客户研究）
用户回复： [详细描述]
Agent记录：
  • 受影响人群： [用户画像/群体]
  • 时间/场景： [情境信息]
  • 后果： [影响]

Question 5: Who else has this problem? Who doesn't have it?

问题5：还有谁存在该问题？谁不存在该问题？

Agent asks: "Who else has this problem? (Colleagues, competitors, other domains?) And who doesn't have it?"
Agent prompts:
  • Who else has it: Other companies, industries, or domains with similar problems
  • How do they deal with it: Workarounds, solutions, or adaptations
  • Who doesn't have it: Users/companies that avoid the problem (what's different about them?)
User response: [Detailed description]
Agent captures:
  • Who else has it: [Examples]
  • Who doesn't have it: [Counter-examples]
Agent提问： “还有谁存在该问题？（同事、竞争对手、其他领域？）谁不存在该问题？”
Agent引导：
  • 其他存在问题的对象： 存在类似问题的其他公司、行业或领域
  • 他们的应对方式： 临时解决方案、现有方案或适配措施
  • 不存在问题的对象： 未受问题影响的用户/公司（他们有何不同？）
用户回复： [详细描述]
Agent记录：
  • 其他存在问题的对象： [示例]
  • 不存在问题的对象： [反例]

Question 6: Who's been left out? Who benefits?

问题6：谁被排除在外？谁从中获益？

Agent asks: "Who's been left out of the conversation so far? And who benefits when this problem exists or doesn't exist?"
Agent prompts:
  • Who's been left out: Marginalized voices, edge cases, overlooked stakeholders
  • Who benefits when problem exists: Who gains from the status quo?
  • Who benefits when problem doesn't exist: Who loses if problem is solved?
Example:
  • "Who benefits when onboarding is broken?" → "Sales team doesn't have to support complex workflows; engineering doesn't have to build guided flows"
  • "Who's been left out?" → "Non-technical users, international customers (onboarding in English only)"
User response: [Detailed description]
Agent captures:
  • Who's been left out: [List]
  • Who benefits (problem exists): [List]
  • Who benefits (problem solved): [List]
Agent提问： “至今谁被排除在讨论之外？谁会从问题存在或解决中获益？”
Agent引导：
  • 被排除的群体： 边缘化群体、边缘案例、被忽略的利益相关方
  • 问题存在时的获益者： 从现状中获利的对象
  • 问题解决后的获益者： 问题解决后利益受损的对象
示例：
  • “注册流程不完善时谁会获益？” → “销售团队无需支持复杂工作流；工程师无需构建引导流程”
  • “谁被排除在外？” → “非技术用户、国际客户（注册流程仅支持英文）”
用户回复： [详细描述]
Agent记录：
  • 被排除的群体： [列表]
  • 问题存在时的获益者： [列表]
  • 问题解决后的获益者： [列表]

Phase 3: Reframe

阶段3：重新定义

Goal: Synthesize insights into a clear, actionable problem statement and "How Might We" question.
目标： 将洞察整合为清晰、可落地的问题陈述和“How Might We”问题。

Question 7: Restate the problem

问题7：重新陈述问题

Agent says: "Based on everything we've explored, let's restate the problem in a new way."
Agent generates a refined problem statement using insights from Phases 1-2:
Template: "The problem is: [Who] struggles to [accomplish what] because [root cause], which leads to [consequence]. This affects [specific segments] and has been overlooked because [bias/assumption from Phase 1]."
Example (SaaS onboarding): "The problem is: Non-technical small business owners struggle to activate our product during onboarding because we use jargon-heavy UI and lack guided workflows, which leads to 60% abandonment within 24 hours. This disproportionately affects solopreneurs without technical support, and has been overlooked because our team optimizes for enterprise users who have IT departments."
Agent asks: "Does this restatement capture the core problem? Should we refine it?"
User response: [Approve or modify]
Agent说明： “基于我们探索的所有信息，让我们用新的方式重新陈述问题。”
Agent会结合阶段1和阶段2的洞察生成优化后的问题陈述：
模板： “问题在于：[人群] 难以[完成目标]，因为[根本原因]，这导致了[后果]。该问题影响了[特定群体]，且因[阶段1中的偏见/假设]被忽略。”
示例（SaaS注册流程）： “问题在于：非技术背景的小企业主在注册流程中难以激活产品，因为我们使用了术语密集的UI且缺乏引导流程，这导致60%的用户在24小时内放弃。该问题对无技术支持的个体创业者影响尤为显著，但因我们的团队优先为拥有IT部门的企业用户优化而被忽略。”
Agent提问： “该重新陈述是否涵盖了核心问题？是否需要优化？”
用户回复： [确认或修改]

Question 8: Create "How Might We" statement

问题8：生成“How Might We”陈述

Agent says: "Now let's make it actionable with a 'How Might We' statement."
Template: "How might we [action that addresses the problem] as we aim to [objective/desired condition]?"
Example (SaaS onboarding): "How might we guide non-technical users through onboarding with plain-language prompts as we aim to increase activation from 40% to 70%?"
Agent asks: "Does this HMW statement set up the right solution space? Should we adjust?"
User response: [Approve or modify]
Agent说明： “现在我们将其转化为可落地的‘How Might We’（HMW）陈述。”
模板： “我们如何通过[解决问题的行动]，实现[目标/期望状态]？”
示例（SaaS注册流程）： “我们如何通过平实语言提示引导非技术用户完成注册流程，以将激活率从40%提升至70%？”
Agent提问： “该HMW陈述是否为解决方案探索划定了正确范围？是否需要调整？”
用户回复： [确认或修改]

Output: Problem Framing Canvas + HMW Statement

输出：问题框架画布 + HMW陈述

After completing the flow, the agent outputs:
markdown
undefined
完成流程后，Agent会输出以下内容：
markdown
undefined

Problem Framing Canvas: [Problem Name]

问题框架画布：[问题名称]

Date: [Today's date]
日期： [今日日期]

Phase 1: Look Inward

阶段1：向内审视

What is the problem? (Symptoms)

当前问题是什么？（症状）

[Description from Q1]
[问题1中的描述]

Why haven't we solved it?

为何该问题尚未解决？

  • [Barrier 1 from Q2]
  • [Barrier 2]
  • [Barrier 3]
  • [问题2中的障碍1]
  • [障碍2]
  • [障碍3]

How are we part of the problem? (Assumptions & biases)

我们如何成为问题的一部分？（假设与偏见）

  • [Assumption 1 from Q3]
  • [Assumption 2]
  • [Assumption 3]
Which of these might be redesigned, reframed, or removed? [Reflection on biases to challenge]
  • [问题3中的假设1]
  • [假设2]
  • [假设3]
哪些假设可以被重新设计、定义或移除？ [对需挑战的偏见的反思]

Phase 2: Look Outward

阶段2：向外洞察

Who experiences the problem?

谁受该问题影响？

Who: [Personas/segments from Q4] When/Where: [Context] Consequences: [Impact on users] Lived experience varies: [How different users experience it differently]
人群： [问题4中的用户画像/群体] 时间/场景： [情境信息] 后果： [对用户的影响] 体验差异： [不同用户的体验差异]

Who else has this problem?

还有谁存在该问题？

Who else: [Examples from Q5] How they deal with it: [Workarounds]
其他对象： [问题5中的示例] 应对方式： [临时解决方案]

Who doesn't have it?

谁不存在该问题？

[Counter-examples from Q5]
[问题5中的反例]

Who's been left out?

谁被排除在外？

[Marginalized voices from Q6]
[问题6中的边缘化群体]

Who benefits?

谁从中获益？

When problem exists: [Beneficiaries of status quo] When problem doesn't exist: [Who loses if solved]
问题存在时： [现状获益者] 问题解决后： [利益受损对象]

Phase 3: Reframe

阶段3：重新定义

Stated another way, the problem is:

换一种方式陈述，问题是：

[Refined problem statement from Q7]
[问题7中的优化后问题陈述]

How Might We...

How Might We...

How might we [action from Q8] as we aim to [objective from Q8]?
我们如何 [问题8中的行动] 以实现 [问题8中的目标]？

Next Steps

下一步行动

  1. Validate with users: Use 
    skills/discovery-interview-prep/SKILL.md
    to test reframed problem with customers
  2. Generate solutions: Use 
    skills/opportunity-solution-tree/SKILL.md
    to explore solution space
  3. Create problem statement: Use 
    skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md
    to formalize for PRD/roadmap
  4. Identify opportunities: Use HMW statement to brainstorm solution ideas
Ready to explore solutions? Let me know if you'd like to refine the problem framing or move to solution generation.

---
  1. 用户验证： 使用
    skills/discovery-interview-prep/SKILL.md
    工具，与客户测试重新定义的问题
  2. 生成解决方案： 使用
    skills/opportunity-solution-tree/SKILL.md
    工具探索解决方案空间
  3. 正式问题陈述： 使用
    skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md
    工具将问题陈述规范化，用于PRD/路线图
  4. 识别机会： 利用HMW陈述开展解决方案头脑风暴
准备好探索解决方案了吗？若你想优化问题框架或推进解决方案生成，请告知我。

---

Examples

示例

See 
examples/sample.md
for full problem framing examples.
Mini example excerpt:
markdown
**Look Inward:** Churn spiked after onboarding change
**Look Outward:** New SMB users are most affected
**Reframe:** How might we reduce onboarding friction for first-time users?
查看
examples/sample.md
获取完整的问题框架示例。
迷你示例节选：
markdown
**向内审视：** 注册流程变更后用户流失率飙升
**向外洞察：** 新的中小企业用户受影响最大
**重新定义：** 我们如何降低首次用户的注册流程摩擦？

Common Pitfalls

常见陷阱

Pitfall 1: Skipping "Look Inward" (Assuming You're Neutral)

陷阱1：跳过“向内审视”（假设自身中立）

Symptom: Team jumps straight to "Look Outward" without examining biases
Consequence: Groupthink persists, assumptions unchallenged
Fix: Force explicit discussion of assumptions and biases (Q2-Q3)
症状： 团队直接进入“向外洞察”阶段，未审视自身偏见
后果： 群体思维持续存在，假设未被挑战
解决方法： 强制开展假设与偏见的明确讨论（问题2-3）

Pitfall 2: Ignoring "Who Benefits" Question

陷阱2：忽略“谁从中获益”的问题

Symptom: Canvas completed without exploring who benefits from problem existing
Consequence: Miss political dynamics, resistance to change
Fix: Always ask "Who loses if this problem is solved?" (Q6)
症状： 完成画布但未探索问题存在时的获益者
后果： 错过政治动态与变革阻力
解决方法： 始终询问“问题解决后谁会利益受损？”（问题6）

Pitfall 3: Generic Problem Statement

陷阱3：问题陈述过于笼统

Symptom: Reframed problem is vague ("Improve user experience")
Consequence: HMW statement isn't actionable
Fix: Make problem specific (who, what, when, consequence, root cause)
症状： 重新定义的问题模糊不清（例如：“提升用户体验”）
后果： HMW陈述无法落地
解决方法： 让问题具体化（包含人群、目标、时间、后果、根本原因）

Pitfall 4: HMW Statement Is Too Narrow

陷阱4：HMW陈述过于狭窄

Symptom: "How might we add a mobile app?"
Consequence: Constrains solution space to one idea
Fix: Keep HMW broad: "How might we enable mobile-first users to access core workflows on any device?"
症状： “我们如何添加一个移动应用？”
后果： 将解决方案空间限制为单一想法
解决方法： 保持HMW陈述的宽泛性：“我们如何让移动优先用户在任意设备上访问核心工作流？”

Pitfall 5: Solo Exercise (No Diverse Perspectives)

陷阱5：单人完成练习（缺乏多元视角）

Symptom: PM fills out canvas alone
Consequence: Biases persist, marginalized voices still left out
Fix: Facilitate canvas workshop with cross-functional team + customer input
症状： 产品经理独自填写画布
后果： 偏见持续存在，边缘化群体仍被忽略
解决方法： 组织跨职能团队+客户参与的画布工作坊

References

参考资料

Related Skills

相关技能

  • skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md
    — Converts reframed problem into formal problem statement
  • skills/opportunity-solution-tree/SKILL.md
    — Uses HMW statement to generate solution options
  • skills/discovery-interview-prep/SKILL.md
    — Validates reframed problem with customers
  • skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md
    —— 将重新定义的问题转化为正式的问题陈述
  • skills/opportunity-solution-tree/SKILL.md
    —— 利用HMW陈述生成解决方案选项
  • skills/discovery-interview-prep/SKILL.md
    —— 与客户验证重新定义的问题

External Frameworks

外部框架

  • MITRE Innovation Toolkit, "Problem Framing Canvas v3" (2021) — Origin of canvas, equity-driven design thinking
  • Stanford d.school, "How Might We" statements — Actionable problem framing
  • MITRE创新工具包，“问题框架画布第3版”（2021）—— 画布的起源，以公平为导向的设计思维
  • 斯坦福d.school，“How Might We”陈述 —— 可落地的问题框架方法

Dean's Work

Dean的相关工作

  • [If Dean has problem framing resources, link here]
Skill type: Interactive Suggested filename: 
problem-framing-canvas.md
Suggested placement: 
/skills/interactive/
Dependencies: Uses 
skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md
  • [若Dean有问题框架相关资源，请在此处添加链接]
技能类型： 交互式 建议文件名： 
problem-framing-canvas.md
建议存放路径： 
/skills/interactive/
依赖： 使用
skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md