/problem-framing-canvas

name: problem-framing-canvas
description: Guide teams through MITRE's Problem Framing Canvas. Use when you need a clearer problem statement before jumping to solutions.
intent: >-
  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.
type: interactive
best_for:
  - "Clarifying a messy problem before solutioning"
  - "Surfacing assumptions and overlooked stakeholders"
  - "Creating a bias-resistant problem statement in a workshop"
scenarios:
  - "Run a Problem Framing Canvas for our mobile retention issue"
  - "Help me reframe this stakeholder request before we build anything"
  - "We need a clearer problem statement for onboarding drop-off"

Purpose

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.

Key Concepts

What is the MITRE Problem Framing Canvas?

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

Canvas Structure

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 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

• **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

Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)

• **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

When to Use This

• 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

When NOT to Use This

• 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)

---

Facilitation Source of Truth

Use [`workshop-facilitation`](../workshop-facilitation/SKILL.md) 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.

Application

Use `template.md` for the full fill-in structure.

This interactive skill follows a **three-phase process**, asking **adaptive questions** in each phase.

---

Step 0: Gather Context (Before Questions)

**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: