Problem Definition
Scope
Covers
-
Turning a vague idea into a crisp, testable problem definition
-
Writing a shareable problem statement (1-liner + expanded)
-
Capturing Jobs To Be Done (JTBD) and target segments
-
Mapping current alternatives (including non-digital/analog) and “why now / why digital”
-
Building an evidence + assumptions log to drive learning
-
Defining success metrics + guardrails and clear scope boundaries
When to use
-
“Write a problem statement for…”
-
“We need to define the problem space / JTBD.”
-
“We keep jumping to solutions; help us get clear on the real problem.”
-
“Pressure to ‘do AI’ — verify there’s a real pain point first.”
-
“Before we write a PRD, align on what problem we’re solving.”
When NOT to use
-
You already have an approved problem definition and need a delivery-ready PRD (use writing-prds )
-
You need roadmap prioritization across many competing initiatives (use prioritizing-roadmap )
-
You need to set company-level strategy/vision (use defining-product-vision )
-
You’re doing deep research execution (recruiting, interviews, analysis); use this to frame what to learn, not as a substitute for research
Inputs
Minimum required
-
Product/context + target user (or segment hypotheses)
-
The triggering signal (customer quotes, data trend, stakeholder request, competitor move)
-
The decision to make (e.g., invest now vs later; explore vs stop) + timeline
-
Known constraints (tech/legal/privacy/compliance/capacity)
Missing-info strategy
-
Ask up to 5 questions from references/INTAKE.md.
-
If still missing, proceed with clearly labeled assumptions and list Open questions that would change the decision.
Outputs (deliverables)
Produce a Problem Definition Pack in Markdown (in-chat; or as files if the user requests):
-
Context snapshot (product, user, trigger, decision, constraints)
-
Problem statement (1-liner + expanded) + why now
-
JTBD (primary job + key sub-jobs) + target segment notes
-
Current alternatives (including analog/non-digital) + gaps + switching costs
-
Evidence & assumptions log (what we know vs what we’re guessing)
-
Success criteria (outcome metric(s), leading indicators) + guardrails
-
Scope boundaries (in/out, non-goals, dependencies)
-
Prototype / learning plan (fast prototype + tests to de-risk)
-
Risks / Open questions / Next steps (always included)
Templates: references/TEMPLATES.md
Expanded heuristics: references/WORKFLOW.md
Workflow (8 steps)
- Intake + decision framing
-
Inputs: User context; references/INTAKE.md.
-
Actions: Clarify the decision, time horizon, stakeholders, and constraints. Capture the trigger signal (data/quotes/event).
-
Outputs: Context snapshot.
-
Checks: You can state the decision in one sentence (“We are deciding whether to… by ”).
- Define the target user + situation (segment + context)
-
Inputs: Context snapshot.
-
Actions: Specify who experiences the problem, when it happens, frequency, and what’s at stake. If multiple segments, pick a primary and list others as secondary.
-
Outputs: Target user + context bullets.
-
Checks: The segment is specific enough that a researcher could recruit for it.
- Write the problem statement (1-liner + expanded)
-
Inputs: Target user + trigger signal.
-
Actions: Draft a crisp 1-liner, then expand with symptoms, root causes (hypotheses), and impact. Include why now.
-
Outputs: Problem statement section (using references/TEMPLATES.md).
-
Checks: Statement describes the problem without implying a specific solution or technology.
- Map current alternatives (including non-digital) + “why use this”
-
Inputs: Problem statement.
-
Actions: List how users solve this today (manual workarounds, spreadsheets, incumbents, doing nothing). Include at least one analog/non-digital alternative when relevant.
-
Outputs: Alternatives table + gaps + switching costs.
-
Checks: You can answer: “Why would a user give this the time of day vs their current way?”
- Separate problem from solution (avoid the shiny object trap)
-
Inputs: Alternatives + early solution ideas (if any).
-
Actions: Capture solution ideas as hypotheses, not commitments. If “AI” (or any tech) is proposed, state the user pain point first and treat tech choice as an implementation detail.
-
Outputs: Evidence & assumptions log (with test ideas).
-
Checks: Each assumption has a proposed test and a confidence level.
- Define success criteria + guardrails
-
Inputs: Problem statement + evidence.
-
Actions: Define measurable outcomes, leading indicators, and guardrails (quality, trust, cost, latency, support load, etc.).
-
Outputs: Success metrics + guardrails section.
-
Checks: Metrics are unambiguous and tied to the user’s desired outcome.
- Visualize the end state + prototype a path to clarity
-
Inputs: Success criteria + scope constraints.
-
Actions: Describe what “done” looks like (user-visible end state). Create a fast prototype/experiment plan to validate the hardest assumptions before building.
-
Outputs: End-state description + prototype/learning plan.
-
Checks: The team can “see the end” and name the 1–3 biggest unknowns being tested.
- Quality gate + finalize the pack
-
Inputs: Full draft pack.
-
Actions: Run references/CHECKLISTS.md and score with references/RUBRIC.md. Add Risks/Open questions/Next steps.
-
Outputs: Final Problem Definition Pack.
-
Checks: A stakeholder can review async and decide “proceed / pause / stop” without a meeting.
Quality gate (required)
-
Use references/CHECKLISTS.md and references/RUBRIC.md.
-
Always include: Risks, Open questions, Next steps.
Examples
Example 1 (B2B SaaS): “Define the problem for improving onboarding activation in our analytics product.”
Expected: a pack with a tight segment, current onboarding alternatives/workarounds, measurable activation outcomes, and a prototype plan to test the most uncertain hypothesis.
Example 2 (Consumer): “Users abandon checkout on mobile; define the problem space and JTBD before proposing fixes.”
Expected: a problem statement grounded in evidence, an alternatives map (including ‘do nothing’), and guardrails (fraud/chargebacks/support load).
Boundary example: “Write a PRD for building an AI assistant; we don’t know what problem it solves.”
Response: push back; run this skill to define the user pain point and success metrics first, then hand off to writing-prds .