A room, sticky notes and a creative prompt can produce an impressive number of ideas. It can also produce a large number of solutions to the wrong problem.
The most common failure in Design Thinking is not a lack of creativity. It is premature certainty about:
- who has the problem;
- when the problem occurs;
- what makes the situation difficult;
- which outcome matters;
- which solution category should be used.
When these assumptions remain hidden, an ideation workshop scales them.
The hidden solution inside the problem
Consider this brief:
How might we build an AI assistant that reduces support demand?
The wording makes three decisions before the work begins:
- AI is the mechanism.
- An assistant is the product form.
- Reducing contacts is the right outcome.
Customer evidence might show that contacts rise because an existing workflow hides who must act next. A new assistant could add another place to check while leaving the hand-off unchanged.
A better starting frame might be:
How might we help account administrators see and complete the next required action when a support case changes owner?
This question remains specific, but it permits interface, workflow, notification, policy and service options.
Separate four things teams often mix
Before ideation, create four evidence columns.
| Type | Example | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Observation | Six of eight administrators opened chat after a case changed teams | A general truth about all customers |
| Interpretation | The ownership change may reduce confidence | A verified cause |
| Need | Know who must act and what completion looks like | A product feature |
| Constraint | Regulated messages need an audit record | A reason to stop exploring |
The distinctions matter because the team should be able to challenge an interpretation without discarding an observation.
Research recent behaviour
General preference questions produce general answers:
- “I want it to be easy.”
- “Notifications are important.”
- “AI could be useful.”
Ask for a recent event instead:
- Tell me about the last time the case changed owner.
- What did you expect to happen next?
- What did you see?
- What did you do?
- At what point did you contact support?
- What would have made you confident enough not to contact anyone?
Recent-event questions create a sequence that can be observed, compared and tested.
A useful frame has tension
Strong frames are neither vague nor narrow.
Too broad:
How might we improve customer experience?
Too narrow:
How might we add a red notification badge?
Useful:
How might we help an administrator stay confident about progress when a case crosses team boundaries?
The frame contains a person, important progress and a circumstance. It does not contain the final mechanism.
Prototype the uncertainty, not the whole product
After ideation, ask which assumption could make each concept fail.
If the uncertainty is whether people understand a new sequence, a paper flow or clickable prototype may be enough. If the uncertainty is whether a human service creates trust, a role-play or concierge pilot is more credible. If the uncertainty is economic, an interface prototype is insufficient.
Prototype fidelity should match the learning question.
Mini-case: the discharge app
A day clinic sees frequent calls after minor procedures. A manager proposes a mobile app.
Research finds:
- patients fold the instruction sheet before the nurse finishes;
- family caregivers are often absent;
- medication timing and symptom uncertainty drive calls;
- some patients have limited mobile access.
The design opportunity is not “build an app.” It is to help a patient and caregiver recognise the correct next action under stress, after leaving the clinic.
Concepts could include:
- a personalised large-print action card;
- a caregiver hand-off message;
- a timed check-in;
- a teach-back conversation;
- a digital guide.
The app becomes one option, not the definition of the problem.
A pre-ideation checklist
Before generating ideas, confirm:
- the person and situation are specific;
- observations come from real behaviour or artefacts;
- interpretations are marked as interpretations;
- the desired progress is clear;
- the question contains no preferred feature;
- constraints are visible;
- the next prototype will test a named uncertainty.
Creativity becomes more useful when the frame is evidence-based.
Practical next step
Take one feature request from your current roadmap. Remove the feature, identify the observed event behind it and rewrite the request as:
How might we help [person] achieve [progress] when [circumstance]?
Then generate at least three mechanisms before evaluating any one of them.
References
- Stanford d.school. “Design Thinking Bootleg.” Official resource (opens in a new tab).
- IDEO.org. The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. Official resource (opens in a new tab).
Continue with the tool
Use the Design Thinking guide to frame a challenge, prototype a critical assumption and run a behavioural test.