Problem Framing Deep Dive at Google

When John Vetan and I were invited to host a Deep Dive session at Google’s SprintCon 2019 in Boulder, we knew it would be an incredible opportunity to connect with over 100 design sprint facilitators from around the world and share experiences in a truly collaborative setting.

At Design Sprint Academy, we had spent years honing our Problem Framing approach, and this was our chance to explore it deeply with a room full of professionals who shared our commitment to building a strong foundation for every sprint.

But as we stepped into the session, we quickly realized this would be more than a teaching moment—it was a unique opportunity to learn firsthand from the insights and challenges of seasoned facilitators who joined our morning session.

Our deep dive into Problem Framing became a powerful blend of real-time collaboration, shared discovery, and actionable insights. Here’s a look back at how we transformed the challenges facilitators face into a hands-on exploration of framing the right problem and setting a sprint up for true success.

We kicked off the session by posing a simple but powerful question: ‍

What is the most important challenge you face as a Design Sprint facilitator?

Using Menti to capture their responses, we watched real, relatable challenges fill the screen. The majority highlighted maintaining momentum after the sprint as their biggest hurdle, emphasizing the challenge of moving concepts into development and bringing ideas to light. Many pointed to a lack of sponsorship and support to take promising solutions further.

Other key challenges included aligning on the right problem from the start, securing team agreement, and finding time for a focused sprint. Some also noted difficulties in gaining stakeholder buy-in for new ideas and ensuring time commitments from busy team members.

This interactive exercise set the stage for our Problem Framing session by grounding it in real-world issues. The facilitators weren’t just learning a new framework—they were actively addressing the obstacles they face daily in their practice.

Getting to Know the Facilitators in the Room

To dive deeper, we wanted to recognize the distinct facilitation styles represented in the room. We distributed a short quiz to help us identify two archetypes we often see in facilitation: Pathfinders and Innovators. The quiz included questions like:

• ‍“How many people do you manage?”
• “In your current role, can you influence the outcome of a project?”
• “When making decisions, do you look to understand the root cause, evaluate the current situation, or explore future possibilities?”
• “When confronted with a complex problem, do you prefer to take time to think, exchange ideas with others, or act quickly?”

These responses weren’t about putting anyone into rigid categories but about understanding the natural tendencies facilitators bring to their work.

Pathfinders, we learned, tend to focus on understanding root causes, work methodically, and may lean on traditional approaches. Innovators, meanwhile, are action-oriented, future-focused, and enjoy experimenting with new solutions.

Labeling these two approaches was a fun way to reflect differences in influence and fallback strategies for problem-solving. For some, the lack of control over sprint outcomes can become a roadblock, while others navigate such challenges with ease. Recognizing these distinctions gave us a clearer understanding of why certain challenges persist for some facilitators but are easily solved by others.

This insight prepared us for the next phase of Problem Framing.

Creating a Live Proto-Persona and Journey Mapping

Armed with these insights, we invited four facilitators—representing both Pathfinders and Innovators—to join us on stage.

Our goal?

To create a live proto-persona that represented the collective challenges, needs, and styles of the facilitators in the room. This proto-persona wasn’t a hypothetical character; it was a composite brought to life by the real stories and struggles shared by facilitators throughout the session.

To deepen this persona, we moved into Journey Mapping, building two distinct journeys based on the behaviors and mindsets of Pathfinders and Innovators. To do this effectively, each participant completed a questionnaire that revealed their past behaviors, current challenges, and mindsets toward problem-solving.

We asked questions like:

• ‍“What is the problem about?” (Present)
• ‍“What were the times when this problem was not a problem?” (Past)‍
• “How did you try to solve it?”, “What were some successes?”, “What were some obstacles?” (Past)‍
• “Why is this worth solving?” (Future)

For Pathfinders, the journey focused on understanding and navigating complexities with a methodical approach, often taking extra time to align all stakeholders.

For Innovators, the journey was fast-paced and action-driven, with a focus on experimenting and pushing boundaries.

Each journey map captured the facilitator’s pain points, obstacles, and key opportunities at each stage, creating a powerful visual of the unique ways facilitators approach and solve problems.

Contextualizing the Problem

Once we had mapped out these personas, we guided participants through the first key phase of Problem Framing—understanding the broader context. We explored questions like “Who are the key players in this problem?” and “What external/internal forces might shape this challenge?”

This phase helped facilitators take a step back and look at the bigger picture, something that often gets overlooked in the rush to solve. It reinforced the importance of looking beyond immediate issues to understand the ecosystem surrounding a problem.

Crafting “How Might We” Statements

As we moved into solution mode, we guided participants in crafting effective How Might We (HMW) statements. The best HMW statements are rooted in genuine insights—real data drawn from facilitators’ experiences—and brought to life through a well-visualized journey map. For this session, our journey map was filled with actual, “as-is” data from conference participants—Design Sprint Facilitators—reflecting authentic challenges, problem-solving approaches, and diverse attitudes.

Having this rich visualization on the walls allowed participants to see the problem space from multiple perspectives. With insights mapped out, it became much easier for them to look at challenges through different lenses, such as working with limited resources, adapting to changing timelines, or managing varying levels of risk. This grounded, data-informed approach empowered participants to ask sharper, more actionable “How Might We” questions that opened up new avenues for creativity and exploration.

Bringing It All Together with a Problem Statement

We wrapped up by guiding participants in crafting clear, actionable problem statements drawn from their newfound insights. This final exercise was the culmination of a journey that began with a broad question: What’s your biggest challenge as a facilitator? One prominent challenge that emerged was maintaining momentum after the design sprint to ensure solutions are actually built.

Starting from this high-level issue, we zoomed in on the facilitator persona and mapped their journey, uncovering specific pain points along the way. We explored these challenges in detail, acknowledging the unique contexts in which they arise. By narrowing the focus from general challenges to specific scenarios, we helped participants get to the heart of issues they regularly face in their roles.

This approach allowed facilitators to craft precise problem statements by defining:

• ‍Who the problem affects,‍
• What the core issue is (the root cause of the problem),‍
• Why it’s worth solving (highlighting benefits for both the user and the business),‍
• Where this problem appears in the user journey.

The interesting discovery from reframing the problem this way was that maintaining momentum after the sprint was actually just a symptom, not the root problem. Instead, the real underlying issues came to light:

• ‍Poor stakeholder engagement and buy-in - without active involvement and commitment from key stakeholders, post-sprint energy naturally dissipates, and valuable sprint insights are at risk of being overlooked or deprioritized.‍
• Misalignment on the right sprint challenge - when the sprint starts off on the wrong problem, even the most productive sessions struggle to produce outcomes that resonate or gain traction within the organization.‍
• Organizational rigidity toward rapid experimentation - for many organizations, embracing the iterative, test-and-learn approach of design sprints can be challenging, particularly when it comes to trusting test results and implementing changes.‍
• Inability to clearly communicate the sprint process and outcomes - often, the insights and innovative ideas generated in a sprint don’t translate effectively to stakeholders if they’re not clearly communicated, which can hinder decision-making and support.

Through this reframing, facilitators saw that “maintaining momentum” wasn’t simply an after-sprint issue but was directly tied to these foundational factors.

By addressing these core challenges head-on, facilitators could create a more supportive environment for the solutions generated in their sprints to thrive long after the sprint itself had concluded. Problem Framing not only helps identify the right problem but also ensures a solid foundation for sustainable impact.

‍

Reflections

Looking back on Problem Framing Deep Dive, I realize this wasn’t just another workshop, wasn’t just about frameworks or tools—it was about rethinking how we approach challenges, making room for new insights, and creating real alignment.

For everyone who was there, it was a reminder that the most important part of any sprint is knowing what you’re running toward—and why it truly matters.

‍

Thank you Kai Hailey for making this session possible.

‍