By Reynand Wu 
In the high-stakes world of modern design and organizational leadership, few terms are as ubiquitous—or as misunderstood—as "problem framing." It is the cornerstone of every design thinking workshop, the centerpiece of every innovation brief, and the primary talking point in the boardroom when a product launch stalls. Yet, despite its prevalence, many organizations treat problem framing as an aesthetic exercise rather than a structural necessity.
A recent dialogue between design leader Lucas Mara and industry strategist Morteza Pourmohamadi has shed new light on this malaise. By revisiting Richard Rumelt’s seminal business text, Good Strategy Bad Strategy, they have uncovered a startling realization: much of what passes for "strategy" or "framing" in today’s corporate environment is, in fact, nothing more than a collection of aspirations dressed up in professional jargon.
The Rumelt Revelation: When Ambition Masquerades as Strategy
Richard Rumelt’s core thesis is simple, yet devastating: "Bad strategy is not simply the absence of good strategy." Instead, bad strategy is an active, often destructive force. It manifests when leaders mistake their goals for a plan. They declare, "We will increase market share by 20% through design-led innovation," and call it a strategy.
As Rumelt argues, a real strategy requires a "kernel": a diagnosis of the challenge, a guiding policy for dealing with it, and a set of coherent actions. Without this structural integrity, you are not engaging in strategy; you are merely making a wish.
This observation hits home for the design community. If we apply the same rigor to problem framing, we find that many teams are operating in a state of professional delusion. They identify a "problem," but they have no diagnosis, no policy, and no coherent action. They are simply describing a situation and hoping for a result.
The Anatomy of the "Problem Kernel"
If we accept that problem framing is not merely a creative brainstorming session but a logical prerequisite for success, we must define its irreducible elements. The challenge, as Blaise Pascal famously noted, is one of brevity: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
To distill the essence of problem framing, we must look beyond the "scaffolding"—the post-it notes, the canvases, and the workshops—and identify the kernel. That kernel, according to the framework proposed by Pourmohamadi, consists of three pillars: Collect, Connect, and Commit.
1. The Act of Collection: Disciplined Divergence
The first stage of the kernel is the acquisition of raw material. This is not the passive reception of information; it is the deliberate, rigorous gathering of all relevant data points. This includes functional requirements, user needs, market precedents, internal constraints, and, perhaps most importantly, the known unknowns.
In a design context, problems are inherently "wicked" or ill-defined. You rarely start with a complete map. Therefore, the goal of the Collect phase is to expand the canvas. If your canvas is narrow, your frame will be narrow, regardless of how brilliant your analytical skills are later on. This is the stage of disciplined divergence—assembling the building blocks of the problem space without premature judgment.
2. The Art of Connection: Finding Insight in Tension
Once the raw materials are assembled, the designer enters the phase of Connection. This is where true insight resides. It is the practice of mapping the relationships between the collected elements.
Some connections will be logical and intuitive. However, the most potent insights are often found in the "weak" or "counterintuitive" connections. The most effective problem frames are often forged in the fires of contradiction. When two requirements pull in opposite directions, the designer is forced to grapple with the tension.
If a problem frame lacks tension, it is likely a sign that the designer has avoided the hard parts. A frame built only on elements that sit comfortably together is a frame that fails to account for the complexities of the real world. Connections are the glue that turns a list of data into a coherent narrative.
3. The Act of Commitment: The Power of Editorial Judgment
The final and most difficult pillar is Commitment. This is where the majority of professional problem framing fails. Many teams reach the end of the collection and connection phases and stop, believing they have done the work. But without a final act of editorial judgment, they have only a "landscape"—a vast, unmanaged collection of facts—not a "frame."
To frame is to exclude. It is the act of deciding what to foreground and what to set aside. It is the cinematic equivalent of a director choosing the final cut. By choosing to prioritize one element over another, the designer asserts a perspective. This is not a failure of objectivity; it is the fundamental duty of the professional. Two designers, looking at the same landscape, should theoretically produce different frames because they bring different judgments about what truly matters to the business and the user.
Supporting Data and Implications for the Industry
The implications of this "kernel" approach are profound for organizations struggling with "innovation fatigue." Data from various design consultancies suggests that projects failing to undergo rigorous problem framing before execution have a 40% higher probability of requiring a significant "pivot" within the first six months.
When organizations bypass the Commitment phase, they inadvertently pass the buck to the development team. The developers, lacking a clear, committed frame, must then make strategic choices during the coding or manufacturing process—choices they are often ill-equipped to make without the designer’s original context.
The Diagnostic Potential
This three-part kernel also serves as an invaluable diagnostic tool. When a project feels "stuck" or "unactionable," leadership can audit the process:
- Was the collection too narrow? (Are we missing critical constraints?)
- Are the connections unexplored? (Are we treating data points as isolated facts?)
- Have we avoided the commitment? (Are we afraid to define what we won’t do?)
Official Responses and Industry Perspectives
In discussions regarding this methodology, industry leaders emphasize that while the kernel is universal, the application is highly contextual. "The kernel provides the discipline," says one design principal at a top-tier tech firm, "but the culture of the company determines how much ‘tension’ it can handle during the Commitment phase."
Many organizations shy away from the Commitment phase because it requires saying "no" to stakeholders. It is politically safer to leave a frame broad and vague than to commit to a specific path that might be proven wrong. However, the cost of this safety is the dilution of the final product.
A New Standard for Design Strategy
The move toward a more "kernel-based" approach to problem framing represents a maturation of the design industry. As AI and automated tools begin to handle the "collection" and even the "connection" phases of data analysis, the human role of "commitment"—the editorial, strategic choice—becomes more valuable than ever.
The kernel is not a full methodology. It is not a replacement for the robust, complex design processes that organizations have spent decades refining. Rather, it is the bedrock. Everything else—the workshops, the whiteboards, the digital collaboration tools—is simply scaffolding.
If you are currently framing problems without this kernel, you might be producing something that looks like design, but you are not yet framing. You are merely wishing. To move forward, designers must embrace the discomfort of the edit, the necessity of the constraint, and the courage of the commitment. Only then does a problem frame become a strategy for success.
Evan Lee Salim 
Siti Muinah 
Nana 