Stage 2: Life Context | Problem Statement

You can't redesign what you can't name.

Something feels off. But when someone asks what's wrong, the words tangle. "I don't know, I just feel stuck." "I want something different but I can't explain what." "I'm fine, I think. I'm just not happy."

Vague dissatisfaction is one of the most common and most paralysing states a person can sit in. You can't act on a feeling you can't name. You can't fix a problem you haven't defined. And you certainly can't design a life worth living if you don't know what's broken in the one you've got.

A problem statement takes this uncertainty and turns it into a clear sentence that captures the tension between where you are and where you feel pulled to be. In design thinking, this is called a Point of View (POV) statement. Designers use it to focus their creative energy on the right problem before generating solutions. We use it here for the same reason.

"A problem well stated is a problem half solved." - Charles Kettering

The research behind problem framing

Design thinking and the POV statement

The Stanford d.school's design thinking framework places the Define phase between Empathise and Ideate. The purpose of Define is to synthesise observations from the Empathise phase into a clear problem statement that guides ideation. Without it, teams generate solutions to the wrong problems.

The d.school teaches two core tools in Define. The first is the POV statement, which follows the structure: [User] needs [need] because [insight]. The "because" clause is where the real work lives. It forces us to articulate why the need exists, not just what it is. The second tool is the "How Might We" (HMW) question, which reframes the problem as a design opportunity. "How might we help a busy parent find time for creative work?" is a better starting point for brainstorming than "The parent doesn't have enough time."

Bill Burnett and Dave Evans adapted this framework for life design in their 2016 book Designing Your Life, developed from a course at Stanford that became the university's most popular elective. Their approach treats life problems the same way a designer treats product problems: you define the challenge clearly, then generate multiple possible solutions, then prototype and test them. The quality of our solutions depends entirely on the quality of our problem definition.

How problem framing shapes solutions

Cognitive research on problem construction shows that the way we frame a problem determines which solutions become visible to us. Stellan Ohlsson's work on insight and problem-solving (published in his 2011 book Deep Learning) demonstrated that people get stuck on problems not because they lack ability, but because they have framed the problem in a way that excludes the solution from their search space.

If we define our problem as "I need to earn more money," our solutions will all be financial (get a raise, find a side job, cut expenses). But if we reframe it as "I need more freedom in how I spend my time," entirely different solutions appear (renegotiate our schedule, reduce fixed obligations, redefine what "enough" means). Same underlying dissatisfaction. Different frame. Different possibilities.

Mental contrasting: the WOOP framework

Gabriele Oettingen, a psychologist at New York University, spent 20 years studying how people pursue goals. Her research produced a consistent finding: positive thinking alone doesn't work. People who only fantasise about their desired future are less likely to achieve it than people who also confront the obstacles standing in the way.

Oettingen developed mental contrasting, a technique where you vividly imagine your desired outcome and then immediately identify the inner obstacles that could prevent you from reaching it. She later packaged this into the WOOP framework: Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. Her studies, published in journals including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, showed that mental contrasting increased goal commitment, effort, and achievement across domains ranging from academic performance to health behaviour to career decisions.

The problem statement exercise in this section uses the same logic: you name where you want to be, you name where you are, and you sit with the gap between them. The gap is the problem and the problem is the design challenge.

Goal specificity and achievement

Edwin Locke and Gary Latham's goal-setting theory, developed across more than 400 studies spanning 4 decades, is one of the most replicated findings in organisational psychology. Their core finding: specific, difficult goals produce higher performance than vague goals ("do your best") or no goals at all.

The mechanism is straightforward. Specific goals direct attention, increase effort, promote persistence, and encourage strategy development. Vague goals do none of these things. "I want to be happier" gives your brain nothing to work with. "I want to spend 3 hours a week on creative work that uses my top strengths" gives it a target.

Your problem statement serves the same function. It takes the vague sense that something needs to change and sharpens it into a specific challenge your brain can actually engage with.

Life problems as wicked problems

Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber introduced the concept of "wicked problems" in 1973 to describe challenges that resist simple definition and have no single correct solution. Life design challenges share many properties with wicked problems: they are unique to the individual, they evolve as you work on them, every attempted solution changes the problem itself, and there is no clear stopping rule (no moment where the problem is definitively "solved").

This is why a traditional goal-setting approach often fails for life design. Goals assume you know what the target is. Wicked problems require you to define the target as part of the process. Your problem statement is a working hypothesis about what needs to change, and it will refine itself as you move into the design and prototyping phases that follow.

Your problem statement exercise

This section builds on everything you've done so far. Keep your Alignment results, Wheel of Life scores, and Life Roles audit nearby - you'll need them.

Access the Notion workbook here.

Part 1: Current life context snapshot

Before you can define the problem, you need an honest snapshot of the conditions you're working within right now. These are the facts of your current life, not judgments about them.

• Work/career/purpose - your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Finances (income, savings, debt, runway) - your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Relationships/love- your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Family obligations and dynamics - your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Health and body - your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Time (how much is yours, how much belongs to others) - your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Emotional state - your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Creative life/personal projects - your current reality (be specific and factual)

• Social life/community - your current reality (be specific and factual)

Part 2: The tension map

Pull from your Alignment section. Where are the gaps between who you are and how you're living? Name them here as specific tensions.

• Gap 1 - Where you are right now - where do you feel pulled to be - intensity (1-10)

Part 3: Draft your "How Might I" statements

Take your top 3 tensions from the map above and reframe each one as a design question. The format is: "How might I [desired change] given [real constraint]?"

Examples:

• "How might I build a creative practice into my week, given that I work full-time and have two children?"

• "How might I earn enough to feel financially safe without staying in a job that contradicts my values?"

• "How might I make genuine friendships in a new city when I'm introverted, and my energy is already stretched thin?"

Part 4: Select your primary challenge

Look at your three "How Might I" statements. One of them probably carries more weight than the others. It's the one that, if you solved it (or even started solving it), would create the most momentum across the rest of your life. Pick that one.

If you can't choose, use these filters:

• Which tension costs me the most energy right now? (Look at your Energy Audit.)

• Which tension, if resolved, would make the other tensions easier? (Some problems are upstream of others.)

• Which tension am I most ready to face? (Readiness counts. Forcing yourself to tackle something you're not prepared for usually produces more resistance, not progress.)

• Which tension do I actually want to solve, versus which one do I think I should solve? (Go with want. "Should" is often someone else's voice.)

Your primary challenge:

Part 5: Write your problem statement

Use the below template to write a clear, specific problem statement:

• I am... Describe who you are: your key personality traits, values, and strengths from Stage 1.

• I need... What is the specific change or condition you need in your life?

• Because... Why does this need exist? What insight from your self-discovery explains it?

• But... What is the real obstacle? What's in the way?

• So my design challenge is... Restate as a How Might I question

Example: "I am someone who values freedom, creativity, and depth, and my best work happens in focused, quiet environments. I need to build a career that honours those qualities instead of grinding against them. Because I've spent 10 years in a role that rewarded my conscientiousness but ignored my openness, I've been slowly losing myself. But I have financial obligations and no clear alternative yet. So my design challenge is: How might I create a sustainable income from work that uses my strengths and respects my energy, within the next 12 months?"

Part 6: Reflection

• Does your problem statement feel true when you read it out loud? Or does it feel like you're performing for someone?

• Is the "because" clause specific enough? Does it draw from real self-knowledge, or is it generic?

• Are you solving the problem you actually have, or the problem you think you should have?

• If a trusted friend read this problem statement, would they recognise you in it?

• On a scale of 1 to 10, how ready do you feel to start working on this challenge? If below 6, what would need to happen first?

Part 7: Write your problem statement snapshot

In a paragraph, capture the essence of where you are, what needs to change, and what you're ready to take on. This becomes the final artefact of Stage 2, and the brief for Stage 3.

Part 8: AI companion (optional)

How to use: Share your Stage 1 identity statement and your current life context snapshot with the AI. Let it ask you questions to sharpen your thinking. The conversation usually takes 20 to 30 minutes. The AI is good at catching vague language and pushing you toward specificity. Use the refined problem statement to update Part 5 above.

Copy and paste the prompt below into Claude, ChatGPT, or any AI assistant:

You are a life design coach helping me refine my problem statement. I've been working through a self-discovery and life context process and I need help turning my vague dissatisfaction into a clear, specific design challenge. I'll share my self-knowledge summary (personality, values, strengths, energy patterns) and my current life context. Your job is to:
(1) Ask me probing questions about what specifically feels misaligned,
(2) Help me distinguish between the problem I think I should solve and the problem I actually need to solve,
(3) Challenge any framing that seems too vague, too broad, or driven by "should" rather than genuine desire,
(4) Help me write a problem statement in this format: I am [who I am] / I need [specific change] / Because [insight from self-discovery] / But [real obstacle] / So my design challenge is [How Might I question].
Push me to be specific. If my answers are generic, ask for concrete examples. If I say "I want to be happier," ask me what happiness looks like on a Tuesday afternoon. One question at a time. Be warm but direct.