Understanding Problem Space and Solution Space in Engineering

Problemeering: Engineering the Problem Before the Solution What is it? Problemeering (problem + engineering) is the art and science of identifying, defining, and framing problems so they can be solved more creatively and efficiently. Why it matters Many product launches, business strategies, and even personal projects flop because they target the wrong problem or never define one at all. Problemeering helps you: • Understand the real issue • Avoid premature “band‑aid” fixes • Uncover root causes and hidden opportunities • Frame challenges in a way that sparks breakthrough ideas Key steps Observe & Empathize – Listen to users and spot pain points. Define – State the core problem in one crisp sentence. Reframe – Challenge every assumption: “Is this really the problem?” Explore Context – Map the ecosystem, constraints, and stakeholders. Ask “How might we…?” – Turn the problem frame into innovation prompts. Quick example Late‑delivery complaints in a food‑delivery app. Instead of jumping straight to route optimization, a problemeering mindset asks: • Are customer expectations realistic? • Does the UI overpromise delivery times? • Are restaurants accepting orders they can’t fulfill? Addressing these upstream issues often fixes “late deliveries” more effectively than tweaking maps alone. Origin Not yet in the dictionary it just reminds us: engineer the problem first, then engineer the solution.

The name you give a Bounded Context isn't just a label—it's the critical foundation that frames your entire DDD modelling conversation. Day 1 of my Domain-Driven Design training was dedicated to EventStorming and distilling Bounded Contexts using Context Mapping. I focus a lot on naming the bounded context and the underlying problem descriptions because that frames the entire design discussion. We often confuse the product design (solution space) with the problem space. A clear example from the session: reserving cinema tickets. Many teams default to naming a context "Seat Selection." But that's a solution. Why are we selecting seats? Because we want to give ticket buyers the best possible experience, while also ensuring the cinema is filled efficiently (for example, having a rule avoiding single, unbookable seats). By shifting the Bounded Context name to something like "Seat Reservation Optimisation," and clearly stating the goal—to fill the cinema efficiently while allowing choice—we immediately changed the modelling conversation. We stop designing for the feature and start designing for the business problem. Coming up with new ideas and models to solve the problem. The takeaway: Name your bounded context towards the problems in the problem space, not the solutions in the solution space.

Jumping straight into solutions can be counterproductive when tackling complex challenges. Many leaders fall into the trap of diving straight into problem-solving. While this might feel productive, it often leads to superficial fixes that fail to address the real issue. In a recent Harvard Business Review article, Julia Binder and Michael Watkins from IMD highlight how taking more time upfront to fully understand the problem is key, especially when dealing with multifaceted challenges. This often results in solutions that are not only innovative but also address the root cause. The authors propose a structured 5-step approach, with an emphasis on the first step: reframing the problem. This is the foundation for sustainable outcomes and is too often skipped in the rush to act. This method is especially useful for complex challenges, such as: - Project delays or cost overruns - Declining team engagement or morale - Increased turnover in key roles - Misalignment in stakeholder expectations Here’s how the process works: 1️⃣ Open your mind This phase ensures the problem is viewed from multiple perspectives: Assemble a diverse project or leadership team ask questions like: - What if...? - How might we...? Use these discussions to identify factors influencing the issue, such as: - Stakeholder behaviour - Team dynamics - Process inefficiencies - Market or competitor trends 2️⃣ Dig into root causes Apply the Iceberg Framework to uncover deeper layers of the problem. For instance: Events: What has happened? Patterns: How are team members or stakeholders reacting? Structures: What processes or systems might be driving these patterns? Mental Models: How do assumptions or beliefs shape the issue? 3️⃣ Engage stakeholders Use empathy mapping to understand the perspectives of key stakeholders by exploring what they: - Say - Think - Do - Feel Conduct interviews or surveys to gather valuable insights. 4️⃣ Shift your vantage point Examine the broader organisational context from these perspectives: - Political: Power dynamics or decision-making processes - Structural: Organisational frameworks and workflows - Interpersonal: Team relationships and communication - Cultural: Shared values and norms 5️⃣ Reverse engineer success Define your desired long-term outcome and break it into actionable milestones with three time horizons: - Long-term strategies (9–12 months and beyond) - Mid-term initiatives (4–8 months) - Immediate actions (0–12 weeks) The article references Albert Einstein’s wisdom: “If I had one hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about the solution.” 👉 In summary Investing time upfront to truly understand a problem paves the way for innovative, lasting solutions. 🗣 Agree, disagree, comments? ♻️ Found this helpful? Leave a comment and follow Andreas Wettstein for more practical insights on #engagingleadership

One of the most common misconceptions in Product Management is that it’s about delivering solutions. It’s not. It’s about understanding the problem space "The WHY before the HOW. -> Why is the feature needed? -> Why does the problem exist? -> Why aren’t current solutions (if any) working for the customer? And so much more of different 'Whys' which comprise the Product Discovery. Get the problem space right, and the solution will often emerge faster than you can say, “Product Management.” Best part? You don’t need anything fancy—just proper, structured user research. While interviewing users will uncover pain points, be cautious: Don’t create solutions for every problem you encounter. Start by defining a main goal or theme for your product—the vision. This vision stems directly from the why of the problem space and needs alignment from all key stakeholders. Follow it up with regular customer interviews that will help you break down your goal into smaller actionable chunks. (If you are an engineer, think of these interviews as the small chunks/blocks of code in your main code that help you build the final logic for the requirement) Once you have a set of requests ready that look aligned with your goal, use frameworks to prioritize. I use the weighted prioritization matrix that gives weights to requests and then ranks them on a matrix (Weights are determined by the effort required, impact on the customer, etc) Only after this, do you focus on the solution space. The “How to do it” part. Brainstorm with the team on what’s the best way forward and if there is a simpler solution to this. Tip: Brainstorming helps eliminate biases that could have crept in from the customer or while the requests were being taken. Finally, understand the risks behind it (if any). Post this is where you make your design followed by creating projects, epics, and user stories and estimating the final effort for the request. This approach has worked for me to eliminate risks and a biased way of solving problems. And finally, keep the feedback loop open all day, every day and you will keep improving your product. How do you define your product vision? Let me know if you want a more detailed post on this and I will do that. This one is a little high level and I can try to make a low-level description in the future. Liked this? Follow Kevin Thomas for more Also attached is a brilliant infographic by Paweł on the Product Discovery space.