Avoiding common mistakes in problem framing

Many specifications fail not because the team lacked ideas but because the problem was defined poorly. One frequent mistake is describing symptoms instead of causes. For example, low user retention may be a symptom, but the real problem could be unclear onboarding or missing value in the product experience. Another issue arises when statements are too broad, such as “we need to improve user experience.” Without specifics, the spec becomes an endless list of tasks with no measurable focus.

Problem statements can also fail when they mix business desires with user goals. A team might define a problem as “we need to increase revenue,” which is an outcome, not a problem. A better version would connect business impact to user behavior, such as “users abandon the checkout flow before completing payment.” Clear cause-and-effect relationships like this make specs actionable and grounded in evidence rather than assumptions. When problems are defined this way, they guide design and development without confusion or wasted effort.