The practice of Design Thinking provides a structured approach to solving complex problems, beginning with a deep understanding of user needs. Successfully navigating the early stages of a project requires properly framing the discovered challenges into actionable questions that inspire creative solutions. The “How Might We” (HMW) technique is the specific mechanism designers use to transition from synthesizing research findings to engaging in generative brainstorming sessions. This framing technique ensures teams maintain focus on both the user’s needs and the possibility of innovative outcomes.
Defining the “How Might We” Method
HMW statements are short, open-ended questions that transform insights and problems into opportunities for design. The structure uses three distinct components, each serving a specific purpose in the generative phase. The word “How” implies a solution is within reach and encourages the team to explore methods to achieve it. “Might” introduces optimism and acknowledges the possibility of multiple solutions, preventing premature commitment to a single path. “We” emphasizes the collaborative nature of the design process, ensuring the entire team takes ownership of the challenge and the resulting ideation.
The Strategic Value of HMW Questions in UX
These questions strategically reframe identified problems as opportunities for innovation within the user experience. Phrasing a challenge as a question prevents teams from immediately defaulting to the most obvious or familiar solution. This mechanism forces a pause between defining the problem and generating ideas, ensuring a broader exploration of possibilities. A well-crafted HMW statement acts as a precise anchor, clearly defining the boundaries and scope of a subsequent brainstorming session.
Integrating HMW into the UX Design Process
Generating HMW statements occurs at a specific point within the standard UX design workflow, after significant discovery work has been completed. They are formulated only after the team has conducted thorough user research, synthesized the data, and articulated a clear Point of View (PoV) or problem statement. The preceding PoV statement typically follows the format: “We observed X (behavior), and the user needs Y (need), because Z (insight).” HMW questions bridge the gap between this defined user need and the subsequent, solution-focused ideation phase. This placement ensures that creative effort is grounded in validated user insights rather than assumptions.
Step-by-Step Guide to Formulating HMW Statements
The process of drafting effective HMW statements begins by selecting a synthesized insight or a foundational Point of View statement derived from user research. The resulting question must strike a balance: broad enough for a wide range of creative ideas but narrow enough to provide a clear, actionable focus for brainstorming. A frequent pitfall is embedding a specific solution into the question itself, which immediately limits the scope of potential answers. For example, phrasing a question as, “How might we use a chatbot to help users reset their password?” prematurely dictates the solution.
Instead of focusing on implementation, the statement should concentrate on the underlying user need or pain point. Starting with an insight like, “Users are frustrated by the multi-step process of recovering a forgotten password,” leads to a more effective HMW question. The statement should be written to invite multiple, diverse responses, ensuring the team generates a wide array of concepts. Teams should avoid statements that are too vague, such as “How might we make the product better?” as they lack defined scope and fail to direct creative energy. Questions that are too narrow, focusing on a minor technical detail, inhibit meaningful innovation.
Examples of Effective HMW Statements
Focusing on User Needs
Effective HMW statements focus directly on alleviating a user pain point or helping them achieve a specific goal. If research reveals that new users struggle to complete the initial setup process, a strong question is, “How might we make the first-time user experience feel guided and intuitive?” Another example addresses a common behavioral pattern: “How might we make it easier for busy parents to track their child’s school activities without needing to open multiple apps?” These questions prioritize the human experience and the desired outcome.
Focusing on System Improvements
HMW statements can also be applied to internal or structural challenges within a product or system, provided they impact the user experience. Addressing efficiency concerns is a common application, leading to the question, “How might we reduce the number of clicks required for a returning customer to complete the checkout process?” If performance is a concern, the question might be framed as, “How might we decrease the perceived load time of the dashboard for users with low bandwidth connections?” These examples maintain a focus on measurable improvements that enhance usability.
Examples to Avoid
Certain types of questions should be avoided because they fail to meet the criteria of being open-ended and focused on the user need. A question that is too vague, such as, “How might we make the app better?” offers no direction and yields disorganized results. Questions that are too specific and solution-driven, like, “How might we add a blue button to the dashboard that links to the profile page?” are implementation tasks, not HMW statements. These examples fail because they lack the necessary focus or prematurely embed a solution, stifling the ideation process.