Design Thinking (DT) is a human-centered, iterative approach to creative problem-solving that focuses on understanding user needs before developing solutions. This process requires a systematic way to translate complex user observations and defined problems into actionable challenges. “How Might We” (HMW) statements serve this function, acting as the bridge between understanding a problem and generating potential solutions. These statements reframe obstacles into opportunities for innovation, setting the stage for creative exploration.
Understanding the Context and Purpose of HMW Statements
The Design Thinking framework is structured around five phases: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. HMW statements are used between the Define and Ideate stages. During the Define phase, the team synthesizes user research into a Point of View (POV) statement that articulates the user, their need, and the underlying insight.
Transitioning from the POV, the team uses HMW statements to convert the defined problem into an open invitation for solution generation. The statements open up the possibility space, ensuring the team does not prematurely settle on a single solution path. Their purpose is to maintain a state of possibility, encouraging a wide range of responses during the Ideate phase. This ensures creative effort remains anchored to the user’s validated needs.
The Anatomy of an Effective “How Might We” Statement
An effective HMW question is composed of three linguistic components. The word “How” suggests that a solution exists and implies the team has the ability to achieve it. This framing shifts the focus from pessimism about the problem to optimism about the path forward.
The word “Might” invites the exploration of possibilities, signaling that the statement is not a commitment or a guarantee. This conditional language encourages team members to contribute ideas without the fear of failure or judgment. Finally, the collective pronoun “We” promotes shared ownership of the problem and the solution, reinforcing the collaborative nature of Design Thinking.
A strong HMW statement must be meticulously balanced; it must be broad enough to permit creative freedom but narrow enough to focus on the defined user need. A weak statement, such as “HMW make the app better,” is too vague to prompt specific ideas. Conversely, a statement that suggests a solution, like “HMW add a ‘buy now’ button to the checkout page,” shuts down exploration. A better example, “HMW simplify the checkout process for first-time shoppers,” provides clear direction while leaving the solution open.
Techniques for Converting Insights into HMW Questions
Generating HMW questions begins by deconstructing the insights gathered during user research and the POV statement. One technique is to use “Why” to push past surface-level problems and identify underlying friction points. If a user cannot complete a task, asking “Why is this happening?” helps reframe the barrier directly into an HMW question.
Another method involves breaking down the core problem into smaller HMWs that address various aspects of the user journey. A large problem, such as “HMW improve the entire onboarding experience,” can be segmented into focused questions like “HMW ensure the user feels welcomed on the first screen?” or “HMW simplify the required data input fields?” This segmentation makes the challenge more manageable and spurs diverse ideas for each stage.
Teams can also use different action verbs to explore alternative angles on the same problem. For instance, if the core problem is a lack of trust, one could generate “HMW connect users to expert advice?” to focus on information access, or “HMW enable users to verify source credibility?” to focus on transparency. Using verbs such as simplify, organize, personalize, or gamify can proactively steer the brainstorming session toward different types of solutions. This guidance moves the team from defined user needs to a polished set of generative questions ready for ideation.
Utilizing HMW Statements to Fuel Ideation
Once refined, HMW statements become the central prompts for brainstorming and ideation sessions. They are typically used as headers on whiteboards or digital canvases, with one distinct HMW question focusing each segment of the session. This technique ensures that all generated ideas are traceable back to a specific user need.
Methods such as silent brainstorming or rapid sketching are organized around these statements to maximize creative output. For example, a team may silently sketch solutions for “HMW reduce the perception of wait time during account setup,” before sharing and building upon the ideas. The HMW question acts as a boundary, ensuring the team’s focus remains sharp and relevant throughout the exercise.
Before initiating ideation, teams employ prioritization techniques to select the most impactful HMW statements. One method involves plotting the statements on a two-by-two matrix based on user impact versus technical feasibility. Statements that score highly on impact and medium on feasibility are often chosen first, as they represent promising opportunities for early prototyping. This structured application directs the team’s energy toward challenges that yield the greatest potential value.
Common Pitfalls and Best Practices for HMW Success
A frequent mistake is crafting HMW statements too narrowly, known as “solutionizing.” This occurs when the question embeds a specific answer, such as “HMW build an app with an AI chatbot to answer customer questions?” which prevents considering non-chatbot alternatives. Conversely, making a statement too broad, like “HMW make people happy?” renders the question irrelevant to the user context and provides no actionable focus.
The most effective HMW statements adhere to several best practices. They must be framed positively, focusing on the desired outcome rather than the negative aspects of the problem. A statement should consistently focus on the user and their specific experience, maintaining the human-centered nature of Design Thinking. Furthermore, the question should remain technology-agnostic, meaning it should not presuppose a specific solution type, allowing for the widest range of creative responses.