stefancgillberg Problem Shape
Purpose
Guide a stakeholder from a vague initiative to a well-formed problem statement in ≤10 minutes. Produces a Problem Brief that feeds /rai-epic-design.
Mastery Levels (ShuHaRi)
- Shu: Follow all 6 steps in sequence with multiple-choice options
- Ha: Adapt option labels to project domain from memory context
- Ri: Facilitate multi-stakeholder problem-shaping workshops
Context
When to use: A stakeholder has a vague initiative or idea that hasn't entered /rai-epic-design yet.
When to skip: Problem is already well-defined (go to /rai-epic-design), or this is story-level (use /rai-story-design).
Inputs: Project name (required), rough business idea.
Pipeline: [vague idea] → /rai-problem-shape → /rai-epic-design → /rai-epic-plan → [stories]
Frameworks: Impact Mapping (Adzic), Lean UX Canvas (Gothelf), SAFe Epic Hypothesis, Toyota 5 Whys.
Steps
Step 1: APUESTA — Anchor the Domain (~30s)
Present multiple choice (Spanish-first):
"¿Qué tipo de problema crees que estás resolviendo?" A) Velocidad de entrega B) Calidad / retrabajo C) Visibilidad / control D) Otro
If "Otro": accept free text, summarize back in one sentence, confirm.
Step 2: PARA QUIÉN — Identify Stakeholder (~60s)
"¿Quién experimenta este problema directamente?" A) Equipo de desarrollo B) Área de negocio C) Portafolio / liderazgo D) Cliente final
If multiple apply: ask which suffers most, pick one.
Step 3: ESTADO ACTUAL — Describe the Gap
"Completa: [quién] no puede [hacer qué] porque [razón]"
Anti-solution gate: Scan for solution-shaped language ("queremos construir", "necesitamos implementar", "la solución es", etc.). If triggered, challenge once:
"Eso suena a una solución. ¿Qué está pasando hoy sin eso?"
If second response also solution-shaped: accept it, add warning flag to Brief. Do not challenge twice.
Step 4: 3 WHYS — Find Root Cause
Ask exactly 3 sequential "why" questions, then name the root cause:
"La raíz que identificamos es: [síntesis]. ¿Correcto?"
Confirm with stakeholder before continuing.
Step 5: EARLY SIGNAL — Leading Indicator (~30s)
"¿Qué cambiaría primero en 4 semanas?" A) Métrica que mejora B) Comportamiento que cambia C) Proceso que desaparece D) Queja que deja de escucharse
4-week horizon forces leading indicators, not lagging KPIs.
Step 6: HIPÓTESIS & Save Brief
Draft SAFe hypothesis: Si [estado actual], entonces [early signal] para [stakeholder], medido por [métrica].
Present to stakeholder for corrections. Save to work/problem-briefs/{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md with all 6 sections.
Output
| Item | Destination |
|---|---|
| Problem Brief | work/problem-briefs/{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md |
| Next | /rai-epic-design (loads Brief at Step 0.7) |
Quality Checklist
- Project name confirmed before starting (gate)
- Anti-solution gate applied in Step 3 (challenge once, max)
- Exactly 3 Whys executed (not 2, not 5)
- Root cause confirmed by stakeholder before continuing
- Early signal is 4-week horizon (leading, not lagging)
- Hypothesis uses SAFe format (Si/entonces/para/medido por)
- NEVER challenge solution language more than once — trust damages outweigh precision
References
- Pipeline next:
/rai-epic-design(Step 0.7 loads Brief) - Output directory:
work/problem-briefs/ - Frameworks: Impact Mapping, Lean UX, SAFe Hypothesis, Toyota 5 Whys
- Research:
work/research/RES-problem-definition-frameworks/