Problem Statement 🚩 Prompts

Purpose: Problem Statement (also called Problem Framing) defines the core user need or design opportunity based on insights, not assumptions.

Design Thinking Phase: Define

Time: 45–60 min session + 1–2 hours analysis

Difficulty: ⭐⭐

When to use:After completing initial user researchWhen prioritising problems to solveBefore ideating or scoping new features

What it is

Problem Framing is a critical UX methodology used to articulate clear, user-centred problem statements. Rather than jumping straight into solutions, teams define what problem is worth solving and for whom — with a tight focus on real needs backed by evidence. It's a foundational step in human-centred design and enables truly relevant innovation.

📺 Video by NNgroup. Embedded for educational reference.

Why it matters

Framing the right problem ensures your team isn't wasting time solving for symptoms or internal assumptions. A well-formed problem statement aligns design, engineering, and product with a shared understanding of what matters most to users. When it's done well, it prevents feature bloat, reduces rework, and grounds innovation in real behaviour and lived experience.

When to use

• After foundational research efforts — interviews, usability tests, survey synthesis
• As part of a design sprint or UX discovery initiative
• When stakeholder assumptions begin to dominate roadmap discussions

Benefits

• Rich Insights: Helps uncover user needs that aren’t visible in metrics.
• Flexibility: Works across various project types and timelines.
• User Empathy: Deepens understanding of behaviours and motivations.

How to use it

Use this step-by-step guide to facilitate a structured problem framing session:

• Step 1: Assemble your team — include UX, PM, and engineering voices.
• Step 2: Review insights from research. Use quotes, themes, or journey maps.
• Step 3: Ask: What is the core user need we’re solving? Push for evidence, not assumption.
• Step 4: Draft a problem statement template using this format:"[User type] needs a way to [do what] because [insight]."
• Step 5: Test alternative framings. Check for scope, clarity, and relevance.
• Step 6: Align stakeholders on the chosen problem before ideation begins.

Example Output

Problem Statement: “Busy parents need a way to quickly verify food allergy information when shopping, because current labels are inconsistent and hard to scan under time pressure.”

Supporting Insight: From 12 diary studies and 5 in-store shadowing sessions, 8 participants expressed anxiety when choosing packaged foods. Label checking disrupted their flow and prolonged visits by 10+ minutes.

Common Pitfalls

• Jumping to solutions: Teams often frame solutions ("Add a filter") as problems. Reorient to the user need.
• Too broad or vague: Avoid framing catch-all problems—stay focused and actionable.
• Stakeholder bias: Ensure the problem reflects actual user needs, not internal pressure or legacy goals.

10 Design-Ready AI Prompts for Problem Statement – UX/UI Edition

How These Prompts Work (C.S.I.R. Framework)

Each of the templates below follows the C.S.I.R. method — a proven structure for writing clear, effective prompts that get better results from ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or any other LLM.

C.S.I.R. stands for:

• Context: Who you are and the UX situation you're working in
• Specific Info: Key design inputs, tasks, or constraints the AI should consider
• Intent: What you want the AI to help you achieve
• Response Format: The structure or format you want the AI to return (e.g. checklist, table, journey map)

Level up your career with smarter AI prompts.Get templates used by UX leaders — no guesswork, just results.Design faster, research smarter, and ship with confidence.First one’s free. Unlock all 10 by becoming a member.

Prompt Template 1: “Frame a Clear UX Problem Statement”

Frame a Clear UX Problem Statement

Context: You are a UX designer synthesising findings from a recent discovery phase for a mobile app. 
Specific Info: You have interview data from [7 users], usability pain points, and a prioritised insight cluster focused on [navigation confusion and trust signals]. 
Intent: Help me create a validated problem statement that reflects the core issue, supported by real user insights. 
Response Format: Return a suggested UX problem statement using the format “User needs a way to [action] because [insight]”, with 1-2 sentences of rationale based on the findings.

Ask clarifying questions about the user type or behaviours if any data seems incomplete.
Then, offer one potential reframing variation to provoke discussion.

Prompt Template 2: “Synthesize User Insights Into a Problem Hypothesis”

Synthesize User Insights Into a Problem Hypothesis

Context: You are a senior UX researcher translating qualitative insights into early design direction. 
Specific Info: You’ve just analysed [open-text survey responses] and [observational data] about frustrations when booking via a healthcare platform. 
Intent: Convert the user pain points into a grounded problem hypothesis we can test. 
Response Format: Provide a concise hypothesis format: “We believe [user type] struggles to [objective] because [reason/obstacle].”

If behaviours or environments differ across user segments, call this out before writing.
Then, suggest a metric to validate this hypothesis.

Prompt Template 3: “Challenge an Assumed Problem Using User Evidence”

Challenge an Assumed Problem Using User Evidence

Context: You’re evaluating a stakeholder-proposed feature based on an internal assumption. 
Specific Info: The product team believes that users are dropping off due to [pricing visibility], but research suggests [checkout delay and trust issues]. 
Intent: Help reframe or disprove the original problem statement using UX data. 
Response Format: Produce a bullet-point comparison of (1) stakeholder assumption, (2) user-evidenced insight, and (3) reframed UX problem.

If data sufficiency is unclear, prompt suggestions for validation research.
Then, propose one UX method to de-risk the reframed assumption.

Prompt Template 4: “Prioritise Competing Problem Statements”

Prioritise Competing Problem Statements

Context: You're in a cross-functional planning session for Q3 initiatives. 
Specific Info: Three problem areas have surfaced: [a], [b], and [c], but resourcing only allows one. 
Intent: Prioritise them based on UX impact, feasibility, and product strategy alignment. 
Response Format: Return a decision matrix comparing all three problems using criteria such as user impact, data support, business relevance, and design complexity.

If goals or KPIs are not specified, flag this before prioritising.
Then, suggest one framing question to spark internal alignment.

Prompt Template 5: “Generate Multiple Problem Statement Variations”

Generate Multiple Problem Statement Variations

Context: You’re facilitating a stakeholder workshop to align on one core problem for sprint planning. 
Specific Info: The initial draft problem is: “[users get lost exploring real estate options]”, based on [5 interviews + analytics patterns]. 
Intent: Help me generate 3–5 alternate framings with different angles (behavioural, emotional, operational). 
Response Format: Return a short list of reworded problems, each with a one-sentence justification for its angle.

Ask for clarification if the user type or moments-of-use needs refining.
Then, suggest a group prioritisation method for selecting one problem.

Prompt Template 6: “Map Problems to Personas”

Map Problems to Personas

Context: You're updating UX documentation for an enterprise design system. 
Specific Info: You support 5 defined personas, each with distinct tech skills and workflows. 
Intent: Help map specific problem statements to each persona for clearer coverage and prioritisation. 
Response Format: Return a table with Persona, Problem Statement, and Supporting Insight.

If persona descriptions are shallow, ask before drafting.
Then, offer one persona that may need redefinition or validation work.

Prompt Template 7: “Extract Pain-Language from Open Feedback”

Extract Pain-Language from Open Feedback

Context: You're analysing thousands of in-app feedback comments to surface problem themes. 
Specific Info: You’re focused on challenges users face when [editing profiles and settings]. 
Intent: Identify authentic user language that expresses pain, fears, or unmet needs. 
Response Format: Return a list of 7–10 direct quote snippets, categorised by theme with labels that could inform future problem framing.

Ask if representative sample size is available, otherwise note limits.
Then, suggest how this could feed into a JTBD or empathy map.

Prompt Template 8: “Reverse Engineer the Root Problem”

Reverse Engineer the Root Problem

Context: You’re brought in to improve a low-performing feature that has seen multiple redesigns. 
Specific Info: Stakeholders state the issue is unclear feature value, but analytics show [bounce after login]. 
Intent: Trace upstream to identify the primary UX problem causing drop-off. 
Response Format: Provide a root-cause mapping summary (e.g. 5 Whys or causal chain) leading to a reframed problem statement.

Ask for relevant touchpoint data or funnel stages if missing.
Then, propose a testable hypothesis statement from this reframing.

Prompt Template 9: “Cluster Problems by Journey Stage”

Cluster Problems by Journey Stage

Context: You’re preparing for a design sprint and need to map problem areas to customer journey touchpoints. 
Specific Info: You’ve completed a journey map and tagged 12 user issues. 
Intent: Group related problems by journey stage to focus future ideation. 
Response Format: Return a 3-column table with Stage, Problem (framed), and Supporting Insight.

Ask if desired outcomes or conversion goals differ by stage.
Then, suggest one prioritisation lens to choose where to focus.

Prompt Template 10: “Stress-Test a Problem Statement”

Stress-Test a Problem Statement

Context: You’re preparing to present a problem framing to execs or stakeholders. 
Specific Info: The team drafted this problem: “[Freelancers fail to complete onboarding due to unclear steps]” based on [interview and dropoff data]. 
Intent: Validate and strengthen the framing to increase stakeholder confidence and alignment. 
Response Format: Provide a critique of clarity, scope, and evidence, plus 2 alternate formulations and a validation checklist.

Ask for key business context or constraints not listed.
Then, suggest one challenge question the exec team might ask.

Recommended Tools

• FigJam – for interactive framing workshops and affinity clustering
• Airtable – to track hypotheses across teams and research inputs
• UserBit – centralise interview notes and highlight recurring issues to frame
• Whimsical – fast journey mapping to support context around problem points
• ChatGPT/Claude – to explore alternative framings and synthesis angles with speed

Learn More

• NNGroup: UX Research & Design Articles
• Interaction Design Foundation – Topics
• Google Design Sprint Kit