Shuichiro Ogawa
日本語

Notes · updated 2026-07-21

A Genealogy of Practitioner Methods for Reframing Problems: Who Made Them, Traced to Their Origins

An industry-side map of practitioner methods for problem setting, problem framing, and reframing, narrowed to their originators, primary sources, and standing in practice.

Contents (7)
  1. The Names of These Methods Are Known, but Not Who Made Them
  2. Alternating Between Convergence and Divergence
  3. Turning the Problem into a Different Question
  4. Decomposing the Problem into Elements to Explore
  5. Jobs-to-be-Done Is Not a Single Method
  6. The Fault Lines Between Academia and Industry
  7. Footnotes

The Names of These Methods Are Known, but Not Who Made Them

Practitioner methods for reframing problems circulate in the field under the names of tools. Double Diamond, How Might We, Five Whys, TRIZ, Jobs-to-be-Done. Yet who made each tool, what its original definition was, and what standing it holds in practice are far less widely shared than its name. Trace them to their origins and several methods turn out to conflict with the field’s understanding of them.

What this map gathers is the provenance of those practitioner methods. Rather than the figures that tout effectiveness, it records the originators (provenance), the primary sources, and the standing in practice, in a form that can be traced. The methods fall broadly into three groups: convergence/divergence process methods that split the problem into phases, question-posing methods that convert the problem into a different question, and structured-decomposition methods that break the problem into elements. The academic lineage is placed in a separate note1, so this note narrows to the primary sources of practice.

Alternating Between Convergence and Divergence

The idea of splitting a problem into phases and alternating divergence with convergence is the most authoritatively established as a public-body standard. The UK Design Council’s Double Diamond was developed in 2003 by a team led by Richard Eisermann that surveyed the design processes of 11 organizations, and it began to be shared through talks and materials from 2004 (the academic literature widely cites 2005 as the year of publication)2. Of its four phases (Discover / Define / Develop / Deliver), Define is characterized as the phase that “redefines the problem into a different form from the insights of the discovery phase and produces a design brief.” In 2019 it evolved into the Framework for Innovation, adding four design principles and a leadership component, but the core structure of Discover and Define was preserved3.

The five-stage model of Design Thinking popularized by Stanford d.school (Empathize → Define → Ideate → Prototype → Test) is a representative case of systematizing this idea4. In the Define phase, the problem is redefined as a Point of View derived from observation. IDEO’s own education arm, IDEO U, organizes this into its own seven stages (from Frame a Question to Share the Story), and the five-stage version is the d.school-lineage formulation4. Google Ventures’ Design Sprint places the definition and narrowing of the problem on Monday, the first step of the five days56. On Monday, the team makes a problem map, agrees on a long-term goal, interviews experts, and narrows the target to a scope solvable in one week. The tool that converts the problem into question form here is How Might We, from the next lineage.

Turning the Problem into a Different Question

In the lineage that converts a problem into a different question, methods whose origins diverge from the field’s understanding stand out. How Might We (HMW) is known as “IDEO’s method,” but tracing the primary sources shows that IDEO is a propagator, not the originator. Its origin is disputed and cannot be asserted, but the competing accounts are listed together: that Sidney Parnes introduced the question form (Invitation Stems) in 1967; that in the early 1970s Min Basadur applied Osborn’s Creative Problem Solving (CPS) at P&G and popularized it; and that it reached IDEO via Charles Warren7. Basadur today incorporates HMW into his own method (Simplexity Thinking) as the core of problem finding and problem definition8.

de Bono’s lateral thinking coined the term in his 1967 book9. de Bono himself separates the roles, treating lateral thinking as a tool for idea generation and Six Thinking Hats as a tool for exploring and implementing the ideas generated10. In the field, lateral thinking tends to be repurposed as a sub-tool of design thinking, but in the original work it holds an independent epistemological standing.

First Principles thinking is where origin and practical diffusion diverge most. The concept’s philosophical origin traces back to Aristotle, but its establishment as practitioner vocabulary came by way of Elon Musk’s remarks, and no specific primary bibliography exists1112. The definition “reduce a complex problem to absolutely true foundational premises and reconstruct it” circulates, but no criterion for judging “what is a first principle” is given as part of the method. This is the most methodologically fragile point compared with TRIZ’s contradiction parameters or morphological analysis’s dimension setting, discussed below.

SCAMPER also has a doubled origin. Alex Osborn described a checklist of creative questions in 1953, which was the source, and Bob Eberle organized and named it as an acronym (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse) in 197113. Both HMW and SCAMPER belong to the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) lineage that runs from Osborn to Parnes to Basadur.

Decomposing the Problem into Elements to Explore

The lineage that decomposes a problem into elements and systematically explores the solution space spans engineering, operations research, and consulting.

On the engineering side, TRIZ places the core of the problem in contradiction. Genrich Altshuller conceived it in 1946 and derived 40 inventive principles and a 39×39 contradiction matrix from the analysis of hundreds of thousands of patents1415. The contradiction matrix pairs a parameter to be improved with a parameter that would worsen, and indicates the inventive principles statistically used most often. The operation of framing a problem as a “contradiction” is what problem definition amounts to in TRIZ.

Morphological analysis (GMA) exhausts the problem space. Fritz Zwicky developed it in the 1940s, structuring a multidimensional, non-quantifiable problem complex as a matrix of parameters and options16. Tom Ritchey developed computer-aided GMA from 1995 onward and applied it to over 100 policy-analysis and defense-research cases, using it to structure wicked problems17.

Toyota’s Five Whys is the most widely diffused decomposition method. Sakichi Toyoda conceived it in the 1930s, and Taiichi Ohno systematized it in the 1950s as the core of the Toyota Production System18. Ohno’s book states that “repeating Why five times clarifies the nature of the problem and its solution,” and the Lean Enterprise Institute positions this as the basis of Toyota’s scientific approach.

The consulting lineage places problem definition at the head of its steps. McKinsey’s seven-step problem solving makes Step 1 “define the problem,” and uses an Issue Tree to decompose the problem into constituent elements and prioritize them19. Bulletproof Problem Solving by the former McKinsey consultants Conn and McLean also places Define at the start of its seven steps, requiring the boundary setting of the problem and the definition of success conditions20. Barbara Minto’s Pyramid Principle embeds problem definition in the Complication of SCQA (Situation → Complication → Question → Answer), treating the problem as part of structured communication21.

Jobs-to-be-Done Is Not a Single Method

Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) is often spoken of as a single method, but in fact there are three competing lineages. Tony Ulwick applied Six Sigma-style thinking to innovation in 1990 and named it Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI) in 199922. ODI quantifies the success of getting a job done, centering on customer-defined metrics (desired outcomes).

Ulwick introduced ODI to Clayton Christensen in 1999, and Christensen popularized JTBD in his 2003 book23. Meanwhile, Bob Moesta, after developing the milkshake case with Christensen, independently extended it from the demand-side perspective (switch and demand-side sales)24. The Christensen, Ulwick, and Moesta lineages share the name “JTBD” while differing in both definition and methodology, and their history is not a tidy origin story but a succession of disputes25. When using JTBD in practice, unless one distinguishes which lineage’s JTBD is meant, the conversation will not align.

Note that the market-share growth Ulwick presents in the Cordis case (from 1% to over 20%) is his own self-report and a single case study, and is weak as evidence of the method’s effectiveness22. This note treats effectiveness figures of this kind as distinct from a method’s definition or origin.

The Fault Lines Between Academia and Industry

Tracing practitioner methods to their origins reveals several fault lines between academia and industry.

The first is the divergence between origin and practice. HMW and SCAMPER are understood in the field as “tools of design thinking” and “IDEO’s methods,” but their primary sources lie in the Creative Problem Solving lineage that runs from Osborn to Parnes to Basadur. IDEO is a propagator of these, not the originator.

The second is methods that diffused while lacking a theory. First Principles, while originating in ancient Greece, took hold in practice by way of Musk’s remarks and holds no criterion, as part of the method, for judging “what is a first principle.” The name and a persuasive anecdote lead, and an operational definition has not been filled in afterward.

The third is the reverse-direction fault line, where methods established in academia have not been taken up in practice. Morphological analysis has a track record of over 100 cases in policy analysis and defense research, and TRIZ is a systematic method in manufacturing, yet neither has much of a place in the practitioner toolkits of design and consulting. What both address, “structuring a non-quantifiable problem complex,” is precisely the core of problem framing.

The fourth is a blank common to nearly all practitioner methods. The McKinsey lineage and the Double Diamond both place Define as a step, but neither describes a verification criterion for “how you know the problem has been correctly defined.” The Double Diamond’s completion condition for Define remains “producing a design brief.” The point Rittel and Webber raised in 1973, that “wicked problems have no definitive formulation,” remains unresolved across nearly all practitioner methods26.

References

The material is source/review/problem-definition-methods/industry.md (a non-public corpus internal to the repository). For each method, the primary source or an authoritative practitioner explanation is given with a reachability-confirmed URL. Unconfirmed reachability is marked [verification needed]. Promotional effectiveness figures are treated as partial with their methodology attached, and are not asserted.

Unverified Items ([verification needed] / [primary-source verification needed])

Reachability checks were carried out (2026-07-21), and the initially unreachable items were largely resolved. The remaining reservations are as follows.

  • Design Council’s “Framework for Innovation” 2019 update: the page has been reachability-confirmed, but the year itself is not stated explicitly in the body and is secondary information [primary-source verification needed].
  • The five stages of design thinking (Empathize/Define/Ideate/Prototype/Test): this is d.school’s formulation, not IDEO U’s. The IDEO U page is reachability-confirmed but presents its own seven stages (corrected in the body).
  • The publication year of the book Sprint (Knapp et al. 2016, Simon & Schuster): not stated explicitly on the primary page [primary-source verification needed].
  • The two McKinsey articles: the URLs exist, but automated retrieval is blocked by bot filtering and direct reachability is unconfirmed [primary-source verification needed] (can be confirmed by manual browsing).
  • Minto’s The Pyramid Principle: the formal first appearance with an ISBN is the 1981 Minto International edition. 1978 is said to be the year of an internally distributed manuscript, and a formal publication cannot be confirmed (corrected in the body).
  • Ulwick’s Cordis case “market share 1% → over 20%”: self-reported and a single case, so its partial treatment is maintained (the page has been reachability-confirmed).

Footnotes

  1. The academic lineage (peer-reviewed research in design methodology, cognitive science, and systems thinking) is organized in An Academic Map of Methods for Reframing Problems: From Abduction-2 to Problem Structuring. ↩

  2. Design Council UK. The Double Diamond. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/the-double-diamond/ / Development history: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/the-double-diamond/history-of-the-double-diamond/ (the page itself states that development began in 2003 and sharing through talks etc. began from 2004; academic citations widely use 2005. Reachability confirmed 2026-07-21) ↩

  3. Design Council UK. Framework for Innovation. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/framework-for-innovation/ (reachability confirmed 2026-07-21. The 2019 update is secondary information; the year is not stated explicitly on the page [primary-source verification needed]) ↩

  4. The five-stage model (Empathize/Define/Ideate/Prototype/Test) is widely known as the formulation of Stanford d.school (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design). IDEO’s own education arm, IDEO U, presents it in its own seven stages (from Frame a Question to Share the Story). IDEO U. What is Design Thinking. https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/what-is-design-thinking (reachability confirmed 2026-07-21) ↩ ↩2

  5. GV (Google Ventures). The Design Sprint. https://www.gv.com/sprint/ / Jake Knapp official: https://jakeknapp.com/sprint (the page itself states that Knapp developed it at Google in 2010 and GV adopted it in 2012. Reachability confirmed 2026-07-21) ↩

  6. Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J. & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. Simon & Schuster. https://books.google.com/books/about/Sprint.html?id=rV0JCgAAQBAJ ↩

  7. Where does the phrase “How Might We” come from? Medium / Design Voices. https://medium.com/design-voices/where-does-the-phrase-how-might-we-come-from-9ef48efc812f (the origin is disputed. Retrieved 2026-07-21) ↩

  8. Basadur Applied Creativity. Simplexity Explained. https://www.basadur.com/simplexity-explained/ (the company’s own service sections are excluded; only the definition is extracted) ↩

  9. de Bono, E. The Use of Lateral Thinking (1967) is the first appearance of the term. Official: https://www.debono.com/ (retrieved 2026-07-21) ↩

  10. de Bono Group. Six Thinking Hats. https://www.debonogroup.com/services/core-programs/six-thinking-hats/ (systematized in the 1985 book. Certification-program promotion excluded) ↩

  11. Farnam Street. First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge. https://fs.blog/first-principles/ (an explanatory article; no single originator. Retrieved 2026-07-21) ↩

  12. Practical diffusion came by way of Musk’s remarks. No specific primary bibliography. Example: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles ↩

  13. The origin of SCAMPER (Osborn 1953 Applied Imagination → Eberle 1971 SCAMPER: Games for Imagination Development). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCAMPER ↩

  14. MATRIZ Knowledge Base. Contradiction Matrix. https://wiki.matriz.org/docs/triz/problem-solving-tools-5890/contradictions/engineering-contradiction-5995/contradiction-matrix-6026/ (Altshuller conceived it in 1946; analysis of over 400,000 patents) ↩

  15. Altshuller, G. S. Creativity as an Exact Science (English translation 1984, Gordon & Breach. Russian original 1979). https://www.routledge.com/Creativity-As-an-Exact-Science/Altshuller/p/book/9780367580360 ↩

  16. Ritchey, T. General Morphological Analysis. Swedish Morphological Society. https://www.swemorph.com/pdf/gma.pdf (Zwicky developed it in the 1940s) ↩

  17. Ritchey, T. Wicked Problems and GMA. https://www.swemorph.com/wp.html (applied to over 100 projects. Reachability [verification needed]) ↩

  18. Lean Enterprise Institute. The Five Whys. https://www.lean.org/the-lean-post/articles/five-whys-animation/ (Sakichi Toyoda conceived it in the 1930s; Taiichi Ohno systematized it in the 1950s. Ohno, Toyota Production System, English translation 1988) ↩

  19. McKinsey & Company (2019). How to master the seven-step problem-solving process. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-to-master-the-seven-step-problem-solving-process (the existence of the URL was confirmed via WebSearch. Automated retrieval is blocked by bot filtering, so direct reachability of the body is unconfirmed [primary-source verification needed]) ↩

  20. Conn, C. & McLean, R. (2019). Bulletproof Problem Solving. Wiley. Introduction: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/want-better-strategies-become-a-bulletproof-problem-solver (the URL exists, but automated retrieval is blocked by bot filtering, so direct reachability is unconfirmed [primary-source verification needed]) ↩

  21. Minto, B. The Pyramid Principle. The Complication of SCQA is the core of problem definition. The first appearance with a formal ISBN is the 1981 Minto International edition (self-published, ISBN 096019102X). 1978 is said to be the year of an internally distributed manuscript, but a formal publication cannot be confirmed. The 1987 Pitman edition is the third edition. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL3792759M/The_pyramid_principle (reachability confirmed 2026-07-21) ↩

  22. Strategyn (Tony Ulwick). Jobs to Be Done. https://strategyn.com/jobs-to-be-done/ / Cordis case: https://strategyn.com/jobs-to-be-done/cordis-case-study/ (the market-share figures are self-reported and a single case, so treated as partial. Reachability confirmed 2026-07-21) ↩ ↩2

  23. Strategyn. History of JTBD. https://strategyn.com/jobs-to-be-done/history-of-jtbd/ (an account from Ulwick’s side, with self-assessment bias) ↩

  24. Bob Moesta / The Re-Wired Group. https://therewiredgroup.com/learn/complete-guide-jobs-to-be-done/ / https://therewiredgroup.com/about/bob-moesta/ (the current official domain is therewiredgroup.com. Defines JTBD as “a view of pure demand independent of supply” and presents the Four Forces of Progress. Reachability confirmed 2026-07-21) ↩

  25. GoPractice. Jobs to Be Done: the theory and the frameworks. https://gopractice.io/product/jobs-to-be-done-the-theory-and-the-frameworks/ (an organization of the three lineages) ↩

  26. Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2):155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 (a foundational concept that has broadly influenced problem framing in practice) ↩

Author: Shuichiro Ogawa (Design Researcher / Consultant) About me →