Doug Worsham

Are strict boundaries between problems and solutions really necessary?

February 13, 2026

problems

problem-solution, problems-series, problem-definition, co-evolution, design-thinking

I’ve attended a few design thinking workshops that began by strictly separating problem definition from considering potential solutions. When this happens, I try to follow the rules. But at the same time, while I guiltily jot down little “what if we …” statements in a corner of my notebook, I’ve found myself wondering: Are the strict boundaries between problems and solutions really necessary? Do expert practitioners follow these rules, or are they more likely to be found only in workshops, training sessions, and consultancy handouts?

Expert designers practice coevolution of problems and solutions

Given how often the design process is taught with a strict division between thinking about problems and solutions, the research on this question is rather one-sided. It shows, again and again, that expert designers across domains integrate problem and solution thinking simultaneously, leveraging analysis of potential solutions to better understand problems.

This process of “co-evolution” of the problem and the solution, originally described by Maher and Poon (1996), was validated in Dorst and Cross’s 2001 study of the behaviors of experienced industrial designers. This paper, currently with over 3,900 citations in google scholar, describes the creative design process as:

“developing and refining together both the formulation of a problem and ideas for a solution, with constant iteration of analysis, synthesis and evaluation processes between the two notional design ‘spaces.’”

Cross followed up this empirical study with an extensive review paper on design expertise (2004), finding that “expert designers are solution-focused, not problem-focused.”

And it turns out that co-evolution is not just for individual experts; teams do it too. In 2013, Wiltschnig et al. asked if evidence of co-evolution could be found in the real-world transcripts of product-design team meetings. They determined that “the answer to this question was a resounding ‘yes’” finding repeated evidence of design teams co-evolving problem and solution spaces in their conversations.

Wiltschnig et al. (2013) called these co-evolution episodes “the engine of creativity in collaborative design.” And Ball and Christensen’s comprehensive 2019 review in Design Studies showed consistent research-based support for “conjecture-based problem formulation” and “problem-solution co-evolution.”

Co-Evolution In Practice

So what does this mean for design teams working under real constraints?

Despite the elegance of linear, sequential process models, problems can’t actually be fully specified in advance. Every solution attempt reveals new dimensions of the problem, and every deepened understanding of the problem transforms the space of possible solutions.

From sequential to conversational approaches to problems and solutions

Putting this into practice involves opening ourselves up to different kinds of conversations. We’ll need to shift our ways of working from separating problems and solutions to bringing them into conversation with each other:

From… To…
“Let’s fully define the problem first.” “We’ll keep developing our understanding of the problem throughout our process.”
“We’re not ready for solutions.” “What would a potential solution need to do?”
“That’s jumping to solutions.” “What does that idea reveal about the problem?”
“Let’s finish research, then we’ll prototype.” “Let’s research this through our prototyping.”
“This solution doesn’t solve the problem we originally defined.” “Have we identified a new aspect of the problem here?”
“We already defined the problem. It’s too late to change that now.” “It looks like we’re circling back to refine our problem definition based on what we learned. That’s an excellent practice.”

And finally, when co-evolution happens naturally, let’s celebrate it, especially with early career designers, for whom evidence of co-evolution shows professional growth.

References