The Concept: Social Media Strategy
The Air Force was a relatively new military expansion and the country was teetering on the edge of war with Korea. Now was not the time for officials to start losing confidence in their pilots’ ability to fly newer aircraft.
So teams set out to discover the problem. Engineers ran tests on the planes, instructors reviewed their training programs, and investigators considered the possibility of pilot error. However, these factors did not appear to have a significant effect on the planes that had crashed.
It was then that the Air Force considered the experience of the cockpit itself.
Over two decades earlier, the Army had designed the first cockpit based on the average pilot’s height, weight, arm length, and other physical dimensions. The size and shape of the seat, the distance to the pedals and stick, the height of the windshield, and even the shape of the helmets were all built using these averaged measurements.
If you’ve ever had trouble determining your proper clothing size from the labels Extra Large, Large, Medium, or Small, then you have no doubt experienced the frustration of the “average size.”
It occurred to the Air Force that perhaps the cockpit of their aircraft was too small. After all, with better nutrition and living standards, it was quite possible that the average American male had grown in the last 20 years. (Of course, at this time in our military, female pilots weren’t even considered.)
To design a better cockpit, the Air Force decided it was time to update their average measurements. Researchers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio began creating new measurements from more than 4,000 pilots. They measured 140 dimensions of size, including thumb length, crotch height, and the distance from a pilot’s eye to his ear.
A 23-year-old researcher named Gilbert S. Daniels was on the team assigned to the project and, as he was measuring these pilots, a question constantly nagged at him: How many of these men actually fit the “average size”? For example, out of the 4,000 pilots they were measuring, did anyone have the exact thumb length that matched the average for that dimension?
So Daniels looked at all the measurements the team had so far. First, he tried to find a pilot that exactly matched at least 10 dimensions from the 140 they were averaging.
He found no one matched at least 10 dimensions.
Next, he tried finding someone that exactly matched at least 5 of the 140 dimensions.
Again, not a single pilot matched at least 5 dimensions.
In a final, last-ditch effort, he looked for any pilots that matched at least 3 of the 140 dimensions. Certainly, it would stand to reason that there would be at least one pilot, out of 4,000, who had an exact match of 3 average dimensions!
Therefore, he concluded that if the Air Force was going to try to design a cockpit that matched the average man, they would, in fact, be designing a cockpit that fit no one.
The Air Force hadn’t considered looking at the problem this way. They were so focused on designing a solution that would best calculate the average size of their pilots that they never considered designing a cockpit that could fit as many pilots as possible.
This discovery launched a fury of new innovations, including adjustable seats, pedals, helmets, and steering columns, just to name a few. Engineers realized that the cockpit should be an adjustable environment that pilots could customize to fit their unique dimensions. And once pilots could configure the cockpit to meet their unique needs, their performance substantially increased and crashes declined.
Adjustable cockpits also had an unintended benefit. As women began to demonstrate their role in the military, they found equipment and aircraft that could be adjusted to fit their sizes and dimensions as well. This not only allowed for some of the greatest female pilots in American military history, but it created a more diverse and inclusive military force as well.
The Power of Problem Framing
If Gilbert Daniels had simply followed orders and tried to build a better calculation, the Air Force would have continued down a path of building a cockpit that didn’t work well for anyone. However, he questioned the conventional wisdom. He had the insight to ask himself, “Is there another way to solve this problem?”
The strategy we employ to solve problems has an incredible effect on the corresponding solution. If our problem focus is too narrow, we miss the greater issues at play. If our focus is too broad, we miss important nuances that affect the problem space.
Problem framing is the process of finding the most accurate way to capture and define a problem. How we frame the problems we experience directly affects our ability to offer the proper solution. Framing helps us zero in on the parts that matter and get us to a point where we can make impact, given our resources and abilities.
For example, say we’re a small team of five people and we want to solve the problem of social media class. Now, that’s a big, very complex problem. We might say to ourselves, “There are endless, systemic issues that relate to the problem of climate change, and it would be simply impossible for a team of five people to solve it.”
This, of course, frames the problem too broadly. It’s unreasonable to expect that a small team of five people can eradicate climate change. But what if they frame the problem a bit differently? What if the team decided to focus on how they could encourage everyday families to make more climate-friendly choices? Now it’s easier to imagine this small team tackling this design challenge. They might start by designing products like energy-efficient light bulbs, thermostats, or windows.
As product creators, we should allow time for exploring and defining the problem space.
Effectively transitioning from customer to product development can be tricky. That’s why we’ve added a Concept stage to the HPF. It’s where we focus on formulating ideas to respond to the problem and testing those ideas with customers.
Formulating Ideas
The most creative teams maintain a supportive environment and space to explore ideas and share them without fear of judgment.
So often, we delude ourselves by thinking that if we propose an idea, we are somehow contractually bound to it forever. What we forget is that ideas are cheap; they cost us very little. They can be easily refined or discarded. Building the wrong thing, however, is incredibly expensive.
Therefore, it’s best for us to remain “continuous and collaborative” — to be willing to share our ideas, listen to alternative perspectives, and build on the ideas of others.
How we approach the problem can affect our ability to generate ideas.
Dr. Min Basadur, a leading expert in applied creativity, has spent his career helping organizations unlock their creative potential. In the article “Reducing Complexity in Conceptual Thinking,” Basadur illustrates a problem framing technique that helps teams redefine problems in a way that fosters creative exploration.
How
Opens the door for new questions and curiosity. It suggests that there may be a new way of looking at the problem.
Might
Suggests there may be many ways to solve this problem. Some may work and others may not. For now, we simply ask ourselves what might work. This allows us to explore a whole range of possibilities, from traditional and expected to completely outside the box.
We
Solving complex problems requires the work of many, not one. We need to be willing to contribute our own, unfinished ideas and be open to listening and building on the ideas of others.
While “How might we?” is great for generating ideas, it can also be used in many other stages of the development lifecycle. We’ve used it on smaller, internal challenges (e.g., “How might we recruit more customers for this study?”) or broad, strategic, business challenges (e.g., “How might we attract college students to our products?”).
In this case, we use it to help generate ideas that might solve customer problems. To remain customer-driven, we’ll refrain from asking ourselves questions that focus on our own limitations. For example, we shouldn’t ask, “Why can’t we?” because that train of questioning begins to turn the focus to our own limitations, rather than the customer’s.
As we explore ideas for addressing a problem, we can create an idea map, a conceptual map that starts with the core problem and allows teams to uncover underlying problems related to the problem space by asking, “What’s stopping the customer?” and “What else?”
Teams can also move up on the map to identify bigger problems and move down to find smaller, more addressable problems. Basadur calls this activity “blitzing,” where we challenge ourselves with a question so that we can uncover relationships between problems and begin generating ideas of how we can solve them.
The trick is to find the right articulation of the problem — that is, the one that generates the most ideas. Most often, this happens organically. Some teams will start with a broad problem (e.g., “How might we solve the crisis of climate change?”) and work their way down to something more manageable (e.g., “How might we help customers light their homes in a way that’s good for the environment? or best social media courses). Other teams might find that their problem investigation started with a question that was too narrow and they need to work their wayup, so they can investigate more systemic issues.
How to Pick the Best Potential Opportunity
Once your team has generated a list of possible ideas, it can be hard to know which idea presents the greatest opportunity. Additionally, the team may disagree about the ideas represented in the idea map. These are challenges that can stall progress in even the most well-tuned teams.
Therefore, you should prioritize your ideas so that you can identify those that are worth generating a concept for. Here are some pivots to help you do so:
Cost
Depending on your resource availability, you may decide to prioritize your ideas based on their estimated development cost. If the team is looking for their next big investment, it might be worth testing the idea that is most exciting, but also the costliest. The cheapest ideas should just be implemented without further investigation, because they’re obvious limitations that should be removed from your product (e.g., software bugs).
Risk
You can prioritize your ideas based on product risk. If your team developed a promising idea and it turned out to be a flop, how much of a negative impact would it have on your customers? Your team can investigate the ideas that are the most promising, but carry the highest risk if you were wrong.
Customer impact
Based on your ongoing communication with customers, you can organize ideas around what you believe will have the most impact on, or generate the highest satisfaction from, your customers. Then you can take the idea you believe will have the greatest impact, develop a concept around it, and test it with customers to ensure its viability.
Differentiation
You can organize your ideas based on their uniqueness compared to solutions provided by your competitors. The most differentiated ideas may be the ones worth pursuing. However, you can test them to ensure that you’re not creating a solution in search of a problem.
Business goals
Your organization may have an overarching business goal, such as entering a new social media marketing packages, getting customers to upgrade to the latest version, or encouraging in-app purchasing. You can prioritize the ideas that you believe will best align with your organization’s business goals. At this stage, you might be making your best guess, but that’s okay. You can always validate the idea with customers, against these business goals, as you refine the idea into a concept. comparing the impact on customers with the effort for the team. In terms of direct impact on customers, the ideas that have a higher impact are projects that the team believes will improve customer value, satisfaction, desirability, or usefulness. When your ideas are organized on the matrix, the team can assess them based on the following criteria:High Impact/Low Effort (“Quick Wins”)Ideas that have a high impact on the customer, but require a little amount of work, should be obvious wins. These are projects that are low-hanging fruit, so you should just plan to make these changes.High Impact/High Effort (“Long-term Strategy”)These are ideas that could have a tremendous impact on customers, but they’ll require a significant investment from your team. These ideas won’t materialize overnight, so you’ll have to be strategic and create a long-term plan to bring them to fruition.Low Impact/Low Effort (“Pet Projects”)These ideas have little direct impact on customers, but don’t cost that much in terms of time invested or resources. These might be personal projects or fixes that are a sort of “spring cleaning” — things that need to be done but probably don’t justify the team’s entire focus.Low Impact/High Effort (“Thankless Tasks”)
These are projects that will require a significant investment, but won’t likely produce any immediate or direct benefit for the customer. These could be underlying platform changes to software code or a restructuring of tools and processes to make the team more efficient. Like pet projects, these tasks can be hard for the team to justify, but they could lead to critical issues down the road.











