01 / UNDERSTAND
What is a How Might We question?
A How Might We question turns an evidenced problem or opportunity into a prompt for design exploration. It names a useful direction while leaving room for more than one response. The question frames exploration; it does not validate the problem. Start with what you have learned, not a feature you want permission to build.
Why use How Might We?
A team may jump from a complaint straight to a solution. Writing and comparing prompts creates a pause: whose situation matters, what outcome is needed and which constraints are real? The wording makes the scope discussable before the group spends time developing ideas.
When to use it
USE IT WHEN
Research has revealed a need and you are preparing to generate options.
A team has several competing interpretations of a design challenge.
The current brief names a solution before establishing its purpose.
When to choose another method
Use User Interviews when the problem is mostly an assumption.
Use a precise implementation task when the solution and requirement are already agreed.
Do not use an open prompt to evade a fixed obligation or accessibility requirement.
What you’ll need
Bring a concise observation, its context and supporting evidence. Identify who is affected and the outcome you hope to support. Distinguish constraints from habits of the current service. A few candidate prompts and a way to record why one was selected are enough; an elaborate workshop is optional.
What the method needs
Keep the elements that help answer your question and support a decision.
The observation or finding behind the prompt.
Whose situation the question addresses.
What should become possible or easier.
What is inside and outside the exploration.
Room for materially different approaches.
Why this question is useful now.
02 / PUT IT INTO PRACTICE
How to write How Might We questions
Keep evidence and assumptions distinct. Revisit your work when new information changes your understanding.
01
Start from evidence
Write the observation without embedding a proposed solution.
Applicants cannot tell whether a document upload was accepted.
02
Name the outcome
Describe what people need to know or do.
They need to know whether they can safely leave the process.
03
Draft alternatives
Try different scopes rather than polishing one sentence immediately.
Explore confirmation, correction and continuity as separate questions.
04
Remove the hidden solution
Look for product features disguised as the problem.
Replace “add a progress bar” with the uncertainty it would address.
05
Test the breadth
Check that several approaches fit without making the question meaningless.
A receipt, review step or assisted route could each be explored.
06
Choose and carry forward
Record the rationale, evidence and constraints beside the selected question.
Keep document privacy and recovery from failed uploads in scope.
Example: knowing whether an upload worked
Illustrative scenario, not a research result. An application team suspects that people submit the same document twice because they cannot see whether the first upload succeeded. “How might we add a green tick?” fixes the answer too early. “How might we improve applications?” loses the situation.
A more useful starting prompt is “How might we help applicants know their document has been accepted and what to do if it has not?” This leaves room for several responses. The team still needs to verify the suspected cause of duplicate uploads; the wording does not turn the hypothesis into a finding.
03 / BELOW THE SURFACE
Below the surface: the prompt can quietly allocate responsibility
“How might we make applicants upload correctly?” locates the problem in the applicant. A different formulation could examine whether the service accepts common formats, explains failures or asks for documents it already holds. Check who the wording expects to change.
01 / EVIDENCE
What is supported?
Which source or observation supports the current interpretation?
02 / LIMIT
What remains uncertain?
Which assumption would change the decision if it were wrong?
03 / ACTION
What happens next?
Who will investigate or test the next step, and when?
Draft one version focused on the person’s action and another focused on the service’s responsibility. Compare what each makes thinkable. Choose a framing grounded in evidence and within the team’s legitimate scope, while recording dependencies outside it. This is an editorial framing exercise, not a formula for finding the single correct question.
How Might We template
Use the first page for the practical work and the second to challenge the reasoning before choosing a next step. The canvas follows this guide and keeps evidence, assumptions and decisions visible.
The two page PDF contains 12 editable fields. Open it in a PDF reader that supports forms and save a working copy.
Practical tips
Keep the supporting observation next to the prompt.
Write several versions before selecting one.
Ask whether someone outside the team understands the situation.
Common mistakes
Replacing research with an optimistic question.
Hiding a specific feature inside the wording.
Making the scope so broad that almost any idea fits.
What you’ll get
An evidenced prompt with scope and room for alternatives. Keep the supporting evidence and unresolved questions with the output. Assign an owner to the next action and revisit the result when the underlying situation changes. The method supports judgement; the completed canvas is not proof that the proposed choice will work.