Situation
Sharpen the problem statement before investing in solutions.
Use this when teams feel urgency but problem boundaries and outcomes are fuzzy. It works well at kickoff or before strategic planning.
Start with Problem Framing and How Might We for this situation unless a validated, agreed problem statement already exists and is accepted by all stakeholders.
Choose the structure that keeps trade-offs visible and forces the room to land somewhere explicit.
Open the method first if you need to judge the format. Start a workspace when this needs method fit, a session plan, and shareable follow-through in one saved thread.
Start with one method now, then compare a lighter or deeper route only if the room shape changes.
Recommended first
Choose this when the session goal is: A concise problem statement is agreed.
You are choosing the clearest path over broader comparison work in 60-120 min.
Problem statement
Open methodIf time is tight
Use this when you need a credible move quickly and cannot support a heavier room shape.
You gain speed, but you accept a lighter evidence base or less breadth in the room.
Assumption heatmap
Open methodIf you need more depth
Use this when the room can spend more time building shared understanding before committing.
You gain more context and stronger buy-in, but the session asks for more time and facilitation energy.
North-star framing sheet
Open methodIf the session is working, these are the signals you should be able to point to by the end.
Use these questions to confirm this is the right room before you commit to the method.
Why it matters: If the decision is vague, the room will drift into discussion instead of converging on a usable output.
What changes: If the answer is specific, Waypoint can recommend tighter decision formats. If it stays broad, Waypoint should push you toward framing or mapping first.
Why it matters: When multiple problem narratives exist, a single session will surface the conflict directly. The question is whether the right people are in the room to resolve it. Without the authority to choose one framing, the session produces a compromise statement that sounds agreed but is owned by nobody.
What changes: If narratives are genuinely competing, build an explicit problem selection vote into the session before HMW generation — the room needs to choose one framing, not blend them. If they are variations of the same theme, Problem Framing can converge them. If the narratives reflect a strategic disagreement between senior stakeholders, resolve that before running the session.
Why it matters: Ambiguous success definitions don't just create measurement problems — they create scope problems. When success is undefined, teams scope the problem to whatever they can deliver rather than what the user or business actually needs. The problem statement ends up shaped by capability, not by the real problem.
What changes: If success definitions are ambiguous, add an explicit success metric agreement step before the problem statement is drafted. If the ambiguity is about which metric matters most (revenue vs satisfaction vs adoption), that prioritisation conversation needs to happen in the session. If the definitions are irreconcilable, escalate before framing.
Why it matters: Some risks can be parked; others require a method that produces enough evidence or ownership before the group leaves.
What changes: If it cannot stay unresolved, Waypoint should bias toward techniques that leave owners, assumptions, or evidence checks visible before the room closes.
Use these only if the recommended route is blocked by room shape, confidence, or stakeholder availability.
Fallback 1
A structured workshop using the Value Proposition Canvas to connect target customer jobs, pains, and gains with product/service pain relievers and gain creators.
Value proposition canvas
The target customer segment is undefined — running this session produces a canvas that describes an average customer nobody actually is.
Compare this methodWatch for these signals in the room and use the paired fix before the session drifts.
What it looks like: Participants write HMW prompts that address different underlying problems — some about onboarding, some about retention, some about product complexity — because the problem statement was nodded at rather than genuinely agreed, and each team is still working from their own framing.
Fix: Write and approve one core problem statement before creating prompts.
What it looks like: Each team describes success differently when asked directly — "launch the feature," "improve NPS," "reduce support tickets" — confirming that no shared success definition was established, despite the problem statement appearing agreed.
Fix: Translate success into measurable outcomes with a timeframe.
What it looks like: The session produces a problem statement quickly, the team moves to HMW prompts, and halfway through the facilitator notices the prompts are based on three different interpretations of which user is being served — the scope was never actually agreed.
Fix: List top assumptions with owners and validation dates before close.
Related playbooks
Use these when the room keeps reaching for a famous company method and you need the practical translation: what to borrow, what not to imitate, and which Waypoint move should take over next.
Atlassian Team Playbook
A short alignment play that clarifies why the work matters, who owns what, and what progress should look like before the delivery machine accelerates.
It reduces the common pattern where projects launch with enthusiasm but weak shared understanding of goals and constraints.
Best when
Open it before a project, initiative, or cross-functional push starts creating commitments it cannot yet support.
Amazon Working Backwards
Known here for narrative artifacts that force customer-value clarity early.
Use this when you need to pressure-test an idea before it turns into a roadmap bet.
Best when
Concepts that need customer-facing clarity before roadmap commitment.