How Might We (HMW)

How Might We (HMW) statements reframe a defined problem as an open, solvable opportunity. They sit between define (what is wrong) and ideate (what we could try), inviting multiple solution directions without locking in a single answer too early.

Why it matters

After problem statements align the team on user needs, HMW questions create productive creative tension: broad enough to explore alternatives, specific enough to stay grounded in evidence. They prevent ideation sessions from drifting into unrelated ideas or collapsing into one pre-decided feature.

Key ideas

• Start from a real problem. Each HMW should address a numbered problem statement from upstream discovery work.
• Aim for useful altitude. Not "How might we fix everything?" and not "How might we add a blue button?"
• Stay open. Good HMWs welcome several solution paths; they do not describe the solution.
• Generate options. Aim for 2–4 HMWs per significant problem so the team can compare opportunities.
• Note what looks promising. Flag which HMWs seem highest leverage and why — this guides hypothesis work next.

Example pattern: "How might we [enable outcome] for [user] when [context]?"

How it fits the pipeline

How Might We reframing follows problem definition and assumption mapping, opening space for structured ideation.

Common mistakes

• Writing HMWs before problems are clearly defined
• Disguising a single solution as a question ("How might we build an AI chatbot?")
• Making HMWs so vague they cannot guide ideation
• Skipping the link back to specific problem statements

Further reading (NN/g)

• User Need Statements — completing the define stage before ideation
• Discovery: Definition — how define outputs feed ideation and exploration
• The 6 Rules of Design Thinking (video) — design thinking discipline before generating solutions