Problem Statement¶
Template purpose¶
Use this template to define the problem the project is intended to address.
The problem statement should be understandable without assuming a specific solution. In AI-era software engineering, this is especially important: teams should not assume automation, model use, agent behavior, or AI delegation before the problem, affected stakeholders, and trust constraints are clear.
Project¶
<Project name>
Document control¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Artifact owner | <owner> |
| Primary reviewers | <reviewers> |
| Status | <draft / in review / accepted / revised> |
| Last updated | <YYYY-MM-DD> |
| Related Engineering Stage | ES-101 — Vision and Problem Definition |
| Project workspace target | docs/project-workspace/vision/problem_statement.md |
Problem summary¶
Describe the problem clearly in two to four sentences.
Avoid describing the solution first.
<Write 2–4 sentences explaining the problem.>
Who experiences the problem¶
| Stakeholder Group | How They Experience the Problem | Evidence or Source |
|---|---|---|
<group> |
<impact, friction, risk, delay, cost, confusion, harm, or missed opportunity> |
<interview, observation, incident, policy, metric, course prompt, operational record> |
Current pain, risk, or missed opportunity¶
List what happens today because the problem exists.
| ID | Current Pain / Risk / Opportunity | Consequence | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| P-001 | <pain, inefficiency, risk, delay, cost, confusion, harm, or missed opportunity> |
<consequence> |
<low / medium / high> |
Why this matters now¶
Explain why the problem should be addressed now.
<Reason the project matters at this time.>
Current workaround or existing process¶
Describe how people handle the problem today.
<Current process, workaround, manual step, spreadsheet, tool, policy, or informal practice.>
Evidence supporting the problem¶
List known evidence, observations, interviews, incidents, course prompts, operational examples, metrics, or prior reviews.
| Evidence ID | Evidence Type | Description | Location or Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| E-001 | <interview / observation / incident / metric / policy / prompt / document> |
<description> |
<source or link> |
Impact if unresolved¶
Describe what happens if the problem is not addressed.
| Impact Area | Likely Consequence | Stakeholders Affected |
|---|---|---|
<operations / users / safety / compliance / cost / learning / service quality / trust> |
<consequence> |
<stakeholders> |
Trust and governance relevance¶
Explain whether the problem has implications for trust, oversight, fairness, transparency, accountability, privacy, security, safety, or operational evidence.
<trust or governance relevance, or "Not currently known.">
AI relevance¶
State whether AI is currently believed to be relevant, not relevant, or undecided.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Is AI required to solve the problem? | <yes / no / unknown> |
| Could AI introduce new risk? | <yes / no / unknown> |
| What must remain under human control? | <answer> |
| What evidence would be needed before AI use is accepted? | <answer> |
What this statement does not assume¶
Identify solution assumptions that should not be treated as settled yet.
<Example: This statement does not assume that AI automation is required.><Example: This statement does not assume that the current workflow should be preserved.><Example: This statement does not assume that a new system is the only solution.>
Open questions¶
| ID | Question | Owner | Needed By |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q-001 | <question> |
<owner> |
<date or stage> |
Review checklist¶
- [ ] The problem is stated before the solution.
- [ ] Affected stakeholder groups are identified.
- [ ] Current pain, risk, or missed opportunity is described.
- [ ] Supporting evidence or observations are listed.
- [ ] AI relevance is not assumed without rationale.
- [ ] Trust and governance implications are considered.
- [ ] Open questions are recorded.