Narrow the scope: a smaller problem space is a richer one

Restrict the problem to a specific user, use case, or scenario — the narrower the brief, the richer the possible solutions within it.

Why it works

A broad problem statement ("design a better meeting") is less generative than a narrow one ("design a better 20-minute check-in for a remote team of three") because breadth makes the solution space feel infinite and pushes toward generic solutions. Narrowing the scope defines a bounded space where deep, specific solutions become visible that broad framing would never reach. The specific user or scenario forces the creator to generate for a real situation rather than an abstraction.

How to do it

1. Take your current problem and add three narrowing constraints: a specific type of person, a specific context, a specific constraint they operate under.
2. Generate solutions for that narrow case only; resist generalizing during generation.
3. After generating for the narrow case, ask which solutions might generalize — but only after the narrow solutions are complete.
4. Repeat with a different narrow case to create a portfolio of specific solutions.

Evidence

Design thinking and user-centered design literature consistently find that specific personas and scenarios produce better-validated solutions than generic problem framing. Narrow briefs force specificity that reveals real constraints the abstract version conceals. (clinical)

Most evidence is practitioner-based from design and innovation consulting; controlled comparisons of narrow vs. broad problem framing are limited in the academic literature.

Common mistake

Adding narrowing constraints that are still too abstract ("for busy people") rather than genuinely specific ("for a single parent with two hours of uninterrupted time on Sunday mornings").