Synthesizing Insights Into Problem Statements and Priorities

What “Synthesizing Insights” Means (and What It Is Not)

After you have collected interview notes, quotes, and observations, you still do not have a decision-ready understanding of what to build or test next. Synthesis is the process of turning messy, qualitative evidence into a small set of clear problem statements and a prioritized list of what matters most. It is the bridge between “we heard a lot of things” and “we know what to focus on.”

Synthesis is not summarizing every conversation. It is not counting how many people said a word. It is not choosing the most exciting idea. Instead, it is a disciplined method for: (1) identifying patterns across people and contexts, (2) separating symptoms from root causes, (3) expressing problems in a way that can be tested, and (4) ranking problems by importance and urgency for a specific customer segment and situation.

The output you want is compact and actionable: a few problem statements, each supported by evidence, with priorities that tell you which problem to tackle first and why.

Inputs and Outputs: What You Need Before You Start

Inputs

• Interview notes and recordings (or transcripts), including direct quotes.
• Context details: role, environment, tools used, constraints, timing, and triggers.
• Artifacts: screenshots, spreadsheets, forms, emails, checklists, or photos of current workflows (if shared).
• Your observation notes: where people hesitated, contradicted themselves, or described workarounds.

Outputs

• A set of themes (patterns) with supporting evidence.
• One or more problem statements per theme written in a consistent format.
• A priority ranking with explicit criteria (not gut feel).
• A “confidence” indicator showing how strong the evidence is and what is still unknown.

Step-by-Step: From Raw Notes to Themes

Step 1: Normalize Your Notes Into Comparable Units

Start by converting each interview into a consistent structure so you can compare across conversations. A practical approach is to extract “insight cards” (digital or physical). Each card should contain one idea only.

• Card title: short label (e.g., “Monthly reporting takes 2 days”).
• Evidence: direct quote or paraphrase.
• Context: who, when, where, what tools.
• Impact: time, money, risk, stress, missed opportunity.
• Frequency: how often it happens (daily/weekly/monthly).
• Current workaround: what they do today.

Keep the cards factual. Avoid adding your solution ideas on the cards; you can capture those separately in a “solution parking lot.”

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Step 2: Code and Cluster (Find Patterns Without Forcing Them)

Read through all cards and assign simple tags (“codes”) that describe what the card is about. Use plain language, not academic categories. Examples: “handoffs,” “approvals,” “data entry,” “rework,” “compliance,” “visibility,” “tool switching,” “waiting,” “errors,” “training.”

Then cluster cards into groups based on similarity. You can do this in a spreadsheet, a whiteboard tool, or sticky notes. The rule is: clusters should represent a shared underlying issue, not just similar words.

Practical tip: if a cluster has only one card, it might be a one-off. Keep it, but mark it as “isolated” until you see it again.

Step 3: Name Each Cluster as a Theme

A theme is a short statement that captures the pattern. Good theme names are specific and observable.

• Weak: “Communication problems.”
• Better: “Status updates require manual chasing across email and chat.”
• Weak: “Too many tools.”
• Better: “Work requires switching between 4 systems to complete one task.”

For each theme, list 3–6 strongest evidence cards (quotes and examples). This prevents themes from becoming opinions.

Step-by-Step: From Themes to Problem Statements

Why Problem Statements Matter

A theme is a pattern; a problem statement is a testable claim about a specific customer in a specific situation experiencing a specific pain, with a measurable consequence. Problem statements help you decide what to validate next and what to ignore for now.

A Practical Problem Statement Template

Use a consistent format so you can compare problems side-by-side:

When [trigger/situation], [customer] struggles to [job-to-be-done] because [root cause], resulting in [impact].

Optional additions when helpful:

This happens [frequency] and is currently handled by [workaround].

Step 4: Separate Symptoms From Root Causes

Many interview insights describe symptoms (“it takes forever,” “it’s confusing,” “we miss deadlines”). Your job is to ask: what makes it take forever? What specifically is confusing? What causes the missed deadlines?

Use a simple “5 Whys” mini-pass on each theme, but keep it grounded in evidence. If you do not have evidence for a “why,” mark it as a hypothesis rather than a fact.

Example symptom-to-root-cause refinement:

• Symptom: “Onboarding new staff is painful.”
• Observed details: training materials are scattered; steps differ by trainer; access requests take days.
• Root causes (possible): no standardized checklist; permissions are handled by a separate team with unclear SLAs; knowledge is tribal.

Turn the most evidenced root cause into the problem statement, not the vague symptom.

Step 5: Write 1–3 Problem Statements Per Theme

Do not try to create a problem statement for every quote. For each theme, write the smallest number of statements that cover the pattern without becoming generic.

Example set (operations context):

• When a customer order is modified after confirmation, the operations coordinator struggles to update all downstream systems because changes are not synchronized, resulting in shipment errors and rework.
• When month-end closes begin, the finance lead struggles to reconcile numbers because data is exported from multiple tools with inconsistent definitions, resulting in 2–3 days of manual cleanup and delayed reporting.

Quality Checks: Is Your Problem Statement Good Enough to Act On?

Checklist

• Specific customer: could you point to a role (not “people”)?
• Specific situation: does it include a trigger or context?
• Observable struggle: is the struggle something you could watch happen?
• Root cause: is the “because” clause plausible and evidence-backed?
• Consequence: does it state a concrete impact (time, money, risk, churn, stress)?
• Neutral wording: does it avoid implying a solution?

Common Fixes

• If it sounds like a feature request, rewrite it as a struggle and consequence.
• If it includes “needs an app/platform/AI,” remove that and describe the job and friction.
• If it could apply to anyone, narrow the context (timing, tools, constraints, environment).

Turning Evidence Into Priorities (Without Guessing)

Once you have multiple problem statements, you need a way to decide which one to pursue first. Prioritization is not about which problem is “coolest.” It is about which problem is most valuable to solve now, for the customers you are targeting, given what you know.

Step 6: Define Your Prioritization Criteria

Use a small set of criteria that reflect real-world buying and adoption behavior. A practical set for early-stage validation:

• Severity of impact: how costly or risky is the problem when it occurs?
• Frequency: how often does it occur?
• Urgency/timing: is there a deadline or trigger that forces action?
• Current satisfaction with workaround: are they content with the workaround or frustrated?
• Ability to pay / budget ownership: does the affected person influence spending or have access to budget?
• Reach within the segment: does this apply to many similar customers or only edge cases?
• Evidence strength: how confident are you based on what you observed?

Keep the list short (5–7 criteria). Too many criteria creates false precision.

Step 7: Score Each Problem Statement With a Simple Rubric

Create a table and score each problem statement from 1–5 on each criterion. Use definitions for each score so you are consistent.

Severity (1–5): 1 = minor annoyance, 3 = meaningful time loss, 5 = major financial/risk impact or repeated failures

Frequency (1–5): 1 = yearly/rare, 3 = monthly, 5 = daily or multiple times per week

Urgency (1–5): 1 = no deadline, 3 = periodic deadlines, 5 = immediate/triggered and cannot be delayed

Workaround dissatisfaction (1–5): 1 = workaround is fine, 3 = tolerated, 5 = hated/actively seeking alternatives

Evidence strength (1–5): 1 = single mention, 3 = repeated across interviews, 5 = repeated + detailed examples + artifacts

Then compute a total score. You can also weight criteria (e.g., Severity x2) if it matches your strategy, but do not over-engineer it.

Example Prioritization Table (Illustrative)

Problem A: Month-end reconciliation manual cleanup (Severity 4, Frequency 3, Urgency 4, Dissatisfaction 4, Evidence 5) = 20/25

Problem B: Weekly status reporting across tools (Severity 2, Frequency 5, Urgency 2, Dissatisfaction 3, Evidence 4) = 16/25

Problem C: Access approvals delay onboarding (Severity 3, Frequency 2, Urgency 3, Dissatisfaction 5, Evidence 3) = 16/25

In this example, Problem A stands out because it combines high impact, deadline pressure, and strong evidence.

Priorities Are Not Just Rankings: Capture “Why Now” and “For Whom”

A ranked list is not enough. You also need to articulate why the top problem is top, and which subset of customers experiences it most intensely. This helps you avoid building for the “average” user and missing the real buyer.

Step 8: Identify the “High-Pain Subsegment”

Within the people you spoke to, pain is rarely uniform. Look for characteristics that correlate with higher severity or frequency.

• Company size (small teams may lack specialists; larger teams may have complex approvals).
• Tooling maturity (spreadsheets vs integrated systems).
• Regulatory environment (higher compliance burden).
• Transaction volume (more orders, more exceptions).
• Workflow complexity (more handoffs, more stakeholders).

Write a short descriptor for the high-pain subsegment, such as “finance leads at 50–200 person services firms using 3+ disconnected tools and closing monthly.” This is not a full persona; it is a practical targeting note for prioritization.

Step 9: Map Problems to the Workflow Moment

Many problems only matter at specific moments. Create a simple workflow map with 5–8 steps and place each problem statement at the step where it occurs. This reveals leverage points: solving one upstream issue may eliminate several downstream symptoms.

Example workflow moments (generic): intake → preparation → execution → handoff → review/approval → reporting → follow-up. Place each problem where it appears and note dependencies.

Handling Conflicting Feedback and Outliers

You will often see contradictions: one person says “this is a nightmare,” another says “it’s fine.” Do not average them. Investigate what differs in context.

Step 10: Explain Contradictions With Context Variables

Create a small table of variables that might explain differences:

• Different tools or integrations.
• Different volume or complexity.
• Different role responsibilities (doer vs approver).
• Different incentives (measured on speed vs accuracy).
• Different maturity (new hire vs expert).

Then annotate your problem statements with “conditions”:

• “Most severe when orders have custom configurations.”
• “Occurs primarily when approvals require two departments.”
• “Less severe for teams using Tool X integration.”

This makes your priorities more precise and prevents you from building a solution that only fits one environment.

Step 11: Treat Outliers as Leads, Not Truth

An outlier can be a signal of a niche opportunity or a misunderstanding. Keep an “outlier log” with the quote, context, and why it might differ. Outliers should not drive your top priorities unless you intentionally pursue that niche and can confirm it with more evidence.

From Priorities to an Actionable Backlog of Validation Tasks

Prioritization should produce next actions. The goal is to reduce uncertainty around the top problems, not to start building immediately.

Step 12: Convert Each Top Problem Into “What We Still Need to Learn”

For the top 1–3 problems, write a short learning backlog:

• Unknowns about impact: quantify time/cost/risk ranges.
• Unknowns about root cause: confirm what actually creates the friction.
• Unknowns about decision-making: who owns the budget and what triggers purchase?
• Unknowns about alternatives: what do they compare against and why do they stick with it?

This keeps you honest about what is evidence versus assumption.

Step 13: Define “Minimum Evidence” to Lock a Priority

Before you commit to a priority, decide what evidence would make you confident enough to proceed. Examples:

• At least 6–8 independent confirmations in the same subsegment.
• At least 3 detailed workflow walkthroughs showing the same failure point.
• At least 2 examples of a recent attempt to fix it (tool change, process change, hiring).
• At least 1 instance where the problem caused a measurable loss (missed deadline, refund, compliance issue).

These thresholds prevent you from overreacting to vivid stories.

Practical Examples: Turning Messy Notes Into Crisp Statements

Example 1: Service Business Scheduling and No-Shows

Raw insights (cards):

• “People book and then disappear; we lose the slot.”
• “We send reminders manually from our phones.”
• “If they reschedule, we forget to update the calendar and double-book.”
• “No-shows hurt because staff still gets paid.”

Theme: Appointment changes and reminders are handled manually, causing revenue leakage.

Problem statement: When clients book or reschedule appointments, the office manager struggles to keep calendars and reminders accurate because updates are spread across texts, calls, and a calendar tool, resulting in no-shows, double-bookings, and lost revenue.

Priority reasoning: High severity (direct revenue loss), moderate-to-high frequency (weekly), strong dissatisfaction (manual reminders), evidence includes concrete examples and workarounds.

Example 2: B2B Team Reporting and Visibility

Raw insights (cards):

• “I spend Friday afternoons compiling updates.”
• “Everyone uses a different format.”
• “Leaders ask for status mid-week and we scramble.”
• “We can’t tell what’s blocked until it’s late.”

Theme: Status reporting is manual and inconsistent, reducing visibility into blockers.

Problem statement: When leadership requests project status, team leads struggle to provide a reliable view of progress because updates live in multiple formats and tools, resulting in time spent compiling reports and late discovery of blockers.

Priority nuance: Frequency may be high, but severity depends on whether late discovery causes major losses. If evidence shows only annoyance, it may rank below problems tied to deadlines, compliance, or revenue.

Documentation: How to Present Synthesis So Others Can Trust It

Step 14: Create a One-Page “Insight Brief” Per Top Problem

For each top problem, write a short brief that can be shared with a cofounder, advisor, or contractor without a long meeting.

• Problem statement: in the template format.
• Who it affects most: the high-pain subsegment descriptor.
• Evidence: 3–5 quotes and 1–2 concrete stories.
• Impact: time/cost/risk ranges (even if approximate).
• Current workaround: what they do today and why it is insufficient.
• Open questions: what you still need to confirm.
• Priority score: include your rubric scores and rationale.

This format forces clarity and makes it harder to cherry-pick.

Step 15: Maintain an “Evidence Trace”

When you make a prioritization decision, you should be able to trace it back to sources. Keep a simple index:

• Interview ID → key quotes → linked theme → linked problem statement.
• Artifacts (files/screenshots) tagged to the relevant problem.

This is especially useful when you later discover a wrong assumption; you can see whether the issue was weak evidence, misinterpretation, or a segment mismatch.

Common Synthesis Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)

Turning Preferences Into Problems

People often say what they would like (“I wish it had a dashboard”). Treat preferences as clues. Ask what they are trying to accomplish and what fails today. If there is no consequence, it is not a priority problem.

Overweighting the Loudest Interview

A single passionate person can distort your priorities. Counter this by requiring cross-interview confirmation and by scoring evidence strength explicitly.

Mixing Multiple Problems Into One Statement

If your problem statement contains “and” more than once, it may be two problems. Split it so you can prioritize and test them separately.

Assuming the Root Cause Without Proof

It is tempting to jump to “because the tool is bad.” Often the root cause is process, incentives, or unclear ownership. If you do not have evidence, label it as a hypothesis and keep it in your open questions.

Prioritizing What Is Easy to Build

Ease of building is not a customer value criterion. It can be a delivery consideration later, but your early priorities should reflect customer impact and urgency, not your technical comfort zone.