BUSN3002 Chap.5 Problem Discovery and Stakeholder Research
Problem Discovery and Stakeholder Research
Problem Discovery and Stakeholder Research widens the problem landscape before narrowing to a focused, testable condition. Students distinguish symptoms, causes, stakeholders and unresolved assumptions, then ask about specific past behaviour rather than seeking approval for a favourite solution. Personas are treated as evidence-based patterns rather than decorative biographies.
The chapter closes by synthesising observations, exceptions and competing explanations into a problem statement and next research decision that can still prove the initial view wrong.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Problem landscapes
- 02
Stakeholder roles
- 03
Behavioural interviews
- 04
Personas
- 05
Evidence patterns
- 06
Competing explanations
Worked example · free
Test the problem before the dashboard
- 1Ask for the most recent reporting example and current process.
- 1Locate the friction, consequence and workaround.
- 1Compare accounts and available process evidence.
- 1Keep the dashboard as one option until the mechanism is supported.
Key terms
- Problem landscape
- A problem landscape maps affected actors, processes, symptoms, possible causes and uncertainty.
- Stakeholder evidence
- Stakeholder evidence records relevant behaviour, experience or decision context from people affected by or influencing a problem.
- Persona
- A persona is an evidence-based representation of a stakeholder pattern relevant to a decision or design challenge.
- Competing explanation
- A competing explanation is an alternative mechanism that could account for the same observed evidence.
Problem Discovery and Stakeholder Research FAQ
How do I avoid leading a stakeholder interview?
Ask about recent behaviour, process and consequence before mentioning your preferred solution. Use open questions, request examples and explore exceptions. Summarise what you heard and invite correction. A question that asks whether an idea would help often encourages polite approval rather than evidence.
What makes a persona credible?
A credible persona represents patterns supported by research and includes goals, behaviours, constraints and decision context relevant to the project. Avoid invented biography and stereotypes. When evidence shows materially different journeys or needs, preserve separate segments instead of averaging them into one fictional user.
How should research be synthesised?
Group evidence by behaviour, cause, constraint or consequence while retaining source context. Record exceptions and competing explanations. State which links are observed and which are inferred, then identify the uncertain assumption with the greatest power to change the project direction.
How many stakeholders should be consulted?
Use the number and range needed to inform the scoped decision, subject to approval and access, rather than claiming that one interview represents everyone. Seek relevant contrasts in role or behaviour, track repeated patterns and exceptions, and state clearly where the sample does not support broad generalisation.
What belongs in a problem statement?
Name the affected stakeholder, current situation, evidenced friction and consequence while leaving the mechanism open. Mark any cause that remains an inference. If the statement already requires a portal, campaign or other preferred response, rewrite it so several different solutions could compete against the same evidence.
How should contradictory stakeholder accounts be treated?
Preserve the disagreement and compare role, context, timing and direct experience before creating a single theme. Contradiction may reveal distinct segments, a changed process or an assumption in the research design. Report what each account supports and design the next inquiry around the unresolved mechanism.
Assessment move
Rewrite five leading questions into prompts about a recent event, current process, consequence and trade-off. Build a small evidence table with observation, affected role, competing explanation and confidence. Finish by writing a problem statement that names the stakeholder and friction without embedding a solution.
Add a provenance column to the table and label each entry as direct observation, participant account, document evidence or team inference. Select two apparently similar comments and test whether they describe the same mechanism or only use the same word. Then find one exception and explain whether it reveals a different segment, a useful workaround or a weakness in the original claim.
Plan a short interview route that begins with role and context, follows one recent event step by step and closes by summarising what you heard for correction. Remove any question that asks the participant to praise or approve your proposed answer. After rehearsal, write three alternative causes for the observed friction and the smallest inquiry that could distinguish among them.
Conclude with a decision statement: what current evidence supports, what it does not support and which uncertainty has the greatest power to redirect the placement project.
Working through Problem Discovery and Stakeholder Research in BUSN3002? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any BUSN3002 Problem Discovery and Stakeholder Research question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how BUSN3002 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
