Start the UX Design Process: Empathize, Define, and Ideate
This domain tests how to build empathy through research, turn findings into a defensible problem statement and hypothesis, and run ideation that produces genuinely different options rather than variations on the first idea.
Research for empathy
Primary research is data you collect yourself - interviews, surveys, observation, diary studies. Secondary research uses existing sources such as reports, competitors, or academic work. Interviews are best for motivations and stories; surveys suit scale and comparison; usability studies test a design, not a market.
Empathy maps, personas, journey maps
An empathy map has four quadrants - says, thinks, does, feels - and organizes what you heard around the user rather than the product. A persona is a fictional character built from research, with goals, frustrations, behaviors, and a scenario. A user journey map contains actor, scenario, journey phases, actions/mindset/emotions, and opportunities; it exposes pain points across time, not just on one screen.
Define: problem statements, hypotheses, value propositions
Problem statement: “[Persona] needs [need] because [insight].” It should be human-centered, broad enough to allow creative solutions, and narrow enough to be actionable. Hypothesis statement: “[Solution] will [outcome] for [persona] because [reason].” A hypothesis is a testable guess about a solution; a problem statement names the user’s need. Value proposition covers what the product does, why it is valuable, and who it is for.
Ideation
Brainstorming ground rules: defer judgment, encourage wild ideas, build on others’ ideas, keep one conversation at a time, stay visual, and aim for quantity before quality. Techniques include How Might We questions, mind mapping, Crazy Eights, SCAMPER, and competitive audits that compare direct and indirect competitors to find gaps.
Worked example
After eight commuter interviews, a team maps says/thinks/does/feels and notices riders feel anxious at transfers. A persona - “Priya, daily rail commuter, needs to know which platform before the doors open” - leads to the problem statement: “Priya needs real-time platform information before arrival because transfer confusion makes her miss connections.” Three How Might We prompts produce 24 sketches; dot-voting selects three concepts for a hypothesis: “An arrival alert will reduce missed transfers for Priya because it gives her warning before the platform decision point.”
Traps
Jumping to solutions before defining the problem. Problem statements that smuggle in a solution (“needs a bigger button”). Personas invented from stereotypes rather than data. Confusing hypothesis with problem statement. Brainstorming sessions where seniority or criticism shuts down ideas.