Switching the frame

Take the named frame and restate the situation in each of the other ways of thinking, quickly and badly. Most restatements change nothing. Look for the one that changes the first action, because that is the one worth taking seriously.

Ways of thinking: the four moves

Move 2 of 4 · Changes what counts as the problem

Restate the problem four ways and see which changes what you do first.

Time: 45 min
People: 4–12, ideally with someone from outside the team that wrote the proposal
You need: The frame finder from the naming session, the four restatements grid, a one-page summary of the four ways, a visible timer
You leave with: Four alternative problem statements, one chosen to explore with a reason, and the first action it implies

Needs some practice

The idea

What the move is, and why it works

What the move is

Switching the frame means describing the same situation as a different kind of problem and seeing what the new description asks you to do. The situation stays fixed. The question changes. Restated as a systems problem, the Secondary 1 afternoon is about what the time is taken from. Restated as a design problem, it is about what students will do with it.

You write one sentence per way of thinking, four minutes each, and you write them badly on purpose. The aim is to break the sense that there was only ever one way to describe the situation. Finding the right restatement comes later.

The idea behind it

Kees Dorst studied how expert designers handle problems that resist solution. He found they rarely solve the problem as given. They create a new frame, a different way of describing the situation, and the new frame makes a solution possible. He calls this frame creation, and argues it is the part of design practice most worth carrying into other fields.

Gareth Morgan made the same point about organisations. Describe a school as a machine, an organism or a political system and you will see different problems and reach for different fixes. None is the true description. Each is a lens, and switching lenses is a discipline that can be practised.

Why it works

The test that matters is the first action. A restatement that leads to the same first step as the original adds vocabulary and nothing else. A restatement that changes what you would do on Monday has found something the original frame was hiding. That gives the group a plain way to choose between restatements without arguing about which is truer.

It is also the cheapest move in the strand. Forty-five minutes of one-sentence restatements costs less than a single week of a plan built on the wrong problem.

When

When to reach for it, and when not to

Use it when

The naming session found a frame worth questioning.
Fixes keep failing, and each one was a sensible answer to the same question.
The group is stuck choosing between two options that both feel wrong.
A proposal is about to be approved and everyone agrees with it a little too quickly.

Skip it when

The frame was named and kept for good reasons. Switching for the sake of it is a workshop habit.
The barrier is plainly money, staff or will. A budget gap restated as a creativity opportunity is still a budget gap.
Nobody in the room knows enough about the situation to restate it. Get the knowledge first.
The decision has already been made elsewhere, and the session would be theatre.

Before

Before anyone is in the room

Bring the frame finder from the naming session, with the named frame and what it hides.
Print the four restatements grid, one per pair, and a one-page summary of the four ways.
Invite one person who sees the situation from somewhere else: a student, a parent, a teacher from another department.
Set up a timer everyone can see. The restatements must be rushed.
Prepare one example restatement of an unrelated problem, so people see how rough it is allowed to be.

Steps

How to run it

6 steps, about 45 min in all. The questions in quotation marks are meant to be read out as they are.

01
Put the named frame on the wall
3 min
Write the problem statement and its named frame at the top of the board, with the line on what it hides. Remind the group that this frame is not wrong. It is one description among several.
Ask the room
- This is how the problem is described now. What does this frame ask us to do first?
- Is everyone clear what this frame leaves out?
Watch for Someone wanting to reopen the naming. Do not. That was the last session’s job.
02
Restate it four ways, badly
16 min
Give four minutes per way of thinking. In pairs, write one sentence that describes the same situation as a systems problem, then a design problem, then a critical problem, then a computational one. If one of the four matches the named frame, do it anyway and see if it comes out different. Speed matters more than quality.
Ask the room
- Systems: what structure would produce exactly the result we are worried about?
- Design: what is the gap between what is and what we would prefer, and for whom?
- Critical: what claim is this proposal resting on, and what would show it is wrong?
- Computational: what are the exact steps, and which one fails?
Watch for Pairs stopping to perfect the first sentence. Call time. A rough fourth restatement is worth more than a polished first.
03
Ask what you would do first
8 min
For each restatement, ask the pair to write the first concrete action it implies: something a named person could do next week. Collect them in a column beside the restatements.
Ask the room
- If this were the problem, what would you do first?
- Who would do it, and by when?
- Is that different from what the original frame asks us to do first?
Watch for Vague first actions such as “consult stakeholders”. Ask who, about what, by when.
04
Find the one that changes the first action
6 min
Look down the column of first actions. Cross out every one that matches the original frame’s first action. What is left are the restatements that found something. There are usually one or two.
Ask the room
- Which of these first actions would we not have taken under the original frame?
- Which one, if we did it, might change the proposal?
Watch for The group picking the most interesting restatement instead of the one that changes the action.
05
Test it against the people
8 min
Take the surviving restatements and ask whether the people affected would recognise them. Go through them one at a time: student, parent, teacher, leader, anyone outside the school. A restatement only the planning group recognises is probably a planning group’s problem.
Ask the room
- Would a student recognise this as their problem?
- Would a parent?
- Would the teachers who have to run it?
- Who would say this is not the problem at all?
Watch for Answering for people who are not in the room. If you are guessing what a student would say, say so, and plan to ask one.
06
Choose one, with a reason
4 min
Pick one restatement to explore further, and write down why in one sentence. Put the first action beside it with a name and a date. Keep the others on file. They are often useful later.
Ask the room
- Which one do we take forward, and why?
- What is the first action, who does it, and by when?
- What are we giving up by not taking the others?
Watch for Choosing two or three “to keep options open”. Choose one. The others are on the sheet.

Worksheets

Two sheets to print and fill in

Each one prints on its own sheet of A4. The grey line under each is an example from the worked situation.

Ways of thinking · Switching the frame · Worksheet

Four restatements

Lays the original frame and four restatements side by side, so you can see which one changes the first action.

Situation

Named frame

Date

	Frame	The problem, in one sentenceRough is fine	What we would do firstA named person, next week	Who would recognise itStudent, parent, teacher, leader	Changes the first action?Yes or no
As named
Systems
Design
Critical
Computational

Example Design: “How might Secondary 1 spend one afternoon making something that needs all three subjects?” First: run one trial afternoon with one class before deciding a weekly slot. Recognised by: Mdm Kavitha, at once. Changes the first action: yes.

geraldajam.com/work/toolkit

Ways of thinking · Switching the frame · Worksheet

The chosen restatement

Records the restatement you are taking forward, why, and what you set aside, so the choice can be checked later.

Situation

Group

Date

The restatement we are taking forward

Why this one

What it lets us see that the original frame did not

First action, owner and date

Who we tested it against, and what they said

Mark any answer that was a guess

What we are setting aside, and when we will look again

Example Why this one: it is the only restatement that asks what Arjun would actually do in the afternoon. The original frame asks only when.

geraldajam.com/work/toolkit

Worked example

Four restatements of the Secondary 1 afternoon

One afternoon a week for Secondary 1

A week after naming the frame, the curriculum group met for 45 minutes with the find-an-afternoon frame on the board. Ms Chen and Mr Hafiz were there with two HODs. Mdm Kavitha came for the second half, because the project might use her home-based catering business as a real client.

Systems “Every new initiative here takes its time from something else, and the thing it takes from pushes back.” First action: list what the afternoon takes time from, and who absorbs the loss. The answer was one period a week each of Geography, Science and English Language, and each department would pack its remaining periods to make up.
Design “How might Secondary 1 spend one afternoon making something that needs all three subjects?” First action: run one trial afternoon with one class before committing to a weekly slot. Ms Chen sketched a project on where the school’s food waste goes: supply chains in Geography, decomposition in Science, a persuasive letter to the canteen stallholders in English Language.
Critical “The proposal assumes a weekly project afternoon helps Secondary 1 learn more in three subjects. What would show that, and by when?” First action: write down the evidence that would count by the end-of-year exams. Mr Hafiz pointed out that this was the first thing Dr Ong would ask.
Computational “What are the exact steps for one project afternoon, from planning to marking, and who does each?” First action: write the sequence. The pair got stuck at step two. No step covered three departments planning together, and no step said who marks the work or where the mark goes.
Testing it against the people Mdm Kavitha recognised the design restatement at once. She asked what Arjun would bring home, and said he would talk about a thing he made long before he would talk about a lesson. Ms Chen recognised the computational one, because she is the one who would be planning at nine at night. Nobody could say what Arjun would recognise, so the group wrote “ask him” on the sheet.
The awkward part Two restatements changed the first action, the design one and the computational one. The group wanted to take both. The facilitator held them to one. They chose design, because a trial afternoon would also expose the planning and marking gaps the computational restatement had found.

What came out of it

The proposal’s first action changed from “find a weekly slot” to “run one trial afternoon with one class before the decision”. The computational restatement went on file with a note: whatever happens, someone must own planning time and marking. Mr Hafiz agreed to find one afternoon, once, which is easier than finding one every week of the school year.

Signs

How to tell it is working, and when it has gone hollow

Working

At least one restatement changes what someone will do next week.
People outside the planning group recognise the chosen restatement as their problem.
The group can say in one sentence what the chosen frame lets it see that the original did not.
The author of the original frame helps choose the new one.

Gone hollow

Four elegant restatements, and the same first action under all of them.
A restatement is used to make a hard constraint sound like an opportunity.
The most senior person’s favourite way of thinking wins, every time.
The chosen restatement is filed, and the proposal goes forward in its original words.

Variations

Other ways to run it

In 20 minutes

Do two restatements, not four. Pick the two ways furthest from the named frame on the matrix and give each five minutes. Spend the other ten on first actions. You lose breadth and keep the test.

On your own

Write the four restatements on one side of A4 before a meeting where you expect to be outvoted. Your own blind spots are the hardest to see, so ask someone else to read the four and say which one surprised them.

With students

Give a class a local problem, such as the queue at the canteen at recess, and ask groups to restate it as a structure, a design gap, a claim and a process. Then ask what they would do first under each. Arjun’s class could do this in a single lesson, and it doubles as a way to introduce the four ways.

What to do with what you made

Take the chosen restatement’s first action and do it before the proposal moves on. If two restatements pulled in different directions and the group could not choose between them, run holding two at once. Keep the grid. The restatements you set aside are often the ones you need next term.

Holding two at once When two restatements disagree and both look right, run them properly side by side.The four ways compared What each way notices and misses, set side by side. Useful when a pair is stuck on a restatement.Design thinking The way that found the trial afternoon, with its strengths and how it gets hollowed out.

Tools

Tools, templates and guides worth having

Published elsewhere, and worth the time.

Method
Dorst’s frame creation model
Nine steps from Frame Innovation (2015), from the archaeology of the problem through to integration. Heavier than this move, and worth it for a problem that has resisted several fixes.
Method
Wedell-Wedellsborg’s reframing method
From What’s Your Problem? (2020). Frame, reframe, move forward, with five reframing strategies such as rethinking the goal and examining bright spots. Short and practical.
Routine
Circle of Viewpoints
A Project Zero routine from Making Thinking Visible (2011). Lists the viewpoints on a situation and has people speak from each one. Good for step five.
Method
Morgan’s eight metaphors
From Images of Organization (1986): machine, organism, brain, culture, political system, psychic prison, flux and transformation, instrument of domination. A wider set of frames for when the four ways feel narrow.

Reading

Where it comes from

Start with the first on the list.

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press.
The full frame-creation method, with worked public-sector cases.
Wedell-Wedellsborg, T. (2020). What’s Your Problem? Harvard Business Review Press.
The most practical reframing book I know. Short, and built for busy teams.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Sage.
Eight metaphors for one organisation. Proof that switching frames is a discipline, not a trick.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Why planning problems have no single correct formulation, which is the case for trying several.

Singapore