---
title: "Method 3: Input Synthesis"
description: "Transform raw research data into structured insights, themes, and problem statements that frame the transition from understanding to ideation."
sidebar_position: 7
author: Microsoft
ms.date: 2026-02-25
ms.topic: tutorial
keywords: [design thinking, method-03, input-synthesis]
estimated_reading_time: 5
---

## What This Method Does

Method 3 transforms the raw evidence gathered in Method 2 into structured insights, themes, and problem statements. You identify recurring patterns across research data, develop themes that connect individual observations into actionable directions, and articulate the core problems that solutions must address.

Synthesis bridges the gap between research and ideation. Without it, teams either drown in unstructured data or jump to solutions based on the most memorable anecdote rather than the strongest evidence.

## When to Use

* After completing Design Research (Method 2) with evidence across user tiers
* When you have enough data to identify patterns but haven't yet framed the core problem
* When the team needs shared understanding before moving into solution generation
* Before entering the Solution Space (Methods 4 through 6)

## Space Context

Method 3 is the **exit point of the Problem Space**. It concludes the understanding phase (Methods 1 through 3) and prepares the team for the transition into the Solution Space (Methods 4 through 6). The quality of synthesis directly determines whether brainstorming produces targeted solutions or scattered ideas.

> [!IMPORTANT]
> The Problem-to-Solution transition is one of three critical space boundaries in the nine-method sequence. Crossing this boundary with weak synthesis leads to unfocused ideation and fragmented solutions.

## Key Activities

* Pattern recognition: Group related research findings into clusters based on behavioral similarity, environmental context, or user need. Look for patterns that appear across multiple users and settings, not isolated incidents.
* Theme development: Progress from individual insights to evidence-backed themes. Each theme follows the chain: insight (what you observed) connects to evidence (specific observations supporting it), which forms a theme (the broader pattern), which suggests a direction (where solutions should look).
* Five-dimension validation: Assess synthesis quality across research fidelity, stakeholder completeness, pattern robustness, actionability, and team alignment. Each dimension gets a rating to identify weak areas before proceeding.
* Problem statement articulation: Frame the core problem in terms of user needs, observed behaviors, and validated constraints. A strong problem statement guides brainstorming without prescribing solutions.
* Red flag detection: Watch for synthesis that ignores contradictory evidence, represents a single stakeholder view, lacks grounding in observed behavior, produces vague directions, or skips over environmental constraints.

## How to Start

Gather all research findings from Method 2. Begin by sorting observations into natural groupings based on similarity, then look for patterns that connect the groups.

Use this prompt to start a synthesis session:

```text
I have research findings from [number] interviews and [number] observation sessions
covering [user groups]. Help me identify recurring patterns, develop evidence-based
themes, and articulate a problem statement that captures the core user needs.
```

During synthesis:

* Weight patterns by frequency and impact, not memorability
* Include contradictory evidence rather than discarding it
* Validate themes against all stakeholder perspectives, not just the loudest voices
* Test problem statements by asking: does this frame the problem without prescribing a solution?

## Expected Outputs

* Insight clusters organized by theme with supporting evidence
* Validated themes rated across the five dimensions (research fidelity, stakeholder completeness, pattern robustness, actionability, team alignment)
* Problem statement framing user needs, behaviors, and constraints
* Contradictions and tensions documented for brainstorming consideration
* Transition readiness assessment for entering the Solution Space

## Quality Checks

* Themes are supported by evidence from multiple research sources, not single observations
* All stakeholder perspectives are represented in the synthesis, not just primary users
* Contradictory evidence is documented and addressed, not ignored
* Problem statements describe user needs without embedding solution assumptions
* The team has shared understanding of the key insights and their implications

## Next Method

When your synthesis produces validated themes, a clear problem statement, and team alignment on the core insights, proceed to [Method 4: Brainstorming](method-04-brainstorming.md) to generate solution ideas within the Solution Space.

## Related Resources

* [Method 2: Design Research](method-02-design-research.md)
* [Method 4: Brainstorming](method-04-brainstorming.md)
* [Design Thinking Overview](README.md)

> Brought to you by microsoft/hve-core

<!-- markdownlint-disable MD036 -->
*🤖 Crafted with precision by ✨Copilot following brilliant human instruction,
then carefully refined by our team of discerning human reviewers.*
<!-- markdownlint-enable MD036 -->
