Reframing the Research as Design Problems Worth Solving

Overview

Point of View (POV) statements and How Might We (HMW) questions are the bridge between research and design. The POVs anchor the problem in a specific user, a specific need, and a specific insight — translating raw research findings into design-ready problem framings. The HMWs then open each POV back up into possibility, asking what a solution could look like without prescribing one.

Together they define the design space for OmniRisk: not just what is broken, but who feels it, why it matters, and what kinds of interventions are worth exploring.

Point of View Statements

POV 01 — Trade Timing Without Foresight

User: Middle Office Analyst at a hedge fund with 8 years in treasury operations

Need: A way to determine trade timing with defensible confidence, rather than relying on experience against fragmented data that runs on a delay

Insight: Current trade timing decisions carry financial risk that users are aware of but cannot mitigate — because insight and action live in separate tools, on different clocks, with no shared operational layer connecting them

The middle-office analyst needs a way to time FX trades with defensible confidence because the current data infrastructure operates on a delay that makes every execution decision less informed than the moment requires.

POV 02 — Reconciliation as the Bottleneck

User: Middle Office Analyst at a fintech startup where manual processes are the operational norm

Need: A way to reconcile FX trade data against custodian and broker records without spending hours cross-referencing documents manually

Insight: Reconciliation is not just time-consuming — it is the point in the workflow where errors compound, and the manual nature of it means mistakes are discovered late, after the window for easy resolution has closed