What is the desired situation in a target group profile?

“No more hassle with proposals” says what someone wants to remove. It does not yet explain what a good situation looks like. Can the person compare proposals, explain differences and identify missing information? The Desired situation field makes that future state concrete.

Describe the situation from the target group’s perspective: what does someone want to be able to do, understand or experience once the main problem has sufficiently improved? This provides a starting point for assessing possible solutions, even before a product has been selected.

The desired situation is the concrete state a target group wants to reach or maintain within a particular context, in which the main pain point has been sufficiently reduced or become manageable. Describe how the group recognises that the state meets its need.

This is Neurofactor’s practical working definition for the profile field. It concerns a researched future state from the group’s perspective, not a guaranteed provider result. The state can involve partial improvement: enough clarity to weigh a choice while some uncertainties remain.

A fictional example is: “Wants to explain relevant differences between supplier proposals at the decision meeting and see which information is still missing.” This says more than “wants clarity” and leaves open which solution might fit.

The distinctions below support a consistent target group profile. The fields are related and need not contain entirely different information, but each answers a distinct question.

Wishes and goals set the direction. Desired situation develops that direction into a recognisable state in the researched context. The product promise and approach also require information about the offering. Investigate the emotional benefit separately; it does not automatically follow from a practical result.

Desired situation is a descriptive profile label here, with no designated scientific originator. Research on self-regulation and goals does provide relevant concepts.

Comparing a state with a reference. Carver and Scheier describe self-regulation through feedback in which a perceived state is compared with a reference value. Carver & Scheier, 1982.

Clarity about the intended result. Locke and Latham discuss goal specificity alongside conditions including commitment, feedback and task complexity. Locke & Latham, 2002.

Distinguishing the destination from the plan. Gollwitzer distinguishes goal intentions from implementation intentions, which connect situations with specific actions. Gollwitzer, 1999.

These publications support distinguishing an intended state, assessing progress and organising action. They do not validate the target group profile. The research questions, tables and templates below are Neurofactor’s practical applications.

The main problem is a logical starting point. “Unable to compare” points towards “able to compare”. But this reversal leaves open what needs to be comparable, for what purpose and when it is sufficient.

Ask what the person can do in the improved situation that is currently difficult. Which decision, task or conversation becomes possible? Also ask which limitations may remain. Complete certainty differs from sufficient information for a considered choice.

Avoid automatically removing everything that sounds negative. A group might want more room to discuss risks explicitly, rather than a situation in which risks are no longer visible. This is a fictional possibility to investigate.

Keep the connection with the main problem, but let people describe the desired situation in their own words. This prevents the researcher from filling in an attractive future state that the group itself has not confirmed.

Use these six steps as a practical research and writing framework.

1. Define the context. Which person, role, task and choice are involved? Start with the researched main problem.
2. Ask about a concrete better situation. “Suppose this is sufficiently resolved: what can you then do or explain?” Ask for a recognisable moment without naming a product first.
3. Find criteria for recognising success. “How would you know this is good enough?” Record what should be visible, verifiable or assessable by the person.
4. Investigate boundaries and trade-offs. What is essential, what is desirable and what may remain unchanged? Ask about time, resources and dependencies where relevant.
5. Separate state, approach and feeling. A dashboard may be a means, clarity a desired state and calm a desired felt outcome. Investigate their connections separately.
6. Check wording and evidence status. Present your summary, compare responses and retain differing needs. Mark what was reported, inferred or remains a hypothesis.

Where useful, also ask about an earlier occasion when things went better. This can clarify what the person means. Do not treat a memory of one good experience as proof that the same result is achievable everywhere.

A number can help when its meaning and basis are clear. An invented deadline or percentage does not make an unclear wish better researched. Use a form appropriate to what the group can assess.

All examples below are fictional.

For an assessable criterion, also record who assesses it, when and on what basis. A self-reported sense of clarity and a demonstrated ability to explain differences are different outcomes. Do not simply label both “success”.

Fictional illustration, not a research finding. A marketing lead must prepare a supplier choice. The proposals use different definitions and do not provide the same information. The main problem is therefore insufficient comparability.

In the fictional conversation, the person does not want a system to take over the decision entirely. They want to explain which differences matter and where information is still missing during the decision meeting.

The profile sentence could read:

Wants to compare supplier proposals against relevant criteria at the decision meeting, explain the trade-offs and identify the remaining information gaps.

For this case, the recognition criteria are using the same agreed criteria, tracing assertions to available information and keeping open points visible. These are fictional criteria, not a prescribed standard for every target group.

A report, an independently prepared comparison or guidance might contribute. The desired situation does not yet select between those means. Nor does the description prove that a particular provider delivers the desired result or that the person subsequently buys.

An associative target group is a defined group of people whose similar associations guide decisions within a specific choice context. Wanting the same outcome is insufficient by itself.

For example, investigate what “control over the choice” means. One person may associate it with retaining personal oversight; another with trusting an expert to handle the details. These are fictional possibilities. Ask which situations and signals belong to that image and how they matter to the choice.

Then describe the desired situation within the researched boundary. Keep similar words with different meanings distinct. A positive response to a future scenario does not yet establish a shared decision pattern, purchase intention or achieved result.

• Only negating the problem. “No more uncertainty” does not explain what someone should be able to assess.
• Prescribing a solution. “Has our dashboard” describes a means and steers research towards the offering.
• Drawing an ideal world. “Always the best choice with no risk” requires investigation of what is sufficient and achievable.
• Publishing a desired outcome as a promise. The group’s wish does not prove what a provider can deliver.
• Inventing a number. A deadline or percentage needs a traceable basis.
• Averaging away differences between roles. User, budget holder and decision maker may seek different states; investigate the role being described.

Use the desired situation to assess relevance: does an idea help with the state the group seeks? That is a substantive question, not evidence that the idea is effective.

Use this template:

Wants [concrete desired state or capability] in [context or moment], recognisable through [relevant criterion], within [important condition].

Include only elements you can support. Not every sentence needs a deadline, number or detailed condition. The reader should understand what would be better for this group and how to recognise it.

Keep original responses, role, main problem, criteria and evidence status alongside the sentence. If research is missing, write “Not yet researched”. Where different pictures emerge, record them separately or state that no shared desired situation has been established. Do not automatically select the most ambitious answer.

Desired situation turns a goal into a concrete picture of what someone wants to do, understand or experience. Start with the main problem, investigate when improvement is sufficient and leave the description open to different solutions. This helps assess offerings and communication against the need without already promising a desired outcome.

Want to investigate what a better situation looks like for your target group and which associations are involved? Discuss the choice context and available information with Neurofactor.