The Solution Trap: How Research Can Get It Wrong.
Why the key to innovation is not what you think it is.
Reaching out to people for research interviews is never a walk in the park. That's why I'm always open to chat with founders, product teams, and marketing folks when my insights can help ignite some fresh ideas. It's actually a bit of a selfish move, as I’m hoping to stock up on good karma for when I need people to agree to interviews down the road 😅
Last week, I took part in a research interview with two people I admire, both of whom I worked with in a past job. What's intriguing is that their interview approaches couldn't be more different, yet they resonate with some of my past research observations.
One of them is a strong advocate for research interviews, believing they uncover what people want. The other is against them, taking the "build the tech and they will come" stance.
My perspective? Well, it's a bit like the famous "faster horse" analogy. People often don't know precisely what they want, but founders must understand the pains they're going through, like the need to get from point A to point B faster. This is where research plays its role, by revealing those pains.
Yet, sometimes, those conducting research tend to jump to conclusions, thinking the solution is glaringly obvious.
But, in reality, research's outcome isn't about finding a solution; it's about defining the problem.
For instance, research may reveal that people are upset about getting wet due to frequent rain, and that there’s a significant opportunity because meteorologists are predicting even more rain. At this point, one might assume the solution is a raincoat and ask the product team to create yet another raincoat in a sea of raincoats.
Or, we could dive deeper into why people dislike getting wet and what is the Job to be Done that rain is getting in the way of completing.
Imagine if this richer data uncovered that two primary problems affect a significant market size: Runners who can't comfortably run in the rain and people struggling to keep their belongings dry while walking.
Now, we've got something valuable – problem definitions. We present this narrative to the product, design, and engineering team and let them come up with solutions for this opportunity that have a clear outcome so they can prioritize the best one. They'll be way more excited than if you handed them a specific solution or output.
Starting with a deeper problem story has a better chance of leading to innovative solutions like… I don’t know, maybe a hovering shield or a futuristic drone that shields people from rain? instead of just a better raincoat 🤷♀️
That's how groundbreaking innovations came into existence 🚀
