In a world wherein overwhelmingly most founders and startups fail as a result of a lack of product/market fit, and incubators, University startup programs, and mentors, are flush with “ideas” that genuinely warrant, “that’s already being done,” perhaps the advice to start with the problem (or solution, for that matter), is wrong.
Think on it: starting with the problem means starting with presumptions.
I have a problem. I have a ton of mosquito bites driving me crazy. So… go. Do a startup.
Or a more realistic example, my phone battery dies too quickly. That’s a problem. So, just there you go, fix that.
Never start with the problem (see also Founders, it’s time for “the Idea” to die.) Founders who just set out because *there is* a problem that they want to solve, always fail.
Always.
From that classic visual of a light bulb suggesting a new idea, a broken light bulb isn’t a problem necessarily warranting a completely new venture. Most often, we just need to replace the light bulb.
You start with marketing, and something like a competitive analysis.
- Is there really a problem??
- Does anyone really care?
- Will anyone pay for the solution you have in mind?
- What are competitors doing??
Starting from the problem means you’re investing in my itchy leg problem despite having Cortaid we could use to solve it, and despite millions of dollars being spent to help better manage mosquitoes. You too think phone batteries suck? So go on with your bad self and just start designing a better battery… despite all the phone manufacturers and batter companies investing billions to do it, you’ll do better just setting out.
And don’t misunderstand that tongue-in-cheek criticism! It’s not meant to imply that you can’t nor even shouldn’t actually tackle mosquito bites nor batteries! I’m trying to illuminate how the focus and fixation on a problem is just blatantly wrong and bad advice.
Can you afford to compete with Samsung? Do you know if there is a patent that will prevent you? Is your solution actually better than work being done?
Why would you start anything without knowing first if your perceived problem is actually a problem that anyone cares about or that you could actually be successful in addressing??
You don’t start with the problem. You don’t even start with the solution. You start by determining IF there an opportunity.
I want to invite you to join me in such discussions live and together.
Join me online here
Back to ye olde question: Is it a problem, or a headache?
Love that you said “incubators”
Very intentionally ?
Despite what I do even, because a great majority of what comes to incubators and drops out is merely a result of founders not putting this stuff first.
Want to make incubators more impactful? Investors, want to support better outcomes from such programs? Founders, want to get more out of incubators? —- Do the work first to make sure there is an opportunity; then, the network and curriculum of a program, and support of capital, can focus on building an enduring company more than merely identifying out what won’t work.
Spot on! I would also look at “disrupting” as finding a more “efficient, effective, optimum” way of doing what’s been successfully done. And if “exiting” is the goal, examine how what I am doing will one day complement (or bought by) the “Samsung of the world”, using your battery example.
Some of us (Founders), often get carried away with the Silicon Valley adage- Fail fast and break things.
In the context of today’s environment, I’m not sure this is good advice. You’re right, genuinely spend the time and research your “problem to solve”.
Neil Beekie I think it’s just misunderstood. I’ve been writing and speaking a lot (with age) about how common tropes mislead. Finding over time that most of what causes challenges for founders is taking the advice too directly, too simply, or as affirmation (confirmation bias) of what they think.
This take, for example; when a founder should quit: https://seobrien.com/startups-when-to-quit
That the fail fast / break things advice is meant push founders to execute more, use data/feedback, and iterate and optimize. Instead, it causes failures to be lean and keep working on things that seem to be working.
Keep writing Paul O’Brien. It makes a tremendous difference to me.
Great concept. I recognized a problem about 10 years ago, wanted to solve it but after looking into it realized the technology and the adoption wasn’t there…put the idea on the shelf so to speak and kept exploring year after year. Finally this past year I felt there was a big enough trend in the market and the technology is finally at a spot where it’s possible…and here I am in a startup group launching into a new phase of my life and business
Another great example David Heitmann of why to start with the Opportunity. CAN it actually be done? Is the technology there yet? Often history is littered with attempts from which to learn, from people who have tried (too soon or, and failed because they tried the wrong things) and failed.
We have always told founders, look for a problem WORTH SOLVING!
I think it can be parsed this way:
People think *their problems* are THE problem.
THE problem could be better defined as MARKET problems.
Can you quickly find 100s of people who are willing to pay for a solution to a shared problem?
If not, then it is not a MARKET problem.
In TeacherTalent I solved a market problem (K12 hiring) for my school district, then found others wanted the solution…
Because it generated $ from Day 1 the key Qs were more advanced:
How much $/time do you need to create a *scaleable (SaaS) version of the solution?
At what scale does the company become self-sustaining?
Exceptional way of thinking about it.
I’m reminded that I too often tell startups that How We Make Money is not the Business Model, in pitch decks; that’s just how you might make money. To make this work is a model of investment + opex + costs vs. revenue.
Yes, but gung-ho founders don’t care.
I started to explain in reply and it turned into a blog post of my own. So here I am piggy-backing your social share while trying to add to the conversation meaningfully.
https://www.leadershipartacademy.com/blog/its-always-about-the-founder
I’m a huge fan of ideas sparking more ideas and perspective so steal away!
I wouldn’t start with a problem either Paul. There’s just too many of them and it’s too hard to gauge them by “quality”. I’d start with a passion. Then look at the world and see what’s missing. What should exist, but strangely, doesn’t. That falls in line with your passion. It’s more the conjuring exciting new things into existence, than anything else, that really gets the juices flowing.
If you’re standing at the corner of Opportunity Ave and Passion Street, that’s the spot. It’s still a long and at times dark and lonely journey. But by taking this approach, the odds one lives a life in line with their values and skills is quite a bit higher than just looking for a problem to solve.
I suppose it begs the question though, what is an opportunity? But even for a business theorist like myself, diving deep into that one is a bit much. It’s kind of like the word fair. It means different things, to different people.
Ah there’s the trick! “What is an opportunity?” Well that depends on the person with the passion to start something.
For many, it is just solving a problem; inventing something. And defining the opportunity is the trick BECAUSE investors (venture capital in particular) isn’t likely to be interested in that.
For others, it’s just making a good and stable living. And if the opportunity is to do *that* then do it. Likewise though, not really a venture (or passion) appealing to investors – and that’s okay!
Lot’s of people have a different passion entirely: to help people, to create jobs, etc. All wonderful passions and opportunities… that determine HOW and with WHAT the venture could be successful.
The mistake most founders make is neglecting that very critical path. And in the process, they get stuck or misled merely trying to figure out how to get resources for the opportunity.
So true. Good stuff.
Good insight—I think the issue isn’t so much related to the notion of “starting with the problem” being wrong as much as it is tied to the idea that—because some pain point is being experienced—there must not be a way to solve the problem (and that starting a company is the best way to address it). As you say—and couldn’t agree more—”most often, we just need to replace the light bulb.” Also agree that marketing comes first, but it should be guided by a perceived problem. Starting with presumptions isn’t a bad thing, but operating as if those presumptions are absolute truths is wrong, which is where I think a lot of founders and startups trip up. The goal should be to disprove these assumptions as fast as possible; much better to kill a bad idea in 3 months than 3 years, but that’s difficult to do, especially when founders are often taught to be evangelists for their idea or company.
Great post and super insights in the comments. Good ideas are the easy part.
When the WWW was 3 years old (1996) and companies began (metaphorically) lowering the walls around their data centers to enable e-commerce, it exposed critical data to theft by SW agents. I thought of a solution: combine encryption and access control, i.e. keep valuable data encrypted all the time, only decrypting it based on identity. You might excuse me for not acting because it was very early (we still don’t universally encrypt valuable data!), but the truth is I didn’t translate my passion for the solution into a passion for building it.
I love these reality check posts of yours, they are so helpful to keep my head in the right space!
Exactly!