As usual Steve Blank simplifies what so many of us get swirled up in. I fell in love with the problem because I lived the problem, and assumed that many others shared my experiences. I solved my own problem and wondered why when it worked for me, no one else came along and went, “wow, can you solve the same problem again but for me?” The external view is only one perspective - when it’s a lived problem, we have a challenge to understand the magnitude of the problem - does what you do have a marketplace that could support your ambitions and make it sustainable?
I suggest to think about replacing in the last row of the picture "validation" instead of "verification". When I was still programming many years ago, I was used to distinguish between those two terms.
Good points Steve. I taught a sales course in the entrepreneurial students track at the University of New Mexico the past 20 years and would suggest that my students "ask a question on a question" first... so if a potential customer (and everyone is a potential customer) asked, "What size products do you offer?", I'd suggest they respond with, "We have several sizes, what size are you looking for? or
"What size do you need?". Similarly, "When can you deliver your product?", I'd suggest, "When do you need it delivered"... OR, the more general question, "What problems do you solve?" and in response, "Let's first discuss your problem... tell me more about what you are experiencing, your goals and current results, etc., etc., etc." and/or "How are you solving your problem now," and "Describe your BEST solution?" AND, then proceed from there....
Steve Blank - your insights and perspectives continue to demonstrate your industry experience and wisdom (earned thru real-world, hard knocks). This experience that you highlight is interesting, although it triggers a different concern. Spent decades in high-tech - and "Consultative/Problem-Solving" was SOP - as opposed to infatuation with product/features. The companies I worked for - put emphasis on continuous training and development - all aspects: Industry (segmentation/line-of-business), key industry challenges, target applications, business problem-solving, financial considerations - all wrapped-into a problem-solution methodology/process orientation. Have carried this theme forward and built upon it - with particular focus on the Aerospace and Defense target segments (our dedication). With that background - the questions: Have we lost this recipe and formula? Have companies abandoned investing in this approach and denigrated back to pure product focus? Not that LinkedIn is an ideal fishbowl - although we marvel at the Post Pitches from so many, so-called Marketing Experts - simply banging out their capabilities and making bold statements about what they can do - increase revenue by 40%, reach your ideal target audience with their Breakthrough Systems, etc., etc. - with no insight or understanding of the Client's challenges, opportunities or problem-set.
A lot of entrepreneurs have not held major sales roles at professional hi-tech firms. Many are engineers with no sales background. This stuff is all new to them. The sales professional itself is in a bit of a mess - have a look at Howard Dover’s research.
As Steve has led, this kind of client intimacy is central to why the Business Model Canvas captures the logic and data that start-ups should use for success. I wonder if the DoD, DoE and other potential buying organizations are following this lead in their buyer due diligence?
Nice article. Captures the interplay between product innovation, customer problem solving and business model development.
Thanks for the framework!
As usual Steve Blank simplifies what so many of us get swirled up in. I fell in love with the problem because I lived the problem, and assumed that many others shared my experiences. I solved my own problem and wondered why when it worked for me, no one else came along and went, “wow, can you solve the same problem again but for me?” The external view is only one perspective - when it’s a lived problem, we have a challenge to understand the magnitude of the problem - does what you do have a marketplace that could support your ambitions and make it sustainable?
I suggest to think about replacing in the last row of the picture "validation" instead of "verification". When I was still programming many years ago, I was used to distinguish between those two terms.
Good points Steve. I taught a sales course in the entrepreneurial students track at the University of New Mexico the past 20 years and would suggest that my students "ask a question on a question" first... so if a potential customer (and everyone is a potential customer) asked, "What size products do you offer?", I'd suggest they respond with, "We have several sizes, what size are you looking for? or
"What size do you need?". Similarly, "When can you deliver your product?", I'd suggest, "When do you need it delivered"... OR, the more general question, "What problems do you solve?" and in response, "Let's first discuss your problem... tell me more about what you are experiencing, your goals and current results, etc., etc., etc." and/or "How are you solving your problem now," and "Describe your BEST solution?" AND, then proceed from there....
Absolutely spot on. My clients hear exactly the same thing from me.
Very cool. I took notes.
Next step I will interview my clients to get more clear about what they really solve for.
My memory is our marketing team talked to potential customers long before we had a deliverable product precisely for that reason.
I remember because there were knock down drag out fights with the software team over builds.
Going out of the office building to listen to customers problems without first pushing a tentative solution is key.
We are always tempted to start any discussion with a prospective client with the solution we have.
The flow illustrates perfectly what we need to test product market fit.
Steve Blank - your insights and perspectives continue to demonstrate your industry experience and wisdom (earned thru real-world, hard knocks). This experience that you highlight is interesting, although it triggers a different concern. Spent decades in high-tech - and "Consultative/Problem-Solving" was SOP - as opposed to infatuation with product/features. The companies I worked for - put emphasis on continuous training and development - all aspects: Industry (segmentation/line-of-business), key industry challenges, target applications, business problem-solving, financial considerations - all wrapped-into a problem-solution methodology/process orientation. Have carried this theme forward and built upon it - with particular focus on the Aerospace and Defense target segments (our dedication). With that background - the questions: Have we lost this recipe and formula? Have companies abandoned investing in this approach and denigrated back to pure product focus? Not that LinkedIn is an ideal fishbowl - although we marvel at the Post Pitches from so many, so-called Marketing Experts - simply banging out their capabilities and making bold statements about what they can do - increase revenue by 40%, reach your ideal target audience with their Breakthrough Systems, etc., etc. - with no insight or understanding of the Client's challenges, opportunities or problem-set.
A lot of entrepreneurs have not held major sales roles at professional hi-tech firms. Many are engineers with no sales background. This stuff is all new to them. The sales professional itself is in a bit of a mess - have a look at Howard Dover’s research.
Also: https://tempo.substack.com/p/post-modern-sales
https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/hacking-for-defense/354342
As Steve has led, this kind of client intimacy is central to why the Business Model Canvas captures the logic and data that start-ups should use for success. I wonder if the DoD, DoE and other potential buying organizations are following this lead in their buyer due diligence?