We’re overusing “What problem are we solving?”
Sometimes the best ideas come from opportunities.
There’s a very popular question that pops up in almost every product meeting now:
“What problem are we solving by doing this?”
It sounds smart. With the rise of Opportunity Solution Tree type frameworks, which I personally benefited from a lot, I understand where it’s coming from.
“Let’s not find problems for solutions we fell in love with. Let’s fix real problems.”
For sure.
But more and more, it’s being used as a reflex, without really understanding the idea behind those frameworks.
Not everything valuable starts as a problem
Problem-first thinking works great when something needs a fix or improvement.
A gap you can fill because users are struggling or clearly need something. Improving a flow, or making it easier to do a certain task.
Reducing checkout friction in Amazon, improving team communication in Slack, making file sharing easier with Dropbox. Clear problems, clear improvements.
But not all products exist to fix pain.
Some products exist to create value where none existed before.
Entertainment is the best example:
games
streaming platforms
social media platforms
They create desire, without solving any particular problem.
If your only question is “What problem are we solving?”, there’s a high chance you’ll miss entire categories of products.
Some of the biggest products didn’t solve obvious problems
Before short-form video platforms like TikTok, nobody was saying:
“I wish I could endlessly scroll 15-second clips from strangers.”
Or before social feeds:
“I need a better way to consume my friends’ updates all day.”
If you had asked “What problem are we solving?” too early, those ideas would have sounded weak, if not pointless.
Innovation often looks like a bad answer to that question
Innovative ideas don’t always come neatly packaged as problems.
They sound like experiments, or “this might be interesting”.
Think about things like Stories, first introduced by Snapchat and now everywhere.
At the time, stories wasn’t an answer to a specific user pain point.
Forcing it into a problem statement at that stage would just be a way of fitting it into product frameworks.
Because you don’t fully know the problem yet, or if there even is one, you’re exploring an opportunity.
Post-rationalized problem statements
Let’s be honest.
In many companies or teams, the sequence is usually:
idea → justification → problem statement
We come up with something interesting, then reverse-engineer a “problem” to make it defensible.
So whenever you hear a clean, well-written problem statement behind a successful product, think twice.
There’s a high chance the product didn’t start from that problem.
It likely started from an idea, an experiment, or an opportunity, and the problem statement came later to make it easier to explain.
Opportunity is a valid starting point
There are two legitimate ways to build products, and sometimes they can coexist:
Problem-driven:
something is hard / hidden / broken → fix it
Opportunity-driven:
new behavior
new technology
untapped desire
Problem-first thinking is great, but it’s not the only valid starting point.
Entire industries like gaming, social, entertainment, and even the creator economy are built on opportunity, not pain points.
A better way to approach it
Not every idea needs a clear problem on day one.
Some ideas need space to prove:
“Is there something here?”
“Do people care?”
“Does this create new behavior or even its own market?”
Because if you always need a perfectly defined problem before you start, it becomes very hard to discover anything new.