The first myth that comes to mind
is the long held belief that customers have latent or
unarticulated needs. In the outcome-driven paradigm this is
simply not true. What is true is that customers are often
unaware of solutions that are on the horizon or unable to
articulate a solution, but this is to be expected. Innovation is
the process of devising solutions that address unmet customer
needs. When approaching customers, a company should only be
expecting to understand their needs. Solutions, for the most
part, should be devised buy qualified scientists, technologists,
engineers and the occasional lead user.
What we have found is that without exception customers are able
to articulate all their desired outcomes related to a specific
job. This is true even if a product or service designed to
execute that job does not yet exist. This is why an
outcome-driven approach to innovation is effective for new
market creation. For example, in the 1970s consumers did not
know they wanted or could not articulate their need for a
microwave oven – which is a solution, but they did know they
wanted to “minimize the time it takes to prepare a meal” and to
“minimize the time it takes to clean up after the meal is
prepared” – which are two desired outcomes.
Models and theories that suggest customers have latent or
unarticulated needs simply confuse solutions with needs. The
Kano Model, for example, refers to “must haves” and “exciters”.
This language is referring to solutions – not needs. There are
“must have” solutions and “excitement” solutions – but there is
no such thing as “must have” and “excitement” needs. Excitement
comes from a solution that does an outstanding job of satisfying
an unmet need.
A second myth that comes to mind is that certain methods of
requirements gathering are far superior to others. Some experts,
for example, swear by observational research, while others back
group interviews and personal interviews. In the outcome-driven
paradigm we find that they are all effective methods – as long
as you know that the goal of the interview is to capture desired
outcomes. We have had great success with all these methods
because we know the structure, content and format of the
customer input we are looking for. If you do not know what you
are looking for, then no method will be effective.
I think that understanding the difference between solutions and
needs and understanding the goal of the innovation process
brings clarity to some of the myths that have long hindered
predictable innovation.
