Identifying Customer Needs: The Art and Science of Reframing

Everyone jumps to the solution of a problem.??However, to be successful, start by asking two questions: what is the problem, and is there a different and better way to look at it?

Executive Summary

The biggest mistake would-be innovators make is not accurately identifying their customer's unmet needs.??Unfortunately, it is a mistake we see 95% of the time and why most innovations fail.??Fortunately, reframing is a powerful method for helping uncover actual customer needs.??I will describe six reframing methods that are the unique core of the i4i value creation methodology.??These reframing methods will help your teams be more successful.

The Problem and Need for Reframing

The goal of value creation is the development of innovative solutions that are available in the marketplace and that provide compelling value for customers and all other stakeholders.??Unfortunately, identifying an actual unmet customer need is usually elusive.??With over 1,000 teams in our workshops, essentially none have at first succinctly and quantitatively identified their actual customer's needs.??It is the primary point of innovative failure.??People mostly see a problem and then jump to a solution.??Rarely is it the best or even a possible solution.??

What is the result???75% of company initiatives have no value, less than 3% of patents are used, most venture capitalists (VCs) lose money, and 5% of VCs make 95% of the returns.??And almost all incubators and university "tech transfer" organizations lose money unless they have a blockbuster drug.??We can do better.

NABC Value Propositions:??In our workshops, we ask teams to write down the four elements of an NABC value proposition.??N stands for the significant unmet customer and market need.??Everything starts there – with the customer.??

Next, the Approach defines the offering and associated business model, while Benefits/costs defines value to the customer.??Finally, C represents the competition and all other alternatives.??The objective is to identify a significant unmet customer Need and deliver an offering with a viable business model that provides Benefits/costs >> C.

The Big-A:??Unfortunately, we inevitably see presentations that are all Approach.??The Need is assumed, the Benefits/costs are considered obvious, and, of course, there is no serious Competition.???We call these Big-A's. [1]??When someone gives a presentation like this, they expect you to love their idea and tell them they are brilliant.

Alas, the best possible response in these situations, which I strongly recommend, is to first acknowledge something they did well and then gently suggest they obtain answers to all four NABC questions.??If a team cannot address these four questions in a compelling, quantitative way, they have not yet figured out what to do.??Furthermore, it is impossible to correctly define the other three elements of an NABC until the Need is defined.??

We should not be too critical.??Each of us only has limited skills, knowledge, and mental models.??We don’t know what we don’t know and, at the start, it is guaranteed that we don't know enough.??In addition, we are cursed by our past, blind spots, and biases. We also likely know things that are no longer true, which have to be unlearned before we can move forward.?

I make these mistakes every time I do something.??My only advantage is to realize I need to get out of these traps as fast as possible by using the concepts described below.??It is never easy.

The Main Failure:?The prevalence of Big-A propositions is the primary reason in our workshops with companies, that less than 25% of the initiatives presented would have any value if completed.??We do not decide that; they do.??Instead, we provide a framework for their evaluation.??In universities, it is worse.??In government agencies, the percent of useful initiatives usually varies from less than 20% to zero.

Purpose of Reframing

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Edward de Bono, and many others have proposed methods to help mitigate these failures using reframing. [2]??The figure below illustrates the basic idea.??The initial Big-A has an imperfect framing.??We then look at the problem from different perspectives to reframe it.??In effect, the NABC value proposition is the working hypothesis for addressing the unmet need.??Like in science, it must be properly formed and then tested.??

The objective is to deconstruct the beliefs and assumptions of the presenters to broaden their perceptions, points of view, and paradigms.??Complete these steps with urgency:??reframe, hypothesis test, and repeat until the value proposition is a compelling, quantitative NABC. Although this is done rapidly, it does not mean the answers will come quickly. In the case of HDTV described below, it took us years.

My colleague Darrell Rigby emphasizes that asking a team to prove their hypothesis is very effective in helping them move forward. Asking that question each time builds a habit of mind, so teams constantly test the different parts of their NABC to make sure they are specific, quantifiable, and defendable.

Here is one more tip before moving on.??As shown in the figure, there are often multiple stakeholders between the innovator and the end-user.??The needs of all must be understood and addressed.??For every initiative, the stakeholders include the end-users and enterprise, employees, shareholders or investors, partners or suppliers, and government agencies.??

The "customer" can be the end-user, but in a company, a buyer may make the purchase – they are effectively the customer.???Each of these stakeholders requires a compelling value proposition for innovative success.?

Start with the End-User:?All innovative activities start with the end-user.??The first compelling, quantitative NABC value proposition is for them.??If exceptional value can be delivered to them, it is likley all other stakeholders can be satisfied.??A single minded focus on the end user is essential. An excessive focus on shareholders or nonrelated constituencies can lead to failure -- and often does.

1:??The Basic Reframe

Let us start with one of the most basic reframing methods, as shown in the image below.??An MRI machine is scary for children because it is so huge, unusual, and loud.??As a result, a child can cry endlessly and refuse to cooperate, making everyone miserable.??

What should hospital management do???They might start with a brainstorming meeting and ask for solutions.??They would typically get suggestions like those listed on the top right in the figure, which is, except for drugs, based on the frame of entertaining the child in the MRI room.??Stunningly, almost 100% of pediatric MRI patients under 9 were sedated before the solution described below. That was the default solution. [3]

Not satisfied, you might ask for suggestions from different perspectives to reframe the need by including the children, parents, nurses, doctors, and hospital staff.??The insightful reframing shown in the bottom right came from realizing that the MRI terrified the children.?Therefore, the actual need was to transform the MRI into something friendly and fun.??This solution came from empathetic reframing from the child's point of view.??By painting the MRI machine to look like a rocket ship, children pretend that the loud noise is from jet engines taking them to Mars.??They are part of an adventure.

In workshops, I ask participants to name at least five stakeholders who gained from this thousand-dollar repainting of the room and MRI???Clearly it is everyone involved: the children, parents, nurses, MRI technicians, doctors, schedulers, and the hospital.? Since an MRI costs from $1,000 to $10,000, the ROI from repainting the MRI is impressive. In addition, the need for sedation dropped from almost 100% to 27%. What cannot be quantified is the enormous emotional value for the sick children, their parents, and the hospital staff.

Key Insights:??The MRI example illustrates another point made in previous posts. Usually, only one or two "key insights" determine the actual need and then one or two more define the solution and its business model.??If those few insights are correct, the initiative is aimed in the right direction.??If they are incorrect, the initiative will either have to pivot at a loss of time and resources or fail.??

The key insight for the actual need was realizing that the MRI was scaring the children.?Adding toys or clowns was not going to change that.?So the key insight into the solution was turning the MRI machine something friendly -- into a spaceship.???

After understanding those key insights, we look to see if a "wow factor" can amplify the end-user’s and other stakeholder’s value.??In this case, it was the cleverness and brightness of the repainted rooms and MRI.??It is exciting and fun, like going on a ride at Disney World.?

All innovations create surprise.??It generates a "wow." If there is no surprise, it is likely not a significant innovation.

Consider a familiar example, the iPhone.??The key insight into the actual need was realizing that adding more keys would never address the problem of access and convenience. The number of applications was too great and it was increasing exponentially.??That is, the tiny keys on smartphones had to be replaced with programmable ones.??The key insight for the solution was acknowledging that only a computer with a large display could solve the problem.??That would allow unique search icons for each application.??The "wow factor" was the multi-touch display, which opened many other surprising new features for customers.??

2:??5-What's Reframing

In our workshops, the process of customer needs discovery often evolves in a well-established order.???At first, innovators fail to identify the actual need of their customers.??They are not necessarily wrong, but their insight is in the "clouds," at 20,000 feet.??Their need statement is vague, non-specific, and un-quantitative. Most commonly it is conflated with their approach.??The purpose of reframing is to get them quickly from 20,000 feet to ground level.??

A series of steps helps teams get back on the ground.??We call this method the 5 What's.??That is, what’s the:

1.???Situation in the ecosystem?

2.???End-user's problem, and is it a large and growing group?

3.???Reason the problem has not been addressed?

4.???Key insight for the reframed actual need to mitigate the end-user's problem?

5.???Key insight into the solution, and is there a wow factor?

Consider the situation summarized in the image below.??1.??The little girl suffers from MS. Along with hundreds of millions of others, she has limited physical mobility.??2.??The problem is that available physical aids to enhance mobility are inadequate.??3.??People have been trying to address the problem with robotic exoskeletons.??However, they are heavy and consume too much power to last more than a few hours.?And, in contradiction of the objective, they greatly limit mobility in other ways. ?It is unlikely a parent would accept that solution for their 5-year-old child or 85-year-old grandmother.??

4.??The key insight into the actual need was that the exoskeleton had to be light and efficient. Most critically, it had to be unobtrusively attached to the body and not restrict mobility in other ways.??5.??The key insight into the solution was to realize that a "Chinese puzzle” is a way to attach an object to the body.??This children's toy allows grabbing two fingers when inserted one way and releasing them when pushed another way.??That reframing led to the prototype pants shown in the figure. It has a Chinese-puzzle-like structure on each thigh.??A sensor is activated when a leg moves and the thigh is grabbed.? A mechanism then pushes down to move the person forward -- one leg after the other.??The "wow factor" is that the final design will look almost like regular pants and not a bulky exoskeleton.

3:??Point of View Reframing

In Value Creation Forums, which are typically held every 2 to 4 weeks, 3-to-6 teams present 3-to-10-minute Action Plan Pitches. [4] They are NABC value propositions with an opening Hook and an Action close. The Hook states the purpose of the meeting along with a story or example to engage the listener. The Action is a statement of what is wanted to happen next or a task to be done.

After each presentation, a facilitator randomly selects Forum participants to give feedback from the perspectives shown in the figure.??Finally, others give additional feedback, including on the quality of the feedback.?

Feedback is always supportive and respectful.??In some settings, participants may be first asked if they will accept receiving feedback.??

Feedback starts with what was good.??Another participant then provides a suggestion for improvement – never a negative critique.??Then feedback is provided from the perspectives of the end-user, funder, and, if time, from other stakeholders. [5]

The feedback needs to be crisp and to the point, with one observation at a time. In addition, participants are asked not to repeat previous comments, but to add new insights. In Forums all participants participate so everyone is engaged and learns.??

When receiving feedback, presenters are asked to listen actively and not respond.??If a listener misses the point, that is important feedback to be corrected the next time. Presenters should think of the feedback as a gift and be thankful and appreciative.??The feedback is to help the presenter learn and improve.??

Diversity makes Forums more interesting and productive.??It helps with reframing and learning because each unique perspective brings new knowledge and allows biases and blind spots to be uncovered.??For example, in a Forum with 3 to 6 teams, there may be computer scientists, biologists, lawyers, product designers, ethnologists, and communications and business professionals.??In addition, online, there may be professionals from multiple countries.??The use of NABC value propositions, short presentations, and the feedback process allows productive contributions from all.

4.??Comparative Analysis Reframing

The Forum structure allows a novel and compelling reframing method called comparative analysis.??It is a method everyone uses every day -- we are all experts at it.???We compare one car to another, one meal to another, one basketball player to another, and one set of data to another.??It is at the heart of the scientific method.

In a 90-minute Forum, a participant will see 3 to 6 NABC Action Plan presentations, one after the other, like the three shown in the image

During the Forum some of the presentations will smartly describe their business model, others quantify their Approach, and others be specific about their competition, both today and in the future.??Participants see these positive examples and others that are vague, confusing, and uncompelling.??By watching the presentations with their strengths and weaknesses, Forum participants conduct comparative analysis. They see what is complete and compelling and what is not, which helps them reframe and improve their value propositions.??

Because of their structure, with 3 to 6??short presentations all using the NABC framework, Forums are somewhat analogous to eye exams.??For example, the rapid comparison of one lens to another, either 1 or 2, results in a first-rate prescription in only a few minutes.?Similarly, in Forums, by presenting one NABC after another, participants rapidly learn by seeing which one was better, either NABC 1 or NABC 2.?The i4i methodology uniquely leverages this powerful type of reframing, learning, and improving.?

Comparative analysis does not happen in most review meetings.??Each presenter typically uses a different format and takes 30 to 40 minutes to describe their initiative, violating the primary conditions for comparative analysis.?Learning in those meetings is like trying to get a new eyeglass prescription by trying on one set of glasses after another. It would take hundreds of trials to figure out a progressive lens prescription with different astigmatisms in each eye.

5:??Pitching Practice Reframing

Effective reframing is possible, starting with one partner.??Present your NABC Action Plan to a colleague and have them provide feedback from different perspectives. Think of at least 5 different stakeholders, and describe the problem from their unique perspectives. Remember to focus each time on the end user and all their issues and concerns. Then have your colleague present the value proposition back to you and you provide feedback.??Do this, back and forth, continuing to clarify issues that might arise from your different stakeholders.??

For the Kern Family Foundation, we held a 90-minute workshop for twelve professors, each with a different research project.??To best use the limited time, we first discussed the fundamentals of value creation and the NABC framework. Then we formed six teams of two and had them practice pitching practice for 20 minutes. The improvements seen were striking. It also made the point that if your customers, colleagues, or funders cannot repeat your value proposition, they can't effectively promote your initiative.

When we won the proposal for HDTV, my partner Glenn Reitmeier, and I held pitching practice sessions hundreds of times over multiple years.??Because the solution was not yet evident when we gave our proposal, we had many objections and concerns to overcome. ??Each iteration allowed us to uncover more issues and objections, which led to additional elements of the solution.

Our proposal was a six part NABC Action Plan presentation. After each item, I asked if the investor aggreed? The last question was to gain agreement to fund and start the HDTV program. The answer was "Yes." That program eventually resulted in the US HDTV standard and an Emmy for the team, which include several other companies.?

6. Start with the Minimum Reframing

Finally, one last reframing tip. At first, succinctly addressing all six parts of a NABC Action Plan is always a challenge. We all want to show how much we know, while the audience wants to understand the main points. To help teams focus, we often recommend they start by writing down, for each of the six NABC Action Plan elements, just one quantitative sentence. It inevitably helps teams advance faster.

Conclusions

Value creation starts by identifying an important unmet customer and market need. Achieving that ultimately requires great creativity and hard work. Reframing is a powerful method for opening up creativity and reducing blockages. It is both a discipline and an art. When the unmet customer need becomes clear along with a compelling offering and viable business model, the probability of success is high.

Here I have discussed ways to help uncover actual unmet customer needs with solutions that maximize customer value and minimize the effort of both customers and innovators. I started with the example of children crying at the prospect of being put into a scary MRI. That example shows that reframing to uncover the actual need can sometimes address problems with modest expense while providing solutions with enormous end-user and stakeholder value. Of course, most innovations are enormously more challenging than the MRI example, but the principles are the same.??

To get started, use the Action Pitch NABC framework with your teams in recurring Value Creation Forms, where participants give feedback from different perspectives. That allows the use of two of the most powerful reframing techniques: 1) feedback from different stakeholder perspectives and 2) comparative learning.??As teammates become comfortable with this process, other value creation concepts can be added.??Because Forums also provide great emotional support and motivation, they further accelerate progress.??

I will post another article on additional reframing techniques. All innovators should have multiple reframing approaches in their value creation toolbox.

1. "Big A's: https": //www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/main-mistake-innovators-make-big-curt-carlson-ph-d-/
2. "What's Your Problem?," Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg: Harvard Business Review Press. Kindle Edition.?
3. "By Turning Medical Scans into Adventures, GE Eases Children's Fears”:?https://archive.jsonline.com/business/by-turning-medical-scans-into-adventures-ge-eases-childrens-fears-b99647870z1-366161191.html/
4. "Value Creation Forums": https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/agile-enterprise-continuous-value-creation-cvc-curt-carlson-ph-d-/?published=t
5. The feedback process we use is similiar to de Bono's hats. At times we have given colored hats, representing the different perspectives, and past them aound to different participants after each presentation. "Six Thinking Hats," Edward de Bono: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats