The Goldilocks Zone of problem discovery
Most product teams frame problems either too broadly (strategy that cannot be acted on) or too narrowly (solutions masquerading as problems). The insight lives in the zone between.
8 November 2024 · 3 min read
There is a pattern we see constantly in product organisations: teams that think they are doing discovery, but are actually doing one of two other things.
The first is strategic visioning. The conversation stays at the level of “we want to transform the customer experience” or “we need to be the platform of record for X.” This sounds like discovery but it is not — it is ambition without specificity.
The second is solution specification. The “problem” being investigated is actually a solution: “we need a dashboard that shows X” or “we should build an integration with Y.” The real problem has been assumed, not explored.
Both of these failure modes are understandable. They feel productive. They are not.
The Goldilocks Zone
The insight is that there is a level of specificity — not too high, not too low — where genuine discovery lives.
Too high: “We need to improve our mid-market customers’ experience with invoicing.”
This is real and worth caring about, but it is too broad to be actionable. Where do you start? Which customers? Which part of invoicing? What does “improve” mean?
Too low: “We should add an auto-populate button to the invoice form.”
This has jumped straight to a solution. The real problem has been bypassed. You have no idea if this is actually what customers need, or if there might be a better solution that did not come to mind because you started with a specific implementation.
Just right: “Mid-market accounts payable managers spend 40% of their time manually reconciling invoices with purchase orders — and this is the primary driver of payment delays and supplier complaints.”
This is specific enough to design meaningful solutions. It is broad enough to allow creative approaches. It names a real person, a real situation, a real cost, and a real consequence. Discovery can now happen here.
How to find the Goldilocks Zone
The practical question is: how do you get to the right level?
A few techniques that work:
Five Whys (upward). If you have a solution in mind, ask “why would a customer want this?” five times. Each iteration moves you up toward the underlying need. Stop when you reach a level that is still specific enough to act on.
Opportunity framing. Instead of asking “what should we build?” ask “what situation are customers in where they need help, what are they trying to accomplish, and what is getting in the way?” This naturally produces Goldilocks-level problem statements.
Jobs to Be Done interviews. Focus on the story of a specific decision or action the customer took — not their general attitudes or preferences. The detail in their story reveals the real problem at the right level of specificity.
Pre-mortem problem validation. Before committing to a problem statement, ask: “If we solved this perfectly, what would change for the customer, and how would we know?” If you cannot answer that specifically, the problem is probably still too high.
Why this matters more in the AI era
In a world where building is cheap, getting to the right problem is more important than ever. The cost of solving the wrong problem — at AI speed — is much higher than it used to be. You can now waste enormous resources very quickly.
The organisations that will use AI most effectively are those that develop sharp, disciplined problem-finding skills alongside their AI-enabled execution capabilities. The Goldilocks Zone is where they spend most of their time.
Want to talk through this?
Book a free discovery call with the Berst Consulting team.