# Discovery & Research Compressed decision logic, frameworks, and quality gates for running product discovery end-to-end: framing problems, interviewing customers, mapping jobs and journeys, generating solutions, and validating hypotheses before committing to build. ## Problem Framing ### Problem Statement (Component) **Template -- write from the user's perspective:** ``` I am: [persona with 3-4 key characteristics] Trying to: [desired outcome -- measurable, not a task] But: [barriers preventing the outcome] Because: [root cause, not symptom] Which makes me feel: [authentic emotion from research] ``` **Final statement formula:** `[Persona] needs a way to [outcome] because [root cause], which currently [impact].` **Quality gates:** - "I am" passes if you can picture a real person (not "busy professionals") - "Trying to" is an outcome, not an activity - "Because" survives 5-why interrogation - "Makes me feel" uses verbatim customer language, not marketing copy - Final statement fits one sentence and is measurable **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Solution smuggling** -- "The problem is we don't have X." Fix: reframe around user outcome. 2. **Business problem disguised as user problem** -- "Users want to reduce our churn." Fix: dig into why users leave from their perspective. 3. **Symptom instead of root cause** -- "Because the UI is confusing." Fix: keep asking "why" until you hit structural cause. --- ### Problem Framing Canvas (MITRE, Interactive) **Three-phase bias-check before you write a problem statement.** **Phase 1 -- Look Inward:** - What is the problem? (symptoms only) - Why haven't we solved it? (new / hard / low priority / lack of resources / authority / systemic inequity) - How are we part of the problem? (confirmation bias / internal bias / survivorship bias / premature convergence) **Phase 2 -- Look Outward:** - Who experiences it? When, where, consequences? - Who else has it? Who doesn't? (counter-examples reveal root cause) - Who's been left out of the conversation? - Who benefits from the problem existing? Who benefits from it being solved? **Phase 3 -- Reframe:** - Restate: "[Who] struggles to [what] because [root cause], leading to [consequence]. Affects [segments], overlooked because [bias]." - HMW: "How might we [action] as we aim to [objective]?" **Quality gates:** - HMW is broad enough to permit multiple solutions, narrow enough to be actionable - Canvas was completed cross-functionally, not solo - "Who benefits from the status quo?" was explicitly answered **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Skipping Look Inward** -- groupthink persists. Fix: force explicit bias discussion. 2. **Generic reframe** -- "Improve user experience." Fix: include who, what, when, consequence, root cause. 3. **HMW too narrow** -- "How might we add a mobile app?" Fix: state the job, not the solution. --- ## Customer Discovery ### Discovery Process (Workflow, 6 phases / 3-4 weeks) ``` Phase 1: Frame (Day 1-2) -> Problem Framing Canvas (120 min) + Problem Statement (30 min) -> Optional: Proto-Persona, JTBD -> Output: problem hypothesis, 3-5 research questions, success criteria -> Gate: enough context to start research? If no, gather data first (+2-3 days) Phase 2: Plan Research (Day 3) -> Discovery Interview Prep (90 min) -> Recruit 5-10 participants, schedule across 1-2 weeks -> Output: interview guide (5-7 Mom Test questions), participant roster Phase 3: Conduct Research (Week 1-2) -> 5-10 interviews + support ticket analysis + analytics review -> Note template per interview: participant, context, actions, pain points, workarounds, verbatim quotes, insights -> Gate: saturation? Same pains across 3+ interviews = proceed. Still learning = +3-5 interviews. Phase 4: Synthesize (End of Week 2) -> Affinity mapping: sticky notes -> themed clusters with frequency counts -> Optional: Customer Journey Map workshop -> Prioritize: score each pain on frequency x intensity x strategic fit (1-5 each) -> Output: top 3-5 pain points, 3-5 verbatim quotes per pain, validated problem statement Phase 5: Generate & Validate Solutions (Week 3) -> Opportunity Solution Tree OR Lean UX Canvas -> Design experiments: concierge / prototype / landing page / A/B test -> Run experiments (1-2 weeks each) -> Gate: validated? If no, pivot to next solution (+1-2 weeks) Phase 6: Decide & Document (Week 3-4) -> GO (roadmap + epics + PRD) / PIVOT (next solution) / KILL (deprioritize) -> 30-min stakeholder readout: problem validation, solution validation, recommendation ``` **Timeline ranges:** fast track 3 weeks (5 interviews, 1 experiment) | typical 4 weeks | thorough 6-8 weeks. **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Skipping interviews** -- relying only on analytics. Fix: always 5-10 qualitative interviews. 2. **Analysis paralysis** -- 6 weeks synthesizing. Fix: time-box to 3-4 weeks total. 3. **Discovery as one-time event** -- run continuous (Teresa Torres: 1 interview/week). --- ### Interview Prep (Interactive, 4 adaptive questions) **Q1 -- Research Goal:** problem validation | JTBD discovery | retention/churn investigation | feature prioritization **Q2 -- Target Segment:** people who experience problem regularly | people who tried to solve it | people in target segment regardless of awareness | people who recently experienced it **Q3 -- Constraints:** limited access (5-10, 2 weeks) | existing base (100+ customers) | cold outreach required | internal stakeholders only (proxy) **Q4 -- Methodology (context-aware on Q1-Q3):** - **Mom Test (Rob Fitzpatrick — problem validation):** past behavior, not hypotheticals. "Tell me about the last time..." - **JTBD interviews:** what customers hire/fire. "What were you trying to get done?" - **Switch interviews:** push/pull of changing solutions. "What prompted you to look?" - **Timeline/journey mapping:** chronological walkthrough of full experience **Output: interview plan with opening (5 min), 5 core questions with follow-ups and anti-patterns, closing (5 min), bias checklist, success criteria, logistics.** **5 biases to avoid in every interview:** 1. Confirmation bias -- don't ask "Don't you think X is a problem?" 2. Leading questions -- don't ask "Would you use this?" 3. Hypothetical questions -- don't ask "If we built Y, would you pay?" 4. Pitching disguised as research -- don't explain your solution 5. Yes/no questions -- don't ask "Is invoicing hard?" **Interview success = specific stories (not generic complaints) + past behavior (not wishes) + patterns across 3+ interviews + at least one surprise.** **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Asking what customers want** -- gets feature requests, not problems. Fix: ask about past behavior. 2. **Pitching instead of listening** -- don't mention your solution until last 5 min (if at all). 3. **Stopping at 1-2 interviews** -- small sample = confirmation bias. Fix: 5-10 minimum. --- ## Jobs to Be Done ### JTBD Framework (Component) **Three categories of customer jobs:** | Type | Question | Examples | |------|----------|----------| | **Functional** | What tasks to complete? | "Reconcile monthly expenses for tax filing" | | **Social** | How to be perceived? | "Be seen as strategic by exec team" | | **Emotional** | What state to achieve/avoid? | "Feel confident I'm not missing details" | **Four categories of pains:** - **Challenges:** obstacles preventing job completion - **Costliness:** excessive time, money, or effort - **Common mistakes:** preventable errors - **Unresolved problems:** gaps in current solutions **Four categories of gains:** - **Expectations:** what exceeds current solutions - **Savings:** time/money/effort reductions - **Adoption factors:** what triggers switching - **Life improvement:** how life gets better **Quality gates for jobs:** - Verb-driven (actions, not nouns) - Solution-agnostic ("communicate with team" not "use Slack") - Specific ("track expenses for tax deductions" not "manage finances") **Prioritization:** rank pains by intensity (acute vs. mild). Ask: "If we solved one pain, which has biggest impact?" **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Confusing jobs with solutions** -- "I need Slack." Fix: ask "Why?" 5 times. 2. **Ignoring social/emotional jobs** -- people buy on emotion, justify with logic. Fix: explicitly ask about perception and feelings. 3. **Fabricating JTBD without research** -- assumptions aren't insights. Fix: conduct switch interviews or contextual inquiries. --- ## Opportunity Mapping ### Opportunity Solution Tree (Teresa Torres — Interactive, 2 phases) **Structure:** ``` Desired Outcome (1 measurable metric) | +-- Opportunity 1 (customer problem, not solution) | +-- Solution A + experiment | +-- Solution B + experiment | +-- Solution C + experiment | +-- Opportunity 2 | +-- Solutions... | +-- Opportunity 3 +-- Solutions... ``` **Phase 1 -- Generate tree:** 1. Extract desired outcome (revenue growth / retention / acquisition / efficiency) 2. Generate 3 opportunities per outcome (customer problems with evidence) 3. Generate 3 solutions per opportunity (with hypothesis + experiment for each) **Phase 2 -- Select POC:** - Score each solution: Feasibility (1-5) + Impact (1-5) + Market Fit (1-5) - Feasibility: 1 = months, 5 = days. Impact: 1 = minimal, 5 = major. Market Fit: 1 = customers don't care, 5 = actively request. - Pick highest total score as POC. Define experiment type: A/B test, prototype + usability, or concierge. **Hypothesis template:** "If we [solution], then [metric] will [change] from [X] to [Y] because [rationale]." **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Opportunities disguised as solutions** -- "We need a mobile app." Fix: reframe as customer problem: "Mobile users can't access product on the go." 2. **Skipping divergence** -- "We know the solution." Fix: generate 3+ per opportunity. Force divergence before convergence. 3. **No experiments** -- picking solution and going to roadmap. Fix: every solution must map to an experiment. 4. **Vague outcomes** -- "Improve UX." Fix: make measurable: "Reduce drop-off from 60% to 40%." --- ## Customer Journey ### Journey Map (Component) **Horizontal axis (stages):** Awareness -> Consideration -> Decision -> Service -> Loyalty **Vertical axis (per stage):** - Customer Actions (observable, specific) - Touchpoints (digital + physical + human) - Customer Experience (emotions with customer quotes) - KPIs (measurable, stage-appropriate) - Business Goals (outcome-focused, stage-aligned) - Teams Involved (cross-functional with specific roles) **Quality gates:** - Emotions are specific ("relieved setup took 30 min, not 3 hours") not generic ("happy") - Touchpoints include offline (conferences, calls), not just digital - Map reflects what customers actually do, not what you want them to do - KPIs and goals present for every stage --- ### Journey Mapping Workshop (Interactive, 5 questions) **Q1 -- Actor:** select persona (primary / secondary / high-churn / newly discovered) **Q2 -- Scenario + Goal:** first-time use / core workflow / problem resolution / upgrade-expansion **Q3 -- Journey Phases:** generate 4-6 phases based on scenario (e.g., Discover -> Evaluate -> Try -> Activate -> Use -> Expand) **Q4 -- Per-phase mapping:** 3-5 actions, thoughts, emotions, and pain points per phase **Q5 -- Opportunities:** rank 5-7 pain points by impact (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) with evidence **Output:** full journey map + prioritized opportunity list. **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Mapping internal process, not customer experience** -- "Lead generated -> Qualified -> Demo." Fix: map from customer POV. 2. **No emotions** -- actions only. Fix: add customer quotes and emotional states. 3. **Too many personas in one map** -- loses focus. Fix: one map per persona. --- ## Lean Validation ### Lean UX Canvas (v2, Interactive, 8 boxes) **Fill order:** | Box | Question | Content Type | |-----|----------|-------------| | 1. Business Problem | What changed that created a problem? | Context + trigger | | 2. Business Outcomes | What behavior change = success? | Metrics (not emotions) | | 3. Users | Which persona first? | Specific segment | | 4. User Outcomes & Benefits | Why would users seek this? | Goals, emotions, empathy (not metrics) | | 5. Solutions | What might solve it? | 3+ candidate features/initiatives | | 6. Hypotheses | Testable if/then statements | "We believe [outcome] if [user] attains [benefit] with [solution]" | | 7. Learn First | What's the riskiest assumption? | Value > usability > feasibility > viability risk | | 8. Least Work | Smallest experiment to test it? | Must complete in <2 weeks | **Box 2 vs Box 4 distinction:** Box 2 = behavior change metrics. Box 4 = human motivation and empathy. **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Starting with solutions** -- Box 1 says "build X." Fix: ask "What changed? Why is this a problem now?" 2. **Confusing Box 2 and Box 4** -- metrics in the empathy box. Fix: Box 2 = numbers, Box 4 = feelings. 3. **Only one solution in Box 5** -- no exploration. Fix: force 3+ candidates. 4. **Skipping experiments** -- "just build it." Fix: design smallest test first. --- ### PoL Probe (Component) -- Proof of Life **A disposable, hypothesis-driven validation artifact. Not an MVP. Planned for deletion.** **5 required characteristics:** Lightweight (hours/days) + Disposable (deletion date set) + Narrow Scope (one hypothesis) + Brutally Honest (surfaces harsh truth) + Tiny & Focused (reconnaissance, not product). **Template fields:** hypothesis, risk being eliminated, probe type, target users, success criteria (pass/fail/learn thresholds), tools, timeline, disposal plan, owner, status. **5 Probe Flavors:** | Flavor | Core Question | Timeline | When to Use | |--------|---------------|----------|-------------| | Feasibility Check | Can we build this? | 1-2 days | Technical unknowns, API deps, data integrity | | Task-Focused Test | Can users complete this job? | 2-5 days | Critical UI moments, navigation, drop-off zones | | Narrative Prototype | Does this earn buy-in? | 1-3 days | Complex flow explanation, stakeholder alignment | | Synthetic Data Simulation | Can we model without production risk? | 2-4 days | Edge cases, unknown-unknowns, load testing | | Vibe-Coded Probe | Will this survive real user contact? | 2-3 days | Workflow/UX validation needing real interaction | **Golden Rule:** Use the cheapest prototype that tells the harshest truth. --- ### PoL Probe Advisor (Interactive, decision logic) **Selection flow:** hypothesis -> risk type -> core question -> recommended probe. **Decision matrix:** - Technical feasibility unknown -> **Feasibility Check** (spike-and-delete, API sniff tests) - Critical UI friction -> **Task-Focused Test** (Optimal Workshop, UsabilityHub, Maze) - Need stakeholder alignment -> **Narrative Prototype** (Loom walkthrough, slideware storyboard) - Edge case exploration -> **Synthetic Data Simulation** (Monte Carlo, synthetic users, LangFlow) - Need real user interaction -> **Vibe-Coded Probe** (ChatGPT Canvas + Replit + Airtable Frankensoft) **Refinement questions when hypothesis is too broad:** 1. What's the smallest thing you could test first? 2. What would failure look like? 3. Is this testing user behavior, technical feasibility, or stakeholder alignment? Pick one. **Top anti-patterns:** 1. **Choosing based on tooling comfort** -- "I know Figma, so I'll prototype." Fix: match method to hypothesis, not skillset. 2. **Defaulting to code** -- "Let's just build it." Fix: ask what's cheapest path to harsh truth. 3. **Confusing vibe-coded probes with MVPs** -- scope creep, refusal to dispose. Fix: set disposal date before building. 4. **Testing multiple things at once** -- ambiguous results. Fix: one probe, one hypothesis. 5. **No success criteria** -- "we'll know it when we see it." Fix: define pass/fail/learn before building. --- ## Quality Gates ### Consolidated Anti-Patterns Across All 11 Skills **Problem framing failures:** - Solution smuggling in problem statements - Business metrics framed as user problems - Generic personas ("busy professionals") - Skipping bias examination (Look Inward) **Research failures:** - Leading / hypothetical / yes-no questions - Pitching disguised as research - Stopping at 1-2 interviews (need 5-10 minimum) - Not recording insights immediately post-interview - Never reaching saturation (same patterns in 3+ interviews) **Synthesis failures:** - Analysis paralysis (6+ weeks, no decisions) - Opportunities disguised as solutions in OST - Vague outcomes that can't be measured - Journey maps reflecting internal wishful thinking, not customer reality - Generic emotions ("happy") instead of specific states **Validation failures:** - Prototype theater (impressive demos that teach nothing) - Choosing validation method by tooling comfort, not hypothesis - Testing multiple variables in one experiment - No pre-defined failure criteria - Treating disposable probes as production code - Discovery as one-time event instead of continuous practice ### Universal Quality Checks Every discovery artifact should pass these: 1. **Falsifiable:** can you describe what failure looks like? 2. **Evidence-backed:** grounded in customer research, not assumptions? 3. **Specific:** can you picture the person, the problem, the metric? 4. **Actionable:** does it inform a concrete next step? 5. **Time-boxed:** is there a deadline that prevents indefinite exploration?