Thanks for the detailed comment. Nice job researching sources. For the Rubik’s cube example, the same document you cite also has this comment from Mr. Rubik:

—
“I was sure it was something very interesting and important in my life,” he says, in heavily-accented but precise English, “But I was not thinking about its commercial potential. For me it was a curious object, a puzzle for solving. However, I was trying to develop it as a product, because if you only have ideas, you can’t share them with other people. If the Cube had remained a concept, well, we wouldn’t
be here now,” he adds, axiomatically.
—

This was my point exactly. Without building the cube first he couldn’t have developed it further.

Yes, they may have been visionary, though in Twitter’s case the original concept is simply one small use case given how people are using Twitter. As for Twitter’s success, that of course remains to be seen, as they don’t have any revenue despite all the users.

Again, I’m not detracting from your central point. But I agree with Dean (and you, it appears) that you can take it too far.

Interesting argument.

I won’t argue that there aren’t wildly successful products that evolved from some inventor just deciding they wanted to try to create something. Some have called this the Mt Everest Syndrome – we create because we can and because we think it would be cool. Call this serendipitous invention that catches the imagination of potential users and evolves into a profitable product.

However, your central thesis falls down when supported by the examples you cite because in each case the inventor did have a specific problem to solve in mind when they started down the path of creation.

1. Consider the Rubik’s Cube: Erno Rubik originally designed the cube as a visual representation to demonstrate his theories of 3D design to his students at the Department of Interior Design at the Academy of Applied Arts and Crafts in Budapest. He also happened to be a games and puzzle enthusiast so his intent was to create a 3D puzzle that could be solved. As he said, “I particularly like games where the partner, the real opponent is nature itself, with its really particular but decipherable mysteries. The most exciting game for me is the space game, the search of possible space shapes, that is to say the logical and concrete building of various layouts.”

2. Consider the cell phone: The cell tower concept was developed back in 1947

As Martin Cooper, the man who made the first ever public mobile cellular phone call in NYC in 1973 and who was the general manager of Motorola’s Communication System’s division, had a very particular vision for what problems a cell phone would solve. He explained it: “People want to talk to other people – not a house, or an office, or a car. Given a choice, people will demand the freedom to communicate wherever they are, unfettered by the infamous copper wire. It is that freedom we sought to vividly demonstrate in 1973.”

Finally, Twitter was originally developed by Noah Glass and Jack Dorsey at Odeo as a simple technology that was then productized as the team brainstormed on possible new products to save the company. Dom Sagollas explains: “as I remember that @Jack’s first use case was city-related: telling people that the club he’s at is happening. “I want to have a dispatch service that connects us on our phones using text.” Real time communication of moods, location, etc.

In each case, did they know how big the problem was that they were solving? No. Did they go out and do some research with potential customers? It’s not clear whether they did or not. But they had identified a problem and in at least two of the three cases, believed they had a potentially profitable business opportunity if they delivered a solution for it because they knew that others would want to use this solution.

I would argue in each of these cases the inventors were visionary about the value of their products but probably had no idea how successful they would be. Still, they saw the opportunity, framed it as a solution to a problem, and created in response.

Agreed. I’m in full agreement with Val’s comment about defensible and repeatable. Those are a couple of my favourite words to describe product management.

I’m surprised, nevertheless, that you “defy” us to identify the market problems that Rubik’s Cube and Twitter were intended to solve.

Of course, I have no idea what was in the minds of the people who conceived them. However, some of the market problems that Rubik’s Cube and Twitter actually solved are not too difficult to identify. (In your blog entry, you went so far as to state “there is no problem” that Rubik’s Cube solves.)

Like most entertainment products, Rubik’s Cube addresses boredom problems. Many entertainment products (arcade games, playing cards, movies) were not easy to play while carrying them. Rubik’s Cube is not just portable, but you can play it while transporting it. Finally, some people need new intellectual stimulation to enjoy themselves. Rubik’s Cube provided this stimulation, as it was both novel and an intellectual challenge.

Thus Rubik’s Cube simultaneously solved boredom, portability, and intellectual stimulation problems that were pervasive in the market.

In our society, there is no shortage of sources of information and no shortage of ways of expressing ourselves. Yet if someone wants to express oneself or “hear” what others are saying without being in the same room with all of them, and without the hassle and delay of e-mails, lengthy blog entries, and Facebook, it’s difficult. It’s also a challenge to listen to just that set of people you want to hear. Twitter is a bit like being in a room filled with people who have things to say that you personally find interesting, while at the same time placing you in other rooms in which other people find what you have to say interesting. Furthermore, you get to “eavesdrop” and only engage at your discretion.

Twitter thus solves problems with communication efficiency, physical co-location, level of engagement, and opt-in relevance.

Lastly, agile development isn’t just about being adaptive. Agile development, in a purposeful and disciplined fashion, rapidly “releases” solutions in order to surface latent or undiscovered problems as quickly as possible. In other words, it directly addresses the central point of your blog entry.

“Good Post! Makes you think. The process your poking at is old and clunky, do you have a better one?”

http://twitter.com/ValWorkman/statuses/1476811876

This process is the one that gets mentioned often. It is similar, for example, to what was described in the recent Tuned In book.

I truly believe that *NEW* (emphasis on NEW) product development is both difficult and highly iterative. There are far too many unknowns and variables to try to predict the future with any measure of certainty.

The folks who created Cranium spent A LOT of time having friends etc play test the game, refining it over and over as they went forward.

But what was the “problem” that they were addressing? Perhaps there as a “need” as Cindy indicates.

In a nutshell, the problem with “find a problem” is that there isn’t always a fully articulated problem. It is usually something much more ephemeral, but still presents a potential opportunity for someone to address.