Until a few years ago, when we first started working with inventors, we were firm believers that creating a new business meant identifying unsolved problems. However, working with hundreds of inventors each year has led us to conclude that it’s extremely difficult to find a problem for which there is no solution at all. This is mainly because, whether ideally or not, the human mind is always seeking alternatives—and that is precisely what enables us to move forward.
Therefore, we should train our attention system not so much to hunt for unsolved problems in our daily lives, but rather to identify the troublesome situations we experience and observe every day.
Didn’t coffee exist before capsule machines?
According to popular legend, an Ethiopian shepherd named Kaldi in the 9th century noticed that his goats became very lively after eating certain plants. Experimenting on his own, he tried these plants and experienced a caffeine boost. He shared this discovery with a monk, who was the first to brew the famous beverage as an infusion. But it wasn’t until as recently as 1986, under the Nespresso brand, that the first version of what we now know as coffee capsule machines hit the market.
Was the problem solved?
Coffee has been one of the most popular and accessible beverages from the 9th century to the present day. It’s no secret that its preparation methods have continuously evolved—with each version testing the balance between preserving its aroma and flavor and the time we invest in preparing it.
Since Erik Favre’s first version, the problem was solved. Hundreds of years before Erik Favre was even born, coffee was enjoyed worldwide, and dozens of methods for its preparation had already become popular.
While hundreds of millions of people drank coffee every morning, merely enjoying its aroma, Erik Favre focused on identifying problems or areas for improvement in the process of brewing and consuming coffee.
Which ones?
Coffee capsules allow the product to be preserved without any risk of moisture, thereby ensuring a completely excellent experience.
Coffee capsules provide a precise level of dosage that, when combined with the machine’s features, ensures that the coffee’s flavor is always consistent—avoiding the risks of poor preparation practices that, in one way or another, undermine the overall experience.
The ease and efficiency of this new preparation method allow consumers to devote their time to what truly matters: enjoying their cup of coffee.
There’s no doubt that during his time as an engineer at Nestlé, Erik Favre didn’t focus on creating a groundbreaking product that would change the world. Had that been his aim, it’s unlikely Nestlé would have supported him. Instead, his focus was on finding improvements in a process that, without a doubt, had significant room for enhancement.
You’ve probably heard the phrase, “You need to create an innovative product and then learn how to create the demand.”
One of the gravest mistakes inventors make is thinking they have the ability to create a need solely from their creation—the product itself. Perhaps there might be an example that supports this theory, but in reality, we haven’t seen one.
A few weeks ago, while giving a lecture at a prestigious business school, we posed the question like bait left in the open: “Is it possible to create need?”
Using examples like the iPod or motor vehicles, almost 90% of the students—who were all engineers—were absolutely convinced that in these cases, need was created.
If we delve into the iPod as a product, it certainly has easily identifiable precedents. The real need was to make daily activities and commutes compatible while listening to music. In this sense, at the end of the 20th century, Guglielmo Marconi tested the first portable radio transmission, so by around 1900, portable radios began to democratize. Users could move around with their device, more or less heavy, more or less bulky, more or less optimized for autonomy. But, didn't this need get met?
The Sony company, evaluating the market behavior with portable devices, did not just settle for improving their autonomy and listening quality. They discovered that users, in addition to listening to music or content wherever they went, greatly desired to choose what to listen to at any given moment. To address this evolving need, they developed and led the market with their Walkman and Discman, inventions that came to light in 1979 and 1984 respectively, following the introduction of cassettes and later CDs, capable of storing content that would later be managed through the devices Sony democratized in the market.
Understanding user behavior over the years was a key ingredient for Apple. The need existed and was being met, but not very efficiently. Users had to carry multiple CDs just to listen to whatever they wanted at any given moment. By capitalizing on the emergence of the mp3 format and the proliferation of the internet, Apple developed the iPod—a true revolution. It was a product that granted users the freedom to listen to music wherever they were—not just the 20 songs found on a CD, but countless hours of music—all through a device that fit in a dress shirt pocket and was so light it barely altered the fabric.
So, do you really think that Apple created the need to sell their iPods?
I must also confess that the last time I posed this open question, a student with clear entrepreneurial instincts stated, “It wasn’t Jobs with the iPod, but who can deny that Marconi created the need?”
Before the transmission to portable radios, before the existence of batteries, even conventional radios, humans already had the need to express themselves, communicate, and be heard. The technological development surrounding this great need has allowed us today to have the opportunity to choose the information we consume and the format in which we do so.
No. Absolutely not. Marconi didn’t create need, nor does it make sense to cling to an idea that requires us to manufacture a new need in the market. Faced with such reflections—which, unfortunately, are all too common—we often encounter product ideas that solve no problem and are, therefore, doomed to failure.
Surely you’ve heard the phrase: “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse,” famously attributed to Henry Ford. Ford clearly understood that it wasn’t about creating a new need but about analyzing the existing ones and responding to them more efficiently. That’s why, instead of “searching for faster horses,” he focused on solving the challenges of industrial manufacturing for motor vehicles, thereby democratizing this type of solution.
From Mr. Ford’s intriguing statement, we take a key lesson: customers won’t necessarily articulate the description of their dream product. Moreover, what they express may not always be entirely reliable—neither for the good nor for the bad. It is our responsibility as inventors to pay close attention to the behavior of potential customers, design efficient solutions—even ones the customer might never have imagined—and ensure these solutions fit their problems like a glove.
When we say “for the bad,” we aim to highlight the significant risks associated with surveys, focus groups, and similar market behavior study methods. The common denominator of these approaches is that they rely on customer feedback or responses. In our humble opinion, when creating a new product, merely studying responses is not enough—in fact, it may be more beneficial not to ask questions at all. To drive an effective innovation process, we must observe user behavior and their reactions to the product, ideally in environments where they don’t feel observed.
