Product thinking and discovery
Scoring problems
Intensity, frequency, workarounds and willingness to pay — the filter between hair-on-fire and nice-to-have.
Score every candidate problem on these dimensions. Use rough 1–5 scales; the point is relative ranking, not false precision.
| Dimension | Weak signal (1–2) | Strong signal (4–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Intensity | Mild annoyance; shrug | Anger, fear, lost sleep, public failure |
| Frequency | Once a year | Daily or every time the job occurs |
| Current workaround | Nothing; they ignore it | Spreadsheets, email chains, contractors, competitor tools |
| Willingness to pay (or engage) | "Sounds neat" | Already paying money/time; asks for invoice |
| Addressable people | One weird team | A clear segment you can reach |
| Trend | Shrinking need | Growing with market or workflow change |
Intensity × frequency is the usual first cut. A rare catastrophe (payroll failing once a year) can still be worth solving if intensity is extreme and willingness to pay is high. A daily mild annoyance for millions can also win (consumer products). Most B2B roadmap noise is medium-medium: "it would be nice if…"
Workarounds are gold. If people already duct-tape a process with Google Sheets, Zapier and a part-time contractor, they have voted with time and money. Your product's job is often to replace that Frankenstein with something faster, safer or cheaper — not to invent a need from zero. If there is no workaround and they seem fine, the problem may not be real yet.
Willingness to pay is not only cash. For free consumer products it is attention, permission and habit. For internal tools it is political capital. "I'd use that if it existed" is almost worthless (the Mom Test will train you to discard it — see user research). "I paid a contractor $2k/month for this" is evidence.
Trade-off
Chase hair-on-fire (high intensity, high frequency) when you need retention or revenue quickly. Chase rare but severe when ACV is high and buyers have budget for insurance-like products (security, compliance, disaster recovery). Chase chronic mild pain only with massive distribution or when it compounds into a habit product. Default for most teams: ignore the bottom-left.
Walking through five candidates
A B2B SaaS for independent consultants. Score each 1–5, then average. Numbers are a method demo, not market research.
| Candidate problem | Int. | Freq. | Workaround | WTP | Reach | Avg | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Chasing unpaid invoices | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4.6 | Hair on fire; already paying tools |
| B. Pretty portfolio themes | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2.6 | Nice-to-have; crowded |
| C. Annual tax packet export | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.4 | Severe but rare; seasonal |
| D. Slightly faster page load | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2.8 | Chronic mild; weak WTP alone |
| E. Team seats & permissions | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3.0 | Growing with multi-person shops |
Decision: Prioritize A. Schedule discovery on C for a seasonal bet. Park B. Treat D as an engineering quality backlog item, not a product initiative. Revisit E when the ICP shifts toward studios.
If the team has 6 engineer-weeks this quarter, putting all 6 on A beats splitting 2/2/2 across A, B and D. Opportunity cost is real.
Common mistakes
- Ignoring workarounds because they feel "not our product."
- Optimizing for the loudest customer instead of a segment pattern.
- Treating chronic mild pain as a product initiative when WTP is weak.
Check yourself
Daily CSV export hell vs a slightly slow list page. Which first? CSV hell. High intensity and a strong workaround. Slow list is chronic mild unless it is a guardrail.
Payroll fails once a year. Ignore because frequency is low? Not if intensity and WTP are extreme. Rare-but-severe can still win, especially at high ACV.
Key takeaways
- Score intensity, frequency, workarounds, willingness to pay, reach and trend — not enthusiasm.
- Workarounds are votes with time and money. No workaround plus "we're fine" often means the problem is not real.
- Hair-on-fire and rare-but-severe beat chronic mild pain unless you have massive scale.
Further learning
Next: where problems come from.
Related
Finding problems worth solving
Pain intensity, frequency and willingness to pay — separating hair-on-fire problems from nice-to-haves.
Problem vs solution
Fall in love with the struggle, not the dashboard. Solutions are disposable; the pain is not.
User research
Interviews that avoid false positives, usability tests with five users, and synthesizing findings. Start here for the map.