Starting with the Customer, Not the Idea
Why the first question you ask determines everything that follows.
Every venture starts somewhere. For most founders, it starts with a product idea, something they are convinced the market needs, often for good reasons. This chapter is about what has to happen before that conviction becomes a commitment. By the end of it, you should have a clear picture of who your customer actually is, what they are genuinely trying to accomplish, and what stands between them and that outcome. That picture, built honestly, tested rigorously, and revised as you learn, is the foundation on which everything else gets built. Where we reference structured tools and materials that support this work, you will find a note at the end of each section.
When we first met the Meridian Team, they were barely containable.
Five colleagues from a Toronto EMBA cohort — Kofi, Priya, Wei, Jean-Luc, and Darya — had spent the better part of a semester building what they were convinced was a transformative idea: an AI-native compliance platform for mid-market companies struggling to keep pace with regulatory change across global supply chains. The machine learning architecture was elegant. The market sizing, done in a finance elective, looked enormous. Three of them had direct professional exposure to the supply chain space. They had surveyed fourteen people in their network, and twelve had said the problem was real.
They arrived at our first session with the quiet confidence of people who believe they have already done the hard work.
What they had actually done was answer the wrong question with considerable sophistication. They knew their technology. They did not yet know their customer. Those are not the same thing, not even close.
Here is what made that confidence so durable: it felt earned. The brain does not experience solution bias as a bias. Falling in love with a product concept activates the same reward pathways as solving a hard problem — which is why smart, motivated founders still end up designing for a customer they have imagined rather than one they have studied. Confirmation bias compounds things. Once a solution takes hold in the mind, incoming information is sorted, useful evidence gets amplified, and contradictory signals get quietly set aside. Add the availability heuristic, treating your own vivid experience as a reliable picture of everyone else’s, and you have a team that has done real work and arrived somewhere that feels like solid ground but isn’t.
The Meridian Team was not unusual. They were typical.
The brain does not experience solution bias as a bias. Falling in love with a product concept activates the same reward pathways as solving a hard problem.
Our work with entrepreneurs always begins at the same place. The question at the center of everything: Who is this customer, what are they genuinely trying to accomplish, and what stands between them and that outcome? Everything else follows from how honestly that question gets answered.
Why Early Ventures Lose the Thread
The Foundation Problem Nobody Talks About Enough
Most venture failures are not dramatic. They do not announce themselves with a single catastrophic decision. They accumulate, quietly, incrementally, from a foundation that was never solid to begin with. The product gets built. The pitch gets refined. The team grows. And somewhere along the way, usually later than anyone wants to admit, it becomes clear that the customer the venture was designed for was always more assumption than reality.
We have watched this pattern play out across industries, geographies, and experience levels — with first-time founders and with veteran operators who have built and sold companies before. The problem is almost never effort. It is almost never a capability. It is almost always the same cluster of errors that occur when a venture begins with the wrong anchor.
The first is premature commitment. A product idea arrives, vivid, compelling, seemingly inevitable, and the founder commits to it before the customer has been studied. Everything that follows serves the idea rather than tests it. Research confirms rather than challenges. Interviews validate rather than reveal. The idea becomes load-bearing before anyone has checked whether the ground beneath it is solid.
The second is network validation. Founders survey their networks and find enthusiasm. Twelve of fourteen people think the problem is real. What this actually measures is social proximity and the natural human impulse to be encouraging — not market demand. The people in a founder’s network are disproportionately likely to share the founder’s worldview and underreport skepticism. That kind of enthusiasm is not a signal. It is noise that feels like one.
That kind of enthusiasm is not a signal. It is noise that feels like one.
The third is solution-customer inversion. The founder knows the technology, the service model, or approach, and works backward to find the customer who fits it. The result is a customer description that is really a rationalization. The target customer exists to justify the solution rather than to define it.
The fourth is the intention-behavior gap. When founders reach customers, through surveys, informal conversations, or early interviews, they tend to collect statements of intent: what customers say they would do, use, or pay for. The gap between those statements and actual behavior is not a measurement error. It is a feature of human cognition. Intention and behavior operate on different systems. Customers are not lying when they say they would use a product. They genuinely believe it in the moment. But stated intent is a weak predictor of actual behavior, particularly when the behavior in question requires switching from a familiar routine, incurs switching costs, or changes how work actually gets done. The Meridian Team’s fourteen-person survey produced twelve enthusiastic responses. What it could not produce was evidence of what those twelve people would actually do when a real product asked them to change a real workflow. That is a different question entirely — and it is the only question that ultimately matters.
None of these feels like errors while they are happening. Each one feels like progress. That is what makes them costly.
What corrects them is the habit of anchoring every claim about the venture in the customer’s world rather than the founder’s conviction. In our work with entrepreneurs, we have developed structured tools to support exactly that, starting with a single document that gets written, challenged, and revised throughout the entire innovation process. The Opportunity Statement is not a business plan or a pitch deck. It is a precise articulation of who the customer is, what they are trying to accomplish, what stands in their way, and what would have to be true for a solution to matter.
That is where the work begins.
The Two Tracks: Knowing Where You Stand Before You Begin
Where You Start Depends on Where You Actually Are
Before any other work begins, one question matters more than any other: do you have real customers, people outside your immediate circle, actually using and paying for your product right now?
If yes, you are on the Building track. You have evidence in hand, and the work ahead is about interrogating it honestly. If not, or not yet, you are on the Exploring track. That is not a setback. It means the opportunity is still open. You still have room to get the customer right before committing to a direction.
We see this distinction matter enormously in practice. Founders on the Exploring track who acknowledge that it can still shape their venture around what they discover. Founders who claim Building when the evidence is not there start answering questions that have not yet been properly asked, and the gaps show up later when they are far more expensive to fix.
The two tracks are not a ranking. Exploring is not behind Building. They describe where you are starting from, and they determine what kind of work is most valuable right now.
Renée, a retired U.S. Army colonel now designing a leadership readiness program for professionals transitioning out of military service, wrestled with this question. Twenty years of developing and delivering leadership training in one of the most demanding organizational environments in the world. A detailed program design has already been drafted. Informal versions run with colleagues. Did that count?
It did — just not as customer validation. Every version of her program had been delivered inside a structured institutional setting, with a captive audience, on someone else’s timeline. What she was now building was something a civilian professional would choose to pay for, in a crowded market, on their own terms. Deep knowledge of leadership development as a field — yes. Validated knowledge of her new customer’s world — almost none. Exploring was the honest answer.
That choice changed everything about how she worked through this first stage. She stopped trying to confirm what she already believed and started asking questions she had not thought to ask. That is what the Exploring track makes possible, and why declaring it honestly, when it is the truth, is one of the most productive decisions a founder can make.
If you find yourself uncertain, the question is simple: are real people, outside your network of supporters, actually using and paying for your product today? If you hesitate at all, you are “Exploring”. Start there. The track shifts as evidence builds. It just cannot be declared ahead of the evidence that would justify it.
The Opportunity Statement
Where Behavior Beats Intention Every Time
The Opportunity Statement is a three-sentence structured document. It is also the most important thing you produce at this stage — because every piece of work that follows, every block of the business model, every customer interview, and every market sizing decision traces back to what you write here.
Before the template, there is something worth understanding about why it is designed the way it is.
Behavioral scientists have documented for decades that what people say they want and what they actually do are two very different things. Seventy percent of people report wanting to eat healthier. Twenty-three percent consistently buy healthy food. That gap is not hypocrisy — it is human nature. And most venture frameworks are built on the wrong side of it. They ask founders to describe what customers want, then build toward those descriptions. The Opportunity Statement works differently. Every element is anchored in behavior, outcome, and obstacle — not preference, aspiration, or stated intent. That is not a stylistic choice. It is the whole point.
The template looks like this:
The opportunity involves helping [Target Customer] when [Context] achieve [Outcomes] by facilitating [Key Behaviors]. The customer seeks [Outcomes] measured by [Metrics] but faces [Barriers]. Current [Enablers] exist that can be leveraged through [Solution Requirements].
Six elements. Three sentences. What makes this genuinely hard, and worth the difficulty, is that each element demands specificity that solution-first thinking cannot supply. Target Customer cannot be a demographic. You need a describable group of people united by a shared, felt need in a common context. Outcomes cannot be aspirational language about transformation or impact. You need observable, measurable results that the customer themselves would recognize as success. Barriers cannot be generic, such as “lack of time” or “insufficient resources.” You need to identify the specific obstacles preventing this customer from achieving this specific outcome through what already exists.
To be specific enough to be wrong in ways you can actually learn from — that is the real purpose of the Opportunity Statement.
The Meridian Team’s first attempt was technically impressive and substantively empty. It described their AI architecture in the solution requirements section. It used industry terminology with confidence. It told us nothing about what a mid-market supply chain compliance officer actually experiences on a Tuesday afternoon when a new regulatory filing lands in their inbox. Kofi, who had the most direct supply chain experience on the team, recognized it immediately when they read it aloud. “We wrote about our product,” he said, “not about our customer’s problem.” They rewrote it from scratch that evening.
That rewrite, uncomfortable, incomplete, and humbling, was the most valuable work they did at this stage. Not because the second version was correct. Because trying to describe the customer’s experience without reaching for the solution exposed exactly where their knowledge was thin. That is the real purpose of the Opportunity Statement. Not to produce something finished. To be specific enough to be wrong in ways you can actually learn from.
One thing worth knowing about how we structure this work: the Opportunity Statement does not stay behind when you move forward. It travels with you. Each subsequent tool opens by pulling directly from what you have written here. When the ecosystem mapping reveals that your customer description does not match the landscape you are actually entering, and it will, you come back and revise the statement first, then continue. When the viability screen surfaces a barrier you had not named, same thing. The statement is a living document, versioned and dated, built to evolve as your understanding sharpens.
Amara, building a mobile-first platform to connect rural community health workers in Ghana with real-time clinical decision support, finished her first Opportunity Statement in under two hours. She felt confident. She had lived adjacent to this problem her entire life and spent months reading research on community health worker systems across sub-Saharan Africa. When she came back to it after the ecosystem and viability work, she revised four of the six elements. The original had been accurate to her understanding of the problem. The revision was accurate to the customer’s experience. Those are not the same thing. The gap between them, visible only because she had done the mapping work first, was where her real product insight lived.
The original had been accurate to her understanding of the problem. The revision was accurate to the customer's experience. Those are not the same thing.
The version of the Opportunity Statement you produce at the end of this first stage will look different from the one you wrote at the start. That is not a sign that your early thinking was weak. It is a sign that the process is working.
→ Supported by the Opportunity Statement worksheet and guide · New Venture Innovation Process
Mapping the Ecosystem Before You Judge It
What You Don’t Know About Your Market Will Cost You Later
There is a version of entrepreneurship education that moves directly from opportunity framing to viability assessment, as if the world surrounding the problem were a static background that can be understood in passing. In our experience working with founding teams, that shortcut almost always produces shallow results. Before you can evaluate whether a venture has a genuine chance of succeeding, you need to understand the terrain, who is operating in this space, what knowledge exists about the problem, who shapes how it is perceived, and who in the landscape might become an ally, a competitor, a channel, or an obstacle.
This is distinct from competitive analysis. Sizing up direct and indirect competitors comes later, once you have done customer discovery and have a clearer picture of what you are actually offering. What we are talking about here is broader and more foundational, mapping the full ecosystem before you make any judgments about where you fit in it.
That mapping covers five categories of players. Problem-space experts and thought leaders are doing serious intellectual work on the challenge your customer faces. Organizations and individuals are currently trying to address that challenge in various ways. Marketplace influencers who shape how the problem is understood, funded, regulated, or prioritized. Infrastructure and support resources that enable ventures in this space. And potential mentors and advisors who could accelerate your understanding and access.
The purpose is not to produce an exhaustive directory. It is to produce two specific things: a concrete picture of the landscape your venture will enter, and at least one insight that changes or sharpens your Opportunity Statement. If the mapping work produces neither of those, it was not done with enough depth.
The Meridian Team found this stage genuinely humbling. Coming out of a rigorous graduate program, they had assumed they understood their problem space. Three team members had direct professional experience in supply chain management. Darya, with a background in regulatory compliance consulting, volunteered to lead the research. What she surfaced over two weeks was sobering: three organizations building AI-assisted compliance tools they had never encountered; a recently published academic framework for regulatory change classification that substantially complicated their assumptions about how compliance officers actually categorize risk; a regulatory body in the EU whose pending guidelines would affect the very jurisdictions their early customers operated in; and a network of supply chain associations whose endorsement functioned as a prerequisite for enterprise software adoption in their target segment. None of it invalidated their direction. All of it sharpened it and revealed that their original Opportunity Statement had described a customer behavior pattern that the actual compliance ecosystem made nearly impossible.
The standard for this work is specificity. Could you send an email today to each person or organization you have named? If not, you have identified a category where a named entity should be. “Major consulting firms” is not an answer. Deloitte’s Supply Chain Center of Excellence, and the specific partner there who published last year’s regulatory risk report, is an answer. Generic entries produce generic insight. Named, specific entries produce the kind of targeted knowledge that makes every conversation with a customer dramatically more productive.
This landscape map is not a one-time exercise. The players you identify here become potential interview sources in your discovery work, key partners in your business model, and the foundation for competitive analysis when you reach the market stage. We return to it and revise it throughout the entire process.
→ Supported by the Market Ecosystem worksheet · New Venture Innovation Process
Taking an Honest Look at Viability
What the Evidence Is Actually Telling You
Most founders approach viability assessment the wrong way. They ask whether their venture will succeed. That is not a question anyone can answer at this stage — and trying to answer it produces either false confidence or unnecessary doubt. The more useful question is narrower: are the signals we are seeing strong enough to justify going deeper?
That is what this stage of the work is designed to answer. Not a verdict. A directional check across four areas that together tell you whether the foundation you are building on is solid enough to carry the weight of what comes next.
The first area is the problem space. Is there genuine, felt dissatisfaction with current solutions among the customers you have identified? Not theoretical dissatisfaction — active frustration, combined with evidence that people are already searching for something better. This is the signal that separates a real market from a latent one. It is also the most important signal to get right before building anything.
The second is feasibility. Can this actually be built and delivered, technically, operationally, and within whatever regulatory or legal constraints apply? Founders on the Exploring track are making informed hypotheses here. Founders on the Building track are drawing on early evidence. Either way, the question is whether a viable solution is achievable, not whether one already exists.
The third is differentiation. Is there a plausible basis for being meaningfully different from what already exists? Not better in every dimension, that is rarely achievable and rarely necessary. Different in a way that matters to your specific customer, in the specific context you have described. This is where the ecosystem mapping from the prior stage pays its most immediate dividend. Founders who skipped that work typically discover the differentiation picture here is murkier than they expected.
The fourth is the team. Does this founding group have the knowledge, access, and commitment the opportunity requires, at this stage, given these resources? Not the team you plan to build eventually. The team you have right now, and what they actually know and can actually access. The honest knowledge and access assessment that comes next in the process provides the raw material for answering this question well.
Sung-jin had been running a product evaluation process at a South Korean consumer electronics company for several months before arriving at this stage with more structured data than most founders ever assemble. Two years of customer satisfaction surveys, quarterly sales data, field observation reports from regional distributors, and a detailed competitive benchmark commissioned from an external research firm. He expected the viability check to be confirmatory.
The differentiation question stopped him cold. The research firm’s report, which he had read primarily for its technical analysis, contained a footnote he had initially skimmed: two international competitors — one from Germany, one from a Singapore-based startup — had entered his target segment in the preceding eighteen months with products that addressed the exact barrier his Opportunity Statement had named. Neither was yet well-established in South Korea. But both had secured distribution partnerships with regional chains serving his target customer profile. The competitive landscape he had been studying no longer existed.
Sung-jin did not abandon the opportunity. He reconstructed his differentiation analysis, identified a customer segment that the two new entrants were systematically underserving, and revised his Opportunity Statement accordingly. The viability check did not produce a verdict. It produced a sharper question, which is the most useful thing it can offer at this stage.
Two outcomes are equally valid when this work is done. The first is a decision to proceed — with honest acknowledgment of where the signals are strong and where gaps remain. The second is a decision to pause, to identify specific questions that need answers before the business model work can be done with integrity. A pause is not a failure. A pause with a clear plan for what needs to be resolved is a sign of exactly the kind of thinking that separates ventures that eventually scale from ones that founder on assumptions nobody examined.
→ Supported by the Venture Potential worksheet and guide · New Venture Innovation Process
What Your Team Actually Knows — and Who You Can Reach
Honest Gaps Are More Useful Than Confident Ones
Of all the work in this first stage, the knowledge and access assessment is the one that founders most consistently undervalue when they first encounter it, and most consistently wish they had taken more seriously in retrospect.
The question it asks appears simple: what does your team actually know, and who can you genuinely get to? The simplicity is deceptive. What the assessment is really doing is forcing an honest reckoning with the gap between what founders believe they know and what they have actually verified. That gap is almost always larger than expected. Naming it precisely is one of the most productive things a founding team can do before discovery work begins.
The assessment covers four areas. How deeply do you understand the nature, root causes, and lived experience of the problem your customer faces — not your intuition about it, not your analysis of secondary research, but a genuine understanding of how this problem manifests for specific people in specific contexts? How readily can you reach the people experiencing this problem right now, not through two or three intermediaries, not through the sympathetic network that already supports your idea, but directly, through unfiltered contact with people who have no prior stake in your success? How well do you understand the competitive, regulatory, and ecosystem landscape, the players, the norms, and the history of what has been tried and why it succeeded or failed? And who in the broader ecosystem can you actually get to, and how quickly, thought leaders, potential partners, domain experts whose perspective would sharpen your thinking?
Knowledge and access are rated separately for each area. That distinction matters. A team can have deep knowledge of a problem space and almost no direct access to the people experiencing it. A team can have strong network access and surprisingly thin understanding of the industry dynamics that will shape their go-to-market strategy. Both count. Neither alone is sufficient.
The ratings are not grades. They are planning inputs. A medium rating in customer access is not a weakness to hide. It is a signal that specific relationship-building work needs to happen before customer discovery can be conducted with integrity. A low rating in industry knowledge is not a disqualification. It is a directive to identify the advisors, mentors, or research sources that will close that gap. The assessment is only useful if it is honest.
Fatima had left a regional consulting partnership in Dubai after more than fifteen years of client work in organizational transformation. Her domain knowledge was formidable. She had led complex change initiatives across financial services, healthcare, and government sectors throughout the Gulf region. Her professional reputation was strong. She had warm relationships with dozens of senior executives across the organizations she had served.
The knowledge and access work revealed a structural problem she had not fully acknowledged. Every client relationship she carried was institutional, initiated and maintained through the firm, managed within the context of a consulting engagement, governed by the firm’s relationship protocols. When she left to build her own independent practice, those relationships largely stayed where they were. The executives who had valued her work valued it within a context that no longer existed for her. Her customer access, honestly assessed, was far weaker than her professional network suggested. Strong access to people who remembered her favorably from prior engagements. Almost no access to the kind of unmediated, exploratory conversations with potential buyers that real discovery requires.
This was not a comfortable recognition. It was an essential one. The assessment gave Fatima a precise picture of what she needed to build before her discovery work could be productive: specific outreach strategies, a deliberate advisor network, and a series of no-agenda conversations designed to rebuild direct access outside the institutional frame. That plan became the foundation of her first three months of independent work.
The knowledge and access picture carries forward directly into the business model. Low knowledge ratings point toward activities that need to be prioritized before the model can be credibly constructed: research, learning, and relationship-building. Low access ratings point toward partners and network investments the model needs to account for explicitly. Nothing here is terminal. Everything here is actionable — but only if the assessment reflects what is actually true rather than what the team wishes were true.
→ Supported by the Founders’ Knowledge and Access worksheet and guide · New Venture Innovation Process
Pulling It All Together Before You Move On
The Step Most Founders Skip — and Why That Matters
Earlier versions of the work we do with entrepreneurs moved directly from the viability and knowledge assessments into business model development, trusting that founding teams would carry the right insights forward on their own. In practice, that trust was routinely misplaced. Teams arrived at the business model with four completed pieces of work and no coherent picture of what they collectively revealed. Important insights from the ecosystem mapping failed to surface in the customer segments. Knowledge gaps were noted and then forgotten. The Opportunity Statement remained unchanged even after the viability work had made clear it needed revision. The integration step was implicitly required but never explicitly done, and so it was almost always skipped.
We added a formal synthesis step to correct that. Its purpose is to force the kind of consolidation that experienced practitioners do intuitively but that most founders never do at all: step back from the individual pieces, find the pattern across them, name what has actually changed in your thinking, and make a deliberate decision about whether you are ready to move forward.
The synthesis has four components.
The first is a distillation of key findings, the single most important insight from each of the four prior stages, written in two to four sentences. Not a summary of what you did. The insight that actually changes something about how you see the venture. Most founders, when asked what they learned from the ecosystem mapping, will describe what they found rather than what it means. The distinction matters. The contents describe what you encountered. Insights describe what changes about the direction and viability of your venture. Forcing that distinction four times in writing produces the kind of clarity that makes everything that follows more focused.
The second is a critical assumption inventory, the three to five beliefs that, if wrong, would most fundamentally threaten the venture. Not a comprehensive list of everything you do not yet know. A deliberate prioritization of the assumptions that carry the most risk, the ones that are both highly uncertain and highly consequential. These become the direct inputs for your customer discovery work. The assumptions you name here are the ones you will be designing conversations around when you sit down with real customers.
The third is a revised Opportunity Statement. Not cosmetic editing of the original. Teams that have done the ecosystem mapping, viability assessment, and knowledge work with genuine rigor almost always find that meaningful revision is required. The target customer becomes more specific or different. The barriers are reframed in light of what the ecosystem actually revealed. The metrics sharpen from aspirational to operational. The version of the Opportunity Statement that emerges here is the one that carries into the business model — it populates the first blocks of the canvas. If the revision is superficial, those blocks will be superficial too.
The fourth is a readiness decision. Three options: proceed, pause, or pivot. Proceed means the signals are strong enough and the picture is coherent enough to commit to building a business model. Pause means specific unresolved questions need answers, with a named plan for how to get them, before that work can be done with integrity. Pivot means something fundamental in the opportunity framing that needs to change before any further work makes sense.
The Meridian Team’s synthesis produced a pause. Not because their venture was unviable, the signals across their four stages were genuinely encouraging, but because their critical assumption inventory had surfaced a question they could not yet answer: did mid-market supply chain compliance officers actually have authority over the tooling decisions their platform would require, or did those decisions live in IT procurement? The entire customer access strategy for their discovery work depended on the answer. Moving forward without it would have meant designing conversations around the wrong person.
They spent two weeks resolving that question through targeted outreach to three compliance professionals in their extended network. The answer, that tooling decisions were split between compliance and IT in most of the organizations they targeted, with different stakeholder dynamics in each, fundamentally reshaped their customer profile and their approach to market entry. That two-week pause paid dividends across every stage of work that followed.
This first stage is the least expensive place in the entire process to be honest about what you do not yet know.
The worst outcome at this stage is a nominal proceeding that papers over genuine uncertainty. That uncertainty does not disappear when you move to the business model. It compounds, in every canvas block that rests on an untested assumption, in every customer conversation designed around the wrong hypothesis, in every market sizing calculation built on a customer profile that has never been confirmed. This first stage is the least expensive place in the entire process, to be honest about what you do not yet know. The synthesis is where that honesty becomes explicit, and something you can actually act on.
→ Supported by the Module Synthesis worksheet · New Venture Innovation Process
What You Are Building Toward
This first stage of the innovation process does not produce a business. It produces something more durable, a precise, honest articulation of who your customer is, what they are genuinely trying to accomplish, what stands between them and that outcome, and whether you and your team are positioned to address it.
Everything that follows is built on that foundation. The business model takes its customer segments and value proposition directly from your revised Opportunity Statement. The customer discovery work tests the critical assumptions you named in the synthesis. The market analysis extends and deepens the ecosystem mapping you began here. Product prioritization draws from what customers tell you about the behaviors and barriers you identified at the start.
If the foundation is vague, if your target customer is a demographic rather than a described person, if your barriers are generic friction rather than named obstacles, if your metrics are aspirational rather than operational, everything built on it will be unstable. A well-framed opportunity does not guarantee a successful venture. But a poorly framed one almost guarantees that the real customer insight arrives too late, after significant investment in the wrong direction.
The Meridian Team, Amara, Sung-jin, Fatima, and Renée all finished this stage with Opportunity Statements that looked substantially different from what they had written or imagined writing before they began. All five had encountered the specific discomfort of discovering that their initial confidence was built on something less solid than customer understanding. All five were, by the end of it, working on more interesting problems than the ones they had started with.
That is what this work is for. Not to validate what you already believe. To show you what you need to learn next.
Start with the customer. The idea will follow.
© 2026 Venture for All® · Learn · Innovate · Thrive
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Innovate & Thrive to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.