Founders who try hardest to set their solution aside often reveal just how challenging it is to let go.
The spokesperson began the coaching session with a promise. She explained that the team had spent the week stepping back from their end product. The first thing anyone thinks of is what they want to build, she said, so they aimed to start from the problem instead. Yet her next sentence described their concept: an AI-based tool.
No one on her team noticed. The question, “ What is the problem?”, came back four times in a row. Only after repeated asking did the answer shift to describe a person struggling, rather than a product meant to fix it.
This team was not unusual. Over several weeks of early coaching and written work with three groups of founders, including experienced executives and graduate students, the same pattern kept appearing. Founders could recite the rule: understand the problem before designing the solution. Yet within minutes, they broke it. Many corrected themselves when someone pointed it out. Still, the solution showed up again somewhere else.
What Solution Bias Is
a rule everyone knows and almost no one follows
Solution bias means defining the problem, the customer, and the plan around a solution the founder already has in mind. It is the most persistent obstacle in early venture work. Even knowing about it offers little protection.
The clearest place to see it is the opportunity statement. An opportunity statement describes a specific customer, in a specific situation, trying to reach an outcome: what that person would have to do repeatedly to get there, and what currently stops them. It is written before any product exists, and it should still make sense if no product is ever built. That second sentence is the test this whole article returns to.
This bias has many sources. Expertise is one. A founder who knows how to build software tends to see gaps that software could fill. Employment is another. If a founder’s company already sells a fix, it is hard to see the problem without that fix. Personal experience can supply a vivid story that feels like a market. Underneath all three is something more basic. Uncertainty is uncomfortable, and a product feels concrete. When a founder must write down something they don't yet know, the imagined solution is often the most solid thing in reach.
Consider a founding team building a venture for small trucking companies, fleets of eight to forty trucks. All three founders came from logistics operations. They had watched owners learn about mechanical problems at the worst possible moment: a truck stranded on a highway shoulder, a load late, a tow bill, a driver waiting. The problem looks much the same whether the yard sits outside Leeds, Lagos, or Monterrey. Before they wrote a word, they knew what they wanted to build: real-time fleet health visibility.
This team was capable and responded to every piece of feedback. That is exactly why their path is worth following.
The Problem Shaped Like the Product
when the gap being described is the founder’s own idea
The team’s first opportunity statement read: “The opportunity involves helping small fleet operators achieve reliable vehicles by facilitating real-time fleet health visibility and maintenance embedded in daily operations.”
The customer’s real problem, breakdowns discovered at the roadside and repairs scheduled around the last emergency, appeared only in the second sentence. The first sentence described the product. In that sentence, the venture acted, and the fleet operator was merely the target.
Uncertainty is uncomfortable, and a product feels concrete.
This is the most common form of solution bias, and it does its damage early. When a problem is defined as the absence of a product, every later step is set up to confirm that gap. Discovery then looks for the missing product and always finds it, because the product does not exist yet.
The same move appeared everywhere. One team began its problem description by noting there was no app for this. That sentence named a missing product but described no one’s struggle. Another team proposed helping experienced professionals find short-term project work, which already assumed the answer was a job. When asked what the professionals needed underneath that, the team found three possibilities: extra income, new experience, and a sense of purpose. Each one pointed toward a different customer.
The counterexample came from a team concerned about children suffering head injuries on bikes and scooters. Their first instinct pointed at helmets. The reframe was simple. Helmets exist, in large numbers and at every price. The question worth an entire venture is why people who own them do not wear them. That shift moved the problem from a product category to human behavior, where opportunities live.
Questions that expose it:
What is the problem? Ask it again until the answer stops describing a product.
Would this problem exist if nobody ever built anything?
Is this the need, or already an answer? What sits underneath?
The solution already exists somewhere. Why isn’t it being used?
Behaviors That Need the Product First
usage written as action
The fleet team listed its key behaviors, the actions customers would need to take repeatedly for the outcome to arrive, as “continuous monitoring,” “centralized maintenance records,” and “data-driven maintenance decisions.”
If you ask who performs continuous monitoring, the answer is a system. None of these behaviors describe something a driver, dispatcher, or owner did last week. They describe what the founders’ platform would do once it exists.
Founders in every group wrote behaviors this way. One founder building a support platform wrote that her customer logs in each morning to check progress. A team connecting volunteers with schools wrote that volunteers browse and sign up. Each example describes use of a product that does not yet exist. If you remove the product, the behavior disappears too.
The harm appears in discovery. Interviews built around these behaviors can only test reactions to a pitch. If you ask a fleet owner about continuous monitoring, they will say it sounds useful. That answer is an attitude, and attitudes are the weakest evidence an early venture can collect. A behavior that holds up can be phrased in the past tense and checked. For example, did a dispatcher pull a truck from a run because of a warning light in the last month?
That question revealed something the team had missed. In their venture, the owner pays, the dispatcher schedules the trucks, and the driver’s daily habits decide whether a fault gets caught in the yard or on the highway. Drivers had not appeared anywhere in the team’s work. The behavior was missing because it belonged to someone who hadn't been named yet.
Once drivers came into view, a watchable behavior appeared almost immediately. Every driver is supposed to walk around the truck and check it before leaving the yard. The inspection form already exists. The real question is why the check gets skipped when a load is late and the dispatcher is calling. This is the helmet question again, and we can observe it tomorrow morning without building anything.
Questions that expose it:
Could you stand in the yard and watch someone do it?
Does this behavior exist if the product is never built?
If you could only observe them and never ask what they think, what would you see?
Walk me through the last time this went wrong.
Whose behavior is this?
Specific in the Wrong Way
the invented number and the empty abstraction
Feedback on the first draft asked the team to make its outcomes measurable. The revision came back with two: every truck road-ready every morning and a 70 percent cut in unplanned repair hours.
No fleet owner had been interviewed. Neither figure had a source. The team noticed this themselves and removed both numbers in the next version, which deserves credit. Catching your own overreach between drafts is the discipline that early venture work depends on.
Then the team replaced its product-shaped behaviors with new ones: “proactive maintenance culture,” “systems thinking,” and “evidence-based decisions.” The product was gone, but what remained were orientations, states of mind that no one could watch anyone perform.
If you take the product away, the behavior disappears too.
The mechanism behind both moves is the same. An abstract outcome gives a founder nothing concrete to observe. When asked for specificity, the founder reaches for the most concrete thing available. Early on, that is usually the product or a number. Both look like progress, so they're easy to accept.
Other founders showed the pattern in different forms. Outcomes like feeling less stressed or living a more fulfilling life led to behaviors built from awareness, desire, and intention. One team focused on endless phone scrolling eventually recognized the scrolling as a symptom, which pointed their search one level deeper.
The question that worked asked what the outcome would look like from the outside. For the fleet team, reliable vehicles became things anyone could count: fewer trucks towed back to the yard, repairs booked before a part fails, faults reported by drivers before departure. Once the outcome could be seen, the behaviors that produce it became visible too.
Questions that expose it:
If this works, what would someone see change in this customer’s week?
What does the customer measure today to know things are going well?
Where did this number come from?
Is this the problem, or a symptom of something deeper?
The Solution Moves Into the Plan
persistence as the measure of the bias
By its third draft, the fleet team’s opportunity statement was clear. The customer came first, the problem was stated in the customer’s terms, and no product appeared anywhere.
Then the team started building a business model, and the product found new places to appear. The plan for reaching customers began with pilot fleets. A list of solution requirements described connecting sensor data to maintenance schedules. The revenue section explained that owners already pay for telematics, so a subscription would fit. In the record where the team documented why its thinking had changed, one entry read: visibility should reduce breakdowns. A prediction about the product sat in the space meant for evidence.
This was the most striking finding across all the groups. In one cohort, every team that submitted a business model showed some version of this pattern. One listed an app store as its first discovery channel before anyone had been interviewed. Another described what customers currently pay as an established fact, even though its first interviews were still on the to-do list. Several named pilot programs as the path to proof. Teams that had cleaned their opportunity statements still carried the solution forward into the next document.
There is a fair explanation. Planning questions such as how to reach customers, what to learn next, and how to charge are hard to answer without some picture of a solution. Founders answer with the only picture they have. The mistake is in tense. A guess about the future gets written down as a description of the present. “Owners already pay for this” reads as a fact, but it is really an assumption waiting for evidence.
That persistence is the clearest measure of how strong solution bias can be. Fixing the statement did not fix the thinking. It only moved the product to the next open space on the page. The practical defense is simple. Every answer to a planning question should stay labeled as an assumption until someone outside the founding team confirms it.
Questions that expose it:
Is this a fact, or a guess written as one?
What evidence exists for this today?
What happens to this plan if the answer is not a platform?
Who pays, who uses it, whose behavior has to change, and who has to say yes?
Who Asks the Questions
why the test works best in someone else’s hands
If these questions are so effective, founders might think they can simply ask them of themselves. The evidence suggests otherwise.
When one group of founders was asked whether an observer could watch their key behaviors happen, nearly everyone answered yes, even for behaviors like becoming more aware or wanting to take action. Founders tend to grade their own work generously. One founder answered no and explained why. A single visit can show someone doing a practice, but consistency is a pattern over time, and no single observation captures it. That answer was sharper than the question, and it was rare.
Fixing the statement did not fix the thinking. It only moved the product to the next open space on the page.
Written feedback has limits too. One team received a concrete example of an observable behavior along with its critique, but its next draft still contained orientations. A rule, even one with an example, is easy to agree with and hard to apply to your own sentences.
The questions had impact when someone else asked them. A coach who stops listening the moment a solution enters the conversation. A small group of peers who are only allowed to ask questions and never to give advice: Could I watch this happen? Does it exist if your product is never built? What has to be true for them to do it this week? Eventually, customers themselves answer the most useful request in early discovery: walk me through the last time a truck broke down.
When the Behavior Won’t Come
The fleet team’s work is not finished. Its opportunity statement is clear, drivers have entered the picture, and a behavior anyone could watch at six in the morning in any yard now sits where “continuous monitoring” used to be. The business model still carries the product in some places, and the next round of work will show whether evidence can move what feedback alone could not.
The pattern across all these founders points to one practical lesson. When a founder cannot write a behavior that someone could watch, the difficulty usually sits one line above. Either the outcome is too abstract to observe, or the behavior belongs to a person nobody has named yet. Fixing that line makes the behavior much easier to find.
Every founder in these sessions will build something, but a solution earns its place only when real evidence demands it.
The examples in this article are drawn from observed founder cohorts. We've changed identifying details, and the ventures are composites.
To Our Valued Paid Subscribers,
We sincerely appreciate your ongoing investment in our mission. While we love providing foundational insights to our entire network, your subscription is what fuels the deep-dive research and community building here at Venture for All.
As a reminder, here is your exclusive dashboard of benefits:
All Free-Tier Content & Archives: Unrestricted access to every strategy breakdown and case study.
Direct Q&A Access (1/month): You are invited to submit one (1) strategic venture question per month via our private portal to receive a direct, personalized response from me to help you navigate your current milestones.
Facilitated Subscriber Chat: Full, exclusive access to our subscriber-only Substack Chat community to network, share resources, and problem-solve alongside fellow founders.
Note: Core proprietary worksheets and live coaching sessions are excluded from this standard tier.
🚀 The Inner Circle: Innovator Status
To our elite Innovator Members ($600/year), thank you for your visionary leadership and deep commitment to driving impactful venture growth. Your premium membership unlocks our highest tier of direct, hands-on advisory support:
Elite 1-on-1 Strategic Coaching: Four (4) private, 30-minute coaching sessions per year (one per quarter) directly with me to review your pitch deck, business model, or market validation strategy (a $600 standalone consulting value).
The VFA Proprietary Toolkit: Full, complimentary access to our premium, professional-grade worksheets, execution guides, and implementation templates (a $250 standalone value).
Priority Direct Chat: A restricted, direct-line chat access for high-level, real-time advisory feedback on your active venture milestones.
How to Action Your Benefits:
Paid Subscribers: Drop into the Substack Chat tab to connect with the community or submit this month’s venture question.
Innovators: To schedule your Q1 strategic coaching session or request your toolkit access codes, please reply directly to me via email or message through your priority chat line.
Thank you all for being the driving force behind Venture for All. We are incredibly honored to partner with you on your entrepreneurial journey, and look forward to everything we will achieve together!