Essays/linkedin/26-03-09 who wants it

<p>Week 2 in the spinout journey: "Who wants it?" Just because we are doing something new, does not mean there will be anyone interested, so how do we find out the <em>value</em> of our idea? </p> <p>Last week we made an inventory of the resources you have available. From patents to network. Now we need to explore who will be interested in our ideas. </p> <p>One of the resources that is worth tapping into as early as possible is the network of the university. Especially while you are a PhD or postdoc, you have access to the professors around you. Most will have time for a chat, many will be willing to open the doors one step further and connecting with others. </p> <p>So, the first step of understanding who may be interested, is to start talking to people. </p> <p>In my experience, introverts do a great job in this stage: there's no need to grab all the attention onto yourself, but rather focus on meaningful 1:1 conversations, face to face if possible. </p> <p>Identifying who cares and why is not about "selling" but rather following your own curiosity. It is learning to ask open-ended questions, and to make them relatable to the person. </p> <p>Once I was talking to a flow-cytometer user. A senior researcher in a pharma company who was fixated in using the tool to measure the size of some nanoparticles. This was a pattern I had observed over and over: the wrong tool for the task, the wrong question for the tool. After following his own train of thought, the truth was revealed: "I don't really care about size, I just need to know how many particles there are". </p> <p>Bingo! What I always assumed it was a problem (measuring size of small objects) had been reframed into a different context: measuring concentration. </p> <p>With a quick literature scan, I could now validate that most results from flow cytometers were being used only for their concentration value, size was reported but not used. So next person I talked to I knew exactly what train of thought to pursue to validate the need was not exclusive to this one person. </p> <p>During these conversations, it is important to have an inkling, something you want to pursue, but not defining it too narrowly. Especially when you are pursuing the outcome of a research program that may have spanned more than one PhD, we tend to focus too narrowly into some benefits that may not be the most valuable ones. </p> <p>In my case, I had a system that could measure size extremely accurately. That was the key metric that was optimized over time. Getting a particle diameter with nanometer accuracy in an optical microscope is not mean feat for a physicist. For our intended users, it was not that relevant. </p> <p>This realization didn't come since the beginning. It took years to find the path, prototypes that would trigger conversations, pilots with customers, etc. </p> <p>But if I knew, back when I was starting, how to focus on others' problems rather than on the tech I was developing, I could have moved much faster. </p> <p>The core behavior change is to focus on the other rather than on ourselves. It's easier to say, I know, but a true accelerator to development. </p> <p>Those who neglect what users are actually expressing (especially if a sentence like one of these comes to mind: "they don't understand it", "they are not ready, we are too good", etc.) are likely going to miss out, develop tools no one wants, and sacrifice resources pursuing the wrong lines of thought. </p> <p>What is your secret to find unmet user needs, what type of questions do you ask to understand if there is an opportunity that you can address? Do you focus on your tech or on your user?</p>