I would still consider myself a newbie in the entrepreneurial world, as I’ve been developing a first-time concept/product for only a year now. This caveat aside, I must say that as I’ve perused various forums and message boards in which first-time entrepreneurs seek advice with the nascent stages of their own concepts, I’ve been surprised to see so many veterans recommend identifying a “problem” as the first step. I understand the importance of this. However, should every entrepreneurial endeavor be couched in terms of a solution to a problem? I realize that in retrospect, virtually any extant product can be framed in this light, given that we can retroactively graft problems into products/solutions. For example, we can now say that SnapChat, among other solutions this app provides, facilitates the transience of the photographed image which, in turn, reduces anxieties over one’s permanent presence on social-media platforms. But if the founders had conducted in-depth analyses of this “problem” among potential users at the outset, how many of them would have acknowledged it? What I’m trying to get at is this: if people aren’t always aware of the “problems” they have, should we really tailor our start-up methodologies only around users for whom problems are explicit and salient? Can something be said for “visionaries” who see market space despite the very users who will one day occupy it not seeing this space themselves? Again, I’m not saying that problems can’t or shouldn’t be identifiable through the people who have them; if a problem obviously exists, take advantage of it. Nevertheless, I think there should be greater tactical nuance to how we go about negotiating what founders envision and what consumers want. Any thoughts, references, etc.?