| name | problem-insight-solution-formula |
| description | When opening a strategy doc, deck, or kickoff, force the structure as Problem → Insight → Solution. Separates the commercial gap from the human barrier, demands a real human-truth insight (not a data point), and requires the solution to be a guiding policy not a tactic. Prevents jumping to tactics before agreeing on what's actually wrong. |
| composition_level | atom |
| extraction-lens | capability |
| source_attribution | Matt Bond + Julian Cole (Strategy Finishing School, via Hivemind Library) |
| license | pending-consent |
| status | candidate |
Problem → Insight → Solution Formula
When to use
- Opening a strategy doc, deck, or kickoff
- Stakeholder alignment session where teams disagree on what to solve
- Early-stage problem definition before campaign planning
- Brief that's "messy" and needs spine
When NOT to use
- Tactical execution work (the solution slot is for guiding policy, not tactics)
- Already-aligned teams executing a clear strategy
- Pure creative briefs (use
get-to-by-brief-generation instead)
Core procedure
Step 1: Define the Problem (in two parts)
The problem is NEVER what the client says it is. Force two layers:
Business problem — the commercial gap.
Example: "Sign-ups are flat at 3% conversion despite increased traffic."
Consumer problem — the behavioral or perceptual barrier.
Example: "Users see this as a 'tool' purchase decision when it's actually an 'identity' decision — they can't articulate why they'd want it."
If you can only state one of these, the problem isn't fully defined. Pause until both are stated.
Step 2: Find the Insight
The insight is a human truth that flips the obvious and reveals tension.
Test: the insight should make the audience feel seen. Not informed — seen.
Anti-test: if the "insight" is a data point ("60% of users say X"), it's not an insight. Data is evidence. Insight is the human truth the data points at.
Example data: "60% of users abandon during signup."
Insight derived: "People are scared they'll commit to an identity they can't yet justify."
Step 3: Define the Solution (as guiding policy)
The solution is a guiding policy — not a tactic, not a channel plan.
Test: if your solution could apply to any brand, it's not sharp enough. Re-write until it's specific to this business + this insight.
Wrong (could apply to any brand): "Build trust through transparency."
Right (specific): "Make it possible to participate fully without committing to the identity yet — let people lurk meaningfully."
Output format
PROBLEM
Business: [commercial gap]
Consumer: [behavioral/perceptual barrier]
INSIGHT
[human truth that flips the obvious]
SOLUTION
[guiding policy specific to this insight]
Output use
This three-slot structure becomes the spine of:
- Strategy deck: Problem slide → Insight slide → Strategy statement slide
- Kickoff doc: opening narrative
- Stakeholder alignment: shared starting frame
Failure modes to flag
- Solution = channel plan ("we'll run LinkedIn ads"). Reject; that's tactics, not strategy.
- Insight = data point. Reject; surface the human truth the data implies.
- Problem = single layer. Demand both business and consumer layers before proceeding.
- Generic solution. If the solution could apply to a competitor, rewrite.
- Insight that reads as obvious. If the audience nods because they already knew it, it's not an insight — it's an observation. Insights flip obvious assumptions.
