Invisible Solutions: Unlock Hidden Opportunities by Asking Better Questions

Quick Orientation

Stephen Shapiro, an industrial engineer turned innovation expert, presents a left-brained, structured approach to creativity and problem-solving in “Invisible Solutions.” This book challenges the traditional, often inefficient, methods of idea generation and suggests that the key to uncovering truly valuable solutions lies not in finding better answers, but in asking better, more precisely framed questions. Shapiro provides a powerful toolkit of 25 lenses designed to help individuals and organizations systematically reframe challenges, overcome cognitive biases, and reveal innovative solutions that might otherwise remain hidden in plain sight. Every concept, example, and tool from the book is captured and explained in plain language here.

Introduction: A Left-Brained Approach to Innovation

This introductory section explains the author’s journey from efficiency-focused engineering to innovation, highlighting the need for a more structured, less free-form approach to creativity. It argues that true innovation stems from defining and solving important problems, rather than just generating novel ideas.

Innovation as Problem Solving

Innovation isn’t just about new ideas; it’s fundamentally about identifying and solving crucial problems.

Engineer’s perspective: The author, with a background in industrial engineering, sought to bring structure and predictability to the often-chaotic process of innovation.
Shift to creation: Witnessing the job losses caused by process optimization led to a desire to use innovation to create jobs and growth.
Defining success: Innovation is most effective when focused on defining and solving problems that truly matter to a business.
Problem-solving for everyone: Viewing innovation through the lens of problem-solving makes it accessible to all, not just a select few “creative” individuals.

The Importance of Asking the Right Questions

The quality of solutions is directly tied to the quality of the questions asked. Poorly framed questions lead to irrelevant or incremental answers.

Baggage claim example: The airport initially focused on speeding up bags (“How can we speed up the bags?”), an overly specific question that led to expensive, ineffective solutions.
Reframing: Changing the question to “How can we reduce wait time?” revealed that slowing down passengers was a more effective solution.
Further reframing: Shifting again to “How can we improve the wait experience?” opened up even broader possibilities, as seen in theme park strategies like those at Universal Studios.
Problem definition is key: The least understood but most crucial step in innovation is clearly defining the problem.

The Problem with Abstract Questions

Overly broad or abstract questions, like those often found in suggestion boxes, produce a high volume of low-value ideas.

Deepwater Horizon example: Asking “How can we stop the flow of oil?” yielded 123,000 suggestions, none of which worked because the question was too broad and ambiguous.
Brain’s preference: The brain struggles with abstraction and tries to map new information to past experiences, limiting the range of potential solutions.
Need for boundaries: Well-framed challenges with appropriate boundaries help the brain process information effectively and generate more relevant solutions.

The Problem with Overly Specific Questions

Questions that are too narrow can limit the search for solutions to a restricted area, potentially missing better options.

Exxon Valdez example: Experts struggled to solve “How can we prevent an oil–water mixture from freezing?” because it implied a solution within oil or freezing technology.
Reframing to viscous shear: Reframing the problem as “How can we prevent viscous shear in a dense liquid?” revealed a solution from the construction industry (cement).
Goldilocks Principle: The ideal question is “just right” – balanced between too abstract and too specific, providing a useful framework without being overly restrictive.

The Imperative for Problem Solving in a Changing World

Companies that rely on past success or fail to adapt their problem-solving approaches face the risk of irrelevance.

Sears example: Despite its past dominance, Sears failed because it continued to solve problems based on outdated assumptions, making it irrelevant in a changing retail landscape.
Challenging assumptions: Success requires leaders and employees to question their beliefs about their industry, customers, and how things “should” be done.
Hyper-speed change: The world is changing exponentially, requiring organizations to innovate faster than ever before.
Most critical skills: The World Economic Forum highlights complex problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity as the most important skills for the future.

Why People Don’t Want Creativity

Despite the call for innovation, psychological biases can make people resistant to truly novel ideas.

Anti-creativity bias: Studies using the Implicit Association Test show that people subconsciously associate creativity with negative words, even when they consciously claim to desire it.
Novelty vs. Practicality: Novelty can be perceived as risky due to the uncertainty it introduces, leading evaluators to favor safer, more familiar solutions.
Uncertainty’s double edge: Uncertainty drives the need for creative ideas but also makes it harder to recognize and accept them.

This introduction sets the stage for the book’s central argument: the path to impactful innovation is paved with well-framed, carefully considered questions, not a flood of unguided ideas.

Chapter 1: Better Questions Lead to Better Answers

This chapter reinforces the core idea that the way a problem is phrased profoundly impacts the range and quality of potential solutions. It uses compelling examples to show how simple changes in wording can shift perspective and unlock better answers.

The Power of Phrasing

Slight variations in how a question is worded can drastically alter the range of solutions considered and the outcomes achieved.

Baggage claim revisited: The airport’s initial question (“How can we speed up the bags?”) limited solutions to improving baggage handling. Reframing to “How can we reduce wait time?” and then “How can we improve the wait experience?” expanded the scope significantly.
Disney/Universal example: Theme parks excel at improving the “wait experience,” showing that the focus can be on the journey, not just reducing the time spent waiting.
Dental experts: “How can we make teeth whiter?” led to bleaches/abrasives; “Who else makes whites whiter?” led to laundry bluing agents.
Working blind: Many companies fail at problem definition, leading to irrelevant solutions because they are effectively wearing blinders due to poor questioning.

Questions Impact Your Thought Process

The structure and focus of a question can guide the solver’s mental approach and efficiency.

March Madness example: Asking “How many games to determine the champion?” leads to drawing a bracket and counting, often slowly and with errors.
Reframing the question: Asking “How many games to eliminate all losers?” immediately reveals the answer (63 games for 64 teams), demonstrating a much faster, more insightful thought process.
Accelerating solutions: Asking the right question in the right way is a direct path to finding better solutions more quickly.
Tiny changes, big impact: Even a small alteration in phrasing can shift perspective and reveal previously unseen possibilities.

Questions Impact Your Emotional State

Questions can tap into different emotional motivators, influencing motivation and decision-making.

Mattress commercials: The “best night’s sleep” commercial focused on gain; the “millions of dust mites” commercial focused on pain.
Emotional driver: The fear and disgust generated by the dust mite example were far more effective at driving purchase than the promise of comfort.
Theatre example: Telling the audience about the dust mites in the theatre seats caused a visceral, immediate reaction, highlighting the power of emotion-based questioning.
Beyond facts: Effective questions go beyond data and results to connect with people on an emotional level.

This chapter firmly establishes the critical relationship between question formulation and the ability to find effective, impactful, and even emotionally resonant solutions.

Chapter 2: What’s the Impact of Poor Questions?

This chapter delves deeper into the negative consequences of asking ineffective questions, particularly how they restrict thinking, reinforce biases, and lead to wasted effort.

The Jury Study: Wording Matters

The choice of even a single word in a question can dramatically influence outcomes by changing the focus of consideration.

Custody case: Asking “who should get custody?” led juries to focus on positive attributes (Parent B’s income, relationship).
Flipped question: Asking “who should not get custody?” led juries to focus on negative attributes (Parent B’s travel, health issues).
Outcome reversed: The exact same set of facts resulted in opposite decisions based solely on the question’s phrasing.
Single word power: This illustrates the immense power of linguistic choices in framing problems and influencing decisions.

The NASA Dirty Laundry Challenge: Different Questions, Different Solutions

This example shows how reframing a question can shift the entire domain of potential solutions.

Original question: “How can we get clothes clean?” focused solutions on cleaning methods and fluids, likely within a traditional cleaning domain.
Reframed question: “How can we keep clothes clean?” shifted the focus to prevention and material science.
New solution: This led to the concept of clothing with built-in antimicrobials.
Unlocking new possibilities: Changing a single word opened up a completely new area of exploration and a different type of solution.

This chapter reinforces the high stakes involved in question formulation, showing how poor questions can lead to flawed decision-making and missed opportunities, while effective questions unlock a wider, more relevant set of possibilities.

Chapter 3: Why Do We Ask Terrible Questions?

This chapter explores the psychological and cognitive reasons behind our tendency to ask ineffective questions, primarily focusing on our brain’s wiring for survival and its tendency towards confirmation bias.

The Hardware Store Puzzle: Asking Questions to Confirm Beliefs

This puzzle demonstrates how our minds often formulate hypotheses and then ask questions designed only to validate those initial guesses, rather than gather new information.

Puzzle setup: The price of items (6 for $6, 12 for $12, 24 for $12) is presented, and listeners can ask yes/no questions to identify the item.
Predictable questions: Most people ask questions related to common hardware items (metal, BOGO, screws/nails) based on their initial assumptions.
Validation vs. Exploration: These questions are designed to confirm existing beliefs (“Is it a BOGO?”) rather than explore possibilities (“Is 48 for $12?”).
Overcoming the tendency: Consciously identify assumptions and ask non-leading questions focused on gathering data.
Correct answer: The item is house numbers ($6 per digit), which is revealed by asking questions focused on the quantity purchased for a given price.

The Brain Is Wired for Survival

Our brains are predisposed to favor familiar patterns and past experiences because they represent safety. This leads to assumptions that can hinder new thinking.

Perpetuating the past: The brain defaults to what has worked before to ensure survival.
Neural pathways: Deep pathways are created for familiar concepts, making them the default responses.
Snap judgments: Past experiences lead to quick assumptions, which are useful in immediate danger (like spotting a saber-toothed cat) but limiting in complex business problems.
Change is risky: Our wiring makes change difficult because it threatens the perceived safety of the status quo.

The Brain Rewards Assumptions

We are psychologically inclined to hold onto our assumptions, even when they are faulty, because finding information that supports them is rewarding.

Confirmation bias: This phenomenon causes us to seek and interpret information in a way that confirms our existing beliefs, while disregarding contradictory evidence.
Blind spots: Assumptions create blind spots that prevent us from seeing what is truly happening or considering alternative perspectives.
Kodak example: Kodak’s assumption that it was a “film company” blinded it to the potential of digital photography, which it actually invented.
Reward mechanism: The brain activates reward areas when information supports our beliefs, reinforcing the tendency to stick to assumptions.
Awareness helps: Simply being aware of confirmation bias can reduce its impact, though it requires conscious effort to challenge one’s own beliefs.

The Twenty-Five Lenses

The 25 lenses are a systematic tool designed to help overcome these cognitive biases and challenge assumptions by providing different frameworks for viewing problems.

Systematic reframing: The lenses offer structured ways to look at a challenge from multiple angles.
Bringing assumptions to the surface: Using the lenses forces you to question the underlying beliefs embedded in a problem statement.
Categories of lenses: Lenses are grouped by their function: Reduce Abstraction, Increase Abstraction, Change Perspective, Switch Elements, and Zero-In.
Tool for objectivity: The lenses provide a method to increase objectivity and avoid being overly influenced by past experiences or biases.

Questioning Your Assumptions

Actively identifying and challenging assumptions is crucial for effective problem definition.

List assumptions: Explicitly write down beliefs about the problem, industry, customers, etc.
Genealogy of assumptions: Explore the underlying assumptions that support a stated assumption.
Storytelling: Listen to stories from employees and customers to uncover implicit assumptions.
Force the opposite: Consider the implications if your assumptions were false and explore alternative realities.
Restaurant example: Listing assumptions about a restaurant (customers sit, order, pay) can reveal opportunities when challenged (customers serve/cook, no prices listed).

This chapter concludes by emphasizing that recognizing our inherent biases and actively using tools like the 25 lenses are essential steps toward formulating better questions and unlocking innovative solutions.

Chapter 4: About the Lenses

This chapter provides guidance on how to use the 25 lenses effectively, emphasizing that practice is key and outlining the structure of each lens description.

The Challenge of Reframing

While simple in concept, effectively reframing questions is a skill that requires practice.

Not natural: Reframing doesn’t come naturally because it challenges our usual thought patterns.
Building a muscle: Consistent practice with the lenses makes the process easier and more effective over time.
Exciting potential: Seeing the new possibilities that emerge from reframing can be a motivating factor.
Internal champions: Identify individuals who naturally reframe challenges and involve them in the process.

Using the Lenses

A step-by-step guide to applying the lenses to any given problem or opportunity.

Identify a challenge: Start with any issue you want to address.
Write the statement: Frame it as a “How can we…” question.
Avoid binary questions: Focus on open-ended questions that explore possibilities, not yes/no options.
Apply multiple lenses: Review the cheat sheet and try applying different lenses to the challenge statement.
Force the fit: Don’t just use the obvious lenses; challenge yourself to apply even those that seem less relevant at first.
Generate variations: Create at least six different reframed questions using multiple lenses.
Avoid jumping to solutions: Stay focused on refining the question itself.
Apply lenses multiple times: Explore different ways a single lens can be applied to one problem.
Identify insight questions: Recognize when a question is needed to gather information rather than define a challenge.
Practice leads to results: Experiment to see which reframed questions yield the most valuable solutions.

The Lens Structure

Each lens description follows a consistent format to facilitate understanding and application.

Identifier: Name and brief description for quick reference.
When to Use This Lens: Guidance on suitable situations for application.
How to Use This Lens: Specific instructions and example questions.
Example(s) of This Lens in Action: Real-world or illustrative case studies.

Categories of Lenses

The lenses are organized into five categories to help users navigate and select the most appropriate ones for their needs.

Reduce Abstraction: For questions that are too broad.
Increase Abstraction: For questions that are too specific.
Change Perspective: For looking at the problem from different viewpoints.
Switch Elements: For problems with multiple interchangeable factors.
Zero-In: For ensuring you’re focusing on the right target.

This chapter serves as a practical guide, equipping the reader with the knowledge of how to approach and utilize the rest of the book’s core content: the 25 problem-formulation lenses.

Chapter 5: Reduce Abstraction

This chapter introduces the first category of lenses, specifically designed to make overly broad or abstract questions more specific and actionable.

Lens #1: Leverage – Solve for the Greatest Impact

This lens focuses on identifying the single factor or area within a broad challenge that, if addressed, would yield the most significant results with the least effort.

When to Use: When your question is too abstract (e.g., “increase revenues,” “improve productivity”).
How to Use: Ask: What is the one factor with the greatest impact? What gives us the greatest leverage? What’s the most important factor for change? What single aspect would yield the greatest result?
Requires data: Answering these questions often necessitates analyzing data to pinpoint key drivers (e.g., profitable customers, efficient processes).
UK Nonprofit Example: Instead of “fix the education system,” they identified the leverage point: positive parental involvement, leading to the question “How can we create an environment of positive parental involvement?”

Lens #2: Deconstruct – Break into Smaller Parts

This lens involves breaking down a broad challenge into multiple, more manageable sub-challenges when a single leverage point isn’t immediately clear.

When to Use: When a broad challenge lacks a clear leverage point.
How to Use: Break the challenge by parts/components, process steps, or different segments (customer groups, geography).
Consider interdependencies: Ensure that solving one part doesn’t negatively impact others.
Hotel Example: Instead of “improve guest experience,” they deconstructed by process steps (check-in, room service, check-out) and focused on “improve the check-in/check-out experience.”
Financial Services Example: Deconstructed call center operations by call complexity, focusing on optimizing “simple calls” handled by less expensive resources.

Lens #3: Reduce – Drop Expectations or Simplify

This lens suggests that sometimes lowering goals or simplifying aspects of a problem can lead to better outcomes and new opportunities, counteracting the negative effects of overly ambitious or complex targets.

When to Use: When complexity or stretch targets aren’t producing desired results or are causing dysfunction.
How to Use: Ask: How might lowering goals give a better result? How can reducing a target create opportunities? How can simplification increase usability?
Avoid dysfunctional behavior: Overly aggressive goals can lead to short-sighted actions that hurt long-term growth (Wells Fargo example).
Sporting Goods Example: Reduced the focus from a rigid revenue target to a combination of revenue and profitability goals, increasing margins.
Soap Manufacturer Example: Instead of “grow deodorant soap market share beyond 30%,” they asked “reinvent ourselves to capture 5% of a larger market” (toiletries), shifting focus and potentially expanding the business model.
Nintendo Wii Example: Simplified the user interface and graphics compared to competitors, making gaming accessible to a wider audience and achieving significant market success.

Lens #4: Eliminate – Get Rid of It

This lens challenges the assumption that an activity or component must be improved, instead asking if it can be removed entirely without negative consequences.

When to Use: When an activity doesn’t produce sufficient value.
How to Use: Ask: How can this be eliminated altogether? Before improving something, consider stopping it. Before adding features, ask which can be removed.
Efficiency quotes: Inspired by Drucker (“doing effectively that which should not be done at all”) and Saint-Exupéry (“Perfection is… when there is no longer anything to take away”).
Automotive Manufacturer Example: Eliminated the entire accounts payable process by paying suppliers based on vehicle contents upon leaving the plant.
Philip Morris International Example: Instead of “sell more cigarettes,” they reframed to “exit the cigarette business altogether,” leading to investment in reduced-harm products like iQOS.

Lens #5: Hyponym – Use More Specific Words

This lens focuses on reducing abstraction by replacing broad terms in the challenge statement with more specific words that are types of the original word.

When to Use: When the words in your problem statement are too broad.
How to Use: Ask: Is there a more specific instance of a word that can replace the original? (e.g., “rose” is a hyponym of “flower”).
Narrows focus: Using hyponyms restricts the possible solution set, making it easier to target specific needs.
Restaurateur Example: Instead of “attract more customers,” using the hyponym “regulars” leads to “How can we attract more regulars?” focusing on repeat business. Using “subscribers” opens up subscription service models.
“Move heavy item” Example: Replacing “move” with hyponyms like “spread,” “glide,” or “ski” generates different problem statements (e.g., “How can we glide the heavy item?”) leading to distinct solution approaches (e.g., reducing friction).

These five lenses provide concrete strategies for taking an abstract challenge and making it specific enough to facilitate focused problem-solving, ensuring efforts are directed towards tangible and solvable issues.

Chapter 6: Increase Abstraction

This chapter introduces the second category of lenses, designed to expand thinking and increase the range of possibilities when a challenge statement is too specific or constrained.

Lens #6: Analogy – Find Someone Similar

This lens involves reframing a problem to identify others who have solved a similar (but not identical) challenge in a different domain, then adapting their solutions.

When to Use: When you’re recycling past solutions or need a fresh approach.
How to Use: Ask: What is this like? Who else has solved a problem like this? Explore how solutions from dissimilar areas can be adapted.
Expands expertise: Moves the search for solutions beyond your own industry or area of expertise.
Dental/Laundry Example: Dentists looking to whiten teeth (“How can we make teeth whiter?”) used the analogy “Who else makes whites whiter?” leading to laundry detergent bluing agents and the development of a toothpaste with blue dye.
Gas Pipeline/Cardiovascular System Example: The gas pipeline industry struggling to seal cracks used the analogy “Who else solved a similar problem?” leading to insights from the cardiovascular system’s coagulation mechanisms and the development of an inert coagulant.

Lens #7: Result – Focus on What You Are Trying to Accomplish

This lens shifts the focus from a specific activity or assumed solution to the desired outcome or higher-level goal.

When to Use: When your question is focused on a specific activity rather than the ultimate objective.
How to Use: Ask: What does this make possible? What is the desired outcome? Reframe the question to focus on the result, not the means.
Broadens options: Focusing on outcomes opens up a wider range of potential solutions.
Consumer Goods Manufacturer Example: Instead of “speed up the R&D function,” they focused on the outcome “speed time-to-market,” revealing that delays were interdepartmental, leading to integrated development teams.
Beverage Company Example: Shifted from tracking repair calls (activity) to increasing machine uptime (result), which improved sales and customer satisfaction.
Leadership Development Example: Moved from “effectively use 360-degree feedback” (assumed solution) to “create powerful leaders” (desired outcome), opening up alternative development methods.

Lens #8: Concern Reframe – Convert Concerns to Questions

This lens transforms negative statements or perceived obstacles into questions that open up possibilities, counteracting resistance and the “yeah, but” mentality.

When to Use: When teammates raise concerns or make statements that shut down conversation (“We don’t have enough X,” “We’ve tried that”).
How to Use: Ask: How can we take a progress-blocking statement and convert it into a question starting with “How can we…?”
Opportunity from obstacle: Turns perceived limitations into opportunities for creative problem-solving.
Multiple questions: A single concern can often be reframed into multiple actionable questions.
Consumer Goods Company Example: The statement “We don’t have enough resources for IT work” was reframed as questions like “How can we do it with fewer resources?” “How can we do it more efficiently?” “How can we outsource the work?” leading to a creative partnering strategy.

Lens #9: Stretch – Raise Your Target

This lens stimulates radical innovation by setting extremely ambitious, sometimes seemingly impossible, goals that force the abandonment of conventional approaches.

When to Use: When you’re stuck generating only incremental solutions.
How to Use: Ask: Are our challenge criteria stretched enough? Are we shooting high enough? Try increasing goals significantly (e.g., 5% to 50% or 100%).
Forces new thinking: Achievable goals lead to incremental improvements; stretch goals necessitate entirely new models and approaches.
Ideal for innovation: Most effective during the solution development phase, though potentially problematic for day-to-day employee performance metrics (due to dysfunctional behavior risk).
Greeting-Card Company Example: Set a stretch goal to reduce concept-to-shelf time from 18-24 months to under a year, forcing cross-departmental collaboration and achieving a 4-month turnaround.
President Kennedy/Apollo Mission Example: The seemingly impossible goal of putting a man on the moon within a decade rallied national effort and led to unprecedented technological advancement.

Lens #10: Hypernym – Use Broader Words

This lens increases abstraction by replacing narrowly defined words in the challenge statement with broader terms (hypernyms) to expand the scope of consideration.

When to Use: When your problem statement is too specific and limiting.
How to Use: Ask: How can we replace a word with a less specific instance of the original? (e.g., “animal” is a hypernym of “dog”).
Expands range of options: Using hypernyms encourages looking beyond the immediate domain.
Tyson Foods Example: Shifted from being a “meat” company to a “protein” company, expanding their business to plant-based alternatives.
Natural Gas Company Example: Instead of “leverage our pipelines,” using the hypernyms “conduit,” “passage,” or “way” led to realizing the value of their pipeline rights-of-way for laying fiber-optic cable.
Author Example: Replacing “book” with the hypernym “product” when asking “How can I write a great book?” led to considering non-book products.
Everyday Life Example: Swapping “car” with “vehicle” or “transportation” when considering how to get to work opens up options like motorcycles, buses, ride-sharing, or even teleportation (conceptually).

These five lenses provide powerful methods for breaking free from narrow thinking and expanding the search for solutions when the initial problem framing is too restrictive.

Chapter 7: Change Perspective

This chapter explores lenses that encourage looking at a challenge from entirely new viewpoints, disrupting established ways of thinking and revealing different angles.

Lens #11: Resequence – Predict or Postpone a Decision

This lens challenges the assumed order of activities within a process, suggesting that changing the sequence (predicting, postponing, or parallelizing) can uncover new efficiencies or opportunities.

When to Use: When your challenge implies a fixed timing or sequence of events.
How to Use: If prediction is implied, ask: How can we delay a decision until later (more info)? If postponing is implied, ask: How can we make a decision earlier (less info)? If limited dependencies, ask: How can we perform tasks in parallel?
Upsides of postponing: Reduced waste, closer alignment with needs, less inventory.
Downsides of postponing: Potential increase in lead times, loss of economies of scale.
Upsides of predicting: Increased speed, efficiency, improved customer service.
Downsides of predicting: Wasted resources if predictions are wrong.
Paint Manufacturers Example: Postponed mixing paint colors until requested in store, reducing inventory.
Hospital Example: Predicted room availability instead of waiting for verification before accepting transferring patients, speeding up admissions and finding/preparing rooms in parallel with transport.

Lens #12: Reassign – Change Who Does the Work

This lens involves altering the assumption about who (person, department, company, non-human) performs a particular task within a challenge.

When to Use: When your challenge relies on a particular person or entity doing the work.
How to Use: Ask: Who else could perform this task? Genericize the question to remove the implied “who.” Reassign the work to something non-human (automation).
Unleashes creative solutions: Changing the doer can reveal entirely new process designs or partnerships.
Blurring industry boundaries: Particularly relevant when considering external partners or automation.
Supermarkets Example: Reassigned scanning work from cashiers to customers (self-checkout, in-cart scanners) or to technology (Amazon GO).
Aerospace Company Example: Reassigned part delivery work to a large airline catering company that already visited every plane.
Volkswagen Example: Reassigned assembly work to major suppliers within the plant, rather than the manufacturer.

Lens #13: Access – Don’t Own

This lens challenges the assumption of ownership, suggesting that providing or gaining access to resources through renting, subscribing, or leasing can be a better model.

When to Use: When your challenge revolves around ownership of products or resources.
How to Use: Ask: How can we change ownership words to “access” words (rent, subscribe, lease, use)?
Unveils new business models: Can transform product businesses into service/subscription models and vice versa.
Music and Movie Industries Example: Shifted from selling physical/digital media (ownership) to subscription streaming services (access).
Freedom Boat Club Example: Provides unlimited access to multiple boats for a flat fee, eliminating the costs and hassles of individual boat ownership.
IT Hardware Example: Shifted from owning servers to renting cloud computing resources, allowing flexible scaling based on need.

Lens #14: Emotion – Create Questions that Generate Emotional Responses

This lens suggests framing challenges in a way that evokes strong feelings, recognizing that emotion can be a powerful driver of action and creativity.

When to Use: When your challenge lacks emotional resonance or feels purely functional.
How to Use: Ask: How can we shift from corrective words (“improve,” “fix”) to aspirational goals? How can we reframe the challenge to stimulate solvers emotionally?
Beyond facts: Move beyond data-driven questions to those that connect with human feelings (e.g., “make people smile,” “feel at home”).
Focus on pain: Sometimes, highlighting pain or loss (threat avoidance) is more motivating than focusing on gain (reward seeking).
Walmart Example: CEO asked employees “Where have we cut muscle instead of fat?” which tapped into frustration and led to fixing issues like bathroom cleanliness, which boosted morale.
BMW Designworks Example: Started the design process by capturing the desired customer emotion using sketch artists, ensuring the final product evoked the right feelings.

Lens #15: Substitute – Replace a Word with a Similar One

This simple yet powerful lens involves swapping a word in the challenge statement with a similar or analogous term to introduce a fresh perspective without necessarily changing the level of abstraction (unlike Hyponym/Hypernym).

When to Use: When looking for a fresh perspective on a challenge.
How to Use: Ask: How can we swap out one or more words for different terms? Use similar words with slight differences in meaning or connotation, or even a thesaurus.
Profound impact: Changing even one word can significantly alter the range of solutions considered.
Purchasing Department Example: Changed “purchase the lowest initial cost items” to “purchase the lowest total cost items,” shifting focus to life cycle costs.
Financial Services Example: Instead of “generate more sales,” explored variations like “generate more profit” or “attract more customers,” revealing different solution paths.
NASA Dirty Laundry Example (revisited): Changing “get clothes clean” to “keep clothes clean” fundamentally altered the nature of the problem and its potential solutions.

These five lenses offer diverse methods for shaking up how you view a problem, encouraging lateral thinking and breaking free from entrenched viewpoints to reveal novel solutions.

Chapter 8: Switch Elements

This chapter presents lenses that involve changing one or more parameters within a challenge statement, often by focusing on a different influencing factor or considering conflicting attributes.

Lens #16: Flip – Solve for a Different Factor

This lens suggests turning the problem “upside down” by focusing on improving or adjusting a different influencing factor than the one initially considered.

When to Use: When you have multiple influencing factors within a problem.
How to Use: Ask: How can we turn the problem upside down by improving a different factor? Instead of fixing ‘this’, what if we fixed or adjusted ‘that’?
Reveals simpler solutions: Focusing on a different factor can sometimes lead to a much easier or more elegant solution.
Baggage claim example (revisited): Instead of focusing on speeding up the bags (one factor), they flipped and focused on slowing down the passengers (a different factor).
Whiskey Restaurant Example: Instead of reducing the cost of making large ice spheres, they flipped the problem to “ensure the perfect ratio between glass and ice,” solving it by using smaller glasses that fit their existing ice molds.

Lens #17: Conflicts – Amplify Conflicting Attributes

This lens involves embracing and designing for seemingly contradictory or conflicting requirements within a challenge, forcing creative solutions that reconcile these tensions.

When to Use: When successful resolution is determined by multiple, potentially opposing, influencing factors.
How to Use: Ask: How can we design the challenge to allow for and embrace conflicting attributes? Move from a single factor to multiple factors.
Drives innovation: Trying to achieve conflicting goals simultaneously necessitates breakthrough thinking.
Car Design Example: Reconciling “reduce road noise” (add insulation) and “improve fuel efficiency” (reduce weight) led to electronic noise cancellation technology.
Ceiling Paint Example: Designing for a paint that is both white (final color) and clearly visible while applying (temporary color) led to paint that rolls on pink and dries white.
USAA Example: Addressing the conflict of members needing bank access “even when they are not near a bank” led to the mobile check deposit feature.

Lens #18: Performance Paradox – Shift Your Focus

This lens suggests that sometimes the best way to improve performance on a primary objective is to shift focus away from that outcome and instead focus on a related activity or process.

When to Use: When you’re having issues hitting a goal or primary objective.
How to Use: Ask: What can we focus on other than the outcome? Focus on the activity itself.
Counterintuitive approach: Avoid directly measuring or focusing on the desired result to achieve it.
Racecar Pit Crew Example: Focusing on being “smooth” (activity/style) instead of just “fast” (outcome) led to quicker pit stops, even though team members felt they were moving slower.
Sales Reps Example: Sales reps measured on customer satisfaction (present activity) often outperform those focused solely on closing deals and sales targets (future outcomes).
Elderly Falling Example: Teaching the elderly how to fall (activity) reduced their fear, causing them to stop trying not to fall, and consequently reduced the incidence of falling (outcome).

Lens #19: Pain vs Gain – Focus on Motivators

This lens highlights that addressing pain points or the fear of loss is often a stronger motivator for action than offering potential gains or benefits. Framing challenges around pain can drive greater urgency and engagement.

When to Use: When pain could drive positive action or when a gain-focused approach is ineffective.
How to Use: If your challenge implies a positive gain, ask: What is the pain we need to solve? What might be lost if we don’t solve this problem?
Loss aversion: People are generally more motivated to avoid loss than to achieve an equivalent gain.
Citibank ATM Example: Initial adoption was slow (gain: convenience), but a blizzard creating a need for cash when banks were closed (pain: lack of access) drove widespread adoption.
Health Messaging Example: Messaging emphasizing the costs of late cancer detection (loss) is often more effective than messaging about the benefits of early detection (gain).
Infomercial Example: Infomercials always start by highlighting a problem or pain point before introducing the solution.

Lens #20: Bad Idea – Explore a Terrible Solution

This counterintuitive lens involves deliberately considering terrible or seemingly ridiculous solutions as a starting point for generating innovative ideas.

When to Use: When you’re stuck looking only at conventional, “good” solutions.
How to Use: Ask for terrible ideas, then ask: How can we turn this bad idea into a good one? Or, ask what would give you the opposite of what you want, then do the opposite.
Breaks mental blocks: Thinking about bad ideas can free up creative thinking and reveal unexpected possibilities.
Vaccine Example: The “dumbest” way to prevent polio outbreak (injecting the virus) is the basis of vaccination.
Workplace Accidents Example: The “terrible” idea of firing all safety inspectors led to transferring safety responsibility and rewards to all employees, significantly reducing accidents.
Apollo Mission Example: The “terrible” idea of letting the rocket ship fall apart after takeoff (staging) was a critical factor in achieving orbit.

These five lenses provide methods for manipulating the elements within a problem statement or context, whether by swapping influencing factors, embracing contradictions, shifting focus, leveraging motivations, or exploring unconventional starting points.

Chapter 9: Zero-In

This chapter introduces lenses designed to ensure you are focusing on the most important and relevant aspects of a problem, helping you pinpoint the best direction for your efforts.

Lens #21: Real Problem – Solve the Real Issue, Not the Symptoms

This essential lens emphasizes the importance of identifying and addressing the root cause of a problem, rather than getting distracted by or simply treating its symptoms.

When to Use: This should often be the first lens used, especially when you have unexamined assumptions about your challenge.
How to Use: Ask: Do we really know the underlying problem? Are we solving the root cause? Use data (see INSIGHTS) and assumption-busting tools.
Avoid wasted effort: Solving the wrong problem, no matter how efficiently, yields no value.
Mouthwash Example: Focusing on creating an alcohol-free mouthwash (symptom/assumed need) missed the real issue: the sting. Reframing to “How can we create a mouthwash that doesn’t sting?” was easier to solve.
Office Supply Company Example: Targeting school administrators (symptom) instead of teachers (real buyers) led to irrelevant solutions.
Airline Inventory Example: Assuming excess inventory was a management process problem (symptom) missed the real issue: using planes for free parts transport caused delays, necessitating extra inventory. Reframing to “improve transportation of parts” revealed better solutions.

Lens #22: Real Business – Maybe You Are in a Different Industry Than You Think

This lens challenges assumptions about your industry and competitors, encouraging a broader perspective in light of blurring boundaries, new entrants, and disruptive technologies.

When to Use: When you have unexamined assumptions about your industry or are facing increased competition/disruption.
How to Use: Ask: What business are we really in? Who are our real competitors? What new technology can make us irrelevant? Consider your industry more broadly and look for competition outside your traditional space.
Avoid irrelevance: Failing to recognize your evolving business context puts you at risk of disruption.
Marriott Example: Recognizing they are a “travel company,” not just a “hotel company,” led to offering home rentals (competing with Airbnb) and partnering with OTAs (recognizing them as competitors for guest relationships).
UPS Example: Recognizing the potential disruption of 3D printing (moving products digitally), their “real business” expanded beyond physical transport to include manufacturing services.

Lens #23: Insights – Identify Required Information

This lens highlights the value of gathering and analyzing data to gain deeper understanding, identify root causes, uncover opportunities, and refine challenge statements.

When to Use: When additional information would be helpful, the challenge is vague, you’re unsure of the REAL PROBLEM, or you can’t find the LEVERAGE point.
How to Use: Ask: Is there data that can give us insights? Have we looked at data to identify specific areas? What information would help reframe the question or find solutions?
Data-driven reframing: Data can reveal underlying issues or previously unknown opportunities.
Mobile Phone Operator Example: A surge in call volume led to the question “How can we handle increased call volume?” Data analysis revealed the root cause was confusion on invoices, leading to the question “How can we make the invoice more intuitive?” which solved the problem.
Financial Services Company Example: Asking employees for ideas on services customers buy elsewhere yielded little. Analyzing customer credit card data provided insights into actual purchasing habits, leading to high-value opportunities.

Lens #24: Variations – Avoid One-Size-Fits-All Approaches

This lens challenges the assumption that all customers, situations, or items can be treated the same, suggesting that creating variations and addressing exceptions differently can improve efficiency and value.

When to Use: When your question implies treating all cases identically.
How to Use: Ask: How can we design a solution to handle the exception, not for the exception? How can we create multiple variations for different needs?
Increased complexity risk: Trying to design one process for all exceptions can make it overly complex and inefficient.
Medical Professionals Example: Use different levels of care (outpatient, hospitalization, emergency) based on the severity and type of medical condition.
Life Insurance Company Example: Instead of “process all claims equally,” they asked “How can we treat most claims quickly and only handle exceptions rigorously?” leading to a scaled claims process that reduced costs and processing time for the majority of claims.

Lens #25: Observation – Uncover Hidden and Unarticulated Needs

This lens advocates for observing customers and users in their natural environment to uncover needs and behaviors that they may not be able to articulate, providing valuable insights for problem framing and solution development.

When to Use: When historical data or direct questioning isn’t sufficient to understand customer needs.
How to Use: Ask: Instead of asking customers what they want, how can we observe them? Use ethnography (watching customers in their homes, using products, in controlled labs) without interfering.
Beyond articulated needs: Reveals insights into daily habits, frustrations, and workarounds that customers might not consciously identify as problems.
Whirlpool Example: Observed a customer using cinderblocks to raise her dryer, leading to the development of laundry pedestals with storage.
PillPack Example: Entrepreneurs’ observations of difficulties people had managing multiple medications led to the creation of a service that sorts and packages pills by dose time.

These five lenses help refine the problem-solving target, ensuring that efforts are focused on the most impactful, relevant, and insightful aspects of the challenge, leading to more valuable solutions.

Section 3: Challenge-Centered Innovation

This section shifts focus to how the principles of problem definition and reframing can be systematically applied to drive innovation within an organization, contrasting it with less effective idea-driven approaches.

Leveraging Challenges for Innovation

This chapter critiques traditional idea-driven innovation methods and introduces Challenge-Centered Innovation (CCI) as a more efficient and effective alternative.

Idea-Driven Innovation shortcomings: Asking for ideas often yields low-quality, irrelevant, or impractical submissions, wasting time and hurting morale.
Starbucks “My Starbucks Idea” example: High volume of ideas, very low implementation rate, highlighting the inefficiency of starting with unfiltered ideas.
Boaty McBoatface example: Illustrates how public voting on ideas doesn’t necessarily lead to wise or desirable outcomes.
Idea funnel inefficiency: Time and resources are wasted at each step of the idea funnel (conception, submission, elimination, selling) for the vast majority of ideas that don’t make it through.
Idea fatigue: Employees get discouraged when their submitted ideas are ignored or rejected.

Challenge-Centered Innovation (CCI)

A structured approach to innovation that starts with defining specific, high-value challenges.

Don’t think outside the box: Instead of boundless thinking, find a “better box” – a well-framed challenge.
Starts with the question: The process begins with identifying a specific issue, problem, or opportunity.
Five steps of CCI: Define the differentiator/challenge, set evaluation criteria, identify/allocate resources, look for solutions, experiment/execute.
Focus on value: CCI directs efforts toward challenges that will provide significant value if solved.

CCI Step 1: Define the Differentiator and the Challenge

Innovation should focus on areas where the organization can truly distinguish itself from the competition.

Innovate where you differentiate: Prioritize solving problems that strengthen your competitive advantage.
5Ds of Differentiation: Criteria for identifying strong differentiators: Distinct, Durable, Disruption-Proof, Desirable, Disseminated.
Distinct: Sets you apart from competition (State Farm’s personal touch, USAA’s specialized service).
Durable: Difficult for others to replicate (home assurance company’s network of repairmen vs. pricing model).
Disruption-Proof: Resilient to new technologies, entrants, or societal shifts (taxi vs. Uber, Kodak vs. digital, IBM vs. PCs).
Desirable: Customers are willing to pay for it (The Revel casino’s design was not desirable for Atlantic City).
Disseminated: Known internally and externally (Westin’s Heavenly Bed).

CCI Step 2: Set the Evaluation Criteria

Establish clear, objective criteria for evaluating potential solutions before you start looking for them.

Objective selection: Knowing what you’re looking for makes the evaluation process much more effective and less subjective than evaluating disparate ideas.
Attributes of desirable solutions: Criteria are based on the qualities needed to solve the specific challenge effectively.

CCI Step 3: Identify and Allocate Resources

Secure the necessary support (money, people, sponsors) for a challenge before investing time in finding solutions.

Ensures implementation: Resources are lined up upfront, removing a common barrier to implementing good solutions found later.
Upfront buy-in: Gets leadership and stakeholders committed to the challenge from the beginning.

CCI Step 4: Look for Solutions

Once the challenge is defined, criteria set, and resources allocated, actively search for solutions. This is where shifting perspectives (as practiced with the lenses) is crucial.

Targeted search: Unlike idea generation, the search for solutions is focused by the defined challenge.
Accelerated process: Reframing and looking outside conventional domains speeds up solution finding.

CCI Step 5: Experiment and Execute

Move quickly from identifying potential solutions to testing and implementing them through small, scalable experiments.

Minimize risk: Experimentation is about validating or refuting hypotheses, not striving for failure.
Avoid “Wow, great idea”: Falling in love with ideas leads to confirmation bias and positive test strategy, investing in potentially flawed solutions.
Confirmation bias prevention: Be aware of the bias, separate idea creators from testers, and use devil’s advocates.
Scott Cook quote: “For every one of our failures we had spreadsheets that looked awesome,” highlighting the need for real-world testing over analysis alone.

This chapter provides the strategic framework for implementing effective innovation, emphasizing that focusing on well-defined, differentiating challenges is the path to higher ROI and sustainable success.

Chapter 11: FAST Innovation

This chapter details the four-step FAST Innovation model, integrating the concepts of differentiation, question framing, perspective shifting, and experimentation into a practical process for driving innovation.

Focus: Focus on Differentiators

The initial step is identifying and prioritizing areas where your organization can truly stand out and create sustainable competitive advantage.

Innovate where you differentiate: Direct innovation efforts towards activities and opportunities that set you apart.
Avoid innovating everywhere: Trying to be great at everything dilutes effort and reduces impact.
5Ds revisited: Use the criteria (Distinct, Durable, Disruption-Proof, Desirable, Disseminated) to assess potential innovation areas.
Prioritize investments: Differentiators provide a compass for deciding where to invest innovation resources.

Ask: Ask Better Questions

The second step is translating the focus areas into specific, well-framed challenges using the problem-formulation lenses.

Starts with the question: The core of the process is defining the challenge effectively.
Uncovering challenges: Look for opportunities by asking executives about pain points, seeking external perspectives on trends, and empowering employees to identify and reframe issues.
Quality over quantity: Emphasize submitting well-defined challenges, not just random ideas.
Employee involvement: Get all employees engaged in identifying and reframing challenges, providing tools and potentially incentives.
Avoid idea masquerades: Ensure submissions are genuine problem statements, not pre-baked solutions.

Shift: Shift Your Perspective to Find Solutions

Once challenges are defined, this step involves broadening the search for solutions by looking beyond internal expertise and conventional domains.

Expertise limits: Deep knowledge can create blind spots, making it hard to see novel solutions.
Diverse perspectives: Bring together people from different disciplines, backgrounds, and industries.
“Who else…?” question: An effective way to find analogies and learn from how similar problems are solved elsewhere (e.g., potato chip vibration from music).
Purposeful tangents: Intentionally connect with people or industries tangential to your own to foster cross-pollination of ideas (e.g., Pumps and Pipes, magic).
Open innovation/crowdsourcing: When done correctly, these tools can provide access to external perspectives and solutions.

Test: Test, Experiment, and Implement Solutions

The final step focuses on moving from potential solutions to validated implementation through rigorous experimentation, mitigating the risks associated with confirmation bias and positive test strategy.

Experimentation over striving for failure: The goal is validation, not failure itself.
“Wow, great idea” danger: Falling in love with your own ideas increases the risk of failure.
Confirmation bias (revisited): Awareness helps, but separating idea creators from testers and using devil’s advocates provides stronger protection.
Positive test strategy: Avoid designing experiments only to prove the idea works; actively try to disprove it.
Prioritize investment: Experimentation helps determine which innovations are truly worth scaling.

The Outcome of FAST Innovation

Applying the FAST Innovation model leads to significant improvements in innovation ROI and overall effectiveness.

Increased ROI: Focusing on challenges and eliminating waste leads to a tenfold or more increase in return compared to idea-driven approaches.
Higher efficiency: Streamlining the process reduces wasted time and resources.
Reduced risk: Experimentation minimizes the chance of investing heavily in flawed ideas.
Inclusive innovation: The problem-solving approach makes innovation accessible to everyone, regardless of traditional “creative” labels.

This chapter provides the actionable framework for putting the book’s concepts into practice, demonstrating how to create a high-performing, challenge-centered innovation culture that delivers tangible results.

Big-Picture Wrap-Up

“Invisible Solutions” fundamentally reframes innovation from an artistic pursuit of ideas to a disciplined process of defining and solving problems. By challenging assumptions, utilizing the 25 lenses to formulate precise questions, and following the FAST Innovation framework, individuals and organizations can overcome cognitive biases, break free from incremental thinking, and uncover truly impactful solutions that are often hidden in plain sight. The book equips readers with the tools to improve problem-solving skills, drive higher-value innovation, and remain relevant in a rapidly changing world.

Core lesson: Effective problem-solving starts with asking better questions, not just generating more ideas.
Questioning assumptions: Blind spots and confirmation bias are major barriers; actively challenge your beliefs about problems and your business.
The 25 Lenses: A practical toolkit for systematically reframing any challenge to reveal new perspectives and potential solutions.
FAST Innovation: A structured process (Focus, Ask, Shift, Test) to move from identifying strategic differentiators to implementing validated solutions efficiently.
Shift perspectives: Look beyond your industry and expertise for solutions (analogies, purposeful tangents).
Experiment wisely: Test ideas rigorously to minimize risk, avoiding the trap of confirmation bias.
Action step: Start applying the lenses to everyday challenges, making reframing a regular practice.