Great inventions begin with an observation or intention, not a problemTouch grass immediately + surrendering to growth (Issue #285)Published inThe Medium BlogSent as aNewsletter3 min read1 hour ago--We need to understand what problem were solving, is a refrain Ive heard in countless product strategy meetings at Medium and in every company Ive been part of.This is especially true in software design, where, typically, you work backwards from a problem toward potential solutions. Product management, as Ujjwal Trivedi describes, is the discipline of defining those problems, which often means finding latent problems hidden beneath the ones youve named.The process usually goes something like this:Understand the problem deeply.Define a precise solution.Craft an experience that is intentional and predictable.Ship a finished product that behaves exactly as expected.But, as designer-turned-writer Patrick Morgan observes, that isnt how some of the best things on Earth were invented. Most truly monumental inventions began not with a problem, but with an observation. Alexander Fleming didnt set out to discover antibiotics; he just noticed weird white mold growing in his petri dish (hello, penicillin). Post-It notes were a failed glue experiment. Even LLMs, Morgan notes, are probabilistic instead of deterministic they resist complete understanding, and their outputs are always a little unexpected (by design). The problems they solve are still kind of TBD.Morgans story focuses on designing AI experiences, but the thrust is something I think anyone can take to heart: sometimes the best solutions come from just following your instincts, making things that interest you, and figuring out where you can use them later. Solutions in search of problems arent always a waste of time.With that in mind, Morgan reverses his design process. Instead of beginning with the problem, he begins with an intention.Have an intent an idea of what youre trying to achieve.Experiment, iterate, and push forward without much clarity.Uncover an unexpected breakthrough it works, but not how you thought.You study the breakthrough, refine it, and later figure out why it works. Harris Sockel