Finding The Click

A conversation with Jake Knapp, cofounder and general partner at Character Capital and a New York Times bestselling author

“It’s most costly in the wasted human energy and time that goes into things that people in the end don’t care about. That is what’s the most frustrating to me, seeing people pour their energy with the hope that it’s going to pay off, and then in the end, when people shrug, it’s just so demoralizing.”- Jake Knapp

In this episode of the Facilitation Lab podcast, host Douglas Ferguson converses with Jake Knapp, co-founder and general partner at Character Capital, and a former Google employee instrumental in developing Gmail and Google Meet. The episode delves into Jake’s extensive experience in product development, emphasizing the importance of understanding customer needs and market differentiation. Jake shares insights from his early coding and game development days, highlighting the value of iterative testing and customer feedback. They discuss the “foundation sprint” and “magic lenses” techniques for refining product ideas and making informed decisions. The episode underscores the necessity of clarity and alignment in successful product development.

Show Highlights

Links | Resources

About the Guest

Jake Knapp cofounder and general partner at Character Capital and a New York Times bestselling author. Previously, he helped build Gmail and Microsoft Encarta, cofounded Google Meet, and was a partner at Google Ventures.

About Voltage Control

Voltage Control is a facilitation academy that develops leaders through certifications, workshops, and organizational coaching focused on facilitation mastery, innovation, and play. Today’s leaders are confronted with unprecedented uncertainty and complex change. Navigating this uncertainty requires a systemic facilitative approach to gain clarity and chart pathways forward. We prepare today’s leaders for now and what’s next.

Subscribe to Podcast

Engage Control The Room

Voltage Control on the Web
Contact Voltage Control

Transcript

Douglas Ferguson:

Hi, I’m Douglas Ferguson. Welcome to the Facilitation Lab Podcast, where I speak with Voltage Control certification alumni and other facilitation experts about the remarkable impact they’re making. We embrace a method agnostic approach so you can enjoy a wide range of topics and perspectives as we examine all the nuances of enabling meaningful group experiences. This series is dedicated to helping you navigate the realities of facilitating collaboration, ensuring every session you lead becomes truly transformative. Thanks so much for listening.

If you’d like to join us for a live session sometime, you can join our facilitation lab community. It’s an ideal space to apply what you learn in the podcast in real time with peers. Sign up today at voltagecontrol.com/facilitation-lab. And if you’d like to learn more about our 12-week facilitation certification program, you can read about it at voltagecontrol.com. Today I’m with Jake Knapp, co-founder and general partner at Character Capital and a New York Times bestselling author. Previously, he helped build Gmail and Microsoft Encarta, co-founded Google Meet and was a partner at Google Ventures. Welcome to the show, Jake

Jake Knapp:

Douglas, thank you so much for having me on. Great to see you as always, and pleasure to be here.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, it’s so good to be in conversation with you again. I want to start off with the first story in the book, and as someone who spent countless hours on a Commodore 64 at a young age that story really resonated with me, and so I just thought it’d be a fun way to kind of open up the podcast to you.

Jake Knapp:

Well, yeah, I started with the Commodore 64 as well, although I could never quite make anything happen on it that I wanted to. When you remember the cassette tape drive, I mean, that seems wild today that the data was stored.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, I mean, I even remember coding with a go-to command and just the thought of that makes my brain hurt nowadays.

Jake Knapp:

If you’re listening to this and you’re wondering when we say cassette, what we’re talking about, it’s literally the kinds of cassettes that you’d make, like a mixtape on, an audio cassette. But the story at the beginning of the book is about when I was in middle and then high school and got into coding and making computer games on the Mac computer, and this is the black and white Mac. If you think of the first Macintosh computers, that’s what it looked like. And I spent just ages working on this game.

It was a castle adventure kind of thing. Go in the castle, you get a sword, fighting monsters. And I was trying to do this first person perspective, but it wasn’t like it was rendered by code, I was hand drawing the artwork for each view that you had. So if you turn left, then all of a sudden I had to draw that screen too. And as you move through the castle, I just couldn’t get very far. And anyway, I’ve finally felt like, okay, it’s ready to show to people.

I’ve been working on it for, I don’t know, a year and a half or something, and I bring it to school and on a floppy disk, and I show it to my friend Ian. And I didn’t tell him where it came from, and he’s just starts playing it, and he’s like, “I don’t know.” And my other friend comes in and he’s like, “Matt, do you want to turn on this game Jake found?” And Matt starts playing it and he’s like, “Yeah, you guys want to go play basketball?” And I was just like, “Oh my God.” I’m.

Douglas Ferguson:

Crushed.

Jake Knapp:

I’m crushed. I’ve spent so long working on it, and my hope was, “Oh, I won’t tell him.” And they’ll be like, “Whoa, what’s this cool game? Where’d this come from?” So the thing that happened though was I was just dead set on making something that my friends would play. And so I went back home and I started trying different games, but this time I thought, I can’t wait a year and a half every time before I show them, or I’m going to be graduated from high school before this gets done.

So I would just make the beginning of the game and to try out the mechanics a little bit. So I’d spend about a week on it and I’d come back and I’d show it to my friends and see what happened. And I tried all different kinds of games and finally I hit on this one. It was a mouse going through a maze, and each maze was really fast. You could get through it in like a few seconds. And in fact, there was a timer that would count down. So it was very fast-paced. And I got a bunch of sound effects from Ren & Stimpy and The Simpsons and Beavis and Butt-Head, all the stuff that I was watching and enjoying at the time.

All these little sound effects that would play and kind of make fun of you as you went along. And finally, my friends, they started to get into that and it clicked. I remember watching them play and lean forward and get into it and talk trash to each other. So that experience, yeah, it was the genesis of the way I think about products to this day. You’ve got to find something that clicks with your customer and above all else, that is the most important thing.

Douglas Ferguson:

So I’m really curious, with that lesson learned so early on, were you able to avoid making stuff that didn’t click or did you still run into those moments where you thought you had it figured out only for other people to show you otherwise?

Jake Knapp:

Right. That sounds like it should be the origin story of… And then I went on and created blizzard, but that’s Minecraft. But that is not what happened. I went to work at Microsoft, actually, was the first big software company I’d worked at. I worked at Oakley, the sunglasses company briefly beforehand on their website, their online store. But when I got to Microsoft, I was like, “Okay, now I’m building software and this is a continuation. This is my dream to make things that people love.”

And I was working on the encyclopedia. And in the early days that I was there, so 2000, 2001, 2002, I mean, this was still a product that people really did love and we would work on it and build a new version of the encyclopedia each year and launch it. And there were a lot of really enthusiastic fans of that product. Kids used it to study and it was really cool. But Wikipedia came out right around that time and started to just explode and so it was pretty evident a couple years in that the internet was changing the way people looked for information.

And we, with our CD ROMs that you had to swap in and out of the drive were not on the fast track to long future. So yeah, the thing is, it took us a year to make a product and put it out in the world. And I kept thinking, “I’ve got a new idea, this is going to change the game.” And it would take us a year before it got out there and you know, it wasn’t moving the needle and it wasn’t moving the needle. And this is a thing that can happen far too easily, especially if you’re in a large organization, especially if you’ve had success in the past, but it also happens to startup founders.

So I mean, if we fast way, way, way forward to today, I’m an investor with a fund called Character Capital and we invest in early stage startup founders, and it can happen to them. It can happen to folks who are just getting started just in that garage phase, so to speak, that you can have this idea and be convinced that once you get it right and get it out to people then it’s all going to work and you can talk yourself into just as I did in high school, just as I did at Microsoft, spending a year, a year and a half building something that in the end people see it and they’re like, “Ah.”

Douglas Ferguson:

It’s also making me think about how you can make something that clicks, but then the market can shift and it can unclick. And so it’s about being just super conscious of how things are evolving, what’s new, what’s fresh.

Jake Knapp:

That’s right. And a big part of the message of the new book is getting in touch with your customer and getting really crisp about what your belief is, about what the customer needs, what the customer’s problem is, how you can solve it in a special way, get really crisp about that. Put it into the form of a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. And you always have to test your hypothesis about the customer because it does change.

The world is constantly changing people’s expectations, their hopes, the solutions available to them, they’re always changing. And that first started to become clear to me at Microsoft as I was working on Encarta. And when I went to go work at Google in the mid two 2000s it was reinforced for me because we were building products there that really were on that edge of changing the way people did things. I worked on the Gmail team and then co-founded the product that became Google Meet.

And as we were doing these new things you’d find that something that you tested one week and it didn’t make sense to people and they’d never try it, and if you kept at it and tried to make it clearer and clearer, and as the world changed and people got more used to new things, hey, you know what, a couple of months later, maybe they were open to it, maybe you got it right and their world changed. And getting that intersection right requires a constant awareness of and experimentation with your customers.

Douglas Ferguson:

So I’m thinking about the Foundation Sprint and even the book itself, Click, what was the moment that sparked for you that this is necessary? Because there was a lot of talk of know, is Jake going to do Design Sprint version two? Is it going to be like a newer, bigger, better Design Sprint or whatnot? But you went to the thing before. And so what was the moment that you said, “Okay, I need to go figure this out and write this book because that’s what’s needed next.”?

Jake Knapp:

Well, it’s probably overdue for there to be a Design Sprint 2.0 book because I’ve learned things, Douglas, you’ve learned things. It’s been a while that we’ve been running these and we know there are improvements over what’s in the book, but at the end of the day it’s a lot of work to write a book. Having done it a couple of times I wouldn’t do it unless I knew that there was something that is just driving me crazy to not share it with people. That’s getting a little ahead though.

To go back to that moment when I realized something was missing. So I had worked at Google and created the Design Sprint in around 2010. I ran the first one in 2010, and it was starting to think about it in 2009 based on some experiences with Google Meet and with Gmail where I’d run these one week prototype sessions and then tested it with people at the end of the week and saw how powerful that was. Created the Design Sprint, started to formalize it, went to go work at Google Ventures, started running these with founders and startups and did that for five years, wrote the Sprint book.

I left Google and then together with my co-author John Zeratsky and our friend Eli Blee-Goldman, we founded this venture fund Character Capital, and we started working with early stage founders. And at Google Ventures we had gotten further and further away from the early stage as our reputation grew and as we were able to invest more money in later stage companies, that was always the strategy with Google Ventures, was to put a lot of money to work. But that means later stage companies and those companies don’t have what for me is really the heart of it, the cherry on top.

The most fun part is the earliest moments when you’re shaping the direction, you’re trying to figure out if you can find product market fit in the first place. So with Character Capital, we fast-forward to 2020, 20 21, and I’m starting to work with early stage founders. Again, it’s so fun. And I started to notice occasionally we would do a brand sprint with them or just have a conversation a sideline conversation in the Design Sprint and started to realize that there were some really basic fundamental things that all founders think about and have some sense of, but rarely have made crisp.

And let me be specific about what those are. It’s rare that on the founding team, every person on the founding team, let’s say there’s three people in an early stage startup, it’s rare that all three people will say the same thing if you say who’s your target customer, but they’ll all define it in the exact same way. It’s rare that they’ll all three tell you what the customer’s problem is that they’re trying to solve. It’s rare that they’ll have an immediate list of here’s our top three to five competitors and this is the one who’s the most important.

It’s rare that they’ll be able to quickly rattle off for you, here’s our advantage that we have, the insight, the special capability that the competition doesn’t have. And they all have a general sense of those things, but it’s rare that all of that is super crisp. And unfortunately it’s also rare that they’re really crisp about their differentiation. What’s going to make our solution so much better than those alternatives, those competitors, the ways people are doing things today? What’s going to make our solution so much better that it’s going to make the alternatives look like junk and people will switch to ours?

So they may have thought about differentiation in terms of industry or technology, but it’s rare to have this crisp vision of the customer perception that we’re trying to create. And so it just came up from these conversations, and I remember starting to think we don’t have a good tool for getting at this. The brand Sprint was actually almost the closest tool that we had. And the brand Sprint is all around figuring out how do you want to express yourself through visuals, through language? How do you compare yourself?

You think about car brands and are they more friendly or more of an authority or whatever. And so it’s not the right tool. And so that was the genesis of this first notion that there’s something missing before the Design Sprint. People need to get crisp about what their hypothesis is. And if you look at the teams who have had the best Design Sprints that we’ve worked with, they had clarity about their hypothesis, and it made the results of their sprint better because they knew what they needed to get at, they knew what they needed to assess when they prototyped and tested.

Douglas Ferguson:

It’s making me think about how you mentioned that even the simple stuff is not easy, these seemingly obvious basics that teams consistently struggle with. And so I’m curious, why do you think they find them so challenging?

Jake Knapp:

I think it’s hard because it’s like you’re a fish and there’s water all around you, or we don’t think about the air we’re breathing. It’s just there are so many things to do when you’re starting a company. There’s so many things to figure out. You’ve got to think about incorporating your company and making payroll and all of these millions of things. Can we get the domain name that we need? And there’s just a million things. You’re trying to talk to customers, you’re trying to get customers, you’re trying to build something.

And so of course you thought about what you’re doing, you thought about who your customer is and what kind of thing you’re building, but it’s that difference between being at the 100-foot level and being at the one-foot level and being really specifically crisp about it. I think people talk about it and then they move forward doing those first early steps of a project. And if you’re in a large company, the same thing happens. You start off and you say, “Oh, I think this would be an interesting opportunity for us to go after.” And pretty soon you’re building your team.

The engineers are chomping at the bit to write code. You don’t want to slow them down, you’re writing a PRD. And in all of this we have a lot to do. We have to create big documents, we have to create lines and lines and lines of code. We’ve got to do all this stuff that the simple kernel gets obscured. And something that I believe is true about the most successful products that we’ve ever seen in the world is that they have clarity about that simple kernel and they don’t lose that clarity. And so the thing that they set out to do in the beginning is, we’re going to solve this problem for people in a radically differentiated way.

It’s so different from what anyone else has seen before. It’s a cliche to talk about the iPhone, but it’s a clear example of this. So much easier to use, so much more powerful than the products that had come before. And they set out to do that and then that’s what they build and that’s what they talk about when the product comes out. And great products, great solutions do that. And it is actually hard to keep clarity about the simple basics of what you’re offering and to nail it in the right way. And so yeah, I think, I think it’s just true that it’s difficult.

Douglas Ferguson:

Let’s talk about differentiation. What are some of the mistakes that startups make when trying to differentiate? And how can the two-by-two and clearer project principles help them?

Jake Knapp:

The biggest mistake, I think, is just that we don’t realize how hard it is to stand out in the market and to make a compelling case to people that they should spend any time even thinking about what you’re doing. And so I think the more we go along in life and we have the experience of creating things and offering them out into the world, the more we’ll get the experience of that not going the way we hope. Sometimes just as that happened to me in high school and it happened with Encarta and I’ve seen it happen with all kinds of things over and over again.

Quite often we come up with what we think is going to be a lovely idea, something people get really excited about, we show it to them and they shrug. And it’s not that people hate us, it’s just that there’s so much going on in everyone’s life. And we have limited time, we have limited energy so to spend the calories even thinking about adding something new into your work world, your life, whatever, it’s something we don’t want to do. We don’t want to do it unless it’s really compelling and really catchy and really just, gosh, I’d be crazy not to try this thing.

So even to listen to the sales pitch is a lot. Even to look at your marketing page is a lot to ask. And then you get past that to try the thing that’s a lot. Gosh, this untrusted thing from the startup I’ve never heard of, I’m going to sign up for it, oof, that’s tough. Even if you’re talking about early adopters, tough to get them to make that step. There’s so many things being offered all the time. And then to get people to truly adopt it, that’s tough too.

So I think the mistake that we all tend to make about differentiation is to undervalue just how fantastic something has to sound to penetrate through our natural armor against trying anything new, against listening to any new pitch, against all of the constant messages and shouting that’s coming at us all the time from our inbox, from the news, from wherever you go, everybody’s trying to grab your attention. And to get through that it’s just got to be really, really special. And you should not stop experimenting with your differentiation until you’re extremely confident that I’ve got a message now that’s getting through the noise and people are excited about it.

Douglas Ferguson:

Do you ever find that startups will claim a differentiator that their competitor might claim or put them in a bucket that a competitor would never say or the market would never perceive them in that way just because it’s an ideal way of looking at it? And if so, what are your tips for helping them break out of that way of thinking and being more authentic maybe?

Jake Knapp:

I think it’s quite common that if we set out to differentiate ourselves, our products ourselves, you know, individually or whatever, and we say, this is what makes me special, that we might not actually have the right viewpoint on what we’re offering. Let’s use the example of speed. You might think that, gosh, the way our product delivers something it’s really fast and that’s going to catch customers attention, but we might find that when we actually offer it to customers, when we run experiments that they’re not moved by that. That doesn’t matter to them.

They’re like, “Well, the alternative is already fast enough.” I’m not excited enough to change my approach by speed. And actually, I’ll give you a concrete example of this. So we worked with a company called Orbital Materials. They’re in our portfolio. It’s a startup who was founded by a guy from DeepMind who had worked on this really cool project where they developed an AI to analyze X-rays for trying to detect breast cancer. And they were able to beat radiologists at diagnosing breast cancer from X-rays.

And so this guy’s a great mind and a great computer scientist, and he thought, “I would love to apply AI to designing molecules so that we can find replacements for jet fuel and cobalt.” And things that are hard to develop today, or rare, expensive. If we could design molecules, he thinks we can solve a lot of problems that the world either faces now or is going to face very soon in terms of shortages of items or high costs items. So he starts off this company, builds an amazing team of chemists and computer scientists. And then to make this business actually work, to make this vision actually work, they’ve got to be able to work with the chemical manufacturers.

And so to go and set up a pilot program to get a design partner who will work with you as you’re designing these chemicals and hopefully finding some that work and actually be willing to say, “Okay, now we’re going to go through and manufacture some of these and see if they scale,” he’s got to make the case to these companies who have been coming up with their products in the traditional way, which takes years of trial and error through traditional chemistry. They’ve been doing it that way for 100 years.

And the promise that this new way of doing things is faster or higher tech or smarter, which on the surface, if you listen to the story, the way I tell it seems, yeah, well this new way has got to be faster, it must be smart and high-tech, but if you’re a chemical manufacturer and you’ve been doing it a hundred years the same way and it’s working for you, well that doesn’t sound. The old way of doing things I don’t have to change anything to make it keep working that way, it’s reliable, I trust it. So how do you reframe the world and make this new way of doing things sound appealing?

And so they had to try a bunch of different differentiators before they hit on this is the thing that’s actually compelling to people. And it was that they were going to be able to produce higher quality products and that those products would actually be more reliable. That it would be a more reliable development chain. And then they had to prove those two points. But they had to first hit on where’s the sort of the in the armor? Where’s the gap where we might be able to penetrate through the defenses that we all have against new stuff?

And they thought those are the spots they first identified as being vulnerable and then they had to say, “Okay, now we’ve got to prove that we can do that.” And then guess what? Like that ends up shaping the product that you build because first and foremost, you’re now trying to develop a product that will deliver on that promise of reliability, that will deliver on that promise of higher quality products. So that’s why I think what it looks like in real life is that we often, our first guess what we think might be compelling isn’t compelling, and we have to keep experimenting and tweaking until we find the thing that breaks through.

Douglas Ferguson:

You first introduced the idea of work alone together in the book Sprint, and it makes a strong comeback and click. And so I’m curious, why do you think this technique continues to resonate and proves so effective for teams, especially compared to our default methods or brainstorming and the ways that people typically approach these challenges?

Jake Knapp:

Well, you’ve experienced it. You’ve done this work alone together thing I know a lot and it is a surprisingly simple and powerful shift when you have a group of people. There’s some fantastic magic that happens when you have a group of people together trying to solve a problem. You’ve got different viewpoints, you’ve got the sense of perhaps inspiration people will get from one another, you’ve got also a little hint of competition that Douglas is in here and he’s going to come up with some good ideas, I need to bring my A game if I’m going to have anything worthwhile to contribute.

It’s different for me being on my own now with no one watching. Now Douglas is watching I’ve got to do a bit better. And all of those elements are really healthy, but they actually get watered down and messed up by the unfettered group brainstorm. Everyone can talk, anything goes conversation that we will default into as just as humans. We’ll all default into just talking our way through a problem. And that talking our way through our problem is subject to people who are really great at making a sales pitch for their idea. Their ideas will tend to be overvalued.

Folks who are introverted or for whatever reason, just maybe don’t think well when other people are talking, and I put myself in both of those categories, they’re not going to do as well in the environment of a group brainstorm. And then we have all kinds of cognitive biases that come in. So like the last idea that somebody said well that’s going to have recency bias helping it out, or the more somebody pitches their idea, we’re going to start to have confirmation bias. We’re going to associate ideas with people rather than with the merits of the idea itself.

And we’re going to be limited to the verbal, the audio only description of the idea and not the content of the idea. So when we work alone together, I mean, simply what happens is you say, okay, everybody be quiet, here’s the prompt, here’s the question that we’re trying to answer first and now I want you to spend some time thinking about it quietly writing down your solution or your answer. It could be an answer on a sticky note, it could be a back of the napkin style sketch of something or a detailed solution as we do in Design Sprints.

And then we’re going to review all of those, but they’re going to be anonymous and we’re going to look at them in silence, and then we know we’re going to vote on those and then the decider’s going to choose and maybe she or he is going to say, “Hey, there’s a bunch of votes here and a bunch of votes there, but I like this one. Could somebody tell me why? What I’m missing here.” And so then maybe the kind of conversation you have at that point is so much richer, the contribution, everybody’s been able to contribute, they haven’t had to sales pitch and think at the same time, there’s more detail.

Just everything about it is better. And I know I don’t have to sell you on this because I think you’ve been doing this and modifying it and finding your own new ways to apply it, but it’s super powerful. For me, honestly, it goes back to writing code and procedural thinking, trying to break down a function into what are the steps that need to happen to make it work. And when you run a request, the computer, the processor, it’s got to do some work. Our brains are the same way. So it’s also partly about creating space where the brain can process and then return something back to you.

And it just makes so much sense and works so much better than the traditional group brainstorm. So yeah, I work alone together. I found myself coming to the point in the new book, which I have a finished copy of right here. I found myself coming to the point where I was like, “Gosh, you know what? I’m going to have to reintroduce that idea because I can’t assume that everybody else is already sold on that. And I got a little more into it in Qlik and drew some cartoons and tried to really drive the point home of why it makes such a difference.

Douglas Ferguson:

The decider role also came back for round two.

Jake Knapp:

Yes.

Douglas Ferguson:

How can facilitators engage the decider? That’s something I’ve always been really curious about, ensuring that the decider’s voice is influential without overpowering others, and how do we guide them toward making clear decisions?

Jake Knapp:

Yeah, if you’re facilitating the decider is your best friend. I mean, not that you have to cozy up to them in some way, but just that the decider makes it so much easier to navigate through a problem with a group of people because at any point that you need to, you can flip to the decider and say, “Hey, can you tell us which of these options is the best?” Or “Can you narrow this down now to a field of three where we can zero in on.” Whatever.

You’ve got a lot of possibility with a decider to snap out of what becomes an open-ended conversation or an open-ended debate at any point, the decider is your key to moving on to the next level, unlocking the door to the next room that you have to pass through to solve a problem. And in the structures that I set up, whether it’s the Design Sprint or now the Foundation Sprint, I’m very intentionally setting the decider as the lock opener into the next room as we go from one batch of activities to the next and to the next and to the next.

And if you’re a facilitator and you’re either running a Foundation Sprint or crafting your own structure, I think that’s the first, the simplest thing is just to use the decider when you’re at a point when it would be otherwise hard to make progress they make the call, they move things along. And you can call on them even before your process is ready for it if you need to break a tie or to tell us, “Do you feel like we should spend three more minutes talking about this or have we heard enough?”

I mean, anything goes. The thing about the decider is that the method has to create enough space for everyone to contribute that it doesn’t just become a decider monologue going all the way through. And so for me, it’s a balancing act between now if I think about a small startup and we think about, hey, there might be three, five, 10 people in this early stage startup, the CEO’s usually the decider, although not always, depends on the content of the sprint, but the CEO’s voice is incredibly important here. We don’t want to make a decision that subverts the CEO, what she wants.

We shouldn’t have the group’s decision, a democracy subvert what the CEO wants to have happen because it’s her company, her role to make those decisions. But at the same time, we should provide her with as many tools as possible to make the best decision possible. And that means getting something good from everybody that she can evaluate and getting some sense of the group’s evaluation of those options. So as we talked through the work alone together structure, it’s everybody comes up with their own proposal in silence, everybody reviews and votes in silence.

Sometimes even people will write down their decision or their proposal on a sticky note in silence, and then the decider makes the call and she’s encouraged to draw out those conversations. As the facilitator, you can intercede there and when you see that maybe the decider hasn’t paid enough attention to this stuff, you can slow things down or speed them up, and I think that’s one of the key powers of the facilitator. But the structure itself also should always elevate competing opinions for the decider, should always give pause to the decider before she makes a decision.

But you also have to be really careful as a facilitator that you don’t let that methodology overwhelm the decider’s intuition. At the end of the day, the most important thing about the way that I work with teams, the Foundation Sprint where you’re creating a hypothesis or the Design Sprint where you’re testing that hypothesis, is that we need the decider’s intuition to get great. It may not be great in the beginning, but we need it to get to the place where it’s great because the deciders ultimately are predictor of what’s going to work.

They’re going to make a prediction and we’re going to follow executing on that prediction, and then we’re going to hope it comes true in the end. There’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. So in these sprints we’re trying to zero in and identify the decider’s intuition. We’re trying to tune it and give it every advantage of the team, but ultimately the deciders forming the hypothesis and then the decider saying, “This is the form of solution, I think will prove that hypothesis.”

And every time we run an experiment and test with customers we’re showing, well, here’s what the world said. It said, “You’re wrong.” And when that happens that’s a powerful moment for the decider to get better, for their intuition to improve and improve and improve. The success of our product ultimately will be the result of how well we can inform and improve our decider’s intuition or how strong it is to begin with and how much we can isolate and clarify it. So anyway, that’s a lot, but as a facilitator, that’s what I see my job is doing.

Douglas Ferguson:

I love the callback to the swords and sorcery games and the decider unlocking the next room.

Jake Knapp:

It’s a quest. It’s always a quest.

Douglas Ferguson:

That it is. Maybe there’s another book title in the future.

Jake Knapp:

It could be. It could be a good one. I like that word. I always a big fan of a tribe called Quest and so the word quest is just always a special.

Douglas Ferguson:

So let’s talk about magic lenses for a moment. You talk about it being an activity or a way to explore conflicting opinions, which I think is really important when we’re bringing groups together and harnessing the power of diversity. So how can facilitators burst guide teams through this process?

Jake Knapp:

Magic lenses is an activity that if I do say so myself, I’m really proud of it. I think that for the past, I suppose 15 years, you could kind of boil down what I’ve been doing with Design Sprints and now the Foundation Sprint, you can boil it all down to helping people make decisions about things that are hard to decide on. And part of that is time boxing, so you accelerate those decisions, but part of it also is evaluating multiple paths, making sure we’ve clarified what those paths are and identifying them in a Design Sprint that’s sketching different solutions that we might prototype and build in a Foundation Sprint.

On day two of the Foundation Sprint, it’s about identifying the approaches that we might take to solving this problem. So not the specific solution, but like are we building a plugin for somebody else’s software? Are we building standalone software? Are we building a dashboard? Are we building a chatbot? There’s all these different broad paths that we might take and then in a Design Sprint we’ll get really detailed on, okay, what’s the form of that thing look like? And making a choice like this, when I thought about it for these early stage founders, it’s you have the opportunity to pre pivot.

Often you’re a founder and you start building something, it’s just not working out, and like me showing my friend Ian, this computer game, I realize I’ve got to go in a different direction. I’ve got to pivot. Well, if you could have that moment of thinking, so what are my other options? If you could do that first, you might either have more conviction about the path you’re already on or you might say, “Gosh, this other one, when I evaluated in the context of my differentiation and everything I’ve been thinking about with the basics of my project, I actually think I have a better shot at this other path I’m going to pre pivot.”

Anyway, that’s a huge decision to make. And even though in a Foundation Sprint we’re only forming a hypothesis, we’re going to experiment right away with a Design Sprint and if I haven’t made it clear already, the idea is you run this two-day Foundation Sprint and then you go right away into five-day Design Sprints to test it, to run the experiments. But even if it’s just a week at a time experiment it’s still a big decision. We want it to be very carefully considered. So the idea with magic lenses is to use two by two charts, that old business school, standby to plot out different viewpoints on our options.

So let’s say we’ve got three different options for how we might approach this problem, option A, option B, option C, we’re going to look at those through the customer lens. What solves the customer’s problem in the best way possible? And plot that out on a two by two. Think of the two factors that for us are most important for the customer solution. And which of these is the easiest to use and solves their problem in the best way? And that’d be in the top right. Maybe option A is in the top right there. And then we think about the money lens. Well, we’re going to need to turn this into a business.

So which of these has the highest long-term value to a customer? What do we suspect people would pay for the most? Which has the largest possible audience of customers? And now maybe option B is in the top right. And option A in this one maybe it’s in the top right quadrant, but it’s not pegged right into the corner there and option C is somewhere in the mix. And now we look at growth. Not only what are the most potential customers, but what do we think is the easiest to adopt? And now we look at the pragmatic view, which of these is the easiest to build, the fastest to build?

We look at our differentiation. If our differentiators are reliability and high quality, which of these approaches best delivers on those factors? And then there are always other lenses particular to a company. So people can create their own two by two charts. What happens if we’ve color coded option A, option B and option C? You can imagine these charts side by side by side, we zoom out on those and we look at where the colors are, you can often see a pattern often the same option is in the top right in every chart. That actually happens a good amount of the time and you think, well “Gosh, clearly we can feel good about pursuing that option.”

Sometimes it’s a mix. And that’s actually helpful too, because if we’re feeling conflicted about proceeding on our project, it might be that it’s because it’s just not clearly as good at growth as it is at the pragmatic view or as it is at differentiation. And so now we know growth is going to be a challenge, but maybe we still have conviction. Maybe when it’s mixed we’ll say one of these lenses is truly the most important. And even though we don’t have consensus among all the lenses, this one is so important. That’s the way that we’re going to make this decision. For us, it’s all about the customer.

We’re just going to deliver the thing that is best for the customer and trust that the rest of it will work itself out. Any of those is a viable way to move through magic lenses, make a decision on an approach and graduate to having your founding hypothesis. If you’re the facilitator helping teams to move through that is a really special moment. There is just mechanics of getting people through plotting charts, and we can talk about that if you like. It helps to do one axis at a time and to have the decider or one person who’s an expert on each domain talk about those charts.

But what’s really special about this activity is that you make a very complex situation, visual. You capture it in a way that the brain can parse, whereas when all of these factors are in our heads, it’s very hard to have clarity about what’s going on through all these different lenses. As a facilitator, your guidance to the decider about what you see, about where you think they should give a little bit of extra care, if it’s consensus, it’s easy, but when there’s not consensus deciding, okay, is it the best idea here if I have the whole team vote on which lens is most important?

Will that give the decider the sort of pause that they need to consider this? How do I make sure that the democracy of the team doesn’t outweigh the intuition of the decider? And this is an area where your judgment, your expertise, your experience, your gauge of human nature and interaction and what’s going on all become really important. It’s a very powerful moment. And it’s just potentially, I think, a super tool that you can use not only in the Foundation Sprint, but in any situation where people face a complex decision. And the stakes are pretty high for getting that decision right.

Douglas Ferguson:

You have a gift for simplifying complex decisions, whether it’s exploring these conflicting opinions or selecting what to prototype into these clear step-by-step recipes.

Jake Knapp:

Well, thank you.

Douglas Ferguson:

I’m super curious, what’s your secret for turning these tough, abstract decisions into straightforward processes anybody can follow?

Jake Knapp:

I was talking to my son, Luke, recently about, you know, life and careers and work and he was talking about there’s a piece of advice that folks sometimes give which is follow your bliss, and I am actually a bit of a skeptic of that advice. I think that following what’s completely your bliss is telling a startup founder to like, “Well just build whatever like sounds fun to you.” And that could work out you. There are certainly examples where that does work out, but it really only works out if there’s a market for your bliss.

And so I told him, I thought perhaps a different way of thinking about it is, you should be aware of your bliss, you should make time for your bliss to plug another book of mine. Your bliss may be a hobby, but you must find a way to become obsessed with the thing that you do. If you can become obsessed with it, if there’s enough interest and excitement that you can really, for the long haul, dig into this thing and be obsessed with getting it right, then that’s I think a more likely predictor of both your satisfaction and happiness as an individual and that your work will find a market of people, an audience of people.

That it’ll matter to people. And for better or for worse, I became obsessed with the beginnings of projects and those decisions that people made and I just can’t stop thinking about it. And it drives me nuts when I’m in a conversation and we start to make a decision and sometimes it’s me who’s screwing it up, but I can tell that in some way we’re screwing up the way where we’re processing it. We’re taking too long, we’re not considering enough options. It just feels like, “Oh man, something’s going wrong here.”

Maybe I’m not naturally even like the most decisive or naturally the most analytical or rational person, part of this has just been trying to decode what’s going on in my own brain and try to make those meetings and those moments go right. And I would have thought that I’d be done with it by now, but it just seems like I still am uncovering parts where I’m like, “Oh, I want to fix that too.” So I’m just obsessive and gosh, if it’s helpful for folks that’s fabulous because I at this point can’t stop.

Douglas Ferguson:

Amazing. I’ve got a few rapid fire ones here to end on, so here we go. Beyond the example in the book, have you ever used a funny or memorable eject lever message to carve out focus for a good emergency?

Jake Knapp:

I have migraine headaches and I don’t have them very bad compared to a lot of people who have them, but if you have migraines, you might know that there’s a pre migraine part and a post migraine part, they affect your whole body and your whole brain in a way that goes beyond the headache. And in fact, for me, often there is no headache. I’m really lucky in that way. There’s often no headache, but there’s still a mental fog that happens and body aches and I mean, it’s wild.

I may have overplayed the effect of the mental fog at times to buy myself time to think something through, to list out my options, analyze them, to perhaps work with folks. And that’s an eject lever that I have used from decisions in the past might, if you are talking to me and I need to make a decision about something and I say that I have a migraine now when I would need to get back to you in a couple of days, it might just be that I need time to think. And actually, now that I say it, I don’t know why I’m not just honest about that.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah. Just you can never confirm nor deny that you have a migraine. Amazing. Well, okay, this is a fun one. So you compare differentiation to pizza toppings, and if the founding hypothesis were a pizza, what are some essential ingredients that always belong and what are some questionable toppings that teams insist on including?

Jake Knapp:

Yeah. Well, I talk about it because differentiation is something that if you get it right, it’s still probably not going to be the thing for everybody. Not everybody agrees on the perfect pizza. So we talk about the iPhone as this product that’s such a huge success story. And yet lots of people choose not to get an iPhone, they get something else. And so pepperoni pizza is not for everybody. Some folks are like, “I need a different flavor.” And so part of differentiation is getting the ingredients right.

And when we talk about the founding hypothesis it’s if we solve this problem for this customer with this approach, then they’re going to choose it over this competitor because we’re going to be different in these ways. So you’ve got some variables there. The customer, the problem, the approach you’re taking, the competitors and the differentiators, and each of those ingredients they are important, but you might be wrong about them. So when you form your founding hypothesis, you might be sure that your customers have this problem.

And then you might start talking to customers and realize, “Man, the people we’re talking to, actually, they’re not the right people at all.” And so that’s almost like the cheese. That’s the thing that seems the most basic, well, who’s the customer? And you start talking to people and you’re like, “Oh man, these people are lactose intolerant.” Or these people they like feta, whatever. You’re off base with this thing that you wouldn’t even considering it. You’re just like, “Everybody loves mozzarella.” And well man, maybe they don’t or maybe your mozzarella is not good enough or whatever.

And so any one of those, actually, I can think of examples with any one where we’ve seen startups go out and realize, oh, the customer is right, but the problem, this is not a problem that’s a big enough deal for them. It’s not painful enough for them to warrant trying something new or we have the competition wrong. We thought it was this and actually it’s just that they’re doing nothing. They’re not aware of all these solutions that exist because they just really don’t care, again, which could be back to the problem’s not that important. The differentiators is one that I always harp on because it’s so commonly missed and it’s something you have to work at to get right. But any one of those things could be a bit off, which is why we test. That’s why we experiment.

Douglas Ferguson:

That’s why it’s a hypothesis.

Jake Knapp:

That’s why it’s a hypothesis. Exactly.

Douglas Ferguson:

If you could wave a magic wand and instantly grant every facilitator or startup founder one essential insight from Qlik, what would it be?

Jake Knapp:

I think that the most essential insight is you cannot take for granted the basics of your business, of your strategy, of what you’re doing. In a startup, in a big project, in any organization, even in things that we do in our lives, we very quickly become blind to the simple core underlying things. And we can very quickly forget that the most important thing for a startup for a big project is that in the end that people care about it, that it clicks, that it does the thing we hope it will do for people.

And it’s worth taking time to reexamine those basic obvious things, get them really crisp. And so if you’re a facilitator, you should never hesitate to ask the dumb questions. And this book is full of dumb questions that I was embarrassed to ask. And so I wrote a book and created a framework to help me ask those dumb questions. And there’s this set of dumb questions, but there are a lot of dumb questions out there that if you’re a facilitator you’re actually in a really special and unique situation where you can ask those.

You’re coming in as an outsider and you can say, “Hey, look, I know nothing. So could you explain that acronym you just used? Could you tell me why we’re doing this thing?” You can ask those almost rude basic questions. And I promise you, 80 to 100% of the people on the team who should know the answer to it, they’re going to thank you for asking those, for clarifying the basics. You should never be shy about asking the simplest questions. And it’s always wise to rewind and get those basic questions nailed first. The assumptions we make are often where we fail.

Douglas Ferguson:

It’s such a gift to a team when you can shine a light on some of those things that maybe they’ve been afraid to bring up because it’s like, “I think we’re supposed to have this figured out, but I don’t know if I want to admit that we’re so far off base here.”

Jake Knapp:

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And there are just far too many situations where those oversights, not through any malice on anybody’s part or even really malpractice, it’s just our human nature that we’re like, “Okay, good, we know what we’re doing, let’s go.” And those oversights end up being the thing that makes it fail in the end. And what’s a bummer about that, I mean, sure, from a Machiavellian perspective as an investor or a capitalist perspective, I guess, I’m just hoping that if we get those things right, your business is more likely to succeed and if I’ve invested in your business, then I’m going to make money in the end so I’m very self-interested in getting this stuff right.

But it’s most costly in the wasted human energy and time that goes into things that people in the end don’t care about. And that is what’s the most frustrating to me, is seeing people pour their energy with the hope that it’s going to pay off. I’m putting all of this time in, but in the end it’s going to be worth it because we’re going to solve this problem for customers, and then in the end when people shrug, it’s just so demoralizing. You’ve lost all that effort. You can’t 100% solve that, but if we get the basics right and we experiment to prove to ourselves to every extent possible that they’re right we have a chance of saving a lot of human effort, and that is very worthwhile.

Douglas Ferguson:

Very well said, sir. And I think that brings us to our end. And I just want to say thanks for the conversation, Jake. It’s always a pleasure being with you, and I look forward to our next time.

Jake Knapp:

Always a pleasure to speak to you as well, Douglas. And listeners, if you made it this far, check out the clickbook.com and see what you think of the book. We’d love to hear what you think after giving it a read.

Douglas Ferguson:

Thanks for joining me for another episode of the Facilitation Lab Podcast. If you enjoyed the episode, please leave us a review and be sure to subscribe and receive updates when new episodes are released. We love listener tales and invite you to share your facilitation stories. Send them to us on LinkedIn or via email. If you want to know more, head over to our blog where I post weekly articles and resources about facilitation, team dynamics and collaboration, voltagecontrol.com.