Problem-Solution Fit (Analyze the Problem to Improve Fit)

One this week’s Planet Money podcast they profiled Matt Lewin, an entrepreneur trying to develop a universal snakebite antivenom (sort of).  What Lewin is trying to do is reposition a drug (formerly used to treat sepsis) for the purpose of slowing the rate of impact of venom from 28 deadly snakes giving time to victims to obtain antivenom from distant hospitals.  Lewin’s work was framed by Planet Money as a life-saving breakthrough in a market that has few incentives for innovation because snakebites impact mostly poor people in the poorest regions in the world. 

Here’s the thing – I think Planet Money got the story all wrong.  This story should have been framed as a lack of problem-solution fit and how that wastes time and money diverting resources from problems worth solving.  I don’t mean to say that snakebites are not a problem.  In fact, consider these statistics: 5.8 billion people are at risk of encountering a deadly snake daily.  Snakebite affects the lives of around 4.5 million people worldwide every year; seriously injuring 2.7 million men, women and children, and claiming some 125,000 lives.  These are only estimates and are probably underestimates.  What I mean by problem-solution lack of fit is that Lewin is likely trying to solve the wrong problem.  Victims of snakebite envenoming still need to receive antivenom, even if Lewin’s drug proves effective at extending the time they have to receive this treatment.  Unfortunately, there are deeper problems that this solution ignores: (1) most people seek traditional healers, (2) a lack of regulatory structure in countries impacted by snakebites results in poor quality antivenoms, (3) lack of demand for antivenom means that production is low and prices are high.  None of these core problems will be solved by Lewin’s solution. 

What if, instead of encouraging rabbit-hole entrepreneurs to chase their idea that lacks problem-solution fit, we followed the basic patterns of innovation development and started with a well-framed problem.  The scope of the problem Lewin is trying to solve is unclear.  What if it isn’t a problem at all?  Lewin’s initial assumption that the real problem was the delivery mechanism (a shot versus a nasal spray) should have been tested (or challenged).  The problem is that too many people die from snakebites. The solution needs to fit the root causes of that problem. It is likely that breakthrough solutions are going to come in the form of prevention and incremental gains in quality, quantity, and preservation of antivenoms. 

What does this have to do with education?  We invest significant time and money in solutions that lack fit with the problem we need to be solved. We have not done the hard work of analyzing the causes of the problem. We end up with solutions that sound good but solve an issue that may not be causing our problem.  To save time, money, and frustration you need o spend time analyzing and effectively framing the problem. Don’t jump to a solution, but proceed deliberately.