Why This Opportunity Solution Tree is Changing the Way Product Teams Work

Teresa Torres argues that a simple visual structure, the opportunity solution tree, is changing how product teams do discovery. She explains that teams struggled to connect customer research with solution testing, and draws on research into expert mental representations and on problem-solving theory to explain why. The tree links a desired outcome to customer opportunities, then to candidate solutions and experiments, making implicit assumptions visible. The approach matters because it guards against jumping to pet ideas, comparing solutions that address different problems, and building features disconnected from any outcome.

01Key takeaways

• Start every discovery effort by agreeing on one clear, prioritized desired outcome, since a poor starting point wastes the rest of the tree.
• Frame opportunities from customers' own perspective using generative research rather than the team's internal view of the problem.
• Only consider solutions that connect to a target opportunity; disconnected ideas are distractions to set aside.
• Compare solutions that address the same opportunity, rather than debating solutions aimed at different problems.
• Test the riskiest assumptions behind a solution with a set of small experiments, not only one large A/B test of the whole idea.
• Run discovery and delivery in parallel each week, balancing horizontal exploration with vertical progress toward shipping.

02Key sections

The coaching problem

Teams learned useful discovery activities separately but could not string them together into a coherent next step without the coach directing them. This motivated the search for a shared way of organizing the work.

Mental representations and expertise

Drawing on Anders Ericsson, the author argues experts differ from novices in pre-existing patterns of organized information that let them consider more options and decide faster. She looks for such a shared representation in product discovery.

Reframing and multitracking

Bernie Roth's questions about what a desired thing would provide, and how else to get that benefit, show how expert problem solvers reframe problems and generate alternatives systematically. This ties to Jonassen's ill-structured problems and the Heaths' multitracking.

Four gaps in product thinking

Teams often build the first idea without examining it, consider too few ideas, compare solutions aimed at different problems, and pursue solutions that connect to no opportunity at all, illustrated by the ship's scurvy example.

Building the tree

The tree has four levels: a clear desired outcome, opportunities drawn from generative research, solutions from anywhere but bounded by an opportunity, and experiments that test the riskiest assumptions.

Applying the tree

Scenarios show how the tree helps prioritize backlogs, how it reveals missing generative research, and how to balance breadth and depth so that discovery leads to delivery.

03From the post

“I’ve found a visual aid that is profoundly changing the way teams work. It’s working so well that I feel compelled to write a book about it. But that’s going to take time and I want you to have it today. So I’m going to scratch”

04Frameworks mentioned

Summary and takeaways written by PM Atlas; quotes are short excerpts. © the original author.