Earlier this year, I wrote about the importance of balancing product-led and customer-led thinking as organizations pursue sustainable growth. I continue to believe that both are essential. Yet, over the past several months, I have become convinced that an even more fundamental question deserves greater attention.

Before organizations decide what to build, how do they know they truly understand what their customers are trying to accomplish?

It sounds like an obvious question. In practice, it is one that executive teams do not ask often enough.

Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to work with universities, medical schools, health professions programs, testing organizations, and education technology companies across North America and globally. While every institution is unique, I continue to observe the same pattern. We spend considerable time discussing products, technology, AI, pricing, commercialization, and go-to-market strategies. These are all important conversations. But they often begin after we have already assumed that we understand the customer’s problem.

That assumption deserves to be challenged.

This is not a new idea. More than sixty years ago, Theodore Levitt warned organizations against what he called marketing myopia, the tendency to become so focused on products that they lose sight of the customer need those products are meant to address. Peter Drucker reminded us that the purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer. Clayton Christensen later expanded this thinking through his Jobs to Be Done theory, arguing that customers “hire” products to accomplish meaningful progress in their lives. More recently, entrepreneur Rob Snyder has offered a practical perspective on the same principle, emphasizing that organizations often struggle because they focus on selling the solutions they have built instead of understanding what customers are already trying to accomplish.

Different authors. Different decades. The same underlying lesson.

Organizations create lasting value when they understand demand before they design supply.

Customer Requests Are Not Customer Demand

One of the most common mistakes organizations make is confusing customer requests with customer demand.

Customers ask for new features. They request additional reports, different workflows, dashboards, integrations, or new capabilities. These requests are valuable because they provide insight into how customers experience our products.

But they should not automatically determine our strategy. A requested feature is not necessarily the problem that needs to be solved. The more important question is simple: What outcome is the customer trying to achieve?

Understanding that distinction changes the entire conversation.

A medical school may ask for a new assessment capability. Is the real need another assessment instrument, or greater confidence that graduates are developing the competencies expected of future physicians? A nursing program may request additional reporting. Is the objective another dashboard, or better evidence to support accreditation and continuous quality improvement? A residency program may ask for workflow automation. Is the underlying challenge administrative efficiency, faculty workload, accreditation, or learner development? A university may request predictive analytics. Is the goal another data platform, or better decisions that improve student success and institutional effectiveness? The requested solution is often only one possible answer. Executive leadership requires understanding the question before deciding on the answer.

Why This Matters More Than Ever

This distinction has become increasingly important across higher education and, in particular, in medical and health sciences education.

AI is reshaping teaching, learning, assessment, research, and administrative work. Institutions face demographic change, financial pressures, evolving accreditation expectations, and increasing demands for accountability. Medical and health professions education continue to advance toward competency-based education, longitudinal assessment, and data-informed learner development.

In response, many organizations understandably ask:

What technology should we build?

What AI capability should we introduce?

What new feature will differentiate us?

These are important questions.

They simply are not the first questions.

The first question should be:

What problem are institutions trying to solve that they cannot solve effectively today?

Medical schools are not looking for software. They are trying to prepare better physicians. Nursing programs are not looking for another assessment. They are trying to ensure graduates are clinically competent and practice-ready. Residency programs are not searching for better workflows because they enjoy new technology. They are trying to reduce administrative burden while improving educational quality and learner development. Universities are not investing in artificial intelligence because AI is fashionable. They are trying to improve learning, decision-making, operational effectiveness, and student success.

Technology matters. But only when it serves a meaningful educational purpose.

Implications for Executive Leadership

I believe this has important implications for executive teams.

Product strategy should begin with evidence of customer demand rather than assumptions about customer needs. Commercialization should focus on institutional outcomes rather than product capabilities. Marketing should explain how organizations can solve important problems rather than simply describe features. Sales conversations should spend more time exploring institutional priorities than presenting demonstrations. Customer Success should measure whether institutions achieve the outcomes they were seeking in the first place.

Understanding demand is not the responsibility of one department. It is an organizational capability. More importantly, it is a leadership discipline. Before approving a significant product investment, commercialization initiative, or strategic priority, executive teams should ask themselves five questions:

What outcome is the customer ultimately trying to achieve?

What evidence do we have that this represents a genuine institutional priority?

What assumptions are we making about customer demand?

How have customers described the problem in their own words?

Does our proposed solution simplify our customers’ lives, or merely expand our product portfolio?

These questions are straightforward.

Answering them honestly is often much harder.

Understanding The End Game

Higher education and the health professions have always been driven by a common purpose: improving people’s lives through education, research, and service.

Technology, assessment, analytics, and artificial intelligence will continue to transform how we pursue that mission. Yet the starting point should remain unchanged.

Before deciding what to build, organizations must first understand what institutions, educators, learners, healthcare professionals, and ultimately society are trying to accomplish. Only then can innovation create lasting value.

Understanding demand before building supply is not simply a product strategy. It is a leadership discipline.