PRODUCT-MARKET DISCOVERY | STARTUP
What happens when the research challenges the original idea?
A startup was developing drone technology to make external aircraft inspections faster and reduce the need for maintenance personnel to physically climb around the aircraft. Before moving further with the concept, we needed to understand how aircraft inspections actually worked, where maintenance teams experienced the greatest friction, and whether the proposed solution was solving the right problem.
The Challenge
Risze had a compelling concept: use drone technology to make external aircraft inspections faster, easier, and less physically demanding for maintenance teams.
But a compelling solution does not necessarily mean there is a strong enough problem behind it. My role was to help validate the opportunity before the startup invested further in bringing the concept to market. Through user interviews and journey mapping, I explored how maintenance professionals performed aircraft inspections, where the process broke down, and which problems created the most meaningful friction.
The goal wasn't to prove the drone was a good idea. It was to find out whether it was.
Understand the Work
I interviewed aircraft maintenance professionals to understand the inspection experience beyond the assumptions behind the original concept. Rather than asking whether they wanted a drone, I focused on how they worked, where problems occurred, and what made inspections harder or slower than they needed to be.
Find Where the Friction Lives
I mapped the inspection journey to connect individual frustrations to the broader workflow and identify patterns across the experience. That made it possible to compare where problems were occurring rather than treating every pain point as equally important.
Follow the Evidence
The strongest finding challenged the premise behind the original concept. Roughly 80% of the pain points uncovered through the research were associated with interior inspections, not the exterior inspection process the drone was designed to improve.
The opportunity wasn't where we expected it to be.
What I Saw
I started by talking with the people closest to the work. Through shadowing and interviews with aircraft maintenance professionals, I explored the inspection process from their perspective: what they inspected, how they moved through the aircraft, where time was lost, what created frustration, and where existing tools or processes fell short.
The research started with the proposed drone solution in mind. It quickly pointed somewhere else.
The Turning Point
Research only matters if you're willing to let it change the answer. The findings created a choice: continue validating the original drone concept, or reconsider the opportunity around the problems maintenance professionals were actually describing.
01
Challenge the Original Assumption
The research didn't provide strong enough evidence that external inspections represented the most valuable problem to solve. Continuing with the original concept would have meant prioritizing the solution over what users were telling us.
02
Reframe the Opportunity
Instead of asking how to improve the drone concept, I reframed the question around the larger unmet need: how might we make interior aircraft inspections easier, faster, and more effective for maintenance professionals?
03
Make the Call
The evidence pointed toward a different opportunity. I recommended exploring a product direction centered on the interior inspection problems uncovered through the research.
The Recommendation
What the evidence showed
The strongest unmet needs were concentrated inside the aircraft, while the original concept was designed around improving external inspections.
Where I recommended going next
I recommended exploring a handheld, software-enabled solution focused on interior inspections and validating that opportunity further before committing additional development resources.
The research didn't support continuing to treat the original drone concept as the primary opportunity. Based on the patterns uncovered through interviews and journey mapping, I recommended reframing the product around the more significant problems maintenance professionals experienced during interior aircraft inspections.
What This Taught Me
Discovery isn't about proving the original idea was right.
This project reinforced the importance of going into research without being attached to a predetermined solution. The drone was an interesting technology, but the research pointed to a different problem. My job wasn't to make the evidence fit the idea. It was to challenge the assumptions, follow what we learned, and recommend where the opportunity actually appeared to be.