A Faster Horse Podcast

The episode walks through the New Product Blueprinting methodology with some usable structural elements - the five-part discovery interview, the Market Satisfaction Gap threshold - but spends a large portion of runtime on slow scene-setting analogies (garden hose vs. hydraulic hose) and host-recap loops rather than delivering dense, non-obvious ideas. A B2B operator gets a passable framework overview but little they couldn't find in the AIM Institute's own marketing materials.

“The two major reasons you have commercial risk are errors of omission and errors of commission.”

“if you get a market satisfaction gap of around 30% or more, that's your indication that customers are eager”

The guest explicitly credits Tony Ulwich's 2002 HBR paper on Outcome Driven Innovation as the intellectual foundation, positioning his work as a B2B-specific refinement rather than a genuinely new paradigm. The 'unfamiliar markets' reframe is a modest but genuine original contribution; otherwise the ideas recirculate established VOC and front-end-of-innovation thinking.

“a guy by the name of Tony Ulwich from Strategy Institute, wonderful HBR paper. In 2002 he came up with Outcome Driven Innovation and he started saying let's figure out what your outcomes are”

“let's go into an unfamiliar market...the market was already there. I was just a new supplier to the market. So that was kind of supplier centric thinking”

Dan Adams is a legitimate practitioner - 29 years in industry, chemical engineering background turned marketer, 20 years running a B2B-specific training institute serving Fortune 500 clients - not a career podcaster or thin thought-leader. His credibility is real but his profile is niche, and the conversation reveals little that goes beyond what a consulting firm's website would tell you.

“I had been working inside of industry for about 29 years. My background is chemical engineering”

“we've had the privilege of working mostly with Fortune 500 companies all around the world”

There are a handful of concrete anchors - 30% Market Satisfaction Gap threshold, 31 weeks of e-learning, named clients like Caterpillar and DuPont, the 2002 Ulwich HBR citation, 5,000 data points in the growth diagnostic - but the episode relies almost entirely on a single hypothetical hose-company example and never produces a real client case study with before/after outcomes or revenue impact.

“if you get a market satisfaction gap of around 30% or more, that's your indication that customers are eager”

“every week for the next 31 weeks they're going to get an E learning module”

The host spots real gaps - correctly flagging the missing problem-to-outcome bridge and clarifying who 'we' refers to - but never challenges whether the methodology actually works, never asks for a failure case or a client who tried and abandoned it, and lets the back half become an uninterrupted product walkthrough. The conversation is curious but functionally a guided sales demo.

“there's some bridge between problem to outcome. You mentioned we want to get to outcome. Am I misunderstanding it, or is there a bridge there that we haven't picked up on in this conversation?”

“Is the we the AIM Institute or is it the individual companies and the individual organizations who are deploying”