Magic Lenses
Evaluate competing implementation paths by plotting each through the eyes of the advisers you wish you had
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 88%
A structured way to choose between implementation approaches that all solve the same problem for the same customer. You imagine an ideal panel of expert advisers — customer, pragmatic, growth, money, differentiation — and plot each option on a 2x2 for each 'lens,' plus custom lenses that matter to your team. Zooming out reveals either a clear winner across lenses or that no perfect option exists, which itself guides the decision.
Origin
Created by Jake Knapp and John Zeratsky as the day-two 'Approach' activity of the Foundation Sprint at Character Capital.
Core principles
- 01Different approaches to the same destination are like Google Maps routes — faster, less fuel, avoids tolls — not different businesses
- 02Externalizing every adviser's viewpoint onto charts beats holding a week of conflicting conversations in your head
- 03If one option wins across every lens, the decision is easy; if nothing wins everywhere, that reassures you there is no perfect choice
- 04When lenses conflict, decide which single lens (viewpoint) matters most and pick by that
How to run it
- 1
List the distinct approaches
Enumerate the different implementation paths (e.g. build an app, a newsletter platform, a plugin, the full stack). If you think there's only one, force yourself to invent alternatives.
Pro tip Color-code each approach so you can track it across every chart.
Watch out Confirm all approaches solve the same problem for the same customer with the same differentiation — otherwise you're comparing different companies, not approaches.
- 2
Define the magic lenses
Use the standard adviser lenses — customer (best solution to the problem), pragmatic (cheap/fast to market), growth (reach the most customers fastest), money (long-term financial value), and differentiation — each as a 2x2 axis pair.
- 3
Add your own custom lenses
Teams almost always add lenses that matter to them, such as founder conviction ('how excited are you to build this').
Pro tip A conviction/excitement lens can be the most important one — how much a founder truly wants to build something is real signal, whether it's gut or data-backed intuition.
- 4
Plot every option on every lens, then zoom out
Place each color-coded approach on each lens, then step back to read the pattern across all of them.
Pro tip If one color sits top-right on nearly every lens, that's your easy pick; if nothing wins everywhere, choose the single most important lens and decide by it.
In the wild
Latchet came in with four approaches — an app, a newsletter platform, a Shopify plugin, or a full-stack build — all solving artisan sales growth for the same customer with the same differentiation. They plotted each through the magic lenses instead of debating endlessly.
→ They committed to a 'social sales app' as their first choice with 'build the full stack' as the backup, feeding directly into their founding hypothesis.
Common mistakes
Just building and launching to learn
Skipping this hour-or-two exercise to build immediately can waste weeks or months heading in the wrong direction; the lenses filter approaches on what customers will love, growth and money before you write code.
Is it for you?
Best for
Founders stuck between several viable implementation paths, or overly locked-in on one, at the start of a project
Not ideal for
Situations where the approach is already validated by real traction, or where the options are genuinely different businesses rather than paths to one destination
From the transcript
“We call this activity magic lenses”
“how excited are you to build this feels like a really important piece”
“it's like pulling up directions on Google Maps. This one's a little faster, this one uses less fuel, this one avoids tolls”
From the episode
Rapidly test and validate any startup idea with the 2-day Foundation Sprint (from the creators of the Design Sprint)
Jake Knapp & John Zeratsky (Character Capital)