While research is vital, there's a point of diminishing returns. Over-researching can lead to 'analysis paralysis' by revealing too many edge cases and divergent needs, ultimately stalling the momentum required to build and launch a new product.
Related Insights
When research stalls, the bottleneck is often not the methodology or recruiting but a lack of internal consensus on the target audience. The first step should always be audience definition. If the team can't agree, then the initial research project must be to define and validate the audience itself.
Don't just collect feedback from all users equally. Identify and listen closely to the few "visionary users" who intuitively grasp what's next. Their detailed feedback can serve as a powerful validation and even a blueprint for your long-term product strategy.
Founders often get stuck endlessly perfecting a product, believing it must be flawless before launch. This is a fallacy, as "perfection" is subjective. The correct approach is to launch early and iterate based on real market feedback, as there is no perfect time to start.
Users aren't product designers; they can only identify problems and create workarounds with the tools they have. Their feature requests represent these workarounds, not the optimal solution. A researcher's job is to uncover the deeper, underlying problem.
Don't design solely for the user. The best product opportunities lie at the nexus of what users truly need (not what they say they want), the company's established product principles, and its core business objectives.
In AI, low prototyping costs and customer uncertainty make the traditional research-first PM model obsolete. The new approach is to build a prototype quickly, show it to customers to discover possibilities, and then iterate based on their reactions, effectively building the solution before the problem is fully defined.
Effective, fast research isn't about skipping steps but about rightsizing the effort. Instead of defaulting to a previous method like "10 interviews," teams should determine the minimum insight needed to mitigate the specific risk at hand, using that to define the research scope and approach.
When products offer too many configurations, it often signals that leaders lack the conviction to make a decision. This fear of being wrong creates a confusing user experience. It's better to ship a simple, opinionated product, learn from being wrong, and then adjust, rather than shipping a convoluted experience.
Instead of arguing for more time, product leaders should get stakeholder buy-in on a standardized decision-making process. The depth and rigor of each step can then be adjusted based on available time, from a two-day workshop to an eight-month study, without skipping agreed-upon stages.
The misconception that discovery slows down delivery is dangerous. Like stretching before a race prevents injury, proper, time-boxed discovery prevents building the wrong thing. This avoids costly code rewrites and iterative launches that miss the mark, ultimately speeding up the delivery of a successful product.
