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.
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.
CEO Dylan Field combats organizational slowness by interrogating project timelines. He seeks to understand the underlying assumptions and separate actual work from "well-intentionally added" padding. This forces teams to reason from first principles and justify the true time required, preventing unnecessary delays.
To overcome analysis paralysis from a previous failure, a 48-hour deadline was set to launch a new business and earn $1 in revenue. This extreme constraint forced rapid action, leading to quick learning in e-commerce, dropshipping, and online payments, proving more valuable than months of planning.
After a group discovery call, don't just set one follow-up. Schedule brief, individual breakout sessions with every stakeholder. This creates multiple parallel threads, uncovers honest feedback people won't share in a group, and builds momentum across the entire buying committee, dramatically increasing deal velocity.
To move beyond static playbooks, treat your team's ways of working (e.g., meetings, frameworks) as a product. Define the problem they solve, for whom, and what success looks like. This approach allows for public reflection and iterative improvement based on whether the process is achieving its goal.
To get buy-in from skeptical, business-focused stakeholders, avoid jargon about user needs. Instead, frame discovery as a method to protect the company's investment in the product team, ensuring you don't build things nobody uses and burn money. This aligns product work with financial prudence.
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.
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.
When pursuing a long-term strategic solution, dedicate product management time to high-level discovery and partner alignment first. This doesn't consume engineering resources, allowing the dev team to remain focused on mitigating the immediate, more visceral aspects of the problem.
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.
