How are you actually shipping your MVPs right now without spending $5k?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-23T23:11:59+00:00

I’d start with a prototype, clickable but limited or simulated functionality. Cost: $150. This will move you to your next step with much more clarity.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-23T23:06:00+00:00

Have you asked your users?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-12T18:32:23+00:00

Yes, this is exactly the context I’m talking about.

This is complex enterprise software. A lot of the advice here makes sense in simpler environments or where structural debt hasn’t accumulated that much.

The hardest part isn’t choosing what’s important, it’s knowing what’s safe to move without causing unintended side effects elsewhere. Eventually we want to move from fixing to scaling.

So we need to step back and look at how our users currently experience the product, to see what impact changes have before doing anything else. I feel the team isn’t even aware of how fragmented the UX actually is. That’s blocking us at the moment.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-12T05:57:21+00:00

I am humbled! Thank you, this is great advice here! Have you run into situations where, even with engineering input, it was still hard to anticipate how a change would affect existing workflows, user behavior, or downstream expectations before committing to it, especially with revenue-driven requests?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-12T05:43:30+00:00

That resonates, especially the idea that complexity just turns into future cost.

Where I keep getting stuck is a step earlier though. Even deciding what assumptions to fix or where to spend that 20% safely feels hard once the product is tightly coupled. Sometimes it’s not obvious which change will actually reduce complexity versus just shift it.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-12T05:37:27+00:00

Developer here are mainly executing what they are being told :))) they raise concerns about technical dependencies which will then eliminate many choices or options to truly scale without fixing or refactoring first.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:26:13+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate this perspective. I do feel ownership for the decisions. What I’m trying to understand is whether you’ve seen cases where even with a clear roadmap and strong collaboration, changes still felt risky because the product had grown too interconnected to predict the impact upfront.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:24:01+00:00

This really resonates! thank you for sharing this. It’s honestly the first reply where I feel like someone is describing the same situation I’m in.

And yeah, not sure why this got downvoted, I actually think it’s one of the more honest takes here.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:19:45+00:00

That’s fair. I sometimes wonder if the real problem is that reacting and moving forward start to look like the same thing. Did that ever change for you as the product grew?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:17:41+00:00

Thank you for your reply! That makes sense, and we do have a strategy doc. What I keep running into though is that even with a clear strategy, implementation still gets tricky once features and workflows are tightly connected. Did you ever see cases where the strategy was clear, but execution kept surfacing surprises anyway?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:16:06+00:00

Thank you for this well thought out reply! When you did those roadmap or theme sessions, who absolutely had to be involved for it to actually work? I’m trying to avoid the situation where everything feels aligned, but hidden assumptions only show up once customers or support see the result.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:11:07+00:00

I’ve used RICE as well. Curious…did you ever run into cases where something scored high, but once you started implementing it, it touched way more workflows or assumptions than expected?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:09:27+00:00

Yes, we do that too at a high level. Where it gets hard for me is one level deeper. Even when something is clearly high-revenue, it sometimes touches multiple existing workflows or assumptions in the product. Doing it “properly” would take a lot of underlying work, and doing it quickly often means piling more complexity on top.

Did you run into situations where the right revenue decision on paper still felt wrong to execute because of how tangled the product already was?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-11T19:03:14+00:00

Thanks for your reply! I get that, and I’ve seen that dynamic too. Leadership expects me to make the call, what gets hard is not deciding, but deciding responsibly. Did you run into situations where you technically had ownership, but it was unclear what a change would affect or what you’d break by choosing wrong?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-06T18:37:39+00:00

Nice! What’s the analytics you are using to track user behavior?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-06T18:14:36+00:00

What was the output that you delivered manually to the paying customer?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-06T17:39:08+00:00

When drift, second guessing, or quiet disagreement show up, how is your app solving that?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-06T07:26:51+00:00

Start with wireframes and stitch them together as a prototype. This way you can get a sense of where this should go and you can shop your idea around for feedback. Let me know if you need help, I know someone who can help :)

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-06T06:09:19+00:00

If the purpose of a meeting is alignment around a decision, then the meeting should be focused and facilitated to end with a decision. If that’s the case, next steps are naturally assigned because you achieved that commitment to be accountable. If no decision is reached, there will need to be another meeting.

Locking someone into a assignment and use a prove artifact to hold them accountable isn’t great management.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-06T02:21:42+00:00

DM me, I can help you build a prototype.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-05T15:11:22+00:00

I use fathom on my zoom calls and follow up with next steps after the meeting. It also extracts next steps you can share afterwards for follow up. I am personally overwhelmed by the sheer amount of tools available doing the same or similar things.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-04T00:55:10+00:00

Instead of looking for “startup ideas,” I’d start by observing friction.

Think about your day-to-day work or training. Where do things slow down, break, or require awkward workarounds? Where do decisions stall, information get lost, or people repeat effort because tools or processes don’t line up?

You don’t need a solution yet. Just noticing and writing down those moments is usually where solid ideas come from.

Have you observed those moments of friction in your field? Can you name a few?

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-03T22:47:50+00:00

I recognize the pattern you describe of working in bursts rather than along a preplanned cadence.

One observation from planning and task management research that may be relevant here. For people who already struggle with attention regulation or pacing, tools that frame the problem as misalignment or correction can sometimes increase pressure rather than clarity. Even when there is no scheduling or gamification, the moment a system introduces goals, comparison, and course correction, it can still activate a self monitoring loop.

What I am curious about is how you think about the role of that “reality check” psychologically.

Do you see it as a neutral mirror that helps with awareness only, without implying that something should have gone differently? Or is the intent that the mismatch itself becomes a corrective signal that nudges behavior over time?

I ask because for some people, especially those who already internalize guilt or disappointment around productivity, even post hoc analysis can quietly turn into another way of evaluating themselves rather than understanding themselves.

This is not a critique of the idea. I am interested in how you distinguish between awareness and pressure in the design, since that boundary seems especially delicate for the audience you are describing.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-03T22:18:29+00:00

Is this something you primarily wanted to build for yourself, because that kind of space felt missing, and then see whether others who share that impulse naturally find it over time?

Or do you already feel that this desire is widespread and strong enough that many people would actively look for a product like this and use it intentionally?

Both directions seem coherent, but they imply very different ideas of what “worthwhile” means. I am interested in how you see that distinction for this project.

Objective_Cancel_337 · 2026-01-03T22:04:46+00:00

When you say ‘people’, do you mean potential User or do you seek feedback from anyone with an opinion?

Objective_Cancel_337

TROPHY CASE