Skip to main content
Rationale: Your Product Design Company
Back to Thinking
PROBLEM·8 min read

The Build-First Trap

Most teams commit to production architecture before validating core assumptions. By the time users see it, you're 3-6 months in. Pivoting means throwing away weeks of work. Killing means political fallout.

The Pattern

Traditional approach: 4 weeks of specs + 16 weeks of build + 4 weeks of testing = 24 weeks at risk before first user feedback.

When you finally discover the UX doesn't work, you're too deep to pivot.

Why Specs Fail

Users don't know what they want until they feel it. A 20-page spec describes an interaction. A prototype lets users experience it. Experience reveals problems specs can't predict.

EXAMPLE: ZERO INBOX

Zero's spec said "swipe left to archive." Prototype testing revealed 73% of users expected swipe right. We pivoted in Day 3, not Month 4.

A spec would have never caught this. We would have built the entire interaction pattern wrong, discovered it 12 weeks into production, and faced a brutal choice: ship subpar UX or throw away weeks of work.

The Sunk Cost Problem

12 weeks into development, you discover the core UX doesn't work. Pivoting means throwing away weeks of engineering work. Politically, it's a failure. Financially, it's a write-off.

Teams double down on bad UX to avoid admitting the sunk cost.

THE TIMELINE OF REGRET

Week 4Capital invested, UX issue found
Week 8More sunk, core interaction failing tests
Week 12Months wasted, user feedback confirms it's wrong
Week 16Too deep to pivot—launch with known problems or kill

Result: Ship subpar product to "not waste the investment." Users suffer. Product fails. Team gets blamed.

The Alternative

What if you could test those core assumptions in 2 days instead of discovering them in Week 12?

What if pivoting cost 2 days of prototype work instead of 2 weeks of production rework?

That's the build-to-think methodology. Validate before you commit. De-risk before you invest.

All essaysNext: Build-to-Think