A decade ago, the product itself could set a startup apart. Today, that edge has dulled. Software can be copied, features replicated, and UI patterns borrowed overnight. What remains as a true differentiator is not just what is built, but why and how it's built, particularly in how it serves its market and delivers customer experience.

In the early stages of product development, many founders begin with a bold idea. But too often, they move straight into execution without asking the most critical questions.

• Where did the idea come from?
• Who is it really for?
• What job is the product solving?

The answers to these are rarely as clear as they might seem.

When founders walk in with an idea, it’s common that they’re not technical. But “non-technical” doesn’t just mean lacking engineering skills. It often means they can’t articulate what their product needs to do. They might be driven by a vision or a pain point they’ve experienced, but translating that into a functioning product is an entirely different challenge.

This is where a disciplined approach is needed, not just enthusiasm. Building products starts with understanding the user’s world and that begins long before a line of code is written.

Why Listening to Users Beats Guessing

Founders often expect the product they envision at the beginning to be the same one they end up launching. That rarely happens. Software development, especially in its early stages, is a deeply collaborative and evolving process. As the idea is explored, tested, and iterated, the final outcome often diverges from the original concept.

For teams unfamiliar with this reality, like first-time founders or executives used to more linear forms of project delivery, it can be a difficult shift in mindset. One of the most effective ways to ground expectations is through direct user research. Ethnographic interviews, user observations, and client feedback expose the real-world context in which the product will live. It’s not hypothetical. It’s not theoretical. It's data from actual users, often in their own words. And that tends to cut through internal debates very quickly.

In practice, user research helps eliminate founder bias. Most founders genuinely believe in the value of their idea. That belief is important as it fuels early momentum, but belief alone isn't enough to guide a build. Research reveals which features are essential and which are nice to have. It shows what users actually care about, not just what the founder thinks they will care about.

A frequent trap is the temptation to build a first release loaded with every possible feature and detail from the start. It’s ambitious, expensive, and almost always unnecessary. A better approach is to launch with a focused, functional product that addresses a core user problem. From there, the product can evolve based on usage and feedback.

Listening to users refines and validates the product. And often, founders walk away from sessions with sharper thinking and clearer priorities than they had going in.

What Kind of Research Actually Works?

Forget focus groups and broad surveys. They’re too noisy. Group dynamics skew responses, and the data is often hard to trust. Instead, high-quality user research starts with ethnography, methods that rely on immersion, context, and one-on-one interactions.

The first approach is direct interviews. Typically, this means six to eight hour-long sessions with potential customers. That number might sound small, but by the time the eighth conversation wraps, patterns start to emerge. At that point, the insights become clear. It’s about depth, not volume after all.

Another technique is immersion. In B2B contexts, this usually involves observing users in their own work environment. You watch how they move through their day. What tools they use. What they avoid. Sometimes, the most critical workflows aren’t happening on a screen at all. Without that proximity, you might never discover those moments.

The third is observational testing, watching people perform specific tasks with the software, noting where they succeed and where they fail. Whether it’s a formal usability study or an informal observation at a kiosk, this kind of research reveals how the product behaves in the wild, not just in theory.

This level of understanding can’t be outsourced to quick surveys or generic questionnaires. It takes skill and expertise. And it requires the right people doing the research. Too often, “UX/UI” is treated as a single discipline. But while the titles are commonly linked, the roles are fundamentally different.

UX professionals have backgrounds in human behavior, psychology, and research methodologies. Their job is to understand how people interact with systems, and to measure and interpret those interactions. UI specialists, on the other hand, are often graphic designers with strengths in layout, branding, and interaction design. Both are essential. But for early-stage research and product definition, the UX side is non-negotiable.

Relying on the wrong expertise at the wrong time results in decisions based on aesthetics, not behavior. And that’s where products go sideways.

Vision Is Good but Validation Is Better

Prototyping often unlocks excitement. Founders start to see their ideas come to life, and naturally, that invites a desire to go bigger, more features, more polish, more “wow.” But the challenge is in knowing what actually matters.

There’s a crucial distinction between features users like and features they’ll pay for. In practice, it’s rarely the users who push for the unnecessary extras. It’s usually the founders, driven by passion and a vision of what the product could be. And while vision matters, successful products aren’t built on aspiration alone. They’re built on restraint and purpose.

To manage this tension, one useful framework is a model of the MVP as a triangle: functionality, usability, and desirability. Rather than focusing only on a stripped-down version of the product’s features, the aim is to capture a vertical slice of the experience. Something that does a small number of things, but does them well and does them in a way that users not only find useful, but engaging. That might include one or two “magical” elements, but only in service of validating the broader product.

The point of the MVP is to learn. The feedback it generates should guide either expansion or recalibration. But that only works if the MVP is grounded in real user needs and not a wishlist.

There are times when clients want to skip the process. They’ve seen the early designs, they like what they see, and they want to move straight into development. Some even question the need for user research at all. If the design looks good, why not just build?

The answer lies in risk mitigation. Skipping research might seem like a shortcut, but it usually results in wasted time and misaligned priorities. Even experienced teams won't get everything right on the first pass. But with proper research, they greatly increase their chances of building something meaningful from the start.

And there's also pride in play because releasing a product that doesn't work isn't just bad for the client; it reflects poorly on the team that built it.

A Common MVP Trap

Let’s revisit a common debate in product development: Should you build fast and ugly just to get something into the market?

The “build it fast, fix it later” approach has its appeal, especially for technical founders who love to code and want to see something live. But it often fails to account for the full user experience. You might be solving the functional need, but if you neglect usability, design, and emotional resonance, you may not get any meaningful feedback at all. Worse, users may disengage completely.

That’s why you must caution against launching only the “bottom tier” of a product without giving users a complete slice of the experience. It’s like serving someone just the crust of a pie and expecting them to understand how good the whole dessert could be.

Speed is important. But speed without insight is waste. So yes, you should aim to build small and fast but only when that speed is paired with clear research, real conversations with users, and a vision for the full experience.

The Bottom-line

Startups succeed when they stay grounded in the problem space, not the feature list. They win when they talk to customers, validate assumptions, and prioritize outcomes over outputs.

Experience-driven development is something you should aim for. That means letting the product's human context lead the technical decisions and not the other way around. You start with user insight, map that to real needs, and only then write the first line of code.

That philosophy is very practical. It helps teams avoid unnecessary rework. It gives founders clarity. And it ensures that early versions of the product are besides functional also useful.

Build Smarter. Scale Faster. Stand Out with Solwey

Your startup deserves more than generic solutions. At Solwey, we specialize in custom software development that supports your business from day one. Whether you're building an MVP, launching new features, or preparing to scale, our tailored services are designed to move you forward, quickly and strategically.

We help startups:

• Accelerate time-to-market by removing development bottlenecks
• Automate repetitive tasks to free up team capacity for innovation
• Ensure scalability and flexibility through custom-built systems
• Gain a competitive edge with technology that’s built around your needs

If you're ready to turn complexity into clarity and growth, Solwey is here to help.

‍