Sometimes the prototype just needs to answer a question.
I’ve rebuilt the product I’m working on multiple times this week. I build it, use it, realise something feels wrong, and pull it apart again.
Each time, I understand more clearly what I’m actually trying to make. Things I couldn’t explain in a brief become obvious once I can click around.
I used to think I needed to figure more of this out before building. When that meant weeks of engineering time, that was sensible.
But now I can spend an evening building something to answer one question. Then throw the whole thing away.
That’s a change I don’t think I’ve fully adjusted to. I still get attached to the work. It functions. I spent time on it. Surely I should keep improving this version?
Sometimes the most useful thing it did was show me why I should build a different one.
The code can be disposable. The understanding carries forward.
I think we’re still bringing the habits of expensive building into a world where trying things has become much cheaper. We spend hours discussing an interaction we could just build and experience. We keep adding to a prototype because it already exists, even when we’ve learned something that should change its foundations.
Building has become a useful way to form an opinion. I often need something in front of me before I can tell you what’s wrong with it. Each version gives me a better question to ask.
There’s obviously a trap here. I could use this to justify rebuilding forever. I’m very capable of that.
So after each version, I’m trying to ask: what do I understand now that I didn’t before?
If I can answer that, the build did something useful. If I’m moving the same buttons around again, I probably need to ship it and learn from someone else using it.
Next time you’re going in circles on an idea, build enough to experience the part you’re unsure about. Give yourself permission to throw it away afterwards.
Sometimes making the thing is how you work out what you think.
Until next time,
Ajay
