The Need for Speed that is Not Needed

Time is not a product KPI.

Our obsession for speed is coming at the cost of focusing on what matters most: the value we create.

We have a tendency to over-index on product velocity to assess a start-up, and to define our product goals and roadmaps by timelines.

While time constraints are important to maintain momentum and increase time-to-value, speed is perhaps not as important as we claim it is, and the ability to move fast is perhaps not as much of an advantage as it used to be.

The start-up playbook prescribes speed as a core variable in a start-up’s success. The rate at which a start-up executes is often a good indicator of their ability to adapt to customer feedback and market conditions, and is also perceived as a key capability to outdo incumbents.

While the logic was once sound, the speed advantage is no longer as apparent and supported.

Moving fast used to be driven by skill, intelligence, and raw biological energy. It was a decent indicator of human capital potential. Moving fast is now a factor of having access to the right tools, which are becoming more broadly accessible by the day. The correlation between speed and human capital potential is therefore not as strong.

The integration of AI in the software we use to manage, operate, and assist in our product development feedback loops is a prime example of this. AI is levelling the playing field of execution for those that were previously not as adept to execute well. The rate of execution is therefore no longer the bottleneck and differentiator. As AI increasingly takes on more of our tasks, the speed will be determined by the software we choose, and not by our unique abilities.

In addition, the way products will be developed will no longer be limited by our own production capacity, but by the quality of autonomous software that is built into them. AI will make it possible for product interfaces to be generated on the fly, adapt to user context, and disclose or develop features as they are needed. This is not yet reality, but the current state of model development is hinting at this manifesting in a near future. As a result, start-up execution speed is not necessarily a factor in defining how fast a product can evolve and adapt to market feedback. The product can adapt on its own, more accurately, and on its own time.

In regards to start-ups prioritising product velocity to outpace incumbents, that is also no longer strategically sound. Incumbents are faster than ever, and execute with more resources. In the current transition towards AI, incumbents have an advantage in regards to speed: they have premier access to the models and software that makes their execution even faster. AI is making effective delegation and automation possible without the overhead of additional headcount, but remains expensive to operate. Incumbents with more capital can more readily access AI’s capabilities due to their proximity, but also to their financial resources, and hence better positioned to realise the efficiency gains AI enables in their execution process.

Despite speed not being as much of an advantage, it remains important. The time it takes to build and ship something is a direct function of runway, which can mean life or death for a start-up. It is also what maintains team cadence, and keeps things moving forward.

What is left is therefore not speed or execution - but quality. The quality of ideas, of strategy, of processes, of product, of interactions, and of everything else. It is a fundamental return to value as the main point of focus, as defined by a standard set by the start-up and market.

Independent of the shifts stated above, I believe speed should not have taken over so much space in a start-up’s playbook in the first place. Creating a good product is not a sprint.

Value is not a function of time. It never has been.

Obsession with speed can be a dangerous slippery slope when everything becomes measured and structured around time, and starts displacing value as a first consideration and priority.

There is a culture of deriving pride from moving fast in start-ups, and even without a clear aim. Speed is not that useful without a clear aim. Developing a clear aim is important to direct your execution towards productive outcomes, and those productive outcomes will be measured by ROI.

Speed at all costs costs more than we think. A culture that prioritises moving fast often results in compromises and cutting corners. What appears to save on resources in the short term might actually lead to a greater expense burden down the line as tech debt and the associated sunk cost accumulates. As a result, cutting corners risks eroding not only top line potential, but bottom line as well. Making compromises is inevitable in start-ups, but should be thoughtfully selected as a function of value, not of time. The reality is that many compromises are not worth making.

Leveraging long-term thinking to benefit from effective decision compounding tends to make more sense. If we assume that every outcome is path dependent, then every decision matters and compounds. Making short-term decisions and compromises for the sake of reducing time might also change the start-up trajectory and destination, and rarely for the better.

The problem with focusing on speed is not speed itself, but the fact that it takes attention away from (and sometimes overrides) the focus on value. Value is what determines your financial outcome, but is also your primary reason for being.

I wonder if the “moving fast” dogma might have evolved as a compensation mechanism for the lack of vision and taste. The less we know and have confidence in what we want, the more we need external validation to guide us, and the more speed becomes a necessity to iterate our way to crafting the vision we need.

The need for speed might therefore be a function of conviction in start-ups: The less conviction we have in our thesis and vision, the more speed becomes useful to increase the rate of experimentation on the way to figuring out our “clear aim”. Conversely, the more conviction we have in our thesis and vision, the more we can focus on making the vision the best it can be, and ignore the time it takes to make it.

While this reasoning of putting speed first might work to refine a start-up’s “clear aim” in some cases, I am still not convinced it is as efficient and effective in practice.

Releasing something too quickly is in some ways a selfish act: you impose on your users to define and validate your vision for you, instead of taking the time to figure it out. There is a case to be made for building alongside your users, but it is challenging to do well and productively at scale. Speaking to the right users is just as important as listening to the right users, and that is not always obvious in the early stages.

What you release quickly is also not necessarily effective at giving you the feedback data you need for validation, and often returns more noise than signal. Reduced versions of products (also known as “MVPs”) rarely demonstrate the comprehensive value proposition that needs to be validated, and especially when the time to design them well has not been invested in. Good ideas might be dismissed - not because they do not have potential, but because they never had the chance to be properly developed, presented, and understood.

Furthermore, moving too fast does not give enough time for the market to adapt and respond, or for the business to register and process the right data, and in a statistically significant sample. Users need as much time to process change in product as the ones building it.

In order to shift our focus from speed to value, we need to change our measuring system.

We love speed because it is an objective external measure we can collectively see and agree on. As a result, we use it to measure our KPIs, inform our OKRs, and structure our roadmaps. While collective measures are useful, time is somewhat arbitrary, and not necessarily correlated with business outcomes.

Finding the measure that most closely correlates with highest value output is what matters. That measure is not time.

What if our measure of goals, objectives, and roadmaps was not defined by time, but by a standard of quality? Putting the emphasis not primarily on our own execution, but on what the execution yields. Taking pride in our execution is great for our ego, but taking pride in the quality of outcome is great for the market.

There is a counter-argument to be made that says that emphasis on internal execution is healthy to remain focused on what we can control (i.e. input goals vs output goals). Input goals are a good thing, but input does not necessarily need to be defined by speed. Input can also be defined by craft and attention to detail. Spending more time on doing what no one else would do in the pursuit of greatness might be even more fruitful to yield the output goals desired.

The question is not “how long will this take?” but “how good should this be?”.

I believe ignoring time is the greatest arbitrage for start-ups: Very few have the patience to take the time to make something great. The patience to come up with a good idea, to develop conviction in it, to define what needs to be done to make it, and to do what it takes to do it well.

I wish we spoke more about making products great, and not just about making them. I also wish quality, craft, and experience would displace speed in the start-up playbook. If speed is not as competitive as it used to be, then I hope we can consider it.

Executing fast is meaningless if you don’t execute on the right thing, and if you are not executing on the right thing well.

"Be uncompromising about the value of your product, but perhaps not on the time it takes to get there."

Speed with intentionality, but never at the cost of value.