Why over-building features weakens trust

This is the BIGGEST mistake most product teams make. Why do we keep building ‘Cat Trees’ when users want ‘Boxes’? When you ship that "innovative feature" after months of work... and users abandon it for the most basic workaround, this meme hits RIGHT in the feels. 😅 The gap between elaborate features and actual user needs exists because: 1️⃣ 𝗪𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 - Assuming sophisticated solutions deliver more value (they often don't) 2️⃣ 𝗪𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝘆, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼 - "I want an AI-powered system" often means "I need this simple task to be easier" 3️⃣ 𝗪𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 - Those complex demos look great in sales meetings but struggle with adoption The Simple > Complex paradox in real products: 🔹 Dropbox succeeded with simple file syncing while competitors built complex knowledge management systems 🔹 Slack won with channels and emojis while enterprise built comprehensive collaboration suites 🔹 Notion captured users with flexible blocks while others developed rigid template systems 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆: After several expensive failures, I've changed my approach: 🔹 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗯, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 - What's the core problem users need to solve? 🔹 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 - Ship the cardboard box first, then iterate if users actually need climbing posts 🔹 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 - Each added capability creates exponential complexity My team's biggest win last year came from our most straightforward feature that took three days to build but became our most-used function. 👉🏻 The most elegant solution is almost always the simplest one that fully solves the problem. Do you have a story of overbuilding? I’d love to know and learn!

In the utility industry, there is a strong temptation to build complex software solutions right out of the gate. After all, our systems are critical, the data is vast, and the workflows are intricate. But here’s the thing, starting with over-engineered or over-architected software often does more harm than good. Simple solutions win because they focus on delivering clear, repeatable value to the end user. They are easier to maintain, adapt, and evolve as real needs become clearer over time. When we try to anticipate every possible scenario or build for “what ifs” that may never come, we risk creating heavy, brittle systems that frustrate users and slow down progress. From my 20+ years in software development and solution architecture, especially in the #electrical #utility space, I’ve seen teams burn countless hours designing elaborate architectures that end up unused or abandoned. The key is to start small, validate quickly with actual users, and iterate. That way, we build trust, reduce risk, and deliver tools that genuinely improve how we work. Good #BIM data, solid models, and thoughtful software design can transform our workflows, but only if the solutions remain approachable and focused. Let’s champion simplicity, not complexity, as the foundation of successful utility software. Would love to hear your experiences with over-engineering or tips on keeping things simple in this space. #utilityindustry #softwaredevelopment #digitaltransformation #powerdelivery #engineering

Nigerian users taught me something that Silicon Valley gets wrong. They don't want more features. They want the basic features to work perfectly. While building a mobile money startup in the country, rural users kept reverting to using agents instead of a mobile app. The app had a better design, more functionality, and a smoother interface. But agents were 1. Instant 2. Reliable 3. Predictable. African users have zero tolerance for apps that crash during essential transactions. They'll switch to competitors without hesitation. The lesson for founders: trust is built through consistency, not features. Make your core experience bulletproof before you add anything else. Speed and reliability will beat fancy features every time in emerging markets. What's more important to your users: your latest feature or uptime percentage?

𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘆𝗮𝗿𝗱” — 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽𝘀 One of the most common mistakes 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗜 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀: they want to build everything before they build something. And guess what happens? They bury their startup in a feature graveyard — too many features, no clear value. Here’s what I tell them 𝟭️.𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗗𝟮𝗖 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 – solve one burning need first A founder I mentored was launching a skincare brand and had 14 products planned. I asked, “Which one solves a real pain today?” They cut it down to 3 hero products — revenue doubled in 2 months. Lesson: Until customers trust your core, they won’t care about your extras. 𝟮️.𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮-𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 – go deep, not wide Another founder wanted to tackle diagnostics, drug discovery, and data analytics… all in one shot. We trimmed it down to a single, high-impact diagnostic tool. That focus helped them get a pilot with a hospital — something 3 fancy features couldn’t. Lesson: Investors and partners back clarity, not chaos. 𝟯️.𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 – simplicity sells, complexity kills I worked with a SaaS team building 27 dashboards. We cut it down to 4 that solved 80% of user problems — suddenly onboarding became easier, churn dropped, and feedback turned positive. Lesson: Users don’t want “everything.” They want what works. Founders often think more features = more value. Truth is, more features = more confusion, more delays, and more reasons for customers to ignore you. Build less. Solve more. That’s how you avoid the feature graveyard. For paid startup mentorship, write to hello@tnwomen.com #Founders #Startups #Product #Entrepreneurship #Mentorship #ZhaVC #TNWOMEN