Your stakeholders aren't wrong about the problems.
Why the real challenge isn't identifying pain points - it's solving them in ways people will actually adopt.
I used to get frustrated when stakeholders would push for features based on "gut feeling" rather than user research. Then I realized something: their gut feelings were usually backed by real experience. They'd seen the support tickets, heard the sales team's complaints, and watched processes break down in real time.
The problem wasn't that they were wrong about what hurt. The problem was assuming that identifying pain automatically means you know how to fix it.
When business intuition meets user reality.
A few years back, my then leadership team – founders who were also the original product people at the company - tasked their software vendor with building an e-notary feature. The business case was solid - manual notarization was creating delays, frustration, and lost deals.
Leadership had watched this pain play out across multiple client interactions. They weren't making it up.
They built what seemed obvious: an automated e-notary system within our CRM that technically solved the manual process problem. It was delivered on time, checked all the requirement boxes, and moved on to the next feature.
The adoption was terrible.
Instead of investigating why, the team wanted to move on. "We tried, it didn't work, let's build something the next thing” was the mindset they had. More features are better, right?
…Right??
Here's what I've learned: there's a difference between knowing something hurts and knowing how to make it stop hurting.
The questions most teams skip.
When you can't test every assumption upfront, you need to at least test your solutions after launch. The questions that matter aren't just "Is this a real problem?" but:
What's preventing adoption right now?
Not "do users want this" but "what's stopping them from using what we built?"
How does this fit into their actual workflow?
We'd solved the technical challenge, but created workflow friction we hadn't anticipated.
What would make them choose this over their current process?
Our solution was technically superior but practically inferior in ways we hadn't considered.
Are we measuring the right success metrics?
We were tracking feature usage instead of process improvement. Hopefully you’re using a product like Amplitude (partner link here to check it out) to create/track usage.
These aren't just theoretical questions. When we finally started asking them about our e-notary disaster, everything shifted.
Instead of dismissing the feature as 'something users don't want,' we started viewing low adoption as feedback on our execution, not our direction.
When iteration becomes the real product, work begins.
Once we started asking these questions instead of moving to the next feature, everything changed. We discovered the e-notary worked fine - it was the context around it that was broken.
Users didn't know when to use it, how it integrated with their existing tools, or what happened if something went wrong.
Three iterations later, the feature gained instant adoption. Not because we rebuilt it, but because we refined how people actually experienced it.
The business was right about the value. They were just wrong about thinking delivery equals adoption.
What to do when features fail to launch.
When a feature doesn't get adopted, resist the urge to immediately move on. Instead, set up some basic detective work. The goal isn't to prove the feature was worth building - it's to understand the gap between what you built and what people actually need.
Start with the people who should be using it but aren't.
Don't send surveys. Have actual conversations. Schedule 15-minute calls with 3-5 users who fit your target profile. Ask what they expected versus what they found. Most users can tell you exactly where they got stuck or confused, but they won't volunteer this feedback unless you ask directly.
Watch someone try to use it in real time.
Sit next to a user (or hop on a screen share) and observe them attempting the process. Don't guide them - just watch. You'll see friction you never anticipated in places you thought were obvious.
Pay attention to where they hesitate, what they click first, and what they mutter under their breath.
Map the real workflow, not the intended one.
Document how people actually work, not how your feature assumes they work. Follow a user through their entire day and see where your feature fits (or doesn't fit) into their natural process.
The gap between these two maps is where adoption dies.
Check if it's a discovery problem, not a product problem.
Sometimes people want the solution but don't know it exists, can't find it, or don't understand when to use it. Look at your onboarding flow, navigation, and messaging. Is the problem that your feature is hard to use, or hard to discover?
Set a timeline for this investigation.
Give yourself two weeks to gather this feedback, then decide: iterate, pivot, or sunset. Don't let detective work become procrastination.
Making the case for iteration.
When stakeholders resist spending more time on something that's "already done," reframe the conversation around investment protection. "We've invested X in building this. Spending a few more weeks ensuring adoption protects that investment better than building the next feature."
Don't ask for an indefinite time to "make it work." Propose specific timeframes: "Give us three weeks to understand why adoption is low, then we'll decide whether to iterate or sunset."
The truth is, successful products aren't delivered; they're developed through use. Your job becomes bridging the gap between "this should work" and "this actually works."
The startup world is full of stories like this. Smart teams, real problems, technically sound solutions - and disappointing adoption. The difference between features that succeed and features that sit unused isn't usually the quality of the engineering or even the validity of the problem.
It's understanding that building something is only half the job.
Final thoughts.
Your stakeholders aren't wrong about what hurts. They're just optimistic about what fixes it. And if you can't afford extensive user research upfront, you need to get comfortable learning after launch instead of abandoning ship when the first version doesn't land perfectly.
The real question isn't whether you should build features based on stakeholder pain points. It's whether you're prepared to iterate on them until they solve the problems they were meant to address.
Until next week,
Mike @ Product Party
Want to connect? Send me a message on LinkedIn, Bluesky, Threads, or Instagram.
P.S. Are you a founder looking for some direction on what to build next? Check out Product Party - The Founder Starter Pack. It’s perfect for first-time founders who want frameworks over philosophy, evidence over gut feelings, and practical templates over theoretical advice.
Would you agree you could have tested your assumptions up front, and thus avoided deploying a premature solution?
great article. this happens waaaay too often.