How I built culture around the “good enough” paradox to hit business targets on schedule
Contribution
Reframed “good enough” as a strategic threshold to reduce waste and improve delivery focus
Role
Led in partnership with product and senior leadership
Scope
Product lifecycle improvements
Takeaway
Mentored designers on when to challenge and when to commit
The Challenge
During problem definition work, “good enough” is a constant temptation. Teams rely on design briefs, overlook abstractions, and rush to solutions. Then, once execution kicks off, “good enough” suddenly becomes a dirty word—a signal of poor work.
When teams fail to recognize this trap, the results are often impressive features that fail to address true user needs, or that miss product–market fit entirely. All while consuming valuable resources.
My Response
I mentored the team early that “good enough” is a deliberate double standard. We used it to define two kinds of investment: a bar to exceed in problem definition, and to defend during execution. Designers learned to challenge assumptions, align on success criteria, and stop building once real value was delivered.
I brought safety to creative conflict and the value of going through wrong to get to right. Designers learned when to challenge stakeholder inputs and how to reframe them, and once the team really felt they had permission, the obligation to question really took hold.
The Win
The team’s identity shifted. Designers no longer saw execution excellence as proof of their value. They saw strategic clarity as their real contribution. They grew more confident—not just in their work, but in their judgment. Cross-functional partners took notice, treating design less as a service and more as a planning partner. The “good enough” paradox became more than a mindset. It became a repeatable system that shaped our culture.
Key Outcomes
Prioritizing problem definition gave teams permission to question assumptions
Team rigor improved as shared standards clarified scope and delivery criteria
Cross-functional trust increased as design judgment improved decision quality
Strategic Insight
Strategic clarity protects ROI and prioritizes the right effort:
Teams maintain ROI by recognizing when effort stops adding value
Even strong teams waste effort when the problem is misunderstood
Mature teams balance ambition with deliberate restraint
leadership approach