Jan
2011
Double Dipping – Path To Product Market Fit
Yes, the age old moral question of to dip a chip once and be polite, or go back in for the double dip and possibly offend someone else who finds this behavior inappropriate. We have had many in-office discussions on the topic and to this day we have yet to come to a consensus, so I figured it would be a great metaphor for another wall we find ourselves up against often: product customization.

As a newbie developer I was always ambitious to add new settings to our application because it was possible and it would show of my abilities as developer. Crazy drop-down menu’s and ajax updating. Cool form validation and tabbed layouts. A customer would request a certain feature, and I’d be thinking how I could add a “simple” checkbox to easily accommodate their request. But with each successive checkbox came customization that was probably perfect for one client, but confusing and overkill for another.
Once you go down the path of providing the custom solutions, you are actually moving farther away from a solution for all. A search for antonyms of the word custom brings up words like departure, deviation, difference, and divergence. Before you know it you’ve created an exponential maze of settings to try an accommodate every permutations of what any customer could possibly think up.
I had to learn that to try an accommodate more people I should actually move up higher in the settings to be much broader and simpler, rather then going deeper and complex. The deeper you go, and the more permutations you have adds boat loads of work to development and actually makes your product much harder to work with. “Oh, you want to {name of simple feature}. Thats easy! First go to the setting page and…{begin list of about five settings that the client needs to set, on 4 different pages, and if they ever need to change something they will be calling you back anyways, cause they have no idea why they are setting them in the first place}”
Anything is “possible”. But does introducing possibilities introduce complexity that makes using your product a poor experience for everyone else, and a maintenance nightmare for your engineering and support teams. True double dipping is to move higher up and to simplify. If the broader solution of your product is not a good fit for someone, how is a more refined solution going to be any better (for the client or the company).
Back to my metaphor. I’m now pretty confident in my simplification of settings for our product, but I would like some closure on the whole chip double dipping debate. My argument is this: If upon a second dip, you come out of the bowl with more dip on your chip then you went in with, how is it possible that you left anything behind in the bowl that would pose a hazard to anyway else? I’m not not gonna double dip.
Maybe its time I call MythBusters.







