Turning intelligence into products people love

The Problem

These tools fail early career PMs because they expect more structured thinking than actually exists in day to day work. I ran into this constantly at work, tasks piling up in Jira that no one actually used. Tasks are often unclear or half formed, priorities shift constantly, and most planning happens mentally and not inside tools. So instead of helping execution, the tool becomes an extra step. Over time, it stops being used not because it lacks features, but because it requires too much thinking before action.

Core Insight & My Approach

The real problem isn't complexity but it's decision fatigue before execution. Every time a user adds a task, the tool quietly asks "Where does this go?", "How should I structure it?", "What category does it belong to?" Most users don't want to design a system before doing the work. These tools don't fail because their users are lazy. They fail because people don't naturally think in systems they think in urgency.

My proposed solution:a Guided Productivity System that is more opinionated than a blank canvas and which is designed to reduce thinking at the point of entry.

Proposed Direction

My Take:

Less flexibility to higher adoption. Less setup to more consistency. Less control upfront to better execution. Most tools optimize for flexibility first. This flips it.

Most productivity tools today feel like you just created a second job to manage your actual job. The next generation won't win by adding more features but they'll win by reducing the thinking required before getting work done.

The Core Problem

Traditional products fail low-tech users because they assume that more features means more value but the reality for these users is that more features means more confusion, more screens means more drop offs, and more setup means lower adoption.

They don't struggle with usefulness. They struggle with friction before value.

User Persona

Primary user: A small shop owner who is onstantly serving customers, no time to learn new tools, already lives on WhatsApp. Very low patience for complex interfaces, people who prefer WhatsApp or calls over apps. People who want outcomes, not systems. For them, the best product is one that doesn't feel like a product.

Product Concept: Zero UI Assistant

Key Design Decision

There is no new app to learn. Because every step between intent and action reduces usage. The product lives where users already are mostly WhatsApp, instead of asking them to learn a new interface.

My Take:

Less complex UI makes less control, but higher adoption. Chat based system has less structure, but lower cognitive load. Opinionated flows makes it less flexibile, but execution is faster.

For non technical users, the future isn't better UX. It's removing UX entirely. The best product doesn't feel like a system, it feels like a conversation that just gets things done easily.

The Problem

Modern professional life has changed, but LinkedIn hasn't evolved at the same speed. Careers are now non linear, people build in public (Twitter, GitHub, portfolios), and skills matter more than job titles. But LinkedIn still assumes that "your career is a timeline of roles and titles." That assumption is increasingly outdated.

Core Insight

LinkedIn is built on a static identity model, while modern careers are dynamic and skill based. Users are forced to compress their identity into job titles, optimize for keywords instead of authenticity, and perform professionalism instead of demonstrating actual work.

Bold take: If LinkedIn didn't exist today, we would not start with resumes, job histories, or corporate profiles. We would start with: "What can this person actually do today?"

Reimagined Concept: Skill-First Professional Network

My Take:

Right now LinkedIn often feels like "Instagram, but everyone is trying to sound employable." If we were building from scratch today, we'd build a system that understands what people can actually do and not just what they claim.

The shift is from static identity to evolving identity. From resume based hiring to work based hiring. From keyword optimization to proof of work validation. Unify professional identity across fragmented proof of work platforms.

The Problem with "Minimal" MVPs

Most MVPs are not actually minimal. They're stripped down versions of full products that still carry dashboards, menus, settings, and analytics but just slightly less complex. This creates a false sense of simplicity while still overwhelming users.

Core insight: Users don't fail because they lack tools. They fail because they're forced to make too many decisions before taking action. So the MVP should remove decision making entirely.

User Persona

Early stage user trying to build consistency in fitness, fitness is actually something I track myself which is exactly why I noticed how broken most of these apps are some common factors like
inconsistent motivation, overwhelmed by planning, doesn't want tracking complexity. Wants guidance and not tools.

Product Concept: One Signal Product

The Core Tradeoff

You sacrifice control, customization, and analytics to gain immediate action and long term consistency. Most users don't fail because they lack data. They fail because "even opening the app feels like a task."

My Take: A true MVP is not about reducing features. It's about removing every layer between intention and action. The best product is the one that disappears after delivering value.