Founders don’t have a tool problem. They have a trust problem.
Founders don’t actually trust themselves to decide what matters.
So they compensate.
They add tools.
Build workflows.
Try new systems.
Automate more.
And still end up staring at their week not knowing what actually moves the business.
This is where most automation quietly fails.
AI integration just overwhelmes and frustrates than moves the needle
Not because the tool is bad.
Because it’s executing on decisions that were never clear to begin with.
You don’t need better workflows if:
- your priorities keep shifting
- you’re reacting to noise instead of constraints
- you’re avoiding the one decision that actually changes things
I’ve been through all of it.
Overwhelmed. Burnt out. Growing and hitting ceilings I built myself.
Same pattern every time:
Clarity breaks first.
Then everything built on top of it starts collapsing or getting heavier.
The real problem isn’t execution.
It’s knowing: what actually matters right now? what doesn;t?
And having a system you trust yourself to follow through on.
Most founders don’t have that. They just have layers.
If you’re in that place, I’m speaking to a small number of founders and calm operators right now who want to clean this up properly.
Not surface-level fixes.
Not another system to manage.
Just getting brutally clear on what matters and building from there.
Comment or message me if that’s you.
This hits hard - I see this constantly with first-time founders. They think the problem is 'we need better tools' when it's actually 'we don't have clarity on what to build first.'
The shifting priorities point is especially real. Without a clear framework for deciding what matters, every new user request feels urgent and the backlog becomes chaos.
What's your approach to helping founders get that clarity? Is it more strategic direction (ie. what kind of company to build) or tactical execution (ie. what to ship this sprint)?
@PrepProject Great question and this is usually where things go wrong.
It’s not just strategy vs execution. It’s whether you’re even solving the right problem to begin with.
A lot of teams jump into execution (funnels, workflows, AI, growth experiments) assuming the issue is acquisition or speed , but often the real constraint is somewhere else entirely (positioning, clarity of value, what actually matters right now).
So the first step for me is less about “what should we do?” and more about: what problem are we actually trying to solve and is that the right one ?
Once that’s clear, both strategy and execution become much more obvious.
In your experience, do teams realise they’re solving the wrong problem. or do they just keep optimising around it?
That really hits home. Often founders want their solution to fix a problem that users are not experiencing (forcing their idea into the market whilst lacking demand for it).
To answer your question, its definitely the latter. As I work with early stage founders preparing to release, I join past the point where they decide what they're building and whether its correct. Hence, I try to identify issues early and defuse them as they come, so they don't affect users.
Out of curiosity, how do you determine whether the problem identified is strong enough to find a solution for?
Good question. but let me flit it slightly.
In your own work, have u ever found yourself or your team pushing on something that felt important at the time, but later realised it wasn'tt actually the right problem to solve? Or does that not really come up for you?
Yes! This has definitely been an issue I have seen. but not often. I've seen teams entirely change scope based off a few comments from a release. However. upon these changes being and they release again, they've found demand has dissipated for this feature they worked so hard on, rather than focusing on wider issues to improve the product.