Continuous Discovery Habits: Discover Products that Create Customer Value and Business Value

“Many teams chase frameworks, tools, and methodologies, hoping that each new innovation will suddenly unlock the door to product success. However, for most frameworks, tools, and methodologies to be successful, it’s not just your tactics that need to change but also your mindset.”

Torres uses the metaphorical verb “chase” and the image of unlocking a door to product success to critique a common industry mindset. This quote introduces a key premise of the book: Successful product development requires fundamental shifts in thinking, not just the adoption of new techniques. The passage connects to Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by arguing that true improvement comes from changing both practices and perspectives rather than simply implementing new tools.

“Shifting from a project mindset to a continuous mindset is hard. We tend to take our six-month-long waterfall project, carve it up into a series of two-week sprints, and call it ‘Agile.’ But this isn’t Agile. Nor is it continuous. A continuous mindset requires that we deliver value every sprint. We create customer value by addressing unmet needs, resolving pain points, and satisfying desires.”

Torres illustrates how organizations superficially attempt to transform traditional project management into agile methodologies. The author’s direct, matter-of-fact tone in defining continuous delivery reinforces the practical nature of her argument. This passage connects to Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by highlighting the difference between genuine continuous improvement and artificial divisions of traditional project management. The quote critiques organizations that implement agile methodologies without embracing their underlying principles of continuous value delivery and iterative development.

“Many organizations try to define clear boundaries between the roles in a product trio. As a result, some have come to believe that product managers own defining the problem and that designers and software engineers own defining the solution. This sounds nice in theory, but it quickly falls apart in practice.”

The author employs a parallel structure in describing role ownership (“product managers own […] designers and software engineers own”) to emphasize the artificial nature of these divisions. The passage exemplifies the theme of Cross-Collaborative Decision-Making by arguing against rigid role separation in product development teams. Torres suggests that effective product development requires fluid collaboration rather than strict role boundaries. This supports her broader argument that successful product development depends on breaking down organizational silos and fostering genuine cross-functional teamwork.

“When we assign traction metrics to product trios, we run the risk of painting them into a corner by limiting the types of decisions that they can make. Product outcomes, generally, give product trios far more latitude to explore and will enable them to make the decisions they need to ultimately drive business outcomes.”

Torres uses metaphorical language with the phrase “painting them into a corner” to illustrate how overly specific metrics can constrain creative problem-solving. This metaphor conveys the restrictive nature of traction metrics. This quote exemplifies Cross-Collaborative Decision-Making by advocating for giving teams the autonomy to make their own strategic choices rather than constraining them with rigid metrics.

“More recent research on goal setting involving more complex tasks, like the ones product trios face, found that challenging goals can decrease performance if the team doesn’t have strategies for how to achieve their goal. These studies found that encouraging teams to ‘do their best’ was more effective than setting specific, challenging goals. Additionally, these studies found that setting an initial learning goal (e.g., discover the strategies that might work) was more effective than setting a performance goal.”

Torres uses empirical evidence to challenge conventional wisdom about goal-setting, employing a structure that builds from problem identification to solution presentation. The author’s use of italics for learning and performance creates a clear visual and conceptual contrast between these two approaches to goal-setting. This passage demonstrates Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by advocating for an iterative approach to goal-setting that begins with learning and discovery rather than immediate performance targets. The reference to research lends authority to Torres’s argument while maintaining accessibility through clear explanations and examples.

“As you get started, you are going to be tempted to describe this context with words. Don’t. Language is vague. It’s easy for two people to think they are in agreement over the course of a conversation, but, still, each might walk away with a different perspective. Drawing is more specific. It forces you to be concrete.”

The author constructs a rhetorical contrast between the vagueness of language and the specificity of visual representation, using short, declarative sentences to reinforce this dichotomy. This passage expresses Cross-Collaborative Decision-Making by addressing how teams can overcome communication barriers through visual tools. The contrast between verbal and visual communication serves as a foundation for Torres’s larger argument about the necessity of concrete, shared understanding in product development.

“When it’s your turn to share, don’t advocate for your drawing. Simply share your point of view, answer questions, and clarify your thinking. Remember, everyone’s perspective can and should contribute to the team’s shared understanding. We saw in our opening story that the trio’s shared map was stronger because they synthesized the unique perspectives on the team into a richer experience map than any of them could have individually created.”

Torres employs the rhetorical strategy of exemplification by referencing the earlier case study, connecting abstract principles to concrete outcomes. This passage addresses both Cross-Collaborative Decision-Making and Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by demonstrating how individual perspectives combine to create stronger collective understanding. The emphasis on synthesis rather than advocacy reflects Torres’s broader argument that product development benefits from collaborative integration rather than a competitive assertion of individual viewpoints.

“Our failure wasn’t due to a lack of research. It was because we asked our customers the wrong questions. We built a product based on a coherent story told by both the thought leaders in our space and by our customers themselves. But it wasn’t a story that was based in reality. If you want to build a successful product, you need to understand your customers’ actual behavior—their reality—not the story they tell themselves.”

Torres employs a parallel structure to contrast two types of understanding: surface-level research based on direct questions versus deep insights based on observed behavior. The repetition of the word “story” emphasizes how narratives can be misleading even when they appear convincing. This quote exemplifies Customer-Centered Design by emphasizing the importance of understanding genuine customer behavior rather than relying on self-reported preferences. The author’s use of the first-person plural in describing the failure adds credibility to her argument by demonstrating personal experience with the pitfalls she describes.

“Remember, it’s much easier to continue a weekly habit than to start and stop a periodic behavior. Continuous interviewing ensures that you stay close to your customers. More importantly, continuous interviewing will help to ensure that you can get fast answers to your daily questions.”

Torres uses the rhetorical device of repetition with the phrase “continuous interviewing” to emphasize its importance. The comparison between continuous and periodic behavior employs antithesis to highlight the advantages of consistency. This quote exemplifies both Customer-Centered Design and Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by advocating for regular, sustained customer engagement as a cornerstone of product development.

“A single customer story might elicit dozens of opportunities. If you interview continuously, your opportunity space will always be evolving—expanding as you learn about new needs, contracting as you address known problems, and gaining clarity as you learn more about specific pain points. Mapping the opportunity space is a critical activity.”

Torres uses organic metaphors of expansion, contraction, and evolution to portray opportunity space as a dynamic ecosystem rather than a static list. This description of perpetual refinement exemplifies Systematic, Ongoing Refinement and demonstrates how Customer-Centered Design requires constant adaptation to new information rather than rigid adherence to initial assumptions.

“For too long, product teams have defined their work as shipping the next release…The vast majority of our conversations take place in the solution space. We assume that success comes from launching features. This is what product thought leader Melissa Perri calls ‘the build trap.’”

Torres’s rhetorical progression creates a sense of mounting tension that culminates in naming the problem. The phrase “the build trap” functions as both a metaphor and a technical term, highlighting that teams become ensnared by their processes. This quote exemplifies Customer-Centered Design and Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by highlighting how traditional product development often fails to prioritize customer needs over feature deployment. The metaphor of a trap emphasizes that teams unconsciously perpetuate harmful patterns, establishing the need for the systematic changes Torres advocates throughout the book.

“When assessing and prioritizing the opportunity space, it’s important that we find the right balance between being data-informed and not getting stuck in analysis paralysis. It’s easy to fall into the trap of wanting more data, spending just a little bit more time, trying to get to a more perfect decision. However, we’ll learn more by making a decision and then seeing the consequences of having made that decision than we will from trying to think our way to the perfect decision.”

Torres structures this passage as a problem-solution statement, first acknowledging a common challenge before presenting an alternative approach. This quote demonstrates Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by advocating for an iterative approach to product development that values practical learning over theoretical perfection. Torres uses this discussion of decision-making processes to reinforce the book’s larger argument about the importance of continuous, practical discovery over exhaustive preliminary analysis.

“For many of us, brainstorming seems unnecessary. We hear about a customer problem or need, and our brain immediately jumps to a solution. It’s human nature. We are good at closing the loop—we hear about a problem, and our brain wants to solve it. However, creativity research tells us that our first idea is rarely our best idea.”

Torres begins with inclusive first-person plural pronouns to establish rapport with readers before transitioning to more authoritative third-person statements about research findings. The metaphor of “closing the loop” illustrates the instinctive human drive to resolve problems quickly. The author creates a deliberate contrast between this natural impulse and scientific evidence. This quote exemplifies Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by highlighting the importance of resisting quick solutions in favor of more thorough exploration. The passage serves as a foundation for Torres’s larger argument that effective product development requires overcoming natural tendencies toward hasty problem-solving.

“Dot voting is a simple method that facilitates group evaluation. Research shows that while we are better at generating ideas individually, we are better at evaluating ideas as a group.”

Torres uses straightforward, declarative sentences to present complex research findings in an accessible way. This passage exemplifies both Cross-Collaborative Decision-Making and Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by presenting a structured approach to team evaluation while acknowledging the importance of individual contribution. The quote connects to the book’s larger argument about the need for balanced, evidence-based approaches to product development that combine individual creativity with collective wisdom.

“Product teams are particularly susceptible to confirmation bias and the escalation of commitment. We tend to fall in love with our ideas. We often have to defend our ideas to stakeholders, further entrenching our commitment to our ideas. We tend to seek out why our ideas will work and forget to explore why they might not work. As a result, we are often overconfident about the success of our ideas.”

The expression “fall in love with our ideas” humanizes the technical concept of cognitive bias by comparing it to a familiar emotional experience. The author builds her argument through progressive intensification, moving from initial bias to defensive posturing to overconfidence, creating a clear cause-and-effect relationship. This quote connects to Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by highlighting how emotional attachment and cognitive biases can impede the systematic evaluation of ideas. Torres demonstrates that without deliberate counterbalances to these natural tendencies, product teams risk pursuing flawed ideas despite contrary evidence.

“Generating assumptions, like ideating, is intended to be a divergent exercise. The goal is to identify as many ‘gotchas’ as you can to increase the chance that you generate the riskiest ones. However, many teams dramatically underestimate how many assumptions underlie their ideas.”

Torres uses the colloquial term “gotchas” to make the abstract concept of assumption identification more approachable and memorable. The author creates a contrast between the intended expansive nature of the exercise (“divergent”) and teams’ tendency to restrict their thinking (“underestimate”). This quote relates to both Systematic, Ongoing Refinement and Cross-Collaborative Decision-Making by advocating for a thorough, team-based approach to identifying potential problems. The passage argues that comprehensive assumption generation is crucial for risk management in product development, showing that teams must push beyond their initial comfort zone to identify hidden risks.

“With assumption testing, most of our learning comes from failed tests. That’s when we learn that something we thought was true might not be. Small tests give us a chance to fail sooner. Failing faster is what allows us to quickly move on to the next assumption, idea, or opportunity.”

The author’s use of active verbs like “learn,” “fail,” and “move on” creates a sense of forward momentum, reflecting the iterative nature of product development. The progression from “failed tests” to “fail sooner” to “failing faster” demonstrates an escalating emphasis on speed and efficiency. This quote exemplifies Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by showing how quick failures contribute to a methodical improvement process. The author’s matter-of-fact tone normalizes failure as a productive part of the development cycle rather than treating it as a negative outcome.

“Science-minded readers might cringe at these quick-and-dirty research methods. However, product teams are not scientists.”

Here, the informal phrase “quick-and-dirty” serves as a rhetorical acknowledgment of potential criticism, while the straightforward declaration that follows establishes clear boundaries between different types of research. The author’s anticipation of the reader’s possible objection (“might cringe”) demonstrates a rhetorical technique known as prolepsis—addressing potential counterarguments before they arise. This quote connects to Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by establishing that product development requires a specialized approach to testing and validation, distinct from pure scientific research. The contrast helps convey why rapid, iterative testing methods are more appropriate for product development than traditional scientific protocols.

“Our discovery required that we start delivery. Measuring the impact of that delivery resulted in us needing to do more discovery. This is why we say discovery feeds delivery and delivery feeds discovery. They aren’t two distinct phases. You can’t have one without the other.”

Torres’s use of the word “feeds” depicts an organic, nurturing relationship between these processes. The author then reinforces this interconnection through two short, declarative sentences that strip away any ambiguity about her meaning. This quote exemplifies Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by highlighting how product development functions as a continuous cycle rather than a linear progression. The deliberate repetition and straightforward language serve to challenge traditional notions of product development as a sequence of separate stages.

“Just because the hire wasn’t happening on our platform didn’t mean it wasn’t valuable for us to measure it. We knew it was what would create value for our students, our employees, and ultimately our own business. So, we chipped away at it. We weren’t afraid to measure hard things—and you shouldn’t be, either.”

The metaphorical phrase “chipped away” underscores persistent effort against resistance, while the dash before the final clause creates a dramatic pause that emphasizes the author’s direct challenge to readers. The colloquial tone and second-person address make this complex topic more accessible while maintaining its seriousness. This passage embodies Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by advocating for the patient pursuit of meaningful metrics even when they prove challenging to obtain. The quote emphasizes that valuable measurements may require innovative approaches and persistent effort rather than settling for easily available but less meaningful data.

“Fortunately, because Mina’s team moved quickly, they invested only a week into an opportunity that wasn’t going to be fruitful. Compare that to the weeks or months that many teams spend building the wrong features, and this hiccup is no big deal. Mina’s team also had the discipline and the wisdom to recognize when they were going down a troublesome path, and they quickly course-corrected. These course-corrections should be celebrated. The fruit of discovery work is often the time we save when we decide not to build something.”

Torres’s agricultural metaphor of “fruit” and “fruitful” creates a thematic connection between growth and product development, showing that just as a farmer must decide which crops to cultivate, product teams must choose which opportunities to pursue. The author’s use of positive framing around what might typically be seen as failure (“should be celebrated”) challenges traditional metrics of success in product development. This passage exemplifies Systematic, Ongoing Refinement by presenting course-correction as a natural and valuable part of the discovery process. The author argues that avoiding wasteful development through systematic testing and validation can be as valuable as building new features.

“When first getting started, it can be hard to see how starting with a small problem will ever amount to anything. But if you keep at it and work the cycles, small changes start to snowball, and you start to see the collective impact of working across your tree.”

This quote uses the metaphorical phrase “working across your tree,” which highlights the process of addressing smaller problems in a larger system or structure. The phrase “small changes start to snowball” employs imagery to highlight how incremental efforts and decisions compound over time. In doing so, Torres demonstrates the importance of persistence and investment in gradual progression. Further, “work the cycles” underscores the power of focusing on a particular goal, which, over time, creates a “collective impact.”

“Don’t work alone. The habits in this book are designed to be adopted by a cross-functional trio. Even if your team isn’t fully resourced or your company culture doesn’t support the trio model, you can start building these relationships yourself.”

Torres uses imperative mood in the opening phrase to emphasize the directive nature of this guidance. The author’s use of the second-person address creates immediacy and personalizes the advice for readers who might feel isolated in their organizations. This quote exemplifies Cross-Collaborative Decision-Making, emphasizing that effective product discovery requires diverse perspectives and skill sets. Torres acknowledges potential organizational constraints while maintaining an empowering tone, reinforcing her larger argument that individuals can initiate positive changes regardless of institutional barriers.