Summary
Product teams, including those I work with, struggle to overcome the grinding momentum of product delivery timelines to make room for adequate discovery, learning, and application through research. The game of product development becomes fiercer when it's not the first time, but the fourth team assembled to tackle a complex product space. In well-trod territory, strong opinions may abound, and talking past each other and rehashing approaches is rampant. Challenges that face researchers as partners in product development include establishing a sense of shared team vision, separating facts from fiction, and moving the team past hang-ups to establish a research strategy and product direction. This case introduces the idea of "grinding momentum" and outlines a stakeholder engagement process known as a FOG session that helps all team members across functional expertise areas claim voice, hear others, and share in collective aha moments that define next steps. Using a mixed-methods approach, a process is outlined to frameshift the value of existing knowledge spanning many departments within an organization, bring together distinct expertise vocabularies and analyses, and propel product partners to identify true knowledge gaps.
Key Insights
-
•
Research is often perceived as slow but actually enables faster product velocity by clarifying decisions.
-
•
Daniel Kahneman’s System 1 (intuitive) and System 2 (analytical) thinking both complement each other in decision-making.
-
•
Expert intuition requires regularity, practice, and immediate feedback to be reliable, conditions rarely met in novel product contexts.
-
•
Organizations mature in information processing by adding departments: starting with intuition (product teams), then data, and finally research teams for deeper analysis.
-
•
Product teams often over-rely on intuitive thinking, leading to overconfidence and misalignment.
-
•
Grinding momentum is a shared team pressure to move fast without adequate foundational knowledge, risking poor decisions.
-
•
The FOG method (Facts, Opinions, Guesses) helps teams slow down, separate evidence from assumptions, and surface knowledge gaps.
-
•
Facilitated FOG sessions enable democratic participation, uncover tensions, and establish shared mental models for product direction.
-
•
Research should be positioned as a partner in knowledge creation rather than an arbiter of absolute truth, shifting power dynamics.
-
•
Dealing with bad data or assumed facts requires active researcher intervention to analyze artifacts and reframe discussions constructively.
Notable Quotes
"Slowing down with research can help us move faster overall."
"Intuition is knowing without knowing how you know, I just know it."
"Expert intuition can be right or wrong because it relies on cues and heuristics in uncertain contexts."
"Research is the most analytical form of information processing because it involves active knowledge generation."
"Most product decisions look intuitive, but intuition alone leads to coherent stories that can be wrong."
"Research is sometimes perceived as intuitive and therefore dismissed as insufficient for decision-making."
"Grinding momentum is a shared mental model that pushes teams to decide quickly without shared foundational knowledge."
"The FOG method helps teams separate facts from fiction and move past hangups toward alignment."
"The goal is to turn research into a partner in shared discovery, not just an arbiter of truth."
"If a stakeholder claims something is a fact without evidence, it is our responsibility as researchers to challenge and unpack that."
Or choose a question:
More Videos
"This day is focused on me, my job and my specific day-to-day challenges, not on some invisible finish line or senior title."
Bria AlexanderTheme Two Intro
October 3, 2023
"I wish I had had a better understanding of how many non-UX people know so little about UX practices."
Brad Peters Anne MamaghaniShort Take #1: UX/Product Lessons from Your Industry Peers
December 6, 2022
"We could not have this conference without you all — the curation team relies heavily on audience participation."
Bria AlexanderOpening Remarks
September 9, 2022
"Tay became a racist, sexist monster in less than eight hours because it learned from toxic internet data."
Nancy DouyonWe'll Figure That Out in the Next Launch: Enterprise Tech's Nobility Complex
June 15, 2018
"Getting stakeholders involved from the very beginning helps build buy-in and excitement around the research."
Roberta Dombrowski Sam Duong WoloszynskiMaking Research a Team Sport
March 11, 2022
"If you are building a product for someone, there's always context loss when problem identification and solutioning are done by different teams."
Prayag Narula Abhinav KrishnaDialing for Research: How to Reach the Unreachable
March 10, 2022
"Students won’t just wait for me to give them a workshop anymore. They’re just doing it, and I jump in to help troubleshoot."
Tom Armitage Carla Diana Kanene Ayo HolderDay 2 Panel: Looking ahead: Designing with AI in 2026
June 11, 2025
"The foundation to getting good insights is system zero – the realistic, natural environment."
Jeff Ephraim Bander Ariane Rahn Philipp ReiterEye Tracking Gamechanger: Why Smartphone Eye Tracking will Revolutionize Your UX Research
March 11, 2022
"The State Department removed burdensome medical requirements, allowing people to self-attest their gender on passports."
Amy Paris Danielle ThierryDelivering Equity: Government Services for All Ages, Languages, Sexual Orientations, and Gender Identities
December 9, 2021
