A requirements doc tells you what leadership wants built. It doesn't tell you what's actually broken for the person using it. We start with the user, find the real problem, and build the strategy around solving it.
A spec tells a team what to build. It rarely tells anyone why a user struggles, or whether the fix solves the actual problem.
Strategy gets shaped by what leadership assumes is true, signed off in a room no user is ever in.
Every assumption that goes unchecked becomes friction someone else has to live with — and eventually, a reason they leave.
We start where the requirements doc stops — with the person actually using it — and build the strategy from there.
Go straight to the user. Watch what they actually do, not what the spec assumed they'd do.
Separate the real problem from the assumed one. Name what's actually costing users time and trust.
Rank problems by what they cost the user — not by who asked for the fix loudest.
Build the strategy around the fix, with evidence anyone in the org can stand behind.
Not the one that was easiest to write into a requirements doc.
People notice when a product finally matches how they actually work, not how it was assumed they would.
Decisions trace back to what users actually experience, not what was assumed at the top.
Less time debating what the problem might be, more time fixing the one that's real.