When Building Gets Cheap, Decisions Matter More, with Ashley Roach

Fast prototyping changes the constraint.

When software, AI tools, and other rapid-prototyping methods make it inexpensive to turn an idea into something testable, the challenge is no longer only Can we build it? The harder questions become:
What should we build?

• Who is it for?
• What evidence do we need?
• When should we stop tweaking and get it in front of people?
• Which decisions are reversible—and which ones will lock in future choices?

In this episode, Ashley Roach and I discuss how speed can help teams explore ideas, but can also create a new version of the build trap: continuing to improve the thing because building feels productive, before confirming that it is valuable to customers.

Ashley shares how he uses AI tools as thought partners, including an example where an AI system challenged him to stop adding functionality and gather more evidence first. We also discuss one-way and two-way doors, innovation inside larger organizations, cross-functional decision-making, and what changes when everyone in a company can become a builder.

Key Takeaways:

• When building becomes cheap and fast, deciding what to build becomes a more important skill.
• Rapid prototyping can create a build trap if teams keep tweaking instead of testing with real people.
• Two-way-door decisions can often be made quickly because they are reversible; one-way-door decisions require deeper deliberation.
• Engineers, product managers, designers, and other specialists may increasingly participate in work outside their traditional roles.
• A simple opportunity brief can help teams examine whether an idea is worth pursuing before investing further.

Your Challenge
Before you build or keep refining your next idea, write down:

1. Who is this for?
2. What evidence would show that it is valuable?
3. Is the next decision reversible?

If the decision is reversible, consider making it and learning from the result. If it is difficult to reverse, slow down long enough to understand what you are locking in.

For more highlights from this conversation, including the Opportunity Brief checklist and extra resources that Ashley recommends, visit the blog post: deeneyenterprises.com/qdd/podcasts/s7e2

Work with Dianna I help product development teams build quality into the front end when it's cheap and easy, not late when it's expensive and painful. 

Book a 20-minute discovery call with Dianna's calendar. Whether you're navigating the "fuzzy front end" of product development and want to explore a workshop or advisory partnership, or you'd like to be a guest on this podcast. You'll leave with a summary, relevant resources, and a clear path for next steps within 24 hours. 

Pierce the Design Fog (piercethedesignfog.com): my book on aligning cross-functional teams, defining clear design inputs, and accelerating product success. NIEA Finalist Award, reviewed by PDMA. "Great for fans of Tony Fadell’s Build, David H. DeWolf and Jessica S. Hall’s The Product Mindset."-BookLife Reviews (Publishers Weekly)

Connect with me: I'm most active on LinkedIn. 

Free Resources for Subscribers Subscribe to the Quality during Design digest — https://newsletter.deeneyenterprises.com — for monthly actionable highlights, plus access to the Strategic Quality Integration Checklist (a free self-assessment download) and my Swipe File Vault.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Fast Prototyping Shift

Dianna 0:00

When fast prototyping makes it possible to turn an idea into something testable, whether that's a software tool, a 3D-printed object, or a new product concept, the constraint changes. The challenge is no longer whether we can build. It's deciding what to build, what to learn, and which decisions need more care before they become difficult to reverse. That acceleration can change the moment before commitment. When building feels inexpensive, jumping into the build can feel like the fastest way to reduce uncertainty, even before we've defined what we need to learn. Speed can make the building process exciting, but it can also make tweaking feel like progress. In this conversation, Ashley Roach and I talk about how to keep fast prototyping connected to customer feedback and real value, whether you're working independently or inside a larger organization. We discuss the build trap, the difference between one-way and two-way doors, and how more people across a company may become builders. We also look at how AI can support that work without replacing the judgment needed to decide what deserves to move forward. I'll tell you more about Ashley Roach after this brief introduction.

Meet Ashley Roach

Dianna 2:14

Ashley Roach is a product leader and builder who has spent his career turning early ideas into products people use. He was part of the founding team behind Cisco DevNet, which grew into a community of more than five hundred thousand developers. He later led product for Learn with Cisco, overseeing its applications, user experience, product marketing, and commercial offers across Cisco U and Networking Academy. Today, Ashley builds independently and writes Beyond the Prototype, a Substack about what one person can realistically ship, operate, and monetize with AI. Let's dive into the interview

When Building Gets Too Easy

Dianna 3:00

You've spent your career on early uncertain product problems, and you write about building real products with AI. Once AI and these other fast prototyping methods made building cheap and fast, what did you find became the hard part?

Ashley 3:20

I think that one of the... one of the difficulties, of course, is what to build in the first place. So I think the desire to hold yourself back is a lot, maybe it's a lot different now. You don't have to hold yourself back as much. I found that in the past where I have kinda had a, a governor in my mental model to say, "Oh, that's too expensive to build," or, "That's too m- too risky." Now I think the time in which you can experience that creation process to testing something is so short and inexpensive, frankly, to be... If you're building with AI specifically, that you can try a lot of different things and that really makes a, like a, just a lot of difference between what was now versus, say, two years ago

Dianna 4:19

And then I think producing things really quickly makes you more excited about what it is that you're developing. And so you just kind of wanna keep going faster and faster

Ashley 4:32

Yes. One, one funny thing though is I had an interchange with the AI tool that I'm using because I've been debating about, hey, when do I add functionality to add billing, right? How do I make money off of this thing? And it kinda called my bluff. It's like, "Hey, you're really good at shipping things, but you don't have any proof this, this system is valuable to customers. You don't have enough people testing it." And so it was a really... I was like, "Oh, man. It's right." And so there is also that element of because it's so easy to build things, and I love buil- that building process, that it's easy to get like stuck in that loop to say, "Oh, I could tweak this little thing," or, "Oh, I could tweak that little thing." And so that, that is something that I- I've had to dial back, my, my desire to, to tweak versus how do I get this tool in front of people to give me feedback to know whether it's worth building even more?

AI as Thought Partner

Dianna 5:40

So in that project, the AI actually pushed back against you saying, "Hold on." Now, was that because you pre-trained it with anything specific from your past experiences or anything?

Ashley 5:53

Not really. I'm using a combination of the main frontier model companies. So Claude from Anthropic and then Codex and ChatGPT from OpenAI. I... While it has some memory, to be honest, I didn't use Claude very much up until I started this project. So it didn't have, it didn't have a lot of memory about me. And yeah, it just took that I guess you could call it an antagonistic stance to just help me think through what the parameters are of success. And I may have asked it like, "Hey, I wanna do this thing. Is this the right time to, to do it?" And so I set it up with that context. But beyond that it really just acted like a thought partner at that point or a co-founder, and and so that was surprising and also very helpful

Dianna 6:48

I was just talking to a neighbor who has a 3D printer. I'm hoping to talk with a few more people 'cause my family would like to get one. But he's producing all sorts of products with this fast prototyping machine. Now he says he, he goes to an online place to download the specs and he's been printing things. But then the whole business thing started to come into place. "What if I would make this for people and have an online shop? And I could start with something small like earrings." And so a lot of the things that he was talking about was, "Hey, I can produce this and just put it out into the market." But he's on his own with his fast prototyping machine, and he doesn't have that co-founder antithesis fighting him on what do the customers really want? Are you sure this is something you really want to do?"

Ashley 7:43

Oh, yeah. I actually have a funny, similar example that's non-technical at all. I started doing leatherworking at about a year ago. And, one of my other sort of entrepreneurial ideas was maybe I could just make some of these wallets and put them up on eBay. Or Etsy. And so I went through an analysis process on that idea, and it did a whole bunch of margin calculation there's a book called The Lean Startup, which is pretty well-known at this point. But it talks a lot about what's-- what are good tests that you can run that don't cost a lot of money if any, that can then prove whether or not there's a market or demand for the thing that you're creating. And so even within that context of the wallets, we went back and forth about should I do a wallet? Should you do something like a purse or a bag? 'Cause that's higher margin, and people will pay more for it, like your unit. And did all the unit cost analysis, all that kinda stuff. So it's pretty fascinating.

Agents and Solo Venture Studio

Ashley 8:51

The, the other thing I will say, just kinda circling back to your question about, hey, did I tee any of this up with Claude. I have tried doing some things that might also be helpful for the audience, which is I've been using a tool called Hermes Agent, which there's a thing called Open Claw that a lot of people have heard of. Hermes Agent and Open Claw are the two main open source I guess agentic agentic tools. And what I created was my own venture studio, call it, within Hermes Agent, and it's really just a set of markdown files that define these different personas of what the agent is supposed to behave like. And for example, I have one that's a chief of staff agent, and the other one is a researcher agent, and the other one's a writer agent, and then there's like a CFO agent. And so I can toss an idea and say, "Hey, I really wanna do this, wallet thing," or if I wanna do the 3D-printed parts bus- business like your friend or neighbor, then you can run those ideas through something like that, and it does provide a little more structure than, "Oh, hey, I got a randomly helpful result from Claude," or, or OpenAI.

Dianna 10:10

Now I know we're talking about like the leatherworking, the 3D printing,

Big Company Reality Check

Dianna 10:16

the software apps but this also scales up to the bigger corporate environment where there are teams of people. And so you used Hermes to create, the agents. Did you say that you created agents? Yeah. So you created agents to represent those functions, but those are functions that would be normally operating in a big company, right? So you knew who you needed and who you need to talk to get what information. So I just wanted to check with you that is it the same kind of thinking that you're applying to your own solo adventures as to what you did in the big corporate ventures?

Ashley 11:04

I'd say yes, but with some obvious caveats. The big company, all the different functions if you don't, if you don't work at a large company or a large organization or haven't, then it might be difficult to know what those are. Those... Again, though, you can turn to AI and say "Hey, I wanna create a, a mini business here to analyze opportunities," and it can guide you through that sort of thing. There's another tool called Paperclip, they're trying to create literally a corporate structure with given budgets to each of these agents so that in theory you can say, "Hey, I have this problem. Go solve it." And those agents will go, and they'll run up against budgets, and then they'll produce you a result. I think they're... with big organizations, a lot of the complexity comes down to things like change management, stakeholder management, as opposed to, "Hey, I can build a thing." A lot of cases, the I can build a thing, you get stopped as fast as you created it because it's no, that's not in the roadmap. Or, no we don't have time to do that. That's a distraction. And, uh, so I think in a large organization, it can... These tools can help you accelerate maybe the thinking process and pre-presenting something that fits within that context. But you still have to go through the, you know, the stakeholder meetings, getting approvals, um, governance, all of the, all of those words that, you know, someone who's got entrepreneurial spirit and drive run up against and go, "Oh, man, this isn't very fun." Where in the-- in your own world when you're doing these things you're maybe your worst enemy 'cause you don't run up against those. And you're like, "Hey, I can just blindly go walk off this cliff." And big companies are kinda designed to manage risk and not help have projects walk off cliffs too easily. So I think those are some of the, the differences, at least from my observation at this point.

Dianna 13:24

you mentioned paperclip applying different costs to different functions for an entrepreneurial project. But then there's also the cost centers for the big corporation. And like you said, they're designed to manage risks and slow things down to make sure that the decisions are appropriate for the business, right?

Ashley 13:45

Mhm, mhm.

One Way vs Two Way Doors

Dianna 13:47

So you wrote that the implementation cost and the decision cost are not necessarily the same thing. So can you explain a little bit more about what you mean by that?

Ashley 14:02

Yeah, I think you might be referring to the article that I wrote about kind of one-way doors and two-way doors. I think that's probably what you're getting at. So for those of you who aren't familiar with the one-way door, two-way door concept, this was something that came from Jeff Bezos back, I guess, when he was early on in Amazon. And what he had observed was companies and organizations tend to spend maybe the same amount of time on a decision, and thoroughness on a decision that is what he considers a two-way door, so it's reversible as you do with a one-way door, which is not reversible. And so the heuristic that he presents is for decisions that are these two-way doors, don't dither on them too long. Just make the decision and try it and see, because you can always walk it back basically. Where you have one-way door situations, that's where the thoroughness and deep deliberation is more necessary. And so that you know, that is kind of the framework itself.

Dianna 15:17

I guess hanging above the door is the decision cost. Decision cost when you're balancing these fast prototype, fast turnaround, quick tweaks to make products, but you have these decision doors and there's a real cost associated with them. So just how do you think about the cost of those decisions when you can implement so fast?

Ashley 15:48

And you're, are you thinking in terms of the big organization or the small situation that I'm in?

Dianna 15:55

I would say the small situation you're in, but, and then can it be scaled to the larger organization, to people that are working in a larger organization?

Ashley 16:06

Yeah. I th- I think this, this basically falls into the larger category of, hey, how do you do innovation at large or small companies? And so The, the way... One of the, one of the f- again 'cause I'm a product person frameworks are gonna come up often, yeah like a lot of us listening here. So the, the framework that I got enamored with, and I still think it's interesting is called the Zone To Win. So Geoffrey Moore's famous strategy person. And he had this idea of Zone To Win, which ties to another concept of this crossing the chasm problem that small companies evolving or small products evolving into larger ones. Kinda how do you get from your early adopters to your mass market? But in Zone To Win just switching back to that, he divides essentially innovation into one of those quadrants. And the, the idea that he puts out there is you actually need a completely different management and operating mode for those projects or those groups that are doing innovation compared to these other three quadrants, which are like productivity quadrant, where you're essentially have a cash cow and you're trying to, make it as profitable as possible and so on.

Dianna 17:41

So that kind of moves all the important decision points for innovation to one door, right? So pe- people are innovating and coming up with ideas but it still has to pass through a door in order for it to be accepted for development for, for customers to actually use

Ashley 18:05

the way I think about it is it's not so much like those doors are governance gates. It's more the, is this something that's an irreversible decision? So for example, like I'll use from my experience just recently, at Cisco. When we were designing and launching Cisco U we kept it... we definitely kept it separate. We kept it on an island because we were trying to follow this, this principle of something similar to zone to win. And we didn't we didn't really trouble ourselves so much with a lot of one-way doors when we were working in the project itself. In fact, we're like, "Hey, do we need a recommendation thing? Do we need to embed AI in it?" We were, we were having a lot of fun coming up with ideas to make a brand new and attractive engaging learning experience. And so there were a lot of, say, two-way doors in that mode because we didn't really have anyone except for just testers. So it was like low risk types of decisions as we were going through and trying to find product market fit, essentially. But when we got to the point of doing things like, "Hey, we need to implement entitlements and billing and all those things," those were more one-way door decisions. And so we spent more time thinking about, "Hey, is this the right way that we're gonna display content?" Is it if you're a, if you're a free account, do you get to see everything, but you can't click on stuff? Or do you just do you just see what you have access to? Because the previous system had worked like that, where you only got to see the stuff that you were entitled to. So we were thinking, "Hey, maybe we'll use some product-led growth ideas, and if someone can see what they don't have access to, they'll they'll click through and purchase, make a purchase." So I think those... there are those bigger, maybe architectural or structural issues that are the one-way doors, and even within an innovative environment. And then there's maybe a lot more two-way door ones. So that's maybe the clarification I would throw out there and see if you think that makes sense.

Dianna 20:25

Yes, I think so. So the Doors aren't decision gates, but it's, um, it's the type of decision that you're looking at and it depends on the question, the problem that you're trying to answer.

Ashley 20:39

Yeah. It's a, it's a mirror that you use to say, "Hey, is this thing I'm, like, spending hours and hours trying to figure out something that I can just ship and get that feedback?" Because it's a two-way door thing, we can always pull it back. Or is it more of a long-term systemic type of decision which is gonna need that deliberation?

Dianna 21:03

From, I'm thinking of an engineering team making decisions about a product on paper. And while it's on paper and doing prototypes, you can, answer your questions. A lot of that's reversible.

Ashley 21:20

Uh-huh

Dianna 21:20

But in your example, like e- even within that, there are some decisions that are not reversible. So it really takes, I guess, an awareness to look at the decision that you're making and actually pause and just evaluate if it has, if it is irreversible, if you lock this in now, it's going to, lock in a lot of other features or characteristics about what you're designing later. Is that right?

Ashley 21:53

Yep. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. And there, I'll throw another, 'cause I lo- I love all these different books. I'll throw another book out there that goes into these, I think some of these concepts a little more which is called Working Backwards, and it was written by, I think, a couple of senior leaders from Amazon. And it talks about how Amazon operates in general, but I believe there's a use case they use Kindle as a use case to go through a few of their processes. But but I think the one-way door, two-way door thing comes up as, as part of that as well.

Dianna 22:32

you've worked with teams of people to develop a product, And I would imagine that it- it's not always the project manager that is looking at decisions in this way, al- although primarily probably. But there could be things that the senior design engineer or the electrical engineer or the software engineer would understand to be an irreversible door that they would speak up and let the rest of the team know about that. When you would have team meetings in development, was this concept something everybody was aware of that they knew to s- to speak up? Or how did you handle situations like that?

Ashley 23:18

I'd say that it was something that more of my product management team and the... I also had a UX team was inculcated with. But there were certain leaders in the engineering organization, for example, who had a ton of experience building these kinds of systems. And so they were very good about raising their hand and saying, "Hey, you guys are cutting your nose off in spite of your face," types of situations. And culturally that initially caused a lot of, animosity, right? Because like, "Oh, engineering's just trying to block what we're doing." And you know, we kind of had to shift some mindsets as well to say, "No they're doing their job. They're looking at technical feasibility of this overall idea. And, you know, we're, we're responsible for value and viability of the overall solution." So we need to, listen to what they're saying, collaborate with them to then be able to come together to form, the right outcome for the customer, the right outcome for our profit margins, you know, for our, our capabilities that we want to ship for customers. And so, that I think, you're right. There's, um, there's a tension there potentially and I think, it definitely can lead to conflict. And so maybe what we could have done better earlier on, frankly, was having some of those shared values for the project m- maybe within the context of this more innovative project. And so I think that's something that others might think about when you're spinning up a project like this is how do we want to operate differently? What are our values? And how do we think about these different decision points in the overall process?

Dianna 25:15

So considering that potential tension and conflict which is normal, right?

Ashley 25:21

Mhm

Dianna 25:23

And we're Talking, we started off with prototypes and how it's so easy and so fast to make them.

Ashley 25:29

Yeah

Dianna 25:29

Are we getting to a place where we can use prototypes? We primarily think of prototypes for use with the customer or to solve a particular engineering question. Do you think with the speed of how we can prototype that it will be able to be used to address some of that tension and the conflict with decisions within the teams, or that's not really a place that you're seeing it fit well?

Ashley 25:59

Honestly, I think where the industry is right now, it's in the process of trying to sort out How does this new world work? Because if an engineer can develop a solution just, you know, or a prototype, just as easily as a product manager or, or a designer, or frankly, it could be, like, an operations person, or it could just be somebody in tech support who's like, "Hey, I had an idea. Like, could we fix it this way? Or could we create this new thing? And hey, I, I used, you know, my prototyping tools that I have available to me at my company," or, you know, or, or what have you. Who makes the decision at the end of the day on, like, do we proceed with this particular thing? It occurs to me there was an episode of Lenny's podcast, six months ago with one of the product leaders, a growth product manager at, at Anthropic. And so, you know, they're in the maelstrom of all of this. Who's building and who's not, and how do they, you know, how do they get super fast delivery but, you know, obviously protect protect the business at the same time? And they have a couple of ideas that I thought, you know, might be valuable to share here. One was as a product manager, if you can find engineers who have good product taste, then leverage them, and leverage them in a certain way, which is give them perhaps the freedom to go and develop something that product management may not have the time to do the sort of the upstream validation work on. I think their framework is if you can build it within two weeks or so one sprint, then an engineer can take it from cradle to grave. And so they've tapped into these engineers that have what they consider good product taste to be able to then accelerate and leverage the whole the whole team in a different way than they could before. So I think there's this idea bubbling around right now of everybody's a builder now. And so it's like different shapes of what does a builder look like in a company that's evolving right now as we're having this conversation. It's a hot topic. Because if you scale this out also into other types of functions, like we're talking about the building stuff. But let's say you have an engineer who built a feature or whatever, but maybe they're interested in business models. They could work with Claude or GPT or an open weight model or what have you and say, "Hey, like, how could we model this business differently?" And I have... Maybe they have access to the the data lake to be able to do some deeper analysis. And, they're not maybe experts in business models, but they have access to the data that a product manager, maybe should have access to but doesn't. But they could, they could spin up ideas that then bubble out. You could have it come from other parts of organizations like, "Hey, what about a engineer creating marketing copy?" Which in the past you would go like, "Egads no." "No engineer can write marketing copy." Like that was like a rule. But now with an assistant that can craft, value propositions and, use standard frameworks and stuff to do that, maybe they come up with really good, good ones. I've had engineering partners in the past who are great at th-that kind of stuff. with the advent of these other tools maybe the boundaries of what work is within organizations has become-- is becoming more and more gray. And I don't think it will go totally gray because obviously you need accountability and you need companies to have structure in ways that make sense. But it is like a de- democratization of knowledge and information, which then leads to each person within a company being able to take on the functions of other specialists, specialty roles that then could augment or help them, help that other role. Like a product marketer helping engineering, but you never know. This is where we're really at the frontier of this stuff and it's it's pretty fascinating to see where it's gonna go.

Dianna 30:42

Yeah, all the lines are getting blurred.

Ashley 30:44

Yeah. one other quick thing from that Moonshots podcast. The, I think it was last, maybe a week or two ago, they were providing this idea of, hey, if... I think it was one of the guys that was, like, a venture, maybe a venture investor, and he said, "Hey, if I go to my portfolio company and I say, look, thinking about the fact that you now have 100 new employees, quote unquote for free in a sense through these AI agents, what would you use them for? Like, how would you actually take advantage of that?" So the, they're selling this message of exponential growth and exponentiality. But that's a really interesting way to boil it down and just say hey, if you had 1,000 agents that you could take advantage of, how would you do that with your... If you're a solo operator or even if you're a 50-person company. That's where it gets hard to think about how do you orchestrate all that? What would you work on? How do you dashboard it all? There's so many questions that pop up in my mind.

Monday Morning Framework

Dianna 31:51

So for the solo engineer working in industry, be-- software, mechanical, electrical, chemical all of these things, there's more opportunity with all of these fast prototyping machines and using them to fill the knowledge gaps to try new things.

Ashley 32:11

Mhm

Dianna 32:11

What is a decision framework or advice about decision-making, about moving forward that you would leave with somebody for their Monday morning?

Ashley 32:26

there's something that we implemented That we called the opportunity brief. And an opportunity brief was designed. It got it took on a life of its own unexpectedly. But the idea came from a blog post from Marty Cagan who's a product kind of product manager guru out of the Bay Area. He's written several books which are also very good. And the opportunity framework that he has is a series of 10 questions, and it comes down to "Hey who's the market for this thing?" It's the basic stuff that you learn, but it's one of those, oh yeah, the it's so simple we should actually use it ideas. But it's what is the product? Who's it for? How big is the market? Is the market actually addressable? how large is the market? And so it goes through a series of these 10 axes that you can think about and try to run through. That's a good one just to give you the back of the napkin, is this thing worth pursuing? And I'm thinking more in terms of a product or maybe a feature area. But but I would start with the opportunity concept,

Dianna 33:35

Yeah, that opportunity tracker seems like a good checklist to think through. And then I will include links to all of the books that you've mentioned on the podcast blog so people can get to it easily.

Ashley 33:48

Perfect

Dianna 33:49

Ashley, I Really appreciate you coming on the show and talking about how things are speeding up and how we make decisions.

Ashley 33:57

I appreciate the opportunity and, uh, hopefully this is helpful to folks scratching their heads on what's going on right now in the industry and in the world in general.

Dianna 34:08

If anyone wanted to reach out to you, what is the best way they could do it?

Ashley 34:14

Yeah. Two things. One is I have my substack called Beyond the Prototype. And then, feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn. And I think you'll probably link those in the, the notes, show notes as well

Dianna 34:26

Yes, I'll link to your contact information in the show notes. Sounds great.

Ashley 34:31

Thanks, Dianna

Dianna 34:36

That concludes the interview with Ashley. Ashley and I talked about what changes when building becomes fast and inexpensive. The opportunity is that we can test more ideas and learn more quickly, but the discipline still matters. Before adding another feature or polishing another prototype, we need to ask whether we have evidence that the problem is worth solving. That may be one reason we jump when the next build feels fast and inexpensive. It can feel like progress before we have clarified the problem, the customer, or the evidence we need. We also talked about using AI as more than a builder, as a thought partner, a critic, or a structured set of perspectives. And we explored the difference between two-way door decisions, which can be tested and reversed, and one-way door decisions, which need more deliberate thinking because they create longer term commitments. So here's your Monday morning move: choose one idea, feature, or project you're considering. Write down who it's for, what problem it addresses, what evidence would show that it's valuable, and whether your next decision is reversible. If it's a two-way door, design a small test and get it in front of someone who can give you real feedback. You can find Ashley through his Substack, Beyond the Prototype, and on LinkedIn. I'll include those links along with books that Ashley recommends. I'll include those links. You can find Ashley through his Substack, Beyond the Prototype, and on LinkedIn. You can find Ashley through his Substack, Beyond the Prototype, and you can find him on LinkedIn. I'll include those links along with the books and podcast recommendations that Ashley wanted to give you in the show notes. If this conversation helped you think differently about speed, decision-making, or the build trap, subscribe to Quality During Design and share this episode with someone who is moving quickly on an uncertain product or project. You can also find more reflections in the monthly digest at newsletter.deeneyenterprises.com. This has been a production of Deeney Enterprises. Thanks for listening.