The illusion of early definitions

A view still quite common in companies holds that efficient teams are those that, when starting a project, manage to define precisely the problem to be solved. From then on, the work would gain clarity, rhythm and stability, creating the conditions for superior results. Recent empirical evidence, however, points in another direction.

A study published in MIT Sloan Management Review analyzed the performance of hundreds of teams over the course of their projects. The results are consistent: teams that started with a lower level of clarity about what they were facing, but developed that understanding as the work progressed, achieved implementation rates above 80%. Those that started from apparently precise definitions performed significantly worse, at around 50%.

What is observed in the best-performing teams is a distinct behavior. They do not start with clear answers, but with a more open field. At the beginning, there is a willingness to explore, test interpretations and reformulate what is being treated as the problem. This period is not necessarily orderly or linear, but it fulfills an essential function: it improves the quality of understanding before any commitment to a solution.

This dynamic contrasts with the way management is usually practiced. There is a recurring tendency to demand early definition, quick alignment and answers in advance. In stable environments, this approach may work. In contexts of greater uncertainty, however, it cuts short the process of understanding reality and shifts complexity to later phases of the project.

Lean thinking offers a more rigorous reading of this process. The starting point is not the definition of the problem, but the deepening of its understanding. This requires direct contact with reality, observing how the work actually happens and confronting, in a disciplined way, perception with facts. Along the way, initial interpretations are tested, revised and refined. That is why the formulation of the problem is not a given at the start, but a construction that is consolidated based on evidence.

In product and process development, this logic takes a more explicit form. Instead of quickly converging on a single solution, teams keep alternatives open for longer. Different paths are explored, compared and tested as knowledge advances. Choices are made progressively, as evidence accumulates. When the decision is made, it already rests on a more solid foundation.

This type of approach changes how time and performance relate to each other over the course of the project. Initial progress may seem slower, because there is a greater investment in understanding, exploration and learning. In practice, however, this time is recovered later on. By avoiding premature decisions, the need for revisions, corrections and rework is reduced in the more advanced phases, when changes become more costly. The project does not necessarily gain speed at the beginning, but it gains consistency along the way.

The greatest difficulty, perhaps, lies not in understanding this principle, but in putting it into practice. Remaining, even for a while, without a clear definition of the problem requires managerial maturity. It means tolerating uncertainty while understanding is being built and sustaining a process that does not always offer immediate answers. For many organizations, this clashes with the dominant logic of control, predictability and the need for early definitions.

Even so, the implication is clear. In contexts where the problem is not a given, defining it too early means deciding on the basis of a still incomplete understanding. The consequences tend to appear later, in the form of adjustments, revisions and rework. It is not a matter of postponing decisions, but of making them when there is already enough of a basis to support them. Without that, the organization does not decide better. It merely decides prematurely.

In the end, the difference is not in working faster or slower. It lies in knowing when you already understand enough to move forward without having to backtrack later. In more uncertain contexts, trying to gain time at the beginning usually just pushes the problem forward, to a point where correcting it becomes more difficult and more expensive. Moving forward consistently depends less on speed and more on the quality of the understanding that underpins each decision.