I don’t hear people say “just enough research” very often. It’s a phrase I started using myself as a way to remind teams that research is a tool, not a destination.
The idea originally came from a very different context. On a project for McKinsey’s Global Trade Explorer, we were working with incredibly complex data visualizations. At one point, we framed our goal as sharing “just enough information.” Enough to keep someone oriented and engaged, but not so much that they felt overwhelmed or so little the data was meaningless. That framing stuck with me, and over time I started applying it to research more broadly.
Because research, especially in product work, has a way of pulling you into a rabbit hole.
Once you start looking at data, or talking to users, it’s easy to keep going. What if we asked one more question? What if we sliced this a different way? What if we talked to five more people? Curiosity is a good thing, but without discipline, it can quietly turn into avoidance. You feel productive, but you’re not actually getting closer to a decision.
In early-stage or zero-to-one product work, research is rarely about precision. It’s about calibration. You’re trying to understand the shape of the problem and the direction you might go, knowing full well that things will change once the product is in the world. If you’re talking to people and you start hearing the same themes over and over again, that’s usually a signal you have enough to move forward. Past that point, the returns diminish quickly.
This is especially true in exploratory research, which is often the hardest place to exercise restraint. When you’re exploring a wide, open problem space, it can feel like there’s always one more stone to turn over. But once you understand the major themes, it’s often more productive to start designing something and put it back in front of people than to keep researching in the abstract. Research plays a different role at different phases of a product’s life, and “just enough” changes accordingly.
Things get clearer when research becomes more focused. If I’m doing something like usability testing or acceptance testing, it’s usually obvious when I’ve seen enough. Patterns emerge quickly. Where people get stuck, where things break down, what’s confusing. You don’t need dozens of sessions to see that.
Where I’ve seen research go off the rails is when it becomes a substitute for decision-making.
Research is an input. A critical one, but still an input. It sits alongside business goals, technical feasibility, operational constraints, and brand considerations. Problems arise when teams treat research as the decision-maker itself. “People said they wanted this, so that’s what we should build.” What’s more important than what people say they want is why they want it, and how that insight fits with everything else you’re trying to accomplish.
On one project, we tested multiple concepts and ended up with a clear favorite based on stated preference. But another concept, while less popular on the surface, actually drove the behavior we were targeting. We chose the latter. The research didn’t make the decision for us, but it helped us have a more objective conversation about what mattered.
When it’s working well, “just enough research” depersonalizes decisions. It helps teams move out of opinion and assumption and into evidence. It gives people something concrete to react to instead of arguing from instinct alone. That doesn’t mean intuition goes away. Experience and judgment still matter. Research helps manage opinions, not eliminate them.
And like many researchers, I also think a lot about the difference between attitudinal data and behavioral data. What people tell you and what they do are often not the same thing. Good research pays attention to both, and understands their limits. Sometimes the best thing you can do is get something into the world and watch how people actually use it.
Ultimately, “just enough research” is about momentum with intention. It creates guardrails without boxing you in. It helps you move forward without pretending you have certainty you don’t. You’re not trying to be exhaustive. You’re trying to be informed.
I once had a mentor tell me, “You don’t need to be right. You just need to be reasonable enough that someone doesn’t think you’re horribly wrong.” It stuck with me because it’s true, especially in product work. You’re rarely operating with perfect information. The goal isn’t precision for its own sake. It’s to be informed enough to make a good decision, knowing you’ll keep learning once the product is in the world.
You’re not trying to be right. You’re trying to be directionally right, learn quickly, and make better decisions as you go. That’s usually more than enough.
