In this second part of my three-part series (catch Part I via episode 182), I dig deeper into the key idea that sales in commercial data products can be accelerated by designing for actual user workflows—vs. going wide with a “many-purpose” AI and analytics solution that “does more,” but is misaligned with how users’ most important work actually gets done.   To explain this, I will explain the concept of user experience (UX) outcomes, and how building your solution to enable these outcomes may be a dependency for you to get sales traction, and for your customer to see the value of your solution. I also share practical steps to improve UX outcomes in commercial data products, from establishing a baseline definition of UX quality to mapping out users’ current workflows (and future ones, when agentic AI changes their job). Finally, I talk about how approaching product development as small “bets” helps you build small, and learn fast so you can accelerate value creation.    Highlights/ Skip to: Continuing the journey: designing for users, workflows, and tasks (00:32) How UX impacts sales—not just usage and  adoption(02:16) Understanding how you can leverage users’ frustrations and perceived risks as fuel for building an indispensable data product (04:11)  Definition of a UX outcome (7:30) Establishing a baseline definition of product (UX) quality, so you know how to observe and measure improvement (11:04 ) Spotting friction and solving the right customer problems first (15:34) Collecting actionable user feedback (20:02) Moving users along the scale from frustration to satisfaction to delight (23:04) Unique challenges of designing B2B AI and analytics products used for decision intelligence (25:04) Quotes from Today’s Episode One of the hardest parts of building anything meaningful, especially in B2B or data-heavy spaces, is pausing long enough to ask what the actual ‘it’ is that we’re trying to solve. People rush into building the fix, pitching the feature, or drafting the roadmap before they’ve taken even a moment to define what the user keeps tripping over in their day-to-day environment.   And until you slow down and articulate that shared, observable frustration, you’re basically operating on vibes and assumptions instead of behavior and reality.   What you want is not a generic problem statement but an agreed-upon description of the two or three most painful frictions that are obvious to everyone involved, frictions the user experiences visibly and repeatedly in the flow of work.   Once you have that grounding, everything else prioritization, design decisions, sequencing, even organizational alignment suddenly becomes much easier because you’re no longer debating abstractions, you’re working against the same measurable anchor.   And the irony is, the faster you try to skip this step, the longer the project drags on, because every downstream conversation becomes a debate about interpretive language rather than a conversation about a shared, observable experience. __ Want people to pay for your product? Solve an *observable* problem—not a vague information or data problem. What do I mean? “When you’re trying to solve a problem for users, especially in analytical or AI-driven products, one of the biggest traps is relying on interpretive statements instead of observable ones.   Interpretive phrasing like ‘they’re overwhelmed’ or ‘they don’t trust the data’ feels descriptive, but it hides the important question of what, exactly, we can see them doing that signals the problem.   If you can’t film it happening, if you can’t watch the behavior occur in real time, then you don’t actually have a problem definition you can design around.   Observable frustration might be the user jumping between four screens, copying and pasting the same value into different systems, or re-running a query five times because something feels off even though they can’t articulate why.   Those concrete behaviors are what allow teams to converg