Not knowing what and how to build
Missing clarity, lacking expertise, and building products too complex for the problem in front of them.
Know what to build before you build it.
Every one of these gets more expensive the further you build.
Missing clarity, lacking expertise, and building products too complex for the problem in front of them.
High development and hiring costs, a budget under strain, and cost estimates made before anyone knows the scope.
Wrong target audience, wrong market, wrong features, wrong business model. Usually discovered after the build.
Missing internal capacity, no track record with this kind of product, and hiring that cannot keep pace.
Momentum lost, deadlines missed, and a window that closes while the scope is still being argued about.
Constant change, new technology arriving faster than roadmaps can absorb it, and AI resetting expectations mid-project.
AI made building cheap. It did not make deciding what to build any easier.
of technology professionals now use AI at work. Teams that adopted it without a user-centric focus saw their performance get worse, because AI amplifies whichever direction you were already pointed in
more tasks shipped per developer as AI adoption rose across 22,000 developers, alongside 54% more bugs per developer
of 431 venture-backed companies that shut down since 2023 cite poor product-market fit as a reason. Two-thirds of those never found a market at all
Shipping faster is only an advantage once you are heading somewhere worth arriving. Discovery is the cheap part of finding that out.
Google Cloud and DORA, State of AI-assisted Software Development 2025, 23 Sep 2025, n≈5,000 · Faros AI, The AI Engineering Report 2026, 12 Apr 2026, telemetry from 22,000 developers across 4,000+ teams, correlation rather than causation · CB Insights, The top 9 reasons startups fail, 5 Mar 2026, 431 shutdowns since 2023, post-mortems allow multiple reasons
Straight to development is faster for about a month.
The path that goes up
The one that does not
Eight weeks is the full scope. It is built in phases so you can take the ones you need.
Kick-off workshops, market and competitor analysis, a read of your current solution, and quantitative user research with the people you intend to serve.
Customer journey mapping and a solution proposition workshop. What the product has to do, for whom, and what gets left out of the first version.
UX and UI prototyping, usability testing across two rounds of feedback, business modelling, IT architecture, and an effort estimate you can budget against.
Kick-off workshops. Market trends and key competitor analysis.
Analysis of your current solution. Quantitative user research.
Customer journey mapping. Solution proposition workshop.
UX and UI design prototyping begins.
Prototyping continues. Usability testing with the target group.
Business modelling. GTM direction. Web development groundwork.
IT architecture, MVP business specification, and the effort estimate.
Final presentation. Everything handed over, in writing.
Four outputs, all of them usable the week the process ends. Open a row for what is inside it.
Take any of it to another team. We have shipped 50+ products building exactly this kind of thing, so we can also build it.
Tested with your target group across two rounds of feedback, before development spends anything.
What to build first, what to leave out, and an effort estimate you can put in a budget rather than a guess.
A working prototype and a validated business model make a stronger case to investors than a deck describing an intention.
Changing a prototype takes an afternoon. Changing a shipped product takes a quarter and costs the trust of whoever is already using it.
A product lead and a technical lead own it, backed by tooling and delivery workflows refined across dozens of products. Fewer handoffs, and nobody relearning your product halfway through.
Development begins with a specification, an architecture and a backlog that already survived contact with users.
The kick-off, the solution proposition workshop and the final presentation aren’t delegable. Whoever will live with the decisions has to be in the room where they get made.
Eight weeks has very little slack in it. A decision that waits a week costs a phase, and the phases are in order for a reason.
Analytics, support tickets, past research, sales calls, churn reasons, anything you have already tried. Especially the things that did not work.
A 45-minute working session. We look at the idea, who you think it is for, and what you have already decided.
You leave with our read on where the risk actually sits. If the product is broadly right and the uncertainty is whether anyone will buy it, we will say so, and point you at the GTM Sprint instead.
The GTM Sprint, six weeks, validated with real buyersScope, timeline, price and a start date. In writing.
Nothing is committed and nothing is owed until you sign.
Week one starts 1 week after signature. We hold the slot for you.
A team of product managers who have each done this for years, in more than one industry.
Your discovery is run by one of them, chosen for the domain you are in rather than for who is free. Between them they have shipped products in fintech, banking, ecommerce, automotive, trading and crypto, which means the first workshop starts from what is already known about your market instead of from scratch.
Behind them CleevioX brings the research, design and engineering, and can build whatever discovery says is worth building. 50+ products shipped.
Start with Ondřej
He takes the first conversation, works out whether discovery is even the right thing for you, and puts you with the product manager who fits. He has run CleevioX since it started, and spent three and a half years as a product owner at mallpay before that, so he has sat on the client side of this exact decision.