Is what we're building the right product? A clear look at validation versus verification

Let’s start with a simple question that trips up a lot of teams: when we review what we’re building, are we checking the right thing or the wrong thing? If your gut answer is “we’re validating,” you’re on the right track. Validation isn’t just a buzzword. It’s the compass that answers a bigger question: are we building the right product for the people who matter?

What is validation, really?

In plain terms, validation asks: does what we’re creating satisfy the real needs of our stakeholders? It’s the process of checking, during or at the end of development, whether the product (or its components) sticks to the requirements, goals, and desired outcomes that sparked the project in the first place. It’s not about whether the engineers followed the rules exactly or whether the code is perfectly clean. It’s about whether the final result actually delivers value to users and meets the problem you set out to solve.

Let me explain with a quick analogy. Imagine you’re remodeling a kitchen. Validation would be asking: does this new layout help people cook more easily, store enough gear, and enjoy the space? Does it solve the real needs of the household? Verification, by contrast, would be: did we install the cabinets to the exact dimensions, use the right screws, and meet the original blueprints? Both are important, but they answer different questions. Validation asks if the kitchen, as a whole, serves the family’s daily life.

Verification vs Validation: a quick map

• Verification: Are we building it right? This checks conformance to specifications and design requirements. It’s about quality of construction.

• Validation: Are we building the right thing? This checks if the product solves the users’ actual needs and delivers the intended value.

• Usability: Is the product easy to use? Important, but it’s a piece of the bigger question. A tool can be usable and still miss the core need if it doesn’t solve the right problem.

• Correctness of design: Are the design decisions sound? This matters, but again, it’s a factor in a larger evaluation of whether the product fits the real use case.

Why validation matters in requirements work

If you’re focused on validation, you’re centering the user and the value outcome. It’s not about chasing the perfect spec in a vacuum; it’s about confirming that the thing you’re delivering actually aligns with what people expect and will use. In requirements work, that means tying requirements to real-world success criteria: does the product reduce the time to complete a task? Does it improve accuracy or satisfaction? Will stakeholders approve the solution because it solves a problem they care about?

Validation isn’t a one-and-done event. It’s iterative, social, and a little messy—in a good way. You talk to users, you test ideas, you observe outcomes, and you adjust course. That feedback loop is where real value hides. It’s not glamorous, but it’s practical. And yes, it can reveal uncomfortable truths—like a feature that sounded great in theory but didn’t move the needle in practice. The sooner you spot that, the less you spend chasing the wrong glow.

How to validate without losing momentum

Here’s a practical, no-nonsense way to approach validation, with a few concrete steps you can apply in real projects:

• Start with the real objective

• Name the problem you’re solving. What would success look like for the user? What business outcome signals “yes, this is the right product”?

• Write one or two clear success criteria. They should be measurable and observable.

• Involve stakeholders early and often

• Bring together people who know the user, the business, and the constraints. Don’t wait for a big review to surface insights.

• Use lightweight dialogue: interviews, quick surveys, or even friendly usability tests with a prototype.

• Create scenarios and prototypes

• Build simple representations of the experience—sketches, wireframes, or a clickable mock that demonstrates flow.

• Let real users walk through the scenario. Their reactions will tell you if you’re on the right path.

• Define acceptance criteria

• Translate success into concrete acceptance criteria. When can we say “the right thing is being built”?

• Tie criteria to user outcomes, not just technical specs. For example: “Users complete the task in under 2 minutes with fewer than two errors.”

• Run small pilots or staged releases

• If feasible, test with a subset of users or in a controlled environment. Watch how they use the product in a live context.

• Gather both quantitative metrics (time, error rate, task success) and qualitative signals (frustrations, delight, surprise).

• Learn, adjust, repeat

• Treat each cycle as a learning loop. If validation fails, ask why: is the need misunderstood, or is there a missing assumption in the design?

• Adjust requirements, refine scenarios, and re-test. It’s not about stamping perfection; it’s about converging on value.

A few practical touchpoints that often matter

• Stakeholder alignment: Are the goals, constraints, and priorities crystal clear to everyone? If not, misalignment can masquerade as a design flaw.

• Value over volume: It’s tempting to pack in features. Validation invites restraint—focus on the few things that truly move the needle for users.

• Real-world constraints: Time, budget, and technology limits aren’t enemies; they’re realities to bake into validation. If something won’t work within those bounds, acknowledge it early and pivot.

Where things commonly go off the rails

• Chasing specs instead of outcomes: A product can check every box in a spec and still miss the real user need.

• Ignoring user feedback after an early test: Early signals matter. If you skip them, you’ll drift away from what matters most.

• Equating usability with validation: Yes, a tool should be usable, but usability alone doesn’t guarantee that it solves the right problem.

• Treating validation as a checkbox: It isn’t a one-off milestone. It’s a continuous conversation with real users and stakeholders.

A friendly reminder

Validation is essentially a bet on whether the product should exist in the first place. It’s about confirming that the effort, money, and time spent actually produce something that helps people. In the grand scheme of product development, it’s the moment that says, “We got this right.” And when you get this right, the rest—design quality, technical correctness, even nice-to-haves—falls into place more naturally.

A few quick takeaways to keep in your pocket

• Validation asks: are we solving the right problem for the right people?

• Verification answers: are we building it according to the plan?

• Use scenarios, lightweight prototypes, and real user feedback to validate early and often.

• Tie success criteria to real user outcomes and business value.

• Remember: usability and design quality matter, but they’re not the whole story. Validation sits at the center, keeping the focus on outcomes.

If you’re weighing decisions on a project, try this mental check: would the user still want this product if it had fewer features but solved the core problem perfectly? If the answer is yes, you’re likely validating the right direction. If not, it’s time to pause, listen to the users, and adjust.

A closing thought

Let’s keep the conversation grounded in real outcomes. Validation isn’t flashy, but it’s powerful. It’s the practical discipline that helps teams avoid the trap of “nice-to-have” features and instead deliver something that actually matters. So next time you’re sorting through requirements, ask yourself: are we building the right thing for the people who matter most? If the answer lands on yes, you’re probably on the right track. And if you’re unsure, that’s a sign to reach out, listen a little longer, and test again. The ultimate payoff is a product that truly earns its place in users’ lives.