Why scalability must follow desirability, feasibility and viability

One of the most persistent myths in product development is: “If you build it, they will come.”

This belief has led many businesses to launch not because the market demanded it, but simply because they could.

It’s the classic trap of supply-side thinking, where the focus is on what the organization can produce, not what the market needs.

But hindsight has a way of making failures look obvious.

In reality, decisions often stem from a mix of vision, enthusiasm, and market signals. Some real, some misread.

That’s why we must go beyond the surface and learn from these failures with clarity, not just criticism.

Danger of supply-side thinking

Supply-side thinking builds around internal capabilities rather than external insights. It prioritizes what the business can build, fueled by ambition, ego, or internal resources, rather than what the market is truly asking for.

This often leads to overbuilding without validating demand, scaling based on vision instead of real traction, financial projections rooted in best-case scenarios, not grounded realities

When these assumptions go untested, the business doesn’t just stumble, it risks breaking trust with customers, investors, employees, and regulators alike

D.F.V. sequence before scale

Before any new product or business model scales, it must pass through three non-negotiable gates:

• Desirability–Is there strong market demand to the right market?
• Feasibility–Can we build and deliver it efficiently?
• Viability–Will it be financially sustainable?

Only after these three are validated should a company pursue scalability. When this sequence is skipped, the business is often scaling its failures faster.

Case: A $47B Premature Scaling Story

Consider one of the most talked-about startup failures of the last decade. A co-working company that once aimed to redefine the modern workplace soared to a $47 billion valuation. It attracted massive investor backing, extensive media coverage, and a charismatic leader who sold a compelling vision of the “future of work.”

Then it collapsed just before its initial public offering.

Let’s unpack what went wrong, not just in execution, but in foundational assumptions.

1. Desirability misread, not entirely missing

The company did tap into a real need, who are the freelancers and startups wanting flexible workspaces and community. That niche demand was genuine. But the assumption that this model could extend to large enterprises at scale was overconfident.

Desirability was partial, not universal. And when the pandemic normalized remote work, the already limited demand shrank much further. The market had changed, but the business didn’t adjust in time.

2. Feasibility was vision-heavy, operation-light

The model required signing long-term leases, outfitting prime real estate, and maintaining high-touch amenities. This was a capital-heavy operation, thinly disguised as a tech company.

The façade of scalability masked an operational burden that was hard to replicate profitably across cities and countries.

Early success in key markets was extrapolated too quickly without stress-testing operational sustainability.

3. Viability was fundamentally flawed

The core business model was built on short-term client revenue, locked into long-term real estate costs. That cost-revenue mismatch created a fragile financial foundation. Growth masked this flaw, but once funding slowed, the cracks became impossible to hide.

This wasn’t just a bad quarter. It was a structurally unsound business model from the start.

Governance breakdown

Execution matters. But when leadership ignores internal checks, dismisses concerns, and lets charisma replace accountability, the damage multiplies.

In this case, internal governance was weak. Financial controls were lax. Investor scrutiny, despite the red flags, came too late. And when the collapse loomed, major owners had to step in, not just to save the company, but to avoid public embarrassment for having backed a flawed venture so visibly.

It wasn’t just a failed startup; it became a credibility crisis for the entire shared-office sector.

But then, doesn’t innovation often begin with vision?

To be clear, not all visionary bets are wrong. Some of the world’s greatest products, like the iPhone or Tesla, weren’t built from customer surveys, but from conviction.

The difference? Those visions evolved quickly. They listened, iterated, and found traction. Vision and validation must go hand-in-hand.

What distinguishes a bold innovator from a reckless builder is the willingness to test, and adjust key assumptions, not just scale and promote.

Four red flags that deserve attention

To avoid scaling prematurely, look out for these warning signs:

• Vision over validation–Roadmaps built in echo chambers, not through real-world feedback.
• Scaling without fit–Expanding before ensuring product-market fit leads to expensive lessons.
• Hope-based financials–Forecasts based on best-case optimism often disguise risks and constraints.
• No iteration loop–If no one’s refining the plan immediately based on actual usage, there’s a disconnect.

Hidden cost of building for ourselves

Supply-side thinking is expensive, not just in cash, but in trust. Customers feel ignored when their needs aren’t reflected in the offering. Investors become cynical after hype turns to losses. Employees burn out chasing goals detached from market realities.

In the case of the co-working collapse, the fallout didn’t just affect one company. Competitors struggled to raise funds. The entire flexible workspace category suffered from investor fatigue and reputational spillover.

This is the price of ignoring the D-F-V sequence.

Build with purpose, not ego

Just because your company can build something doesn’t mean the market wants it.

Innovation must be anchored in solving real problems, not in filling internal production gaps or feeding a founder’s vision unchecked.

Thus before you invest in your next big idea, ask for hard evidence:

• Is this truly desirable to the market?
• Is it feasible with our current resources?
• Is it viable long-term?
• Have we earned the right to scale?

Answering these honestly won’t just save money, it might save your brand, your people, and your credibility.

Be more mindful of thinking and biases

Many failures aren’t simply about flawed strategy, they’re often rooted in how we think. Cognitive biases like overconfidence, confirmation bias, and the illusion of control can quietly guide major decisions off-course. Being self-aware, seeking dissenting opinions, and validating assumptions with data aren’t just good habits, they’re necessary safeguards.

To build responsibly, we must not only challenge our ideas but also our mental shortcuts. Innovation requires not just boldness, but clarity.