Speed of execution is the defining trait of high-performing teams. Whether in operations or product development, fast iteration is key. But one hidden pitfall often derails great ideas—the failure to complete the loop.

From internal processes to product features, if a system relies on manual intervention, it will inevitably break down.

The MVP approach to execution

In both operational workflows and product development, complexity is the enemy of execution. That is why the best approach is to start with a Minimum Viable Product (MVP)—launch a basic version, test its utility, and refine it based on real-world feedback.

Common examples include:

• Operations:
  • Automating data transfers between tools to eliminate manual work.
  • Setting up real-time dashboards in a central dashboard repository.
  • Automated customer or internal notifications/emails based on system events.
  • and many more…
• Product Development:
  • A recommendation system that suggests content but requires manual curation instead of algorithmic selection.
  • A new onboarding flow that depends on follow-ups instead of automated nudges.
  • and many more…

These are all built with the right intent, yet many fail over time. Why? Because they contain a manual break in the loop.

As an example, you would have thousands of internal notification emails in your mailbox that you do not read or worse, you are not sure why do you get those emails at the first place (but think about it- some one at your company would have built those workflows for performing a task but unfortunately they relied on users to take the action based on receiving the emails- a manual step).

The three axes of lean execution

To move fast and avoid the “build trap”—where teams over-engineer solutions that never get used—successful execution follows three principles:

1. Not handling every edge case upfront – Instead of covering every possible scenario from day one, focus on the most common use cases and refine as needed. This seems fair and is a hall mark of a lean or MVP workflow/product development.
2. Not making it fully robust immediately – Whether it is an internal tool or a product feature, it does not need enterprise-grade infrastructure at the start. If it delivers value, you can improve it later.
3. Including manual steps – Teams think it is ok to include a manual step in the workflow to quickly lauch it. And here is where things break down…

The fatal flaw: ‘Manual Steps’

A system that depends on human effort is not just inefficient—it has an expiration date. The moment a process, feature, or workflow requires manual intervention, it becomes unreliable, difficult to scale, and at risk of abandonment.

Why manual steps kill both workflows and products?

1. They create a bottleneck – If a process or feature requires human action, execution slows down or stops when that action is not taken. The moment the key person leaves the company, the workflow stops working because no one else knows how to operate it. Also, no one will know the why of it anymore.
2. They increase operational burden – Every manual step adds friction, making a workflow or product harder to maintain and less scalable, even at the MVP stage. People get busy, how many such manual workflows can your teams sustain? I hope your team plans to build many MVP workflows and decide which ones you want to scale.
3. They discourage iteration – Fully automated workflows and product loops naturally evolve. But when a system is dependent on manual work, teams find workarounds rather than improving it.

If a MVP workflow/product relies on manual intervention at any step, it will fail. It will not be used consistently, its purpose will become unclear, and eventually, it will become dead code that no one dares to remove but no one understands why it exists.

While it is okay to skip edge cases and robustness early on, including a manual step is the ultimate recipe for failure. (note- this will not be applicable to mission critical workflows/products like hospitals)

The Closed Loop Framework™: A system that sustains Itself

I am not sure if there is such a framework or a guiding principle, but if not, I am happy to name it “The Closed Loop Framework^TM“.

For a workflow, feature, or product loop to succeed, it must complete itself—even if it is only 80% right at the start. The other way to put it is- “if a workflow or a product loop requires a manual step, it is doomed“.

A flawed automated system is still better than a perfectly designed but manually dependent one (note- this is not applicable for mission critical workflows).

Real-world examples of manual steps failing

1. Operations: Electricity outage notifications
   When I was in university, our electricity provider introduced an SMS system to notify customers of power outages. The problem? A staff member had to manually enter outage details. While it was a step toward digitization, the system quickly faded when other priorities took over. If I were designing this system today using an MVP approach, I would eliminate the need for manual data entry. Instead, it should either:
   • Integrate directly with the power grid’s outage system (if one exists).
   • Leverage existing communication channels—automatically pulling updates from emails, WhatsApp messages, or central office notifications sent to local power stations.
   • By removing dependency on local staff, the system remains functional regardless of shifting priorities.
2. Product: Calorie tracking apps
   Most calorie-tracking apps fail because they require users to manually log every meal—a tedious task that kills long-term engagement. Some apps attempt to solve this with image recognition or smart device integration, but even that requires user effort. A better approach? Automate calorie tracking using contextual data.
   • If a user visits an ice cream or dessert shop, the app should automatically log a predefined calorie estimate based on location.
   • It should integrate with food ordering apps, restaurant preferences, and smart wearables to infer eating habits.
   • This will not be 100% accurate, but a 70–80% automated estimate ensures users do not have to manually input everything. A simple manual fallback—allowing users to review and adjust their daily intake—can handle the exceptions.
3. Leg massage machines
   I once gifted my parents a leg massage machine, hoping they would use it regularly. But over time, I realized they barely touched it. The reason? It had to be manually unfolded before every use. This extra step, no matter how small, created just enough friction to discourage regular use. Products that require manual setup before each use often get abandoned. A better design would ensure the device is always ready to use with minimal effort, reducing the risk of it gathering dust.
4. Product: Onboarding Nudges
   A product team built an onboarding process where users who did not complete their setup received manual follow-ups from a customer support team. It worked initially for small batches but collapsed at scale—too many users, not enough staff. A Closed Loop onboarding system would automate personalized follow-ups even in its MVP stage, using:
   • Predefined time-based nudges rather than relying on manual outreach.
   • Basic user behavior triggers (e.g., inactivity for X days) to send automated reminders.
   • Even without complex AI, the key is removing human dependence from the core process so it scales naturally.

How to apply the Closed Loop Framework™

Whether you are automating an internal workflow or building a product feature, ask these questions:

✔ Does this system require manual intervention? If yes, it will eventually fail.
✔ Can the loop be completed end-to-end? Even if it is imperfect, an automated system will improve over time.
✔ What is the fallback when things go wrong? Manual intervention should be the last resort, not the default.

The Takeaway

• Build lean and embrace MVP thinking.
• Automate as much as possible—manual steps are silent killers.
• If a workflow or feature is valuable, users will push for improvements. If not, it will fade away.

Next time you design a workflow or build a product feature, ask yourself:

Does this loop complete itself? If not, it is just a matter of time before it is abandoned.

Disclaimer: https://vinaysachdeva.com/disclaimer/. The opinions expressed in the blog post are my own and do not reflect the view(s) of my employer.