How non-technical founders can feel powerful in technical rooms.

The Year I Pretended to Know What “Wireframes” Meant

Ten years ago, I found myself leading a product team for a fintech app, despite the fact that I knew absolutely nothing about finance and even less about technology. To this day, I still don’t know who thought that was a good idea.

I had the “you can figure it out” gene that many founders have. Unfortunately, that gene tends to be directly correlated with the “I will accidentally blow the budget because I don’t know what I don’t know” gene.

My early days looked something like this:

• I hired a “UI/UX designer” who… in hindsight… was really just a graphic designer with an Adobe license and a dream.
  
• I used UI/UX terms I didn’t understand, so the team delivered exactly what I said, not what I meant.
  
• I gave developers “context,” not actual business use cases, leaving them to make very expensive assumptions.
  
• And every time someone asked me, “Do you want this to be client-side or server-side?” I just nodded like a politician avoiding a scandal.
  

It wasn’t pretty. And honestly? It didn’t have to be that way.

If someone had told me what questions to ask, to designers, to developers, to advisors, to users, I would’ve saved months of rework and thousands of dollars.

That’s why I’m sharing this now. Because if you’re a non-technical founder, asking the right questions isn’t a sign of weakness.

It’s a strategy. It’s how you stay powerful in technical rooms.

Before We Go On: A Quick Glossary Heads-Up

You’ll see some common product terms in this post. Nothing wild, but just in case, we added a simple glossary at the bottom. Think of it as your “speak product without sweating” cheat sheet.

First, Let’s Be Clear: These Questions Are for the Hiring Stage

This is not a “how to run your dev team mid-project” guide. This is the before you hire anyone guide.

The moment when you’re on the phone with a designer or developer, thinking: “Are they amazing… or am I about to make an extremely expensive mistake?”

These questions help you figure that out.

They’re not technical. They’re not meant to test a developer’s depth.

They’re meant to test their communication, process, and ability to work with non-technical founders, which matters way more than how many languages they code in.

We’ll do a separate post with all the smart questions for the build phase. Make sure to subscribe to the Coura newsletter, and you’ll get it first.

Smart Questions to Ask UX/UI Designers (Before You Sign Anything)

Or: How to avoid hiring someone who makes beautiful screens… that don’t actually work.

Hiring the wrong designer was one of the most expensive lessons of my early founder career. Not because they were bad people, they were lovely, but because I didn’t know what questions to ask, and they knew exactly 1% more than I did.

Designers are charismatic. They speak beautifully about “experiences” and “intentions” and “crafting emotion.” And because most non technical founders don’t know the difference between good intentions and good process, many of us end up hiring someone who produces gorgeous screens… that fall apart the moment a user touches them.

The questions below will help you spot the difference between a true product designer and a “Pinterest mood board” designer, before you spend a single dollar.

1. “Walk me through your process like I’m five.”

This question exposes whether they actually have a product design process, or if they’re improvising with a Figma license and enthusiasm.

GOOD answers sound like:

Clear. Step-by-step. Understandable.

• “First, I outline what we’re building and who the user is.”
• “Then I sketch simple layouts (wireframes) to confirm flow.”
• “Next, I turn those into real screens for feedback.”
• “We test a clickable prototype before moving forward.”
• “I check feasibility with developers early so nothing breaks later.”

This is what an actual product design workflow sounds like.

BAD answers sound like this (and yes, these are painfully real):

• “I’m super flexible, I tailor my process to each client.”
  Translation: I don’t actually have a process.
• “I usually jump into Figma and start exploring ideas.”
  Translation: chaos, but make it pretty.
• “I prefer an intuitive, organic flow to my work.”
  Translation: you will pay for my intuition.
• “I’ll create multiple versions and you pick what you like.”
  Translation: I’m guessing. A lot.
• “Let’s not overcomplicate things. I’ll handle the creative direction.”
  Translation: I will redesign your product based on vibes.

And then there are the fake smart answers, the ones that sound brilliant but mean absolutely nothing. If you get these types of answers, ask them to explain the process to you. 

• “My process is rooted in human-centered design frameworks.”
  Translation: I watched a TED talk once.
• “I use design thinking methodologies.”
  Translation: If they cannot name a single step of that methodology- run!
• “I take a holistic, systems-level perspective.”
  Translation: I have no steps, timelines, or structure.
• “I build intuitive experiences aligned with user emotion.”
  Translation: vibes, but poetic vibes.
• “My workflow is extremely collaborative and iterative.”
  Translation: You will need to guide them A LOT

If you ever receive responses like this, the kindest thing you can do for yourself is say the following: “Oh, that is really interesting. I’m not familiar with this process; can you break it down so I can understand what it really entails?”

This question does not make you look dumb; it will save you a ton of time and money.

2. “What do you need from me before you start designing?”

This question tells you if the designer needs real clarity, or just a “vibe” and a Pinterest board.

GOOD answers sound like:

• “User goals and business goals.”
• “An MVP feature list.”
• “Any research you have.”
• “Competitor examples and what you like about them.”
• “Your early user flows, even if they’re messy.”

These are the ingredients of real product design.

BAD answers sound like:

• “Just send me your mood board/inspiration.”
  Translation: I’m designing based on aesthetics, not functionality.
• “I don’t need much, I’ll lead the direction.”
  Translation: I will redefine your product for you.
• “Let’s start with the main screen and build out.”
  Translation: I have no strategy.
• “I’ll start designing, and we can figure out flows later.”
  Translation: you will pay for my rework.

Fake-smart answers (and their translations):

• “I mainly need your brand philosophy.”
  Translation: I think this is a branding project. It’s not.
• “I want to understand your emotional north star.”
  Translation: what does that even mean for onboarding flow?
• “I’ll draw from the brand essence to inform experience.”
  Translation: product requirements? Never heard of them.
• “Just share your vision, I’ll interpret it creatively.”
  Translation: I will make something beautiful and entirely incorrect.

3. “Walk me through one of your past projects and why you made certain decisions.”

This is where you separate product designers from pixel decorators.

GOOD answers sound like:

• “Users were getting stuck here, so we simplified the steps.”
• “Testing showed people couldn’t find this button, so we moved it.”
• “We removed features that added friction.”
• “We changed onboarding to increase completion rates.”

This shows they care about behavior, not just beauty.

BAD answers tend to be aesthetic without substance:

• “I picked these colors because they felt modern.”
  Translation: personal preference drove the whole product.
• “This layout just looked cleaner.”
  Translation: zero usability research.
• “We wanted it to feel premium.”
  Translation: expensive-looking ≠ functional.
• “The client liked this direction.”
  Translation: no testing. Vibes only.

Fake-smart answers (with clear translations):

• “I leveraged color psychology to drive emotional resonance.”
  Translation: I chose a color and googled its meaning afterward.
• “The whitespace enhances the luxuriousness of the journey.”
  Translation: I added padding and want applause.
• “I optimized the visual hierarchy for aspirational positioning.”
  Translation: I moved pieces around until it felt right.
• “The typography reinforces the brand ethos.”
  Translation: I picked a pretty font. That’s it.

4. “How do you make sure developers can actually build what you design?”

This is the question designers hate because it exposes whether they understand feasibility.

GOOD answers:

• “I annotate edge cases for developers.”
• “I confirm feasibility early.”
• “I create detailed specifications.”
• “I design within constraints so things scale.”
• “I collaborate with developers during handoff.”

This saves you time, money, and sanity.

BAD answers (that will cost you money later):

• “Developers usually adapt to my designs.”
  Translation: they won’t. You will pay.
• “I hand off the Figma file, that’s usually enough.”
  Translation: it’s not.
• “I don’t want to limit creativity with constraints.”
  Translation: prepare for impossible designs.
• “Anything that doesn’t work, the developer can fix.”
  Translation: no ownership.

Fake-smart answers:

• “I follow atomic design principles for scalability.”
  Translation: they can’t show you a single component.
• “My designs are modular and extensible.”
  Translation: fancy words, no meaning.
• “I leverage cross-disciplinary collaboration.”
  Translation: I once emailed a developer.
• “The architecture informs my visual structure.”
  Translation: I do not know what an API is.

Again, if it sounds good, but you really don’t know what they are saying, say it with us now, ASK FOR CLARITY!!!!! 

5. “How do you validate your designs with real users?”

This question determines if they design for the user… or for their Behance portfolio.

GOOD answers:

• “I test a clickable prototype.”
• “I watch where users get stuck.”
• “I gather feedback and iterate.”
• “I test copy, flows, and interactions before handoff.”

This is what protects you from expensive post-launch fixes.

BAD answers:

• “We validate after the build.”
  Translation: They will test, after you have built the technology, which is expensive, please don’t do this. 
• “Client feedback counts as validation.”
  Translation: the client ≠ user. You are not your end user. Period. 
• “MVPs don’t need testing.”
  Translation: everything will break later.

Fake-smart answers (with translations):

• “My work is rooted in empathy-driven insight.”
  Translation: they have never run a user test.
• “I design through continuous improvement cycles.”
  Translation: rework… after you’ve already paid.
• “I align with behavioral heuristics.”
  Translation: ask for specifics, there won’t be any.
• “Validation happens via post-launch user alignment.”
  Translation: we fix after it’s already expensive. Oh, and you will pay me for the fixes.

“Good design isn’t pretty. Good design is purposeful.”

Smart Questions to Ask Developers (Before You Hire Them)

Or: How to avoid the “Why did you build that?” conversation before it even happens.

Most non-technical founders assume developers want technical instructions.
They don’t.

Developers want clarity. They want structure. They want to know exactly what your product is supposed to do so they don’t fill the blanks with wildly expensive assumptions.

These questions will help you quickly identify whether a developer is:

• thoughtful
• communicative
• capable of translating your idea into reality
• and not going to disappear into the Bermuda Triangle of GitHub
  

Let’s get into the questions, with realistic and fake smart answer patterns founders constantly fall for.

1. “Can you repeat back what you think we’re building?”

This is hands-down the most important question you will ever ask. It reveals alignment, understanding, and communication style immediately.

GOOD answers sound like:

• “You’re building an app that lets users do X, Y, and Z.”
• “The main flows are onboarding, feature A, and feature B.”
• “Your MVP includes these three core features.”
• “You want this to be simple and mobile-first.”

These developers listen. They normalize clarity. They reduce the risk of surprises.

BAD answers (that founders hear constantly):

• “Yeah, I get it.”
  Translation: they do NOT get it.
• “Don’t worry, I’ve built stuff like this before.”
  Translation: I’m not going to confirm anything and you’ll pay for my assumptions.
• “It’s straightforward.”
  Translation: famous last words.
• “We can figure out the details later.”
  Translation: you will absolutely not figure it out later.
• “I’ll know more once I start coding.”
  Translation: I’m starting blind.

Fake-Smart Developer Answers,

• “I’ve built scalable architectures for similar domains.”
  Translation: They understood maybe 20% of your idea.
  How to respond: “Great, can you repeat back the exact scope so we’re aligned?”
  
• “I’m comfortable designing the full technical architecture end-to-end.”
  Translation: Architecture is not the same as knowing what the product is.
  How to respond: “Perfect, before we talk architecture, tell me what you believe the user will be doing.”
  
• “Your problem maps cleanly to standard patterns.”
  Translation: This is a guess.
  How to respond: “Which patterns specifically? Walk me through the flow.”
  
• “I can abstract the logic and model it cleanly.”
  Translation: Says absolutely nothing about whether they understand your app.
  How to respond: “Sounds good. Can you summarize the core user actions?”
  
• “I’ll optimize the implementation after I build the base layer.”
  Translation: They plan to build without validating the requirements.
  How to respond: “Let’s validate the requirements first so we’re aligned.”
  

2. “What do you need from me before you write any code?”

A real developer will ask for clarity up front because clarity saves time. A risky developer wants to “figure it out later,” which all but guarantees overages.

GOOD answers include:

• “Requirements broken down by feature.”
• “User stories and acceptance criteria.”
• “Wireframes or designs.”
• “A defined MVP feature list.”
• “Any existing documentation.”
  

These developers prevent expensive miscommunication.

BAD answers (super common, especially from freelancers):

• “Just send me the designs, I’ll handle the rest.”
  Translation: they will guess all functionality.
• “I don’t need requirements, I’ll work directly from Figma.”
  Translation: they’re building visuals, not logic.
• “Just tell me what you want and I’ll make it happen.”
  Translation: your wallet will cry.
• “We can figure out the details once development starts.”
  Translation: no plan, only vibes.
• “I don’t need documentation, I move fast.”
  Translation: they recreate your app in their own image.

Fake-Smart Developer Answers:

• “I prefer agile alignment over upfront requirements.”
  Translation: They don’t want to commit to clarity.
  Response: “Great, what needs to be clear on day one so agile doesn’t become chaos?”
• “I follow lean development principles, so documentation isn’t critical.”
  Translation: They don’t want to read anything.
  Response: “Lean still requires clarity. Here’s what I need documented, can you work with that?”
• “I’m comfortable engineering emergent behavior as the product evolves.”
  Translation: This means absolutely nothing.
  Response: “Before it evolves, tell me the exact features you expect for MVP.”
• “We’ll iterate the requirements during implementation.”
  Translation: They plan to change scope constantly.
  Response: “We can iterate, but the baseline MVP must be clear first. Let’s define it.”
• “I build incrementally, so upfront planning slows things down.”
  Translation: They have burned other founders before.
  Response: “Incremental works once the blueprint is solid. Let’s define the blueprint first.”

3. “How do you break the work into phases?”

You want to hear the process. You want structure. You want the developer version of “I have my life together.”

GOOD answers sound like:

• “Phase 1: MVP core features.”
• “Phase 2: supporting features.”
• “Phase 3: polish, analytics, and QA.”
• “We’ll work in sprints and review progress weekly.”

This developer knows how to control scope.

BAD answers (very common):

• “We’ll build everything and show you when it’s done.”
  Translation: Run.
• “The phases will depend on how things go.”
  Translation: no plan exists.
• “Let’s keep it loose and flexible.”
  Translation: no timeline, no accountability.
• “We’ll figure phases out later.”
  Translation: there are no phases.
• “It’s easier if I just handle everything.”
  Translation: you will be kept in the dark.

Fake-Smart Developer Answers:

• “I’ll structure the project around modular service abstractions.”
  Translation: This is describing code architecture, not delivery phases.
  Response: “Good to know, but how will the work be phased?”
  
• “We’ll decompose the system into atomic units.”
  Translation: Cool phrase, but irrelevant to your timeline.
  Response: “Perfect, now explain the user-facing phases.”
  
• “I follow continuous delivery; phases are less relevant.”
  Translation: They don’t want to promise deliverables.
  Response: “Continuous delivery works once MVP is clear. What are the MVP milestones?”
  
• “I’ll create a dynamic backlog that evolves with implementation.”
  Translation: Nothing is set in stone, and you will pay for scope creep.
  Response: “Great, but the core backlog must be defined upfront. Can you outline it?”
  
• “My approach is outcome-driven, not phase-driven.”
  Translation: They read one product blog post, and it shows.
  Response: “Perfect,  what are the outcomes of each phase?”
  

4. “What assumptions are you making about this feature?”

This question forces blind spots into daylight.

GOOD answers:

• “I assume users will do X. Is that correct?”
• “I assumed this button triggers this flow. Can you confirm?”
• “I assumed this requires user authentication. Do we need that yet?”
• “I assumed notifications are part of MVP. Is that true?”
  

You want a developer who confirms assumptions early.

BAD answers:

• “I’m not really making assumptions.”
  Translation: they are absolutely making assumptions.
• “Everything is standard, nothing to clarify.”
  Translation: massive red flag.
  “Let’s just build it, we can refine later.”
  Translation: budget explosion incoming.

Fake-Smart Answers (with translations + responses):

• “I’ll abstract the logic so assumptions aren’t hard-coded.”
  Translation: They still made assumptions, they’re just hiding them.
  Response: “Let’s name the assumptions explicitly before abstraction.”
  
• “I rely on convention-based design to avoid misalignment.”
  Translation: They assume conventions… and your user may not follow them.
  Response: “Which conventions? Let’s verify they apply to this product.”
  
• “My approach avoids premature optimization so assumptions evolve naturally.”
  Translation: They have not confirmed anything.
  Response: “We can evolve later, but let’s confirm the starting point.”
  

5. “How will we communicate during the project?”

Developers who communicate well = lower cost, fewer surprises, fewer therapy sessions.

GOOD answers:

• “Weekly updates.”
• “Demo calls every sprint.”
• “Tracking in Asana/Trello/Jira.”
• “Clear documentation.”
• “I will notify you of blockers early.”
  

BAD answers:

• “I’ll let you know when something is ready.”
  Translation: at 11:59 PM on launch day.
• “I’m not a big meeting person.”
  Translation: You will hear from them once every 10–14 business months.
• “Communication slows me down.”
  Translation: I don’t like accountability.

Fake-Smart Answers (with translations + responses):

• “I follow asynchronous communication best practices.”
  Translation: They do not want live updates.
  Response: “Great! How often will you update me asynchronously?”
  
• “I use a pull-based communication model.”
  Translation: You will have to pull updates out of them.
  Response: “I need proactive updates. Can you commit to weekly check-ins?”
• “I optimize for deep work, so context-switching is minimized.”
  Translation: They don’t want to talk to you.
  Response: “Understood; let’s set predictable times for updates.”
  
• “I prefer communication to be event-driven.”
  Translation: They will only talk to you when breaking changes occur.
  Response: “I need scheduled communication, not event-driven surprises.”

Smart Questions to Ask Advisors, Mentors & Tech Consultants (Before You Take Their Advice)

Or: How to avoid expensive detours disguised as “guidance.”

Here’s the hard truth:
Advisors genuinely mean well.
But sometimes well-meaning advice can wildly derail an early-stage product.

Mentors and consultants often give feedback based on:

• their experience (which may not apply to your product)
• their personal bias
• their excitement
• their risk tolerance
• whatever trend they read about on TechCrunch yesterday
  

And if you’re a non-technical founder, their confidence can feel like truth… even when it’s steering you straight into feature bloat.

These questions help you filter strategic insight from noise, hype, ego, and “my friend built an app once” storytelling.

1. “Is this feedback strategic or personal preference?”

This is the single most important advisor filter of your life.

GOOD answers sound like:

• “Strategic, here’s what data tells me.”
• “Strategic, this will reduce friction in onboarding.”
• “This is more of a preference, take it or leave it.”
• “This aligns with your product goals because…”

Great advisors label their feedback.

BAD answers (real, common, dangerous):

• “Well, I wouldn’t use this app unless it had X…”
  Translation: you are not the target user.
• “This reminds me of a company I invested in once…”
  Translation: story incoming, relevance TBD.
• “I think it needs more features to feel real.”
  Translation: they want a Series A product on a pre-seed budget.
• “What if you also added…?”
  Translation: feature creep disguised as optimism.

Fake-Smart Advisor Answers (with translations + how to respond):

• “From a strategic standpoint, this needs to be more robust.”
  Translation: This means nothing.
  Response: “Specify what ‘robust’ means for MVP.”
  
• “I’d position this as a platform rather than an app.”
  Translation: They want you to build Amazon before validating one feature.
  Response: “Interesting, what’s the smallest version of that idea we can validate?”
  
• “The unit economics won’t scale unless you rethink the architecture.”
  Translation: They don’t understand your architecture or your economics.
  Response: “Which numbers or flows specifically concern you?”
  
• “This doesn’t feel sticky enough yet.”
  Translation: Advisor gut instinct, zero data.
  Response: “Which metric defines ‘sticky’ for this stage?”
  
• “The TAM is too small unless you broaden the scope.”
  Translation: Feature bloat disguised as market insight.
  Response: “Let’s validate one slice of the market before expanding.”
  

2. “If this were your money, what would you prioritize first?”

Advisors LOVE to give big-picture ideas because they’re not the ones paying for them.

This question forces them into founder reality.

GOOD answers sound like:

• “I’d validate the core flow first.”
• “I’d focus on the simplest version of your idea.”
• “I’d spend money on user testing before scaling features.”
  

BAD answers (you will hear these often):

• “I’d build it all. You need momentum.”
  Translation: easy to say with someone else’s budget.
• “You need a more complex onboarding to look credible.”
  Translation: design bloat.
• “You need X, Y, Z, and a proprietary algorithm.”
  Translation: oh wow, that’s $350k minimum.
• “Investors want to see more.”
  Translation: investors want to see validation, not volume.

Fake-Smart Advisor Answers (with translations + response):

• “From a capital efficiency perspective, I’d double down on scalability.”
  Translation: What does this mean for pre-MVP? Nothing.
  Response: “Scalable how? For which feature? At what stage?”
  
• “You need defensibility early to win this category.”
  Translation: They want moats before you have water.
  Response: “What’s the smallest defensible wedge we can test first?”
  
• “I’d invest in a more sophisticated backend from day one.”
  Translation: They’re imagining a team of 12 engineers.
  Response: “Why now vs later? What risk does that remove today?”
  
• “To accelerate growth loops, prioritize network effects.”
  Translation: They want you to build a two-sided marketplace on day one.
  Response: “What’s the single-user version of this loop we can launch?”
  

3. “What does ‘success’ look like in phase one?”

Advisors often project Series A standards onto idea-stage founders. This question forces realism.

GOOD answers sound like:

• “Success = confirming people actually want this.”
• “Success = completing the core flow.”
• “Success = learning, not scaling.”
  

BAD answers (these derail early products fast):

• “10,000 users in the first 3 months.”
  Translation: this advisor has never built an MVP.
• “You need early virality.”
  Translation: unrealistic.
• “You need v1 to feel polished and enterprise-ready.”
  Translation: million-dollar build, zero dollars validated.
• “Success = revenue from day one.”
  Translation: no, it doesn’t.

Fake-Smart Advisor Answers (with translations + your response):

• “You need strong product-market fit signals early.”
  Translation: PMF is not step one; validation is.
  Response: “What signals matter for pre-PMF stages?”
  
• “You need a compelling value loop for retention.”
  Translation: They read a retention blog post yesterday.
  Response: “What’s the simplest version of that loop for MVP?”
  
• “The v1 should map to your end-state vision.”
  Translation: They want a 3-year roadmap built in 3 months.
  Response: “How do we avoid overbuilding at this stage?”
  
• “Aim for early monetization to validate pricing power.”
  Translation: They’re forgetting user psychology and adoption curves.
  Response: “Shouldn’t we validate usage before pricing?”
  

4. “Who else should I talk to before finalizing this decision?”

This question reveals the advisor’s network depth and whether they’re keeping you trapped in an echo chamber.

GOOD answers:

• “Talk to a technical architect.”
• “You should speak to a UX researcher.”
• “A founder who built something adjacent would be helpful.”
  

BAD answers:

• “You don’t need anyone else, trust me.”
  Translation: massive red flag.
• “I know best, no need to overthink.”
  Translation: ego > product.
• “Don’t talk to developers yet, they’ll complicate things.”
  Translation: they’re afraid of being contradicted.

Fake-Smart Answers (with translations + response):

• “You need cross-domain insights from emergent ecosystems.”
  Translation: They don’t know who you should talk to.
  Response: “Name one specific person or role.”
  
• “You need more market signal triangulation.”
  Translation: This is jargon standing in for “I have no one.”
  Response: “Who would you recommend for that?”
  
• “Speak only to high-altitude thinkers right now.”
  Translation: They don’t want you talking to real users.
  Response: “Who can give tactical validation for phase one?”
  
• “Avoid technical experts until your vision is crystallized.”
  Translation: They don’t want competing advice.
  Response: “Vision + feasibility need to evolve together.”
  

5. “What am I not seeing?”

This is the power question. Advisors LOVE this question, and it reveals how clearly they understand your stage.

GOOD answers:

• “You may be overbuilding for phase one.”
• “You might be assuming users behave ideally.”
• “You may not have validated the core problem enough.”
• “There’s a risk of too many features too fast.”
  

BAD answers (founders hear these often):

• “You’re not thinking big enough.”
  Translation: build more. Now. For no reason.
• “Your competitors are doing way more than this.”
  Translation: comparison is not a strategy.
• “Investors will want to see AI.”
  Translation: Please ignore this.
• “You should pivot to X, that’s where the market is going.”
  Translation: they’re chasing hype.

Fake-Smart Answers (with translations + response):

• “You’re missing the deep meta-patterns in user behavior.”
  Translation: They have no data and want to sound profound.
  Response: “Which specific behavior are you referring to?”
  
• “There’s a latent opportunity in restructuring your value stack.”
  Translation: Word salad.
  Response: “What exact value stack shift would you recommend?”
  
• “The real blind spot is your positioning against emergent ecosystems.”
  Translation: They read a trend report.
  Response: “Which ecosystem specifically impacts MVP?”
  
• “There’s a strategic oversight around long-term defensibility.”
  Translation: Advisors love “defensibility” because it sounds smart.
  Response: “What’s the smallest defensible wedge we can start with?“

Questions to Ask Advisors, Mentors & Tech Consultants

Outside voices can either sharpen your thinking or derail your product.

Founders often dilute their product by listening to too many outside opinions. So ask smarter questions.

Ask these questions:

1. “Is this feedback strategic or personal preference?”

This filters out noise fast.

2. “If this were your money, what would you prioritize first?”

This is a grounding question that forces realism.

3. “What does ‘success’ look like in phase one?”

You want advisors aligned with your actual stage, not pitching Series A features to a pre-MVP product.

4. “Who else should I talk to before finalizing this decision?”

Advisors often know the right specialists.

5. “What am I not seeing?”

The most powerful founder question in the world.

The One Question Every Founder Should Ask Themselves

“Am I communicating my product clearly enough for someone else to build it?”

Most founders are building their first-ever tech product. You’re not expected to know how to translate ideas into requirements.

That’s why tools like Coura’s Mini-Discovery exist.

It helps you:

• Turn ideas into structured requirements
  
• Create user stories
  
• Map out user journeys
  
• Document features
  
• Prioritize your MVP
  
• Communicate the product to designers, developers, advisors, and investors
  

It’s the exact tool I wish I had in my early days before I learned everything the hard, expensive, slightly traumatic way.

We help non-technical founders feel powerful in technical rooms.

Final Thoughts: You Don’t Need to Know Everything. You Just Need the Right Questions.

Here’s the truth nobody tells non-technical founders loudly enough:

You are not “behind” because you don’t speak the language.

You are not “less qualified” because you’re not technical. And you’re definitely not “in over your head” because you ask questions.

Asking questions is the job. Asking questions is leadership. Asking questions is how you protect your product and your wallet.

Most of the problems founders run into, bloated builds, wrong features, misaligned teams, runaway budgets, don’t happen because they hired the wrong people.

They happen because the wrong things were assumed… in silence.

You don’t need to know what a framework or a component, or an API is. You need to know how to ask:

• “What does that mean?”
• “Why this solution over another?”
• “Walk me through your process like I’m five.”
• “What assumptions are you making?”
• “What does success look like for phase one?”
  

These questions don’t make you look inexperienced. They make you look in control.

Because when you ask the right questions, the right people rise. Strong designers become clearer. Strong developers become better partners. Strong advisors become strategic, not distracting.

And the people who cannot explain their thinking? Well… better to find that out before they start charging you by the hour.

Ready to Feel Powerful in Technical Rooms?

Book a Mini-Discovery Session with Coura. Walk in with an idea. Walk out with a structured, actionable roadmap your team can understand and execute.

GLOSSARY: Founder-Friendly, Zero-Jargon, Actually Useful

A glossary written for normal people, not engineers.
Use it when someone says a word that sounds technical and your brain starts buffering.

Wireframe

A bare-bones sketch of a screen. Boxes, lines, labels.
Think: the blueprint of a house before anyone picks paint colors.

High-Fidelity Design

A polished, realistic version of your screen.
Think: the finished model home with furniture staged and flowers in the vase.

User Flow

A map showing the path a user takes through the app.
Think: Google Maps for your product.

Prototype

A clickable sample of your designs, no code needed.
Think: the illusion of a working product.

Requirements

A clear explanation of what a feature must do.
Think: a recipe. No guesswork.

User Story

A simple statement describing what the user wants to do.
Example: “As a user, I want to track my mood quickly so I understand my patterns.”

Acceptance Criteria

The checklist developers use to confirm a feature is “done” and not “vaguely sort of works if you tap twice and reload.”

MVP (Minimum Viable Product)

The smallest version of your product that still gives users value.
Think: your idea without all the body glitter.

Sprint

A short development cycle (usually 1–2 weeks) with a list of tasks.
Think: “Here’s what we’re building this week.”

Scope

Everything you’ve agreed will be built.
Think: “Here’s what we are paying for, and here’s what we are NOT.”

Scope Creep

When your product secretly gains 12 extra features like a gremlin after midnight. Usually, without anyone noticing until it’s too expensive.

Technical Debt

Shortcuts taken during development that eventually need fixing.
Think: the “I’ll do it later” drawer of your product.

Backend

The behind-the-scenes logic that users never see.
Think: the kitchen in a restaurant.

Frontend

The visual part users interact with.
Think: the dining room.

API

A way for two systems to talk to each other.
Think: a waiter passing messages between the kitchen and the dining room.

FAQ

1. What should non-technical founders ask developers before starting a project?

Ask about assumptions, dependencies, scope, workflow, and how they’ll confirm requirements before building.

2. How can I evaluate if a designer is right for my app?

Look for clear process, real product examples, user flows, wireframes, and an ability to explain decisions in simple terms.

3. Do I need a technical background to build an MVP?

Not at all. You need clarity, good questions, and a strong discovery process, not coding skills.