Stop Building Learning Platforms. Start Solving Real Problems.

"We're building a comprehensive learning platform that combines LMS, assessment, content authoring, analytics, and AI-powered personalization."

I see this on LinkedIn all the time. Different companies, same strategy: build everything for everyone.

And every month, another one of these "platforms" fails. Not because they lack features. Because they're solving the wrong problem.

The Platform Trap

Here's how it usually goes:

1. Observe that education has lots of problems
2. Build a platform that tries to solve all of them
3. End up solving none of them well
4. Wonder why nobody adopts it

The logic seems sound. Teachers need course management, assessment tools, content creation, communication, grading, analytics. Why not build one system that does it all?

Because comprehensive platforms have diffuse value propositions. When you try to solve every problem, you can't solve any single problem well enough to make switching worthwhile.

What Works Instead: Surgical Solutions

The edtech products that actually succeed don't try to do everything. They identify one painful problem and solve it brilliantly.

Example: A Focused Solution

Projects often face the temptation to build a comprehensive curriculum management platform. Course planning, assessment design, resource library, collaboration tools: the full suite.

But the more effective approach is often to resist that temptation. Pick exactly one thing and do it exceptionally well. One example: focusing solely on automating curriculum standards alignment.

No course management. No assessment builder. No communication tools. Just one workflow that used to take teachers 8+ hours, reduced to minutes.

Is that a "comprehensive platform"? No. Does it solve a real, urgent problem? Yes. And that matters more.

Example: Zoom (in 2013)

When Zoom launched, video conferencing already existed. Skype, Google Hangouts, WebEx, GoToMeeting: plenty of options.

Zoom didn't try to be a comprehensive communication platform. It just made video calls work reliably. One-click join. Stable connections. No account required for participants.

That singular focus on reliability made it the obvious choice when COVID hit and education went remote.

Why Platforms Fail

1. Diffuse Value Proposition

"We do everything" means "we're not uniquely good at anything." Teachers can't easily articulate why they need your platform beyond "it has a lot of features."

Compare that to: "This tool saves me 8 hours per week on standards alignment." That's specific. That's valuable. That's a reason to switch.

2. Integration Nightmare

Comprehensive platforms assume they'll be the only tool teachers use. In reality, teachers already have an LMS (mandated by the district), Google Classroom (easier for assignments), Quizlet (students already use it), and 5 other tools.

Your platform doesn't just need to be good. It needs to replace 6 existing tools and be worth the migration pain. That's an impossible bar.

3. Trying to Serve Everyone = Serving No One

K-12 teachers have different needs than higher ed professors who have different needs than corporate trainers. A platform built for "all educators" will feel generic to each group.

Specialization isn't weakness. It's honesty about who you're actually helping.

4. Feature Bloat

Every stakeholder meeting adds another feature request. "Can we add a discussion forum?" "What about parent portals?" "We need better reporting."

Six months later, you have 47 features. Fifteen of them are half-baked. None of them work together smoothly. The interface is overwhelming.

And you've forgotten to ask: What problem are we actually solving?

The Alternative: Problem-First Design

Instead of asking "What features should our platform have?" start with:

• What specific problem are we solving?
• For whom exactly? (Be specific. "Teachers" is not specific enough.)
• Why isn't this problem already solved?
• What's the smallest solution that completely solves this problem?

Let's apply this to a real scenario:

When to Build a Platform (Rarely)

I'm not saying platforms never work. But they require specific conditions:

1. You've Already Proven a Point Solution

Start with one killer feature. Prove it works. Prove people pay for it. Then expand adjacently.

Google started with search. Then email. Then docs. Each one worked independently before integration.

2. Integration IS the Value Proposition

If the problem is literally "these 5 tools don't talk to each other," then building integration is solving a real problem.

But be honest: Is that actually the problem? Or are you just assuming teachers want everything in one place?

3. You Have Platform-Level Resources

Building a comprehensive platform requires massive investment: development, support, documentation, training, sales, ongoing maintenance.

Do you have that? Or would you be better off building something focused that actually helps people?

What to Build Instead

If you're serious about improving education through technology, here's my advice:

1. Find One Painful Problem

Talk to teachers. Not in focus groups. In real classrooms. Watch them work. What makes them frustrated? What takes too long? Where do existing tools fail?

Find the moment where they say "I hate this part" and build something that eliminates it.

2. Build the Minimum Viable Solution

What's the smallest thing you can build that completely solves that one problem? Not partially. Completely.

Strip out every feature that doesn't directly contribute to solving that specific problem.

3. Make It Integrable

Your tool will live alongside existing systems. Make that easy. Export to standard formats. Provide APIs. Don't force teachers to migrate their entire workflow.

4. Prove It Works, Then Expand

Once your point solution is working, you can expand adjacently. But earn that expansion by proving you can solve one problem brilliantly.

The Bottom Line

Education needs better tools. But it might not need more "comprehensive platforms" that do everything adequately.

It needs focused solutions that solve real problems completely.

Instead of asking "What should our platform include?" it's worth asking "What specific problem are we solving?"

Build that. Make it work well. Then consider expanding.

But start with the problem, not the platform.