The Double Lens of Innovation: Can vs. Should

The core issue is not the generation of ideas, it is the discipline of what happens after. Do you chase every possibility? Do you shut down too quickly? Or do you create a rhythm where ideas get space to breathe before being sharpened by the two questions that matter most: What else CAN we do? and What else SHOULD we do?

Walk Away Before You Double Down

One of the most underrated practices in innovation is walking away. The first draft of an idea, much like the first draft of a novel or campaign, is rarely the best. Giving it time and distance allows your subconscious to surface insights you will not see in the heat of the moment.

When you return, you see with sharper eyes. The idea that felt urgent yesterday may look clumsy today. Conversely, the half-formed notion might suddenly reveal a bold, simple brilliance. The walk-away principle forces a team to temper enthusiasm with perspective.

But there is a trap here: the temptation to keep “improving” forever. Endless tweaks and gratuitous revisions often do more harm than good. Walking away should refine, not paralyze. The art is knowing when refinement shifts from productive to performative.

Agile Does Not Mean Thoughtlessness

Startups thrive on speed. Rapid deployment, test-and-learn cycles, and MVP launches are the heartbeat of early growth. But “move fast” does not mean “do not pause.” Even in agile environments, the discipline of returning to ask what else CAN we do? and what else SHOULD we do? makes the difference between an iteration that compounds value and one that just burns cash.

Agile without reflection is chaos. Reflection without agility is paralysis. Teams need both.

The First Question: What Else CAN We Do?

This is the creative lens. It opens doors, widens perspective, and forces you to think beyond the obvious. Asking “what else CAN we do?” is about stretching the canvas, surfacing the edges of possibility, and ensuring the idea has not stopped short of its true potential.

For example:

• Marketing teams might ask if a single campaign concept could be repurposed across multiple channels with minimal additional cost.
• Product teams might consider whether a new feature unlocks integrations or partnerships that were not previously visible.

This question is about scope. It maps the terrain of opportunity.

The Second Question: What Else SHOULD We Do?

This is the discipline lens. It trims fat, checks ego, and forces alignment with strategy. Just because you can does not mean you should.

Asking “what else SHOULD we do?” brings clarity to decision-making. It frames trade-offs:

• Does this enhancement create measurable value, or does it just make the roadmap look impressive?
• Does this channel expansion align with the customer journey, or does it just scatter our focus?
• Will this feature differentiate us in-market, or will it distract from the core promise we are still trying to perfect?

The “should” question is about restraint. It defines the centerline and keeps energy from leaking into vanity work.

The Balance Between the Two

The interplay between “can” and “should” is where great organizations find momentum. Lean too far into “can” and you risk overbuilding, over-marketing, and exhausting both budget and morale. Lean too far into “should” and you risk starving innovation, missing opportunities, and stifling creativity before it matures.

High-performing teams know how to toggle between the two modes deliberately: expanding possibilities, then narrowing them. It is a cycle: stretch, cut, launch, repeat.

Practical Applications for Marketing Teams

It is one thing to talk about “can” and “should” in theory as I have been so far, but it hits harder when you see how it plays out in real campaigns. Let’s break it down with a few examples every marketing team will recognize.

1. Campaign Brainstorming
   Picture a consumer tech company preparing to launch a new set of noise-canceling earbuds. In the “can” phase of brainstorming, ideas pour out: a Times Square takeover, influencer unboxing videos, a pop-up “silent disco” event in airports, even partnering with airlines to put demo units in lounges. The point is not to judge, but to see what could exist if resources were unlimited.Then the team steps back for a day and returns with the “should” lens. Suddenly, the Times Square billboard looks like a budget sink that does not connect to their actual buyers. The airline lounge idea sounds exciting, but negotiations could delay the launch by months. What holds up under scrutiny is the silent disco pop-up in a few high-traffic airports, combined with a strong push of influencer videos timed to flight-heavy holiday weekends. The team has gone from a dozen flashy ideas to two smart ones that align with budget, audience, and timing.
2. Content Strategy
   Take a B2B SaaS company that publishes a report on cybersecurity trends. In the “can” mindset, the marketing team wants to spin it into a webinar, a LinkedIn carousel, a long-form YouTube video, a gated eBook, and an email drip campaign. On paper, all of those are possible.When the “should” filter is applied, things look different. CISOs and IT leaders, their target buyers, do not have time to sit through an hour-long webinar or read a 30-page eBook. They want fast, digestible insights they can share internally. That realization leads the team to prioritize a LinkedIn carousel highlighting the top three data points, a short video designed for LinkedIn rather than YouTube, and a crisp one-page PDF summary sales teams can send directly to prospects. By saying no to the webinar and eBook, they save weeks of production and focus on formats that actually match the way their buyers consume information.
3. Brand Extensions
   Every brand eventually asks, “What else can we attach our name to?” This is where “can” thinking explodes with options: a fitness brand could launch protein bars, branded water bottles, athleisure apparel, even a mobile app. At first glance, all of these extensions feel natural.Then comes the “should” filter. Which extensions reinforce the brand promise, and which risk eroding it? For example, the fitness brand might realize that protein bars align with its existing nutritional credibility, while a mobile app would stretch the company into a space where it has no expertise. A branded water bottle could make sense as merchandise, but if positioned as a core product it might feel like a cash grab. By making the distinction, the brand chooses to launch protein bars first, holding off on the app until it can justify the investment with a real strategic tie-in.

Practical Applications for Product Teams

The same “can” versus “should” framework applies just as strongly to product teams. Here are three points in the product lifecycle where those questions make the difference between progress and distraction.

1. Feature Development
   Imagine a SaaS platform for small businesses that already offers invoicing and expense tracking. In a “can” discussion, the product team comes up with a long list: add payroll, integrate with Shopify, build AI-driven forecasting, and launch a mobile app. Technically all of these are possible, and each one sounds compelling.Then the “should” conversation forces a reset. Which features will drive adoption and retention right now? Payroll would take months to build and compete with entrenched providers. The AI forecast tool sounds flashy but does not solve the customer’s daily pain. What matters most is the Shopify integration, because existing users are already exporting invoices to Shopify manually. That one feature reduces churn and immediately improves product stickiness. The rest goes back into the backlog.
2. MVP Decisions
   Consider a health-tech startup building a telemedicine app. In the “can” phase, the team brainstorms: appointment booking, chat, video, prescription refills, billing, patient notes, even AI symptom checks. The temptation is to pack everything into the first release so investors and users are impressed.But when the “should” filter is applied, the reality sets in: every extra feature adds weeks of delay and increases the chance of bugs at launch. What users actually need on day one is a reliable way to book and attend video calls, plus secure messaging. Payment and prescription refills can come later. By cutting scope, the startup gets into market faster, validates demand, and avoids a death spiral of delays.
3. Post-Launch Iteration
   Picture a productivity app that launches with a clean task manager. Within weeks, user feedback pours in: add a calendar view, add recurring tasks, add integrations with Slack, add color-coded labels, add reminders. The “can” mindset says, yes, all of these are possible.The “should” conversation looks different. Which requests align with the core promise of the app? Recurring tasks and reminders clearly reinforce the task manager’s value. A calendar view makes sense but needs careful prioritization. Slack integration sounds exciting but could stretch the small dev team too thin. By focusing on what directly improves daily usage, the team doubles down on core functionality first, then stages integrations later.

A Department-Wide Discipline

Embedding these questions into daily workflow does not just improve ideas, it improves culture. Teams begin to internalize a rhythm of creative expansion and strategic focus. Leaders gain confidence that energy is being directed toward impact, not indulgence. And most importantly, customers receive products and campaigns that are both imaginative and disciplined.

The difference between organizations that flail and those that scale often comes down to this: one chases every possibility, the other chooses deliberately.