# Tools need a serious context of use Over and over you see people building tools for people other than themselves that are terrible. Similarly, the best tools are often built by practitioners. The [[Y Combinator]]-ism “build the thing you want” is a narrow way to interpret these observations. The broader way to explain the observation is that tool builders need a [[Serious Context of Use]] while building a tool. Processes and practices are like tools in this respect. Many people develop processes and practices in the abstract (see: [[McKinsey]] and academic management and finance.) Another situation is that people develop a really specialized tool for their exact context (which is great) but then abstract it to be the right tool for every other context. Something something hammer something something nail. [[Western thinking seems particularly bad at context-dependent answers]] A serious context of use is necessary, but not sufficient! [[Enabling technologies must be developed while doing serious work]]. Not only do tools need a serious context-of-use but (ideally) they would be developed *in* that context of use. However, that deep integration is aspirational. There are many good reasons that push tool development outside its context of use. ### Related * [[Seriousness does not preclude playfulness]] [Web URL for this note](http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Tools+need+a+serious+context+of+use) [Comment on this note](http://via.hypothes.is/http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Tools+need+a+serious+context+of+use)