There's a pull toward building one comprehensive platform that solves an entire problem space at once. It's a satisfying pitch and a difficult build, and in my experience it's usually the wrong first move.
Big problems are rarely one problem. They're a bundle of smaller, more specific problems that happen to affect the same group of people. A scheduling headache, a communication gap, a reporting gap — bundled together under one label because they all show up in the same workday, not because they share the same underlying shape.
Building one small tool for one of those specific problems ships faster, gets tested against reality sooner, and tells you something true about whether the assumption behind it was correct. A comprehensive platform takes a year to find out the same thing, at much higher cost if the assumption was wrong.
This isn't an argument against ambition. Several of the small tools I've built later connected into something closer to a platform — but the connections were discovered by watching how people actually used the separate pieces together, not designed upfront from a whiteboard diagram of an imagined complete system.
The discipline this requires is resisting the urge to anticipate every future connection before it's needed. A small tool that does one thing honestly, with a clear boundary, is easier to connect to something else later than a sprawling system is to untangle.