“Folks suppose focus means saying sure to the factor you’ve received to deal with. However that’s not what it means in any respect. It means saying no to the hundred different good concepts that there are. It’s a must to decide rigorously.” — Steve Jobs
As a product chief, I’m typically requested, “How ought to we prioritize what’s on the roadmap?”
This is a crucial and near-universal query that, in actuality, has two elements. First, what needs to be prioritized and why? Second, what strategy or framework ought to we use?
For product managers, prioritization is cherished and hated, vital but dangerous, a supply of stress and frustration. No surprise it’s regularly acknowledged as one of many hardest elements of the job. Who enjoys saying no, in any case? Not me.
I positively second these emotions — love, hate, threat, stress, and frustration. Prioritization is a ache and a drain, however it additionally occurs to be probably the most necessary choices a product crew makes.
Prioritization and product success, due to this fact, go hand in hand.
Making issues worse, there are a seemingly countless variety of methods to prioritize. It’s as if the founders of product administration considered making the job concurrently tough and complicated.
Fortunately, at the very least the objective of prioritization is common — decide a very powerful end result and have to deal with that drives the very best worth within the shortest time for the bottom stage of effort.
Easy proper — queue the attention rolls.
Some days, I hated my job. It felt like everybody was chasing me with pins, out to pop my balloon.
After all, that is the unsuitable perspective towards a job, however I couldn’t assist it.
Upon reflection, as a mid-level product supervisor, it got here all the way down to saying no, feeling like I used to be all the time disappointing somebody, and feeling pressured to prioritize what we placed on the roadmap.
Each assembly the place I wanted to decide and set a precedence felt like a combat — a combat with design, engineering, advertising, gross sales, stakeholders, and finally, prospects. A combat during which the play was frozen till I made a name.
Being in that state of affairs sucks. It’s like being the referee for a FIFA World Cup championship match. It doesn’t matter what you determine, sure gamers will disagree and argue their case, and one crew, together with tens of millions of followers, will all the time be sad.
Everybody offering enter. Everybody on edge. But that’s precisely what I wanted to get snug with, making the decision.
In order that’s what I began doing — I’d depart the assembly and determine. And that pissed everybody off — an actual no-win state of affairs.
Then I spotted one thing. I wasn’t aggravating the crew by making a name. They simply didn’t perceive why I made the decision I did, how I made a decision on the precedence, and why I couldn’t do it in entrance of the group.
At this level, I spotted three issues:
- First, I must share why I made the decision I did and what drove the choice. Extra on this in a bit once we evaluate the objectives of prioritization.
- Second, I wanted to share the framework I used — at first, I didn’t essentially have one, however finally landed on one that’s typically used.
- Third, the choice wanted to be made within the open. I wanted to be clear and invite debate — nice, extra conferences and arguing.
I additionally thought again to a narrative shared with me at a current product coaching session — the story of Kodak and why prioritization was vital. I’ll recap shortly.
Regardless of being a pioneer within the images business and holding an unlimited portfolio of digital patents, Kodak didn’t prioritize the transition to digital images successfully. This reluctance stemmed from a concern of cannibalizing their extremely worthwhile movie enterprise.
Whereas Kodak did spend money on creating digital applied sciences, together with digital cameras and photograph sharing, they didn’t absolutely decide to and prioritize these improvements, permitting opponents like Canon to dominate the digital aspect of the enterprise. Kodak’s hesitation and misaligned priorities led to its incapability to capitalize on its technological developments, finally ensuing within the firm submitting for chapter in 2012.
I didn’t need to be the subsequent Kodak. I wanted to get my act collectively and prioritize- a terrifying thought and a ton of strain.
Sport on.
With out prioritization, you don’t have a roadmap, at the very least one which the crew can realistically ship.
So what’s the objective of prioritization — what’s the why behind what will get picked?
Relating to the roadmap, prioritization ensures probably the most vital end result and have with the very best worth that works inside the given constraints is developed first by:
1. Aligning with the Technique:
Making certain the roadmap aligns with the corporate and product’s total imaginative and prescient, objectives, and strategic aims, guaranteeing that each effort contributes to long-term success and aggressive benefit.
2. Maximizing Worth:
Making certain that the gadgets chosen for growth present probably the most important profit to customers and stakeholders, addressing vital wants and fixing high-priority market issues.
3. Optimizing Sources and Constraints:
Effectively utilizing the obtainable sources (time, funds, expertise) by specializing in a very powerful and impactful work, avoiding waste on much less vital or low-value duties, and optimizing for constraints.
Okay, so how can we accomplish this?
That is the place my opinion diverges from that of hardcore prioritization disciples, all of whom have what they contemplate ‘the best’ technique.
The in need of it’s that there is no such thing as a ‘proper’ technique and no excellent framework.
As a substitute, product managers ought to select which technique finest aligns with their firm, product, crew, and constraints. As a extra analytically minded particular person who prefers quant vs. qual, I are inclined to lean towards the RICE technique of prioritization, which, after all, will get plenty of criticism.
As a refresher, here’s a fast abstract of the 4 strategies I’ll focus on under:
- RICE stands for Attain, Affect, Confidence, and Effort. A quantitative prioritization framework helps product managers consider and examine completely different initiatives.
- The Kano Mannequin categorizes product options primarily based on buyer satisfaction and performance implementation.
- MoSCoW is an acronym standing for Should Have, Ought to Have, May Have, and Gained’t Have. It’s a prioritization method used to assist stakeholders perceive the importance of initiatives.
- The Worth vs. Effort technique is a prioritization method that evaluates potential options or initiatives primarily based on two key elements: the worth they supply to prospects or the enterprise and the trouble required to implement them. It’s a visible strategy that helps product managers and stakeholders make knowledgeable choices about useful resource allocation and have prioritization.
Now that we received that out of the best way, listed below are a number of issues that may enable you select:
*Observe: My objective for this part is that will help you determine which one to make use of, not train you the way to use every technique. A few of these hardcore prioritization disciples I discussed have glorious sources obtainable on the way to apply each.
1. Nature of the Product and Market
- Complexity of the Determination or Product: I discover RICE or Worth vs. Effort typically works higher for advanced merchandise with a number of options and consumer segments. For easy choices, a simple technique like MoSCoW may suffice.
- Market Maturity: For merchandise in a mature market, the place consumer expectations are well-defined, the MoSCoW technique could be all you want for sustaining and enhancing core functionalities.
2. Stakeholder and Buyer Involvement
- Stakeholder Preferences: If stakeholders have sturdy opinions and ranging priorities and are collaborative, a clear and collaborative technique just like the MoSCoW technique might help handle expectations and align priorities. RICE or Worth vs. Effort works higher in politically charged environments or conditions of great disagreement, given objectivity.
- Buyer Suggestions: The Kano mannequin might be useful for merchandise the place buyer suggestions is vital, because it focuses on buyer satisfaction and figuring out options that delight customers.
3. Staff Dynamics and Sources
- Staff Capability and Expertise: If the crew has restricted sources or various talent units, the RICE or Worth vs. Effort Matrix might help steadiness high-value, low-effort options to optimize productiveness.
- Determination-Making Type: If the crew prefers data-driven and analytical approaches, the Rice or Worth vs. Effort Matrix offers a transparent visible illustration of priorities.
4. Strategic Objectives and Aims
- Alignment with Technique: If the first focus is on aligning with strategic objectives and aims, strategies that contemplate enterprise worth and strategic alignment, just like the Worth vs. Effort Matrix, are advantageous.
- Innovation vs. Upkeep: For merchandise specializing in innovation, the Kano mannequin helps prioritize options that delight customers. For merchandise needing upkeep, the MoSCoW technique ensures important options usually are not neglected.
5. Time Constraints and Urgency
- Want for Velocity: If it’s essential to establish and implement high-priority options shortly, the MoSCoW technique offers a simple categorization that may be quickly utilized.
- Lengthy-Time period Planning: The Worth vs. Effort Matrix permits for a extra nuanced analysis of options in longer-term planning, balancing short-term and long-term objectives.
Once more, there is no such thing as a excellent technique. And typically it’s essential to use two.
After all, expertise can be necessary. If the crew is conversant in a technique and it has confirmed efficient, keep it up.
Two closing factors.
First, don’t always change your technique of prioritization. It is advisable to keep it up for a while to find out if it’s working. Fixed shifting will drive the crew loopy, negate your means to match previous prioritization to present and create a chance to query your priorities.
Second, you should utilize a couple of technique. There generally is a main and secondary. And if you happen to do plan to vary your technique of prioritization, plan to run the outdated and new in parallel for a while to unravel for the challenges talked about within the first level.
Contemplating these elements, you’ll be able to select the prioritization technique that most closely fits your state of affairs and objectives.
Prioritization evokes quite a lot of feelings, but it’s a vital talent required to create efficient product roadmaps and drive product success. Nevertheless it’s not nearly making laborious decisions; it’s about making the best decisions given context and constraints.
Whereas it might be difficult, embracing prioritization as a core a part of your function will result in focus, a extra productive crew, and higher outcomes.
And keep in mind, there’s no one-size-fits-all strategy to prioritization. The secret is to decide on whereas persistently and transparently making use of a technique that aligns along with your product, crew, firm, and enterprise setting. There isn’t a excellent technique.
As you refine your prioritization abilities, you’ll make extra knowledgeable choices, align stakeholders extra successfully, and finally ship better worth to your customers and your corporation.
So, take the time to grasp prioritization — it’s an funding that can pay dividends all through your profession.
Your organization, product, crew, and customers will thanks.
