“Individuals suppose focus means saying sure to the factor you’ve received to concentrate on. 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 choose fastidiously.” — 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 ought to be prioritized and why? Second, what strategy or framework ought to we use?
For product managers, prioritization is beloved and hated, vital but dangerous, a supply of rigidity and frustration. No marvel it’s often acknowledged as one of many hardest elements of the job. Who enjoys saying no, in spite of everything? Not me.
I positively second these emotions — love, hate, danger, rigidity, and frustration. Prioritization is a ache and a drain, however it additionally occurs to be one of the crucial vital selections a product group makes.
Prioritization and product success, subsequently, go hand in hand.
Making issues worse, there are a seemingly limitless variety of methods to prioritize. It’s as if the founders of product administration considered making the job concurrently troublesome and complicated.
Fortunately, no less than the objective of prioritization is common — choose an important final result and have to concentrate on that drives the very best worth within the shortest time for the bottom degree 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 incorrect 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 at all times disappointing somebody, and feeling compelled to prioritize what we placed on the roadmap.
Each assembly the place I wanted to decide and set a precedence felt like a battle — a battle with design, engineering, advertising, gross sales, stakeholders, and in the end, clients. A battle by 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 group, together with thousands and thousands of followers, will at all times 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 group by making a name. They only 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 assessment the objectives of prioritization.
- Second, I wanted to share the framework I used — at first, I didn’t essentially have one, however in the end 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 latest product coaching session — the story of Kodak and why prioritization was vital. I’ll recap rapidly.
Regardless of being a pioneer within the images business and holding an unlimited portfolio of digital patents, Kodak did not 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 growing 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 incapacity to capitalize on its technological developments, in the end ensuing within the firm submitting for chapter in 2012.
I didn’t wish to be the subsequent Kodak. I wanted to get my act collectively and prioritize- a terrifying thought and a ton of stress.
Recreation on.
With out prioritization, you don’t have a roadmap, no less than one which the group can realistically ship.
So what’s the objective of prioritization — what’s the why behind what will get picked?
On the subject of the roadmap, prioritization ensures probably the most vital final 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 objects chosen for improvement present probably the most vital profit to customers and stakeholders, addressing vital wants and fixing high-priority market issues.
3. Optimizing Assets and Constraints:
Effectively utilizing the obtainable assets (time, funds, expertise) by specializing in an important and impactful work, avoiding waste on much less vital or low-value duties, and optimizing for constraints.
Okay, so how will we accomplish this?
That is the place my opinion diverges from that of hardcore prioritization disciples, all of whom have what they contemplate ‘the suitable’ methodology.
The wanting it’s that there is no such thing as a ‘proper’ methodology and no good framework.
As a substitute, product managers ought to select which methodology finest aligns with their firm, product, group, and constraints. As a extra analytically minded particular person who prefers quant vs. qual, I are inclined to lean towards the RICE methodology of prioritization, which, after all, will get a whole lot 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 totally 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 approach used to assist stakeholders perceive the importance of initiatives.
- The Worth vs. Effort methodology is a prioritization approach that evaluates potential options or initiatives primarily based on two key components: the worth they supply to clients or the enterprise and the trouble required to implement them. It’s a visible strategy that helps product managers and stakeholders make knowledgeable selections about useful resource allocation and have prioritization.
Now that we received that out of the best way, listed here are just a few concerns that may aid you select:
*Word: My objective for this part is that will help you determine which one to make use of, not train you how one can use every methodology. A few of these hardcore prioritization disciples I discussed have glorious assets obtainable on how one can 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 complicated merchandise with a number of options and person segments. For easy selections, a simple methodology like MoSCoW may suffice.
- Market Maturity: For merchandise in a mature market, the place person expectations are well-defined, the MoSCoW methodology is perhaps 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 methodology just like the MoSCoW methodology 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 will be helpful for merchandise the place buyer suggestions is vital, because it focuses on buyer satisfaction and figuring out options that delight customers.
3. Workforce Dynamics and Assets
- Workforce Capability and Expertise: If the group has restricted assets 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 group prefers data-driven and analytical approaches, the Rice or Worth vs. Effort Matrix supplies a transparent visible illustration of priorities.
4. Strategic Targets and Goals
- 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 methodology ensures important options are usually not ignored.
5. Time Constraints and Urgency
- Want for Velocity: If you have to determine and implement high-priority options rapidly, the MoSCoW methodology supplies 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 good methodology. And generally you have to use two.
After all, expertise can be vital. If the group is accustomed to a way and it has confirmed efficient, keep it up.
Two last factors.
First, don’t consistently change your methodology of prioritization. It’s essential keep it up for a while to find out if it’s working. Fixed shifting will drive the group loopy, negate your skill to match previous prioritization to present and create a chance to query your priorities.
Second, you should use a couple of methodology. There could be a main and secondary. And should you do plan to vary your methodology of prioritization, plan to run the previous and new in parallel for a while to unravel for the challenges talked about within the first level.
Contemplating these components, you may select the prioritization methodology 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. However it’s not nearly making laborious selections; it’s about making the suitable selections given context and constraints.
Whereas it might be difficult, embracing prioritization as a core a part of your position will result in focus, a extra productive group, and higher outcomes.
And bear in mind, there’s no one-size-fits-all strategy to prioritization. The secret is to decide on whereas constantly and transparently making use of a way that aligns along with your product, group, firm, and enterprise surroundings. There isn’t a good methodology.
As you refine your prioritization abilities, you’ll make extra knowledgeable selections, align stakeholders extra successfully, and in the end ship larger worth to your customers and your online business.
So, take the time to grasp prioritization — it’s an funding that may pay dividends all through your profession.
Your organization, product, group, and customers will thanks.
