Focus as a matter of priority and clarity
I don't necessarily hide that one of my biggest influences is the Kanban method and thus David Anderson. I don't necessarily always call out that I am applying such either, but that just because I came to learn that it can distract people from what matters most, and Kanban (or anything else useful you may use) are just means, strategies. I do try to give proper credit where that's due – to be clear.
Speaking about what matters most, let me cut to the chase here. I just referred to the above to recap a key insight I learned from David Anderson in the context of a Kanban training. I spoke about that in a previous post, which also had the link to a webinar where David Anderson explains some relevant concepts of dealing with prioritization.
Source: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tza9n
If we are to be more precise in our language, and typically that's a good idea, what is commonly referred to as a matter of priority may more precisely, in context be about:
SEQUENCE (when, in which order needs to be done)
SCHEDULE (when to start)
SELECTION (what to do next)
CLASS OF SERVICE (how to treat when in progress)
I like to refer to that as the 'facets of priority'. That's how I think about them anyway, and it helps me to have that clarity.
Take the example of doing quarterly (or any other time horizon, for that matter) planning (something that I am familiar with; it's part of my work context). It's good to have a more precise framing of what we are dealing with at that moment of time, in terms of priority, which is fundamentally a question of SELECTION. Batch selection to be more precise, trying to answer the question of what we think is realistic to plan for that time horizon (in this case, of a quarter). What's the minimum we could commit to that we think will create an impact (directly or indirectly)?
That shouldn't be mistaken with all of sudden all that work selected starts to be run in parallel. That's probably a bad idea (I gave more insight on why that's the case in my two-part series on "how product development benefits from flow" - part 1 and part 2). In essence, it doesn't help to create focus.
That's a note I keep "banging on" for my team (of product managers):
Let's have a proper framing of what quarterly planning is: a selection exercise, answering the question of what's realistic to accomplish in the quarter. Better yet, what's the minimum amount of work we can commit to that we think will create an impact. Not to be mistaken with all the work that happens in parallel, use the other 'facets of priority' to have a more detailed and focused "battle plan" for the quarter, sequencing the work, scheduling when appropriate, as well as having clarity on what takes precedence over others when executing.
At that moment, I may point out to what I joke of being the perfect meme (which I have twice as sticker on my laptop and in fact created a little campaign distributing those stickers around the office), and I have used it a couple of time already here. Like when I made the point of the idea of limiting WIP (or balancing, if you want a more positive framing) as possibly the simplest most underrated advice.
For as common sense as that may sound, I came to learn that the obvious is often worth reiterating, and that common sense is less common than we think (or would like) – I know it sounds harsh, but it has been my experience and I don't think it's useful not to confront reality. And to sort of proof-point my argument of worth reiterating the obvious useful things, my below LinkedIn post went a bit viral (to my standards of interaction at least) recently.
To wrap it up, here are some useful prompts you may consider:
Are you having a precise conversation on priority in a given context and moment? Or could you benefit from using something like the 'facets of priority' to better frame and have more meaningful conversations?
Are you sufficiently decoupling planning from execution? In the sense of, for instance, not mixing up a plan to target a number of options in a period, or even some sort of scheduling as something you just "blindly" follow later on. As opposed to using planning for its primary purpose, which is a communication tool, and actively managing execution (and re-planning when needed) leveraging tactics like the 'facets of priority' for nurturing the right conversations?
Are you executing with focus or rather following what some would call a "peanut-butter strategy" (doing everything possible in parallel)?
More I think about it, the more I realize that if there's anything I want to be a source of in an organization, it's probably that…
Focus as a matter of priority (including leveraging its 'facets') and clarity (i.e., nurturing meaningful conversations).
By Rodrigo Sperb, feel free to connect, I'm happy to engage and interact. If I can be of further utility to you or your organization in getting better at working with product development, I am available for part-time advisory, consulting or contract-based engagements.