(2023-07-12) Cutler Tbm230 From Prioritization To Accountability and Autonomy

John Cutler: TBM 230: From Prioritization to Accountability (and Autonomy). If you don't provide your product's investment and governance framework, one will be provided to you. And the person providing that framework (e.g., finance, sales, or marketing) will not create a framework that is friendly to making great products.

Most prioritization frameworks are used as "feel good" frameworks. Teams engage in a ceremonial act of performative diligence and pseudo rigor—weights, scales, and scores—to avoid the really hard conversations. Does anyone close the loop (confirm actual outcomes)? Or are they too busy with the next planning cycle?

Instead, I am talking about 1) a progressive funding model and 2) a model for holding yourself accountable for what you do with the company's money. I'm not normally this harsh and transactional, but realistically someone will think like that—so it might as well be you.

You're playing the internal software development contractor game. Consider a different game more similar to a startup/investor game. (games theory)

You pitch your product to the executive team, and they invest in a "seed round." The money doesn't pay for a list of projects or to cover staff costs indefinitely.

This game encourages a mindset shift. It moves teams from merely delivering features or projects to becoming stewards of investment and growth.

I’ve been writing about games for a bit: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 . In a sense this was Part 4.

10 questions to guide this activity:

Would you fund your team if you controlled the budget?