A flawless technique with little use
I have used it for years. It has helped me decide what to do next. I have recommended it countless times; taught strategy, product, and technology teams how to apply it. Heck, this was my go to prioritisation trick!
But a couple of months ago, I noticed something. An obvious issue, hidden—all along—in plain sight: more often than not, teams used this technique once, just once.
This is puzzling...
100% of the time... people agreed with me that "this totally makes sense", and they gave it a try.
100% of the time... they got the expected result: a shared focus plus a small set of options, neatly prioritised.
Close to 0%... teams repeated the drill when another decision making round came around.
Why?
Despite being well regarded and effective, this technique comes with a price: it takes away your sense of agency.
It invites you to get together, collaborate, and learn from one another. So far so good. But then comes the surprise. It gives you a rational response, grounded on a economic criteria, that defies what you thought the option to go was.
In plain English: it makes you feel you are a fool and not in control.
And when you're not in control, you're not invested in the decision. And when you're not invested in the decision, you don't have a strong reason to move something from idea to done.
So, today I will not recommend you that flawless technique... Instead...
Gather around, talk, and select the most promising option with an "Impact/enthusiasm" criteria. This is a good enough approach that honors your courage to believe in something.
You don't need "flawless" that saps your motivation.
You need "OK" that propels you to validate hypothesis in a faster way, via small, incremental experiments.
👋
