Comment by jasonm23 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonm23 | Hacker News Reader

Assess the product delivery in terms of risks. Look at what's on the roadmap and build a 2x2 matrix of the intended features.

Get some post-its and write down each feature. Organized on the 2x2 with these axes X: "risk/complexity" Y:"desirability" (that's business & customer desirability.)

Setup a meeting with your products owner and others to try and get a good deal of feedback and communication, reorganize the 2x2 matrix during the meeting to build understanding of risks and priorities.

With everything on the table the big risks should be clear and addressable. The product owner will be able to make some changes to the product plan.

Visibility and transparency is key, don't do an ass covering exercise, and act sooner.

Make sure you understand what has been difficult and outside the teams comfort zone, where improvement could be made etc.

Also be aware of the motivations for the product owner and empathize. Build & strengthen that relationship.

Better feedback loops, better clearer/slicing of feature requirements... I could only generalize, but aim to improve communication and even if all goals aren't met it will be a healthier place and contingency will be easier to work on.

> Organized on the 2x2 with these axes X: "risk/complexity" Y:"desirability" (that's business & customer desirability.)

Not to sound like an idiot here or anything, but does that mean something like this: Risk | Complexity ---------------------------------- BiZ desirability | | ---------------------------------- Cus desirability | |

Can't an item be in many of these squares?

The X axis would go from low risk+complexity to high risk+complexity, and the y axis from low biz+cus desirability to high biz+cus desirability.

You are correct that the way you described wouldn't work.

Yes it seems like an item would be posted on an axis where theoretically the item could exist on both ends?

Nice to have should really be, not necessary. Problem with that is the product team will be less likely to mark things as not-necessary. So we dub these less needed features as nice to have so there's a higher chance of negotiating about their priority.

What's being described is an X-Y scatter plot:

         Necessary
             ^
             |
  Simple <---+---> Complex
             |
             V
        Nice to have

This makes the most sense to me.

If I were in the OP's position, I would start discussion with the direct manager as early as possible - and begin by breaking down the remaining scope in terms of where the features are in this diagram.

If the product must be "ready to ship", clearly some corners will need to be cut - especially the bottom right.

Exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com