Interesting concept. Out of curiosity, how many years have you used this in production? I ask b/c it seems the equation weights longer duration items less, which may cause you to delay starting them in favor of shorter duration ones, when sometimes you may have needed to start the longer duration ones sooner because they take longer to complete (say, to meet a soft or hard deadline 1-3yrs in the future). If you’ve used this in production for at least 3yrs, I’m curious if you’ve ever done a postmortem and realized you should have started a longer-duration task sooner, but were steered away from it by this calculation. And if so is there a way of accounting or adjusting for that?
Deadlines and long efforts that require starting sooner rather than later can take on interesting urgency profiles. In effect, we should start efforts at the last responsible moment. If start later, that could take cause poor economic outcomes. That's how 1-3y could have high CD3 and "win out". Not sure if that make sense....
Oh I see, yes that makes sense. Work backwards from the deadline, estimate the latest possible responsible start date, and the closer you get to that more the task moves up the urgency scale. Then I suppose it’s still possible there are tasks that are urgent+valuable+short duration which could still trump the urgent+valuable+long duration one, until you reach that latest responsible start date. Then the latter must start regardless of how many of the former there are.
Extra perspective to your example: Size is also a derivative of urgency and value. If someone wants a project badly, they can create a new box for it to separate out the "small valuable bit" from the "average 1-3y" parts. If they won't do so, then it is inherently less important/valuable/costly than the alternatives of equal weight and smaller size.
In the article, above the last graphic where John says "CD3 = COD / Duration", this seems to be a neat little derivation/observation that the work done in the preceding steps is basically a "trick" to arrive at a CD3 level prioritization list in a step by step indirect way. Perhaps the insinuation is that it's therefore more effective as otherwise a direct CD3 analysis might get bogged down trying to consider every factor for every goal at once. It's a neat trick! Though it also seems to be, well, better lol. I'm a fan and planning to try it. Would love to hear the author's thoughts on comparative methods.
Interesting concept. Out of curiosity, how many years have you used this in production? I ask b/c it seems the equation weights longer duration items less, which may cause you to delay starting them in favor of shorter duration ones, when sometimes you may have needed to start the longer duration ones sooner because they take longer to complete (say, to meet a soft or hard deadline 1-3yrs in the future). If you’ve used this in production for at least 3yrs, I’m curious if you’ve ever done a postmortem and realized you should have started a longer-duration task sooner, but were steered away from it by this calculation. And if so is there a way of accounting or adjusting for that?
Deadlines and long efforts that require starting sooner rather than later can take on interesting urgency profiles. In effect, we should start efforts at the last responsible moment. If start later, that could take cause poor economic outcomes. That's how 1-3y could have high CD3 and "win out". Not sure if that make sense....
Oh I see, yes that makes sense. Work backwards from the deadline, estimate the latest possible responsible start date, and the closer you get to that more the task moves up the urgency scale. Then I suppose it’s still possible there are tasks that are urgent+valuable+short duration which could still trump the urgent+valuable+long duration one, until you reach that latest responsible start date. Then the latter must start regardless of how many of the former there are.
Extra perspective to your example: Size is also a derivative of urgency and value. If someone wants a project badly, they can create a new box for it to separate out the "small valuable bit" from the "average 1-3y" parts. If they won't do so, then it is inherently less important/valuable/costly than the alternatives of equal weight and smaller size.
Nice technique, I will have to try it out.
What does CD3 mean?
Do you have this saved as a Miroverse template by any chance?
Thanks a lot!
Far as I can tell CD3 is this: https://www.haveignition.com/what-is-product-management/the-product-management-dictionary-cd3 - tldr, it's cost, desirability, differentiation, and doability. If you can figure those things out, weighted against other things (and themselves weighted internally!) then you can come up with prioritization.
In the article, above the last graphic where John says "CD3 = COD / Duration", this seems to be a neat little derivation/observation that the work done in the preceding steps is basically a "trick" to arrive at a CD3 level prioritization list in a step by step indirect way. Perhaps the insinuation is that it's therefore more effective as otherwise a direct CD3 analysis might get bogged down trying to consider every factor for every goal at once. It's a neat trick! Though it also seems to be, well, better lol. I'm a fan and planning to try it. Would love to hear the author's thoughts on comparative methods.
Anyway, that was just my take :)
I do something similar with AMMERSE. There are seven values, to aid the discussion as well decision making and prioritisation.
This is really good!
I think the last sentence implicitly refers to people burning the magician once the trick has been executed. :)