TBM 397: The Initiative Shape Activity (And a Favor to Ask)

Nearing the big 400! As always thank you for your support. 🙏

A subscriber wrote me yesterday:

John, your recent posts have been too academic for my taste. Give me something actionable! Something I can use?

OK! And I need your help. 5 minutes max. Help me help you.

1. Below is an activity you can run with your team to spark a conversation about the “shape” of an initiative. Expect divergence. Expect debate. Expect conclusions like, “Wow, we’d better put in some work to understand that better.” I’ve had good luck with these questions, but they can be always be improved (see #2).

2. I’d really appreciate it if you could take the survey yourself (using a company initiative, from your perspective), so that I can improve the design of the activity.

3. Once I get feedback, I’ll roll it into the Prioritizer app somehow.

---

How to run the activity

1. Pick an initiative or a small set of initiatives.

2. Set ground rules. No judgment. Divergence is expected and useful.

3. Have each participant answer the questions independently (for each initiative).

4. Compare results side by side.

5. Discuss differences, surprises, and areas of ambiguity.

6. Decide what needs clarification, alignment, or further discovery.

How many teams need to be involved to make meaningful progress on this initiative?

1. One team working independently

2. One primary team with occasional input from others

3. A few teams involved with limited coordination

4. Multiple teams actively coordinating on shared work

5. Many teams tightly coupled and coordinating continuously

For how long do we expect this initiative to require sustained, active attention?

1. A short burst of focused work (1–3 weeks)

2. A sustained push over a few months (1–3 months)

3. Ongoing work across multiple quarters (1–3 quarters)

4. Long-running work over multiple years (1–3 years)

5. Enduring work with no clear end in sight (3+ years)

How does this initiative deliver value over time as work progresses?

1. Value is captured quickly and largely complete early

2. Value is captured early, with smaller gains from continued work

3. Value increases steadily as work progresses

4. Value is mostly realized later, after sustained investment

5. Value is largely delayed until a significant future point

Where does the greatest uncertainty affecting this initiative lie?

• Getting known work done reliably, including coordination and throughput

• Having or building the necessary skills, systems, or technology

• Finding the right approach or design to pursue

• Achieving the intended outcomes or impact

• Confirming this is the right problem or strategic focus

How early and often can this initiative be de-risked through incremental progress?

• Many opportunities to de-risk early and pivot freely

• Regular opportunities to test assumptions and adjust direction

• Some opportunities to learn and reduce risk along the way

• Limited opportunities to de-risk until later stages

• Most de-risking only happens near the end

How constrained is the environment this initiative will operate within?

• Clear goals, few meaningful constraints, and many degrees of freedom

• Mostly clear goals with some constraints, but room to maneuver

• Mixed clarity and constraints that require active tradeoffs

• Diffuse or competing goals with many constraints to navigate

• Unclear goals and tightly limiting constraints with little room to adapt

How sensitive is the value of this initiative to delays?

• Value drops sharply with even small delays

• Value declines noticeably as delays accumulate

• Value is somewhat affected by timing, but not critically

• Value is mostly resilient to delays

• Value remains largely intact even if delayed significantly

What best characterizes how we should approach this initiative?

• Mission-critical intervention. High urgency and high value. Leadership actively protects and unblocks.

• Urgent containment. High urgency with limited upside. Do the minimum to resolve the immediate issue.

• Careful optimization. Moderate urgency and value. Improve deliberately without over-investing.

• Future-oriented investment. High potential value, low urgency. Progress steadily with visible learning.

• Slack cleanup. Low urgency and low value. Address opportunistically and stop when returns diminish.

What discovery or research approach best fits this initiative?

• Whole-team discovery. The full team starts together and learns in real time.

• Core-team discovery. A small cross-functional group leads discovery, with frequent team involvement.

• Staged discovery. Initial research happens first, followed by broader team engagement.

• Focused pre-discovery. A small group does most research ahead of delivery work.

• Solo or specialist research. An individual or specialist explores well in advance of the effort.

Where does the primary decision authority for this initiative sit?

• Decisions are fully owned and resolved within a single team

• Decisions are mostly team-owned, with occasional external input

• Decisions require alignment across multiple teams or peers

• Decisions depend on approval or direction from leadership outside the teams

• Decisions sit largely outside the team and require senior or external authority

---

How aligned are we on the answers above and what they imply for how we proceed?

• Strong alignment. We share a clear view and can move forward confidently

• General alignment with a few open questions to resolve

• Partial alignment. Key differences need discussion before proceeding

• Low alignment. Conflicting views would lead to inconsistent execution

• No alignment. We need deliberate convergence before taking action