Democratizing Prioritization

Four questions to ensure that the right work gets prioritized while the wrong doesn't

Let’s get into the “solve complex problems” part of Strategic Preparation: Aligning organizations to solve complex problems together, repeatedly over time. One of the best ways to ensure that the right things get done, is to ensure that the wrong things never get started. The challenge is understanding which work is the right thing, especially when saying “no” can hurt feelings, draw resentment and lead to all sorts of political problems when things inevitably go wrong (because the universe is not deterministic). Furthermore, most ideas and potential solutions are good, or at least very hard to dismiss, so “rooting out dumb ideas” is a fruitless strategy.

Addressing this problem of prioritization with an inherent reduction in Work in Progress (WIP) is a classic request for Schutzworks. However, rather than immediately submitting to the temptation to build a strong central bureaucracy for prioritization, I encourage clients to first democratize the criteria for work creation with the following four questions. To be clear, these questions are designed to prevent most work from starting, so that there are fewer requests through which the prioritization system must sort.

1. What problem does this work solve, measured how?

Right off the bat, most people are so enamored with their solution that they forget to communicate the actual problem to be solved. Often work starts with an idea from a powerful person and no one really knows why they are doing what they are doing. This single question (even just the first part) has avoided more misery in an organization than any other in my entire career. The measurement element inculcates the discipline of measurement while requiring your people to be specific when articulating problems. The inability to answer the measure question prompts more work before a request is made, preventing casual work from ever entering the system. NOTE: Most ideas do NOT make it past this question. 

2. How does this work connect to a specific company goal?

It is not enough for a problem to be stated and measurable before work can begin, it must also be tied to the organizational objectives to move forward. And you have clear goals, right? We have asked the proposer to lay out a formal hypothesis of cause and effect, necessary to ultimately arrive at a workable solution. These two elements are crucial to allow for alternative solutions to emerge. Furthermore, you are probably thinking that anyone can bullshit their way into connecting your pet project to a company goal. And yes, you are correct, hence the next question.

3. What other ways have you considered to address this problem? 

Once again, we are raising the stakes for work to enter the system. Not only does one need a measurable problem statement connected to a company goal, they have to develop alternatives. Oftentimes, one of those other ideas is even better, or simpler, or cleaner. This question cultivates the practice of developing multiple parallel approaches to problems. It prevents the endowment effect, falling in love with your early ideas, and usually what gets you to your goal requires iteration, amalgamation and almost never resembles the initial pitch. 

4.  Given the answers to the above, do you still want to go forward with this work?

This is the commitment question. In just a few short questions, the universe of the original idea is much larger. All of sudden the supposed “quick wins” and “wouldn’t it be great” ideas suddenly have competitors and don’t seem so quick anymore. The perceived work to complete will go up to approach reality, although not nearly enough due to Hofstadter’s Law, “it always takes longer than you expect, even when you account for Hofstadter's Law.”  I’ve found that 90% of ideas that come my way do NOT make it past this phase, and for very good reason. The work that does get through is usually developed enough to prioritize because it is focused on a measurable problem that matters to the organization and approached with a flexibility of multiple solutions that builds resilience and adaptability. 

Bring these questions to your organization and you can harvest the wheat of your organizational creativity without the chaff, prioritize things that matter and actually (perhaps, for once) get work done.