I’ve seen this play out too, so yes, the framework is rarely the issue, it’s the absence of a shared strategic lens above it.
There’s solid evidence behind this. A 2023 McKinsey study found that 70 percent of product features built never materially impact customer or financial outcomes, despite passing prioritisation processes.
Scoring systems give comfort, not direction, and they often turn disagreement into arithmetic rather than resolving it.
When strategy is fuzzy, maths becomes a proxy for leadership decisions nobody wants to own.
The uncomfortable bit is that no framework can compensate for a lack of clarity on who the product is really for and what must not be built.
So the real question is, how do teams surface and resolve that strategic gap before they reach for another scoring model?
Microsoft has a much older study that's around the same level of traction for features.
The big takeaway is this line:
"When strategy is fuzzy, maths becomes a proxy for leadership decisions nobody wants to own."
The way I advocate closing this gap is paying attention to existing company and product decisions.
NOT following the Mission Statement, but looking at what's actually getting prioritized and built.
The other lenses required are both quantitative and qualitative user data.
Creating a hypothesis and then testing the underlying assumptions helps simplify and create the necessary guardrails for roadmap prioritization and sequencing (both critical elements.)
Oh my, this article is incredible transparent. You have highlighted something not many are talking about. This newsletter is just getting better thank you, Mike!
I’ve seen this play out too, so yes, the framework is rarely the issue, it’s the absence of a shared strategic lens above it.
There’s solid evidence behind this. A 2023 McKinsey study found that 70 percent of product features built never materially impact customer or financial outcomes, despite passing prioritisation processes.
Scoring systems give comfort, not direction, and they often turn disagreement into arithmetic rather than resolving it.
When strategy is fuzzy, maths becomes a proxy for leadership decisions nobody wants to own.
The uncomfortable bit is that no framework can compensate for a lack of clarity on who the product is really for and what must not be built.
So the real question is, how do teams surface and resolve that strategic gap before they reach for another scoring model?
Mel - Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Microsoft has a much older study that's around the same level of traction for features.
The big takeaway is this line:
"When strategy is fuzzy, maths becomes a proxy for leadership decisions nobody wants to own."
The way I advocate closing this gap is paying attention to existing company and product decisions.
NOT following the Mission Statement, but looking at what's actually getting prioritized and built.
The other lenses required are both quantitative and qualitative user data.
Creating a hypothesis and then testing the underlying assumptions helps simplify and create the necessary guardrails for roadmap prioritization and sequencing (both critical elements.)
"If this is true what else is true" also I good war game
Love that, Chris - I'm sure you've had your share of prioritization discussions...
Great write-up - helps put things into the right perspective!
Thanks, Jonas
Oh my, this article is incredible transparent. You have highlighted something not many are talking about. This newsletter is just getting better thank you, Mike!
Thanks for the support and kind words, Elena!
It’s still very present and real for me because I’ve been there and made those mistakes.
And have gained the insight to help other teams avoid them