I like the idea of having a single priority list, it makes a lot of sense!
But I don’t have clear in mind how this would fit in a company where there are multiple domain teams. Do we get a single list per team? And within this single list, does it mean everyone will work on the same item? There might be issues in parallelizing the work though for the same item.
We have multiple domain teams too! The idea is that each domain team knows where they stand in the global priority order.
It also means that if projects higher up in that order than their team need extra people to help, then it means that those people come from projects lower down the list.
And what happens to teams lower in the list? On what would they work? Maybe I’m applying the concept too strictly because I don’t think they would stay idle 😄
It looks like that this model would fit much better with initiative teams, rather than strictly domain ones.
In our implementation (at least... there's no right way), teams lower in the list would still be doing their #1 priority for their area/domain/job to be done. However, they would be the first ones to be pulled on if we were unable to staff the most important priorities that were above them in the global list.
A counterargument here, from a software engineer code monkey perspective, is that not everyone on a project has the same expertise. Forcing the person hired for graphics to work on anything else is loss of productivity. Having more people working on one thing also has diminishing returns. And the closer the thing they are working on, the more they interfere with each other.
I like the idea of having a single priority list, it makes a lot of sense!
But I don’t have clear in mind how this would fit in a company where there are multiple domain teams. Do we get a single list per team? And within this single list, does it mean everyone will work on the same item? There might be issues in parallelizing the work though for the same item.
We have multiple domain teams too! The idea is that each domain team knows where they stand in the global priority order.
It also means that if projects higher up in that order than their team need extra people to help, then it means that those people come from projects lower down the list.
Thanks for the reply, much appreciated!
And what happens to teams lower in the list? On what would they work? Maybe I’m applying the concept too strictly because I don’t think they would stay idle 😄
It looks like that this model would fit much better with initiative teams, rather than strictly domain ones.
In our implementation (at least... there's no right way), teams lower in the list would still be doing their #1 priority for their area/domain/job to be done. However, they would be the first ones to be pulled on if we were unable to staff the most important priorities that were above them in the global list.
Good strategy, it resonates well, thanks!
does this mean that the entire company should rank their okrs? all objectives, and the first one gets funded first and then the rest?
how do you strike a balance between say
- monetisation, running better and more ads
- core product experience
or one takes a backseat if push comes to shove?
A counterargument here, from a software engineer code monkey perspective, is that not everyone on a project has the same expertise. Forcing the person hired for graphics to work on anything else is loss of productivity. Having more people working on one thing also has diminishing returns. And the closer the thing they are working on, the more they interfere with each other.