What I often saw is different power balances in the trifectas - I find it very rare that all 3 roles have the same skills/authority. When it's out of balance, it shows quickle (for example, I've experienced the engineering part being 'stronger', so there was much more focus on technical debt).
This is a good point Anton, and I like how James replied "... equal and balanced contribution" as I have found it critical to at least ensure Engineering, Product and Ux have strong relationships and have established norms to ensure each group is represented and able to provide input into the decision on where the focus should be. I feel it is not necessarily a cycle but that the focus tends to ebb and flow between the 3 areas as the product and teams mature.
Hi James, great article. Do you see and problem in decision making due to the overall responsibility of the product is shared by a group? I could imagine a conflict between 2 of the 3 disciplines which could drag on way to long because there seems no way but reaching consent.
Have you thought about having a trifecta that is being lead by a single "product lead role" that is responsible for the product as a whole?
I think I understand your question, so I'll try to answer it based on my understanding: it's important that the trifecta understands exactly which parts of the whole that they are responsible for, and where to disagree and commit if there are tiebreakers. Sometimes you can't reach consensus, and maybe that's not so bad — at least it's better to move forward with conflicting opinions, a disagree and commit, and perhaps a way of proving a hypothesis quickly (i.e. failing fast) so that a different route can be taken if it doesn't work.
What I often saw is different power balances in the trifectas - I find it very rare that all 3 roles have the same skills/authority. When it's out of balance, it shows quickle (for example, I've experienced the engineering part being 'stronger', so there was much more focus on technical debt).
Yes, absolutely. It takes a real team to ensure they're having an equal and balanced contribution.
This is a good point Anton, and I like how James replied "... equal and balanced contribution" as I have found it critical to at least ensure Engineering, Product and Ux have strong relationships and have established norms to ensure each group is represented and able to provide input into the decision on where the focus should be. I feel it is not necessarily a cycle but that the focus tends to ebb and flow between the 3 areas as the product and teams mature.
Hi James, great article. Do you see and problem in decision making due to the overall responsibility of the product is shared by a group? I could imagine a conflict between 2 of the 3 disciplines which could drag on way to long because there seems no way but reaching consent.
Have you thought about having a trifecta that is being lead by a single "product lead role" that is responsible for the product as a whole?
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it.
I think I understand your question, so I'll try to answer it based on my understanding: it's important that the trifecta understands exactly which parts of the whole that they are responsible for, and where to disagree and commit if there are tiebreakers. Sometimes you can't reach consensus, and maybe that's not so bad — at least it's better to move forward with conflicting opinions, a disagree and commit, and perhaps a way of proving a hypothesis quickly (i.e. failing fast) so that a different route can be taken if it doesn't work.