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.
Thanks for the article James! Late to the party, but do you think there are any negative consequences to an organisation built on trifectas at all levels?
I have a few observations my side but would love to hear other points of view - most decisions imply trade-offs, so what do we potentially lose from this approach and is it worth what we gain?
Hi Sean — I must admit that's such a broad question I am not sure where to start. Maybe it could make decision making slower as more people are involved at each level, but one would also hope that it would result in _better_ decisions, making the trade-off worth it.
Maybe the inverse question is instead worth pondering: what happens to organizations that _don't_ do this?
This is a departmental question right now. A solution being offered is “hire a product owner to sit between product, engineering and design” which makes me wonder how best to decide whether some responsibilities are shared, or should belong to named individuals - and then what processes and technology enable that to work optimally.
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.
Thanks for the article James! Late to the party, but do you think there are any negative consequences to an organisation built on trifectas at all levels?
I have a few observations my side but would love to hear other points of view - most decisions imply trade-offs, so what do we potentially lose from this approach and is it worth what we gain?
Hi Sean — I must admit that's such a broad question I am not sure where to start. Maybe it could make decision making slower as more people are involved at each level, but one would also hope that it would result in _better_ decisions, making the trade-off worth it.
Maybe the inverse question is instead worth pondering: what happens to organizations that _don't_ do this?
This is a departmental question right now. A solution being offered is “hire a product owner to sit between product, engineering and design” which makes me wonder how best to decide whether some responsibilities are shared, or should belong to named individuals - and then what processes and technology enable that to work optimally.
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.