This is a very interesting article. Its very difficult to decide on the exact product components and how to deliver the overall product with different components. I sometimes feel that even after breaking the components and prioritizing them, we are still short of the end goal or vision. May be because my vision is too far and I would need to align that to be much more realistic. I have a question for you, how granular should you think on the components because I somehow feel that the we always play in a comfort zone of align the components based on existing teams in the org. rather than aligning them in a cross functional align teams.
Oh, such a good question. And I'll start out with saying, I don't know the right answer or even if there is a single right answer.
First, you're spot on in that "we always play in a comfort zone of align the components based on existing teams in the org." I think partly, that's the reality when it comes to thinking about people and who can work on what. It's much easier, at least for me, to envision the future vision of a product. It's more difficult to envision future teams. It's almost impossible to think about future vision of people (we don't get to shape people, if that makes sense).
Thus, I think sometimes, we write these grand visions, but then immediately go, I have only X and Y person, so two teams which equals two components. We don't really then go, is this right, but just make do.
Second point: It isn't about "how granular". Instead, I think the right way should be something like iterations > we think up a grand vision, we then look at the people we have > we keep the grand vision, but add a shorter term vision that more closely aligns with the people we have or can get. Some people don't don't write this one out, or some people don't like to see this because they feel it's a step backwards. But I think this iteration happens naturally. You might have a grand vision of winning a Olympic medal, but you might also have to start with a less grand vision of winning your local marathon. But advertising to everyone (watch me win my local marathon just isn't sexy), so people don't really do it.
Agree on both the points. Its an iterative process and yes agree with always breaking down the grand vision and it will simplify the journey. Cheers, looking forward for your next article as always. 😊
This is a very interesting article. Its very difficult to decide on the exact product components and how to deliver the overall product with different components. I sometimes feel that even after breaking the components and prioritizing them, we are still short of the end goal or vision. May be because my vision is too far and I would need to align that to be much more realistic. I have a question for you, how granular should you think on the components because I somehow feel that the we always play in a comfort zone of align the components based on existing teams in the org. rather than aligning them in a cross functional align teams.
Oh, such a good question. And I'll start out with saying, I don't know the right answer or even if there is a single right answer.
First, you're spot on in that "we always play in a comfort zone of align the components based on existing teams in the org." I think partly, that's the reality when it comes to thinking about people and who can work on what. It's much easier, at least for me, to envision the future vision of a product. It's more difficult to envision future teams. It's almost impossible to think about future vision of people (we don't get to shape people, if that makes sense).
Thus, I think sometimes, we write these grand visions, but then immediately go, I have only X and Y person, so two teams which equals two components. We don't really then go, is this right, but just make do.
Second point: It isn't about "how granular". Instead, I think the right way should be something like iterations > we think up a grand vision, we then look at the people we have > we keep the grand vision, but add a shorter term vision that more closely aligns with the people we have or can get. Some people don't don't write this one out, or some people don't like to see this because they feel it's a step backwards. But I think this iteration happens naturally. You might have a grand vision of winning a Olympic medal, but you might also have to start with a less grand vision of winning your local marathon. But advertising to everyone (watch me win my local marathon just isn't sexy), so people don't really do it.
Agree on both the points. Its an iterative process and yes agree with always breaking down the grand vision and it will simplify the journey. Cheers, looking forward for your next article as always. 😊