When it makes sense
- the annual roadmap was agreed in January and is fiction by June
- strategy gets set at the top and comes apart once engineering reads it
- every department has its own priorities, and the team has fifteen of them
- leadership sees activity, but can’t connect it to the goals it set
- a big bet is coming, like a new market, a rebuild or a new product line, and the plan hasn’t been tested against the platform
How it runs
We work with leadership to turn goals into a handful of bets for the quarter, each with a target metric, a first solution and one owner. We bring engineering in while the direction is still open, so expensive assumptions show up in a meeting instead of in month four.
Then we build the roadmap from the capacity you actually have: what’s left after maintenance and unplanned work, ranked strictly, with everything below the line explicitly not happening. Delivery dates inside the quarter stay flexible. Work ships when it’s ready.
It usually takes four to six focused weeks to set direction and the roadmap, then a monthly review after that. It can also run as part of a fractional product leadership engagement.
What you get
- a short list of bets tied to business outcomes, each with a metric and an owner
- a feasibility check on the major bets with your engineering leads
- a ranked roadmap for the next quarter and a direction for the one after
- a monthly review where results, not status, steer the next decisions
Questions
Do you replace our planning process?
We usually simplify it. Most organisations have too many planning rituals and too few real decisions. We keep what helps and drop the rest.
What if engineering says the strategy won’t work?
Good. That’s the point of bringing them in early. We treat pushback as information and find the cheapest route to the same outcome.
How detailed is the roadmap?
Firm for the next quarter, directional for the one after, and intent beyond that. Detail further out tends to be wrong and gets defended anyway.