Three Questions That Saved the Discussion

-

Once when I was in a role supporting a multi-market digital release I was facilitating a meeting that had quickly become circular and unproductive. Engineering was discussing technical dependencies, product was focused on feature completeness, and regional stakeholders were raising compliance concerns. All of this was being discussed at the same time, with people occasionally talking over one another. Each group was using different terminology and optimizing for different risks, which made it difficult to determine what decision actually needed to be made. The conversation kept expanding instead of converging. What to do?

I paused the discussion and reframed the session around three concrete questions: What decision are we making today? What constraints are non-negotiable? What options are truly on the table? I then captured each group’s concerns in plain language on a shared Google document, grouping them under timeline, compliance, and technical risk. This structure made overlaps and misunderstandings visible. For example, what product described as a “must-have” turned out to be deferrable if certain compliance conditions were met, and an engineering “blocker” was actually a sequencing issue rather than a hard stop.

By clarifying the decision point and separating assumptions from facts, we were able to align on a phased rollout that satisfied compliance requirements, preserved core functionality, and avoided unnecessary rework. The meeting shifted from debate to decision-making, and stakeholders left with a shared understanding of both the plan and the rationale behind it.

This illustrates, I hope, what having a project or program manager in the room can mean for a critical project discussion. Program and project managers have to lean in and participate actively to keep the discussion civil and productive, clearing up any confusion that arises. 

Popular posts from this blog

The Dual Faces of Technology: Enhancing and Replacing Jobs

-
Image
Automation has been on my mind a lot lately, more immediately due to a book I read , but also because of the looming reality of artificial intelligence. To understand what's involved, making the distinction between replacing technologies and enabling technologies is crucial. As we traverse the timeline of the 20th century, we observe how each type of technology has distinctly influenced employment. Automated technologies have transformed industries by replacing manual labor with machines. Consider the automated switchboards introduced in the early 20th century. Previously, telephone operators manually connected calls using physical connectors on a switchboard. With the advent of automated switchboards in the 1920s and 1930s, many of these jobs were eliminated as calls were routed through electromechanical systems. Similarly, in agriculture, the introduction of mechanical harvesters like the combine harvester in the 1930s drastically reduced the need for manual labor. These machine...
Read more

The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor and Power in the Age of Automation (Book Review)

-
Image
In his compelling book, " The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation ," Carl Benedikt Frey offers a sweeping examination of the historical and ongoing impact of mechanization and automation on society. Starting with the onset of the first Industrial Revolution, Frey deftly navigates through the evolution of technology up to the modern age of artificial intelligence, presenting a nuanced view of how technological innovations have reshaped labor markets and power dynamics. Frey categorizes technological innovations into two types: enabling technologies, like the typewriter, which enhance worker productivity without displacing the labor force, and replacing technologies, such as robotic machinery in factories, which eliminate certain job roles altogether. This distinction forms the backbone of Frey’s analysis, as he explores the varying implications of each type of technology on different segments of the workforce. The book traces a historical patter...
Read more

Deputy Product Owners

-
Image
"The Product Owner is one person, not a committee. The Product Owner may represent the desires of a committee in the Product Backlog, but those wanting to change a Product Backlog item’s priority must address the Product Owner." - The Scrum Guide There are a lot of ways in which my approach to Scrum differs from what's in the official guide, and since that document refers to Scrum as 'immutable,' let's just call what I do 'Notscrum™.' In Scrum, there is only one product owner per team. That person is the sole person responsible for the product backlog, and the person who advocates for the work to be done. In Notscrum there is one product owner, but there can be multiple deputy product owners. Here's how it works. When my program at Viacom was first forming I met with the then-director of the Library & Archive group and learned that while he set the priorities on work done, the archivists were organized in three distinct areas with a team lead ...
Read more