S4 Ep. 2: Weighing the options: How do product leaders allocate resources to products being sunset?
Are you a product leader facing the dilemma of how to wind down products at the end of their useful life?
Do you have teams that are iterating endlessly on products without delivering much significant value?
Are you being asked to do more with less?
If so, you're not alone.
In the 2nd episode in this Resource Allocation mini-series, we answer the question: How do product leaders allocate resources to products being sunset?
Hope Gurion: Welcome to the Fearless Product Leadership podcast. This is the show for new product leaders seeking to increase their confidence and competence. In every episode, I ask experienced and thoughtful product leaders to share their strategies and tactics that have helped them tackle a tough responsibility of the product leader role. I love helping emerging product leaders shorten their learning curves to expedite their professional success with great products, teams, and stakeholder relationships. I’m your host and CEO of Fearless Product, Hope Gurion.
Product leaders with multiple products in their portfolios can use different frameworks to categorize their products based on maturity, expected incremental value, and risk.
One popular framework is the one used by Marty Cagan of SVPG (See: Portfolio Grooming - Silicon Valley Product Group) and Barry O'Reilly (See: Lean PMO: Innovation Portfolio Management - Barry O'Reilly): Explore, Invest, Sustain/Maintain, and Sunset.
Here are some brief definitions:
Explore: A product idea or hypothesis in consideration, but it doesn't yet exist.
Invest: A product that exists with some level of adoption and that the organization believes is ready to scale.
Sustain/Maintain: A product with customer adoption that the organization wants to keep delivering value to customers and the organization, but doesn't require a lot of iteration or incremental investment.
Sunset: A product at the end of its valuable life cycle that is no longer expected to create value or support customers or the organization.
Products that can be moved into Sustain and Sunset often provide the most opportunity to free up teams and time to allocate to products in the Explore or Invest stage.
However, while this may seem simple and logical in theory, it can be risky for leaders to make these choices and stressful for individuals and teams whose products are moving to a sustain or sunset level of investment.
In this episode, we'll discuss how to allocate teams and time to products at the end-of-life or sunset stage. We’ll answer these questions:
What factors should product leaders consider when allocating individuals to a product being Sunset?
How can you keep individuals working through a sunsetting product motivated by pairing them with an Explore product?
Is it better to use full-time employees or contractors on the team sunsetting the product?
How do you effectively communicate the decision to sunset a product to the impacted employees?
You’ll hear wisdom on the tricky decisions related to sunsetting a product from:
Barry O’Reilly, Co-Founder & Chief Incubation Officer, Nobody Studios
Troy Anderson, who has served as Chief Product and Technology Officer for multiple companies
And, of course, me, Hope Gurion
Jonathan Bertfield of Lean Startup Co. and I are first up to discuss the considerations for product leaders facing sunsetting decisions for their products and teams.
Hope Gurion: In that stage where a company recognizes that they've got some investments that they previously made, if they're willing to let go of the sort of sunk cost bias, and even if there's people who've spent and have a lot of passion for them trying to transition them to more new value creation, they inevitably have to deal with some sort of unwinding, of if there were customers using those products, if there are people who feel like their identity is tied up in the existence of those products.
How have you helped leaders navigate that transition? Or what do you think is important for the people on those teams where their products are being sunsetted or retired or migrated? What do you think are the considerations for leaders going through that transition?
Jonathan Bertfield: Yeah, so certainly the people on the teams are an important consideration. I think the place where I think it's possible to get organizations and the teams most comfortable is really thinking about the customers and thinking about how do we gracefully exit from this space where we maybe have a reputation, maybe we've got some real kind of legacy in the space. How do we make sure that we're not just leaving those customers high and dry? systematizing a exit plan from that space, systematizing a way for us to add the transition of customers to a different space by thinking about there's new products in our portfolio or maybe partners. That eases a lot of that anxiety because what you just said, totally true that people are wrapped up, their personality, their self-worth in the products, often it's because they have relationships. that they really care about. Relationships in the market and with customers, they don't wanna let the people down that they've been supporting for a long time. So being really deliberate about that exit from those low margin, no longer strategically relevant spaces. So that's kind of one aspect of it is being really deliberate about customers. Another aspect in that context is patience. Like we wanna make sure that we're not pulling the plug and everyone is kind of left wondering what happened here. So a language that we often use is like a graceful exit, right? So we want to ensure a graceful exit that ensures the integrity of our brand, of our customers and our relationships. So being deliberate about that. The best exits from markets that I've seen are when it's really clear how we can redeploy those resources. how we can make sure that the people who are on those projects that are being stopped and they aren't necessarily legacy they're just it's time to get out is to Have a strategy which says we understand where we're going as an organization and this doesn't fit it but we're gonna move you as a team or we're gonna move you as a Resource group to an initiative that is really valued it is really physically important for us. And so therefore The people who are involved in that are not left thinking, well, we've been punished for the failure of the product in the market. What we're being supported with is being realigned to something that is actually important for the company. The easiest example of that I wasn't involved in, but I read about a lot and is the Amazon Fire Phone example, where there were hundreds of engineers who were essentially high and dry when they stopped that project. But those teams were redeployed The Alexa project that was a component of the Amazon Fire Phone, but wasn't really front and center. It was like, this is something really valuable. We're making the most of you as a resource. Great. Enthusiasm. We can transition you. And there's no longer that kind of bitter taste of, but I was working on that project and I really loved it. And now what?
Hope Gurion: Yeah, I think that's a great example. And it helps me realize that a team and a product, or maybe I should think about it as a team, the team can be in working with two different products, we'll call them, at different life stages. It's like we're retiring, sun setting, migrating, whatever we want to consider the end of life of one product. That same team can allocate some percentage of their time. towards exploring a new potential product or need in the market that the company sees as strategically important. That it isn't, I think, as a leader, it can be worrying for an individual on a product team that's on its end of life to think, I don't want this to reflect on me and my value, my potential to create value in an organization. So separating the people from the product and helping them create new value, I think is important.
Do you have any advice to leaders trying to think about how do I make that time or think about the people on that team that are in that end of life, possibly moving to an innovation team?
Jonathan Bertfield: So I think this comes back to, so you said teams. projects or products. One of the areas where I think it's really critical for leaders to be thinking about is in the context of problems, rather than products and rather than teams. So if we're really focused at the strategic level of solving particular category of problems for our customers. Then the transition out of one product into another that is better suited to solving those problems and still retains the expertise of the teams to be focused on that problem area. That's a really powerful construct for teams to be operating in because they're no longer quite as wedded to, or to use the kind of classic, they've no longer fallen in love with the solution, they've fallen in love with the problem, right? And so if we can give individuals who are on teams and an organization, a problem orientation. And Josh Seiden, and he would talk about this as outcomes, right? Let's focus on the outcomes that we're trying to solve for as an organization. That gives us so much more flexibility and freedom to allow teams to be responsive to How can we deliver those outcomes today in a different way than maybe we started out or that particular product journey was taking us on? Because we're really thinking about the customer, really thinking about what is important to them and to us. So that flexibility needs to be built in. It's almost cultural, even though there's a process behind that, right? And there's tools, et cetera, right? But it's really about a cultural shift to say what we care about as an organization is... the outcomes are the problems that we really care about.
Hope Gurion: Next Barry O'Reilly and I dive into how leaders can identify products worth sunsetting and how to allocate teams by pairing products in Sunset with products in the Explore stage.
Hope Gurion: Let's say now we've audited, we have a sense for all the things that we once thought was a good idea. And we have grand ambitions to create net new value, go after new markets, create new streams of revenue, whatever it is, or find operational efficiencies. We recognize that we've got some products in our portfolio that we don't want to be spending our people time and money on anymore. How do you think about the team structure responsible for that? Is it a project? Do you think about that being a durable team? Is that all that they're working on? What are the roles on that team? So how do you think about the right team for an end of life product?
Barry O'Reilly: Yeah, so when sort of the next step often when you've like mapped the portfolio and you set the objectives. The next sort of game I often play is I asked that leadership team to say right like based on these objectives he's written. And the notion that you have to explore like scale sustain and sort of remove items from your portfolio. you know, if you had like $100, what how much would you spend on each one of those domains? Right. And invariably, they always go for something like, you know, 10% and explore 20% in their sort of scaling, 70% in their sustain and $0 in like actually sunsetting anything, right? And everyone, everyone sort of does that and laughs, you know, and goes, “oh no!” You know, if that's their current spend and they sort of like, well, “what should you be spending?” and that's when they start to realize, “okay, we can't be spending $0 on some, we need to invest there.” Right. So that's, that's like a first sort of another aha moment for that portfolio where they start to say, “well, if we've really sort of bold growth ambitions, we need to be putting more into explore and, and scaling or exploiting.” And realizing that sustain just can't have a budget to just keep things running. We need to move some of that portion into sunsetting. So that's sort of like your that sets the financial investment game, if you will. Right. So say they go like 20 in explore and 20 and exploit and 50 in sustain and even 10 and sunsetting. Right. Great. Right. Like that's notionally now we're starting to think about budgets and investment levels. Right. And then from there, you know, that's where. You know, if you start to secure the budget thinking, then you can start thinking about right to teams, right? Like what looking at, um, what initiatives are in each of those categories and then starting to think about, well, prioritization, which one of these is, especially in sunset is causing the most pain. Is there like a system that is just full of tech debt that is holding companies back from innovating faster. invariably it's some sort of mainframe system or a system that's difficult to deploy or because it was a project, you know, someone did the project five years ago and now they've left the company and no one knows how to operate it and everyone's afraid to. Exactly. You know, so like, um, but it's like the key like payment processing module of the whole business or something like this, you know, um, One of the funniest examples actually, when I was working with retailer in the UK, I'll just name them as far as that, but they ran all of their revenue management on these spreadsheets, like literally they had revenue managers that would just do everything in Excel spreadsheets. And, you know, we're talking like tens of millions of dollars, optimization of the price of an apple and how much it costs to deliver it somewhere. And they were just afraid of their life to actually try to turn that into a software system. And instead they just emailed spreadsheets all around the company, right? Like that was the system and something to sunset that they actually needed to do, right? And so, so all of these, they're often high stakes pieces of work or systems that have no real resiliency or automation. They're not the most exciting projects. It's hard to get people to work on them, right? But they are massive because they slow the company down. So that's really when I start to think about like prioritizing them, thinking about like, what is the type of team that would be involved in it? And then thinking of it more like a product, right? So managing stuff in spreadsheets is not what people think of as a product. They think of it as a process, probably even, not even a project. And then starting to think about like, if we were going to innovate this space, if we're going to take this sort of problem initiative off the table, what would an explore initiative look like if we were going to replace something? If we were going to take a system that's on a mainframe and put it in the cloud? Like you start to think about what are the skills and what would be the product you would want to create there. And I find like just even getting that conversation happening, then you get all the benefits of thinking about work like products, like there's a dedicated team. What's its clear outcome? You know, what's the investment horizon for it? Do we think it could take, you know, six months, 12 months, right? And, and you're, you set up all the good things about running a product, right? Maybe it might need to be a long lived team if we're moving a piece of software from a server to the cloud, and it might become a key component of your business. So, but you get into much healthier conversations and this notion of simplification as well of both your product portfolio, but also your tech stack. And again, I think that's why it's so important to have the product and technology representatives there because they both want the same thing, right? They both want simpler, cleaner lines of operation from a portfolio point of view and a technology point of view. And I think that's where you can align both a product and a technology roadmap, especially in the sunset sort of space, if you will, of your portfolio.
Hope Gurion: Yeah, I love that idea of sort of instead of thinking somebody is sort of on a purely towards end of life of a product, which I agree, it’s really hard to sell that role and team to people in the company. But if it's really we want to retire one way that we've created value in favor of a new way that's going to create more value for our company in the future, it is the sort of pairing of sunset and explore that helps create a durable team with a clear outcome that will sort of address both phases of that product.
Barry O’Reilly: In Sunset, it's actually for me about operating costs of the product. Like so when it costs more to operate than the value, we think it's returning. That's always a big sign. Right. Or. If it's infrastructure costs are higher than it's iterating costs, then you're sort of looking to move that. And, you know, one great example for me in sunset was actually I met John Donovan when he was the CTO of AT&T. He's now the CEO. You know, one of the things he even talked about like forming those teams at AT&T where they had these big sort of initiatives that they knew they needed to simplify their architecture and their technology, like lots of things like They had a company policy, and they also had this, a Capital One, too as well, where they said, we are going to constantly innovate our technology stuff. So we want people who learn COBOL to be able to learn new technologies like Java, who might be familiar with server-based systems, but we want them to learn cloud and AWS, so forth. If you choose not to be someone who's gonna actively keep learning, we're gonna put you on projects The line with you sun setting from the company is we're sun setting them from the portfolio. So people actually had a chance to sort of opt in and sort of say, you know what? I'm quite happy to learn doing COBOL. This system is gonna sunset over the next two to three years. I'm actually quite happy to just do that and sunset out of the company with that process. There was no stigma attached to that. It was just like, cool, that's your jam, off you go. But, the policy was if you're not going to keep innovating yourself, you will sunset out of the company as that technology sunsets out. And similarly, a Capital One sort of in, I guess, 2015, when it's working with the executive team there as well, and they were really starting to adopt cloud in a, I would say, a very aggressive way. So, Drew was their head of, Dean of Cloud Computing. He went on to A Cloud Guru, which was recently acquired by PluralSight. But his job was to teach cloud computing and make everyone cloud fluent, is the word they used to use, where they would be constantly investing in staff to do AWS training, making their employees more valuable. As soon as you got an AWS certification, your value goes up by 20%, 25% in the market. Capital One were like investing constantly in people to do this. And AWS can't publish training as quickly as they publish features. So a lot of the responsibility was people coaching others to learn how to do this. And, you know, it just, it created this great environment where you had people constantly looking at new technologies, bettering themselves, improving, looking for how they could make even products that were in sustain cheaper to run by moving them to the cloud. or more efficient and faster iteration, greater deployment because they were using newer technologies. So it also broke the stigma that only, you can only do fun stuff in the explore zone. You can actually do lots of really fascinating innovation in the exploit and the sustain zone too as well. Which is again, huge for these businesses. If you can drop your operating or infrastructure costs, imagine capital ones infrastructure costs for running their banking services like. building data centers or paying 0.00001 cent to like run it in the cloud. Right. So, and huge bottom line and outcomes to be had there. So yeah, that's a bit of a picture of how I think about it.
Hope Gurion: I love those examples, and it helps me sort of think about these sort of principles that you need to consider and maybe put in place as a leadership team about if you want to be a company that continues to innovate, not only do you have to make conscious decisions about your product portfolio and resource allocation to it, you also need to have principles their life cycle in the company to be able to keep contributing value.
Hope Gurion: Next Adrian Howard of Quietstars shares his perspective on sunsetting products to free up resources for other products or initiatives.
Hope Gurion: If a company is sunsetting a product, they've decided it no longer makes sense to invest incrementally in that product because they think there isn't much value to happen with that product over time. We don't expect the team, even if they discover a new opportunity, pursue it. What do you think about the team composition for a product going through sunset?
Adrian Howard: I am asking myself, what is the outcome of this sunsetting? Are we moving, are we just stopping doing this thing and these customers are going to competitors and doing something else? Are they moving to a new platform? Are they partially staying with us for another bit of our portfolio and partially moving somewhere else? What's the thing we want to happen with Sunset? Do we want to, what's most important to us? Is it, we need to shut down this data center because it's costing us five million a quarter and it's a pain in the ass. Or do we want these customers who are currently on our product to be really happy on our new product? Or do we want these customers not to be complaining about us because we've shut down the thing that they use every day? Or what? And that's going to affect the composition of that team. I think it kind of like, and with sun setting especially, people don't talk about those outcomes often. very explicitly and that can lead to some really nasty things when things don't go to plan because often the conversation about whether to sunset something is often a balance like, you know, we've got to find out a amount of, you know, time, people and money to spend on our product portfolio, and we're going to spend it on this valuable thing and not this valuable thing, because we think valuable things are going to grow, and we think not valuable thing is going to disappear into the dust. And so we have this, you know, six month or 12 month plan to do, you know, get rid of this and build this. Which is fine until three months in you discover that the thing that you were building doesn't build quite as fast as we thought it would. And suddenly customers aren't shifting from old product quite as fast as we thought they would. And those two things need to be brought together so you can have that conversation about, OK, is it is sunsetting? This is all the smart idea. Do we need to extend the timeline? What skills do we need to manage this new thing that's happening? and too often the sunset, sunsetting is put in the hands of, it's almost seen as punishment duty inside some companies, it's the way you put the least skilled, least career progression people, and they're often, and that often means that the relationship with the people using that product that is sunset suddenly becomes worse because there aren't the skills in that team to make that and or the just the you know the time money and people to make those people happy and get them to where they need to be when the when the product disappears and that makes everything worse there which makes it even worse for people coming into the new product because you've destroyed some trust in the old product that's being sunset um so you can't move those people to you know you've just you've just completely screwed us on old products. Why should we trust you for version two of product? You know? And that's the kind of thing that is where I see where people have this kind of just this box that they put the thing we don't care about anymore. Because you very rarely don't care about it. You want something to happen. You want the thing you're spending there to be able to spend somewhere else. Or you want the customers that you have there to be on another product, or at least not saying mean things about you in public. And so you need to be managing to that outcome. You need to be, have a strategy for that rather than it being just... the generic sunset phase for all products. End rant.
Hope Gurion: Yeah, I love that you touched on setting an outcome for the sunset retirement of that product. And you're right. I would say more often than not, I do see that often companies are not sunsetting the product outright. They're migrating customers off of product A to fancy new product B that is going to be better in whatever ways. And when a leader isn't conscious, like if they put somebody on that sunsetting and think about it like a project, and it's just like how quickly can we make sure that we've got everybody migrated over to this new platform, if the person who's serving product role or working with those customers, if they don't see a path to their continued success, as a product manager, and they don't see how working on a successful migration is going to help accelerate their future product opportunities with that organization or elsewhere. They tend to not treat that sunsetting with the care and attention that the organization needs them to. I think that becomes a tricky decision as a product leader about how do you have somebody put that care into a sunset/retirement/migration effort and create career opportunities, growth opportunities for the product's lead or whoever is playing that role on that team.
Hope Gurion: Finally Troy Anderson and I tackle why and how leaders need to effectively communicate to their teams that their product is being sunset and why a rotational principle in resource allocation mitigates the risks when products inevitably change life stages.
Hope Gurion: Let's go back to the example that you gave of sort of a large amount of people being dedicated to something that hadn't gotten much traction, maybe hadn't even been released yet. And we decide we want to reallocate them. Let's say we're going to sunset or end of life that project. We decided like, there's really nothing there. It's not just bringing it down to a smaller team. We're ending it. How do you navigate those choices as a leader to either reallocate those people? Where do we move them to? How do you explain that to them?
Troy Anderson: Right. And that's again where you want to be really sure on your hypothesis and what you're solving for. And it needs to make sense to you, but it needs to make sense to others as well. So if you can't communicate your strategy and your decisions and give people the clarity and show how this doesn't fit that reality, then you're really in a bad. bad place because then you're just doing it by authority which is never a great way to do anything. Oh it's better to sell people on the thing based on reality and so you know start with reality. Say “this is strategy. Does everyone agree that this is the strategy?” Yes, yes, yes, yes. “Okay. Well, if this is the strategy and this is reality, boom, this is where this thing falls out.” Now how do you tell people though, have been working on the thing that their thing isn't cool anymore. That's really tough. And I think you know, the way that some old school management consultants refer to it is it's a death. And I think it should be should be celebrated as such. And so it's almost like a celebration of life for this project, right? What did we learn from it? You know, what did we do? You know, we came together as a team. You know, someone said “Jump” And, we said, “how high?” There are all the positive things that you might say at a celebration for life or someone even if you didn't like and you kind of need to do the same thing for this project. You really do need to treat it like it is a death because it is. It's a death It’s a work experience, not you know, familial or friend or something like that. But in a work context, it is and you need to celebrate the project for what it was and you need to pay it its proper respects. If you don't, now you're causing a cultural problem. And that's the last thing that's going to serve you well.
Hope Gurion: So does your answer change if, let's say, it wasn't the sort of idea that never actually got released to customers, but we've got a product that has been used by some number of customers or internal employees, and it no longer is serving its purpose and we need to sunset it. And you've got a team that's been dedicated to it and customers who've been in one way or another relying on it. How, if at all, does your messaging or thinking about the team dedicated to that sun setting transition differ as you're navigating how to keep people on it, have a successful transition, but also free up resources for things that can fuel your strategy?
Troy Anderson: Yeah, I mean again, it's treating it with respect, right? So, the key to letting anything go that people put a lot of time and energy in was to respect that time and energy.
But also, again, to be exceedingly clear that you know, we have to make decisions we have to focus on the things that are the biggest bang for the buck. And this thing is no longer part of that. That story, then, you know, that's the way it goes. But, you know, hopefully those people can find new roles and other teams. Hopefully there's things that they learned on that project that they can bring to other projects. So there's a lot of things that you know, it's like a tree that topples in the forest that that tree is no longer you know, sprouting limbs and that sort of thing, but it's causing other trees to grow.
And I feel it's kind of the same mentality you want with the certain projects.
Hope Gurion: And in that case, when you've got a team of people dedicated to a product that's going through sunset or end of life, how do you think about the roles on that team? The size of the team? Do you have any rules of thumb around that? Should they be dedicated to that or should they also be involved in some other product initiatives that are expected to continue? How do you think about that?
Troy Anderson: Right so, I mean, the best situation is you have a culture and a process for rotating people to start with. If you don't have that, then you've made it harder on yourself in these sorts of circumstances. I like to have a have an opportunity to rotate people through projects. So a rotation doesn't feel like an unnatural thing, right?
So if you start with, you know, rotating people through projects, then it makes life a lot easier when you go to cancel a project. Okay, let's say you haven't done right? Let's say you're, it's a new thing coming into an organization and this thing needs to be sunset, then, right? You don't you don't have that benefit of the rotation.
Then the size of the wind down is going to depend on the clients. It's going to depend on the contracts. I mean, some of the most insidious products ever, that should never have been part of the portfolio are now part of the portfolio because of contracts.
You know, my preference in those regards, if I can get away with it, is to move those projects to contractors. Right, get them off of the full time employees and move them to contractors. Because, you know, it's gonna go away. I want my full time employees working on full time products.
You know, I'd much prefer to have something that's sunset that needs a lot of resources, go to a temp resource than my full time resource.
Now, obviously, there's training time for full time employees training contractors, and what have you. And sometimes you don't have the luxury of that. But if you're really being dedicated to how you say yes and how you say no then you're going to make that switch.
Hope Gurion: Product leaders can free up resources for Explore and Invest stage products by Sunsetting products that no longer are contributing enough value to justify the cost of maintenance.
Consider yourself lucky if the decisions around which products to sunset are obvious. For many product leaders other leaders or stakeholders in their organization will fight to keep products alive and advocate to move them to maintain or sustain as a compromise.
For customer-facing products, you can expect resistance from the sales and support teams who have customers with that product on their contract.
For internal-facing products, you can expect resistance from your colleagues, the users of that product.
For the teams who’ve worked diligently on that product throughout its life, they may be likely to want to find a way to keep it running in some reduced capacity.
Recognize that it’s human nature to be loss averse and fear the worst case scenario for themselves and their customers when they can’t envision what life will be like without that product. This is where you have to anticipate these challenges and address them by showing the better future on the other side of that product being sunset.
To make the transition easier, product leaders should:
Gather data and evidence to support the decision to sunset the product. This evidence might include financial data such as the cost to maintain vs benefit of keeping the product alive. Or it might include analytics showing painfully low or seldom usage or usage from low-risk customer groups.
Develop a transition plan for customers, sales teams and internal users. This plan should explain how they can migrate to an alternative product or process. Show how the alternative is easier to use, offers more capabilities, lower costs to operate if you can. For sales teams, you may need to help sales leaders anticipate and set parameters to negotiate quota relief for affected sales teams or contract for substitute products if available in your portfolio.
Work with the impacted product team to find new opportunities. This could involve moving them to a different team working on an Explore or Invest product, or helping them develop new skills while working on a Maintain product.
By taking these steps, product leaders can increase the chances of success when sunsetting products.
Here are some additional tips for making the process easier for the organization:
Be transparent and honest with stakeholders and team members. Explain the reasons for the decision and the transition plan. Encourage them to share risks and options to mitigate those risks independent of keeping those products on life support.
Be empathetic and understanding but steadfast. Acknowledge that people may be upset or worried about the future. Build a bridge for them to cross to see how your company can succeed despite these changes.
Be ruthless. Don’t peanut butter your limited resources. Be courageous where you have necessary conviction to sunset or outsource what isn’t and should never be a core competency or differentiator.
Sunsetting products is always going to be a difficult decision, but it's often necessary to ensure the long-term success of the company.
In the next episode of the Resource Allocation series, we’re going to discuss how do you allocate people and time to products in your portfolio that are in the Maintain or Sustain stage of life.
If you’re a product leader seeking to fearlessly lead your product teams through resource allocation decisions, I’d love to be of help. Please reach out on LinkedIn or send me an email to hope@fearless-product.com. I’ll respond with an FAQ about my coaching programs and a link to sign up for a free mini coaching session about a challenge you’re facing.
Fearless Product: confidence through evidence.
- - -
Feedback is a gift! Share what was most useful to you by leaving a review. Contact me on Linkedin or at https://www.fearless-product.com/contact.