The Compass Method: the art of moving in the same direction
In previous articles, we examined why multiple teams and stakeholders often clash over the same development resources, and highlighted core concepts—like maintaining a single backlog, setting clearer requirements, and using transparent prioritization—to streamline software delivery. Now, let’s bring these ideas together into a practical system.
Think of a compass: it provides clear direction in unfamiliar territory so everyone can stay oriented. That’s exactly what we want in software projects—especially when legal requirements, customer deadlines, and product roadmaps all (allegedly) need to happen at once. Below, we’ll outline how The Compass Method works and how it helps every stakeholder—from product managers to customer-facing teams—see where their requests stand.
One backlog with stakeholder-friendly views
Everything breaks down when you cannot prioritise.
Why a single backlog?
A single backlog is central to most agile methodologies. It serves as the backbone for reviewing the execution order of all development requests. Rather than scattering tasks across spreadsheets or multiple tools, everything goes into a shared system (like Jira or Notion).
The buy-in challenge
However, getting buy-in on backlog priorities is no small feat. Stakeholders often have siloed agendas, making it difficult to agree on what comes first. Product management (or a similar role) should clearly explain the reasoning behind each priority, sharing the “story” behind every item. This might involve compromises or subjective decisions, but someone must make—and publicly own—those calls.
Making things easier for stakeholders
Once you have alignment, create filtered or segmented views of that single backlog. For example:
That way, no one has to sift through a giant, partially relevant queue. Each group sees only what’s relevant to them.
Requirement refinement with visual artefacts
Why requirements matter
Trust erodes when you consistently miss deadlines. Deadlines require some level of prediction, and humans aren’t great at that. Breaking work into small, similarly sized pieces helps, but you also need clarity on what you’re building.
Making requirements accessible
Written text alone can cause friction. Mockups or wireframes are better, while storyboards are even more effective. However, the best approach is to begin with lower-cost visualizations to validate ideas, then move into more detailed ones.
Three recommended artefacts
In The Compass Method, we recommend creating at least these three types of documents:
By the time you transition to coding, stakeholders have already weighed in on these visuals. This drastically reduces confusion and late-stage changes.
Transparent prioritisation board
Visibility is key
Methods like Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) are only as effective as the data you feed them. More important than the specific scoring model is the transparency. Stakeholders need to know why a feature ranks high or how compliance deadlines affect urgency.
Proactive communication
Document and share prioritisation decisions both in person (or via live meetings) and asynchronously (through documents shared via email or chat). If a high-priority request is suddenly dethroned by a regulatory must-do, clarify that change right away. Waiting will only lead to confusion and eventual escalations.
Using throughput to forecast delivery
Estimations with margin of error
Once you lock priorities, you need to estimate when items will be completed. Use historical throughput and apply an error margin based on past data. Select the right time frame for your planning window. You might find that monthly throughput can swing by ±100%, but over a quarter, it stabilises to ±10%.
Accounting for unplanned work
Unexpected requests will pop up. If your team labels unplanned items (or can identify tickets created and resolved within an execution period), you’ll have a clearer picture of how much “surprise work” derails your original plan. Subtract these surprises from your throughput to gauge how much you can truly commit to in advance.
Fromula:
Throughput – Unplanned Work = How much you can plan
Planning with optimistic throughput, zero error margin and no unplanned work only sets you up for failure. Factor in the unplanned work and keep refining estimates over time.
Ongoing feedback loops
Frequent syncs
Regular check-ins—weekly or bi-weekly—keep everyone aligned. During these sessions, each stakeholder can look at their filtered backlog view and confirm progress matches expectations. If there’s a slip or change, address it early to avoid bigger issues later.
Clear meeting inputs
These syncs work best when three questions are crystal clear:
If everyone leaves the meeting confused, chances are your backlog priority, requirement documents, or forecasts need refinement.
The (hidden) work guide
Why this matters
The Compass Method spotlights practices that are often poorly implemented: backlog alignment, shared understanding of design, and reliable delivery. Creating a backlog alone is easy; getting buy-in on its priorities is much harder. Writing specifications is easy; ensuring everyone truly understands them is harder. Planning is easy; consistently meeting deadlines without burning out is tougher still.
Going beyond basics
A backlog isn’t enough; you need alignment on the backlog. Tickets alone aren’t enough; everyone needs to grasp the bigger design picture. Planning isn’t enough; you need a track record of on-time delivery. The Compass Method helps you manage these hidden complexities by:
What’s your take?
If you have questions about applying The Compass Method in your organization—especially when juggling multiple customer deadlines—I’d love to hear from you. Share your experiences and challenges in the comments below.
Stay tuned, and thanks for reading!