Priorities can be very subjective

The other day I was talking to someone about the holding cost related to items on a backlog impacting priority in relation to Kanban. I have written about this subject matter a number of times in the past. So I thought I would share this to get some feedback.

I did some research years back and found that priority was highly subjective just as ROI was subjective to a certain degree.

When one breaks down backlog into functional, non-functional, architectural, etc. one will see a pattern.

What is best for an organization relates directly to Vision, Mission, synergy of strategies as expressed in terms of goal, and enabling tactics as expressed in individual tactics.

Within every organization value streams develop organized around functional area, product line, etc.

Value streams can tend to be broken down into a sequence of processes. Just as in the old PM days there exist a critical path for a given value stream.

Most value streams do not exist in isolation so many interact and/or share resources.

This bring us back to Kanban and priorities. For once one has reached this level one can now understand true priorities versus perceived priorities.

If LEAN is now applied then the tradeoff between efficiency and responsiveness can be identified. For if studying LEAN you will find that one cannot have maximum efficiency and responsiveness at the same time. Both innovation and number of offering within a value stream have a inverse relationship with efficiency.

As I examine the given value stream I can see what the balance between efficiency and responsiveness in each process within a value stream should truly have. I can then look at both the historical and anticipated rate of change within process, group of processes, and overall value stream to further define how fast I need to change!

This helps with true priorities over perceived priorities, for I am optimizing the value stream.

This bring us back to Kanban board for we now can see the real priorities and the impact of wait time. For if we have a handle on efficiency and responsiveness and understand the whole value stream then we can understand desired future state and understand cost of time in reaching a future state based on processes of the value stream. If I need a product available before Black Friday or in another case I will be in noncompliance on X date, examples such as these demonstrate wait cost. It can be lost revenue, opportunity, compliance, reduced responsiveness, reduced efficiency, etc. For these are all negative impacts that can be quantified as opposed to being highly subjective.

Unfortunately, cost and maximizing efficiency for processes can undermine Vision and Mission of an organization.

I worked for decades on projects where head count reduction and cost reduction be major justifications for the project.

Unfortunately, a number of these that had high priorities reduced the ability to achieve future goals.

For example I remember priceline.com selling Kroger groceries years ago. I ask a VP at the time why, where we entering the online sales market? I was informed that we just did it because they offered a chunk of cash. What would be the outcome today if Kroger actually had a real plan to enter the on-line sales early in the cycle?

Value Streams aligned with Vision, Mission, Strategic Goals, executed through processes and tactical objectives. With such a understanding priorities can be based on facts such as wait costs, etc. instead of subjective estimates based on incomplete understanding.I