Blinkered by Backlogs? Let your product person think!

Photo by Madzery Ma

Look online and you'll find numerous thinking and learning styles along with a deluge of debate about them.  In all this, one style that’s notably absent is ‘really long list’ or, in agile parlance, Backlog.

Backlogs are abundant, the ubiquitous method of visualising work to be done by teams working across a range of spheres and scales. Trouble is they are not actually very good for the creative bit, the designing and choosing what work needs doing.

Scrum.org describes the Product Backlog thus:

“an emergent, ordered list of what is needed to improve the product. It is the single source of work undertaken by the Scrum Team.”

And, if we put aside for a minute that agile may have popularised one of the most effective decision avoidance mechanisms ever, backlogs excel at providing a highly visible, collaboration inviting, suggestion of work order, helping teams and interested parties discuss, schedule and prepare.

Backlogs address a specific set of user needs, primarily those of people who are about to start work on an initiative, or want data for planing, tracking and forecasting.  Necessarily it shows work already selected, or at least strong candidates, and the order in which they may be tackled.

However this lens on the product can make it hard to get oriented and explain the product to new starters, it’s easy to lose the ‘Why’ and drift loosing confidence in decisions.  Backlogs tend not to intuitively or obviously show:

• Groups or categories 

• Relationships between items.

• Different Scenarios

• Longer term work

• Options and ideas - we might do X or Y

• Trade offs - the work that isn’t being done

Backlogs provide an item by item view, so much of the context which led to an item entering the backlog is obscured, or worse lost.  In some ways the backlog is like the product (geddit) of an equation.  If we only present the answer other people can’t see the calculations behind it, and we may even forget ourselves.  With solely the answer we are unable to check reasoning or repeat calculations with different values and variations.

Photo by Karolina Grabowska

Non linear Thinking

In short, a backlog, in list form, isn’t a great thinking tool.  Unfortunately that’s the main role of a Product person, to think.  To think across multiple dimensions, users, options, ROI, constraints and bets. To hold a multi faceted model in their head and reason about it, to make calls in ambitious VUCA loaded environments, and get people behind it.  This is tough.  Even tougher if you are pressured to represent all this in a flat list.

So why I wonder do product thinkers so often default to representing ideas in a backlog, or to treat their pre-backlog scribbles as private, ephemeral notes?   

Part of it could be temptation (or pressure) to put everything in a backlog because it saves time, the classic trap of prioritising efficiency over effectiveness. Consider the time not wasted, software not built, and better opportunities taken. The value earned from a canny product decision is likely to far outweigh the minutes saved copying items to a backlog.

This is where learning and thinking styles come in, we are learning about the product and thinking creatively about it.  It seems we all have different thinking styles*, or at least preferences in the moment, and so when we are breaking things down or there are tricky decisions to make it’s best to use tools which we find engaging and intuitive, tools which make it easier to visualise and reason about all that complexity.  At the very least we might reduce cognitive load, saving resources by conveying information diagrammatically and through text.

A tool for (your) thinking

So, anchoring thinking in priority and work size may not be the best way to think confidently about complex products.

By default these days we head towards digital solutions and tools on screens.  If a white board, napkin or circles in the sand works, do that, at least until it’s coherent and intelligible enough to translate into a digital medium.  Offline and off screen can certainly help minimise distractions and encourage novel thoughts.  Quality thinking is what drives successful product decisions, representation of work order should be secondary.

When I'm creating or familiarising with a product this is what I look for :

• Engaging - I want to use the tool and feel inspired to use it

• Scenario compatible - either representing multiple options, or allowing cloning of the entire representation.

• Sharable - I’ll want to talk over parts of it and work in the open, including exports.

• Obvious grouping - colours, shapes and symbols, suitable for people with visual impairments 

• Clear Relationships between items.

• Annotatable - I want to annotate and add different media.

Personally I use a like brain map style visualisations, with the big Why in the centre. The key message is to find something that works, in your context, there's no right format. Eight Ways to Organise Your Backlog is a good source of ideas.

Photo by Keira Burton

What about product road maps, user story mapping and all that other goodness?

You may be thinking that this is a solved problem, the answer invariably is…it depends.  Product Roadmaps and User Story mapping are similar to the product backlog in that they are tools for thinking from a certain perspective, the output is tailored specific audience or interest. Often they are polished and presentable, and slightly out of date, the product thinking space, like a sketch pad, is messy, personal and current. Crucially is is less certain, with more options and emerging ideas.

What we have then is orthogonal views for different purposes, these are lenses on the thinking space, in much the same way as differently dressed shop windows lead to the same interior, for example:

• Product Thinking Space - Product Person centric, notes, elements, options.

• Product and sprint Backlog - work about to be done

• Product Road map - long term view, high level orientation

• User story map - User centred perspective.

Chances are your thinking space is bridging a gap, fulfilling an unmet need between these diagrams.

I should clarify that while I'm recommending multiple views, I'm not suggesting using them all at once. I'm also not suggesting introducing yet another diagram (YAD?) if it doesn't serve a useful purpose. What is useful will depend on various factors, including the problem your are trying solve (or struggling to think about) and where you are in the product lifecycle.

Closing Thoughts

All too often pressure from teams, perceived best practice, time or tool availability draw us inexorably towards backlogs.  While they are a useful collaborative way to articulate and manage upcoming work, they aren't necessarily a strong basis for creative thinking and orientation, particularly with regard to visualising complex relationships, related elements and options.

Backlogs are perhaps best used in tandem with richer visualisations of the product to enable messy, quality, creative thinking.  From this, work to be done can be readily skimmed off and represented in orthogonal views better suited to different purposes and audiences.  

Product people juggle numerous factors that go into product decisions it should be largely of their own choosing and suit their thinking style.

it pays to maintain a product thinking space, providing an area for discussion, scenario running and preservation of information ready for future reference and revision. It is hard to reconstitute this from a backlog, especially one you've inherited, and you never know when circumstances will change and you'll need to make swift decisions.

it is similar to a native language for thinking. choose what suits you, then translate or make it compatible with your team. You might start by ignoring backlog obligations and asking: What do I actually need to get to grips with this product?

*Note that there is considerable debate about the validity of learning styles. Some relates to what the styles are, some to whether a person’s style can be discerned or assessed and some to the efficacy of interventions based on this.  Interestingly while academics and educators don't have faith in the theories, many recognise the people do have different preferences.   It's all a bit Myers-Briggs, it's not considered scientifically rigorous, but is often considered useful.