Priority Zeros. Everyone's got one, something dozens (which I always find amusing - how can there be multiple highest priority items?…). These items are the highest priority and most important item for any given group or individual. It's a great thing when a team can truly determine what these are as it allows them to direct work. It's a much less great thing when tech teams are given them without a structure in place the help manage them.

Collision alert!

Once you get to the point where you're regularly identifying P0s you’ll (hopefully!) start looking at how to accomplish them. This generally involves passing parts of the ask to other teams to do the work. Depending on the ask this can span large swaths of the company, or just a small targeted group. Given today’s information-rich environment, tech teams are almost always impacted by these asks. While it’s great that tech is thought of as being needed, a very serious challenge begins to emerge - What happens when tech gets a P0 from Finance and one from HR?

In an ideal world this balancing has already been taken into account where a designated person or group determines the actual priority (Finance then HR, or use some semi-objective ranking system, e.g. which one costs the most to implement). I won’t delve too deeply into what that process looks like, but this group should be ordained by the business to make, and defend, those decisions so the tech teams can focus on execution. This approach is great since it removes any pressure on tech to determine which should be done first and provides clear guidance on what order stuff should be completed in. It also helps ensure the business know’s what tech is up to, and when they are doing any given item (other very common challenges with prioritization).

More frequently, however, the decision is dropped on tech, and tech has to figure it out.

This is a terrible idea.

I dunno, that one first?

It's terrible because tech doesn't know which item is more important to the business. If we’re lucky we can sometimes make an educated guess, but this is very much a mystical art from the tech standpoint as is it very rarely objectively clear cut. For a vast oversimplification (many tech projects span months if not years), is it more important that an alert goes out from Legal or a finance report has a column added? Tech can guess (I’d hazard towards Legal on this one?), but at the end of the day it’s not your tech team’s job to determine priority of this type of work - it’s IT’s job to execute on the decision that is made and to ensure that it is executed properly.

In addition to potentially the “wrong'“ item being worked on, it’s terrible because no matter what order tech completes the items in it will be 'wrong’ to one customer or the other. If we go with the “Legal” option above its highly likely that Finance will come back at us more than a bit unhappy. Tech can try to justify why they chose a specific course of action, but at the very least this takes away from time better spent working on the item. Even if there is some justification Tech uses, it’s likely that Finance will disagree with the criteria (e.g. why are alerts weighted more than reports?). This ties back to having an ordained group or individual that all groups trust - it helps eliminate frustration down the road.

But we don’t have that…

There’s a variety of reasons why that ordained group or individual doesn’t exist yet. Maybe your company cannot afford to dedicate a single headcount to it (yes, this is a full time job). Maybe your company wants to, but has higher priorities (a bit ironic that). Regardless of the reason there are some steps you can take to help bridge the gap / mitigate the damage. This will require some amount of process / procedure, however, it will help protect your tech teams and avoid frustration from the business.

The intention of this individual is to provide a source of truth for the order of your tech teams work. This requires this person to be familiar with everyone on the tech and the business side, and have a working relationship. This person also needs to understand how the tech teams operate and what their capabilities are. A person like this may already exist on your team (or on the business side). This may be a finance expert who wants to learn more about tech, or a techie who wants to get a better feeling for how the business operates.

You’ll also need to get leadership buy-off on this stop-gap. Figure out who the decision makers are on the business and tech side and grab some time with them. Explain you want to dedicate X amount of someone’s time to helping prioritize and order tasks (with input from both teams). It shouldn’t be too hard to get buy in as they are likely feeling the pain of not having this role, but you can always point out the time/heartache savings by having an objective to-do list. You’ll also need to setup some kind of regular update/meeting with this group so they feel comfortable trusting your designated individual, but this is good since it will help keep you honest and get you feedback.

It is definitely an iterative process, but once trust is developed and the wheels start turning more easily marked improvements in efficiency and grey-hair will start to show up.

Same team!

It’s REALLY easy to fall into the trap of blaming the business or the tech team for a failing project or take out frustration on them. At the end of the day the most important bit to remember is everyone is on the same team. Tech teams don’t have anything to do without the business (except watch server lights flicker) and the business will have trouble improving without tech (there’s a limit to gSheets). The challenge is in bridging the gap, in helping the tech side understand the business’s priorities, and the business understand the tech teams capabilities. Providing a single point of truth for what should be worked on is a huge step in that direction, and one that you can start taking without breaking the bank.