Things like OKRs, big bets, wants, needs, must-haves, and other must-win battles often turn into an ever-changing soup of “stuff we have to do now”. Especially in tech, where the “plan, execute and learn” loop can be amazingly short, it’s too easy to get stuck in a quarterly groundhog day of constantly changing priorities. And with every change, a huge amount of time and effort is wasted. The reason is often the lack of an essential element, the strategy.

Disclaimer: I’m not a strategy expert. I write about my work as a SaaS Product Manager in the context of the things I read. This text specifically is heavily influenced by “The Art of Action” by Stephen Bungay which I recommend wholeheartedly.

Strategy allows change

If you have a larger goal in mind, it’s only natural to make a plan and then follow it. But, at some point, you might find out that your actions do not get you closer to your goal. You decide to throw away the old plan and start over. This can be disheartening, even considering the value of lessons learned. In the end, you did the wrong thing.

“No plan survives first contact with the enemy” — Helmuth von Moltke

But, what if you lean into this dynamic? Allow the plan to change but somehow make sure we stay on course. Keeping your eyes on the overarching goal is good, but not enough. There are multiple paths to a goal and changing your approach on every obstacle will not get you there. You need something more sturdy, and foundational to keep when the plans change.

Decisions have to be made

A good strategy is a system of heuristics (or, rules-of-thumb) that allow for quicker and more coherent planning on all levels. When decisions have to be made on the spot there is no way one can consider all the circumstances, other plans already in place, and their own role in the bigger picture at the same time. There is a need for a mental framework that will answer the questions needed to keep the focus on the situation at hand. By making some of the decisions (and tradeoffs) up-front you can simplify the already complex situation for people doing the work.

But there is no way to get there without making some hard tradeoffs first. A strategy aimed at increasing market share might mean less profits. Focusing on cost optimization can slow down the rate of innovation. Adding new capabilities to a product can take focus away from perfecting the existing functionality. Choosing one differentiator can make other aspects of a product more generic.

Being ambitious is not a strategy

One of the biggest decisions that often becomes part of the strategy is how ambitious we can afford to be. The plan to shoot for the stars is very different than the one that is designed to be a surefire way for making good, safe progress. Moreover, switching between those two can be detrimental to the organization. This is also an example of a decision that will be pragmatic but almost always data-informed, as opposed to data-driven. Intuition will play a role.

Product Manager is a strategist

One might say that PMs plan and execute the strategies that are defined well above their place in the org chart. I say this is wrong in at least two ways.

First, the company strategy is often not well-defined and, almost never, well-understood. It is a role of a PM to build an understanding of the strategy in place and how it translates to the team level. This, in turn, requires filling in the gaps using own understanding of the intent.

Second, a functional team of engineers is fully capable of planning the work. When planning with great product teams I often find myself mostly in a supportive role: clarifying the plans and keeping the strategy fresh in their minds. This requires some up-front work from me but seems to get the best results. To make this happen, engineers need to know what is the high-level intent: the goal and the essential parts of the actual solution - the strategy.

Including strategy in your planning

In my experience, the planning process and its artifacts do not tease out the strategy of team-level PMs. What’s expected is a snapshot of plans and some level of commitment in terms of goals. It is understandable, as the executives often want to know what to expect and, at the same time, want to put a certain level of pressure on the teams. Counterintuitively this makes the actual strategy somewhat hidden by default. But it does not have to be.

My own process to deal with that is to first define the strategy, then create the initial version of the plan, and finally estimate the impact on the set goal (or propose the goal itself). On a practical level, having a strong strategy means that it’s much easier to produce whatever planning artifacts you are asked for without compromising any of the essential parts of your thinking.

One of my favorite tricks, when asked to deliver a plan, is to create a document that contains both the plan and the strategy that it serves, even if the strategy is “local” to the team or the department. This is especially well received in organizations used to frequent changes of plans, disillusioned with the planning process itself. Including the larger intent, describing the end-state, and listing some of the invariants (or tenants) clarifies the plan, shows the reasoning, and helps align the essentials.

Turtles all the way down

There is a twist at the end of this story. Deciding on a strategy helps plan and make decisions by everyone involved. But, that’s not where the strategic thinking ends. On every level where there is competition and risk, and where unknowns lie there is a need for a strategy. This makes the strategy and the plan, essentially, the same thing.

And, on that bombshell, thank you for your time.