Compare and Contrast
Compare and Contrast is a qualitative, discussion-based approach used by teams to evaluate and prioritise opportunities by systematically discussing their relative merits, challenges, and potential impacts. Unlike quantitative scoring systems, this method emphasises dialogue and collective reasoning.
Goal
The goal is to ensure that the team focuses on the opportunities which have the highest chance of delivering the expected product outcomes.
Context
Teams have limited capacity so they need to ensure that time is being spent on the most valuable opportunities. This method is particularly useful when there are multiple opportunities to consider, and the team needs to weigh the pros and cons of each to make informed decisions.
Comaprison Techniques
The purpose of compare and contrast is that it is flexible because there is no one size fits all approach. Some of the techniques that can be used include direct comparison, criteria-based discussion, and scenario analysis.
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Direct Comparison | Discussing opportunities in pairs to directly compare their strengths and weaknesses. |
| Criteria-based Discussion | Using a set of predefined criteria to guide the comparison and contrast of opportunities. Examples include the RICE framework, Kano model, or other relevant criteria. |
| Scenario Analysis | Exploring how different opportunities might play out in various future scenarios. |
Inputs
| Artifact | Description |
|---|---|
| OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) | The current OKRs that the team is working towards, providing a clear understanding of the desired outcomes. |
| Opportunities | A comprehensive list of opportunities that the team is considering, including brief descriptions. |
Outputs
| Artifact | Description |
|---|---|
| Prioritised Opportunity List | A list of opportunities ranked based on the team's discussion and analysis. |
Anti-patterns
- Dominance of Loud Voices: Allowing the opinions of a few outspoken team members to overshadow others, leading to biased outcomes.
- Analysis Paralysis: Getting so caught up in discussion and comparison that decision-making is delayed.
- Lack of Structure: Conducting discussions without any structure or criteria, leading to unfocused and unproductive conversations.
- Neglecting Documentation: Failing to document the discussions and decisions, making it difficult to recall the rationale behind priorities.