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.
Why not RICE, Kano or Cost of Delay?
Most prioritisation frameworks try to turn the question of "which opportunity should we pursue first?" into a calculation. RICE assigns scores to Reach, Impact, Confidence and Effort. Kano sorts features into satisfaction tiers. Cost of Delay multiplies value by urgency. Apply all three to the same backlog and you typically get three different priority orders.
The frameworks aren't broken. The problem is that opportunity prioritisation is an ill-structured problem: one with many possible solutions, none clearly right or wrong, only better or worse. Each framework privileges the dimension it scores on, so the rank order depends on which framework was run. When three reasonable scoring methods give three different rankings, the apparent precision of any one of them is false confidence.
Compare and contrast keeps the team's reasoning in the open. The group debates the relative merits of each opportunity along multiple dimensions and converges on a working order, with the understanding that the order is provisional and will be revisited as new information arrives.
In practice, the dimensions worth debating are:
- Opportunity size: which impacts the most customers, and most frequently?
- Market position: is this a basic requirement (table stake) or a potential differentiator? Does it align with external trends or market shifts?
- Product alignment: how well does this match the product vision and strategy?
- Customer satisfaction gap: where is customer satisfaction low but importance high?
Scoring frameworks are useful as inputs to that conversation. They produce a starting list and surface dimensions the team might otherwise skip. They do not produce the final order.
Comparison 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.