When debating the technology north star candidates we created in part 1, one can always "see your 5-year utopia and raise you to my 10-year one". However, the distance between feasibility and ambition is dangerous. Too far one way and "we're not aggressive enough", too far the other way, and it's damn exciting, but everyone knows in their gut a painful course correction will happen.
Consider aiming somewhere in the middle. In other words, define a north star that is both achievable and exciting.
Mapping an exciting north star is an excellent way of either validating it or resetting expectations. By "mapping", I mean breaking down the vision into specific incremental steps. This approach brings both a reality check and increased excitement as the confidence level rises.
Map increments and impact
Should you align on one north star first and then map it, or map the candidates? I'm a fan of mapping at a high level for the candidates as the mapping helps converge on the right north star.
Mapping increments
A north star whose map is only "create the north star" will likely fail or become a "mega-project". As with any significant effort, break it down into increments released separately.
Mapping impact
The real impact of a north star is felt when an increment delivers value related to its drivers. When will there be a leap forward in the feasibility of transformational or strategic features? A map that sustainably unlocks value sooner without significant long term expense is better than another without that quality.
Exercise: Map the north stars
Map out a north star into 2-3 increments. Increments may be time-bound or just an "increment". Present back on:
List technical, product and experience outcomes.
Hypothesise impact on north star drivers.
Do a second round. Present back on:
Additional detail added to the first increment - what are the related engineering/product outcomes?
Did the plan change due to the mapping exercise or other group views?
Optional: A round responding to an external event. Report back on:
If a significant competition event occurred after "increment 1" and immediate focus was redirected elsewhere, what position would the team be in based on progress thus far?
Scoring and alignment
While engineers don't have a monopoly on passion and opinion, I've encountered several scenarios where engineers had differing or even opposing views on solving big and complex technical problems. Success requires commitment from the team to collaborate towards a shared understanding of drivers and the right north star. It also takes iteration. Lastly, participants should prepare for a possible need to "disagree and commit" or park later investigations.
Exercise: Plot your rubric
The team dot votes on the degree of impact on some or a shortlist of the drivers.
Repeat for each north start candidate.
Discuss reasons for any significant variation on a particular driver and also the differences between the candidates.
Below is an example from a workshop plotting "feasibility of delivery", "support of features", "improvement in dev speed", and "support of people matters". Fascinating differences such as can be seen here are often a means for a winning candidate to emerge, as was the case here.
Exercise: The cross-functional pitch
This fun exercise can be used to both assist in further convergence and get broader perspectives on value from cross-functional colleagues.
It is a game based on the format of the "shark tank" TV series (similar to the “dragons den” in some parts of the world):
Groups of engineers pitching north star candidates (or a technology strategy component) to the other groups and invited non-engineering folk.
For a twist, get the non-engineering folk to do the pitching! They typically need some context written out about the candidates and a few minutes to prepare.
Give fake money to everyone to "be the sharks" and choose which candidate (strategy component) to invest in.
In the example depicted below, this was in the form of different coloured post-it notes.
Note: Educating everyone on the "rubric" is essential, so the sharks invest accordingly, not just with their preference.
Overall, this is a great exercise to promote engineering thinking in the broader team and comparing other function's views with that of the engineering team.
Capturing the north star
With all the hard work of brainstorming, discussion and alignment done, a north star can be easily undermined by failing to capture it in a brief written / visual form for reference and further sharing.
Consider a write up of the north star that captures:
Context - Why did the project to define a north star come about?
Drivers - what were the priority drivers.
Current state - A diagram/description of the current state.
North star - A diagram/description of the vision of the future state.
Increments - A diagram and explanation of each increment towards the north star state.
Impact - Emphasise the incremental value and impact on the north star vision.
Finally, don't forget to socialise the north star via a presentation, particularly with other teams that may have intentions of defining north stars or are working on projects that progress it.
The next step is the journey!
When looking at the vision a north star represents, the sheer size of the challenge can be overwhelming. But with a good north star and map to get there, the value will become clearer not just to you and your team but to other teams you work with and leaders across the organisation. It is essential to see the map as a work program with incremental steps, each worthy of pursuit. It's also a living plan and can adapt as the team ships and learns, keeping future impact in mind.
Now, embark towards your north star and spike that first increment!