Thoughts on how one requirement can lead to another and then another, the temptation to "boil the ocean" in making changes, and drawing the line with diminishing returns.
Those are great questions to ask to assess diminishing returns.
There's also another way of looking at tasks in front of you.
For example, rather than asking, "is X worth doing?" My software development team likes to ask, "what is the next task that adds the most value to customers with the least cost?"
One problem with the former question is it pits egos against egos on a team. *Somebody* thinks it's worth doing, while another doesn't. No matter who has the final say, someone's going to be disappointed for sure.
The latter question reframes everything such that it's not that X isn't worth doing, but maybe it's worth doing later, when other deliverables are done that are more valuable to the *customer*. And in that situation, the customer becomes the decision maker rather than someone on the team, so internal politics shouldn't play a role in the decision making process.
Absolutely agree with you that it's got to be more about the facts - and less about the emotions or the egos.
Typically at the discovery stage where I do most of my work, the client doesn't always know what that next task is nor what value it can bring. But with good stakeholder prep and facilitation, you can mediate some of the risks you rightly raise.
More often than not, the debate does help stakeholders appreciate that there are different points of view - even if they may not agree with them.
Those are great questions to ask to assess diminishing returns.
There's also another way of looking at tasks in front of you.
For example, rather than asking, "is X worth doing?" My software development team likes to ask, "what is the next task that adds the most value to customers with the least cost?"
One problem with the former question is it pits egos against egos on a team. *Somebody* thinks it's worth doing, while another doesn't. No matter who has the final say, someone's going to be disappointed for sure.
The latter question reframes everything such that it's not that X isn't worth doing, but maybe it's worth doing later, when other deliverables are done that are more valuable to the *customer*. And in that situation, the customer becomes the decision maker rather than someone on the team, so internal politics shouldn't play a role in the decision making process.
Absolutely agree with you that it's got to be more about the facts - and less about the emotions or the egos.
Typically at the discovery stage where I do most of my work, the client doesn't always know what that next task is nor what value it can bring. But with good stakeholder prep and facilitation, you can mediate some of the risks you rightly raise.
More often than not, the debate does help stakeholders appreciate that there are different points of view - even if they may not agree with them.