John Cutler’s Post

View profile for John Cutler

Product Enablement @Toast

The problem with outcomes vs outputs, problems vs. solutions, opportunity vs. solutions, strategy vs. tactics.... basically every dichotomy we talk about in product...is that things are never that binary. Example... you could argue that C is outcome oriented. Or you could say that it is one option for achieving G.

  • No alternative text description for this image
Curtis Michelson

Facilitator | Design Sprints | Growth Coach

1y

Nice John Cutler, please publish as a post to The Beautiful Mess, for my safe inbox record keeping. And keep'em coming you Beautiful Mind you.

Like
Reply
Jon Ayre

Strategic Advisory Practice Lead at Equal Experts. Bringing insight and pragmatism to companies that care.

1y

D and E are about the only ones that come close to being outcome based. Most of the rest are activity based with a justification tacked on to the end. IMO Outcomes should state what changes/improves and not what action to take to achieve it. Leave the team free to achieve that in whatever way is best. That's why the team needs to be multidisciplinary. Oh, and it's never strategy vs tactics. Tactics are the building blocks of strategy. The corruption of tactical to mean "short term, non-strategic" is the problem here. https://www.equalexperts.com/blog/our-thinking/tactics-building-strategy/

Jill Stover Heinze

Research Director and Lead, Data & AI Research Team at WillowTree | Founder, Saddle-Stitch Marketing, LLC

1y

All of these decision-making points are so much easier to navigate (even the very gray areas) when you know the WHY behind what you're doing. Once you know what you're trying to achieve for people, all of these can tie together nicely. I think what I'm saying is that E is the prerequisite for the rest, though that in itself is a dichotomy! 😂

Thushan Kumaraswamy

Operating Models | Business Architecture | Strategy

1y

I would break these down as: A. "this" = output, "specification" may or may not include the outcome B. "something" = output, "behaviour" = outcome C. "something" = output, "activity/goal" = outcome D. "solution to a problem" = problem leading to an outcome E. "improve experience" = problem leading to an outcome F. "influence outcome" = outcome G. "influence outcome" = outcome H. "generate outcome" = outcome I. "generate outcome" = outcome I see "D" to "I" as variations on: a) not having the outcome fully-defined (D, E) (e.g., problem = it takes too long to log in to the app, outcome = fewer people using the app) b) having a desired outcome but not having the output fully-defined (H, I) c) having a desired outcome and a plan to realise an output (F, G)

Angela Wick

| 1.8 Million+ Trained | Helping BAs navigate AI | BA-Cube.com Founder & Host | LinkedIn Learning Instructor

1y

These all work together is how I see it. C with a hypothesis is measureable and that is what I find a team and leadership can agree on spending time and $ to execute on. It may include experiments (G) and measure (F) as the team works with the context of (D). The result will eventually be E and F though A and B, guided by a team direction of C And D in small increments.

Volodymyr Rybalkin

Product Manager at Motorola Solutions

1y

personally, i believe that it is essential to focus on both outcomes and outputs in the sense that a) think well about what change we want to bring b) find an approach or approaches to do that c) do those well. execute well. I speak to that in this post https://medium.com/p/324f6d77b31f

Like
Reply
Bryan Jimenez Franco

Purpose-Driven Leader, Digital Transformation & Business Agility Strategist, Organizational Refactorist, Scaled Agile Consultant & Enterprise Transformation Coach,

1y

I don't see any statement starting with "BECOME" and that for sure is one powerfull way to state an Outcome. As I see it Outcomes are super aspirational, their power resides on their impulse to achieve almost unacheachieveable visions. Almost. Then, Outputs do their job, with their specific, experimentation-style proposals, so all actions/projects/initiatives can be linked to them in order to hit the precious number proposed by the Key Result metric(s).

Like
Reply
Michael Goitein

Strategy, Product, OKR, Lean & Agile Coach

1y

Well, I don’t suppose you’d want to accomplish Leading Client Behavior Change Outcome C John unless you could tie it in some hypothetical way to some kind of Lagging Business Impact Outcome G. Teresa’s “Opportunity Solution Tree” is a good mechanism for linking these kinds of relationships, as well as quickly testing potentially flawed assumptions underlying Choice C before hands touch a keyboard to code anything, right?

Adam McLaurin

Software Engineering Leader | Voice AI

1y

I think it's just a matter of understanding and communicating the core reason why a particular thing is being prioritized, and gauging what the assigned team has expertise to decide autonomously. We used to call it the "what/how line" and tried to be very careful not to cross it. 

Allan Neil

Senior B2B Product Management Professional

1y

Good one John Cutler I used to work for a CEO who filled the office and his speeches with the “power of AND”. We spend too much time dichotomizing. Replace ORs with ANDs. And while you are at it try to replace BUTs with ANDs. The results are interesting.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics