544 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
544 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
# Module 06: Trigger Mapping
|
||
|
||
## Lesson 8: Workshop 5 - Feature Impact
|
||
|
||
**Saga Analyzes and Scores Your Features**
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Overview
|
||
|
||
Workshop 5 is where strategy becomes actionable roadmap. With your business goals, target groups, driving forces, and priorities established in Workshops 1-4, Saga now has everything needed to evaluate your features. Saga analyzes each feature against your top prioritized drivers and produces a complete scoring matrix automatically.
|
||
|
||
**Duration:** 15-20 minutes
|
||
**Format:** Saga presents analysis, you review and discuss
|
||
**Output:** Scored and ranked feature list with strategic justification
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## How It Works
|
||
|
||
### 1. You Provide the Feature List
|
||
|
||
**Give Saga your feature ideas:**
|
||
- Ideas from Product Brief
|
||
- Stakeholder requests
|
||
- Competitive features
|
||
- User feedback
|
||
- Team suggestions
|
||
|
||
**Aim for:** 10-20 features for evaluation
|
||
|
||
### 2. Saga Does the Analysis
|
||
|
||
**Saga evaluates each feature automatically:**
|
||
- Assesses how well each feature addresses your top 5-7 drivers
|
||
- Applies consistent 0-3 scoring scale
|
||
- Considers both direct and indirect impacts
|
||
- Produces complete scoring matrix
|
||
|
||
**Scoring scale Saga uses:**
|
||
- **3** = Directly addresses this driver (core solution)
|
||
- **2** = Significantly helps with this driver
|
||
- **1** = Somewhat related to this driver
|
||
- **0** = Doesn't address this driver
|
||
|
||
### 3. Saga Presents the Results
|
||
|
||
**You receive:**
|
||
- Complete scoring matrix showing all evaluations
|
||
- Total scores for each feature
|
||
- Initial roadmap prioritization
|
||
- Strategic reasoning for each score
|
||
|
||
### 4. You Review and Discuss
|
||
|
||
**Conversation-based refinement:**
|
||
- Saga explains surprising scores
|
||
- You can challenge or question assessments
|
||
- Saga adjusts based on your strategic judgment
|
||
- Final roadmap emerges from discussion
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## How Saga Evaluates Features
|
||
|
||
### During Analysis
|
||
|
||
**Saga considers for each feature:**
|
||
- How directly does this address each prioritized driver?
|
||
- Does this create gain or reduce pain for the persona?
|
||
- What's the magnitude of impact on each driver?
|
||
- Are there both direct and indirect benefits?
|
||
- Which drivers get the strongest support?
|
||
|
||
**Saga applies strategic thinking:**
|
||
- Traces features back to psychological drivers
|
||
- Evaluates emotional impact, not just functionality
|
||
- Considers both positive and negative drivers
|
||
- Assesses strategic leverage across multiple drivers
|
||
|
||
### During Review Discussion
|
||
|
||
**Questions you might ask Saga:**
|
||
- "Why did [feature] score higher/lower than I expected?"
|
||
- "Can you explain the reasoning behind this score?"
|
||
- "What would make this feature score higher?"
|
||
- "Are we missing features that would score better?"
|
||
- "How would modifying this feature affect its scores?"
|
||
|
||
**Saga's helpful prompts:**
|
||
- "I scored this low because it doesn't address your top drivers. Here's why..."
|
||
- "This feature scored high across multiple drivers. Let me show you..."
|
||
- "If we adjusted this feature like this, it could score higher..."
|
||
- "Based on your drivers, here's a gap I'm seeing..."
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Generic Example: Scoring Matrix
|
||
|
||
### Context
|
||
|
||
**Top 5 Prioritized Drivers (Remote Team Leads):**
|
||
1. Fear of team burnout without noticing (NEGATIVE)
|
||
2. Want to demonstrate effective leadership (POSITIVE)
|
||
3. Fear of losing top performers (NEGATIVE)
|
||
4. Want to build strong team culture (POSITIVE)
|
||
5. Fear of missed deadlines (NEGATIVE)
|
||
|
||
### Features to Score
|
||
|
||
| Feature | Burnout Fear | Leadership | Retention | Culture | Deadlines | **Total** |
|
||
|---------|-------------|------------|-----------|---------|-----------|-----------|
|
||
| Daily team pulse check | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | **9** |
|
||
| Team workload dashboard | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | **9** |
|
||
| Recognition system | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | **7** |
|
||
| 1-on-1 scheduling assistant | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | **6** |
|
||
| Meeting summaries | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | **4** |
|
||
| Async video updates | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | **4** |
|
||
| Team chat | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | **3** |
|
||
|
||
### Detailed Scoring Example
|
||
|
||
**Feature: Daily Team Pulse Check**
|
||
|
||
**Against "Fear of team burnout without noticing" (Score: 3)**
|
||
- Directly addresses the fear
|
||
- Provides daily visibility into team health
|
||
- Early warning system for burnout indicators
|
||
- Core solution to the problem
|
||
|
||
**Against "Want to demonstrate effective leadership" (Score: 2)**
|
||
- Provides data to show proactive management
|
||
- Enables evidence-based leadership decisions
|
||
- Significantly helps but not the primary purpose
|
||
|
||
**Against "Fear of losing top performers" (Score: 2)**
|
||
- Early warning helps prevent burnout-driven turnover
|
||
- Identifies at-risk team members
|
||
- Significantly helps with retention
|
||
|
||
**Against "Want to build strong team culture" (Score: 1)**
|
||
- Shows you care about team wellbeing
|
||
- Somewhat related but not primary benefit
|
||
|
||
**Against "Fear of missed deadlines" (Score: 1)**
|
||
- Can identify capacity issues early
|
||
- Somewhat helps but not main purpose
|
||
|
||
**Total: 9 points** (Highest strategic impact)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
**Feature: Team Chat**
|
||
|
||
**Against "Fear of team burnout" (Score: 0)**
|
||
- Doesn't address burnout visibility
|
||
- No impact on this driver
|
||
|
||
**Against "Want to demonstrate leadership" (Score: 0)**
|
||
- Doesn't provide leadership insights
|
||
- No impact on this driver
|
||
|
||
**Against "Fear of losing performers" (Score: 1)**
|
||
- Helps with connection (minor retention factor)
|
||
- Somewhat related
|
||
|
||
**Against "Want to build team culture" (Score: 2)**
|
||
- Enables team connection
|
||
- Significantly helps with culture
|
||
|
||
**Against "Fear of missed deadlines" (Score: 0)**
|
||
- Doesn't address deadline management
|
||
- No impact on this driver
|
||
|
||
**Total: 3 points** (Low strategic impact for this persona)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Prioritized Roadmap
|
||
|
||
Based on scores, create phases:
|
||
|
||
### Phase 1: Highest Impact (8-10 points)
|
||
- Daily team pulse check (9)
|
||
- Team workload dashboard (9)
|
||
|
||
**Why first:** Directly address top fears, highest strategic value
|
||
|
||
### Phase 2: High Impact (6-7 points)
|
||
- Recognition system (7)
|
||
- 1-on-1 scheduling assistant (6)
|
||
|
||
**Why second:** Good strategic value, support top priorities
|
||
|
||
### Phase 3: Medium Impact (4-5 points)
|
||
- Meeting summaries (4)
|
||
- Async video updates (4)
|
||
|
||
**Why third:** Some value but lower priority
|
||
|
||
### Backlog: Low Impact (0-3 points)
|
||
- Team chat (3)
|
||
|
||
**Why backlog:** Doesn't address top strategic drivers for this persona
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Why Saga's Analysis Works Better
|
||
|
||
### It's Consistently Strategic
|
||
|
||
**Saga evaluates with perfect traceability:**
|
||
- Every score connects to a prioritized driver
|
||
- Every driver traces to a target group
|
||
- Every group connects to a business goal
|
||
|
||
**Not arbitrary** - complete strategic chain for every decision
|
||
|
||
### It's Unbiased and Objective
|
||
|
||
**Without Saga (traditional approach):**
|
||
"I think Feature A is more important" (opinion-based, political)
|
||
|
||
**With Saga's analysis:**
|
||
"Feature A scores 9, Feature B scores 4 because..." (data-driven, defensible)
|
||
|
||
**Saga doesn't have pet features or political pressures**
|
||
|
||
### It's Fast and Thorough
|
||
|
||
**Manual scoring:**
|
||
- Takes hours with spreadsheets
|
||
- Easy to miss connections
|
||
- Inconsistent application of criteria
|
||
- Tedious and error-prone
|
||
|
||
**Saga's automated analysis:**
|
||
- Complete matrix in minutes
|
||
- Considers all driver relationships
|
||
- Consistent scoring methodology
|
||
- You focus on strategic discussion, not data entry
|
||
|
||
### It's Defensible to Stakeholders
|
||
|
||
**When asked "Why aren't we building Feature X?"**
|
||
|
||
**Saga's analysis provides:**
|
||
1. The complete Trigger Map context
|
||
2. Top prioritized drivers from Workshop 4
|
||
3. Detailed scoring matrix with reasoning
|
||
4. Feature X's lower strategic impact shown clearly
|
||
|
||
**Strategic reasoning backed by systematic analysis**
|
||
|
||
### It's Adaptable
|
||
|
||
**When priorities shift:**
|
||
- Update driver rankings in Saga
|
||
- Saga re-analyzes all features instantly
|
||
- New roadmap emerges automatically
|
||
- No manual re-scoring needed
|
||
|
||
**Strategy drives features, with Saga maintaining consistency**
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## How Saga Scores (And How You Review)
|
||
|
||
### Saga's Scoring Principles
|
||
|
||
**Saga evaluates objectively:**
|
||
- No pet features or political bias
|
||
- Based purely on strategic fit to drivers
|
||
- Applies consistent methodology across all features
|
||
- Some features will naturally score low - that's valuable data
|
||
|
||
**Saga is specific:**
|
||
- Links each score to concrete driver impact
|
||
- Explains HOW a feature addresses (or doesn't address) each driver
|
||
- Provides reasoning you can challenge or validate
|
||
|
||
### Your Role: Strategic Validation
|
||
|
||
**When reviewing Saga's scores:**
|
||
- Challenge assessments that feel wrong
|
||
- Provide context Saga might have missed
|
||
- Explain strategic factors not yet captured
|
||
- Confirm or adjust based on your domain knowledge
|
||
|
||
**Example exchange:**
|
||
> **You:** "I'm surprised the chat feature scored so low."
|
||
> **Saga:** "It scored 3 total because it only addresses 'build team culture' (score: 2) and retention (score: 1), but doesn't impact your top three drivers: burnout visibility, leadership demonstration, or deadline concerns. Should we reconsider its strategic fit?"
|
||
|
||
### Understanding the Scale
|
||
|
||
**How Saga uses 0-3:**
|
||
- **3** = Rare - only core solutions to that specific driver
|
||
- **2** = Significant help, clear connection
|
||
- **1** = Some relationship, indirect benefit
|
||
- **0** = Common - not every feature addresses every driver
|
||
|
||
**Most scores land at 0-2, which is healthy**
|
||
|
||
### Positive and Negative Drivers
|
||
|
||
**Saga evaluates both:**
|
||
- Negative drivers: Does this reduce pain or prevent fears?
|
||
- Positive drivers: Does this enable goals or create gains?
|
||
- High-impact features often address both types
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Common Patterns
|
||
|
||
### Pattern 1: High Scores Across Multiple Drivers
|
||
|
||
**What it means:** High-leverage feature addressing multiple needs
|
||
|
||
**Example:** Daily pulse check scores high on burnout fear, leadership goals, retention fear
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Prioritize - strategically valuable
|
||
|
||
### Pattern 2: High Score on Top Driver Only
|
||
|
||
**What it means:** Laser-focused solution for most important need
|
||
|
||
**Example:** Workload balancing scores 3 on burnout fear, low on others
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Still high priority if that driver is #1
|
||
|
||
### Pattern 3: Moderate Scores Across Many
|
||
|
||
**What it means:** Nice-to-have that helps a bit with everything
|
||
|
||
**Example:** Team chat scores 1-2 on multiple drivers
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Lower priority - not solving urgent problems
|
||
|
||
### Pattern 4: Low Scores Everywhere
|
||
|
||
**What it means:** Feature doesn't connect to strategy
|
||
|
||
**Example:** Fancy animations score 0-1 across all drivers
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Cut it or deprioritize significantly
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Beyond the Numbers: The Review Discussion
|
||
|
||
### Why the Conversation Matters
|
||
|
||
**Reviewing Saga's analysis reveals insights:**
|
||
|
||
When you ask: "Why doesn't this feature score higher?"
|
||
→ Saga shows the strategic gap clearly
|
||
→ You might modify the feature to increase impact
|
||
→ Or you accept it's not strategically aligned right now
|
||
|
||
When you ask: "Are we missing features that would score higher?"
|
||
→ Saga analyzes the driver coverage
|
||
→ Identifies gaps in your feature set
|
||
→ Suggests feature concepts that would address unmet drivers
|
||
|
||
When you ask: "This score doesn't match my intuition. Why?"
|
||
→ Either your strategy needs refinement
|
||
→ Or Saga missed context you can provide
|
||
→ The discussion sharpens your strategic clarity
|
||
|
||
**The analysis is data. The discussion creates wisdom.**
|
||
|
||
### Combining Strategic Impact with Other Factors
|
||
|
||
**Saga's scores = Strategic value (from Trigger Map)**
|
||
|
||
**You also consider:**
|
||
- **Feasibility:** How hard to build?
|
||
- **Dependencies:** What's required first?
|
||
- **Market timing:** Competitive urgency?
|
||
- **Resources:** Do we have capacity?
|
||
|
||
**Combined decision formula:**
|
||
```
|
||
Priority = (Saga's Strategic Impact × Feasibility) + Urgency Factors
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
High strategic impact + easy to build = Phase 1
|
||
High strategic impact + hard to build = Phased approach
|
||
Low strategic impact (regardless of ease) = Backlog or cut
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## What You Get from Workshop 5
|
||
|
||
✅ **Complete scoring matrix** - Saga's systematic evaluation of every feature against every driver
|
||
✅ **Ranked roadmap** - Clear, data-driven prioritization ready to execute
|
||
✅ **Strategic justification** - Defensible reasoning for every decision
|
||
✅ **Objective analysis** - Saga's unbiased evaluation, no political pressure
|
||
✅ **Perfect traceability** - Feature → Driver → Group → Goal (complete chain)
|
||
✅ **Time saved** - Minutes instead of hours of manual spreadsheet work
|
||
✅ **Strategic clarity** - Discussion reveals insights you wouldn't see alone
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Common Mistakes to Avoid
|
||
|
||
### Mistake 1: Not Providing Enough Context
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** Giving Saga feature names without explaining what they do
|
||
**Why it fails:** Saga can't evaluate strategic fit without understanding the feature
|
||
**Fix:** Briefly explain each feature's purpose and how it works
|
||
|
||
### Mistake 2: Not Challenging Scores You Disagree With
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** Accepting Saga's analysis without discussion
|
||
**Why it fails:** Misses opportunities to refine strategic thinking
|
||
**Fix:** Question surprising scores - the discussion reveals insights
|
||
|
||
### Mistake 3: Overriding Scores for Political Reasons
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** "Boss wants Feature X, let's bump it up"
|
||
**Why it fails:** Defeats the purpose of strategic analysis
|
||
**Fix:** Use Saga's objective analysis to have strategic conversations with stakeholders
|
||
|
||
### Mistake 4: Analyzing Too Many Features at Once
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** Trying to score 50+ features in one session
|
||
**Why it fails:** Analysis fatigue, loses strategic focus
|
||
**Fix:** Start with 10-20 most viable features, expand later
|
||
|
||
### Mistake 5: Ignoring Low-Scoring Features
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** "But we still need to build it even though it scored low"
|
||
**Why it fails:** Wastes resources on strategically misaligned features
|
||
**Fix:** Accept that low scores mean deprioritize or cut - that's valuable clarity
|
||
|
||
### Mistake 6: Never Re-Running the Analysis
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** Using stale scores as strategy evolves
|
||
**Why it fails:** Roadmap doesn't reflect current priorities
|
||
**Fix:** Re-run Saga's analysis when priorities shift (takes minutes, not hours)
|
||
|
||
### Mistake 7: Forgetting Feasibility
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** Prioritizing impossible or extremely difficult features
|
||
**Why it fails:** Can't actually execute the roadmap
|
||
**Fix:** Combine Saga's strategic scores with feasibility assessment
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Using Saga's Scored Feature List
|
||
|
||
### For Sprint Planning
|
||
|
||
**Each sprint:**
|
||
- Reference Saga's scored list
|
||
- Focus on highest-impact features first
|
||
- Validate decisions against the Trigger Map
|
||
- Make trade-offs based on strategic data, not opinions
|
||
|
||
**When questioned:**
|
||
"Why are we building this instead of that?" → Show Saga's scoring matrix
|
||
|
||
### For Stakeholder Communication
|
||
|
||
**When presenting roadmap:**
|
||
1. Show the Trigger Map (strategic foundation)
|
||
2. Show Saga's scoring matrix (systematic analysis)
|
||
3. Show the prioritized list (data-driven roadmap)
|
||
4. Walk through the strategic reasoning
|
||
|
||
**Stakeholders respond well to:**
|
||
- Clear, systematic methodology
|
||
- Traceable decisions (not "because I think so")
|
||
- Strategic foundation (connects to business goals)
|
||
- Objective analysis (Saga's unbiased evaluation)
|
||
|
||
**You have strategic armor against political pressure**
|
||
|
||
### For Design Decisions
|
||
|
||
**When Freya starts design work:**
|
||
- She references Saga's scored list
|
||
- Focuses on high-impact features first
|
||
- Understands which drivers each feature must address
|
||
- Validates design decisions against the scoring
|
||
|
||
**Example conversation with Freya:**
|
||
> "We're designing the pulse check (Saga scored it 9). It addresses 'fear of burnout' (score: 3), so it needs early warning indicators and actionable suggestions. That's what makes it high-impact."
|
||
|
||
**Design decisions trace back to psychological drivers through Saga's analysis**
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## The Complete Chain
|
||
|
||
Now you have the full Trigger Mapping system:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Workshop 1: Business Goals (Vision + Objectives)
|
||
↓
|
||
Workshop 2: Target Groups (3-5 prioritized personas)
|
||
↓
|
||
Workshop 3: Driving Forces (positive + negative for each)
|
||
↓
|
||
Workshop 4: Prioritization (ranked groups and drivers)
|
||
↓
|
||
Workshop 5: Feature Impact (scored feature list)
|
||
↓
|
||
Strategic Roadmap (data-driven priorities)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Every feature traces back to:**
|
||
- A psychological driver
|
||
- A target group
|
||
- A business goal
|
||
|
||
**No orphaned features. No guesswork. Strategic clarity.**
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## What's Next
|
||
|
||
You're ready to create your own Trigger Map. The tutorial walks through all 5 workshops step by step with Saga, and the next lessons cover how to create and use the visual Trigger Map.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Key Takeaways
|
||
|
||
✅ **Saga does the analytical work** - You provide features, Saga evaluates them systematically
|
||
✅ **Automated scoring matrix** - Complete in minutes, not hours of manual work
|
||
✅ **Objective and unbiased** - Saga has no pet features or political pressures
|
||
✅ **Discussion-based refinement** - Review, challenge, validate, and adjust together
|
||
✅ **Strategically defensible** - Every decision traces through the complete chain
|
||
✅ **Instantly updateable** - When priorities shift, Saga re-analyzes in minutes
|
||
✅ **Conversation reveals insights** - The review discussion sharpens strategic thinking
|
||
✅ **Perfect traceability** - Feature → Driver → Group → Goal (maintained by Saga)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
[← Back to Module Overview](module-06-overview.md) | [← Back to Lesson 7](lesson-07-workshop-4-prioritization.md) | [Next: Lesson 9 - Positive & Negative Drivers →](lesson-09-positive-negative-drivers.md)
|
||
|
||
*Part of Module 06: Trigger Mapping*
|