Collective accountability in case of Product Ownership Group
Description
While a single Product Owner is the recommended configuration, sometimes it's difficult to achieve, especially when starting from a very scattered organisational structure with many "owners" for various parts of the value stream.
In general, it is better to minimise the number of Product Owners (Principle: Minimum Viable Product Owners) and work to reduce them as much as possible.
Where multiple Product Owners are involved in a Value Stream, they should have group accountability - a Product Ownership Group – to maximise the holistic outcomes for the Value Stream. Although the group should have collective accountability for the long-term success of the Value Stream, it should still provide clarity and speed of decision-making - avoiding a committee-style forum.
Rationale
Multiple Product Owners might be necessary due to the product size (breaching the maximum Product Owner Mental Workload) or the product organisation's or wider enterprise's level of accidental complexity.
Where a Value Stream has multiple Product Owners, then there is a danger of the following:
- Localised priority decisions may lead to excess output that is not aligned with the overall Value Stream Outcomes.
- A “Fractured product” with misaligned sets of features and inconsistent customer experience. The product will look like it has been designed and built by different teams with different ideas!
- Locally optimised teams – teams will optimise their ways of working and product design decisions within the narrow boundary of their Product Owner’s view. This will lead to greater waste in the end-to-end Value Stream flow. For example, integrating the team’s output will take greater effort and rework.
- Localised Accountability (or Team Tribalism!) – Product Owners and teams will focus and see success when they have achieved their bit, regardless of whether it has delivered the overall Outcome required. Assisting other teams will be a lower priority.
To avoid these problems, we create a compelling clarity of purpose to act as a collaborating pressure for the Product Group and pursue a long-term strategy to reduce Accidental Complexity, which may require fewer Product Owners and teams and reduce waste.
Success is recognised when Outcomes are delivered at a Value Stream level towards the shared purpose and not at a single Product Owner or team level. We win or lose as a team of teams – including product ownership.
Related Principles
- Create clarity of purpose
- End-to-End Product
- Architectural cohesion
- Avoid Components
- Align towards business synergies
- Reduce factors increasing product complexity
- The Product Owner is accountable for sustained end value
- Minimum Viable Product Owners
- Limit Product Owner Mental Workload
- Each team "sees" exactly one Product Owner
- Outcome is the primary measure of success