Pretty sure the “unit of impact” question applies to the sequence of work *inside* each project too. Eg. Scope A objectively has to happen first because of risky unknowns, while B is less critical but will get our excitement back, then move on to C…
PMs often prioritize work by something called "impact." But usually what a PM considered "high impact" doesn't actually get the green light from leadership. Why?
One big piece of this problem is about the unit. What's a "unit" of impact? How do we weigh two projects against each other? You can't when the unit is too abstract. It's like saying "goodness" or "desirability."
Sometimes, it's about money. Then we need to show that this change earns X $ more or reduces cost by Y $ over time T because of pressures we're under.
Sometimes, it's about buzz. Nobody has talked about us in a while, so we'll choose something that will get people talking over something that silently improves things.
Sometimes, it's about morale. If we don't throw a bone to this team or stakeholder after a certain amount of time goes by, they're going to be outraged and it's going to be hard to work together — even though it's hard to objectively make the case for that thing.
And sometimes, it's about buying time. We're working on something big in terms of potential $ or buzz, but it needs more attention to shape. Meanwhile, teams need new work to do. So we can choose things that are smaller optimizations in the above categories — not necessarily big impact — that are still wins and don't require much attention while the bigger thing is baking.
None of these are good/bad. They are all responses to different situations that come up in a company. And the same company will have different needs at different times.
As leaders, it helps to be more explicit about why we're doing something. And if we're a layer down, we'll find we get many more wins and "yeses" by tuning in to the changing pressures that leadership is facing at a given time.
