Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
СпутникиРНSpaceXРоскосмосNASA
Image
Picture the meeting where your organization decides what actually matters. The backlog refinement, the portfolio review, the roadmap call where someone finally asks what you should build next and what you should drop. Now notice when it happens. Late morning after three other meetings, or worse, at four in the afternoon when everyone in the room has already spent the day deciding a hundred smaller things. The single most valuable act in any product organization, choosing what to do and what to refuse, gets handed to brains that have almost nothing left to do it with.David Rock has spent twenty years explaining why that is a problem. In Your Brain at Work he argues that prioritizing is one of the most energy-hungry things the brain ever does, and his advice follows directly from the biology: do your most important, most demanding thinking first, before anything else has drained the tank. Most companies do the exact opposite. They run their most expensive cognitive task on their cheapest available energy, then wonder why the priorities keep coming out wrong.Why Choosing Costs So MuchThe prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that handles conscious reasoning, and it is small, slow, and metabolically greedy. Rock describes it as a stage that can hold only a few actors at once. Prioritizing demands that you put several options on that stage at the same time, hold each one in mind, and compare them against one another while the future is uncertain and the trade-offs are real. That is the heaviest lift the stage ever has to carry. Comparing five competing bets is far more draining than executing any one of them.This is why the order of the backlog is the Product Owner's hardest job, not the writing of the items. Ranking means weighing value against cost against risk against time, holding all of it in working memory, and committing to a sequence you could be wrong about. It burns through the same limited fuel that runs out faster than anyone admits.Rock made a related point years earlier in Quiet Leadership. Leaders who insist on solving every problem and ranking every decision themselves are not just creating a bottleneck. They are concentrating the most expensive cognitive task in the building onto a single brain, and that brain depletes like any other. The organization that funnels all prioritization upward has designed a system where its hardest thinking happens in the most decision-saturated head in the company.The Tired Brain Stops ChoosingThere is a well-known study that shows what depletion does to judgment. Shai Danziger and colleagues examined more than a thousand parole rulings by experienced Israeli judges and published the results in PNAS in 2011. At the start of a session, judges granted parole in roughly 65 percent of cases. As the session wore on, that rate slid toward zero, then jumped back to 65 percent right after a food break. The finding has been debated since, and later analysis suggests the size of the effect is probably overstated by how cases were ordered, so treat the exact numbers with care. The direction of it matches everything else we know. A depleted brain stops doing the expensive work and reaches for the cheap default.In a courtroom the cheap default is to deny and keep the prisoner where he is. In a company the cheap default is to not decide. The tired prioritizer does not kill the low-value feature, they defer it. They do not refuse the loud stakeholder, they say yes to keep the peace. They do not shorten the list, they keep everything on it and call that being responsive. None of this looks like a failure of nerve in the moment. It looks like reasonable people running out of the fuel that real choices require, so the backlog never gets shorter and the work in progress only climbs.The Environment Is Designed to Drain ItEven if you scheduled prioritization for the morning, the modern workday would sabotage it. Microsoft's 2025 Work Trend Index found that workers are interrupted every two minutes during core hours, which adds up to about 275 interruptions a day, and that 48 percent of employees describe their work as chaotic and fragmented. You cannot hold five competing options on a small mental stage when something pulls you off it every two minutes. Each interruption clears the stage, and rebuilding it costs energy you were trying to save for the decision itself.The same research found that half of all meetings land inside the two windows when the brain is sharpest, roughly nine to eleven in the morning and one to three in the afternoon. Companies take their most precious cognitive hours and fill them with status updates, then push the genuinely hard thinking into the gaps and the late afternoon. The schedule treats prioritization as if it were the easiest thing on the calendar, something you can slot in whenever, when it is in fact the one task that most needs protected, uninterrupted, high-energy time.Too Many Priorities Is the Same Failure, Scaled UpWhat happens to one tired brain happens to a whole organization at once. Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, writing in Harvard Business Review in 2025, describes the pattern he finds almost everywhere: far too many projects running, far too few that truly matter, and a chronic inability to kill any of them. When everything is priority one, nothing is, and the cost is not abstract. Every extra active project multiplies context switching, lengthens every queue, and pushes out the delivery of the things that actually move the business, the same flow penalty I wrote about in the cost of delay.A bloated priority list is rarely a courage problem on its own. It is the visible residue of expensive comparisons that never got made. Shortening the list requires the hard, draining act of ranking and refusing, and a depleted organization avoids that act the same way a depleted judge avoids granting parole. The list stays long because nobody had the fuel to make it short.Protect the Conditions, Not the FrameworkCompanies reach for RICE, WSJF, or MoSCoW when their priorities feel wrong, and the framework is almost never the problem. These methods do not fail on their math. They fail because they get run on an empty brain, in a fragmented hour, by the most decision-fatigued person available. Better scoring cannot fix a depleted decider.Three changes do more than any new framework. Do the prioritization that matters first, while the prefrontal cortex is fresh, so the Product Owner orders the backlog at nine in the morning rather than after standup and three other calls. Keep the active list short enough to fit on the mental stage, because a list of fifteen priorities is not a ranking, it is a refusal to rank. And stop escalating every prioritization call to the busiest, most decision-saturated leader in the building, when the person closest to the work still has fuel left to think.The priorities in most companies are not wrong because the people are bad at choosing. They are wrong because the choosing keeps happening at the moment there is nothing left to choose with.Ralph Jocham is Europe's first Professional Scrum Trainer, co-author of "Professional Product Owner," and contributor to the Scrum Guide Expansion Pack. As an ICF ACC certified coach, he works with organizations to build Product Operating Models where strategic clarity, operational excellence, and adaptive learning create measurable competitive advantage. Learn more at effective agile.References[1] Rock, D. (2009) 'Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long', HarperBusiness. Available at: https://www.amazon.com/Your-Brain-Work-Strategies-Distraction/dp/0061771295[2] Rock, D. (2006) 'Quiet Leadership: Six Steps to Transforming Performance at Work', HarperBusiness. Available at: https://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Leadership-Steps-Transforming-Performance/dp/0060835915[3] Danziger, S., Levav, J. and Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011) 'Extraneous factors in judicial decisions', PNAS 108(17). Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1018033108[4] Microsoft (2025) 'Breaking down the infinite workday', Work Trend Index, 17 June. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/breaking-down-infinite-workday[5] Nieto-Rodriguez, A. (2025) 'Your Company Needs to Focus on Fewer Projects. Here's How', Harvard Business Review, August. Available at: https://hbr.org/2025/08/your-company-needs-to-focus-on-fewer-projects-heres-how
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Silos are the Bane of Value Delivery | -5 | 7 | 29-06-2026 |
| 2 | Ordering the Product Backlog with RICE: From Opinion to Evidence | 0 | 5 | 09-07-2026 |
| 3 | Clean out the Product Backlog | 0 | 5 | 24-06-2026 |
| 4 | You Can't Train Your Way Out of a Project Mindset | 0 | 5 | 21-06-2026 |
| 5 | Wird Product-Ownership zum Flaschenhals im KI-Zeitalter? Warum viele Product-Owner schlecht priorisieren, warum KI das sichtbar macht und 10 Werkzeuge, um besser zu entscheiden | 0 | 7 | 07-07-2026 |
| 6 | Cognitive Trap: Sprint Commitments Misunderstanding | 0 | 7 | 29-06-2026 |
| 7 | Wirkverluste in der Softwareentwicklung: Ein systemischer Ansatz zur Effizienzsteigerung | 0 | 7 | 23-06-2026 |
| 8 | The New AI Operating Model. Start By Using Scrum | 0 | 6 | 07-07-2026 |
| 9 | The Most Passionate Transformations Make the Worst Decisions | -2 | 6 | 09-07-2026 |
| 10 | If You Can Write Acceptance Criteria, You Can Write an AI Routing Policy | 0 | 7 | 05-07-2026 |