The font is extremely thin which makes it unnecessarily hard to read.

A lot of jargon and abbreviations also hinder understanding.

I had hoped they'd realise quarterly planning is a bad premise and asked themselves why they do it.

If you have a mature product where you add incremental features, you don't need that plan because it's just an arbitrary block of pretty fungible work.

If you're still looking for product market fit, that three month plan wont last a week before becoming obsolete.

If you need to build a bigger thing that is only valuable once it's all done, you A: need a project and B: probably don't because it will fail.

1. The wrong metrics: Ultimately the only metric that matters is money. Is this saving us money, are we wasting money. Every feature has a cost, and we are decent about tracking its construction costs but not its operational costs. This matters when you're paying for every iota of infra on AWS.

2. No one ever gets promoted for ripping out a feature that costs too much to run or doesn't retain customers, or is under used. Heath of the product as a whole isnt always about growing the business, sometimes it's about running it.

Came here to say, I don't deny it, but just as many companies can intuit "what problem are we solving?" and come up with some potential solutions across stakeholders. That's called planning. Time-box it and move on to some face-reality testing.

Planning anything, in any way, is imperfect. Partly fed by over-pontificating about the perfect way to plan!

They’d get a plan that made them happy in the moment, we’d inevitably go off the rails in a few weeks but in a politically satisfactory way. Mission accomplished would be declared and then we’d start all over again next quarter/year.

That is unless you are working under the SAFe framework in which case you cut out all that time wasted trying to execute on the impossible plan and just doing constant rolling, planning of planning