Prioritising when teams are dealing with multiple kinds of demand.

Earlier this week I talked about the problem of prioritising when teams are dealing with multiple kinds of demand.

The mistake I see most often is trying to rank everything in a single list.

A better question is: how much focus does each demand stream need right now?

New features.
Fixes.
Technical debt.
Security and integrity.
Operational work.

Rather than arguing about individual items, I help teams agree a selection policy across those streams.

That policy determines what kind of work is allowed into the system, and in what proportion.

As you approach a release, you might deliberately reduce new feature work and focus on finishing and stabilising.
If features are largely done, you might stop pulling new work entirely and focus on security, performance, or hardening.

The important part is that the selection can change, without needing to change the underlying priorities.
That’s almost impossible when everything is forced into a single ranked list across very different demand streams.

With a clear selection policy, you can adapt what you pull into the team based on proximity, risk, and context, while keeping strategic intent stable.

Once that policy is clear, pulling work becomes much easier. You’re no longer negotiating item by item. You’re selecting deliberately.

This is the point where teams usually ask for help, not because they can’t prioritise, but because making these trade offs explicit takes confidence and support.

It’s exactly the kind of work I do through Agile Second Opinion, helping teams and leaders protect focus and keep delivery moving.

If you want a starting point, the Flow Check helps make these pressures visible:
https://app.agilesecondopinion.com/flow-check

And if you want a second opinion on how this applies in your context:
https://www.agilesecondopinion.com 

#leadership
#teams
#delivery
#waysofworking