Tactical Resource Allocation

Here’s the hidden pipeline killer most sales teams ignore. ~43% of deals aren’t lost to competitors. They weren't even lost to "no decision." They were lost to competing initiatives. While you're focused on beating your direct competitors, the real battle is for budget and attention against entirely different priorities. Your prospect has 25 projects competing for limited resources. Only 5-7 will get funded. Is yours one of them? Most sales teams are completely blind to this reality. They track competitive wins and losses but ignore the bigger threat. Here's how innovative sellers are addressing this hidden pipeline killer: 1️⃣ Map the priority landscape They ask directly: "What are the top 3-5 initiatives your team has committed to this quarter?" If your solution isn't aligned with one of these, you're already losing. 2️⃣ Identify the zero-sum game For every "yes" to your solution, something else gets a "no." The best reps ask: "What would have to come off your plate to make room for this project?" 3️⃣ Quantify the cost of inaction When initiatives compete, ROI isn't enough. You need to establish the cost of NOT implementing your solution. "What happens if this problem continues for another year?" 4️⃣ Connect to strategic priorities Tactical projects get cut first. Strategic initiatives survive. Top performers always tie their solution to the company's publicized strategic goals. 5️⃣ Prepare for budget reallocation Innovative reps build relationships with the teams who control resource allocation. "Who else is competing for the same resources? How are those decisions made?" Your competition isn't just other vendors. It's everything else your buyer could spend time and money on instead.

35% of our accounts brought in just 12% revenue But we were treating them exactly like our biggest customers, stunting our growth We had fallen into the resource allocation trap: our monolith CS team was treating every customer identically. Each person managed 60+ accounts, juggling implementation, onboarding, ongoing support, AND relationship management for everyone from $4K to $40K customers. The result? Our high-value clients weren't getting the strategic attention they deserved, while our CS team burned out putting out fires across all account sizes. We were democratizing mediocrity instead of optimizing for impact. So we restructured everything: > Split CS responsibilities by expertise (technical vs. relationship management) > Created three tiers based on ACV with appropriate resource allocation > Let Account managers handle high-touch relationships for top accounts > Moved smaller accounts to efficient self-serve support with enhanced documentation Our enterprise clients finally got the white-glove experience they paid for, and our smaller accounts got faster, more efficient support. Win-win. What's your approach to customer success resource allocation? #B2B #CustomerService #GTM #Factors

Portfolio thinking isn't one-size-fits-all. I had an amazing conversation with Oji Udezue and Ezinne Udezue on this week's Product Thinking Podcast, and one insight really hit home: your resource allocation should shift dramatically based on where your company stands. Here's what resonates with leadership when you're trying to balance immediate needs with future innovation. For established companies doing well? Maybe it's 40% on current priorities, 60% investing in the future. You can afford to think long-term because you're not fighting for survival. But for younger companies or those facing market pressure? Flip that script entirely. We're talking 70% on the next 12-18 months, 20% on near-term opportunities, and maybe 10% on moonshots. The reality is harsh but true: if you can't secure the next six months, there might be nothing left to secure. I've seen too many product leaders get stuck using static portfolio rules that don't account for context. The key is being crisp about how much you can afford to invest in each horizon without trading away your future—or your present. As Ezinne puts it, this takes the conversation into "mature territory." Instead of arguing about tech debt in product language, frame it as "assuring our future" and "taking care of things that will cause us to stumble." That shift in language? It changes everything. The market has created so much uncertainty that 18-month strategic planning can seem irrelevant to CEOs worried about making it through the next quarter. How are you adjusting your portfolio thinking for today's reality? What allocation feels right for your company's current situation?

There’s been a lot of discussion in the CPO and product management circles I built around prioritization, specifically, how portfolios are being managed and where resources should go. One framework I recommend is the BCG matrix. It’s a simple two-by-two: product contribution to the bottom line on one axis, potential for growth on the other. If a product is low value and low growth potential, that’s a dog. Cut it, there’s no return on investing there. If it’s low value today but has high growth potential, that’s an experiment. Test, hypothesize, and validate. This is where your future stars can emerge. If it’s high value and high growth potential, that’s your star. Double down with resources, because it’s delivering now and can deliver even more. And finally, if it’s high value but low growth potential, that’s your cash cow. Maintain and support with sales and customer success, but don’t over-invest. It’s already optimized. This is the kind of thinking CPOs need for effective resource allocation: balancing today’s returns with tomorrow’s opportunities. Curious how others are approaching this, where do you see most companies getting it wrong in portfolio prioritization? #productmanagement #cpothoughts #portfoliomanagement #leadership

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱-𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 The most effective technology organizations share specific structural characteristics – regardless of industry or size. These structural patterns remain primarily invisible on conventional organizational charts but consistently separate high-performance technology organizations from their average-performing peers. Here are the five structural secrets that enable world-class technology execution: 𝟭. 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆-𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘃𝘀. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁-𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 Average organizations structure around projects, constantly reforming teams as initiatives change. Elite organizations build stable teams around enduring business capabilities, creating deep domain expertise and institutional knowledge. When one financial services firm shifted from project-based to capability-based teams, their deployment frequency increased 4x while defects decreased by 60%. 𝟮. 𝗧-𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 World-class organizations systematically develop T-shaped professionals—people with deep expertise in a core area and sufficient breadth to collaborate across domains. This isn't accidental. Top organizations create deliberate rotation programs and cross-functional experiences that intentionally build both dimensions. 𝟯. 𝗗𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Elite technology organizations hardcode innovation capacity into their operating model. The most effective approach I've observed is the 70/20/10 model:  • 70% on current business priorities  • 20% on adjacent opportunities  • 10% on transformational exploration This isn't discretionary – it's structurally enforced through resource allocation and performance goals. 𝟰. 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Average technology organizations interface with business stakeholders through formal channels, while world-class organizations embed business capability directly within technology teams. One healthcare company placed experienced clinicians directly in development teams, eliminating the translation layer between business needs and technical implementation. The result? A 62% reduction in requirements churn and 40% faster time-to-market. 𝟱. 𝗗𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Elite organizations implement quarterly (or even monthly) resource reallocation processes rather than annual planning cycles. This creates the organizational agility to respond rapidly to market changes. One retail organization increased its resource reallocation frequency from annual to quarterly and saw a 28% improvement in strategic initiative completion within 18 months. 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑟: 𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑜𝑛'𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑦 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠.

How I'd prioritize fraud attacks with limited resources I'd stop doing this: — Equal resources for all threats — Reacting to every alert — Daily priority shifts — Making promises about low-impact projects I'd start doing this: 1. Impact Mapping — Daily revenue at risk per attack — Customer impact scores — Resource cost per investigation Simple math: $100K primary threat > $20K secondary threats 2. Resource Allocation — 70% on primary threat — 20% on emerging patterns — 10% on quick wins 3. Automation Triage Part A) Auto-rules for low-risk attacks Part B) Focus analysts on complex patterns TLDR: Focus beats fragmentation