The problem this solves
A good vision creates a new problem. Everything now sounds worth building, and everyone wants their part first.
Priority disputes are arguments about invisible pictures. Two people say “that's more important” and mean entirely different things, because each is holding a different mental model of effort, value and risk — and neither has said theirs out loud.
You cannot resolve that by discussion. You resolve it by making the pictures visible and letting people point at them.
Move one — zoom in
“Zoom in for me. What's the single most impactful chunk of our vision we could deliver in the next three to six months? Something that proves the idea rather than completes it.”
Two things are doing work there. Chunk of our vision forces candidates to come from the vision rather than from the room. And proves rather than completes gives people permission to propose something small.
Move two — put the argument on a wall
A two-by-two: business impact against effort. Every candidate goes on it, placed by the room, argued about while it is being placed.
- High impact, low effort — do this now
- High impact, high effort — the real conversation
- Low impact, low effort — later, cheaply
- Low impact, high effort — the one somebody will defend anyway
The matrix is not the decision. It is the thing that makes the decision discussable. Once positions are on a wall, people stop arguing about priority and start arguing about placement — which is a far more productive argument, because it is about something specific.
And if you do have to show the list — get it said out loud.
Reading a candidate to the room is not the same as the room agreeing to it. Put it up, then wait for somebody to restate it in their own words, and for at least one other person to push back or add to it. Only then is it theirs.
Because if it stays in your wording, you will be quoted as the author of it — and the first time it is questioned, everyone will look at you rather than at the person accountable for the outcome. That is a bad place for a Scrum Master to be standing, and it is entirely avoidable.
The prompt
Use it to prepare candidates, never to rank them. The amber parts are the ones you replace.
I am the Scrum Master, preparing a Product Goal selection workshop. I am NOT choosing the goal — the Product Owner does that, in front of the room, or he will not defend it later. Give me candidates for them to place on a matrix and argue about. CONTEXT Business drivers: [paste them, with success outcomes] Product Vision: [paste the filled frame, not just the polished sentence] Horizon: [e.g. three to six months] Team: [size, and any known constraints] Already proposed: [candidates people have suggested, in their words] PRODUCE Five to seven candidate capabilities, each one a chunk of the vision that could be delivered inside the horizon. For each candidate: 1. NAME — one line, an outcome, not a feature list. 2. WHICH VISION PHRASE IT DELIVERS — quote the specific part of the vision frame it comes from. If a candidate traces to no phrase in the vision, do not include it. 3. IMPACT — one sentence on what changes for the business if this ships and nothing else does. 4. EFFORT SIGNALS — not an estimate. Name the things that would make this expensive: an external system, an unfamiliar technology, a decision nobody has made yet, a dependency on another team. 5. WHAT IT PROVES — a goal should test an assumption, not just deliver value. Name the assumption this candidate would prove or disprove. ALSO PRODUCE One candidate that is obviously wrong for this horizon — too large, or too far from the drivers. Label it clearly. Rooms calibrate faster when they have something easy to reject first. And flag any candidate that would be attractive to the room for political rather than strategic reasons: somebody's pet idea, a feature a competitor announced, a thing that demos well and delivers little. CONSTRAINTS Do not rank them. Do not recommend one. Do not place them on the matrix — that is the room's job, and doing it for them removes the only part that matters. Every candidate must be deliverable inside the horizon.
What it produced for Beauty Spot
Candidates for a three-to-six month horizon, each traced to a phrase in the vision frame.
The forum is the one that matters here. In the book it was my own idea, and Alex cut it — which is the outcome you want, because a goal the Product Owner has pruned himself is a goal he will defend when somebody senior pushes back.
The prompt flagging it as politically attractive is useful preparation. It is not useful in the room. Never say “the model thinks this one is a pet idea” — put it on the matrix with the others and let its position make the argument.
The part that decides whether this works
Somebody in that room has a favourite. Often it is you.
The best cut is the one they make themselves. A Product Owner who removes his own idea from the goal has done something no amount of your persuasion could achieve — and he will defend that goal afterwards, because it is his.
So when a candidate lands bottom-right on the matrix, do not rescue it and do not kill it. Ask:
“So where does that leave it for this goal?”
Then stop talking. The silence is the tool.
Cutting something from a Product Goal is not deleting it. It goes back to the Product Backlog, visible, competing on merit next time. Say that out loud in the room. It is the sentence that makes people willing to let go of things.
The homework applies here too.
Everything in this session lands better if you already know where the sector is going and how this client arrived where they are — the mergers, the exits, the restructure nobody mentions. It is what lets you hear what is underneath a stakeholder's first answer.
There's a research prompt for it on the business drivers page.
Running the session
Before
Candidates come from the vision, not from you. If you cannot trace a candidate to a phrase in the vision frame, it does not go on the wall.
In the room
Zoom-in question. Let the room propose first. Draw the matrix. Have them place their own candidates. Argue about placement, not about priority.
Draft the goal from what survives — and have the Product Owner say it in his own words before anyone writes it down.
After
Close the loop upwards: “Does this synchronise with our vision, or do you see anything that should change?” Asking whether the vision needs to move is what makes this inspect-and-adapt rather than a decision.
Limits
A model can generate plausible candidates. It cannot tell you which one the CFO has already privately vetoed, or which one the team tried in 2023.
And note what this stage is not. Only the Product Goal is Scrum. The matrix, the candidate list, the horizon — all practice. Useful practice, but do not present it as framework.
The same pattern elsewhere
Wrong-list-first works anywhere a group has to produce something from a blank page.