Warning: Excessive buzzwords may cause blank stares. Speak human, not robot!
Theory is useful, but only when people can relate to it.
Prioritization and value creation often feel like bingo. The real issue is that the foundation isn’t strong enough. Company strategy feels distant, and product strategy becomes too broad and vague — creating very little ownership.
What I learned is that relevant market research, aligned with the right development stage, almost guarantees value creation. Priorities become fact-based — and more importantly, based on the right facts, in the right context, so we meet real needs and generate measurable market success.
This reminds me to step back, slow down, and look carefully at the first steps. Maybe more of us should put real weight on proper insight before running forward.
What’s your experience with this?
Every time I run an OKR workshop, there’s always someone (or several!) who gets stuck on the exact wording.-The definitions feel like strict recipes.
-Because the whole language is new, people stress, overanalyze, and quickly lose the big picture.
-Last but not least, they lose motivation and doubt the process.
OKRs for Dummies (by Paul Niven) reminded me of something simple but powerful:
You don’t need to get OKRs perfect from the start—just get them going.
Excuse my French: Don’t expect your first OKRs to be flawless.
Expect them to feel weird—and do them anyway.
Progress over perfection.
📘 Inspired by Paul Niven’s “OKRs for Dummies”
👉 How did your first OKR cycle feel?
I attended a meeting about the product trio today.
Honestly, it's striking how people settle for a poor compromise. The product trio meeting ends up becoming just another backlog refinement… and they seem to think that's good enough.
Sorry, but that really frustrates me.
We need to aim for the real deal – not settle for a light backlog refinement. In other words, don’t accept a poor compromise.
Use technology, like AI, for note-taking – not everyone needs to be in the room.
A product trio is not a meeting for clarifications – it’s a strategic arena. That makes it easier to engage, talk openly, and make good decisions.
More people doesn’t mean better. When others (like team leads or domain experts) want to join, it’s likely a sign of ownership – but we should ask: is this really about control?
And YES, you can absolutely have a product trio meeting even if you're working on a cross-functional system instead of a traditional “product.” As long as you’re developing something meant to create value – for users and for the organization – then it’s all good!
For me, the solution is that we need to coach people toward what we know works.
Set a goal based on the ideal state: We know what good product trio practice looks like – for example, as described by Marty Cagan: an empowered trio (PM, UX, Tech) that owns both the problem and the solution.
We need to explain what the ideal actually is: This is not about introducing a new meeting format or a lightweight version of backlog refinement. It’s about building a strategic arena for continuous discovery. Exploration. Progress will come naturally, as long as the trio works through relevant increments.
We need to “push them” – coach people into building strategy through practice: It’s okay to start small. BUT… don’t jump straight into “refinement light.” Establish a real trio mandate, with backing from management. We can work with team leads and domain experts to clarify roles and avoid control need disguised as “involvement.”
More people is not better. Let’s use technology – send meeting notes instead. Not everyone needs to be in the room all the time. They can rephrase their input quickly with AI. That allows the trio to work focused and with accountability.
Truth is, we do know how to make this work.
So my final advice: if we’re not aligned across the org, or don’t get full support – c’est la vie.
We can advocate for our ideas, but still move forward where we are.
Or, said differently: better to create than to wait.
Coaching with AI - The glory road
Are you ready for a new wave in agile methodology?
Today’s AI tools can analyze backlogs, suggest priorities, and even detect workflow bottlenecks faster than you can say “Salut!” That’s where the Human-AI Collaboration Coach steps in 💪
Instead of pushing manual tasks, we can focus on strategic alignment and help individuals feel empowered.
The coach’s role is to guide teams in effectively prompting AI, interpreting insights, and shaping a collaborative environment where humans remain in control. In a nuttshell: AI evolves, we do too.
Embrace the suck, breath in courage, breath out fear....We have the power to make organization thrive in this age of AI.
Ready to roll? The future is maintenant 🙄
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly connected to our workplace tools, teams can develop the competencies needed by getting product owners working hands-on with AI.
PO. should learn prompting within their domain area of expertise. This foundational skill will build confidence and an understanding of what AI can and not do. With these constantly evolving tools, the product owner acts as a facilitator in human-in-the-loop processes. For example, imagine a cross functional team working on a product. What's in it for the PO? An AI agent could analyze a backlog and suggest prioritization based on past trends and team velocity on a cross-functional team that's on Kanban with all standard meeting ceremonies. It may create insights. Identifying bottlenecks in workflow or flag tasks deviating from lead time standards of the team during daily stand-ups.
May be this task, this transition, could be allocated to an agile coach or whatever you want to call that role. May it could be a AI-Enabled Transformation Coach og AI enbaling coach....we'll see :)
Anyway: They key, I believe the adoption of AI, the collaboration of humans with AI is critical. This is how and why we become enablers of organizational impact.
