Cross-product team (Product, Design, Engineering, Analytics) metrics reviews š ! Everywhere Iāve worked, theyāve been handled differently. In some cases, they didnāt exist at all. The truth š ? None of the approaches were perfect at any company, but a few themes emerged as key in making them productive.
Efficacy of these meetings went beyond just showing up and presenting; it was rooted in shared ownership and follow-through with an eye towards learning and getting 1% better each meeting. š
A few tactical ideas on how to get there:
Cross-functional ownership š¤ . Include leads from every function that have a role in driving strategy and decision-making and rotate who represents the team each meeting. This helps the intra-team leaders focus on alignment in their narrative and learnings versus relying on a single function to bear the burden of āsuccessā (oftentimes the Product Manager.) Analysts should not be the sole owner of filling out the tracker or doing follow-up analysis. If the tracker is not filled out on time or accurately, this should come back on the team and not a specific discipline. If you find yourself repeatedly in this pattern, you might be in the āanalytics as serviceā anti-pattern which is another topic for another day!
Close the loop with clarity ā° . Questions will undoubtedly come up throughout the meeting from other leads or senior leaders. Be ruthless in clarifying whether these questions are āidea generatorsā or āin need of responseā so that teams donāt spin their wheels answering questions that donāt immediately help surface generative learnings or potentially shift strategy. For any question that is deemed the latter, ensure you have a consistent deadline for when answers should be provided so that the loop is closed. Over time, reflect on this to ensure the right questions are prioritized for this motion.
Keep the list of items to review concise, but the inputs holistic š . Each team should likely have as few metrics as possible to review; the longer the list, the easier it can be to gloss over the numbers and miss key learnings (think: North Stars, key strategic outcomes, and maybe one or two key SOOs/SLAs that are only discussed when not on track.)
Push a culture of metrics and goals as a source of learning, not promotions or success delegation š§ . The biggest anti-pattern Iāve witnessed is when teams and leaders push metrics and goals primarily as an indicator of team or individual performance. These can be intertwined, but the purpose of these meetings tends to be most effective when the goal is for each team to be able to reflect back and say āwhat did I learn about my product ecosystem today that will help influence how I think about and plan for the future?ā This leads to proactive thought leadership and increased ownership. A success-oriented meeting can lead to pointing of fingers, lack of ownership, reactive mindsets, and overall degradation meeting efficacy.