The Roadmap That Outgrew Its Evidence
A B2B scheduling SaaS has 2,400 paying accounts. The product team maintains a single prioritized backlog. Sales has logged 61 requests for a native Slack integration over 18 months, and the CEO has promised it to three enterprise prospects. Meanwhile, usage analytics show that 38% of active users export schedules to CSV weekly and re-import them into spreadsheets, a workflow no one has formally requested. Engineering estimates Slack at 6 engineer-weeks and a CSV round-trip improvement at 2 engineer-weeks. The team has 8 engineer-weeks before a hard commitment to ship a compliance feature. The head of sales argues the 61 requests are the clearest signal the team has.
1. Using a product-management framing, evaluate whether the 61 Slack requests are strong evidence of customer value. What would you want to know before treating them as a priority signal?
Read the worked answer
Request counts measure stated demand, not validated value. Key gaps:
- Who is asking? If the 61 come from a handful of accounts or from sales relaying prospect wish-lists, the signal is concentrated and may reflect deal pressure, not broad need.
- What is the workaround? Users already solve scheduling-to-Slack somehow (copy/paste, email). The cost of the current workaround predicts willingness to adopt and pay.
- Is the request a proxy? "Slack integration" often means "notifications where I already am" - a narrower, cheaper job than a full integration.
- Segment fit. 61 requests against 2,400 accounts is ~2.5%; if those accounts are disproportionately high-ACV, that changes the calculus.
The CSV behavior is the stronger signal because it is revealed behavior: 38% of active users perform a costly manual workaround every week. Observed behavior with a real cost beats stated preference. I would not dismiss the Slack requests - the CEO promise is a real constraint - but I would reframe the question as "what job are these users trying to do?" before committing 6 engineer-weeks.
2. Given 8 engineer-weeks and a hard compliance deadline, recommend an allocation and justify it in terms of risk and evidence.
Read the worked answer
A defensible allocation: 2 weeks CSV round-trip, 2–3 weeks a scoped Slack notification (not full integration), remainder reserved for compliance.
Reasoning:
- Compliance is non-negotiable - it consumes the tail of the window regardless, so the discretionary budget is really ~4–5 weeks, not 8. Plan against the smaller number.
- CSV work is low-risk, high-evidence. 38% observed behavior, 2 weeks, and it likely reduces churn among the core base. Ship it first; it is the cheapest validated bet.
- Slack is high-visibility, lower-evidence. Rather than a 6-week full build, scope to the underlying job (notify me in my team's chat tool) and time-box it. This honors the CEO's promise without betting the window on unvalidated scope.
- Make the trade explicit. Present the CEO with the cost: full Slack means dropping CSV and eating compliance risk. Executives can override, but they should override a stated trade-off, not an invisible one.
The failure mode to avoid is treating the loudest request as the most valuable one. Evidence quality, not volume, should set the order.