How to avoid one-dimensional roadmaps

Why teams fixate on a single dimension

Many teams struggle to compare ideas from different sources in a structured way. Without a clear system to evaluate opportunities, decisions often go to whoever speaks the loudest or whatever feels most urgent. If there's no framework to weigh a customer request against an idea from leadership, the highest-ranking person's opinion usually wins by default. This is a classic authority bias, where decisions favor hierarchy instead of evidence. Without an agreed way to balance different factors like user data, business impact, and technical feasibility, prioritization becomes random. If you don't take a balanced approach, you clearly risk working on the wrong things.

Teams are often distracted by high-profile ideas or trendy technology. An executive hears a buzzword like "AI" or "blockchain," and suddenly, the roadmap must include it. We can observe this at the moment every day with another company. This "shiny object syndrome" creates constant distractions, leading teams to chase the latest fad at the expense of solid plans. A flashy feature or a competitor’s new launch can distort priorities, sending resources toward the "idea of the week" instead of improvements that actually matter, like fixing usability issues or addressing technical debt. The urgent tends to overpower the important.

Personal biases and Internal politics

Human nature plays a huge role in product decisions. Everyone has personal preferences, biases, and agendas that influence priorities:

• Confirmation & Ownership Bias: It’s easy to become attached to our own ideas. A product manager might push for a feature simply because they came up with it, losing sight of whether it's actually valuable for users or the business. Without realizing it, they might argue for an idea just because they want it to be right.
• Availability Bias: People tend to prioritize what they hear most often, rather than what’s actually representative. If a few vocal customers keep asking for the same thing, it might seem like a major demand, even if most users don’t care about it. The loudest voices don’t always reflect the biggest opportunities.
• Company Politics & Seniority Influence: Power dynamics matter. An influential executive can force a pet project onto the roadmap, regardless of its impact. Sales might demand a specific feature to close a deal, even if it’s not part of the long-term strategy. Internal politics often lead to decisions based on influence rather than merit.

The consequences of one-dimensional priorities

When teams rely too much on a single factor, whether it’s customer feedback, executive opinion, or a trendy new technology, the product suffers.

Here’s how:

• Missed Opportunities: Saying yes to one loud request often means saying no to several valuable but less obvious ones. Focusing on one big customer’s demand might help short-term revenue but delay a feature that would benefit a much larger group of users.
• Product Drift: A company that constantly chases new trends or bends to internal politics risks losing its core identity. The product becomes a patchwork of unrelated features rather than a cohesive solution.
• Team Morale and Credibility: When priorities keep shifting based on personal opinions rather than clear reasoning, product teams lose confidence. It becomes harder to justify decisions, making it seem like the roadmap is driven by favoritism or random whims rather than strategy.

Moving toward balanced decision-making

Escaping this trap requires a shift in how teams evaluate opportunities. Instead of relying on gut feelings or reacting to the loudest voices, here are some principles for better decision-making:

1. Always evaluate opportunities from multiple angles

Every idea should be judged using consistent criteria, such as:

• Does it solve a real user problem?
• How does it support business goals?
• What’s the expected impact versus the effort required?
• Does it align with the long-term product vision?

By asking these questions consistently, teams can compare different types of opportunities fairly. A customer request and an executive's idea can be weighed side by side using the same logic.

2. Balance your opportunity portfolio

Think about product priorities the way investors think about portfolios, spread your bets across different types of opportunities. For example:

• Incremental Improvements: Small usability fixes and refinements based on direct user feedback.
• Emerging Opportunities: Medium-risk bets based on industry trends or competitive gaps.
• Transformational Bets: Higher-risk, visionary projects that could redefine the product.

Maintaining a mix prevents overcommitting to one type of opportunity and ensures sustainable growth.

I wrote more about this here: https://blog.beyond.so/rethinking-product-prioritization-with-the-opportunity-spectrum

3. Encourage cross-functional input and transparency

Decisions improve when multiple perspectives are considered. Bring in input from sales, customer support, engineering, and design when evaluating priorities. Different teams see different problems and opportunities, and diverse perspectives help prevent blind spots.

Additionally, making prioritization processes more transparent builds trust. Open roadmap reviews, visible opportunity lists, or structured discussion tools help ensure that decisions are made based on clear reasoning rather than personal influence.

4. Use data to inform (but not replace) decisions

A well-rounded decision process relies on a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. That might include:

• User research and feedback trends
• Product usage analytics
• Market research and competitor insights
• Financial impact projections

Rather than making decisions purely from instinct or hearsay, gathering relevant data helps teams see the bigger picture and make more informed choices.

Philosophy over frameworks

There’s no single framework that will magically fix prioritization. Instead, it’s about adopting a philosophy that values balanced decision-making. The best product strategies don’t come from just listening to customers, just following the CEO’s vision, or just chasing market trends. Instead, great decisions come from weighing multiple perspectives and making deliberate, well-reasoned trade-offs.

By avoiding one-dimensional thinking and evaluating opportunities through multiple lenses, teams make better choices, ones that serve users, align with business goals, and contribute to long-term success. The companies that consistently make thoughtful prioritization decisions are the ones that build truly impactful products.