Fewer Ideas: An Unconventional Approach To Creativity

Remember that last team brainstorming session where you were supposed to generate a long list of brilliant ideas? How many of those ideas actually stuck? Did leadership act on any of those ideas? In this article, Eric Olive challenges the value of exercises like brainstorming and explores more effective methods for sparking creativity to improve design and enhance the user’s experience.

What do the Suez Canal, the Roman Goddess Libertas, and ancient Egyptian sculptures have in common? The Statue of Liberty.

Surprising? Sure, but the connections make sense when you know the story as recounted by Columbia University psychologist Sheena Iyengar on a recent episode of Hidden Brain.

The French artist Frédéric Bartholdi drew inspiration from Egyptian sculptures when he submitted a design for a sculpture that was going to be built at the Suez Canal.

That plan for the Suez Canal sculpture fell through, leading Bartholdi and a friend to raise money to create a sculpture as a gift to the United States. Bartholdi designed the sculpture after studying the intricacies of the Roman Goddess Libertas, a significant female icon in the late 1800s. He also modeled the statue on Isabelle Boyer, who was 36 years old in 1878. Finally, Bartholdi incorporated his mother’s face into the proposed design. The result? The Statue of Liberty.

Bartholdi’s unorthodox yet methodical approach yielded one of the most famous sculptures in the world.

How did he do it? Did he let his mind run wild? Did he generate endless lists or draw hundreds of plans for each sculpture? Was he a 19th-century brainstorming advocate?The Problem

“Yes,” would be the answer of many innovation experts today. From stand-ups to workshops and templates to whiteboards, getting the creative juices flowing often involves brainstorming along with the reminder that “there are no bad ideas” and “more ideas are better.” Practiced and repeated so often, this approach to creativity must work, right?

Wrong, says Iyengar. Too many ideas hinder creativity because the human brain can only manage a few ideas at once.

“Creativity requires you to have a bunch of pieces and to not only be able to have them in your memory bank in a way that you can kind of say what they are, but to be able to keep manipulating them in lots of different ways. And that means, you know, in order for your mind to be able to be facile enough to do that, it is going to need fewer pieces.”

— Hidden Brain, “How to be more creative”

Evidence for this view includes a study published by Anne-Laure Sellier of HEC Paris and Darren W. Dahl of British Columbia. The authors compared knitting and crafting in two experimental studies. The results suggested that restricting the number of materials and other creative inputs enhanced the creativity of study participants. The reason was the participants’ ability to enjoy the creative process more, which enhanced their creative output.

A few years ago, I had a similar experience while planning a series of studies. As with any initiative, identifying the scope was key. The problem? Rather than choose from two or three well-defined options, the team discussed several themes at once and then piled on a series of ideas about the best format for presenting these themes: Lists, tables, graphs, images, and flowcharts. The results looked something like this.

A messy whiteboard is not inherently bad. The question is whether brainstorming results like these block or enhance creativity. If the board above seems overwhelming, it’s worth considering a more structured process for creativity and idea generation.

The Solution: Three Ways To Enhance Creativity

Just as Bartholdi approached his designs methodically, designers today can benefit from limits and structure.

In this article, I’ll shed light on three techniques that enhance creativity:

Tip 1: Controlled Curiosity

In today’s world, it’s easy to fall into the trap of believing that creativity comes from simply exposing yourself to a flood of information — scrolling endlessly, consuming random facts, and filling your mind with disconnected data points. It’s a trap because mindless absorption of information without understanding the purpose or deeper context won’t make you more creative.

True creativity is fueled by curiosity, the drive to know more. Curiosity is powerful because it acts as an internal compass, guiding our search for knowledge with intention.

When you’re curious, you don’t just passively take in information; you actively seek it with a purpose.

You have a question in mind, a direction, a reason that shapes the way you explore. This sense of purpose transforms information from a chaotic influx of data into structured, meaningful insights that the brain can organize, categorize, and retrieve when needed.

In my role as a user experience (UX) researcher, I recently needed to review 100+ internal and industry research papers to establish and understand what was already known about a specific subject. The challenge was how to sort, organize, and absorb this information without feeling overwhelmed. Was it better to leverage AI tools like Gemini or ChatGPT to summarize this body of knowledge? How reliable would these summaries be? Was it better to read the executive summaries and copy a few themes to include in a synopsis of all of these papers? What was the best way to organize this information? Which tool should I use to summarize and organize?

Faced with a tight deadline and mounting stress, I paused to reassess. To avoid spiraling, I asked: What are the core objectives of this research review? I then defined three key goals:

1. Extract three to five themes to present to several internal teams.
2. Craft a research plan pegged to these themes.
3. Leverage these themes to inform a series of screens that the design team would create to test with real users.

With clearly defined objectives, I had a purpose. This purpose allowed me to channel my innate curiosity because I knew why I was wading through so much material and who would read and review the synthesis. Curiosity drove me to explore this large body of research, but purpose kept me focused.

Curiosity is the drive to learn more. Creativity requires curiosity because, without this drive, designers and researchers are less likely to explore new ideas or new approaches to problem-solving. The good news is that research and design attract the naturally curious.

The key lies in transforming curiosity into focused exploration. It’s less about the volume of information absorbed and more about the intent behind the inquiry, the depth of engagement, and the strategic application of acquired knowledge.

“

Purposeful curiosity is the difference between drowning in a sea of knowledge and navigating it with mastery.

Tip 2: Imposing Constraints And Making A Plan

Just as purpose makes it easier to focus, constraint also contributes to creativity. Brainstorming 50 ideas might seem creative but can actually prove more distracting than energizing. Limiting the number of ideas is more productive.

“Some people think that having constraints means they can’t be creative. The research shows that people are more creative when there are constraints.”

— Dr. Susan Weinschenk, “The Role of Creativity in Design”

The point is not to limit creativity and innovation but to nurture it with structure. Establishing constraints enhances creativity by focusing idea generation around a few key themes.

Here are two ways to focus on idea generation:

1. During meetings and workshops, how might we (HMW) statements help concentrate discussion while still leaving room for a variety of ideas? For example, “How might we condense this 15-step workflow without omitting essential information?”
2. Identify the problem and conduct two exercises to test solutions. For example, three customer surveys conducted over the past six months show a consistent pattern: 30% of customers are dissatisfied with their call center experience, and time-on-call has increased over the same six-month period. Divide the team into two groups.
   • Group 1 writes two new versions of the greeting customer service representatives (CSRs) use when a customer calls. The next step is an A/B test.
   • Group 2 identifies two steps to remove from the current CSR script. The next step is a trial run with CSRs to record time-on-call and customer satisfaction with the call.

“Constraint” can be negative, such as a restriction or limitation, but it can also refer to exhibiting control and restraint.

By exercising restraint, you and your team can cultivate higher-quality ideas and concentrate on solutions. Rather than generate 50 ideas about how to reconfigure an entire call center setup, it is more productive to focus on two metrics: time-on-task and the customer’s self-rated satisfaction when contacting the call center.

By channeling this concentrated energy towards well-defined challenges, your team can then effectively pursue innovative solutions for two closely related issues.

Tip 3: Look To Other Domains

Other domains or subject areas can be a valuable source of innovative solutions. When facing a challenging design problem, limiting ideas but reaching beyond the immediate domain is a powerful combination.

The high-stakes domain of airplane design provides a useful case study of how to simultaneously limit ideas and look to other domains to solve a design problem. Did you know that Otto Lilienthal, a 19th-century design engineer, was the first person to make repeated, successful flights with gliders?

Maybe not, but you’ve likely heard of the Wright brothers, whose work launched modern aviation. Why? Lilienthal’s work, while essential, relied on a design based on a bird’s wings, requiring the person flying the glider to move their entire body to change direction. This design ultimately proved fatal when Lilienthal was unable to steer out of a nosedive and crashed.

The Wright brothers were bike mechanics who leveraged their knowledge of balance to create a steering mechanism for pilots. By looking outside the “flight domain,” the Wright brothers found a way to balance and steer planes and ultimately transformed aviation.

In a similar fashion, Bartholdi, the French artist who sculpted the Statue of Liberty, did not limit himself to looking at statues in Paris. He traveled to Egypt, studied coins and paintings, and drew inspiration from his mother’s face.

Designers seeking inspiration should step away from the screen to paint, write a poem, or build a sculpture with popsicle sticks. In other words, paint with oils, not pixels; write with ink, not a keyboard; sculpt with sticks, not white space.

On its face, seeking inspiration from other disciplines would seem to contradict Tip 2 above — impose constraints. Examined from another angle, however, imposing constraints and exploring domains are complementary techniques.

Rather than list ten random ideas on a whiteboard, it’s more productive to focus on a few solutions and think about these solutions from a variety of angles. For example, recently, I found myself facing a high volume of ideas, source material, and flow charts. While organizing this information was manageable, distilling it into a form others could absorb proved challenging.

Rather than generate a list of ten ways to condense this information, I took the dog for a walk and let my eyes wander while strolling through the park. What did I see when my eyes lit upon barren trees? Branches. And what do flow charts do? They branch into different directions.

Upon finishing the walk, I jumped back online and began organizing my source material into a series of branched flows. Was this wildly innovative? No. Was this the first time I had drawn flowcharts with branches? Also no. The difference in this case was the application of the branching solution for all of my source material, not only the flow charts. In short, a walk and a nudge from nature’s design helped me escape the constraints imposed by a two-dimensional screen.

Stepping away from the screen is, of course, good for our mental and physical health. The occasional light bulb moment is a bonus and one I’m happy to accept.

Conclusion

Yet these moments alone are not enough. You must channel inspiration by applying practical techniques to move forward with design and analysis lest you become overwhelmed by so many ideas that you become paralyzed and unable to make a decision.

To avoid paralysis and reduce the chances of wasting time, I’ve argued against brainstorming, endless lists, and wall-to-wall post-its. Instead, I’ve proposed three practical techniques to boost creativity.

Controlled curiosity.

From brainstorming to endless scrolling, exposing yourself to high volumes of information is a trap because absorbing information without understanding the purpose or deeper context won’t make you more creative.

The solution lies in transforming curiosity into focused exploration. Purposeful curiosity allows you to explore, think, and identify solutions without drowning in a sea of information.

Imposing constraints.

Brainstorming long lists of ideas might seem creative, but can actually prove more distracting than energizing.

The solution is to nurture creativity with structure by limiting the number of ideas under consideration.

This structure enhances creativity by focusing idea generation around a few key themes.

Look beyond your immediate domain.

Otto Lilienthal’s fatal glider crash shows what can happen when solutions are examined through the single lens of one subject area.

The solution is to concentrate on innovative solutions for a single issue while reflecting on the problem from various perspectives, such as two-dimensional design, three-dimensional design, or design in nature.

Resources

• How to be More Creative, Hidden Brain Media
• “Focus Creative Success is Enjoyed through Restricted Choice” by Annie Laure-Sellier and Darren W. Dahl

“Product Kondo”: A Guide To Evaluating Your Organizational Product Portfolio

 It starts with good intentions — a quick fix here, a shiny feature there — and suddenly, your product portfolio’s bursting at the seams. In this guide, we walks you through a “Product Kondo” exercise to declutter, realign, and spark some serious product joy for both your business and your customers.

When building digital products, thinking in terms of single features and urgent client needs can lead to a large portfolio of products with high maintenance costs. At first, this approach makes sense, as you’re offering new value to customers and keeping important clients happy. But, over time, you often end up with a collection of highly bespoke solutions that ignore two key principles:

1. Your product portfolio should cater to your core customer segments and meet their needs.
2. Your product portfolio should balance the short-term benefits of bespoke solutions against long-term maintenance costs while aligning with your business strategy.

So the reality often looks like this: large legacy product portfolios have grown over time, and the effort required to clean up is hard to prioritize against other seemingly more pressing topics.

This article highlights the benefits of going through a clean-up exercise and explains how to conduct a “Product Kondo” exercise on your product portfolio. Like Marie Kondo, the Japanese master of cleaning up closets and houses to keep what brings you joy, discard what you no longer need, and organize what you keep into a workable order, this exercise seeks to identify the most valuable items for both your business and your customers. This article discusses the issues with large legacy portfolios and explains how to simplify and organize them into customer-centric portfolios, with stakeholder buy-in throughout the process.

Overflowing Product Cupboards

There are many reasons why an organization might end up with a large legacy product portfolio, which, similar to the cupboards organized by Marie Kondo, is in dire need of a good clean-up. Whether your portfolio is overgrown from crafting bespoke solutions for important enterprise clients (a common B2B scenario), from testing new features with a B2C customer segment, or various other possible reasons, incentive structures chiefly among them — overgrown portfolios are very common. And the problem is they need to not just be developed in the first place, they need to be maintained, and that gets ever more costly and complex over time.

While this might be oversimplified, the general logic holds true: the more bespoke your product portfolio, the harder it is to keep clean and tidy. Or as Marie Kondo would say, “In a messy cupboard, it’s impossible to find the pieces that truly bring you joy.” In this context, joy translates into:

1. Value for the customer,
2. Revenue for the business.

If you want to work out how to find that joy in your product portfolio again, this article outlines the practical steps taken for such a “Product Kondo” exercise in a global not-for-profit organization with a large legacy portfolio, including the moment when theory met reality, and the learnings from this effort.

We conducted this clean-up in a globally distributed organization undergoing a wider transformation. For more than 20 years, the organization had been gathering and distributing data in various formats: from raw to modelled data, scores, and advanced data products. However, it had not been focused on customer centricity nor regarded products as strategic differentiators. This meant that key indicators of success for product organizations had never been tracked. So the challenge was to map out and simplify the portfolio with very few indicators available to track product performance (e.g., user analytics data).

So, how do you start understanding where the value lies in your portfolio and what factors are driving this portfolio clean-up in the first place?

As part of the wider organizational transformation, one consideration was to simplify the product portfolio in order to reduce maintenance costs and the technical effort required for a planned migration to a new platform. Another important concern was to align future development with the newly developed business strategy. Therefore, reducing costs and planning for the future were the key drivers.

The “Product Kondo” Portfolio Clean-up

So if you find yourself in a similar situation, where you have a complex legacy portfolio, and where across many years features have been added, but hardly anything has ever been sunset, a “Product Kondo” clean-up, i.e., a cleaning out of your product cupboards, might be what’s needed.

To do that, it’s useful to go in with two ideas:

• Transparency about the need to simplify;
• Transparency about how decisions will be made, so teams are on board and able to contribute.

Getting buy-in and building a narrative everyone understands and sees as relevant is crucial when trying to clean up — especially in large companies, where you’ll always find someone who thinks “we need everything,” and the relative importance of different customer segments is unclear, with no accurate portfolio overview in place.

If you’re unclear about the state of your current portfolio, how do you know where to focus next strategically?

Not knowing where the highest value lies in your portfolio and how it all maps out as a whole has another implication: If you don’t know your current status quo, it’s hard to plan ahead and it’s equally hard to get out of the delivery mode many product organizations find themselves in, where you simply build what gets requested, but can’t act as a driver of future growth.

To organize a portfolio in order to define how to handle it going forward, while not having much information to base decisions on, the high-level approach was this:

1. Define the FOR WHOM (By building a user segmentation matrix).
2. Establish the STATUS QUO (By auditing previous attempts to map the portfolio).
3. Agree the HOW (By defining evaluation criteria & prioritisation).
4. Ensuring BUY-IN (through deep dives with key stakeholders and experts).

Note: Every company is different, especially regarding the information that’s available. So this is not an attempt at building the next framework or providing a one-size-fits-all approach to portfolio organization. Instead, it is a proposed solution for how to approach mapping out your current portfolio to start from a cleaner slate, with your customer segments in mind. These four areas of work should be considered as necessary when attempting a “product kondo” exercise in your own organization.

1. For Whom? Building A User Segmentation Matrix

First things first, if you’re not clear about your primary and secondary customer segments, then this is where to start. If you want teams to be able to focus, it’s crucial to define priorities. Identifying key external user groups/segments, understanding their differences, and assessing their importance to the organization’s overall business success is a great start. Building a user segmentation matrix is a great foundation for prioritizing efforts and aligning services/products around user needs.

Apart from establishing the key jobs-to-be-done, goals, and pain points for each customer segment, it fosters transparency around the following factors:

• Thinking from a customer perspective.
• Considering measurable data like user numbers, size of accounts, and revenue.
• The fact that some user groups are more valuable to an organization than others, hence should be ranked higher in a prioritization effort.

How to define user segments, with different levels of relevance to the organization and its future strategy, is described in more detail here. It was the initial mental model shared across teams prior to starting this portfolio simplification effort.

Next up: Understanding the current status quo and building a “source of truth” of everything considered under the remit of the product organization. Because you need a clear reference point to get started.

2. Status Quo: Auditing And Defining What To Measure

To determine the best approach and size the task ahead, understanding what had been done before was crucial, so as not to reinvent the wheel. It was clear that the organization had a sprawling product catalogue that contained a varied mix of different items, lacking clear definitions and categorization.

The initial audit was about updating the product catalog that had been assembled three years earlier and adding information that would be relevant for assessing relative value. As revenue, user numbers, or development effort had never been tracked, this is where we gathered additional insights on each item from the product owners (POs) responsible.

The assessment criteria were partly taken from the previous effort (criteria 1-9), and further criteria were added to obtain a more holistic picture (criteria 10-15). See the table below.

3. How? Doing The Audit

In order to be transparent about decision-making, it was important to agree on the evaluation criteria and scoring with key stakeholders upfront and ensure every contributor understood that a lack of data would lead to low scores. To that end, we asked all 36 product owners (POs) to submit data for each product under their remit. As the organization had not previously tracked this information, the initial responses were often quite vague, and many cells were left blank.

To increase data quality and make data-based decisions, 1:1 interviews with POs allowed us to answer questions and build out “best guess” assumptions together in cases of missing data.

Note: While not technically perfect, we decided that moving forward with assumptions grounded in subject matter expertise, rather than completely missing data, would be preferable.

Lastly, some inputs like “automation potential” were hard to assess for less technical POs. Our approach here followed the product mindset that while it is important to make data-informed decisions, “done is better than perfect.” So once we had enough confidence in the picture that emerged, we proceeded with scoring in the interest of time.

As a side note regarding data quality: 1. Manually cleaning inputs throughout (e.g., removing duplicates) and 2. following up until clear inputs were provided, helped increase input quality. In addition, predefined ranges led to higher data quality than inputs requiring hard-to-quantify data, like, e.g., expected impact.

3.1. Scoring

Defining the scoring methodology upfront and getting stakeholders to align on the relevance of different criteria transparently was crucial for this work. Particularly keeping in mind that simplifying (in other words, reducing) the portfolio has an immediate impact on various teams, communicating openly about what is being done, how, and why is important, so everyone understands the longer-term goal: to reduce cost, maintenance, and prepare for future growth.

The image below illustrates the three stages that led to the prioritized list and score for each item.

Image 2: Overview of the Scoring methodology. (Large preview)

The outcome of this stage now ranked the business and user value for each data product, and the initial expectation was that this was the end of the portfolio cleanup. A list of all items ranked by their value to the business, so that, e.g., the bottom half could be cut and the rest migrated to the new technical platform in order of priority.

At least that was the theory, and this is where it met reality.

Dealing With Change Reality

Once the weighted list was ready and the whole portfolio was ranked, it became clear that what was considered the “Product portfolio” in fact consisted of 12 different types of items, and roughly 70% of them could not be considered actual products.

While inside the organization, everything was called a PRODUCT, it became clear that the types of items referred to as “products” were in fact a mixed bag of trackers, tables, graphs, extracts, data sets, dashboards, reports, tools, scoring, and so on. And many low-ranking internal-facing tools enabled highly relevant customer-facing products.

The list was essentially comparing “apples to oranges,” and that meant that simply cutting the bottom half of lower-scoring items would lead to the whole “house of cards” tumbling down, especially as a lot of items had dependencies on each other.

What To Do? #

First and foremost, we worked with leadership to explain the issue of missing categorization in the portfolio and the risks that cutting the lower-scoring half of the list would entail, especially due to the time pressures of the wider ongoing transformation effort.

Next, we proposed to work with key product owners and leaders to help categorize the portfolio correctly, in order to determine how best to handle each item going forward.

We used the following five buckets to enable sorting, with the intention of keeping the “other” category as small as possible.

“Buckets” used for categorization. (Large preview)

Aside from simplifying the terminology used, this categorization meant that each category could be handled differently in terms of future work.

For example, all raw data items would be automated, while the process around “low effort” data items didn’t have to be changed going forward, once it was clear how low the manual effort actually was. Notably, the categorization included a “Sunset/Stop” category to allow stakeholders to already move items there during the deep dives of their own volition, rather than through top-down decision making.

4. Getting Buy-in: Building Product Trees #

To get buy-in and allow for active contributions from subject matter experts, we planned workshops per customer segment (as defined by the user segmentation matrix — the initial starting point). Aside from organizing the portfolio items, these workshops allowed key people to be actively involved and thereby act as advocates for the future success of this work.

Using Miro boards to share all audit findings, goals, and the purpose of the clean-up, we conducted seven workshops overall. With 4–6 participants, we spent 3 hours categorizing all items per customer segment. In order to avoid groupthink, all participants were asked to cluster their part of the portfolio as part of the preparation.

The “product tree” concept, developed as an innovation game called “prune the product tree” by Luke Hohmann to organize features around customer needs, helped create a shared mental model among participants. In contrast to Hohmann, we applied the product tree concept here to organize the current portfolio logically and actively reduce it, rather than imagine new products.

In this context, the roots of the tree signified raw data, the tree trunk equated to modeled or derived data, with the crown of the tree signifying data products, and the outer branches were left for “other” items — to capture what could not be easily grouped but had to be included.

Product tree metaphor for categorization. (Large preview)

Grouping items in this way served a second purpose: to guide how to handle them in the future transformation effort. The plan was to automate raw data first, based on priority. While modeled or derived data would have to be checked for complexity to determine future handling. The actual data products identified would be crucial for the company’s future strategy and were to be reimagined with a product mindset going forward.

The tree metaphor worked well here, despite being used in a different way from its original context, as it provided a mental model for categorization. By clustering items, it was possible to better determine their value for each customer segment in the portfolio. According to the feedback gathered after each workshop, the joint mapping and visualization helped teams trust the process and feel actively involved.

Findings #

Analyzing the findings from the workshops revealed the complexity of this effort, with many different factors playing into the prioritization. To visualize this complexity, we used the following approach:

• Mapping out the product tree by swimlanes (as introduced in the workshops).
• Layering in usage across multiple segments (through color-coding).
• Adding the level of dependencies (through the type of frame around each item).
• Then, add the quantitative assessment and ranking through numbering and color-coding.

For each workshop, we cleaned up the boards, making sure to include crucial comments, especially those about future treatment, such as when a legal obligation to deliver would end.

Organizing data items into swimlanes, following the product tree metaphor. (Large preview)

Using swimlanes helped participants organize data items, while the tree metaphor clarified the interconnectedness and dependencies between items. Especially in the context of data products, this makes a lot of sense, e.g., with raw data being at the root of all other possible versions of “products” derived from them, whether these might be scores, modelled data, automated reports, or more advanced products.

Doing this Product Kondo exercise also helped the teams and all stakeholders gain a shared understanding of how the portfolio was structured for each customer segment. The visualization in swimlanes and with colour-coding and various different frames provided a way to illustrate the complex reality that the initial ranked list format wasn’t able to clarify.

Only once this portfolio mapping was in place, and once quantitative as well as qualitative insights were combined, was it possible to make good decisions about how to handle each item going forward.

For example, all items in the “raw data” category would be automated as part of the wider transformation effort, while all items in the “sunset” category would definitely not be considered for migrating over to the new tech platform. Moreover, the items grouped under “low effort” would continue to be handled manually, while all items grouped under “derived & modelled” would have to be assessed further by a team of tech leads to determine whether or not they might be automated in the future. The items most relevant for the future business strategy of this organization were those grouped under “data products”, i.e., those products that would have to be re-imagined with clear customer needs in mind, based on the user segmentation matrix.

Learnings

In total, we achieved a portfolio reduction of 67.8% from 198 items initially to 118 post clean-up. However, what matters here is not simply the reduction but the categorization, i.e., separating and organizing the portfolio into different swimlanes and introducing the product tree metaphor. The product tree visualisation helped all stakeholders understand the interconnectedness of the portfolio, where the roots signify the core product and the branches different, more advanced products or features built on top of that core.

Similarly, the categorization into swimlanes helped to organize and cluster similar items, getting away from comparing apples and oranges in the initial big portfolio audit table. It illustrated very clearly that not all items are alike and can’t be judged and rated in the same way.

It is worth mentioning that there is no one best way to label your swimlanes, but a good starting point is to think of naming different clusters, e.g., from basic to most complex, and to always include a “sunset/stop” cluster and potentially one that covers “redesign/tech upgrade” items. Having these two buckets allows contributors to actively shape the decision-making around the quick-win items, usually the most obviously outdated or clunky parts of the portfolio.

Whether or not you categorize your products in order to determine how to handle them in an organizational transformation, e.g., to assess automation potential, will largely depend on why and when you’re cleaning up your product portfolio. Even outside of a transformation effort, clustering your portfolio into different categories, understanding interconnectedness, and whether or not each customer segment has a well-rounded product tree, with solid roots and future-looking branches, is a useful exercise in sense-making and keeping your organization lean.

Product Kondo outcomes. (Large preview)

Shared Terminology Matters #

In all this, our biggest learning was that

Terminology matters because simply referring to things as “products” doesn’t make them so. Comparing like for like is a key factor when assessing a product portfolio.

“

Correct categorization was the biggest challenge that had to be dealt with first, to enable the organization to iterate and focus on where to play and re-imagine products to match the future business strategy.

When Theory Meets Reality #

This portfolio clean-up had to pivot and expand to include a mapping exercise because we hadn’t factored in the unclear terminology used across the organization, and that, instead of simply gathering and ranking, the biggest task was to correctly categorize and structure. And this is likely to be different from organization to organization. So I would always recommend checking which categories of items you’re comparing in your portfolio. If you’re not entirely sure, you should always include a clustering or mapping exercise right from the start.

Product Kondo: The Groundwork For Transformation

If you’re struggling with a large legacy portfolio and no longer confident that everything in it serves a purpose and brings joy to users and the business, it’s time to clean up.

It’s often necessary and needed to focus on the next shiny thing, but if you don’t balance that with cleaning up your existing portfolio, your organization will eventually become slow. Overgrown product portfolios can’t be sustained forever.

“

Particularly in organizations bound by various contractual obligations, this is the groundwork that enables product teams to iterate.

Moreover, doing this clean-up and clearing out effort across teams is a highly transparent way to include teams in change. And it is a useful way for getting teams to contribute and actively shape a transformation effort. Business decisions have to be taken, but taking them with transparency and in an evidence-guided way ensures that you are bringing people along.

Benefits of cleaning up your portfolio. (Large preview)

Last but not least — if you don’t have the capacity to do the full portfolio clean-up (which took us about 4 months, with a core team of roughly 4 people) — start smaller. And start with including these considerations in your day-to-day, for example, by always checking if products or features should be stopped or sunset every time you’re launching new products. Or start by mapping out the different categories of items in your portfolio — with swimlanes and the product tree metaphor in mind. What is core, and what is the future state of play?

Upside: Once you’ve got that big picture overview and worked out what to sunset or where to slim down, you have more capacity to focus on current and future priorities strategically.

Reality check: Of course, the work doesn’t stop there. The next step is to align it all back to your user segments and check how your portfolio serves each of these, particularly the primary segments.

Further Reading

• “Product-Led Growth: The Ultimate Guide for Software Companies,” Userpilot
• “Evidence-Guided: Creating High-Impact Products in the Face of Uncertainty,” Itamar Gilad
• “Innovation Games: Exploring Luke Hohmann’s Game-Changing Approach,” Matt Hicks
• “Building A User Segmentation Matrix To Foster Cross-Org Alignment,” Talke Hoppmann-Walton
• “What Is A Product Portfolio Roadmap?,” Kareem Mayan