Even the most data-driven prioritization framework is worthless if your organization doesn’t use it. While executives typically understand the need for better prioritization, resistance often stems from organizational complexity and competing departmental interests.
This fourth installment in our five-part series on standardizing new product development prioritization builds on our previous discussions of data foundations and analysis methods.
For Garry’s Robots, our fictional cleaning robot manufacturer, the challenge has evolved. Their leadership team agrees that prioritization is essential, but each department interprets this differently—engineering prioritizes technical excellence, marketing wants faster launches, and finance focuses on margins. Without alignment, they risk reverting to their old ways of decision-making.
This post focuses on the critical catalyst of our framework: securing organization-wide buy-in that transforms your prioritization process from a good idea into a competitive advantage.
To help organizations, and more specifically, prioritization “champions,” expertly navigate these challenges, this blog focuses on three areas:
- The sources of organizational resistance
- How to build cross-functional support for a prioritization process
- How to demonstrate the enterprise-wide value of standardized prioritization
Why Organizations Resist Standardized Prioritization Processes
Cross-departmental collaboration is essential for effective prioritization. However, legacy systems (and legacy attitudes) often get in the way of organization-wide agreement. When Garry’s Robots attempted to implement their new prioritization framework, they encountered four common barriers:
- Functional silos and incompatible incentives. Each function optimizes for different outcomes—R&D for IP, operations for efficiency, finance for margin.
- “Not invented here” resistance. Teams feel ownership over their way of working and are reluctant to adopt something they didn’t help design.
- Legacy decision rights. Historically, the product team at Garry’s had the final say on which projects to adopt. Other voices, like customer support and quality assurance, were underrepresented.
- Fear of exposure. Leaders may worry that shared visibility into resource use might raise uncomfortable questions.
In some sectors, change is no longer optional. Climate regulations like the EU Green Deal are forcing prioritization changes. Organizations such as Patagonia have succeeded by aligning sustainability metrics across departments, turning potential resistance into momentum..
The Enterprise-Wide Cost of Fragmented Prioritization
When organizations do not align around a standardized prioritization process, execution slows and value erodes. The costs compound across functions:
- Duplicate efforts. Without shared visibility, departments may pursue similar initiatives, unaware of each other’s work.
- Misallocated resources. Time and funding go to projects with low return or poor strategic fit.
- Cascading delays. Unforeseen dependencies and poor coordination increase projects’ idle time.
- Inflexibility. Cumbersome planning processes make it hard to adapt to changing market conditions.
Building Cross-Functional Support
At Garry’s Robots, a senior product manager stepped into the role of prioritization champion, facilitating cross-functional meetings and addressing concerns from various departments. This dedicated champion role was crucial for maintaining momentum and mediating between competing interests.
In concert with their efforts, Garry’s Robots has decided to take the following three steps:
- Mapping the stakeholder ecosystem. Garry’s Robots identified all groups affected by prioritization changes, including less obvious ones like the tools team, customer support, and quality assurance.
- Demonstrating the benefits for each department. Garry’s Robots’ leaders showed each team how standardized prioritization would benefit them.
- Creating shared ownership. Garry’s Robots implemented a system of cross-functional governance to improve cohesion and promote joint responsibility for prioritization decisions.
Success stories abound: a healthcare company launched 50% more innovations and increased portfolio margins by 20% through centralized prioritization, while an industrial equipment manufacturer redirected 20% of engineering spend to higher-impact initiatives by establishing shared evaluation criteria.
Proving Value Through Visible Wins
Results garner buy-in. When prioritization champions can quickly tap into performance data related to OKRs before and after implementing a new process, they can more readily communicate the impact and boost confidence in the system.
At Garry’s Robots, different departments respond to different metrics. Thus, they tailored presentations on prioritization to their audience. They showed engineering teams how standardized prioritization would reduce rework, the marketing team how it would prevent launch delays, and the finance team how it would improve capital efficiency.
Tips for Building a Prioritization-focused Culture
- Establish consistent language and practices across teams
- Recognize teams that successfully use data-driven prioritization
- Include prioritization effectiveness in project reviews and learnings
Étapes suivantes
Organizational buy-in does not come from top-down mandates. It grows when teams share ownership and witness results.
You can start right away by creating a simple matrix showing how improved prioritization addresses the top three goals of each key department in your organization. This exercise will clarify alignment gaps and open the door to more targeted discussions.
Download the Full ebook: “How to Prioritize New Product Development Projects”
Learn how to secure organization-wide buy-in for your prioritization framework and transform fragmented decision-making into a unified competitive advantage.
In our next and final blog, we’ll examine common pitfalls of standardized prioritization and show how your organization can avoid them.
