John Cutler Questions Business Case Rigor for Product Teams

In a recent LinkedIn post, John Cutler questions the preparedness of many companies that claim to be shifting from project to product funding, particularly their ability to construct basic business cases for each team. Cutler, a prominent voice in the product management space, argues that this foundational step is often overlooked despite the purported organizational changes.

The Imperative of a Team-Specific Business Case

Cutler emphasizes that before embarking on a project-to-product funding transition, companies must first establish a clear financial rationale for each team’s existence. He outlines key components that should be included in such a business case, focusing on enduring areas of impact rather than fleeting tasks.

“What are the enduring areas of focus, the “levers,” that this team has shown a track record of moving (or could spend more time moving if they were a better-defined team)? These levers should be stable and solution-agnostic, not fleeting or project- or work-focused.”

As Cutler points out, the focus should be on the team’s ability to influence stable, solution-agnostic levers. This perspective shifts the emphasis from short-term project delivery to long-term value creation.

Measuring Team Value Beyond Immediate Returns

A significant part of Cutler’s analysis revolves around how to measure a team’s contribution, acknowledging that not all value is realized in the near term. He advocates for a thoughtful estimation of financial impact, considering second- and third-order effects and the time it takes for value to materialize.

According to Cutler, understanding the ‘delta’ – the impact of the team’s absence versus its presence – is crucial. He prompts leaders to consider the financial implications from a ‘pivot vs. proceed’ perspective:

“Put on your finance hat. What should the “pivot vs. proceed” tests be for this team in general? Is it even possible to “add money” to the team? What would happen? Could the team actually absorb more investment?”

Cutler also stresses the importance of assessing a team’s alignment with its core mission. He poses critical questions about the proportion of effort dedicated to the team’s primary objectives versus adjacent, less acknowledged support activities.

Key Questions for Funding Viability

To further guide organizations in evaluating their teams, Cutler presents a series of probing questions designed to clarify each team’s value proposition and funding justification. These questions aim to uncover the unique contributions and dependencies associated with each team.

Among the critical questions Cutler poses are:

• “What problem gets materially worse if this team pauses for six months?”
• “What measurable outcomes would most clearly justify this team’s continued funding?”
• “Which costs would increase elsewhere in the organization if this team disappeared?”
• “What assumptions about demand, risk, or growth does this team carry?”
• “What work does this team do that no other team could realistically absorb?”

Cutler suggests that by thoroughly answering these questions, organizations can gain a much clearer understanding of a team’s true value and the logic behind its continued funding, moving beyond vague aspirations of product-centricity.

“What is the smallest version of this team that could still deliver its core value?”

In Cutler’s view, these rigorous inquiries are essential for any organization serious about making the transition from project-based to product-based funding models, ensuring that investment is strategically aligned with demonstrable value and organizational necessity.