In a recent LinkedIn post, Jannabastow discusses a common, yet often unacknowledged, challenge faced by product teams: the disconnect between initial planning and the tools used for execution. Jannabastow highlights how many teams default to planning outside of dedicated product management software, a practice that, while not inherently wrong, can lead to inefficiencies if not managed carefully.
The core of Jannabastow’s observation centers on the perceived safety of traditional planning methods. “We planned everything outside the tool… and then added it in after,” Jannabastow quotes a ProdPad customer admitting, framing it as a confession of not doing product management “wrong.” This sentiment, according to Jannabastow, points to a deeper issue: the fear of making initial ideas too “official” too early.
“Planning still feels safer in spreadsheets, decks, or whiteboards because those spaces feel forgiving. You can sketch, waffle, change your mind without it feeling official.”
The Peril of Planning in “Forgiving” Spaces
Jannabastow argues that while these “forgiving” spaces like spreadsheets and whiteboards offer flexibility for early-stage ideation and iteration, the real problem arises when the thinking process stops there. The danger, as Jannabastow points out, is when product management tools become mere repositories for finalized decisions rather than dynamic environments where those decisions are actively shaped and challenged.
This reliance on external tools for the bulk of the thinking can sever the crucial links between customer feedback, emergent ideas, and the final product roadmap. “The problem is when that’s where the thinking stays,” Jannabastow emphasizes. Without integrating the thought process into the product system, the connective tissue that binds insights to actionable plans can weaken significantly.
Inviting Thinking in Progress, Not Premature Certainty
Jannabastow advocates for a shift towards product systems that embrace the iterative nature of product development. Instead of demanding immediate certainty, these systems should be designed to “invite thinking in progress.” This means creating environments where ideas can be developed, debated, and refined openly.
“Good product systems shouldn’t force premature certainty. They should invite thinking in progress… and make it visible enough that others can engage with it.”
By making the ongoing thought process visible, Jannabastow suggests, organizations can foster better collaboration and ensure that the roadmap accurately reflects the evolving understanding of customer needs and market dynamics. This visibility allows for broader engagement, enabling more stakeholders to contribute to and challenge the thinking as it evolves.
Where Does Real Product Thinking Happen?
To encourage this more integrated approach, Jannabastow poses a critical question to the product community: “Where does real product thinking happen in your org today… and where does it quietly get frozen into artifacts?” This prompts a reflection on current practices and encourages a move towards more dynamic and collaborative product development workflows. The implication is that truly effective product management requires tools and processes that support thinking as a continuous, visible activity, rather than a discrete, easily compartmentalized phase.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Jannabastow on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on June 2, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →