The answer? It depends.
While new features drive innovation and revenue, critical bugs can erode trust and operational stability.
Striking the right balance is key. I do that by setting clear prioritisation criteria up front and agreeing them as part of the process, so decisions are easy and consistent. Only edge cases need escalation.
Our approach:
- User and business impact first. If a bug affects core functionality, security or revenue-generating processes, fixing it is non-negotiable. Otherwise, weigh it against new features based on overall impact.
- Strategic alignment. Does the feature open up growth, efficiency or a competitive edge? If so, it may take priority, provided no high-severity issues are in play. Some companies value this more than resource constraints, so weighting must adjust accordingly.
- Resource and timeline constraints. Sometimes, it’s about feasibility. If fixing a critical issue takes two weeks but a feature delivers more value at the same time, I might opt for a phased approach: mitigate the bug immediately while progressing the feature.
- Customer and team balance. Listening to both customers and internal teams helps navigate trade-offs. A well-communicated roadmap ensures prioritisation decisions make sense to all stakeholders.
- Make it visual and actionable. A RAG (Red-Amber-Green) system helps with quick triage, but I adjust weighting based on key factors like external dependencies, compliance risks or revenue impact.
- Minimise stakeholder fatigue. Most stakeholders don’t want to be pulled into every decision. A transparent system keeps things moving while ensuring alignment.
The main thing to remember: this isn’t a rigid formula. It’s a framework that evolves with the business. What matters most today may not tomorrow. And no, “because the boss wants it” isn’t a valid weighting factor!
At the end of the day, stability enables innovation, but innovation drives growth. The right framework makes the right choice obvious, without the process being onerous or contentious.