4 ms·
Sounds just like a slide mislabel, he really just means tier 1 priority.
by KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
Sounds just like a slide mislabel, he really just means tier 1 priority.
- Ensorceled 4y agoSure, I mean I was there, the CEO, CFO, CTO, other directors all interpreted it the same way I did and the Product guy defended it as if he meant they were are #1 priorities we need to be "focused" on, but I'm sure you're right. I'll have to revisit my memories of the incident.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y agoI didn't say you misinterpreted, he's just bad at communicating what he actually means. There can't be multiple #1s so he must mean they're tier 1s. There is no other option since having 5 #1s is literally impossible.
- shuntress 4y agoThat's the point. This misunderstanding was made by the presenter. And the "joke" is that once this misunderstanding has been made, the follow-on misunderstanding is that all "tier 1" priority tasks will be completed in the time it takes to complete one "tier 1" priority task. Regardless of what you call it, only one thing can truly be top priority at any given time. Without effective planning, it will morph into a priority singularity titled "Finish the Project".
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y agoHe presumably have priority 2 targets as well which means fixing the labeling would be priority tier 1, priority tier 2 etc.
- Ensorceled 4y agoNo, they were LITERALLY asking for the impossible. I'm finding it hilarious that you are defending this guy. I hope you never have to work for, or with, one of these people because it will probably drive you bonkers.