Satisfier Dissatisfier prioritisation in Product Management

Satisfier Dissatisfier Theory: The discussion takes me back to the old management philosophy – satisfier dissatisfier theory by Fredrick Herzberg in his two-factor theory of motivation. In this article, I’ve adapted this model for prioritisation in product management. The use case of this discussion is: You have a list of requirements as a product manager. You’re now trying to prioritise items based on what gives most value in development.

For this, we use the satisfier and dissatisfier model. Other than this, you have some other popular models such as RICE scoring, Moscow, Kano and cost of delay analysis. This model will sound in some ways similar to the Moscow or Kano models. But the point is that it gives you a strategic angle to think about product management strategy for prioritisation.

Prioritisation for roadmap features

In the past, we discussed various tools available for roadmap planning for a startup. Tools are useful however only when you have a strategy that needs support. Tools are a great way to bring strategy to life. But you must start with what you do and why. In this article, I want to propose the satisfier and dissatisfier model to think about your backlog of customer requests.

The biggest value you’ll get from using this model for roadmap prioritisation is that you’ll get a sensible list to start with. This model helps you create a strategy showing you a broad list of things so that you can identify the type of outcomes your initiatives will deliver. In that sense, we can argue that this model can be used at initiative level rather than individual feature level to manage your backlog.

What is the difference between a Satisifer and Dissatisfier?

Before delving into how to use this model, I’d like to start with the definition of satisfier and dissatisfier. The names are already clear indicators of what these might mean but these can strongly contribute to help you define and support your strategy.

What is a Satisfier?

A satisfier is a feature that makes a customer/user happy. This is a feature or a service whose absence does not cause any pain. But this service will create a joyful factor for the customer. i.e they will not miss its absence but will hugely appreciate something. You can compare this to a welcome surprise rather than an expectation.

These aspects generally fall under the category of convenience, ease of use – reactive dashboards, interactive designs etc. If you compare this across models, I’m tempted to say this is equivalent to Nice to have in the MOSCOW prioritisation.

Although it sounds like an additional value creation, having this can make a customer fall in love with your offer. In essence, they have a direct impact on the perceived product quality and value to the customer. This can also directly influence your customer loyalty.

What is a Dissatisfier?

Difference between satisfier and dissatisfier: A dissatisfer is a feature that on its own doesn’t make a customer happy. But its absence will severely impact the user.

You run the risk of upsetting a customer if a feature or service under this list is not provided. These are generally under the category of must-have/ should have considering the impact they have on the customer, user and the business. Your customer complaints are the biggest source of feedback. This reminds me of a powerful quote from Bill Gates:

Your Most Unhappy Customers Are Your Greatest Source Of Learning

Bill Gates

As a product person, my key focus would be on ensuring that the dissatisfiers are immediately catered for while a keen eye is maintained on the satisfiers. In essence, it is the fine combination of the two which pivots the role of product management into ensuring that business priorities are well balanced between the satisfiers and dissatisfiers. (Related: How to manage customer feedback?)

Prioritisation using Satisfier Dissatisfier Model

The simplest way to use this model for product management is by separating strategic requirements into satisfiers and dissatsifiers. The most common fallacy I’ve seen is that new feature or innovation is often sacrificed for bug fixes or fire fighting. The same applies to satisfiers and dissatisfiers. The dissatisfiers are so strong that the budget allocated for satisfier is automatically sacrificed.

Separate out what your satisfier and dissatisfiers are. Prioritise them based on either RICE or Moscow to give you an order of things. And then adjust your budget. It can be a % split, but as long as you’re clearly demarcating, you will be able to achieve both. However, if you don’t separate this out, this acts as a categorisation more than anything else. The utility of such an option would be minimal.

Thinking out of the box to match customer requirements

Here are a few areas that you can think about to reach customer requirements sooner. It isn’t directly related to managing customer expectations but about getting to the results sooner. The model I’ve followed here is about partnerships and speed to market.

1. How expensive are these alternatives?

• What will your customer do in the absence of your solution? Are there simpler alternatives available?
• How is the customer currently filling this requirement to reach their end goal?
• What can you do to help the customer? It doesn’t always need to be your own product, the aim is to find a solution to the customer’s problems.
  

  ---

2. Are there any free-wares or open source softwares which can aid you?

• The open source softwares are quite a boon when it comes to new developments. Of course you will not have all the royalty and rights to improve or develop on it further, but they can provide you a speed to market.
• Do take a note of legal requirements when you use open source softwares. Especially if you are a startup, you will need to consider the implication of an open source software on your IP rights, company evaluation and other factors which can directly be influenced.
  

  ---

3. Is there an off the shelf product with which you can integrate to provide this solution

• You need not develop everything yourself as a software house. The end result is customer pain has to be alleviated. If this purpose is being served, then a business benefit can be developed around it.
• How can you reduce the time to market? Is there an opportunity to integrate with a ready made solution which can solve part of the problem while you develop something in the background?

There are of course more clever solutions in the market. The startup mentality indicates that if you’re able to achieve the same results with the help of someone else – please do it. You don’t have to build what’s already available out there. Use the satisfier dissatsifer to create a strategic buy-in and prioritisation.