We voted three times on the same ideas.
How splitting "what earns" from "what delights" changed a product roadmap at Sympla.
Before a design sprint for the Sympla buyer app, we had a long list of ideas and a mixed room: designers, engineers, product. A single vote would have given us the most popular idea, which is usually the most visible one, not the most useful.
So we voted three times on the same list.
- Financial return. Which idea earns more for the company?
- Delight. Which idea will buyers love?
- Relevance. Which idea matters most on the buyer's journey?
Three votes per person, per lens. Same sticky notes on three boards.
What the split showed
A "My account" area with a benefits program won financial return and delight, and came first overall. A Sympla wallet came second in both.
Relevance told a different story. The top idea there was a wallet with refunds built in, followed by caching and preloading so the app would stop being slow. Nobody gets excited about preloading. Every buyer who waited for a screen to load would vote for it.
If we had voted once, the boring and essential ideas would have disappeared under the exciting ones. Voting three times kept them on the table, with their own evidence.
Why it works
People are honest when the question is narrow. "What is the best idea?" invites taste. "What earns more?" invites a business answer. "What hurts the user today?" invites memory of real complaints, and we had those: store reviews, app CSAT, and a week of help center tickets.
What I would repeat
Use the same list, change the question. It costs fifteen minutes and gives you three rankings instead of one. Where they agree, move fast. Where they disagree, you just found the conversation the roadmap needs.