| name | pant-roadmap-review |
| description | Pressure-test a product roadmap and rehearse roadmap review conversations. Use for strategic coherence, outcomes, sequencing, capacity, tradeoffs, dependencies, adoption, and evidence; not sprint or backlog review. |
| license | CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 |
| type | workflow |
| category | strengthen-the-decision |
| phase | 3 |
| status | review |
| modes | ["feedback","dialogue"] |
| entry_paths | ["direct","guided","best-effort"] |
| pressure_levels | ["constructive","skeptical","resistant","hostile-room"] |
| audience | ["Product Manager","Product Owner","Business Analyst","Product Leader","Portfolio practitioner"] |
| best_for | ["Reviewing whether a roadmap expresses strategic choices and intended outcomes","Testing sequencing, capacity, dependencies, tradeoffs, adaptability, and adoption","Rehearsing a roadmap challenge with a consequential stakeholder"] |
| not_for | ["Sprint plans, backlog ordering, acceptance criteria, or detailed delivery estimates","General executive approval when the roadmap itself is not the object of scrutiny"] |
| evidence_required | ["Roadmap, roadmap narrative, or proposed sequence of investments","Intended outcomes and available evidence","Known constraints, dependencies, and tradeoffs"] |
| produces | ["Prioritized roadmap pressure test","Roadmap decision and evidence brief","Review rehearsal and debrief"] |
| estimated_time | 15-45 min |
| depends_on | [] |
| combine_with | ["pant-executive-decision-review","pant-strategy-review","pant-tactical-plan-approval"] |
| sources | ["The Dangerous Animals of Product Management, Dean Peters with Productboard, 2022"] |
PANT Roadmap Review
Purpose
Test whether a roadmap communicates a defensible allocation of product investment toward outcomes—or merely presents features, dates, and inherited commitments. Apply the bundled runtime contracts. No other PANT skill is required.
When to Use
Use for roadmap documents, now-next-later views, portfolio investment views, roadmap presentations, roadmap refreshes, and conversations in which sequencing or commitment is being challenged.
When Not to Use
Use pant-strategy-review when the primary weakness is the absence of a strategic diagnosis or choices. Use pant-executive-decision-review when the roadmap is only supporting evidence for a specific executive ask. Use pant-tactical-plan-approval for implementation detail after direction is settled. Do not turn this into backlog grooming.
Supported Modes and Entry Paths
- Feedback: Apply feedback mode and the roadmap output below.
- Dialogue: Apply dialogue mode, asking one roadmap question at a time.
- Direct: Start from the supplied roadmap or brief without intake.
- Guided: Explain the roadmap decision test, then ask one consequential question at a time.
- Best effort: State assumptions about horizon, audience, capacity, and commitment; begin with reduced confidence.
Decision Being Prepared For
Prepare a decision about what product outcomes or opportunities deserve investment, in what sequence, under which constraints, and with what conditions for adaptation. Distinguish directional intent from a delivery commitment.
Typical Audiences
Product and technology leaders, executives, portfolio councils, delivery leaders, go-to-market partners, customer-facing teams, and product teams. Model their authority and incentives rather than caricaturing their titles.
Inputs
Best input includes the roadmap, intended outcomes, product strategy, evidence, capacity assumptions, dependencies, committed dates, and audience. Minimum context is any proposed sequence of product work. Do not ask users to repeat supplied material.
Direct example:
Use pant-roadmap-review in feedback mode. Test whether this roadmap is outcome-oriented, strategically coherent, feasible, explicit about tradeoffs, and capable of adapting when evidence changes.
