GEM Prioritization Model
Force-rank growth, engagement, and monetization before ranking the roadmap
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 99%
GEM aligns leaders on the relative priority of growth, engagement, and monetization before teams debate individual initiatives. Growth usually means customer growth over a defined period. Engagement represents product quality and requires a behavioral proxy, such as monthly retention at Netflix. Monetization asks how much effort should go into turning the existing customers and product into a viable business. Each leader must force-rank the three; ties or claims that all are equally important avoid the decision. The agreed order then acts as a strategic tie-breaker for the roadmap. Biddle recommends beginning with a personal “stupid wild-ass guess” so the facilitator brings a point of view, then refining it with others. GEM does not produce a permanent universal order. Startups commonly move between growth and engagement before placing more weight on monetization as their stage and constraints change.
Origin
When Biddle joined Chegg in 2010, its CEO demanded growth while its CFO questioned whether the business model worked. Biddle put them in a room and required agreement on a force rank of growth, engagement, and monetization.
Core principles
- 01Roadmap conflict often reflects unresolved company priorities
- 02Growth, engagement, and monetization compete for the same resources
- 03Leaders must agree on a force rank rather than call everything important
- 04Engagement needs a measurable proxy for product quality
- 05A ranking is contextual and can change with company stage
How to run it
- 1
Draft a point of view
Create your own initial force rank of growth, engagement, and monetization. Treat it as a provisional position to improve, not a neutral facilitation exercise.
Pro tip A fast SWAG is enough to start the conversation.
Watch out Beginning with no view can produce abstract debate without a concrete proposal to challenge.
- 2
Define the metrics
Translate each GEM factor into an observable company measure. Give special attention to the engagement metric because it must credibly represent product quality.
Pro tip Retention can be a useful engagement proxy for subscription products.
Watch out An appealing label without a shared metric leaves the alignment superficial.
- 3
Force-rank the three
Have the relevant leaders independently rank the factors, surface disagreements, and require a single agreed order. The discussion should expose the real company-level trade-off.
Pro tip Keep the meeting focused on the order before debating specific roadmap items.
Watch out Allowing ties preserves the conflict the framework is meant to resolve.
- 4
Apply the ranking
Use the agreed order when initiatives compete for people or capital. Favor the initiative that best serves the highest-ranked factor unless leaders explicitly change the strategy.
Pro tip Write the rank beside roadmap decisions so later reversals are visible.
Watch out A ranking that never changes a resource decision is only a slogan.
- 5
Revisit when context changes
Reopen GEM when the company reaches a new stage, growth stalls, product quality falls, or economics become urgent. Agree on the new order before rebuilding the roadmap.
Pro tip Change the rank deliberately rather than oscillating through uncoordinated requests.
Watch out Frequent informal reversals recreate the organizational whiplash GEM is designed to stop.
In the wild
Chegg's CEO ranked growth, engagement, and monetization in that order. Its CFO proposed the exact reverse: monetization, engagement, and growth. Biddle left them to resolve the conflict, and they agreed on growth first, engagement second, and monetization third. The disagreement later returned, and the CFO left the company.
→ The exercise exposed a fundamental leadership misalignment that otherwise appeared as recurring pressure on the product organization.
Common mistakes
Ranking roadmap items before company goals
Teams cannot consistently rank features while leaders disagree over whether growth or monetization matters most.
Leaving engagement vague
Calling product quality important is not enough. The organization needs an agreed metric that makes engagement observable.
Letting every factor rank first
The method requires a force rank because simultaneous top priorities provide no guidance when resources collide.
Is it for you?
Best for
Startup leadership teams that repeatedly swing between acquiring users, improving the product, and proving the business model.
Not ideal for
Single-purpose teams whose governing company objective has already been set clearly and cannot be changed locally.
From the episode
Gibson Biddle on his DHM product strategy framework, GEM roadmap prioritization framework, 5 Netflix strategy mini case studies, building a personal board of directors, and much more