During budgeting, a council member funds a ceremonial city-history game by claiming it aligns with the permitting portal's Product Vision of faster, clearer permits. What should the Product Owner do?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Slapping a permit-portal vision on a history game is putting a library stamp on a carnival ticket. If it does not make permits faster or clearer, it is a different product. Say so before the budget pretends otherwise.
Full Explanation
Funding must map to the stated Product Vision. When a council member funds a ceremonial city-history game by claiming alignment with a permitting portal vision of faster, clearer permits, the Product Owner should challenge the misalignment and keep funding tied to that vision rather than unrelated pet work. Accepting the game on the Product Backlog to protect the political relationship converts the vision into optional wallpaper. Creating a second Product Goal for civic pride so the game can be called aligned manufactures a goal to launder off-vision work. Hiding the game as a discovery spike under permitting so the vision wording stays untouched withholds transparency and still burns capacity. Exam caveat: vision is a filter Product Owners must actively apply against political pet projects. Operational check: map the proposed game to faster clearer permits; if there is no causal path, decline or redirect funding, and document the decision against the published vision for the next budget conversation. Permitting vision of faster, clearer permits is a funding filter; ceremonial games that fail the causal test should be challenged, not laundered through spikes or extra Product Goals. Document the decline against the published vision for the budget record.