--------

"I strongly disagree with: “If every new big deal is a priority, then strategy, roadmaps and planning are NOT a priority. It’s that simple.”

Every deal is not a distraction if you don't allow it to be.

--------

Your elaboration of how to look at these inbound requests is the right approach -- i.e. charter customer, product flaw, or distraction.

Sadly, that's not how most young companies that I've observed deal with them and that's the gist of my statement. Perhaps I could have elaborated better.

Most companies that I've seen don't think through the conditions that you state. That thought process is in itself an act of prioritization. :-)

But most companies take these deals, focus on the size (the bigger they are the higher priority they get), modulated a bit by how much noise the customer/prospect makes, and that's their prioritization model. Perhaps I should come up with a nice acronym for this model. :-)

So I totally agree that each deal needs to be understood, and if it is a distraction, then it should hbe handled as such.

I did mention that BALANCE is key.

"IF (and likely WHEN) deals or other issues arise that require roadmap changes, BALANCE them with your strategy and roadmap. It’s not about saying “no” specifically, but about saying “when”. And “when” doesn’t have to be now, or ASAP etc."

Hope that clarifies things.