My first reaction was to think that (b*d)/c was a cool way of expressing how to go after the low hanging fruit, or get the biggest bang for the buck. After thinking about it for a bit, it seems like a good starting point and better than nothing to act with some intent.
But it might be better to focus more on b/c OR d/c, or weight b and d, if you're trying to come up with a general framework. In practice, that comes out to generally, we want to go after broad OR deep features we can build easiest as we groom the backlog. Of course, you would want to maximize both b AND d, but often a single feature doesn't do both.
The whole discussion might be too nuanced. Overall, it's valuable to give some quick thought to why you're picking the features you pick, as long as it doesn't make decisions take too long.
Haha, I think that might be too nuanced :) I definitely agree though that (b*d)/c gives you a nice framework without being tied to a company's specific situation.
But it might be better to focus more on b/c OR d/c, or weight b and d, if you're trying to come up with a general framework. In practice, that comes out to generally, we want to go after broad OR deep features we can build easiest as we groom the backlog. Of course, you would want to maximize both b AND d, but often a single feature doesn't do both.
The whole discussion might be too nuanced. Overall, it's valuable to give some quick thought to why you're picking the features you pick, as long as it doesn't make decisions take too long.