/product-lifecycle-plays

Product Lifecycle Plays Template

Three worksheets: the stage diagnosis (per product), the portfolio view (per line), and the risk register (replacement plays only). Quality checks at the bottom.

Provenance

Distilled from practitioner experience running product lifecycle transitions and product retirements across software, hardware, and regulated industries.

Worksheet 1: Stage Diagnosis

## Lifecycle Diagnosis: [Product Name]

**Trigger**: [what prompted this question]
**Revenue trend**: [direction over how many quarters]

### Transition Questions

| # | Lever | Ask | Yes/No | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marketing objective | Is defending market share still profitable? | [ ] | [note] |
| 2 | Competition | Are loyalty efforts no longer retaining users? | [ ] | [note] |
| 3 | Product | Are legacy support costs becoming unsustainable? | [ ] | [note] |
| 4 | Promotion | Should we run migration campaigns instead of loyalty? | [ ] | [note] |
| 5 | Place | Are we losing money on certain channels? | [ ] | [note] |
| 6 | Price | Are our value-add bundles losing effectiveness? | [ ] | [note] |
| 7 | Data strategy | Is our data shifting from predictive to transitional? | [ ] | [note] |

**Yes count**: [0-7]
**Stage**: [Mature and healthy / Mature and softening / Crossing into decline / In decline]

### Pressure Source

- [ ] **Demand-side** -- needs shifted, segments moved, competitors differentiated
- [ ] **Supply/cost-side** -- components, production cost, support load, strategy
- [ ] **Capability-side** -- technology obsolete, architecture at its limit, regulation

**Primary pressure**: [which one, and the evidence]

### Extension Test (answer all four before ruling it out)

1. Is there a segment a variant could serve? [Yes/No -- why]
2. Is there a need an added capability would meet without re-architecture? [Yes/No -- why]
3. Would a repackage or rebrand reach a different buyer? [Yes/No -- why]
4. Is the decline in the product, or in the channel or price around it? [which]

### Recommended Play

**Play**: [Extend / Replace / Retire / Harvest]
**Because**: [two or three specifics from above]
**What this play costs**: [rough shape of the investment]
**What we're accepting by choosing it**: [the tradeoff, stated plainly]

Worksheet 2: Portfolio View

For a product line. Fill one row per product, then check the interactions.

## Lifecycle Plays: [Product Line]

| Product | Stage | Yes-count | Pressure | Reasons to Extend | Reasons to Replace | Reasons to Retire | Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [A] | [stage] | [n]/7 | [source] | [reason] | [reason] | [reason] | [play] |
| [B] | | | | | | | |
| [C] | | | | | | | |
| [D] | | | | | | | |

### Interaction Checks
- [ ] No two products are the replacement for the same customers
- [ ] No extension undercuts the case for another product's replacement
- [ ] No two retirements land in the same window for the same customer
- [ ] Sequencing across the line is deliberate, not incidental

Worksheet 3: Risk Register (replacement plays)

## Replacement Risk Register: [Old Product] -> [New Product]

| # | Hazard | Applies? | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | Contingency (Plan B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GTM process failure | [ ] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [action] | [Plan B] |
| 2 | Delayed market entry | [ ] | | | | |
| 3 | Internal misalignment | [ ] | | | | |
| 4 | External forces | [ ] | | | | |
| 5 | Regulatory risk | [ ] | | | | |
| 6 | Unexpected cannibalization | [ ] | | | | |
| 7 | Poor EOL management | [ ] | | | | |

### Cannibalization Plan
- Which product wins which customer: [answer]
- Margin during the overlap period: [answer]
- How long the overlap runs: [answer]

### Retirement Funding
- Who owns the EOL of the old product: [named owner]
- Is it funded: [Yes / No -- and if no, what that means]

Quality checks

Any "no" is a rewrite, not a nitpick.

Diagnosis before play

• All seven transition questions answered with evidence, not vibes
• The play was chosen after the diagnosis, not defended by it
• The pattern of yeses — not just the count — informed the choice

Extension got a fair hearing

• All four extension questions answered explicitly
• If extension was ruled out, the "no, because…" is written down
• Channel and price were checked before the product was condemned

Honesty about pressure

• The pressure source is named, including when it's "our costs, not their needs"
• What the chosen play costs, and what it trades away, are both stated

Replacement rigor (if replacing)

• Every applicable hazard has a contingency, not just a mitigation
• Nothing is rated low/low without a reason
• Cannibalization is planned in both directions — who wins, and what margin does
• The retirement is funded and owned — otherwise this is an extension with extra steps

Portfolio coherence (if a line)

• Interaction checks completed
• Retirement windows don't stack on the same customers