Blog: Big Bang Versus Incremental Planning in 2025

PI Planning: Big Bang vs. Incremental – Which Works Best in 2025?

Programme Increment (PI) Planning is a key event in Agile frameworks like SAFe, but the debate rages on—should organisations opt for large-scale, all-in PI planning sessions or days, or take a smaller, more incremental approach? Each method has its ups and downs, but what truly delivers the best results and highest user value? After working in both start ups and larger organisations both have their uses, benefits and challenges, and there is certainly no one-size-fits-all approach.

Positive Aspects of the Big Bang Approach: (4-12 months at a time)

1. Aligns multiple teams at once, creating a unified vision across the organisation
2. Ensures cross-team dependencies are tackled early, reducing roadblocks later on.
3. Provides clear direction for leadership and stakeholders, supporting strategic alignment for a set period of time

Potential Down-Sides of the Big Bang Approach:
1. It requires significant time investment, can be expensive to organise, and risks becoming rigid and dis-engaging
2. Priorities are likely to shift post-planning if it covers a long time period, which requires pivoting and may de-motivate the teams

Positives of more Incremental PI Planning (1-3 months at a time):

1. Allows teams to stay adaptable to changing business priorities and stakeholder/customer feedback and needs
2. Reduces the burden of long, exhaustive planning sessions, keeping momentum high and increases team productivity and morale as goals are potentially more easily met and visibly met
3. Encourages a quicker continuous feedback loop, improving responsiveness to issues and opportunities.

Potential Down-Sides of the Shorter Incremental Approach:
It can create challenges in managing dependencies across teams and risks misalignment with long-term strategic or business goals and objectives

Predictions for the Future of PI Planning

Insights from industry leaders and sources like The Product Samurai (by Xebia) suggest several trends shaping the future of PI planning:

Hybrid Approaches Will Dominate – Many organisations may opt for a mix, combining the structure of Big Bang PI Planning with the flexibility of incremental planning.

Shorter, More Frequent Planning Cycles – Businesses are shifting towards continuous discovery and shorter cycles to maintain agility in fast-moving markets, a key theme explored in modern Agile discussions.

AI and Data-Driven Decision Making – AI-driven insights will help teams refine backlog prioritisation, forecast risks, and improve resource allocation, as highlighted in product management forums.

Business Agility Over Framework Rigidity – Companies will tailor their planning strategies to fit their unique needs rather than rigidly adhering to frameworks like SAFe, a common concern discussed on LinkedIn product management threads.

The Future of PI Planning

There’s no universal answer! While large-scale planning ensures alignment, smaller increments provide adaptability and agility in a time where fast-paced action and innovation with high value outputs are more and more important to the product development teams. The real challenge? Finding the balance that keeps teams focused, aligned, and responsive to change without becoming stale or de-motivated by structure or super-detail-oriented planning and ideals.

As The Product Samurai suggests, Agile should be about adapting rather than blindly following frameworks. Organisations must assess their unique needs, experiment with different approaches, and refine their strategy over time. After all, Agile is about evolution, not just execution.

Blog: Is the Role of the PO Dead?

The role of Product Owners (POs) and Product Managers (PMs) has evolved dramatically in recent years. Some organisations are blurring the lines between them, while others are questioning if separate roles are even necessary anymore.

The Shift Towards Strategic PMs

Product Managers today are expected to be strategic thinkers, not just backlog managers. This shift impacts Agile teams and traditional PO responsibilities by adding responsibilities to the PM's plate while simultaneously shifting the 'organiser' PO responsibilities into the development teams themselves. For the traditional, large scale corporations this is quite a shift in team mindset and thinking, where it seems smaller scale corporations and start ups can more easily use this as an opportunity to remove role cross-overs, confusion in responsibilities between PO and PMs at the same time as giving development teams space to be more self-sufficient - which is what the larger corporations crave and truly are required in order to future-proof their businesses.

The strategic PM is a complex role which bridges the gap between PO/team reasonabilities, SLT management, Sales and Vision, OKR, roadmap and strategy development and alignment, multi-level communication, self-driven innovation and driving the product development to be valuable to what both the product and customer needs.

Are PO's Still Needed?

A few years ago, every organisation was scrambling to hire Product Owners (POs) to fit their Agile or Scrum/SAFe setups. Agile was the industry buzzword—if you weren’t on board, you were the outsider with serious FOMO. Companies rushed into Agile adoption without much thought, often implementing it poorly. The result? Confused dev teams, chaotic processes, and businesses just hoping for the best.

Fast forward five years (and counting), businesses have wised up. They’ve figured out which parts of Agile work for them—because, spoiler alert, it's not a one-size-fits-all approach. This shift has put the PO role under scrutiny. With highly skilled and self-sufficient dev teams, many companies are questioning whether they still need dedicated POs.

As a result, the PO role has evolved into different ‘flavours’—a bit like a multipack of crisps:
The Traditional PO – Same as it ever was, keeping backlogs in check.
The Senior PO – A PO who also coaches or leads other POs.
The PO/PM Hybrid – A muddled mix of responsibilities when companies aren’t quite sure what they need.
The Standard PM – A more strategic and forward-thinking PO, better connected to vision and leadership.
The Product Lead – A wildcard role, shaped entirely by what a business decides they need from a product leader.

With all this variation, it's easy to see why the PO role is being phased out in favour of simpler ‘PM’ or ‘Product Lead’ titles. But let’s not forget—the core responsibilities of a PO still matter. The title may be fading, but the need for strong product leadership isn’t going anywhere.

The Future of the PM: What is Next?

PMs have evolved far beyond roadmap planning. Today’s PMs are expected to be visionaries, strategists, and customer advocates. The next phase? More autonomy, stronger leadership, and a clearer focus on long-term impact. To stay ahead, companies must empower their product teams, foster innovation, and ensure strategic alignment—because great products don’t just happen; they’re built with intent.
The PO role might be shifting, but one thing is clear: product leadership is more critical than ever.