STRATEGYWeeks to result

Opportunity Cost Thinking

The biggest risk is not failure but spending your time on things that succeed but do not matter

Problem it solves

unclear strategic direction

Best for

Decision makers who approve every project that clears a minimum ROI threshold without comparing alternatives

Not ideal for

Early-stage environments where there are very few options to compare and any action beats inaction

Overview

Why this framework exists

Opportunity Cost Thinking replaces the default ROI framework that most organizations use to evaluate projects and decisions. ROI thinking asks what is the return on this investment, which sounds rigorous but is deeply flawed because every project can be made to look like it has positive ROI by adjusting assumptions. ROI calculations are easily gamed, and they encourage doing everything that clears a minimum threshold. Opportunity Cost Thinking is superior because it asks what am I giving up by doing this instead of that. This forces direct comparison between options rather than evaluation against zero. It reveals that doing project A means not doing project B, makes the real cost of decisions visible, and encourages saying no to good ideas in favor of great ones. As Shreyas Doshi puts it, the biggest risk is not that you will do things that fail but that you will spend your time on things that succeed but do not matter.

Core principles

4 total
  1. Every project can be made to look like it has positive ROI through assumption manipulation
  2. Opportunity cost thinking compares options against each other, not against zero
  3. The real cost of doing something is everything else you could have done instead
  4. Saying no to good ideas is necessary to say yes to great ones

Steps

3 steps
  1. List your top three to five current projects or commitments
    Write down the three to five projects currently consuming most of your time and resources. For each, note the expected return and the percentage of available capacity it consumes. Most people have never explicitly mapped their commitment portfolio against total available capacity, which is why they chronically overcommit.
    Pro tipInclude personal commitments and recurring obligations. Your capacity is a single pool.
  2. For each commitment, identify what you are not doing because of it
    For every project on your list, write down what you would be doing with that time and energy if the project did not exist. This is the true cost of each commitment: not the resources invested but the alternatives forgone. Often, the opportunity cost reveals that a good project is consuming capacity that could produce dramatically better results elsewhere.
    Pro tipAsk trusted advisors what they would do with your time and resources. They often see opportunities you are blind to.
    WarningBe honest about sunk cost. Time and money already invested are irrelevant to whether you should continue. Only future returns compared to future alternatives matter.
  3. Rank projects by opportunity cost, not by ROI
    Reorder your portfolio by asking: if I could only do one, which would it be? Then two? Continue until you have a clear ranking. The bottom projects are candidates for elimination, delegation, or deprioritization. This often reveals that one or two commitments consume enormous capacity while contributing relatively little compared to alternatives.
    Pro tipRevisit this ranking monthly. Opportunity costs shift as the landscape changes.

Checklist

Saved in your browser

Examples

1 cases
Stripe feature prioritization shift

At Stripe, Shreyas Doshi observed teams spending months building features with positive ROI projections that were low-impact relative to alternatives. When the team switched from 'Does this feature have positive ROI?' to 'Is this the highest-value use of our next quarter?', prioritization changed dramatically. Several in-progress features were stopped despite positive ROI because the opportunity cost was too high.

OutcomeSwitching from ROI to opportunity cost thinking led to stopping positive-ROI projects in favor of higher-impact alternatives
Lenny's Podcast with Shreyas Doshi, 2022

Common mistakes

2 traps
Using ROI to justify continuing mediocre projects
The most common misuse of ROI analysis is to justify projects that are technically profitable but not the best use of resources. Teams spend months on features producing modest returns while ignoring opportunities that could produce transformative results.
Ignoring sunk costs in opportunity cost calculations
People consistently factor past investments into current decisions, continuing projects because they have already invested heavily rather than evaluating whether continuing is the best use of future resources.

Origin story

How this framework came to be

Shreyas Doshi developed this distinction through years of product management at companies where teams consistently chose projects with positive ROI that were nonetheless the wrong things to work on. He observed that ROI frameworks gave teams false permission to pursue mediocre opportunities because the math technically worked. The shift to opportunity cost thinking forced the uncomfortable but necessary question of whether a project with positive ROI was actually the best use of the team's limited time and resources.

Source

Traced to primary
Source · PODCAST
Shreyas Doshi on Pre-Mortems, the LNO Framework, Three Levels of Product Work, and Strategy vs. Execution
Shreyas Doshi · 2022
Open source →

Related frameworks

Browse all Strategy →