role-switch（角色切换）

Role Switch

Table of Contents

1. Purpose
2. When to Use
3. What Is It
4. Workflow
5. Role Selection Patterns
6. Synthesis Principles
7. Common Patterns
8. Guardrails
9. Quick Reference

Purpose

Role Switch helps uncover blind spots, align stakeholders, and make better decisions by systematically analyzing from multiple perspectives. It transforms single-viewpoint analysis into multi-stakeholder synthesis with explicit tradeoffs and alignment paths.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when you need to:

• Align stakeholders with conflicting priorities (eng vs PM vs sales vs legal)
• Uncover blind spots in decisions by viewing from multiple angles
• Pressure-test proposals before presenting to diverse audiences
• Build empathy for perspectives different from your own
• Navigate cross-functional tradeoffs (cost vs quality, speed vs thoroughness)
• Evaluate decisions with multi-dimensional impact (technical, business, user, regulatory)
• Find consensus paths when positions seem incompatible
• Validate assumptions by seeing what different roles would challenge

User phrases that trigger this skill:

• "What would [stakeholder] think about this?"
• "How do we get alignment across teams?"
• "I'm worried we're missing something"
• "See this from their perspective"
• "Conflicting priorities between X and Y"
• "Stakeholder buy-in strategy"

What Is It

A structured analysis that:

1. Identifies relevant roles (stakeholders with different goals, constraints, incentives)
2. Adopts each perspective (inhabits mindset, priorities, success criteria of that role)
3. Articulates viewpoint (what this role cares about, fears, values, measures)
4. Surfaces tensions (where perspectives conflict, tradeoffs emerge)
5. Synthesizes alignment (finds common ground, proposes resolutions, sequences decisions)

Quick example (API versioning decision):

• Engineer: "Deprecate v1 now—maintaining two versions doubles complexity and slows new features"
• Product Manager: "Keep v1 for 12 months—customers need migration time or we risk churn"
• Customer Success: "Offer v1→v2 migration service—customers value hand-holding over self-service docs"
• Finance: "Charge for extended v1 support—converts maintenance burden into revenue stream"
• Synthesis: Deprecate v1 in 12 months with 6-month free support + paid extended support option, PM owns migration docs + webinars, CS offers premium service

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Role Switch Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame the decision or situation
- [ ] Step 2: Select relevant roles
- [ ] Step 3: Inhabit each role's perspective
- [ ] Step 4: Surface tensions and tradeoffs
- [ ] Step 5: Synthesize alignment and path forward

Step 1: Frame the decision or situation

Clarify what's being decided, key constraints (time, budget, scope), and why alignment matters. See Common Patterns for decision framing by type.

Step 2: Select relevant roles

Choose 3-6 roles with different goals, incentives, or constraints. See Role Selection Patterns for stakeholder mapping. For complex multi-stakeholder decisions → Study resources/methodology.md for RACI + power-interest analysis.

Step 3: Inhabit each role's perspective

For each role, articulate: what they optimize for, what they fear, how they measure success, what constraints they face. Use resources/template.md for structured analysis. For realistic roleplay → See resources/methodology.md for cognitive empathy techniques.

Step 4: Surface tensions and tradeoffs

Identify where perspectives conflict, map incompatible goals, articulate explicit tradeoffs. See Synthesis Principles for tension analysis.

Step 5: Synthesize alignment and path forward

Find common ground, propose resolutions that address core concerns, sequence decisions to build momentum. Self-check using resources/evaluators/rubric_role_switch.json. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.

Role Selection Patterns

Classic product triad (most common):

• Engineering: Feasibility, technical debt, system complexity, maintainability
• Product: User value, roadmap prioritization, market timing, feature completeness
• Design: User experience, accessibility, consistency, delight

Business decision quads:

• Finance: Cost, ROI, cash flow, unit economics, margin
• Sales: Customer acquisition, deal closure, competitive positioning, quota attainment
• Marketing: Brand perception, customer lifetime value, positioning, conversion funnel
• Operations: Scalability, process efficiency, risk management, resource utilization

Regulatory/compliance contexts:

• Legal: Risk mitigation, liability, contract terms, IP protection
• Compliance: Regulatory adherence, audit trail, policy enforcement, certification
• Privacy/Security: Data protection, threat model, access control, incident response
• Ethics: Fairness, transparency, stakeholder impact, values alignment

External stakeholders:

• End Users: Usability, reliability, cost, privacy, delight
• Customers (B2B): Integration ease, support quality, vendor stability, total cost of ownership
• Partners: Revenue share, mutual value, integration burden, strategic alignment
• Regulators: Public interest, safety, competition, transparency

Synthesis Principles

Finding common ground:

1. Shared goals: What do all roles ultimately want? (e.g., company success, customer satisfaction)
2. Compatible sub-goals: Where do objectives align even if paths differ?
3. Mutual fears: What do all roles want to avoid? (e.g., reputational damage, security breach)

Resolving conflicts:

• Sequential decisions: "Do X first (satisfies role A), then Y (satisfies role B)" (e.g., pilot then scale)
• Hybrid approaches: Combine elements from multiple perspectives (e.g., freemium = marketing + finance)
• Constraints as creativity: Use one role's limits to sharpen another's solution (e.g., budget constraint forces prioritization)
• Risk mitigation: Address fears with safeguards (e.g., eng fears tech debt → schedule refactoring sprint)

When perspectives are truly incompatible:

• Escalate decision: Flag for leadership with clear tradeoff framing
• Run experiment: Pilot to gather data, convert opinions to evidence
• Decouple decisions: Split into multiple decisions with different owners
• Accept tradeoff explicitly: Document the choice and reasoning for future reference

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Build vs Buy Decisions

• Roles: Engineering (control, customization), Finance (TCO), Product (time-to-market), Legal (vendor risk), Operations (support burden)
• Typical tensions: Eng wants control, Finance sees build cost underestimation, PM sees opportunity cost of delay
• Synthesis paths: Pilot buy option with build fallback, build core/buy periphery, time-box build with buy backstop

Pattern 2: Feature Prioritization

• Roles: PM (roadmap vision), Engineering (technical feasibility), Design (UX quality), Sales (customer requests), Users (actual need)
• Typical tensions: Sales wants everything promised, Eng sees scope creep, Users want simplicity, PM balances all
• Synthesis paths: MoSCoW prioritization (must/should/could/won't), release in phases, v1 vs v2 scoping

Pattern 3: Pricing Strategy

• Roles: Finance (margin), Marketing (positioning), Sales (close rate), Customers (value perception), Product (feature gating)
• Typical tensions: Finance wants premium, Sales wants competitive, Marketing wants simple, Product wants value-based tiers
• Synthesis paths: Tiered pricing (serves multiple segments), usage-based (aligns value), anchoring (premium + standard)

Pattern 4: Organizational Change (e.g., return-to-office)

• Roles: Leadership (collaboration), Employees (flexibility), HR (retention), Finance (real estate cost), Managers (productivity)
• Typical tensions: Leadership sees serendipity loss, Employees see autonomy loss, Finance sees sunk cost, HR sees turnover
• Synthesis paths: Hybrid model (balance), role-based policy (nuance), trial periods (data-driven), opt-in incentives (voluntary)

Pattern 5: Technical Migration

• Roles: Engineering (technical improvement), PM (feature freeze), Users (potential downtime), DevOps (operational risk), Finance (ROI)
• Typical tensions: Eng sees long-term benefit, PM sees short-term cost, Users fear disruption, Finance wants ROI proof
• Synthesis paths: Incremental migration (reduce risk), feature parity first (minimize disruption), ROI projection (justify investment)

Guardrails

Avoid strawman perspectives:

• Don't caricature roles (e.g., "Finance only cares about cost cutting")
• Inhabit perspective charitably—what's the *strongest* version of this viewpoint?
• Seek conflicting evidence to your own bias

Distinguish position from interest:

• Position: What they say they want (surface demand)
• Interest: Why they want it (underlying need)
• Example: "I want this feature" (position) because "customers are churning" (interest = retention)
• Synthesis works at interest level, not position level

Acknowledge information asymmetry:

• Some roles have context others lack (e.g., Legal sees confidential liability exposure)
• Flag assumptions: "If Legal has info we don't, that could change this analysis"
• Invite real stakeholders to validate your perspective-taking

Don't replace actual stakeholder input:

• Role-switch is for *preparing* conversations, not *replacing* them
• Use to pressure-test before presenting, not as substitute for gathering input
• Best used when stakeholder access is limited or to refine proposals before socializing

Power dynamics matter:

• Not all perspectives carry equal weight in decision-making (hierarchy, expertise, accountability)
• Synthesis should acknowledge who has decision authority
• Don't assume consensus is always possible or desirable

Quick Reference

Resources:

• Quick analysis: resources/template.md
• Complex stakeholder mapping: resources/methodology.md
• Quality rubric: resources/evaluators/rubric_role_switch.json

5-Step Process: Frame Decision → Select Roles → Inhabit Perspectives → Surface Tensions → Synthesize Alignment

Role selection: Choose 3-6 roles with different goals, incentives, constraints

Synthesis principles: Find shared goals, resolve conflicts (sequential, hybrid, constraints as creativity), escalate when incompatible

Avoid: Strawman perspectives, position vs interest confusion, replacing actual stakeholder input