Concept

Four BB Framework

conceptproduct-strategyinvestment-allocationroadmappingmarketplaces

Four BB Framework

The Four BB Framework is a product strategy investment-allocation model developed by Anuj Rathi (Swiggy, Jupiter Money). It divides a product team’s portfolio into four named buckets — each with a distinct risk-return profile and decision-making process — to make trade-offs explicit between the head of product and the CEO.


The four buckets

BucketCoversRisk / returnProcess
Brilliant BasicsInfrastructure, tech debtLow risk, hygiene-level returnRoutine sprint allocation
Bread and ButterFeature backlog, optimisation, experimentsIncrementalA/B testing, quarterly roadmap
Big BetsCross-team, high-stakes initiativesHigh potential, high investmentPR/FAQ with mandatory cross-team sign-offs
Breaking BadExistential pivots, business model shiftsTransformational or fatalCEO-led; restructures the company’s core identity

Swiggy’s move from food delivery to a convenience company was a Breaking Bad initiative — it changed the company’s fundamental identity, not just its product offering.


The allocation conversation

The Four BB Framework is an executive-level tool, not a PM-level one. The conversation about how many focus points to allocate across the four buckets belongs between the head of product and the CEO.

Rathi recommends creating three alternative allocations — not one — and presenting them as options. This makes trade-offs visible rather than presenting a single plan that invites negotiation at the margins. The same logic applies to Big Bets: write three divergent PR FAQs before committing to a direction.


Renaming as strategy

Brilliant Basics is a deliberate rebrand of “tech debt” and “infrastructure investment.” Teams that use the label “tech debt” lose budget battles because the name signals remedial work. Renaming to Brilliant Basics frames the investment as foundational capability — pro-growth rather than anti-debt.


OKRs and three-way marketplaces

In three-way marketplaces (buyer, seller, platform), OKRs fail as the unit of strategy because all three parties’ goals conflict structurally. Big Bets — with explicit PR/FAQ sign-off from each party — are a more appropriate unit for cross-party initiatives. At Swiggy, consumer, restaurant, and delivery-partner OKRs were structurally incompatible; Big Bets gave a workable alternative.


See also