This means:

1.  We rapidly and continuously; learn about, seek to understand, specify intelligibly, quantify for clarity, develop to achieve in practice, deliver to actual stakeholders and maintain successful levels of 
-the desired values of our stakeholders.

2.  All other devices than 'the desired values of our stakeholders,' - we regard as 'mere optional means' to the value 'ends'.

Typically such means are called 'methods, practices, processes, policies, frameworks, principles, designs, solutions, architectures, strategies, technical requirements, user-stories, checklists,  rules, and tools.' Hereby referred to as 'means.'

3.  We judge the 'means' options, on their actual effectiveness, in a given environment, on their ability to deliver the desired values. And their 'efficiency': 'values-for-resources' when deployed in practice, and the long term.

4.  When we consider a 'means' for prioritization and possible implementation, we demand from ourselves, and from all the advice presented to us by others, that the 'means' must be accompanied by some evidence of their effectiveness, of their risks, and of their costs; with evidence from research, case studies, and observations. 

5.  We consider any recommendations of potential means, which come without sufficient documented evidence, regarding their proven ability to deliver the desired value to our stakeholders, to be ‘worthless opinions,’ of zero credibility. We will not waste time acting on such superficial and risky advice.

6.  When we cannot document a 'mean's' effectiveness at all, we either refrain from giving such unfounded 'means' advice, or we will explicitly state: "My idea is based on belief and opinion, for which I can offer no relevant evidence that the idea is effective for the purposes of delivering our stated values."

If an idea is not effective enough, the costs are, consequently, irrelevant.

7.  We evaluate the relationship of ‘all value objectives’ to ‘all long-term and short-term resources’, which are necessary to attain and maintain the value. We consider this 'value to cost' evaluation to be critical, and we use it vigorously. But we don't consider 'value to cost' always to be the 'main point' of prioritization or implementation decisions.

Sincerely,
Tom & Kai Gilb
We deliver #ValueFirst