In the high-stakes environment of independent game development, the difference between a studio that flourishes and one that merely survives often comes down to the efficacy of its internal management. Business coach Martijn van Zwieten, who has spent years guiding leadership teams at studios ranging from indie darlings like Rusty Lake to industry titans like Bethesda Game Studios, believes that the secret to maintaining momentum lies in a deceptively simple management tool: the quarterly "rock."
This concept, part of Van Zwieten’s broader FIRM framework, serves as a bridge between lofty, distant yearly goals and the chaotic, granular reality of daily sprint cycles. As studios navigate the often-turbulent path from concept to launch, they frequently find themselves caught in a cycle of immediate reactivity. By implementing quarterly rocks, leadership teams can ensure that their studio remains on a steady, strategic course, transforming abstract annual visions into tangible, near-term progress.
The problem, as Van Zwieten explains, is that a year is simply too long a horizon for a modern game studio. It is a period long enough to allow for significant distraction; a team can spend months working at full capacity, only to arrive in October and realize they have failed to move the needle on the objectives that actually define the studio’s success. Conversely, the typical two-week agile sprint is far too short to account for substantial, high-level shifts in development. In that short window, teams often prioritize the immediate "gravel" of Jira tickets—fixing bugs, refining UI, or addressing minor technical debt—while the important, complex "rocks" that require deep work and long-term planning are repeatedly pushed to the next sprint. Without a medium-term framework to focus collective effort, short-term sprints rarely accumulate into the meaningful, cohesive progress required to meet annual objectives.
The concept of "rocks" traces its origins back to the classic time management metaphor popularized by Stephen Covey in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey famously illustrated the concept using a glass jar, a pile of large rocks, gravel, sand, and water. The rocks represent the most vital, non-negotiable priorities, while the gravel and sand represent day-to-day responsibilities and inevitable daily interruptions. The water represents the peripheral noise that fills any remaining space.
Many managers make the mistake of filling their "jar"—their time and energy—with water and sand first, responding to emails, Slack messages, and minor inconveniences. By the time they attempt to address their true priorities, there is simply no room left for the rocks. Covey’s core lesson is one of radical prioritization: if you place the rocks in the jar first, the gravel and sand will naturally settle around them. In the context of a game studio, these rocks are the four or five mission-critical goals that must be achieved within a 90-day period.
Choosing a 90-day window is not arbitrary. It represents a "Goldilocks" zone for management: it is long enough to permit the completion of a significant milestone, such as a vertical slice, a technical overhaul, or a major marketing push, but short enough to keep the pressure of accountability ever-present. When a goal is set for December, it is easy to procrastinate in the spring. When a goal is set for 90 days from now, the urgency is palpable and the team’s focus remains sharp.
Beyond simple time management, the quarterly rock rhythm serves as a vital tool for team alignment. Van Zwieten notes that when the core leadership team participates in the translation of annual goals into quarterly rocks, it forces a shared understanding of what matters. Instead of individual leads pulling in different directions based on disparate assumptions, the entire team is forced to sit down and debate the relative importance of various tasks. This collaborative process acts as a filter, preventing the miscommunication, friction, and eventual burnout that often plague studios when management and production are not in sync. By the time the quarter begins, everyone understands exactly what the studio is aiming for and why.
Setting these rocks requires a disciplined, straightforward process. With the yearly plan acting as a backdrop, leadership should facilitate a meeting to identify the most critical outcomes for the upcoming quarter. The goal is to reach a consensus on five to seven key items. This limit is intentional; having too many priorities leads to a diluted, unfocused team, while having too few ignores the realities of a functioning business. These must be concrete, measurable, and unambiguous. A vague objective like "improve the combat system" is a failure waiting to happen because it lacks a clear definition of success. A rock, by contrast, must be binary: did the team complete the core combat loop and test it with ten players, or did they not? This level of clarity removes ambiguity and provides an objective metric for accountability.
Once these rocks are set, they become the guiding star for all subsequent decision-making. Whenever a new opportunity or a potential distraction arises, the team can apply a simple litmus test: does this serve our quarterly rocks? If the answer is yes, the effort is justified. If not, it is deferred or abandoned. This creates a culture of focus where saying "no" becomes a standard operational procedure rather than a point of conflict. In rare cases where an urgent crisis demands a shift in priorities, the rock framework makes the trade-off transparent. Leadership can openly discuss which existing rock must be sacrificed or deferred to accommodate the new reality, ensuring that the team never feels overwhelmed by an impossible, ever-expanding workload.
The beauty of the rock system is that it inherently embeds accountability and reflection into the studio’s culture. At the end of every 90-day cycle, the team reconvenes to review their progress. They analyze what was achieved, what was missed, and, most importantly, what stood in the way of success. This is not an exercise in assigning blame or policing employees; rather, it is a mechanism for organizational learning. By reviewing performance with an honest eye, studios gain a much more realistic understanding of their actual capacity, which in turn leads to better, more grounded planning for the following quarter.
Over time, this cycle of setting, executing, and reviewing creates a flywheel effect. Studios that successfully integrate rocks into their workflow find that they are not just hitting their goals more reliably, but that their teams are becoming more cohesive and efficient. The transparency of the process minimizes internal politics and clarifies the path forward, allowing developers to focus on what they do best: creating games.
As studios continue to navigate an increasingly competitive landscape, the ability to manage time, focus, and human resources will remain a primary competitive advantage. By adopting a structured, quarterly approach to their priorities, studio leads can ensure that their daily efforts are not merely filling the jar with sand and water, but are consistently building the foundation for long-term success. The FIRM framework, as advocated by Van Zwieten, provides the structure necessary to transform a creative passion project into a resilient and thriving business. For those looking to move beyond the reactive chaos of day-to-day development, the transition to quarterly rocks offers a clear and proven path to sustainable growth.