Good to Great

I reread a classic recently, and (only partly) because I haven’t posted enough recently, I want to share some of the book’s most important lessons.

Good to Great by Jim Collins paints a picture of what it takes to move a company from being a good company to being a great company.  Collins describes a “Great” company as one that far exceeds the overall stock market for an extended period, specifically by about 7 times over a period of 15 years.  Though this definition is a bit narrow, it’s difficult to argue with that measure of success.

Since this book is a must-read, I’ll summarize some of the key topics of the most impactful chapters (to me) here.  For more, pick up a copy!

Lessons

  • Starting with the right people turns out to be even more important than the line of business itself.  The lesson here is that hiring is probably the most important thing you do.  One can’t teach work ethic or values, but one can teach skills.  This idea resonates with me because I’ve worked in both large, failing companies with corrosive cultures, and smaller enterprises with uplifting ones.  The culture makes all the difference.
  • Don’t ignore inconvenient facts.  Facing up to the truth–even if it means drastic changes–is one of the things the best companies do.  Ignoring problems only delays the pain, and usually makes it worse.  Investment in repairing issues keeps people reassured that things will be taken care of, which by itself is of great value in culture support.  Further, a culture that welcomes and takes issues head-on is one in which people continue to try do their best; to support this, it’s important that leaders react appropriately to issues.  Making it uncomfortable for managers to raise issues leads to ignoring them, which creates a downward spiral.
  • Stay in your hedgehog.  Companies did best when their activities stayed in the intersection of (1) passion (2) ability to excel and (3) profit.  Yes, it’s a Venn diagram.  Staying “home” avoided costly waste of resources on less fruitful activities.  The hedgehog concept, as this intersection is labeled, is not only the secret to growth, but it’s also the secret to self-actualization and–as I cover elsewhere–to personal branding.
  • Invest in technology accelerators targeted to helping the business advance, rather than technology for technology’s sake.  Technologists like to learn and implement new technologies, but great businesses shepherded this enthusiasm into tech that supported business goals.

There are a few other topics, and of course the book covers these in great detail with surprisingly deep research.  There is no acceptable reason why Good to Great should not be on your bookshelf!

 

 

 

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

“Growth Hacking” is simply advanced Product Management

The phrase “growth hacking” is getting a lot of press in the startup community, including this recent post “What is Growth Hacking really?” by Josh Elman.  The more I study the meaning of the term, the more convinced I am that growth hacking is a new role for what product management should already be doing.  Product management has become a misunderstood role in many startups, where it is often miscast as a cross between a manager of the software development team and a traditional requirements analyst.  If product management were achieving its own objectives, the “growth hacking” would already be happening.

Product management isn’t project management.  The agile manifesto has helped software companies improve upon a historically lousy rate of success in building software, but one of the victims it has left on the side of the road is the established role of product management.  As engineering teams have adopted agile processes, the product manager is often asked to simultaneously serve as product owner.  Since agile teams want the product owner to be accessible at all times, it’s difficult to have that same person out in the market getting the voice of customer the product so desperately needs–hence, the product management suffers.

Startups often hire product managers to be product owners.  Since the product owner is in the room helping engineers point user stories, they’ve identified that someone else needs to be performing the business side of product management that is missing.  Hence, “growth hacking.”

What is “Growth hacking”?

Growth Hacking was coined by Sean Ellis as a term for driving product adoption through data-driven experiments.  The core concept is once product-market fit is established, to identify the “must have experience” and drive the business around that.  For an experience to be must-have, it must be different, and Ellis suggests that expanding upon that competitive strength is the way to drive market adoption of a growing startup.

Andrew Chen drew a lot of attention to the topic in a post in April of 2012 and defined the term as follows:

Growth hackers are a hybrid of marketer and coder, one who looks at the traditional question of “How do I get customers for my product?” and answers with A/B tests, landing pages, viral factor, email deliverability, and Open Graph. On top of this, they layer the discipline of direct marketing, with its emphasis on quantitative measurement, scenario modeling via spreadsheets, and a lot of database queries. If a startup is pre-product/market fit, growth hackers can make sure virality is embedded at the core of a product. After product/market fit, they can help run up the score on what’s already working.

This is a more technical toolset than many product managers employ.  Product managers in enterprise B2B companies also have to think about requests coming in from current customers and sales, which contribute to voice of market but of course don’t fully define it.  They often visit customers, prospects, nonbuyers and conferences to better represent the market.  But many of them don’t “experiment.”

Why are many product managers NOT growth hackers?

Software companies often subscribe to a false set of beliefs:

  • The product manager should know what to build before the team begins to execute, otherwise engineering time is wasted.
  • It is possible to know what needs to be built next without gathering real experiential data.
  • The solution itself does not influence the priority of what’s most important next.
  • Prospects are more likely to buy if they think the vendor “knows what it’s doing,” and therefore a longer more detailed roadmap will help sell more product.

The idea that A/B tests or other experiments be built into a software product goes against the belief that product management can, and should, “know” what is the next most important thing.  For product management to advocate experiments, or even the Lean Startup concept of “build-measure-learn,” means they must admit they don’t know everything.  This becomes especially challenging with a sales organization culturally predisposed to “fulfilling promises” and avoiding “schedule slips.”  Those concepts don’t fit well with business agility.

Time spend building data gathering capabilities is time not spent building features customers will pay for.  Customers won’t buy your ability to A/B test, but they will buy a feature you optimize through data gathered from an A/B test.  This delayed gratification isn’t easy for some companies to accept.

Once a product is used by customers, it influences their workflow.  That influence may cause or emphasize new problems that weren’t recognized before the workflow was influenced by the new product.  A company which proudly claims to know what it’ll be building a year or two from today is one that doesn’t recognize that the world changes faster than that.

Ideally, in a company where “not knowing” is culturally acceptable, a product manager should be advocating the inclusion of data-gathering techniques within the product development life cycle.  When moving into greenspace, this may need to be at the very beginning of the effort.  If moving into a known, competitive space, time-to-market may require reaching the market with MVP (key word “Viable”!) and then adding data-gathering capabilities at a later stage to drive the next phase of growth.

What is Product Management, then?

Product management is a business role in established companies which is measured by market success of a product or product line.  It is the ownership of a product idea from inception to sunset, requiring among many other things an understanding of drivers of growth, profit margins, and the ability to document the case for investing in a new product idea.

Product management evolved from brand management at consumer product companies like P&G, and has market success of the product or brand as its  KPI.  It’s usually introduced into startups when the founder can no longer personally drive product development, because of commitments to fundraising and many other business building items.  The role at its infancy may lean towards engineering management, but it’s a mistake to think of it is as simply a product development role.

Marty Cagan defines the product discovery team as the product manager, lead engineer and user experience designer.  Product managers understand the business value of solving a particular market problem, interaction designers specialize in how to solve it, and engineers specialize in feasibility.  Thos three people drive optimal solutions.  For software companies of all ages and sizes, the shift in the role of product management is towards solving real market problems better through direct customer interaction and data gathering.  Product managers need to keep pushing the envelope.

The product management role has traditionally included two roles:

  • Product Management: The inbound marketing responsibilities to understand the problems being experienced by the customer base, down to the specific personas and market segments having the problems, and guiding the development of a solution to those problems.
  • Product Marketing: The outbound marketing responsibilities to guide communication and messaging about those solutions and their benefits through the rest of the company, primarily through marketing and sales.

In recent years, a third role has become part of the family: User Experience Design.  Interaction designers help refine understanding of the exact problems a user is facing, and excel at optimizing the solution to those problems to provide a market-leading solution.  The trend for products with great user experience to overtake products with average UX was first seen in consumer products, and is now moving to enterprise products.

In the 21st century, product management is becoming a hybrid.  Business and market success can be guaranteed not just through market research and checking the box on features, and not just through picking the right market segments and building features to address the personas in those segments, and not just through the right messaging.  It requires delivery of a targeted solution that provides the optimal solution for the user.  That targeting requires data.

Product Managers Need the Freedom to Experiment

Product management is focused on solving real problems that buyers will pay to solve, and ensuring profitable delivery of that solution.  Success of late requires a captivating user experience.  Web products will be captivating if concentrated attention is paid to the user experience, and thus by default will already be focusing on optimizing the “must have experience.”

Both product managers and user experience designers need to be thinking about the kind of usage data that will help with decision making, and built it into the product.  They need to get the user to provide actionable data while using the product, not just from conversations around prototypes and vision statements, in order to move a solution from good to great.

Add on a layer of experimentation to what we already know as product management, and isn’t this the definition of growth hacking?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Can a Product Roadmap De-Emphasize Dates?

In a recent post, I wrote about Selling roadmap items.  To communicate “what’s coming” with Sales, Product uses an internal roadmap–and if not carefully formatted, this document may convey more certainty than is accurate.  One of the strategies I suggested is to publish a product roadmap without dates:

A tactic I’ve seen some agile shops apply is to omit all dates from roadmaps.  Instead of a roadmap, they show a prioritized high level feature backlog, which includes more detail for immediate features and less detail for more distant future features.  Some may even include dates on the top item or two which may be at a detailed level of planning.  This eases the conversations around items beyond the short term (about which there are the fewest “unknowns”).

This week, Simon Cast of ProductTank and MindTheProduct wrote about this suggestion at length, in a post titled Roadmapping Without Dates.  In this post, Simon describes why his product management planning software, called ProdPad, omits all dates from product roadmaps.  The rationale is pretty solid and echoes the theme of the suggestion I’d posted.

Simon explains that too much granularity in the roadmap makes a document more of a project plan than a product roadmap:

The granularity turned out to make it very hard to manage. Not because of complicated UX but because, suddenly, you are managing a single idea on a day to day basis, shifting them around changing their “delivery length”. It was very Gantt-like and more about project management than product management.

He describes in a nutshell the primary problem with including dates in a roadmap, especially dates that are far out in the future:

As Martin pointed out, the point at which a specific date is added to a roadmap is the point at which everyone but the product manager believes the item in question will be delivered. Too often,it doesn’t matter how you caveat the date, it becomes gospel. Suddenly, you are judged on whether you meet the entirely fictitious dates. The judgement, unfairly, doesn’t take into account changing priorities, the cyclical nature of product management, or the fact that it is non-linear.

A better Roadmap Format

Simon shared an image of the roadmap used in ProdPad, and I like it a lot.  It resonates with a problem I’ve been wrestling with: I believe that a roadmap format which shows no difference in likelyhood of early items vs. late items is often responsible for mistrust and miscommunication between product development and sales & marketing.  Agile organizations deliver value by being able to shift priorities as more learning takes place.  Why not embrace the flexibility?

I’ve also been working on a roadmap concept, a sketch of which I’ve included below.  I have been churning over several objectives which I tried to address in this concept:

  1. Certainty in the immediate term.
  2. Progressively lower degree of certainty into the future
  3. Phrasing to encourage discovery around problems and features imagined for later development.
  4. Inclusion of proper language to be used with prospects and clients around the features.

The following sketch was developed with those objectives, and with input from a product roadmap I spotted during a tour of Daxko’s Atlanta offices and with a few words from Will Sansbury:

Roadmap idea (1)

Some thoughts about my sketch:

  • First, you’ll see that this is depicted as more of a backlog than a roadmap.  It’s easy to shift the dividers between segments up or down quite easily, which is especially useful when managing a portfolio of products and having to shift capacity across product roadmaps.
  • The fact that the order is descending by priority is important.  This means that as people scan down the list, if you’ve done a good job of ordering the most important things first, many of the “most important things” will resonate highly.  If items aren’t getting traction with prospects, perhaps they should be de-prioritized.
  • The answer to prospects’ questions of “When?” for items down the line should be met with discussion.  How important is it to the prospect?  This might be a great conversation for the product manager.  Perhaps it’s more important than understood.  Perhaps it’s an item that can be raised in priority should a deal be feasible.  This should be a trigger point for a conversation, NOT a question that should be dreaded or dodged.
  • Items planned for the current quarter (Q) are planned, measured and sized.  This suggests confidence that what’s planned can actually be achieved.  Since priorities in the short term should NOT drastically change, language around these features can reflect certainty.
  • Items in the following quarter (Q+1) are thought through to a good level of detail, but they aren’t measured or sized.  Language around these items should reflect likelyhood, with the caveat that priorities may change.
  • Finally, items beyond next quarter (Q+2 and beyond) are written with less clarity, and also not sized or measured. Here the language suggests these are under consideration, and prompts the internal consumer to probe into that area with the prospect or client.  Items beyond next quarter often ARE guesses which will become more confident with more input, so it makes sense to provoke that input earlier rather than later.

What do you think?  Can this kind of tool help to get product and sales working on the same page?  What would you add or remove?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail