“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
30. December 2012 · 3 comments · Categories: Agile · Tags: , ,

In June of 2012, I gave a presentation to the PMI Agile Interest Group in Atlanta about my team’s journey from using Scrum to more of a Scrumban process.  The slides:

Already using the most popular process: Why move to scrumban?

The State of Agile Survey 2010 by VersionOne supports anecdotal evidence: Scrum is the most popular agile methodology.  It would be natural to ask why a team that started with that practice moved to Scrumban, or anything else for that matter.  Three items emerged in repeated retrospectives that led us to shift gears:
  • One of the issues was was the additional stress around completing open stories by the last day to avoid “failure.”  Along with the pressure of solving new problems in the course of true R&D style development, the team felt pressured to (1) take shortcuts to complete work early enough, and (2) shortcut testing to close the story and claim the points.  Regardless of the percentage of stories completed by sprint’s end, we determined that the average velocity over most three-sprint periods remained roughly the same.
  • A second problem was the team spent a full day or more (out of 10) doing detailed tasking, in order to come up with estimates that led to incomplete stories and stress at the end.  We also recognized that when starting a new story mid-sprint, we’d have to revisit the initial conversations anyway, when details were invariably forgotten.  Also, based on the previous bullet, that the reliability of the projections wasn’t high to begin with.
  • A third problem was that with a group of stories to complete, each team member started on a different story at the same time, which prevented collaboration and led to lack of focus.

What was the result?

Based on all of the above, we decided to abandon the first-day tasking sessions and do the detailed planning for stories just-in-time.  Further, we decided to only start one story per pair, when the pair was ready to work on it.  This we determined was what many call “scrumban,” a blend of the timeboxed ritual of scrum with the flow management of kanban.  This meant we maintained the iteration barriers, biweekly demos, standups, and retrospectives that we conducted with scrum.  Because biweekly demos kept happening, the fact that the mindset was vastly different wasn’t immediately obvious to other stakeholders, but what we stressed was meeting deliverable dates.
The team responded well to a clearly painted vision and a target date, as long as it was reasonable.  The team did not respond well to being chastised for failing to complete specific stories in specific sprints which were not tied to a release.  Coincidentally I spent some time with another team in Q3 of 2012 and discovered they too were struggling with some of the same problems, primarily unnecessary frustration around the inability to complete every story within sprint boundaries.

Does Product Management Care about Scrum vs. Scrumban?

I argue that Product Management can handle Agile better under Scrumban, because there’s less intensity around the product owner’s need to be present in the room with engineering.

Here’s how it helped us:

With robust engineering practices around test-driven-development and especially behavioral-driven-development, the product owner’s information was captured during story elaboration when a feature is started.  The team thinks through all the scenarios and details one or more stories to support them, with all scenarios for each story captured in English-derived Gherkin.  The team then gets to work and calls the product owner when the software is able to pass those specifications–and obviously, when questions come up.

This process allows ample time for the product owner to engage in expectations management throughout the organization, requirements gathering, customer development, and all the other fun things a product manager is responsible for…..like meetings :)

Long term, velocity also improved by 20%.  That also makes Product Management happy!

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

What is Product Management, anyway?

Pragmatic Marketing defines PM as a strategic market-facing role.  They state that a PM’s role is to find “an urgent, pervasive problem that people are willing to pay to solve.”  In this model, the PM works with other teams to design a solution for the problem, and while it’s being built, remaining out in the market finding additional market problems.

It’s about sizing up the market, identifying which segment(s) should be targeted, ensuring at the end of the day you have a profitable business to deliver value.

For the sake of argument, today I’m proposing that the Pragmatic model was accurate when PM wrote requirements documents and handed them off to engineering.  Better, more profitable products come from tighter integration of the market representative (PM) into the development process.

Within the last 5 years, another model is evolving.

User Experience (UX) is more important than ever before.  Startups and agile engineering teams are rapidly iterating toward a successful product via lean startup methodologies.  PMs can’t just identify a market problem, they have to play an evangelist role in making sure it’s solved the best way possible.  They have to represent the user, and accept or reject design ideas.  They have to ensure prototypes are user-tested before production code is written.  Martin at MindTheProduct describes the new model as the intersection of three distinct areas:

  • UX: The user
  • Tech: Engineering
  • Business: The market

what_is_a_product_manager

 

PM thought is evolving.

The ways we self-organize to learn our craft should evolve as well.

I’ve been involved in ProductCamp for four years, and I think it provides a great service to the PM and product marketing community.  Camps in each city are different because of the people involved, and the people in a city’s camp often change the emphasis from year to year.  Some camps have a strong focus on agile, others on user experience, others on positioning, etc.

I think ProductCamp fails to attract people in other roles who provide value in this new vision of PM.  Most ProductCamps define themselves with language like this:

ProductCamp Atlanta is a collaborative, participant-organized professional unconference, focused on Product Management and Marketing topics.

This language doesn’t make it clear that interaction designers and developers are welcome and valuable.

A couple of events gaining traction this year are helping to defragment PM, bringing in these additional influences.  Martin’s group puts on a monthly event called ProductTank, which he describes as all-encompassing:

…exchange ideas and experiences about PM, Business Modelling, Metrics, Usability and all the other things that get us excited. ProductTank features talks from guest speakers on both technical and business related topics, networking opportunities, and good old-fashioned networking over a beer or two.

Cindy Solomon and Nadia Eghbal are putting on the Startup Product Summit in 2013.  That event is being aimed at the following roles: designers, product marketers, developers, PMs, community managers, and content strategists.

I think this is fantastic.

Marty Cagan makes it a point to highlight that in the product discovery process, three people must be present: PM, Lead Designer, and Lead Engineer.  He also repeatedly asserts that “the best innovations usually come from the lead developer.”  Since design requires the engineer to be present, it’s also true that no product event is complete without representation from the engineering side of the house.

The mission of Startup Product Summit is inclusive:

We aim to bring together everyone who touches product to exchange perspectives on creating and sustaining product value.

I recently met with a few local PM leaders to discuss what product events in Atlanta should look like.  We perceive there’s a gap.

ProductCamp fills a proven need with its annual unconference.  IxDA Atlanta and the Atlanta User Experience Meetup put on events for interaction designers.  Numerous technology-specific groups meet on cutting edge technology topics.  The Atlanta startup community (Christmas event this week!)  puts on numerous events focused on lean product development and the search for new business models.  A Web Afternoon puts on a great series of events aimed at website and web application development.  Is it just me, or does this seem like groups are too fragmented?

How is the role of product management evolving?

Is there something else called “product” that is separate and distinct?  Do we need a more inclusive product-focused event in Atlanta, following in the footsteps of ProductTank and the Startup Product Summit?  I’d love to hear your thoughts.

ADDENDUM: Startup Product Summit featured a post on how the role of product management is changing.  Do you agree?

The product role is becoming more generalized
Product is seeping into new areas it had not previously been before. Particularly with the rise of Agile development, teams are focusing more on disseminating the responsibilities of product throughout existing roles: developers, designers, founders, marketers.

New trends like growth hacking are being described, as in Aaron Ginn’s series on the topic, as “at its core, a product-based role”. In tandem with the popularity of Lean Startup and its use of traditional UX methodologies to build products, there is also a growing perception that a design or UX background is useful to product roles over (or in addition to) a CS background.

We need a new vocabulary
With new beliefs come the need for new ways of describing them, and “product manager”, the best-known product role, is no longer adequate to describe a shared team responsibility for and contribution to product.

ADDENDUM

Brian Piercy recently linked to an interesting post by Marty Cagan on Product Management, Then and Now.  In this post, Cagan argues for a few provocative changes in thinking.  He suggests that writing requirements documents has become product discovery and the pursuit of MVP, which is part of the shift I’m describing in this post.

Spends Days:

Old: Writing Requirements Documents
New: Product Discovery / Pursuing Minimum Viable Product

Makes Case For Project Funding Based On:

Old: A Business Case
New: Customer and Product Discovery

 

I am not convinced of the replacement of the business case. I don’t believe the modern customer development and product discovery methods offer the types of information that are found in a business case in order to support informed decisions: market size, revenue projections, etc.  Larger organizations often aren’t nimble enough to move without those types of plans.  Will that ever really change, despite the ever-increasing pressure from startups?

What do you think?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail