Being Smart Enough …


Another thoughtful post about leadership, humility, and character. Worth reading.

Originally posted on Applied Product Management Leadership:

I recall sitting through a seminar not too long ago hosted by a well-known author and psychologist, Madeline Levine.  I previously authored a post from that session titled Dealing With the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous), but this time I wanted to focus on something else she said related to an article I read this morning.

Dr. Levine has been approached on many occasions by companies across many industries with a similar question. All of the companies can be considered top in their class, and therefore can go after top young talent from our nations leading schools (Ivy League, Technology, you name it). And though intelligence abounds in some of these recruits, invariably it isn’t enough.

View original 383 more words

On the Qualities of a Good Product Manager


Lots of good ideas in here.

Originally posted on Steve Johnson < Under10 Consulting:


 It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without your help.—Judith Martin (Miss Manners), etiquette authority.

Guest post by Emily Hunter.

According to Wikipedia, “a product manager investigates, selects, and drives the development of products for an organization.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t really tell us much when we’re looking for the qualities of someone well-suited to the job of product management.

A product manager is a marketer, a negotiator, a demographer, a liaison, a researcher, an innovator — it can entail so many jobs that two job descriptions reading “product manager” may read quite differently depending upon the product and the company.

Given such a diverse range of duties, what exactly qualifies someone to be a good product manager? In short, it requires a firm grounding in the present and a creative eye toward the future.

Present Concerns

If you’ve set someone to manage a product…

View original 777 more words

Support: the product manager’s secret weapon


Great thoughts here from a guest blogger. As someone who cares about thrilling our clients with products that more than meet their needs, I truly appreciate the reminder to talk with your support team. We get lots of our best ideas that way.

Originally posted on Steve Johnson < Under10 Consulting:

Guest post by Susanna James

As a product manager, you want to build products that people want to buy and that customers love. But when was the last time you actually heard from your customers about what they like or dislike about your product? How often do you consider customer feedback when you’re planning product updates?

For many product managers, the main channel to customers is through the sales team. Sales teams know which features sales are won on and which they’re lost on. Sales knows what features prospects are asking for and can place a direct monetary value on implementing such a feature request. But sales people listen to sell; they don’t always listen to learn.

Basing your product roadmap on ad-hoc promises made to win a sale is a sure-fire way to lose sight of your vision for the product, and doesn’t actually address the needs of your end…

View original 937 more words

Let’s schedule a meeting for that

Today something happened that I have experienced multiple times in the past few years.  A question came up in our daily scrum meeting about the way two features need to interact in our product.    Both are new features (though they leverage some of our existing functionality) and the team has been making great progress on each of them.  When the question arose, those of us at scrum realized that we needed a particular subject matter expert with deeper knowledge of client expectations to provide clear direction.  So we decided to schedule a meeting to talk the issue through.

What if we didn’t need to do this?

One of the core practices of XP development is sitting together – having the entire team physically located in the same workspace so that communication is easier and faster and ‘meetings’ become less necessary.  James Shore and Shane Warden make the following observation in The Art of Agile Development: “My experience is that programmers on XP teams spend a far greater percentage of their time programming.  I attribute that to the increased communication effectiveness of sitting together.  Rather than sitting in hour-long meetings, conversations last only as long as needed and involve only the people necessary.”

In my experience developers are not excited to spend time in meetings, but they do want context – to understand why we are building the products and features on our roadmap – and they do have questions – sometimes simple questions that can be easily answered and sometimes deeper questions that require time to talk through.  If we don’t sit together, then the place to get that context and answer those questions is frequently a meeting.  But XP holds out the hope that it doesn’t have to be this way.  There are ways we could structure our space and our work so that necessary information can be shared without hunting for time available on multiple calendars and scheduling a meeting.

Sitting together doesn’t eliminate all meetings.  Regularly scheduled times for daily scrums, planning times, retrospectives, and feature demonstrations still need to happen.  But there are ways to dramatically reduce the need to schedule unplanned meetings when the team sits together and people can simply turn and talk with each other.  The useful regular meetings can generally be focused and time-boxed and if after the meeting when people ‘go back to their desks’ they are still sitting together then conversations can be continued by the couple of people most needed to make a decision and move forward.

As useful as sitting together can be, there are many real world complications to making it happen.  Our development team is scattered across multiple offices and time zones so we make extensive use of communication tools to capture as much of the ‘sitting together’ experience as we can.  There are over 20 people on our team (not including the consulting teams using our product internally and the sales and marketing folks who are working with our full suite of products and services).  We are probably too large a group to effectively sit together – even if we were all in the same office.  While on the one hand I spend a lot of time with the developers so that I can be as responsive as possible to their questions and as aware as possible of the struggles they are running into, on the other hand my desk is with the implementation, support, and sales teams so that I can have a clear picture of what our clients are encountering and how the market needs are being addressed.  My job would be tougher if I weren’t ‘sitting with’ both of these two groups during a typical day.  It would be great if there were a way for us all to sit together and therefore we could eliminate the need for separate meetings, but in truth it’s not that simple.

Ship complete or ship on schedule: pick one


Steve Johnson regularly has good thoughts to share about Agile product development; hope you enjoy his words here.

Originally posted on Steve Johnson < Under10 Consulting:

Perhaps the main reason we were behind schedule and over budget was because budgets and schedules are based on previous experience with similar projects. We really didn’t know how much it would cost to build or how long it would take.—Tom Kelly, Grumman, on building the lunar module for the Apollo program


I read an article that claims Agile Development has now reached the “trough of disillusionment.” It seems that executives and product leaders have started to pine for the good old days of waterfall.

You remember waterfall. We had lots of big documents and checklists and wonderful GANTT charts and status boards. And we were always sure what features would be delivered on certain dates.

Wait. What?

Did we ever hit our dates? The big lie of waterfall was that you could anticipate all requirements in advance. And that requirements didn’t change. And you’d hit your dates. And you…

View original 698 more words

Tell me a (short) story

I’ve picked again recently on the theme of Agile planning in this blog and thought I would continue with a few brief thoughts about the context for planning.  I talked earlier in this series (way back in January of 2014) about portfolio planning and product roadmaps that set plans for individual sprints and releases into a larger context of the corporate vision for product development.  Here I want to talk about a different angle for examining the context of planning.

Over the past couple of months we have begun thinking about ‘jobs to be done’ (from Clayton Christensen – see more here) rather than user stories or epics as the way we conceptualize what to work on.  The key questions we ask in this approach are what are our customers trying to accomplish and how does this fuel the design and development of our product.  Why do prospects ask about a specific report, or why do clients want access to certain types of data?  What is the business problem they are seeking to solve and what can we do to make it easier for them to get the resolution they need?  The ‘job to be done’ concept in some ways parallels the ‘epic’ idea in that it often involves several components of a broader solution.

Discussing the job to be done with at least the lead developer and designer has a number of advantages.  First of all it gives them a wider context for understanding why we developing our product; the more deeply they can grasp the business needs of our end users the more they can utilize this insight in developing the architecture and features of our product.  Knowing the business goal also provides added motivation for the development team; when they know that they are building something that meets a real client need this can be more energizing than simply coding a new feature because the product manager said we want it.

While providing context and motivation for the team through discussing the job to be done is valuable, taking this approach has the added benefit of leaving the ‘how’ of product creation in the hands of the designer and developer.  Talking about the jobs our clients want to accomplish without specifying how to solve those problems allows the designer and developer the freedom to think about the technical approach that best accomplishes this job.

We are relatively new in seeking to utilize the jobs to be done framework to set the context for our product planning, but so far it has been helpful in providing a wider vision for the development team that sets our sprint plans in context.  We still need to break the solution into smaller pieces that can be worked on in individual sprints and even on specific days within the sprint.  The larger job to be done might break down into multiple user stories that each address one step in the problem solving process; then these user stories might be further articulated as specific tasks for the team to work on.

In our scrum team our typical tasks are estimated at between half a day and two days of effort.  I must admit that in thinking and writing about Kanban and XP lately I’ve been wondering if we should try for shorter ‘stories’ that can all be completed in less than one day.  This balance between wanting to give adequate context for the work we do (whether you call it a user epic or a job to be done) on the one hand and wanting clearly articulated tasks that can be estimated and committed to for a specific sprint on the other hand is something I continue wrestling with.  The ‘jobs to be done’ framework appeals to my big picture impulses but it doesn’t fully resolve this struggle because in truth it’s not that simple.

Never invite sales people to a meeting


Another piece well worth reading. Some key quotes:
– you want your customers to inspire the product, not define the product
– sales people are supposed to be selling

Originally posted on Steve Johnson < Under10 Consulting:

clockIn a well-run organization, each role has a single orientation; they either support [individual] customers or they support the market.—Peter Drucker, American management consultant.

What do you think sales people should be doing?

(It’s not a trick question.)

The things you probably thought of were: building relationships with customers, helping them configure the right solution, negotiating, and closing deals. In short, selling what we have to people who want it.

In your list, did you also think sales people should be creating product presentations, developing ebooks, and determining the industry events to support?

Would you be surprised to learn roughly 50% of sales people’s time is spent working on things that do not generate revenue? In short, half the time, sales people aren’t working toward their objectives but are providing market expertise to the rest of the organization.

How often do you find yourself saying, “Let’s ask the sales people…

View original 457 more words