Programming notes: this post is n in a series of indeterminate length on Product topics mainly for startup people, mainly leadership, mainly coming from non-GTM backgrounds. There’s a list at the end.
The fundamental purpose of product is to make sure the most right thing is built, at any given point, by (1) optimizing all of the tradeoffs and (2) maintaining a path between where the product is and where we ultimately want it to be.
In order to make decisions about what to build, we need some thesis about the world and something broken about it for someone (our persona) that we intend to fix. We need a statement about how we will manifest that in a product that will be shipped to that someone. And we need articulation of how we will ultimately change the world for that someone.
This set of statements serves as the bar by which we can say “no” to the infinite requests and demands placed on the team about what to build. Including those that come from the team itself.
This set of statements is not static. In the worst cases, it changes [apparently or otherwise] randomly and capriciously. Less worse is that it changes implicitly. Better is it that it changes due to existential risks and crises, but explicitly. Best case is that it changes explicitly due to learning how better to serve the needs of the users we serve over time.
In a startup, this better as hell come from the founders regardless of if they hold “product” titles. Otherwise you’re in for a world of hurt.
Most product roadmaps are just plans, of which only some part come to fruition.
It gets better with context.
It gets better with a roadmap.
My preferred visualization is a matrix with two axes with the ultimate thing (or set of things) which would realize the Product Vision being at the lower right hand corner — such that if we fill in all the boxes, we’ve achieved the ultimate aim. [See Building what you set out to build.] Like this.
The interesting thing about this approach is that, to a great degree, the order doesn’t matter. As long as all the things eventually get built. The actual order is determined by the market vagaries of what we’re able to build and sell in a given time frame sufficient to support and grow the business.
What we have to keep in mind when the Vision changes is what doors we’ve closed to ourselves based on the product and business we’ve already built and what doors are still open to us. In other words, what can and can’t be salvaged. In real life, our ability to pivot (and survive) is dramatically altered by these facts.
It gets best with an actual [Wardley] Map. That’s a topic unto itself, which Simon Wardley explains best. At this point we’ve leaked backwards into Product Strategy.
The reason I’m putting this here instead of above Product Roadmaps is because, in the real world, Product Strategy isn’t usually done until pursuing a Raodmap derived from our Vision hits the messy world of Go To Market (marketing and selling things). And shit goes sideways.
A way to think about strategy is, given our Vision:
This is the actual building process: the details of methodology, process, teams, communications, inputs and outputs, etc.
There’s always some process. Even if we don’t talk about it or use those words. Keeping track of these things and whether they’re working is an actual job responsibility. We need to be able to answer questions like:
Getting real life validation of Product hypotheses. Including, but not limited to:
Depending on how we choose to organize the company, or who we happen to have on hand, Product Marketing sometimes rolls into Product and sometimes into Marketing. I’ve seen it done very successfully both ways in companies of all sizes. No statements about how this “has to be” organized are legitimate.
Copying from Marketing 101 for Engineers…
Product Marketing is itself a wide set of disciplines. Roughly speaking, I categorize it as a mid-funnel activity — though depending on the company, it reaches all the way to the top (running campaigns and leading DG activities) and all the way past the bottom (acting as sales engineering and product) of the funnel, taking over many activities that might be considered sales engineering or product management.
Including, but not limited to:
Keeping Sales & Marketing abreast of the Vision, Roadmap, what’s coming and when, and any changes to previously stated plans, and managing their expectations (or behavior) — is a core part of doing Product.
We want Sales and Marketing to be both maximally effective and honest in the process of doing so. Well, at least I do. In order to do that, they have to know:
And we need to coordinate when things are going to land, alpha, beta, or get RTM-ed (Released to Marketing) for GA (making Generally Available, i.e. “launching”).
Product people are often part of the actual marketing and sales process at tech companies, and especially startups. They get drafted to give presentation, participate in sales calls, write copy, create slides and videos and other collateral.
Finally, the product itself is a vehicle for Marketing, and may be for Sales itself:
There’s some aspect of customer onboarding that’s a function of most products in and of themselves these days. Versus needing someone from the company doing all the installation and set up for the customer, although that’s definitely a thing too.
Figuring out the optimal way to do that and the amount of it that will be self-service vs needing some kind of consulting or service work are important decisions.
Support usually starts with Product and Engineering, before it becomes it’s own function. In the long run, Product ends up in a feedback loop with Support about:
Product must keep track of, proactively acquire, and provide channels for customers to give feedback about both the product in their hands and the roadmap (where possible).
Copying from Marketing 101 for Engineers…
Growth is a somewhat nebulous term that comes down to growing, or increasing the velocity of, the funnel. The term derives from consumer-oriented product-driven companies where the vast majority of prospect-user interactions with the company are through the product/website/app and the act of creating/finding “virality”, “flywheel”, or “network effects” is a function of engineering and optimizing user experiences for that purpose.
Growth is oftentimes considered its own function and, sometimes, its own line of business with it’s own marketing, product, engineering, and operations staff that experiment with and A/B test all aspects of the user experience leading to conversion and expansion, as well as things like referral marketing.
In my decidedly old-man-shaking-fist-at-sky mindset, this isn’t a discipline. It’s a dedicated funnel team that’s usually led from product and run like an independent operating unit. But every generation needs to feel special. So have your mantle.
Sometimes core to the Product Strategy, or the Business Model, or the Sales Strategy, or just to have any shot at making money, is to build things that integrate with other products.
The amount of effort and depth of integration has to get decided on and justified relative to the Product Vision, like any other feature.
Sometimes what gets built is directly dictated by the Business Model and sometimes what’s been built directly dictates (or limits) it. This is a never-ending chicken-and-egg tension. Get over it.
At large organizations, Product Management involves building the business case for a new product that we want to built and pitching it internally to get the resources to go do so.
At some companies, Product Managers own P&L and are actually measured on the business generated by their products [something I wholeheartedly support].