In big company parlance, the land of good ideas is sometimes known as corporate row or the C Suite. This is the ethereal plain on which grand strategies are hatched and good ideas propagated downward to the masses. It’s also the area which suffers a disconnect from the realities faced by the rest of the business. And the rest of the planet, come to think of it.
While some ozone level ‘good ideas’ may have merit, others do not. A few actually sound reasonable. There’s a logical flow to them making use of fuzzy connections and various lapses which, without reflection, allow ‘good ideas’ to grow, prosper, be repeated, and eventually implemented.
Unfortunately, in the implementation stage, ground pounding product managers are tasked with pulling together pieces of the product value chain to bring the ‘good idea’ to fruition. This is known as the point where the rubber meets the road. It’s also the point where the wheels tend to fall off.
C Suite people are big picture people. Not a bad thing to be. Many visionaries and artists are big picture people. Take Monet and his work for instance. At a distance, it’s beautiful. It’s not until you get close that you realize it’s also rather messy. I sometimes wonder if “C” row folks fancy themselves as business Monet’s. Paint a picture that looks great from a distance, but don’t inspect it closely.
Product managers, however, have to inspect the picture closely in order to make it a reality. Upon peering closely at the ‘good idea’ from above, PM’s begin to see not just messy brush strokes, but real flaws. Some of which may be fatal. For instance, it’s a good idea, but service can’t support it. It’s a good idea, but not for this market. You get the picture. At this juncture, PM’s are faced with difficult choices.
A) Take the ‘good idea’ and implement as best they can, hoping something good will happen.
B) Push back with sound reasons for making changes to the ‘good idea’ so that it becomes an idea that works.
C) Find a new job.
If you choose “A” you are a ‘yes’ man product manager. You’ll agree to anything management passes down. You have become a passive product manager. The success or failure of your product is no longer within your sphere of influence. You are corporate fodder.
For those selecting “B”, you could be viewed as an unreasonable dissenter – depending on the predilections of the corporate wigs. Or you may be viewed as a worthy PM with the strength to see things through. Either way, at least you have a shot at influencing your product for better or worse. You are a player. (Possibly for another team if the “C” folks are ticked off, but a player non-the-less.)
Choosing “C” means you may not be long for product management. You don’t like being a “yes” person and you’re not fond of conflict. You are unemployed.
The truth is, every product manager will face this scenario along his or her PM career path. The question is, how will you respond when it happens to you?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Value Chain Terms
Engineering / Development – a.k.a., Hobbyists or technology garage guys. The gear heads who want to build all the cool stuff, despite the fact that sometimes the market doesn’t call for it. Never mind that we can’t make money at it, it’s still too cool not to build. Just like Alaska’s bridge to nowhere...
Manufacturing / Operations – a.k.a., Woops…. As in, woops, we failed to deliver. On most anything in a timely manner. These are the folks who are so tight (cost control oriented) you can stuff a lump of coal up ‘em and have a diamond in 10 days. They’re well meaning, but their business vision typically does not extend beyond their keyboard. Can you say myopic? We might make money if we could deliver it, but hey… we might have to spend a dime to do it. Not happening.
Marketing – a.k.a., The 5 Dumbest People in the Company. My airline friend coined this term. These are the peeps with grand ideas but absolutely no clue about the technical, operational, or practical realities of delivering a product or service. But they are a happy lot! Then again, ignorance is bliss.
Professional Services – a.k.a., Revenue Prevention. If anybody can conjure up a sales inhibitor, professional services can name 7 ways to get the job done. You can install it and use it, but it ain’t supported. In other words, if something goes wrong, you’re basically a test pilot. But if we support it, we’ll have to do something. That’s un-American. Besides, if we did then you’d lose the thrill of being the Chuck Yeager of high tech.
Sales – a.k.a., Wine-alots. If the deal doesn’t do itself, it’s not getting done because it would impinge upon the golf game. You know, the only point in time where talking about someone’s handicap isn’t considered impolite? If there’s huge money in it, and the sales guy doesn’t have to do anything, he’ll think about getting involved in the deal. Otherwise, you’ll hear about it. That’s what the SE, product management, sales support, tech support, engineering, and management are for. The rep just introduces ‘em all to the customer and lets it ride. That’s how they roll.
Finance – a.k.a., Bean counters. This one is pretty well understood. For all those who failed calculus in college, but managed to get the right digits into the correct columns, this is where it’s at. Finance will provide grand numbers, but really doesn’t know what they mean to the business. They generate some pretty groovy graphs and charts, though!
Legal – a.k.a. The road to hell and good intentions. Lawyers have ‘em – good intentions that is, but they’re the reason most of us know not only what the road to hell looks like, but all the detours, rest stops, gas stations, and tourist traps along the way, too. And to make the trip interesting, the lawyers take away our GPS so the ride takes longer. Nothing like dragging out the suspense when you know you’re going to hell anyhow.
Management – a.k.a., The Albatross Gang. You know ‘em, the birds who fly in unexpectedly, raise a ruckus, dump all over, then fly off leaving others to clean up the mess? These folks are the reason “The Peter Principal” was dreamed up in the first place. For management, powerpoint slides ARE strategy. The rest is irrelevant.
Product Manager – a.k.a., The idiot… as in the dolt attempting to provide some level of adult supervision to this value chain mess in order that maybe, just maybe, the product and business will make a little coin. Good luck!
Disclaimer - a.k.a., The fine print. The characterizations drawn here are the result of a long day of product managing and not intended to be truthful or accurately portray people actually holding any of these positions. But if they do.... any parallels or perceived similarities are merely coincidental.
Manufacturing / Operations – a.k.a., Woops…. As in, woops, we failed to deliver. On most anything in a timely manner. These are the folks who are so tight (cost control oriented) you can stuff a lump of coal up ‘em and have a diamond in 10 days. They’re well meaning, but their business vision typically does not extend beyond their keyboard. Can you say myopic? We might make money if we could deliver it, but hey… we might have to spend a dime to do it. Not happening.
Marketing – a.k.a., The 5 Dumbest People in the Company. My airline friend coined this term. These are the peeps with grand ideas but absolutely no clue about the technical, operational, or practical realities of delivering a product or service. But they are a happy lot! Then again, ignorance is bliss.
Professional Services – a.k.a., Revenue Prevention. If anybody can conjure up a sales inhibitor, professional services can name 7 ways to get the job done. You can install it and use it, but it ain’t supported. In other words, if something goes wrong, you’re basically a test pilot. But if we support it, we’ll have to do something. That’s un-American. Besides, if we did then you’d lose the thrill of being the Chuck Yeager of high tech.
Sales – a.k.a., Wine-alots. If the deal doesn’t do itself, it’s not getting done because it would impinge upon the golf game. You know, the only point in time where talking about someone’s handicap isn’t considered impolite? If there’s huge money in it, and the sales guy doesn’t have to do anything, he’ll think about getting involved in the deal. Otherwise, you’ll hear about it. That’s what the SE, product management, sales support, tech support, engineering, and management are for. The rep just introduces ‘em all to the customer and lets it ride. That’s how they roll.
Finance – a.k.a., Bean counters. This one is pretty well understood. For all those who failed calculus in college, but managed to get the right digits into the correct columns, this is where it’s at. Finance will provide grand numbers, but really doesn’t know what they mean to the business. They generate some pretty groovy graphs and charts, though!
Legal – a.k.a. The road to hell and good intentions. Lawyers have ‘em – good intentions that is, but they’re the reason most of us know not only what the road to hell looks like, but all the detours, rest stops, gas stations, and tourist traps along the way, too. And to make the trip interesting, the lawyers take away our GPS so the ride takes longer. Nothing like dragging out the suspense when you know you’re going to hell anyhow.
Management – a.k.a., The Albatross Gang. You know ‘em, the birds who fly in unexpectedly, raise a ruckus, dump all over, then fly off leaving others to clean up the mess? These folks are the reason “The Peter Principal” was dreamed up in the first place. For management, powerpoint slides ARE strategy. The rest is irrelevant.
Product Manager – a.k.a., The idiot… as in the dolt attempting to provide some level of adult supervision to this value chain mess in order that maybe, just maybe, the product and business will make a little coin. Good luck!
Disclaimer - a.k.a., The fine print. The characterizations drawn here are the result of a long day of product managing and not intended to be truthful or accurately portray people actually holding any of these positions. But if they do.... any parallels or perceived similarities are merely coincidental.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Product vs Value Chain
Sometimes product ideas come along that look great in PowerPoint. The concept resonates with customers and executives when pitched by charismatic idea owners. The owners can gloss over the inconsequential or fail to deliver the whole truth whether known or not. But they do it with zeal. The ability to convey propositions with singular exuberance and passion in the quest for victory is why those folks are in sales – not always in product management.
When great ideas converge with solid value chain structure, the fusion of energy and execution can deliver outstanding business results. Unfortunately, when great ideas meet value chain structures which aren’t built for them, contention ensues. And sometimes the contention may only be resolved with a radical change.
Having navigated product management waters in several firms, I’ve seen this contention before. However, in the current case, it appears to be significant. At the moment, a product idea which has been hatched and escaped into the wild looks great on paper. It appears to be customer friendly, comprehensive, integrated, and uses leading technology.
Unfortunately, the idea is not sales order friendly, it’s extremely difficult to deliver in volume, has a disjointed service component and is cumbersome to manage from an upgrade standpoint. Ah-ha! Trade-offs, you say. The stuff of product managers… and politicians. If that doesn’t give you a warm and fuzzy about being a PM, I don’t know what will!
Should a product manager focus on delivering the customer friendly, despite the value chain problems which may be systemic across the global corporation? If you can’t change major value chain components to fit a product, then accept them you must. Venturing down this path includes accepting reduced sales volume and ability to meet targets, but hey, the great idea is still in-tact.
Conversely, would it be prudent to modify the good idea so it’s “less good” from a slide deck perspective, but more value chain friendly providing alternative customer goodies? One might de-feature the product to fit the value chain model, thus delivering other customer goodies. Do swift delivery times, ease of use, and streamlined serviceability for the customer result in a better business if you can push up the sales volume? What of the political ramifications of down-leveling someone’s “great idea”?
Well, if you read my previous post, you would know that I prefer a great business with mediocre technology over outstanding technology and a poor business. With that, I suppose the choice is clear. I wonder how it will work out?
When great ideas converge with solid value chain structure, the fusion of energy and execution can deliver outstanding business results. Unfortunately, when great ideas meet value chain structures which aren’t built for them, contention ensues. And sometimes the contention may only be resolved with a radical change.
Having navigated product management waters in several firms, I’ve seen this contention before. However, in the current case, it appears to be significant. At the moment, a product idea which has been hatched and escaped into the wild looks great on paper. It appears to be customer friendly, comprehensive, integrated, and uses leading technology.
Unfortunately, the idea is not sales order friendly, it’s extremely difficult to deliver in volume, has a disjointed service component and is cumbersome to manage from an upgrade standpoint. Ah-ha! Trade-offs, you say. The stuff of product managers… and politicians. If that doesn’t give you a warm and fuzzy about being a PM, I don’t know what will!
Should a product manager focus on delivering the customer friendly, despite the value chain problems which may be systemic across the global corporation? If you can’t change major value chain components to fit a product, then accept them you must. Venturing down this path includes accepting reduced sales volume and ability to meet targets, but hey, the great idea is still in-tact.
Conversely, would it be prudent to modify the good idea so it’s “less good” from a slide deck perspective, but more value chain friendly providing alternative customer goodies? One might de-feature the product to fit the value chain model, thus delivering other customer goodies. Do swift delivery times, ease of use, and streamlined serviceability for the customer result in a better business if you can push up the sales volume? What of the political ramifications of down-leveling someone’s “great idea”?
Well, if you read my previous post, you would know that I prefer a great business with mediocre technology over outstanding technology and a poor business. With that, I suppose the choice is clear. I wonder how it will work out?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Good technology. Bad business.
If we build it, they will come. It’s a great movie line, but extremely poor business practice. In the high tech arena, it’s an all too common mantra for corporate success. Having worked for 4 high tech firms as a product manager, I’m yet discouraged by executives incapable of grasping the full issue.
A product or business may be thought of in terms of a sports team – let’s say football - American, that is. The successful team does not have the best quarterback in the land, but the best team. Having players in various roles who understand those roles is important. Of greater concern, is ensuring those players are working within each role to maximize the performance of the team…. not the performance of an individual player.
As any armchair fan, coach, or player can attest, maximizing the quarterback’s contribution while neglecting the performances of the supporting cast on both offense and defense is a recipe for mediocrity or abject failure. You can have a perfect season with such a philosophy. Perfectly abysmal that is.
Product managers and executives, if not astute, will quickly devolve their interest to the single component (technology) of the business while neglecting the supporting roles within the value chain. If only we can build the best, fastest, largest, most feature rich widget, the rest of the business will take care of itself. Shoot, the product will sell itself. We will dominate the market with a break through offering and live richly thereafter. In theory.
In practice, such great focus goes into building the best widget that little attention is paid to other necessary items within the value chain. Inadequate or misdirected sales coverage ensues, limiting volume. Schizophrenic messaging and dilutive marketing efforts are propagated, confusing customers. Manufacturing efforts slide precipitously delaying product delivery.
Any number of value chain components can run amuck, damaging your business. In other words, the executive coaches focus on a single player in the zealous belief that if the player can become uber dominant, the inadequacies of other players on the team will be eclipsed to such an extent that success is assured. It's the industry's best technology. It’s magic. It’s misguided.
Product managers who own a product or business own the value chain. Consequently, they must endeavor to coordinate the value chain participants to maximize the business. They should do so like a coach coordinating the efforts of his players to maximize team performance and not just the quarterback’s.
This may be the most crucial activity a product manager may engage in to facilitate the success or failure of her product. Concentrate on the business, the whole business and nothing but the business. Great technology is but one facet of that. I’d much rather own a great business with middle of the road technology than award winning technology and a losing business. Wouldn’t you?
A product or business may be thought of in terms of a sports team – let’s say football - American, that is. The successful team does not have the best quarterback in the land, but the best team. Having players in various roles who understand those roles is important. Of greater concern, is ensuring those players are working within each role to maximize the performance of the team…. not the performance of an individual player.
As any armchair fan, coach, or player can attest, maximizing the quarterback’s contribution while neglecting the performances of the supporting cast on both offense and defense is a recipe for mediocrity or abject failure. You can have a perfect season with such a philosophy. Perfectly abysmal that is.
Product managers and executives, if not astute, will quickly devolve their interest to the single component (technology) of the business while neglecting the supporting roles within the value chain. If only we can build the best, fastest, largest, most feature rich widget, the rest of the business will take care of itself. Shoot, the product will sell itself. We will dominate the market with a break through offering and live richly thereafter. In theory.
In practice, such great focus goes into building the best widget that little attention is paid to other necessary items within the value chain. Inadequate or misdirected sales coverage ensues, limiting volume. Schizophrenic messaging and dilutive marketing efforts are propagated, confusing customers. Manufacturing efforts slide precipitously delaying product delivery.
Any number of value chain components can run amuck, damaging your business. In other words, the executive coaches focus on a single player in the zealous belief that if the player can become uber dominant, the inadequacies of other players on the team will be eclipsed to such an extent that success is assured. It's the industry's best technology. It’s magic. It’s misguided.
Product managers who own a product or business own the value chain. Consequently, they must endeavor to coordinate the value chain participants to maximize the business. They should do so like a coach coordinating the efforts of his players to maximize team performance and not just the quarterback’s.
This may be the most crucial activity a product manager may engage in to facilitate the success or failure of her product. Concentrate on the business, the whole business and nothing but the business. Great technology is but one facet of that. I’d much rather own a great business with middle of the road technology than award winning technology and a losing business. Wouldn’t you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)