The Product Line Blog

It’s that time of year again – at least for those firms that operate on a calendar year – and by that time, I’m talking about the time for planning. And budgeting. And reflecting. And adjusting. In some ways, it is harder this year than last since in the thick of the pandemic, everything was on hold, locked down and constrained. The picture was bleak but the options were few and so that made product planning more straightforward since there were fewer variables. Now however, the situation is fluid, varying by company, industry and region, making it hard to know if 2022 plans and roadmaps should contemplate investment for innovation and growth or if the focus should reflect a more conservative, incremental mindset. I imagine many of you reading this will feel it is anyone’s guess. Regardless of where you land, I want to remind – and encourage – each of you to include as part of your process an annual review of the effectiveness and output of your product organization relative to your current product portfolio and 2022 plans. I recommend doing this annually because product is the one area in a company where teams and players need to evolve with the products through their lifecycles and this requires regular tuning. While the roles on a product team may be consistent over the life of a product, the importance, roster of tasks and type of individual/personality needed to be effective in a role will vary with time. This does not have to be a complex analysis - but it should be a complete one. My back-of-the-envelope approach goes something like this: Start by making a list of all of the people that serve in a role on a product team. Here, you want to start with your roster of resources and their associated role only. Next, identify at least one key skill strength and one key personality asset for each individual. To make this quick, easy and most importantly, objective, I like to leverage the “three words” tactic (i.e., ask yourself “What are the 3 key skill strengths that come to mind when I say this person’s name?” and then “What are the 3 key personality assets that come to mind when I try to describe this person?” You may not have 3 for everyone in each category which is just fine since 1 will suffice.) It is helpful to add the product(s) each person is associated with on this list. Next, get your product list and for each product, make note of the key roles on each product team (not individuals, but role names). Not every product will have the same set of roles – some will have more, some will have less. Then, for each product-role combination, identify both the top skill and top personality asset that are key to success in the role, for that product, in its market at this time. Now, for every product, go through a quick exercise and add your assessment of the “match” between the top skill strength/personality asset required to be successful in the role (in this market at this time) and the skill strength/personality asset of the individual in the role. This doesn’t have to be a complex rubric – you can use a basic 5 point scale here. Do not overanalyze or think too hard. Rather, let your visceral reaction provide the input. Finally, take stock of what you see, what you can learn and where adjustments can be made. Where are there mismatches? Are there patterns that can be observed in terms of more or less alignment between what is needed and what you have? You now have a rudimentary inventory of people and roles, skills and needs, as seen through a "product" vs. an HR lens (both are important). You also have a basic assessment of how well tuned your product organization is to what is needed to be successful in achieving product goals (based on your match of skills/personality assets required to be successful in each role for each product vs. what is there). Excel is your friend here as the tool for logging and analyzing since after you completed this exercise, you can use basic functions like a pivot table to yield additional, interesting insights. To make things easier, I have included a link here to the tool we developed at MIDIOR for just this purpose in our consulting engagements known as our Product-Role-Resource Tuner. And of course, if you find yourself unsure of where to begin or in need of some assistance at any point in the process, please feel to reach out to me directly . Click here to access the Product-Role-Resource Tuner.

Where do you find the most innovative products? Where there are the most significant problems of course. In the graduate courses that I teach, I often use one of the fabulous Ted Talks from some years back by South African journalist, Toby Shapshak, to explain the real engine of innovation: problems. Shapshak offers an image of the world that visually depicts electricity and he maintains that where there is electricity, there is little to no “real” innovation. He asserts that the “dark continents,” where there is limited electricity, are where major innovation opportunities live because there are real problems characterized by real pain. If you have not watched any of them, I encourage you to do so (you can view one of his early TED Talks here ). Which brings me to the point of this perspective: as you are considering the future of your product portfolio and how to ratchet up innovation, return your team’s focus to the problems. What are they? Where are they? Who has them? How many are there? How painful are they? If you can really understand problems through the eyes of those that have them, it will give you a good read on how valuable they will be to solve and ultimately, how to do some truly innovative development.

In New England, where MIDIOR is headquartered, signs of spring are everywhere and combined with the prospect of moving outside and beyond our inner circles, hope and excitement seem palpable. With the constraints easing, I have finally started to think about how product teams will need to evolve to continue delivering innovative products that keep them in the game. The COVID-19 pandemic both spotlighted and amplified the challenges that global product teams have faced for some time. From different time zones and geographies, to remote work and the rise of video, most of us can now appreciate why distributed teams constrained to the “2 dimensions” of a screen are rarely as innovative or productive as those that are collocated. Pre-COVID, we could count on at least a few in-person, shared experiences to bind a product team together into something that is greater than the sum of the individual parts. In our virtual reality, we are meeting and schedule dependent - which is neither creative nor fluid – and the equivalent of stopping by someone’s office to chat about an idea is simply less likely. While I will admit that task-oriented work, especially when served up on a platter and wrapped in a bow, is often easier and more efficient to execute when working remotely, generative thinking and creative work are almost impossible to sustain. Our new reality requires us to rethink how to sponsor innovation and I suggest that we reconsider our habits and approaches and not just try to do things the same way, virtually. We can start by restating the problem: how do you develop new, innovative products and services with a team that is virtual much of the time? How do you create urgency? Inspiration? Momentum? Is the workflow different? At least one key is to be able to quickly get teams to understand context and align on outcomes, without being together or with a customer. I find that this requires an ability to make the problems products will address “come alive” in a virtual, 2-D setting which depends on the ability to set context through telegraphic visuals, pictures, videos and stories. This requires a different sort of creative skill set along with a competency with the tools, and a laser focus on things like production quality that in the past didn’t really matter (think about that Zoom call with the background noise that distracted you or the PowerPoint that lost your attention… and since you were not in a room with others, you did not have the pressure to stay focused). In today’s Zoom culture, if you want to nurture active collaboration, you will need to engage team members via the screen to elicit reactions and advance thinking versus depending on body language as the primary input to steer a dialogue or peer pressure to maintain focus. What is needed will vary with the product – especially its complexity and maturity - since making a new, unsolved problem come alive requires something very different than a problem that has been successfully solved for years. Supplementing existing teams with these new skills as well as conducting professional development around learning styles, communications strategies and visualization tools will all help to evolve conversations and therefore the generative thinking that spawns innovation. The successful, innovative teams in our virtual future are likely to have skills and tools that in the past might have been more common at a movie studio. As a result, we should be looking at our job descriptions, recruiting plans and retention strategies that attract this kind of professional. 

For many of our clients, Fall means planning and budgeting activities get serious. For anyone with product responsibility, it is a time to challenge market assumptions and reconsider the future product roadmap. It is also a time to evaluate the teams and individuals associated with each product for fit with personalities, interests, capabilities and core skills. This latter aspect of the annual planning process is especially important. Companies we consider to be leading the pack evaluate and adjust their product teams each year, even if it is not a formal part of the planning process. This year, an additional dimension to that evaluation has emerged: the ability to advance a product in the face of an unexpected crisis AND a major shift in the nature of work. One of our tenets for optimal product performance is that the team intertwined with the product must evolve in tandem with the product as it moves through its lifecycle. A new, innovative product needs someone who is able to evangelize and succeed with the missionary sale while a mature, cash-generating product needs someone who can tweak the fine details with incremental improvements to extract maximum value. But, new this year, we also need individuals who can flourish in their product roles in a largely, if not entirely, remote environment. This is not a given. Regardless of whether individuals worked from home in the past, moving the needle to a place where meetings are all done in 2 dimensions, on a screen (think Zoom, Teams etc.), can present a major challenge.  The Agile Manifesto emphasizes “individuals and interactions over processes and tools along with face to face conversations with motivated individuals” associated with any given project. On the surface, it seems easy enough to transition to a virtual dialogue since we are still seeing faces in our discussions. But it has proven difficult to do the generative work in a virtual environment where body language is not visible, whiteboards are strictly virtual and conversations are not fluid and impromptu, instead requiring scheduled Zoom meetings. Even as we are grateful for the technology infrastructure that keeps us connected and visible to each other, it is important to acknowledge that driving a product to meet its goals means creating team momentum and aligning activities with objectives, virtually. Therefore, it is incumbent on leaders and managers to recognize who is good at remote work, understand why they are good at it and leverage what is learned to evolve the way product work is done and product teams are configured. So this year, when you take a hard look at your product portfolio and annual plans, assess the teams associated with each product against the backdrop of a remote environment and tune accordingly.

The impacts of the coronavirus are significant, regardless of location or vocation, company or community, age or gender. We find ourselves marveling at our clients as they do their very best to keep delivering on their promises to customers, members and stakeholders, even as many are considered “non-essential.” At MIDIOR, the nature of our work (consulting and technology services) and the location of our clients has necessitated virtual work for quite some time. We also find ourselves in the fortunate position of having made recent investments in the processes, platforms and training that enable a truly remote work environment. That said, we could not have imagined our current situation where we test the limits of what we can do virtually every single day. For many of our consulting clients, developing and managing products and services against a backdrop of COVID -19 is challenging to say the least. In some cases, the impact is minimal because the product or service is already offered electronically. In others, teams have been able to pivot their offerings so that customers can realize some or all of their value with virtual delivery. Thankfully, humans are adaptable creatures. For many product teams, however, the exploding stress from not being able to deliver short-term results while staring into an unknown future can be debilitating. In order to keep your product organization functional and aligned while addressing the stress that we are all feeling, perhaps it is time to accept that the new normal has arrived, rather than waiting for things to go back to the way they were. As product teams, it is not our job to look back and be nostalgic for the past. Rather, we are on the hook to interpret the changes as a signal that it’s time to take a step back, open our plans and revisit our assumptions. From how daily work gets done, to the definition of roles and hiring criteria, to the basics of our product development processes and how our supply chain, distribution, deployment and delivery work, many things may stay the same, but much should probably change. Now is the time to revisit everything and rather than throw prior plans out the window or simply push back all of the dates by six months, product teams should spend time revisiting every assumption, including those previously taken for granted. Be sure to go far and wide on the various scenarios you explore and open up the dialogue to new ideas, completely different ways of operating and changing up your organization as needed. Once you have your scenarios, review marketing programs and sales targets in light of your revised assumptions in order to create realistic financial projections for each possible scenario. Problems spark innovation. Challenge creates opportunity. But risk is mitigated with focused attention and solid scenario planning so that teams are prepared to make informed decisions as the landscape shifts and new information becomes available. I encourage you all to support your product teams as they reconsider the current state and redefine their products’ futures. You will know you are done when each product manager and program lead can answer the question “if this, then what?” with tangible, actionable steps and a sensible set of numbers. I cannot overstate the importance of this work at this time. Use the current situation as an impetus to open everything back up for scrubbing, scrutiny, quantification and realignment. Lastly, for anyone reading this that has someone in their circle that is on the front lines, please say an extra thanks from us. And for everyone else holding it together in the background, no matter how, remember we all have a role to play in our community’s recovery. 

For me, evaluating a product organization really needs to start by talking about the products: what are they, how many are there, where are they in their lifecycle, what is their level of complexity etc. Next, I ask about the people: ­who they are, how they interact and left to their own devices, what they are likely to do. As we talk, a visual picture starts to form in my head and that’s where my mantra of functions first, jobs second and people third, comes into play. Product organizations should be fluid, evolving as the product portfolio evolves. I typically recommend that my clients start by taking an inventory of the functions that need to be covered to ensure that their products and services meet their objectives. Only then can they move to the next step of thinking about which jobs logically map to which functions and what people have the appropriate skills to meet the requirements of the job. While there is no model that is “one size fits all,” this approach is consistently reflected in companies who turn out successful products over and over. For many organizations, the disconnect comes when the reporting structure doesn’t actually line up with the functions and jobs, so the cogs in the wheel are not able to turn the business. Which brings me to my point. I find that what successful product organizations have in common is more about being able to identify the right functions, map appropriate jobs to those functions and staff those jobs with exactly the right people at any given point in time. More from me about functions, jobs and people in my four minute video above.

Have you noticed that sometime over the past 10 years - the entire hand-washing experience has gone through a technology driven revolution? Where there used to be a simple bar of white soap sitting beside the sink, sometimes scented, sometimes shaped like a seashell, there is now a hands-free, infra-red actuated pump that dispenses an anti-bacterial goo, which is available in a full suite of designer colors? Step back and think about how amazing that is, and how it came to happen. The "job" of the product hasn't changed - the soap is still there to clean your hands. But everything else about the product is different, including the delivery mechanism. It is a transition that created new opportunities in a market that was surely defined as mature and priced as a commodity. Is there a soap visionary out there who saw it all coming and had a road-map that led to electronic dispensers in every home? Or was it just the fascinating market system at work? In this case it was more likely the result of multiple innovators chipping away at niche markets until an external event like the H1N1 virus came along and changed the game. As we often say, success is not the result of a perfect business plan or an unbeatable IP strategy. Success sits at the intersection of preparation and opportunity, and although you may have little control of when (or if) opportunity will show up, you can certainly be prepared to take advantage when it comes knocking on your door. Just something to consider next time someone tells you that your market is mature and that there is no room left for differentiation.

When it comes to “product,” we encourage our clients not to be too rigid when spinning up teams. “Product” is the one place in the organization where having a single configuration for product teams is a recipe for disaster. What you need to be successful varies depending on the product: its maturity, complexity, scale, objectives and so forth. Effective product teams also evolve in tandem with products as they move through their life cycle. To be fair, there are certainly groups of activities (which I call functions) and particular roles (not to be confused with jobs) that need to be played in almost every case but companies that “lead the pack” in their respective industries know that how functions are covered and how roles map to jobs will vary from product to product and year to year. Before starting any product initiative and configuring a team, take a moment to think about its characteristics. Is it large or small in scope? Complex or simple? Is the new product or set of capabilities innovative or is the target clearly defined extensions? Is your development approach Agile or Waterfall? Then think about the functions that need to be covered. In any initiative, there are internally facing activities that include facing off with development teams, translating requirements and prioritizing work. Similarly, there are externally facing activities that include facing off with customers and stakeholders to identify and understand problems and serve as the face of the product in the market. Depending on the scope and scale of the initiative, these functions may be able to be mapped to a single role filled by an individual with responsibility for both the internally and externally facing activities– and they may not. When individuals are assigned to a product initiative, they often bring along titles that are tightly coupled with their jobs within particular business units or departments. And yet, each team should ideally consist of different roles that have nothing to do with specific positions. Typically, someone will need to capture and prioritize requirements. You also need someone to keep the lists and track the milestones. And, of course, you need someone at the helm serving as champion to evangelize and lead the charge. There is always a financial or business sponsor who makes budget available along with someone who can provide air cover for the team, allowing the players to execute without unnecessary interference. This is particularly important when the product is innovative and goes against the grain of organization’s process and culture. In my view, these are roles and roles have names like Product Owner, Product Manager, Scrum Master, Project Manager, Business Analyst and the like. The particular personality required to succeed in a specific role will vary by product, initiative and point in time. Depending on what the desired outcome is for an initiative, product leaders must understand what functions need to be covered, which roles are required and what type of personality and experience will be effective. One person can play multiple roles but it can be equally effective to split up roles depending on maturity, complexity, scope and timeline. Which is why I encourage my clients to map functions to roles, roles to jobs and jobs to people – in that order. This should be reassessed on a regular basis as products evolve, requirements change and timelines adjust – which is where the need to be flexible comes into play.

At MIDIOR, we talk about a handful of measures that we call the Core Four: Revenue, Profitability, Quality and Market Share. These basic measures form the cornerstone of any assessment of how well a product – or a business – is doing. The specifics on calculating each measure will differ depending on the company or product and I encourage my clients to define those specifics and incorporate them into their plans from the get-go. Take market share, for example. Common sense tells us that every company should be able to define their market and know where they stand, and by extension, they should be able to do that at the product level as well. Market share is one of the best indicators of progress and position – and it is one of the only quantifiable measures of how you stack up against the competition. So, why is it often so hard to define and measure? The obstacle is something we call the “denominator” problem. Calculating market share requires making basic assumptions about the market boundaries and in most cases, teams can’t agree on the basic parameters or are unable to measure market share because they don’t develop good assumptions about what comprises the “denominator” – aka their target market. Here, a little data can go a long way and a lot of data can send you in circles. And, while other marketplace measures such as assessments of competitive features and functions are important, they can be challenging to keep up to date. In addition, while valuable in terms of the development roadmap, these assessments don’t necessarily tell teams anything about the urgency of changing tactics, especially when product edges are fuzzy (think services) and the lines between products and platforms are not clearly delineated. A clearly defined market (denominator) allows teams to measure their share and make near-term changes to tactical plans. Similarly, teams need to take the time to define Revenue, Profitability and Quality at their most granular level so they can be easily measured and tracked. At a minimum, teams need to define and set targets for the Core Four as part of their annual plans if they want to be able to measure and manage progress and make adjustments along the way. We can look in the rearview mirror at the business of books in terms of winners and losers as a case in point. We all know the Amazon story. But let’s look at Barnes and Noble and Borders. Barnes and Noble maintained relevance with the introduction of the Nook to compete with the Amazon Kindle. Amazon starting by selling physical books through a different channel, but expanded their market with the introduction of the e-reader and audiobooks (Audible). This in turn gave them the brand equity and resources to move into the brick and mortar space with actual Amazon book stores. Barnes and Noble had always had a brick and mortar presence but was able to measure their market and market share and the trend towards the online purchase of books and the e-reader experience. They were able to counter their declining market share AND take advantage of the new market created by Amazon’s Kindle by increasing their online presence and eventually introducing the Nook. Borders on the other hand, was focused on the “in house” experience and chose to enhance that experience through the addition of cafes in many of their spaces and by investing doubly in their inventory. The problem is, the market was trending away from going to physical book stores to buy books and away from CHAIN book stores as work or hang out spaces in favor of local book stores and boutique coffee shops. Borders was liquidated in 2011 and sold off their book of business to Barnes and Noble (but not before they outsourced their e-commerce to Amazon…). Ask yourself: Can you run down the list of products that you are responsible for and write down the definition and target for each of the Core Four measures? If you can’t, go back to your teams and ask them to do the good work of getting more granular – you cannot manage what you do not measure.