The Folly of Fail Fast ... We are here to SUCCEED MORE!

Fail Fast is a popular phrase beloved by entrepreneurs and wannabe companies as well as by large serious outfits trying to modify their big corporation DNA.

"Fail fast" or alternatively "fail fast succeed faster" or "fail forward" or even "fail better" is trying to tell us that it is better to get customers to experience your product and to learn from their feedback and from your mistakes. These conclusions drive a rapid review and improve phase where you can make the necessary changes. In many cases a worthy message.

The message is that this is preferable to lengthy planning,  development and refinement cycles in the office that don't involve the customer. Tirelessly looking for the ultimate product or ideal user experience. In many ways the idea is very similar to some of the Agile philosophy.

I am a huge believer in meeting the customer early and often and subscribe to much of the logic about doing, learning and improving, but, I have some issues with the fail fast slogan and even with some of the fail fast concept.

Let's deal with the trivial one first. There are many cases where it just doesn't work, I hope that Boeing and Ford for example don't embrace fail fast! 

However, in a broader sense on any business there are times when you can't afford to fail, because it ruins the positioning and reputation or because of budget. Let's accept that quick customer engagement is not an excuse for bad product design and implementation. Sure work quickly, cut red tape, be passionate about delivery but do the job right.

Now for my bigger issue, failure means getting it wrong and messing up. This is never a healthy, positive message it just sets the wrong tone and is a poisonous attitude to bring to work. It suggests that sloppy poor incompetence is suddenly acceptable. We can do it wrong and fix it in the next development cycle - no problem, nothing happened. 

We should remember that "perfection is the enemy of good" (Voltaire) or "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes" (Watson-Watt on Developing Radar during WWII)" These principles mean that we need to do be quick and achieve "enough" or in Agile terms MVP (Minimal Viable Product) so there is often no practical room for the dogged pursuit of perfection. We need to develop something that is at least fit for purpose. But we are not embracing failure as an option - just limited success.

When I googled the phase fail fast I can across a Wikipedia entry about system resilience. This is a more positive message, we need to build our product and we need to succeed and survive even if things aren't quite right.

Let's embrace efficient working practices, early customer engagement and let our people know that sometimes things do go wrong; so do your best to prevent this, but we understand and accept that it may happen. It is unfortunate and undesirable but failure is not our philosophy nor is it our core competence. There will be no blame game as long as you have tried very hard to succeed. We are a success orientated company.

Let's just Work Fast and Succeed More

Get the Design Right Before the Start of Development

We are currently working on a data intensive product. We have a great team - top class developers and team lead, a great system architect and I hope a pretty good product manager. The requirements are well understood and we received a well researched specification from the project sponsor. We are working using Agile and although this is a start from nothing project we produced some impressive user flows with demonstrable value even in the first sprint.

So as the product guy I am very happy and keen to demo the product to anybody and everybody.

There is, however, a problem. At almost every Discovery meeting, after every daily and at working meetings in between we change the data model, just a bit to tweak it; (almost two sprints into the development.) I have tried to analyse the situation and reached several conclusions. I don't think that we are tweaking it just for the pursuit of perfection. Almost all the changes are because there were some soft areas in the requirements and because the model isn't yet fully functional. I am sure that in another couple of weeks we will have resolved most of the issues and things will reach some equilibrium.

Secondly I think that the discovery team and developers are so switched on and involved that we are really working the topic. We get involved and we have opinions (and the problems are quite involved and tricky.)

As an aside; this intensive (re-)design method leads to uncertainty, the changes are so intense (and actually quite subtle) that the documentation is less than perfect. Partial explanation is found in different user stories with open editing rights. This makes things just a bit harder for the team. There is plenty of readjusting and rewriting.

My last conclusion is that in this project we needed a more traditional approach that involved a full system design that was analysed, debated over and clarified for a (hopefully short) period of time before the first line of code was written.

A stable well defined design at the outset would have saved us a lot of time, debate and on the fly design and development. It would also have improved the communication and stability through better design documentation.  I am sure that we would have missed a few points, but then the Agile method would have allowed relatively small and painless corrections.

I think that there are many products where more forethought before starting the sprints will lead to more efficient implementation (and necessary corrections) in the development phase, It isn't always easy to do this - often the requirements are still in development or there is pressure to start work, and perhaps in subsequent releases where the changes maybe quite small relatively it isn't even necessary. However, I think that it is a valuable question to ask when initiating product development can we improve the design before we start work? There is a subtle balance to be achieved between over design/slow customer interaction and impulsive coding/multiple revisions.

Which way out? - The Importance of Exit Criteria

One of my fundamental criteria for starting a new product release is being able to define the Exit Criteria.

As a rule of thumb it is being able to answer the following five simple questions with accurate and complete answers (the questions are simple - the answers less so ...)

1. WHAT? - What are we building? What the key features and product values that the release will deliver?
2. WHY? - What are the key benefits that the customer will derive from the product when it is released? What are the values and advantages that the release will bring to the product family/company?
3. WHO? - Who needs the product? If this is a release for the market then define the customer - specific accounts or profile the type of user that the product is targeting. Also state who will help with the necessary integrations, GTM efforts and other internal stakeholders. If this is an internal development effort then who is the internal sponsor and who is tasked with supporting the integration and deployment.
4. WHERE? - Where should the product be delivered? Describe the internal or external deployment scenarios and any pre-requisites that will make the difference between a successful launch and failed one.
5. WHEN? - What is the timeline for this release? When must the product be in the marketplace or delivered internally? 

Once defined these criteria should be critically analysed to ensure that they are coherent and meet the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant & Time-bound) criteria. Will they meet the overall objectives? Will the product as defined meet customer expectations? Is the product definition correct? Can it be delivered in the time-available? Is the target customer the correct one to achieve the overall aims? Is the target environment feasible. Answering these questions will often force a rethink and changes, but should result in a clear definition of expectations. The entire team can adopt the final definition adding purpose and clarity. It is also critical in managing any changes that maybe needed during development


Overall the Five W's set out to define what does the product need to do, by when in order to make somebody very happy?

In my experience this is an iterative process, but, answering these five simple questions adds significant clarity to the product objectives and can make the difference between a successful product and a poor executed product that takes significantly more time and resources to develop and then fails to deliver most of what was expected.

Being Customer Passionate

Customer service with passion makes a difference.  You can feel it. You know it when you get it.

An example -  my company recently changed cleaning contractors; you know the people in blue uniforms who sweep and clean and who seem to change with alarming frequency . (A small digression;  they make a huge difference to our lives and you see them every day so be friendly and grateful to them a quick hello is really appreciated.)

The new team are pleasant enough as people and seem to be full of activity doing the regular cleaning stuff. They sweep, their managers buzz around and they all fill in the standard inspection forms. So seemingly all is well. However, actually things are just almost OK, but are certainly not to the right standard. The floors don't quite sparkle, often there are shortages of paper and unexpected messes seem to take a long time to be cleared.

On our floor the old contractors had a super team. As far as I could understand (they were immigrants and we didn't really have a common language) they were actually a husband & wife team.  

What is for certain is that the worked very hard and cared for our office just like it was their own home. They did extra inspections and made sure that everything was just right or even better. I am sure that our toilets and kitchen were as clean as in their home. They cared- actually they really cared and they had pride when you showed appreciation. Some other company now has their services and is very lucky - Anna & Anatoly come back we miss you!

They were true cleaning professionals and worked from the heart and it really showed. The new team just do their job and that also really shows. We all appreciate people who are customer passionate.

We need that professional passion in all our products - that is a difference that the customer notices. It is true differentiation.

The Value of Business Value

Business Value is often the holy grail of Product Management (and rightly so) especially when working in Agile.

Business value is genuinely very important; product managers are tasked with building products that offer some real value to somebody. Business values impact almost everything that we do with our product - its positioning, its go to market, its roadmap and its customer centric focus. These core elements of the art of product management are derived from and driven by the business values.

Classically we build things that people want to buy, advancing the business plan of our company. In other cases we may be trying to build infrastructure or experimenting with some novel ideas. However, in almost all cases we can define the objective with business value even if it is a stage or more removed from an actual sale to a customer. I plan to explore business value in these indirect cases in a future post.

So given that business value is one of, if not the primary objective of our professional lives it seems surprising how little attention many of us pay to the business value. Sure we read and write documents with some lip service to the business value. When we do a kick-off meeting we feel forced to generate a couple of statements on the subject and every so on a senior manager will feel the need to talk to even more senior people and have a mini crisis trying to generate a set of business values across all the products that they sponsor. It is possible that this is mainly a feature of big organisations; but my suspicion is that it is a common feature. It is more fun to build and design than to make bold declarations of future business value.

The crux of the issue is that it is really very important and on the critical path of everything that we do. If you are lucky enough to be constantly customer facing then you probably have a pitch maybe even several for different segments, but for the rest of us it is rarely on the agenda.

So here is an idea that I plan to put into action tomorrow - to have a slide deck or excel or some other file with every product that I manage together with its business value. So far, relatively easy, now for the hard part -  to try to keep it updated - say four times a quarter. At most reviews I think it will just be a critical read through and add the review date; but every so often things will change.

I think that this exercise will help in a few ways -

• We will really understand why we are building the product
• We will be able to remain true to the objective and not get inadvertently side-tracked in the natural drift of a dynamic product
• We will make any necessary changes actively after due thought 
• Of course finally we will always be able to provide answers to anybody who needs to know right now

Optimal Length of Agile Sprints

Agile is a popular development methodology sometimes it seems to be the only method in use today.

At the core of Agile is to break work down into small chunks that can be managed by the scrum team in a short period of time known as the sprint.  Ideally the sprint delivers some or several useful functions that can be shown (demo) to stakeholders and ideally to customers in order to gain feedback and to change and improve as quickly as possible. This objective is often to deliver MVP or Minimal Viable Product although this is in our experience often beyond the realistic scope of a single sprint.

The idea is that the team commits to a given quanta of work that can be experienced by the customer and get quick feedback. It also allows flexibility to change direction or priorities of the overall development.

In our organisation one of the big questions is the ideal length of the sprints.  

To set the context most of our development does not get released to customers on a one or two sprint basis. We use sprints as a meaningful checkpoint and as a way of involving other teams, stakeholders, sponsors and management.

Previously we used three week sprints and in this specific business unit the custom has been sprints of two weeks.  We are now in the process of moving to three weeks; partially at my initiative.

The reasoning is that two week sprints are valuable when the output does get delivered to users and especially if it is user interface rich. Fast work and rapid feedback and intense market dynamics seem to fit in this context.

However for work that develops over time especially with a lot of infrastructure or core development then there are many disadvantages to short sprints.

Agile sprints have high overheads in each and every stage of  preparation, execution and post sprint analysis (Discovery, Pre-planning, Planning, Retrospectives etc.) There is also management overhead in driving an organisation with several projects each with short sprints and low capacity. Overall these overheads that amount to high costs that the organisation can not afford over time. Longer sprints have lower overhead and so are more efficient. Our analysis indicates that moving from two to three work sprints cuts most of the overhead linearly.

Shorter sprints present a challenge in trying to deliver real value (MVP or MVP-like) even more so if the team is quite small. It is perceived that the small capacity presents its own challenges in preparing and planning the sprint trying to customise the business needs to the limited time.

Another critical issue is the vulnerability to planned and unplanned absences. It only takes a couple of days vacation, course or sickness to wipe out the content of a sprint. Bugs, tricky integrations and environment issues have a similar disastrous impact.

Finally, short sprint cycles place a large demand on the Product Manager and his team. The cycle times are so short that there is never any time to pause and consider the bigger picture and to research new ideas and future directions. Again we think that there are almost linear savings available by increasing the sprint length.

Overall short sprints are considered expensive, hard to plan and prone to delay. Our analysis indicates that three  week sprints are a better balance of flexibility (Agility) and efficiency.

Working from Home - Why Yahoo and all the old fashioned companies got it so wrong!

There has been a lot of news and comment recently about Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer's new policy of requiring all its workers to work from the office. People have commented that perhaps this is a way of "right-sizing"  the company. Apparently many of the workers are pretty much permanently working from home.

It is a subject close to my heart - I used to work at an organisation that was very much mission orientated - even junior managers applied large amounts of discretion when people needed to work from home. Indeed it was frequently a management tool - a solid day at home can accomplish quantities of work that take weeks in the office - for example in preparing a design document, strategy or any other thought intensive task that is frequently disturbed at work!

Talking to friends it seems sadly that many organisations are becoming more draconian in their outlook.

I do agree with the statements made by Yahoo that meeting colleagues known and unknown is a fruitful process that generates cooperation and ideas. But, let's be honest it also generates useless conversation about last night's sport, next weekend's plans or the state of snow on the ski slope. Clearly, these are important human interactions that make life and work more pleasant - but, they can be missed occasionally in the interests of concentrated work.

I also think that managers need to cleverly manage their workers wherever they are located to get the best return on their investment - this is probably "easier" in the perception of many weak managers if the worker is chained in their cubicle.

However, I am a firm believer in the value of working from home.

First and foremost, our workers are the key differentiator that we put into our products. In return for asking them for the extra commitment to make a real difference; this means being sensitive to their needs. If I need them to put in extra time to simply make it happen, then I should allow them to do so from home (assuming no security concerns and practical issues.) In addition, if the same worker needs to spend time at home a few days later with their kids, getting the washing machine fixed, or just to avoid rush hour commuting then I need to offer (within reason) the same flexibility that I asked of them when it was convenient for me. My employees will only go the extra mile if I understand that there is a two way process - or if I pay them so much that.... but this is not going to happen! (In fact it is almost impossible - we always want more.)

I need to trust my workers - their potential to do damage with poor product design, a mistake in front of t he customer is well above their hourly or even annual wage. I need to train, encourage and trust them as their manager - so if I trust them with a few millions of sales or company assets I can probably trust them not to fiddle a few hours of timesheets. Guess what - if they under perform then I need to correct and perhaps eventually fire them - independent of where they work. I need to give them clear productivity targets and KPIs and the tools and the guidance to achieve on time and with high quality.

As their manager I need to develop a greater skill set if they are not down the corridor, that is a challenge not a threat - I will be a better manager in a whole variety of ways and circumstances. In fact I need to show then my leadership and not my weakness.

We live in the twenty first century! This has many impacts. It wouldn't do any harm at all if companies reduced their carbon footprint by saving commuter travels. By the way it saves them quite a lot - if this is a company car then there is a direct saving in fuel and clever use of corporate space also cuts down on rentals, heat light etc. This can be serious money.

There are other elements of the 21st century that impact the debate. There are endless amounts of technology and products designed just to make it possible to work in teams even remotely. I know this, because all companies I have ever worked for expect us to use these technologies when we are traveling for business. Late at night, jet lagged and exhausted we try and keep up with the "day job" just so we don't get too behind and stop other projects because we are not around. On the other hand, sadly in the 21st century there are plenty of distractions in the office. Poor workers will waste their time and those of their fellow workers only too easily. Our job is always to challenge them to do better.

Working from home removes workspace distractions - no sport, no accidental team sessions by the water cooler, no pointless meetings where nobody is very clear why we are meeting and what we plan to achieve (apart from discussing current events). Most importantly it provides the space in time and place to really get some concentrated work done and hit my targets.

So in short - working from home can have tremendous upside in terms of worker respect and work achieved. It can also save the company substantial expenses and increase employee happiness. Sure it can be abused and sure their are distractions at home - but we need to judge each person by their results and not by corporate dogma. As managers we need to recognise that like most things there are pros and cons and that there are different people out there with their own needs and their own contribution - we need to work with our teams to make sure that we get the most from our policy; it isn't right for every person in every job function every day - but it works for many people in many situations.

We need to embrace working from home for our good, the company good and for the good of our fellow workers.

LTE Overview

I was recentlyinterviewed by my friend Eli Jacobs of JBSTek and we talked about the What? Why and When? of  LTE - Long Term Evolution.

I have turned my notes into a blog post - here is everything that you wanted to know about LTE..........

So What is LTE?

LTE or to give it its full name - Long Term Evolution is the dominant 4G mobile technology, driven primarily by growing demand for high-bandwidth data for mobile devices.

Why do we need LTE?

For many operators worldwide, revenue from their traditional offerings of voice and messaging are falling dramatically due to commoditization and substitution of alternative services. Mobile data, however, presents operators with an opportunity; driven mainly by video (37% of global mobile data revenue 2011[1]). Several operators worldwide already make more revenue per subscriber from data than from voice[2].

Apple invented the iPhone and the iPad and together with the Android based vendors they have  developed the markets for bandwidth hungry handheld devices. In 2011, almost half a billion smartphones[3] were sold worldwide – all of them data hungry. So both users and operators have a significant interest in mobile data.

Operators, have found that the technological & commercial challenges of providing mobile data are hard and very expensive. The network collapses that accompanied the launch of iPhones are well-known and caused considerable embarrassment to the operators. Essentially, operators need to provide many users with a high quality mobile connection simultaneously. This requires massive network investments and a paradigm shift in the underlying network technology. Of course, the consumer price is already very attractive and subject to continuing competition and price erosion, which means the operators need to be very efficient.

LTE is designed to be the technological solution to the challenge of economically providing fast and ubiquitous data to meet the demands of a highly mobile society equipped with a plethora of data on demand devices such as smartphones and tablets.

Network Technologies

Traditionally, network technologies have grouped into regional blocks – USA, Europe and Japan and most other regions adopting standards from one of these blocks. (The European standards do, however, have a considerable presence in the other regions.) This approach increased costs as each technology needs to be developed individually and then sold to a smaller market, and for the consumer it limits inter-operability. Therefore, one of the primary motivations of LTE was to create (for the first time) a universal global standard; and it would appear that this has largely succeeded (although there are different regional flavors.)

Operators today, have solutions for mobile data. The European standard has HSPA and HSPA+ that more naturally extends to LTE. The American and Japanese find themselves facing a technological discontinuity; as network equipment providers have stopped development of these standards in favor of focusing on LTE. This explains why much of the early adoption in LTE is taking place in these regions.

Contemporary networks handle voice and data very differently.  LTE adopts an all IP approach with the subscribers’ terminals and all the network elements supporting only IP.  The scope of the technological changes are outside the scope of this overview, but, suffice it to say that there are changes in the devices in your pocket, in the antennae and in the core network. It is also important to note, that there are inter-working strategies to ensure that contemporary and LTE networks can co-exist.

What about Voice?

As we noted, the primary motivation for LTE is to improve the mobile data experience and voice services work well today. For the most part, therefore, operators are taking if it isn’t broken don’t fix it approach and are leaving voice alone, and focusing on improving the mobile data experience.

In the longer term, many argue that this approach doesn’t make sense and there is no reason why voice on the mobile should not be just another IP based service. In fact they argue that efficiency and economic considerations will require that voice is IP based (from the handset and throughout the network. Today, mobile carrier voice is not, generally, a data service from the handset.)  Proponents of this vision look to the Voice over LTE (VoLTE) standard which uses IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) as the voice solution. It is unclear, how quickly voice will be combined with LTE, meanwhile user devices will continue to support 2G/3G voice as well as 4G data (this is also required to support operation outside 4G network zones.)

Some LTE Facts

• Nominal performance  of 100Mbps download bandwidth (allowing you to download a 74min album in 54 seconds or a hour long DVD movie in under 5 minutes)[4] - how much do you have at home today?
• First LTE Networks launched in Norway & Sweden by TeliaSonera in December 2009

Latest LTE Numbers

• There are currently 49 Live Commercial LTE Networks in 29 countries[5]
• 226 Commercial Networks in 76 Countries are in planning or deployment stages[6]
• 3.6M LTE Worldwide Subscriptions to Q3/2011[7]
• 48 Smartphones support LTE out of a total of 269 devices to Jan 2012[8]
• Israel – only one operator is publically looking at LTE with no confirmed launch date
• Predicted 290M worldwide LTE subscriptions by 2015[9]

Afterword

LTE is a universal all IP standard that enables operators to meet our demands for ever more mobile data. The objective is to drive down the cost of delivering gigabytes of data (note gigabytes!!!) LTE requires both upgrades and considerable investment in user devices, and in the entire network. LTE currently, has a nominal download speed of 100Mbps, with LTE Advanced due in late 2013 supporting 1Gbps (nominal download). Verizon Wireless in the US has arguably the most universal deployment of the 49 currently live networks.

When comparing with the adoption rates of  other mobile technologies LTE is currently on track to be one of the fastest ever adopted mobile technologies.

---

[1] http://www.jsicapitaladvisors.com/the-ilec-advisor/tag/lte-predictions after Nokia Siemens Network

[2] http://www.gsacom.com/downloads/charts/mobile_data_arpu.php4

[3] http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=pressreleaseviewer&a0=5170

[4] http://www.gsacom.com//downloads/charts/application_download_times.php4

[5] http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_344.php4

[6] http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_344.php4

[7] http://www.gsacom.com/downloads/pdf/gsa_lte_ecosystem_report_200112.php4

[8] http://www.gsacom.com/downloads/pdf/gsa_lte_ecosystem_report_200112.php4

[9] http://www.instat.com/press.asp?ID=3279&sku=IN1104914WH

Switching your customers ON not OFF

I have just read a fascinating piece that suggests that 74% of users are very satisfied with their Apple iPad but only 54% with the Amazon Kindle Fire.

The fact that the iPad is so popular isn't perhaps a huge surprise - after all that's what Apple does - creating brand recognition - making devoted consumers devoted to their devices with the ultimate user experience. Now the survey was not huge - around 200 tablet owning Americans, and I guess that the Kindle team have not quite made the leap from black and white e-readers to tablets (at least according to this study.)

The really interesting point was that many Kindle users expressed unhappiness with  the location of the on/off switch! At first thought that seems pretty trivial switch it on - use it - switch it off - there seem to be bigger issues with the user experience. However, on deeper analysis it reminds us how critical all aspects of user experience are in determining customer satisfaction. I am pretty sure that the Kindle team thought about all the buttons probably did some focus groups; but they still got it wrong for a sizeable number of respondents. Smaller companies would probably do a water cooler satisfaction study and then change the decision based on feedback (=resistance to changing the design) from the engineering team.

For software based products life is a bit easier - it is simpler to change the design of user interfaces and in some cases it makes sense to constantly offer slightly different versions and to constantly analyse performance and to tweak the product. See this great piece for a more in depth analysis.

Hardware or software, consumer or business product it is critical to get all aspects of the user experience exactly right; and as far as possible to constantly fine tune the product. At all times the focus must be customer centric. The product team needs to understand the customer segments, and to keep their understanding updated. Go to Market is a tough call balancing lots of conflicts and pressures and it's often hard to go the extra mile with RD and to meet the other constraints like time and budget.

User experience is critical; the survey didn't say how many users would not buy the product again because it had switched them off, but, given social media, peer reviews and recommendations - a poor user experience switches the competition on.

The Economic Value of Social Media

Regular readers of the JET blog will be aware that we are great believers in the power of Social Media. We recommend that Product Managers and Marketers get involved in Social Media even (or especially) for industrial products and not just photos of you kids, kitten or favorite film. See for example Social Media Revolutions

A couple of items caught my eye this month - The Daily Telegraph reported that Facebook contributes over 1Bn GBP to the UK economy and supports over 18K jobs, in the EU the estimated contribution is almost 13Bn GBP. The major beneficiaries are in the small and medium business. The study was performed by Deloittes and I guess their estimates are far from being a precise science, however, it does give some indication of the staggering reach and contribution that social media is making to business.

In a similar article The Times ( link is members only content) discussed why businesses try so hard to get you to LIKE them. The estimate is that each Like costs $1.07 in marketing costs - apparently for no immediate reward. On the other hand  Facebook itself has 586M Likes and Coca Cola as the most liked product has around 36M Likes and needs to have its own internal Facebook management team.

Some marketeers regard a Like as the ultimate word of mouth - influencer recommendation.

Facebook claims research showing that customers who Like also spend more. The machinations of  Facebook (and perhaps impending IPO) are out of scope of this article, but it does show how seriously some of the largest and most successful brands regard Facebook & we haven't even got started on Twitter, Google+, professional social networksand all the rest.....

Your product may not be consumer orientated and it may not be as bubbly as Coke, but, it still needs a home in social networks as way of getting the attention of your customers and influencers.

Social Media Comes of Age as an Advertising Platform

Social Media is a theme here at JET and we are great believers in the power of Social Media and think that Social Media is an important or rather a critical tool for businesses of all sizes.  


Even in large organisations we think that product managers and marketeers should be out there engaging with the customers - talking to them but also listening and learning. It is an easy and significant way to be relevant to our customers and customer centric. It is no longer a secret that social media can drive revolutions and depose dictators and in this recent post on Social Revolution we looked at some fascinating work by Shirky - Here Comes Everyone about how we all play a part and engage and how  Social Media gives us an accessible low cost platform to share information. We also looked at how Social Media allows us to recommend and find information to and from our social circle - a knowledge enabler perhaps on par to the invention of the printing press - See Social Media - Changing Society Forever 


The next stage of Social Media is to use it as a direct advertising channel - and many companies do use the social media platforms in their ad mix. The platforms also provide some great on board tools that are useful, accessible and affordable even for very small businesses. In this fascinating article it seems that Social Media has now come of age and for the first time a mega company - British Airways will be launching their new campaign on Social Media rather than on the more traditional media and advertising channels.Yet at the same time Sir Martin Sorrell the advertising legend, questions the value of large brand social media advertising. He also makes the very valid point that social media is now the new letter - its the way that we talk to each other and so advertising in this context makes it the wrong channel. Sir Martin also believes that their should be a subsidy for quality journalism (Sir Martin's speech) - surely a sign that opinion, blogs and personal news sources are having an ever increasing impact.  


Sir Martin is not a person to be taken lightly and many have commented on how difficult it is to get advertising right in a social media context. However, successful ads have always had the ability to engage our imagination and provoke discussion outside the delivery channel. There are a handful of ads that were popular on British TV 20 years ago where many of us still remember the slogan and joke about them today - ultimate success in brand recognition. Social media just makes it easier and more engaging to share and provoke the discussion. Many ads on social media will flop, but the clever ones will do exceedingly well - ultimately Social Media will be a channel that succeeds. I am sure that the BA ad in question cost a small fortune to produce - but the entry threshold for producing slick, clever and successful ads on social media platforms driving brand recognition and customer engagement is so low that even moderate success will make it compelling for many businesses.  At a small business level we have found that relatively cheap and unsophisticated text based ads from Google are very effective at driving quality traffic to our Israel travel website.  

Social Media - Changing Society Forever

I have recently discussed the power of Social Media where I argued that these are key tools that are generally off limits to most product market managers – which was a mistake because social media tools provide you with the ability to communicate with a large group of people, for the group to share information and to coordinate and organise very quickly all at almost zero cost – a marketer’s dream. I also discussed the fact that social media has the proved ability to provide the tools needed to organize a revolution – of citizens and consumers (See Social Media Strategies & Social Media Revolutions)

In this post I will reflect on the far reaching nature of social media and explain why it is therefore critical to the way that we converse with our customers.

One of the most far reaching changes in civilization was made by Johannes Gutenberg around 1439 when he invented the moveable type printing press – essentially enabling the economic mass production of books. This destroyed the market for manuscript copiers and more importantly allowed knowledge to be acquired by the masses and not just the privileged elite. This (the ultimate disruptive technology) invention changed the balance of power in civilizations forever.

I think that many of us would regard the Internet in general as being of similar importance as it provides almost everybody with access to limitless information. However, I think that the Internet is not the complete information revolution.

I think that the true Gutenberg style Internet revolution will be driven by two factors:

1. The Kindle (& similar devices) as a reading book is of equal or greater significance – allowing people to simply build, access, annotate and store their personal library.
2. Social media as a way of sharing pre-selected information that interests me; and is probably of at least mild interest to some of my friends and an economic way of sharing commenting and discussing this information.

Sharing and discussing information with social media is incredibly powerful. It is without doubt apologetically subjective personal information. However, it is incredibly compelling information – cleverly presented and recommended by a friend. In many cases a discussion emerges among the social circle. We start of with small pieces of information or knowledge and refine and enhance it by sharing. This in my opinion is similar to the invention of the printing press – I have access to all the information and will generally glance (at the very least) at these recommended items – instant access to important or pre-selected information.

This accessibility and relevance explains why we often see small localized businesses investing in Facebook and other social media. They know that they are not going to get thousands of followers – that is not the objective. Their objective is to be significant among their customers – to be part of the conversation and be part of the small instant information exchange. It is pure customer engagement and customer centric communications.

Equally so discussing what the business has done wrong is trivial and stunningly effective (see Social Media Revolutions) over social media. I believe that it is essential that we understand that society has changed with social media and that we need to embrace the new world – for the sake of our product and our customer engagement.

In my final comment (for now) on social media I would like to recommend this post from Jeff Cole discussing Google +.

Jeff makes some excellent points that are directly and indirectly relevant to product managers – in particular, I would like to reflect on the difficulty in being an expert in social media – and the very best never call themselves experts. This is often the case in many fields. My takeaway from Jeff’s article is that this is such a new and dynamic space there are many right and many wrong ways to do it. Think about what you want to achieve and the best way to do so – but most importantly get out there use the social media tools and do something – social media is enabling revolutions and it is changing society forever - your product and your customers can’t afford to be ignored.

Social Media Revolutions

In a recent post I discussed how Social Media has become an important marketing tool that is often missed or off limits to most product marketers in larger companies. Using them correctly, I believe can increase customer engagement and simplify product positioning.

Over recent months we have seen the power of social media to command people's attention and to motivate them to take part and be involved in activities. Many of these activities were previously well out side their normal comfort zone and in many cases caused them to endanger their lives. I am, of course referring to the Arab Spring and to a lesser extent to the on going Israeli Summer.

In the Arab Spring regimes were overthrown, or revolutions brutally suppressed. In the Israeli Summer on the other hand, we have mass demonstrations that are calling for a new social agenda and consumer price reform.

Both of these phenomena illustrate the power of social media – because they are both being organised and facilitated using combinations of Facebook, Twitter and other media.

The power of social media was discussed (and this year's revolutions foretold) by Clay Shirky in his book “Here Comes Everybody” (Penguin – 2008). To quote the back of the book “The next revolution will not be televised – it will be emailed, texted, blogged, wikied...”

Shirky discusses different case studies - from arrests for mass ice-cream eating in Minsk, to previous unrest in Cairo, to social stunts in Macy's store in New York, to protests against the attempt to hide abuse cases, and to commercial demonstrations against banks and airlines forcing them to reverse unfair commercial decisions. Shirky makes the point that social conversation and interaction follow a power law distribution from small groups with tight conversation, larger groups with loose conversation and then much larger groups that broadcast.

Shirky's message is that groups can organise themselves to collaborate on issues that they believe in or find sufficiently engaging. The critical element is the ability to share information and to coordinate and self organise at very low (negligible) cost – the enablers are social media tools. Speed is also of importance, it is hard to organise a large group of people using meetings, letters in the post etc. – sure it has been done but immediacy makes it so much easier.

The book discusses two almost identical protests a decade apart – the second of which achieved its aims, whilst the first did not. The conclusion reached is that (to a large extent) the availability of social media in the second was the key factor.

So the key advantages of social media are the ability to communicate with a large group of people, for the group to share information and to coordinate and organise very quickly all at almost zero cost. I would add that social media is still considered engaging and cool; and that in itself prompts people to take notice of a message that would be ignored if it were to be delivered by conventional means.

I am not arguing that on any given Wednesday afternoon product marketers or managers can start a worldwide revolution! I am, however, arguing that social media is extremely valuable to us. Consider the characteristics – immediate, low cost, information sharing, collaboration, engagement – these are the holy grails of product communication.

Using social media to interact with our customers we keep them involved, we can communicate messages when we want to without special effort, we engage them and allow them to share information with us that in turn help us to be more responsive to their needs and to better meet their expectations. This applies whether we have a business offering or a consumer offering. In a B2B situation we can help our customers succeed better at their job by sharing information about our product and our industry and it is easy to see how consumer products benefit from this interaction.

One of the apparent risks is that the competition will also join our group. This is true, but, then we have to share information prudently. We accept that every time we update the website, publish a white paper or interact with a customer then we have shared a secret with the public. In the meantime we have built the group chemistry around our product. Customers may share criticism of our product, but, surely they will do so anyway and it is better to hear about it and respond to it quickly (add an update to the next release and tell the world when it will be available.) Feedback is to our advantage, conversation drives our prestige.

The other idea that comes out of Shirky's work is that Social Media provides an easy tool for dissatisfied customers to organise and apply immense pressure on the organisation – it is much better that we also use the tools for our advantage.

Social Media is a low cost (mainly our time) way to regularly engage with our customers, to gain feedback, to help to shape our industry and to share information immediately.

It is hard to build a successful Social Media community – you need to choose the media (Facebook, Twitter, blog, wiki, special community etc.), to get people signed up and to start talking with the customers. Different businesses will use different tactics. By definition when we have a group we have conversation – conversation about our industry but mainly about our product. The conversation makes our entire approach, customer centric and drives our product decisions.

Whatever tactic we employ I believe we can all start our own small product revolutions and engage with our customers in a more meaningful way.

Spotting Disruptive Technology - Timing is Everything!

In the first post in this mini series on Disruptive Technology I discussed why we need to expect the unexpected - in a nutshell most of us spend our working days involved in our daily routine trying to plan develop and market our product. Meanwhile, whilst we aren't looking or dreaming in other directions there are groups of people who have dedicated themselves to doing something completely different and destroying our product and our market. It's nothing personal - its just (to paraphrase) - all is fair in love, war and technology development. Its been happening for a long time - think of the canal owners who suddenly had a new competitor with a new bigger faster technology called the railway. Or carriage makers just before Mercedes, Benz and friends came along.

In this second post we will discuss the timing impact and various key questions that are really just questions of timing and product timing decisions.

So we have made firm resolutions and have spotted some disruptive technology lurking somewhere away on the horizon - what's next?

Unfortunately, spotting these potential disruptions is only the tip of the iceberg, it is all to easy to be drawn in by the hype and buzz around these new areas. Firstly, curiosity is a strong human trait (and it is generally well developed in Product Team Members), the buzz can be more exciting than our regular work and in big organisations it can seem to be a way to stand out from the crowd (guru).

On the other hand, it seems that everybody is doing this. Remember, there are people out there who earn their salary creating this impression. Without being too cynical, the technology hype pays their bills.

For those of us who played team sports as kids remember how everybody used to chase the ball - didn't matter if you were defence or attack you ran after the ball. Later on we developed more discipline and strategy and stopped chasing the ball and started to play the game. That is one of the challenges of disruptive technology - to figure out when to chase and how to play the game.

So in analysing Disruptive Technology we must then exercise our judgement on the probability that the technologies will mature, that they will impact our area, and finally the hardest question of all - when? What is the relevant time frame?

Getting these factors wrong can ruin a perfectly good business or product strategy no less than ignoring or not spotting the technology. By way of example in the Telecom space around 2005 everybody was buzzing about IMS and how it was going to change the Telecom industry as we knew it. There were almost daily announcements of new products, initiatives and commitments. It seemed that overnight all our calls would be IMS based.

Looking back the objectives of were valid, the overall impact of IMS and IMS like technologies has been profound and are on going - but from a telecom's industry perspective "the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" (Mark Twain). In summation without getting into a theological argument (IMS believers vs. IMS non believers) by 2011 we can say that IMS is not yet main stream and whilst it has impacted many businesses it has not (yet) fulfilled its hype of 2005.

Clearly, companies that assumed that IMS was the next best and greatest thing made the wrong call. Whether this was to develop new technology products based on IMS or to build consumer and business services over IMS they are probably somewhat disappointed. Equally so you could have made the decision to stop investing in current development (to favour IMS) and missed out on a lot of opportunities in the last 5 years or so.

The point of this post is not to analyse IMS in depth, but to use it as an example (from our own industry) of the dangers of incorrectly analysing the impact and the timing of the impact on a product space. Many companies made the wrong judgement call.

Looking back the single most important error was probably the lack of business case to justify such a large risk and technology change. (A reminder to always use business fundamentals.) There was huge hype and like the example of team sports earlier, everybody was chasing the IMS ball. There were only a few brave solitary voices in the wilderness calling out with a different message.

Overall IMS is a good example of a disruptive technology that many spotted, but very few managed to answer the key questions of the probability that the technology would mature, its impact on their industry and most critically on when it would impact. Ultimately, all these questions become a question of timing - when will it happen?

The product teams involved had to set their product requirements, make their product decisions and position their product based on their assumptions about the impact of this disruptive technology. Many errors were made.

Clearly it is key to our product and business strategy that we actively seek and successfully spot disruptive technologies. However, we also need to be able to stand back from the hype and think strategically and coldly analyse the likely impact and timing of the new technology.

The final posts of this series will discuss some practical ideas for systematically discovering and analysing new technologies.

Social Media Strategies

Social Media is clearly one of the essential tools for Product Managers and Product Marketers.

Actually I say "clearly" and then I reflect upon my time in a medium sized high tech telecom company and all of a sudden it isn't clearly or even a bit obvious.

We had an excellent marcom department, that did some amazing things with web technology and customer engagement - but the average PM had no interaction with customers via social media. To be honest many of us had no idea what Social Media was or what was involved and we probably couldn't have defined it beyond "That's Facebook right?"

A few months on I am convinced that the product and the product positioning would be in a different league if we had done some basic social media work. Our understanding of the customer and customer engagement would have been substantially improved.

I am pretty sure that my experiences are reflected in many global companies - the Product Team are kept well away from Social Media - either through lack of awareness or because they are deemed dangerous without the corporate review and rubber stamp process.

This is a topic that the JET team will be dealing with in the near future - meanwhile we recommend this Techcrunch post - that talks about the different media and how the Internet is evolving and changing Social Media. Recommended.

Spotting Disruptive Technology - Why It Matters

This is the first part of a mini-series on how to identify, analyse and react to disruptive technology. On this article we discuss why we need to be constantly looking for disruptive technologies.


As a PM one of the hardest things is to keep an eye on disruptive technologies and their likely impact on our product lines. In many cases it is nearly impossible to find time just to keep up to date on developments in our own field. Like in any other job we are focused on the daily routine and immediate needs of our product and on its internal and external customers. It is hard to find time to look beyond the immediate and work out what is happening out there in the big wide world.

Yet identifying disruptive technology is one of our most critical tasks – to bring a trivial yet valid example; there were probably teams of PM all working diligently on the latest features of typewriters such as electric, quieter, better ink ribbons whilst over at IBM, Microsoft and Apple they were busy working on mass produced PCs with word processors. There are numerous examples of major disruptive technologies appearing from no where and killing an industry dead almost overnight – DVD and videos – digital and film cameras.

However, identifying disruptive technologies is actually a difficult task, for several reasons -

1. It requires a substantial on going investment in general reading and research – something that we will all normally put off until next week when things are quieter.
   
2. It is often very difficult to identify where the challenge is coming from; in many cases the threat comes from out of market and not from our traditional competition. Did the typewriter teams keep an eye on the emerging computing market? Did Nokia spot what Apple were planning? Apple were a new player in Nokia's market, yet managed to blend their existing product capabilities with some new technology and a Palm Pilot concept and Nokia are still licking their wounds several years later.
   
3. The speed of development – all too often by the time you have heard of the threat it is (almost) too late.

Unfortunately, without have constant focus on disruption, we will always be surprised. Our natural focus is on incremental features and customer requests. This is often the case even when planning the Next Generation magical market leading product. We will become focused on meeting our product and time objectives and forget to understand what is going on outside our company.

To be fair, not all disruptive technologies will stop an industry in its tracks, but, by definition they will substantially change the way we could or should do business. If we spot them early enough they could be a substantial differentiator in our favour; on the other hand if we spot them too late .....

So one of the key tasks for any successful PM is to dedicate part of their working time to reading around – focus on your own industry (your customers and competitors) and segment but also look around you at other areas what's happening in other industries and let your imagination run wild about the possible impacts and changes.


Of course expecting the unexpected is hard and predicting the unpredictable is much harder than that – but we need to do so. It is hard to conduct a strategic product review or to make intelligent product decisions without understanding the bigger picture and looking at the potential impact of disruptive technologies.


In the next blog we will look at ways of finding the information that we need, the dangers of trying to figure out the timing and how to promote discussion within the organisation. We will also discuss some formal methodologies that we developed to analyse the impact of these technologies on our business.

WAC - Innovation & Standardisation

As telecom guys, we can’t let last week’s Mobile World Congress go by without a mention. One of the announcements was about the WAC (Wholesale Applications Community) standard. The WAC initiative was founded a year ago, has published v2.0 of the standard this week and plans v3.0 later in the year. A few telecom operators and suppliers have made some supportive announcements.

The basic idea of WAC is to allow developers a device agnostic way to bring their products to market and it will also improve operator involvement with application stores by allowing the operators to offer added value and services through their network. It is the latest in a series of initiatives to try to standardize this area of the telecom market.

Significantly Apple and Google are not members of WAC and are enjoying significant commercial success with their application stores. (In January Apple announced the 10 billionth app download.) They both choose to innovate aggressively, to create their own solution and to shun the standard approach.

The purpose of this blog is not to debate the merits of WAC, or its chance of success, but rather to consider the correct balance between standardization and innovation from the perspective of Product Management & Marketing.

Conventional wisdom (since the days of Henry Ford) has been that standardization rules. It simplifies the process, drives down costs and is at the core of mass production. WAC has the same objectives in mind – “WAC is …..dedicated to establishing a simple route to market for developers to expose their new applications to a customer base of over 3 billion customers.” It has been a brave PMM that has chosen non standard solutions – they increase cost, reduce the likelihood of success and are generally guaranteed to cause project delay.

However, Apple and Google have gone their own ways; and built their own solutions and created de-facto standards around their own eco-systems. Their strategy is that standardization should not be allowed to obstruct innovation. (There are many other technology examples in the past that followed the same basic strategy.)

However, also in the Telecom news was the agreement between Nokia and Microsoft. Behind the headline is the recognition that these two mega companies each with a strong tradition and proved track record of innovation have failed to deliver individually with Symbian (Nokia), MeeGo (Nokia & Intel) and Windows Phone 7 (MS). So clearly innovation even when driven by market leaders is no guarantee of success.

Often the process of standardization reduces innovation to the lowest common denominator to reach broad consensus and it can be driven by strong partisan commercial interests. In almost all cases it slows down the process – WAC is a good example. Compare the few early commitments with the number of devices and solutions in the Droid and Apple app stores.

Of course most PMM do not have the luxury of being able to create eco-systems on the scale of the app stores. However, we do need to balance standardization and innovation. Even today it is probably a wiser move to innovate in the context of app stores and not to rely on the WAC standard.

In many ways it is harder for the regular PMM; our product decisions are complex. We have to balance our need to differentiate with the need to be accepted via standardization. Our products are often expected to differentiate. We must also make some tough judgment calls on which are the correct standards and if it they are really appropriate for our product. If we are building a bleeding edge product we will often need to decide how we build a product that can be launched today yet is flexible to rapid change if a standard develops in a different direction.

Standardization is needed and should be supported, yet we need to remember when and how to innovate. Clever well executed innovation can be much faster to market and a strong differentiator and there is always the (remote) chance of creating a de facto standard!

When we manage our products we need to carefully evaluate what is our true ability to innovate and to generate product leadership and differentiation and when should we rely on standards and standardization. This is not a purely technical or tactical question. It is a strong commercial and strategic decision; just because a standard exists it does not mean that it will be commercially successful, nor that it is the correct product positioning for our product. The Telecom world has many examples of the standard that never caught on; Betamax is another example of the standard that didn’t bring commercial success.

However, to ignore an easy standard solution will ensure that we invest scarce resources in re-inventing the wheel rather than in creating the product we want in the time scale we need.

The balance between innovation and standardization is very difficult to achieve. Standards can simplify our product yet take time to evolve and are frequently not the best solution. On the other hand, wild innovation can produce an isolated, weak, expensive and late solution. However, without innovation it is very hard to differentiate at the product level. Finding the correct balance between innovation and standardization is The Art of Product Management & Marketing.

Promoting a Brand - Some thoughts from Richard Branson

I have recently discussed the product aspects of the Nike 10K Night Run. One of the issues that I raised was the value of a brand and how the race was designed to enhance and promote Nike as a sports brand. I also mentioned that Adidas managed to get in on the act by taking advertising space along the route.

I am reading “Screw it – Let's Do It” by Richard Branson the founder of the Virgin group. It is a fascinating book describing how he started out as a school boy entrepreneur and how he developed Virgin. The book itself will be the subject of a future blog.

However, in this blog I want to discuss Branson's insights into branding. The chapter is called Sex Appeal and true to the title he discusses how to make the brand irresistibly attractive. His concept of sex appeal is “A good brand has sex appeal .... the customer falls in love with it, desires it, wants it and buys into it. Sexy is youthful, fun, trendy, cool whatever your age.”

Now at the outset I will concede that I don't think that Branson is just a regular guy doing a regular marketing job – he is a real visionary (there are over 330 Virgin companies) and now that he has success he commands marketing budgets that are, well how shall we say it? – Enough to completely fund the development and launch of 5 or 10 of our best ideas, and a certain fame that brings attention (if not success) to almost whatever he attempts.

Branson also admits that he has enjoyed the stunts he has pulled – from record breaking hot air ballooning to being suspended above Time Square in nude bodysuits. He recounts how one of the pioneers of alternative air travel Sir Freddie Laker encouraged him to be the face of his product, and make the personal commitment.

So I accept that for all of these reasons Branson is not just a regular guy. He is frequently promoting consumer brands rather than the next new killer widget; and so there are many many differences between what he does and what many of us do day in and day out. None the less there are some clear lessons in his messages.

Branson says that he advises all entrepreneurs

“whatever your field, you must be passionate about it and create excitement in everything that you do. Beat your drum, and look beyond the obvious. .... I fully believe that the presentation and image of one's business should reflect the fun as well as all the hard work behind it. In my opinion there are no limitations on what is possible or what should be attempted.”

I think that in 2 or 3 sentences Branson has summarised what Nike were trying to achieve with the night race (notice the similarity between the Nike slogan and the title of Branson's book.)

Of course the brand has to act as a real differentiator the product has to be instantly recognisable - “I will stretch the parameters every time because there is so much competition, you have to stand out from the herd.” However, the promotion and branding must remain faithful to the product - “be true to the product. Don't make it something it's not. Take a good luck at the image you want to promote and go along with it”

Branson also discusses that the products must back up the brand. Having brand alone without the products to match will not work. He describes how he is constantly taking a personal interest in what both the customers and the staff think (“... it is real market research...”) and how the potential for damaging the brand is substantial with poor products. “At Virgin we want to create the most respected brand in the world... but a brand is only as good as your products.”

Part of his philosophy is accountability and engagement – he believes that people need to acknowledge their mistakes, but to engage in the debate and not be debated with no defence or leadership. He comments “it makes me angry to see organisations in crisis that with tens of thousands of employees hiding behind 'no comment.'”

So it is actually pretty clear what the race was all about. It was engaging the customers and making them part of the fun, passion and commitment that they are trying to achieve for their brand and for their image. It was a way of leading the debate, getting their customers involved and trying to stand out from the crowd (ironically, since with 15K runners there was a very strong herd effect!!!)

I think that here are some of the secrets of successful product development and especially product marketing – it needs to be fun, passionate and full of hard work and we need to break down the barriers – so that there are no limitations. Sure there are budget issues and product readiness status, but, we need to work to make sure there are no limits.

Our brand needs to be true to the product and the product needs to be true to the brand. Both the product and the brand need to stand out.

It is critical to listen to our customers to ensure that the brand and the product continually live up to their expectations. A race is one of the rare situations where you can get the customer to offer the commitment and passion in partnership with you, but, you must always get the customer involved.

As product managers and marketeers we must offer a personal commitment to our brand and product, our energy our commitment and our responsibility.

In one sentence - the secret of branding is to offer a personal commitment and work hard to develop and promote a great product that breaks barriers, engages and excites the customers and have a great time in the process.

Finally in Branson & Sir Freddie Laker's words - “If you are starting your own company, a good lesson would be to think very hard about your image and how to brand it. ... get out there and use yourself.”

Screw It – Let's Do It Expanded – Lessons in Life and Business – By Richard Branson 2007 – published by Virgin Books.

The analysis and opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Branson or of Virgin Books.

Be A Better Speaker - Tips from Steve Jobs

As PMM we are all often called upon to make presentations or to speak. We need to enthrall our customers, motivate our team and convince our management (or sometimes we need to enthrall management, convince the team and motivate the customer.) Effective communication is part of our day to day activity.

So we prepare a few slides, work through our basic arguments and stand up. I once went to a customer meeting and whilst we were waiting in the lobby my colleague was still busy making changes to the presentation - let's just say that overall that meeting was not our finest hour!

We have discussed some of the common mistakes that happen; even at a relatively senior level, and I also shared a neat time limited presentation style. In this post I want to share a few insights from one of the world's communication masters - Steve Jobs. Most of the key information can be found at this link from Business Week - watch the video and the slide show - well worth the time.

So a few thoughts from the master -

• Jobs prepares his story thoroughly and apparently unlike most of us a long time before he opens Powerpoint
• He focuses on the benefits and engages the audience by showing them why they should care
• Jobs is brief and succinct and also he breaks his pitch into 10 minute sections to stop boredom
• His slides are elegant and often devoid of all words - he captures you with his visual images
• He sells dreams not products

Some of these concepts are hard to implement in a mundane meeting discussing the finer points of our design which seem far removed from a vision, but with some effort they can make all the difference.

It has just been announced that Steve Jobs has had to take a second period of medical leave. JET wishes him a speedy return to health.

The Role of Product Management Leadership in a Crisis - Are we the Problem or the Solution?

I recall reading a description of a cabinet minister who was radically different - different because whereas most ministers brought problems to cabinet meetings this particular minister brought solutions. This candid view of ministerial capability and crisis management is interesting and very revealing - perhaps even a little worrying! There are some key lessons for product management.

Although I can't find the exact source now* it has always stuck in my mind as being one of the key differences between a real Product Manager and a wannabe.

Product management and marketing is has its share of problems and when we don't spot them in advance then we have to manage the crisis. It is too easy to get tied down in the problem when we should always be thinking about being the solution and finding the solution.

We have to be very focused and believe that we and our team are the solution and that we have the capability to find and implement the solution. Our product, our company, our team and our customers are all depending on us to do so. We must believe and act as success driven professionals.

For sure we need to understand the problem in order to solve it, but, there is a difference between being the solution or wallowing in the problem and undertaking blame-storming and inactivity. I am not advocating a superficial approach to the analysis, nor in using artificial time pressure to force our team towards poor solutions - we need to work professionally; but we need to focus on delivering and on our product.

Finding the solution may be far from trivial and we may need to call upon all our professional, communication and inter-personal skills to find and implement it on time. We may have to make critical product decisions in a very hostile environment. - However, we can substantially increase our chances of success just by staying focused on solutions - this critical winner mindset makes all the difference and is one of the key elements in the Craft of PMM.

Equally, when we build our team we need to find others who like us believe in solutions not in celebrating the problem. Developing and nurturing a team that can operate under pressure, remain focused and deliver solutions is a key contribution to the organisation.

Effective crisis management is one of the hallmarks of a true professional PMM Leader. We are leaders and we need to lead.

========
* I believe that the quote can be attributed to Mrs Thatcher although I have been unable to find it deffinitively. In any case the issue here is not of political endorsement but rather as an interesting attitude to the role of leadership and crisis management.

I think that we have much to learn from political leaders - a topic that we shall return to in future posts.