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.

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.

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.

Does the Perfect Product exist?

So we all know that one of the hardest things about being a Product Manager is trying to get the product to the market - preferably with most of the required features and in the same decade as the target launch date.

Product timing is critical - often it is better to be in the market with a less than perfect product, getting customers involved and committed than still be in the labs working and missing the opportunity - although a poor offering can do incalculable damage to our product and our brand.

This inevitably forces us to make tough product decisions and compromises on what is in and what is out. We would all like the perfect product, but, in practice we try and define what is good enough. We need to review the product requirements and categorise (in reality recategorise) them into features that are key to the functionality, for example product differentiation and leadership, competitive positioning, key customer commitments (but see this post on balancing customer influence on a release) and usability. There will be many other features, that make sense for the overall product offering, but will not gain customers nor will they loose customers and so sometimes they will just have to wait for the next release.

These calls can be tough and it can take a brave PM to stare down the boss and the market. When Apple introduced the iPhone it was revolutionary (touch screen etc), but at the time it missed some of the key features of a phone that traditional phones already supported (network technology and speed.) Some poor PM in Apple had to make the call and say those features could wait. In this case it worked.

Sometimes, however, the choice is less successful and worse some minor features get delayed from release to release without a solution. So following on from my analysis of Nike getting some marketing issues wrong - here are some thoughts about a place were Google gets it wrong.

Briefly, when you build a website, two of the key stages in launching it are to submit the site to the major search engines together with its sitemap.

Now when we built this blog we built it on a Google platform, and naturally assumed that submission to Google would be automatic. Not so - a few weeks on and we realise that we seemingly need to submit and that the submission is from a different set of Google tools and not the blog control panel. Even more frustrating, building the site map probably isn't automatic and doesn't always work the way they say. Or maybe it is automatic - depends who you believe - the Google support guy on one of the forums or the official instructions. Worst of all - this saga seems to have a history judging by the support forums and QA pages.

So given that these tools are for the general public - the user experience could have been so much smoother. Maybe there is a very good reason why submission isn't automatic - but it is hard to see why this couldn't have been properly explained and a couple of items included in the blog set up wizard. True in this case they didn't loose me as a customer, but they almost did see me checkout a different blogging platform.

To wrap it up - we need to compromise on our dreams for our products, failure to do so can ruin our chances to get market share, but, we need to make sure that we don't compromise too much. We need to listen to our customers and fix the things that we missed or omitted the first time round, failure to do will also ruin our market share in the longer term.

Product Management - The Longest Race - Part 2

In a recent blog (here) I discussed the product management and marketing lessons that could be learnt from the recent Nike 10K night race in Tel Aviv. I discussed the event planning (impressive and complex) and the event objectives (which were probably significantly more than just a fun run).

In this blog I will discuss some of the results of the event.

As a runner I can say I had an amazing time, and that on the whole this was an impressively run event.

However, the main question is what did Nike think? What KPI's did they set in advance for the event (number of runners? low number of problems? set up/clean up time? News minutes? Facebook group members?) Were their targets met? More importantly were the targets the correct ones or were they chasing the wrong things - were they were focused on their own issues and not on being customer centric?

During the course of the race itself there were other aspects of product management in action. Every once in a while there were music and water stations, we can consider them to be product features, helping the customers to enjoy the experience more, to engage with them - what will make them happy customers that will come back next year and recommend to their friends?

On the assumption that they plan to run a similar event next year, how, are they acquiring data and how are they planning to review and improve?

On the subject of next year we can consider product extension; will they feel the need to enhance the offering - perhaps by offering a shorter or longer version or by diversifying into a cycle race or triathlon? Perhaps there is a market for more than one event a year?

There were strict rules, we were all supposed to wear the official race shirt and run the course in an orderly manner. There were a few people who ran but I guess hadn't registered, and so ran in their own shirts and there were a few who wanted to stand-out and so ran in other shirts (last year's race etc) - on the whole this caused no problems to the runners. However, we can certainly view them in the context that the product was excellent, but, that it wasn't perfect - it was fit for purpose. Of course, since we mostly followed the rules, then we were complying with a certain standard, specification or protocol.

The race had a strict delivery schedule - it had to be ready on time and it had to work adequately well on the night. So part of the secret here is in team work and execution. The PM&M can have designed the perfect race, but if his project team didn't get the water in the runner's hands or publish the results then the product experience would have been irrevocably tarnished in the eyes of many of the customers.

So in conclusion I had a good run that evening and I believe that the experience was shared by the vast majority of the runners; I suspect that Nike felt that it was a success, but, that they have some points to improve or change in the next year. Overall this was a fine example of the craft of product management and marketing.

More importantly, I hope that by looking at an event that is outside of our day to day we can see the implications of strong product management leadership on all aspects of product design, management and marketing in general.