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

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.

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.

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.