I was speaking with an executive with 20+ years of experience recently. And I asked them if they had ever seen a feature/effort “flop”. And they said No. And I found this very curious. So I dug... (1/6) #design#prodmgmt#agile#devops
...in many cases, they claimed “poor execution” had left the “on their back foot”. Meanwhile, new silver bullets had emerged. So they didn’t really know — or weren’t focused on — whether the original idea worked or not (2/6) #design#prodmgmt#agile#devops
...in other cases, they described competitive pressures or “market shifts” that again left them “late to the party”. Notice the trend: it is all about speed and time in their mind. Perfect ideas that couldn’t be executed on quickly enough. (3/6) #design#prodmgmt#agile#devops
The interesting thing (to me) was that they had never experienced what many designers and developers have experienced...watching their amazing ideas fall flat. Or cleaning up (or wading through) years of debt/non-value-producing complexity (4/6) #design#prodmgmt#agile#devops
...I couldn’t really fault him, as no one had invited him into the process. The last time he had worked in the trenches it was a very different world. He was an engineer, but not in a similar context (5/6) #design#prodmgmt#agile#devops
It was a great reminder that we’re all bounded by what we’ve observe and know. Inviting people into the processs / sharing data / watching usability tests /watching your customers use the actual product is super important. When you do, you realize how much you have to learn (6/6)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The “messy middle” problems is one of the biggest impediments to product success. Here’s what it looks like:
The strategy and vision is somewhat clear.
Teams have specific features they’re working on.
But there’s nothing in between.
Why does it matter? 1/n
High level visions and strategies are helpful, but they lack the specificity to guide teams.
Specific project-based roadmaps feel “actionable” but they are very fragile—they don’t inspire aligned autonomy.
You need a linking mechanism 2/n
Some teams use goal cascades
The problem is the classic MBO problem: goals get more specific & prescriptive as you move down the stack. And by definition they should be “time bound”.
They too are fragile and foster “figure out what you want to build AND THEN tack on goals” 3/n
I was reading the transcript of a work presentation. Then I watched the presentation.
The transcript was filled with issues / logical fallacies / open questions.
While watching I noticed very few.
I think this is the root issue with presentation culture.
I noticed different parts of my brain firing in each context. When slides had lots of “stuff” it felt like a sense of “oh they’ve figured this out” even when the words did not match.
If you pay attention you can feel this happening.
The confident voice of the presenter made the “three focus areas” feel certain, clear, and logical.
In writing it felt incoherent.
I guess this is a point for “a compelling visual” but still it’s interesting.
Your team is burnt out. They are not getting anything done. Work is "low quality". You can see and feel those things.
But what you are seeing is an output of something—the downstream effects of other things happening.
In some companies this is a black box
1/n
…they don’t have visibility into what’s happening.
But it is not that simple (of course).
The outputs are inputs into the black box. And the outputs input into the inputs.
2/n
Say the team reactively addresses quality issues.
This creates more “work” (the output inputs into the input), but it also leaves the team more burnt out and they make less-good decisions on whatever is going on in the box.
3/n