Thread by @johncutlefish

So here's a little prod dev lesson ...

1/14 At any given time, you'll have all levels of work in this diagram (A-I) happening simultaneously. All connected. The connections may be implicit...or obstructed and/or opaque or flimsy...but they're there.

@Amplitude_HQ #prodmgmt

2. Who tackles what varies. Take this example from an organization. You can see it is a spectrum. The types of missions we tackle vary.

A team might start with "G" to figure stuff out, but once they've gotten their groove, focus much more on C and D.

Try mapping your work!

3. There's another way to think about this using time.

When we walk into work we engage in little 1-3hr tasks. Say I ask you to "walk the tree" between your 1-3hr task all the way up to a 1-3year or decade mission. How would that play out?

4. Or a more vague -- but potentially valuable approach. What does "complexity" mean? I dunno, but the conversation will be super valuable.

You're starting to see a trend here hopefully: interconnectivity, connections, and the fractal nature of prod dev

5. @ttorres "opportunity solution tree" explores the connectivity between different input-->outputs, at different resolutions. Yet another valuable way to explore the tree.

miro.com/blog/mapping-p…

6. Here's yet another way to go "up and down" the tree, while also stating our assumptions, facts, constraints, etc.:

eleganthack.com/a-map-from-goa…

6. Visualizations like this board try to connect the dots. Your North Star might stick around for 1-3 years, and your day to day work might exist in 1-3 week blocks, but it is all connected.

Again: connectivity, relationships, a story...

7. This is why outcome/output, problem/solution, opportunity/intervention, objectives/key results will always need *more*.

You need a "map" or "graph".

And even then you might not capture the essence of your bets. "bets" come in all shapes and sizes...

8. A bet can be opportunity focused ... "oh hey, we have data indicating these issues w/the onboarding flow",

more interventional "fix this",

or higher level ... "the onboarding flow is broken, fix it"

With ALL 3, you need to frame the whole story.

9. Would you bet on 1 or 2 here?

We might get lulled into the certainty of Bet 1. And Bet 2 might require skills the team does not have.

10. Very importantly, this is all decoupled from how a particular organization "tackles" this whole nested mess of bets. This A-I scale is from the first tweet.

Observe how these two orgs "organize" to tackle the spectrum of work. Is one better?

11. Or consider @swardley's Pioneer, Settler, Town Planner (...“a derivative of Robert X. Cringely’s description of companies as Commandos, Infantry & Police")

P,S,TP have different strengths

Notice it overlayed on a Wardley Map which is in itself another type of map.

12. ShapeUp by @rjs and @basecamp use the healthy forcing function of a 6 week "sprint" ... with very frequent integration, and a 3d "show something" forcing function ... to hand teams ~C level work (to the first tweet).

Works for them. Some might find that too prescriptive.

13. We've touched on:

1- different shapes of work
2- coherence, how they are connected
3- the ability to tell the story of #2
4- how you organize, who "owns" what

The "do this now": use a variety of techniques to explore these four ideas.

14. The single greatest blocker I have observed to being "outcome focused" or "impact driven" is a lack of shared language and a way to visualize connectivity.

And/or limiting how you understand the work...based on how the team is currently organized.