“When I hear ppl from Silicon Valley talk about product, they make it seem so easy, structured, and common sense. They are so confident. My team just can’t do that”
My reply: 1/n It is hard everywhere. I’ve spoken to those companies. They don’t have it all figured out
2/n Confidence — and in many cases naive confidence — can go a long, long way. Part of what you’re seeing is the confidence to buy-in to a way of doing things.
This has obvious not-great side-effects, but it is there.
3/n As structured as it all seems, the trick is often what they aren’t doing, the dependencies they don’t have, and the processes that aren’t constraining teams.
When everything is greenfield and new and on the up and up, you only see one side of things.
4/n Don’t sell [Their Company] short. Imagine what these places will be like in 10 years. You have an incredible opportunity. Don’t get psyched out. Some of this is smoke and mirrors held together by bailing wire.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reading the replies — the snarky, serious, cynical, and otherwise — a couple things occurred to me.
1/n - the difference between things imposed / inflicted on humans, and invitation. Sounds like lots of companies are imposing on ppl instead of inviting...
2/n... as a phrase itself, “digital transformation” risks leaving out humans altogether. There is an implied “transformer” — the company — and implied solution — digital (replace non digital things w/ digital things).
Who benefits? Why? Sounds like this is missing in many orgs
3/n... gap thinking vs. present thinking (thanks @cyetain ). I think ppl are justifiably skeptical of things smacking of gap thinking. Same reason we are skeptical of miracle diets and “life transformation” lasting 30 days.
[Thread] An observation about some companies "at scale" or scaling...
The number of teams doing work for the sake of work ... that would be better off doing nothing (or garden, weed debt) ... can be overwhelming.
The need to keep people busy, becomes the org's undoing (1/n)
..what organizations underestimate is the ballooning cognitive load and the web of dependencies (both explicit and implicit)
...this creeps on teams because it is possible, in the short term, to create a veneer of efficacy. To cover it up. To hire managers! Process! But.. (2/n)
..it doesn't last. The underlying problems haven't gone away. The teams optimizes around the dysfunction.
It gets worse
The org assigns 10% of the team to fix the issues plaguing 90% of the work. The 90% work around the fixers. There's no way the 10% can keep up (3/n)
The challenge of incentive structures in this model is one of the big challenges of product overall. Quick little thread (1/n)
If the layer of managers does not collaborate and interact regularly, there is absolutely no way they can take stock of performance more holistically. You'll end up with competing incentives. (2/n)
If the developer manager treats her team as three one-person teams ... to be loaded up and managed individually, that will have unintended 2/3rd order effects for the product manager and designer (and their relationship to their team)
A quick thread on how @Amplitude_HQ is using @MiroHQ to help customers instrument product analytics.
We use unique sticky colors to describe Events, Actors, Event Properties, and Actor Properties.
A player from the Oakland As swings a bat and gets a strike (1/n)
When helpful, we think in terms of timelines.
This can help visualize how properties change. In this example a music fan on the free plan plays a bunch of songs, and then upgrades their plan type. (2/n)
With workflows, we use a slightly different pattern.
Here, an Admin starts and finishes the configuration workflow, and we indicate all of the intermediary steps ... which often can happen out of order (humans are weird)
Here’s a basic (but overlooked) aspect of how product teams work ... and that is how they scope missions.
Say you scope your work in missions of 1-3 months ... (1/n)
That gives you enough time, as a team, to truly “start together” ... do research together, everyone get involved, etc ... and still have plenty of time to “do work”.
But ... (2/n)
Say teams typically scope/shape work in the 1-3w range.
Well of course that is going to require upfront research, handoffs, and “landing” the work on a team. 1-3d is simply too short for a meaningful “start together” type approach.
Way back I worked in a PPT factory at an investment bank. Our job was to assemble “decks” for investment bankers. The operation ran 24hrs a day with dozens of “operators”.
Young bankers would work CRAZY hours.
Reflecting (1/n)
...though it involved tons of specialized work, (the bankers) work was primarily research, models, content, etc. Their job was to deliver the M&A doc, the roadshow, etc. Our/my job was to assemble.
Some slides too up to an hour (2pt font, 200 logos, 20 footnotes, charts) ..(2/n)
...other slides took 5 minutes. And with some experience you could — as an operator or a manager, which I did both of — estimate how long a deck would take. 120 slides? 60hrs.
Why? How? Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. And low complexity.