#wardleymapping fans. I was about to make this list myself, but figured it would be more fun as a group activity. Care to add some?
WM help(s/ed) us decide to __________ instead of _________________ .
e.g.
change a team's mission from acting as a specialist walled garden to trying to spread that expertise across the company
use vendors for X,Y, and Z, and then spin up an internal team to act as a center of excellence for navigating those vendors/tools and abstracting the provider from the company.
"decide that it wasn't worth trying to compete with Amazon when it comes to _______, but there were opportunities regardless" 🤣
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A quick overview of a workshop we are running at @Amplitude_HQ with prospects/customers. It hits all the angles. We use @MiroHQ
1/n First we dig into the product promise and path to sustainable, differentiated growth...
2/n Then we take a quick look at competitive. Personally, I think that to "ignore the competition" it is important to understand the competition first. So we look at that...
3/n With that context, shift a bit to learn a super high level form of journey mapping. First we start with using an emotion wheel to get people ... well ... thinking about humans. And then we do a 30,000ft exercise with 5 key narratives...
One of the highest leverage things a company can do is to work cross-department to establish meaningful personas/narratives/JTBD/whatever-you-call-it.
If it is so high leverage, why do so few companies actually follow through? ... (1/n)
Utility. What is meaningful for day-to-day action for product development is often "too complex" to be meaningful for marketing and sales. Similarly, what helps marketing do their thing, is often not actionable for PD. (2/n)
Marketing will do just fine with a 1-3 "personas" and a rough sense of a journey map. They also focus on marketing "the gap". Meanwhile, product/design need to deal with all the subtleties and the present. The reality.
So what looks good on the surface (common artifacts)(3/n)
“Our developers just like to code so we can’t do X”
Lots to unpack here, but a couple thoughts:
1/n: Until anyone sees something work, they’ll opt for their comfort zone. We all do it.
2/n: If you’re asking developers to do X, but their department is incentivized around Y (e.g. shipping) .... sure, developers will want to avoid doing X
3/n: Sometimes it is the person saying “Our developers...” who doesn’t want to do X, or doesn’t want their reports to do X. They are the uncomfortable one!
Dig deeper. Find out what “the developers” really have to say
Here’s a trap I’ve noticed leaders falling in to. And it can be tough to untangle.
People bring problems to them. But not many people ... like 1-2% of the company. So they walk away believing it is a small problem ... “I need to hear from others”.
What is going on? 👇 (1/n)
What determines whether ppl speak up?
Awareness
Awareness of impact on others
Perceived impact/severity
Sense of urgency
Sense of safety
Skill in providing feedback
Confidence that org will respond
Perception that issue is being addressed
Why does this matter? 👇 (2/n)
Take a newcomer to the company.
Newcomer sees the problem. But...
They aren’t aware of impact
Low sense of urgency
Don’t interact much outside their team
Believe something is being done about it
Less confident about navigating org
“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.
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.