Category Archives: Product Management
One of the foundational tools for Agile is Working Agreements. This blog will explore three uses for this power concept.
First, what is a working agreement?
A working agreement is a document of the values and behaviors that apply to a team. It facilitates great discussion about what will work for all team members. For software development teams, it could address topics such as after-hours availability, meeting etiquette, team member attitudes on interruptions, philosophical positions on accountability and more. Working agreements are powerful because they are crafted by the team, for the team. This is not management dictating terms; it is the team coming together to decide what works best for them. No two working agreements should be the same, and as team members change or teams evolve, working agreements should be modified to stay current.
Now that we know what they are, how can they help build teamwork in even the most dysfunctional team?
Facilitate Difficult but Necessary Conversations
When developing a working agreement, the team is gathered in a relaxed setting where difficult conversations can arise without drama and theatrics. Let’s talk about whether starting meetings on time is important to us. If so, we can add it to the working agreement. If there is a team member who is chronically late, then this discussion isn’t about singling them out, but rather figuring out what works best for all team members. Agile is a powerful way to do business. It is not a magic pill and it will not solve all of your problems – but it will bring them to the surface where they can be positively and proactively addressed. A working agreement is one of the tools to drive that critical conversation.
This is the final installment in our blog series “what does it take to launch a product?” If you are interested in the previous posts, we covered Product Definition, Pricing, Sales Enablement and Making Hard Choices. This blog will highlight the communication plan that is required with a product launch. Like many elements of Product Management, it requires more thought and care than might initially be expected.
Here are some tips and tricks regarding communication:
If you have a Marketing department that is separate from Product Management, include them in a discussion about launch communication. We all have our skill sets and you want the best players in the right positions. Many product managers are excellent marketers and writers, but they may not have the depth of expertise and relationships that your Marketing team does. This is an opportunity for close collaboration.
Identify your audiences
You may have several “masters” to serve and they may need to be communicated to very differently. Internally, you have to think about your sales force, executive team, customer service representatives and other company employees. Externally, you have to consider existing customers, prospects, the media, Analyst firms and possibly investors or shareholders. Each audience may need a slightly different message so it is prudent to think through this ahead of time so you aren’t left scrambling right before launch. Also, some audiences can promote your message so you want to get to them early in the process.
Determine appropriate amount of communication
How much is too much or not enough? Communication can be tricky because you don’t want to over-message something that is small, thus diluting your Marketing credibility. Nor do you want to under-message something big and miss a potential opportunity.
We solved this, like many other companies by creating Launch Levels. An “A” launch is a big deal – Press Release, videos, micro-site, sales training, etc. In order to qualify as an “A” launch, it has to be a brand new product or a significant enhancement that will drive revenue. Depending on your innovation cycle, you may only have one or two “A” launches per year.
A “B” launch is less impactful; it might be only available to existing customers, or it might be an inexpensive add-on that won’t drive significant revenue, or it might be a version 1 product that you are testing on a smaller target market before making a big splash. “B” launches will have fewer marketing assets and activities than an “A” launch but still require thoughtful consideration of content, audience and timing.
“C” launches are more like product enhancements. You definitely want to get the word out but it isn’t worthy of an Analyst Briefing or new website.
The way we manage the different launch levels is to have a Launch checklist and whether a task is required, optional or ‘as needed’ varies by the launch level. For example, in our company, a social media campaign plan is required for an “A” launch, ‘as needed’ for a “B” launch and not applicable for a “C” launch.
Have a plan
Even if your organization isn’t mature enough or big enough to have a Marketing department or need the sophistication of launches levels, take the time to craft a communication plan. It is important to let the world – or at least your sales people and prospects – know about this great new offering. If you aren’t purposeful about it, or you slap something together at the last minute, it can devalue the product and no one benefits from that!
Launching a product is a highly orchestrated effort that requires thought, planning and follow-through to be successful, but when it is successful, it is a great feeling to see your “baby” hit the market and start generating sales. There is such a sense of pride and accomplishment that comes from it. I hope every reader gets to experience that feeling. Happy launching!
Originally posted on a now defunct site on 4/16/13
Image source: http://www.powerelectronicsworld.net/article/0/79963-gigoptix-producing-gaas-e-band-pa-chipsets-in-volume.html
This is the fourth in a series called “What does it takes to launch a Product?” and this entry focuses on the hard choices that need to be made between Product Management (Product Owner) and other stakeholders. There is never enough time, resources or money to deliver everything that is desired in a product. But in order to actually launch something – to get the product out the door – difficult choices need to be made. Here are three rules to help with the process:
Don’t build for the 1% (or 10% or maybe 20%)
This is one of the most difficult rules to adopt and live by because it is in our human nature to solve problems. But in order to get the product out of the design phase and into the marketplace, you have to be willing to say “yes, that might happen, but the odds are low so we will handle them manually or not at all.” Here is an example – what if a customer places an order for a product they already have. Will we issue an immediate refund? Will we notify them via e-mail? Will we convert them to another product? Before you build a complex, automated solution consider how often this will happen. If it is an ‘edge case’ or something that will not be a common occurrence, put a manual process in place and move on. Some in your company will probably fight you on this saying that it will be it harder for operations or customer service and that is true. The trade-off should be worth it because new products should equal new revenue and revenue solves most problems. Honestly, if a manual work-around really becomes cumbersome, it can always be automated post-launch. (Lean Product Development calls this the Minimum Viable Product or MVP.)
One of my favorite events every year is Sales Kick Off (SKO). SKO provides a great forum for sales enablement but it should be happening throughout the year and certainly with every product or significant feature launch. Let’s explore the key elements for successful sales enablement.
- Use cases– this cannot be overstated. Product Management needs to provide Sales with scenarios or use cases where the product will solve a real business problem. These use cases need to be simple to understand and easy to remember. The use cases used in Sales Enablement do NOT have to be exhaustive as that would be difficult and too much for sales to digest. They need to be simple and educational. With a proper grounding in ways the product could be used, the Sales force is armed to go out in the marketplace and find similar instances or even more complex scenarios. Product Management needs to provide Sales with simple examples so they stay engaged, pay attention and remember the products capabilities when they are in front of that sales opportunity.
This is the second in a series on “What does it take to launch a product?” This blog is about pricing which is a critical exercise in the process of launching a product. The observations shared here are focused solely on B-to-B sales (business to business, not business to consumer which has many different nuances.)
Golden Rule #1: Sales cannot set standard pricing
Every once in a while, I will hear from someone that their executive team wants sales to set the pricing because they are most aware of the marketplace and the competitive pressure. And while I agree that Sales should have a tremendous amount of input in the pricing process, they shouldn’t have the final say in setting *standard* pricing. It is a bit like having the fox watch the henhouse. Anyone with a quota has different incentives with regards to pricing than someone who is objectively trying to express the business value of a product. Once Standard pricing is set by Product Management (PM), then Sales will have an active role in deals-based pricing or ICB pricing. But Standard pricing must be owned by an organization without a quota.
Golden Rule #2: PM (or Finance) should define both Published Pricing and the floor
In the b-to-b world, like most other markets, pricing is negotiated. It is often the case that you want to publish your standard pricing which is the price that you would love to get, but you understand that there needs to be some wiggle room for the Sales force to negotiate. Our experience has been that when PM sets the standard and the floor, Sales has clear boundaries that they can move within. Some skeptics will say that Sales will always go straight to the floor and that may be true but it depends on a number of factors – namely their comp plan. If good salespeople will make more money by pricing closer to the standard/published pricing, then they will. Less experienced sales people or folks who are compensated on volume and not margin will likely go straight to floor pricing. But if PM defines it, the company should still be confident that adequate margins are maintained, even at floor pricing.
Today starts a series of blogs on launching a product. If you have heard me speak or been around me for 10 minutes, then you have heard me say that we recently launched 6 products in less than 3 years. I talk about it so much because I am so proud of this organization for accomplishing such an awesome feat. What does it take to launch a product? You have to define it. That sounds pretty basic, huh? Who would have a product that they couldn’t define? But the devil is in the details and there are several ways that products need to be defined. Let’s look at the nuances to better understand why this is harder than it looks.
Define for IT (Engineering)
You have to articulate each feature in detail so IT (Engineering) knows what to build. This could be a prioritized list of 10-15 things or perhaps 100 small features. The point is that Product and IT need to be on the same page as to the critical features, and what are the nice additions to be added, time and resources permitting. But for product management, the product definition doesn’t end there.
By most accounts, my first experience with an Agile roll-out (specifically Scrum) was quite successful. We went from 3 Scrum teams to 12, we increased employee job satisfaction measurably and we delivered faster and more accurately than ever before. We rolled out six products in less than 3 years and that is a remarkable feat. One that I am certain we could not have achieved without moving to – and embracing – Agile. So how did we do it? What made our efforts successful when many other companies have struggled or failed? Here are my perspectives on how we found success.
Agile is a movement that requires top-down leadership to say ‘this is going to happen, here is why it is good and we should all start rowing in that direction.’ Without that vision and dedication to making it happen, it would have been really hard to move out of Waterfall, which had been ingrained into the workflows, processes and the very culture of an organization. But top-down isn’t enough. You also have to have a group of developers that are eager to make the change. Like most things, you cannot force people to change their behaviors if they are completely unwilling participants. At our company, we were very lucky. We had incredibly talented developers across the organization who were anxious to try new ideas and see how we could innovate. That bottoms-up enthusiasm combined with the top-down dedication gave the movement to Agile a fighting chance.
Being a Product Manager and an Agile enthusiast, I spend a lot of time and energy working on prioritization. It is both an art and a science to make sure that you and your team are working on the most important thing. The first in this blog series on prioritization answered the question “Should we do this at all?” and the second shared different tools to help with prioritization, specifically MoSCoW and the Risk-Value Relationship. In this blog, we will tackle the Kano model, which holds a special place in my Agile story. I first learned about it when I was doing research for our Agile textbook. It then found its way into Businessolver and was a part of the story regarding how we addressed our Product Roadmap. Very cool.
Kano Model Explained
First introduced in the 1980s by Professor Noriaki Kano, it is a great tool for Product Managers to use when assessing different kinds of value. The vertical axis represents satisfaction. The higher you are, the more satisfied you are – one might say ‘delighted’ to put it into Businessolver terms. The horizontal axis represents how well something is done.
Looking at the grey line first, these are basic needs – the ‘must haves.’ Thinking in terms of a hotel experience, we expect there to be hot water. Hot water is table stakes for a hotel experience. If you don’t have hot water, meaning the establishment didn’t do it well, then you are highly dissatisfied. However, if the hotel did have hot water, meaning they performed that function very well, it does not delight you. It is expected, so when done well, it doesn’t even register in your mind.
The blue line represents performance needs. This could be the check-in process at the hotel. It has the opportunity to dissatisfy – if the lines were long, the desk clerk inefficient or your room wasn’t ready – those circumstances could be very disappointing. Conversely if they recognize you when you walk in and you are greeted with speed and efficiency, then you might be pleasantly surprised, heading towards delighted.
As introduced in the first blog, prioritization is difficult. The first and most important question is “should we do this at all?” Once you determine that an effort is worth doing, we have to figure out where it falls relative to the other things in the queue. There are a number of tools that we can use in this effort.
The first tool in our arsenal is from Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) and it is an acronym for Must have, Should have, Could have, Want. The technical definition for each category is as follows:
Must have: all features classified in this group must be implemented, and if they are not delivered, the system would simply not work.
Should have: features of this priority are important but can be omitted if time or resources constraints appear.
Could have: these features enhance the system with greater functionality, but the timeliness of their delivery is not critical.
Want to have: these features serve only a limited group of users and do not drive the same amount of business value as the preceding items.
To put MoSCoW in action, we pull a reference from our book, Introduction to Agile Methods. In this example, we are looking at the payment methods that could be offered on a new eCommerce site.
Must have: ability to accept Mastercard and Visa
Should have: add American Express and Discover
Could have: add ACH payments for transactions directly through banking institutions
Want to have: add gift cards
By understanding where each feature falls relative to the MoSCoW parameters, the prioritization is much easier.
As a Product Manager and an Agile Enthusiast, I have lots of conversations about prioritization. It is really tricky. Well, that’s not always true. If you really only have one thing to work on, then I guess it’s easy. For the rest of us that live in the real world, we have to balance multiple number one initiatives in a way that will deliver the most value to the business. This is a first in a blog series about Prioritization.
The First Question
The very first question that should always be asked when considering something for prioritization is – Should we do this at all? People are too often moving too fast and trying to be responsive to the point that sometimes we stop thinking. One of my mentors had a saying: “This is top of mind, not top of list.” I love that. I first heard this when he called me after just having talked to an important client about a feature they wanted. He was excited and it was a good idea. I asked him if he felt like we should reshuffle our priorities and execute on this newly introduced concept. He paused and took a moment to really think through my question. And then he responded with the now often quoted “Top of mind, not top of list.” That is a fantastic barometer to keep in mind when you have a flash of brillance. It might just be a flash and you need to stick to your existing priority list. Bright, shiny objects can come into view, but they do not always warranted our immediate attention.