"I don't believe your data...convince me"

This was another challenge question posed to me on Brainmates. Thanks Steve.

I love it because it cuts right to the heart of one of the most important weapons any Product Manager can wield - influence.

First though, I'd like to touch on how to avoid this question in the first place. A good place to start is by building effective relationships. Trust is vital in building influence, and without it, you might as well not bother.

Also, never forget to pre-wire every presentation. This probably deserves a post on it's own, but where possible, you should know the outcome of any meeting before it begins. Meetings can be a horrible way to make decisions, so I prefer not to rely on them to work out the way I expect. Talk to the important stakeholders beforehand. Understand not only their position, but their emotional perspective (see below). Remember habit 5 - seek first to understand, then to be understood. Knowing what to expect will mean you have covered as many of your bases as possible before your presentation begins. Then the meeting can be about allowing powerful people to feel like they are exercising their power.

When it comes to actually answering this challenge, I believe the answer lies in feelings not facts. As any salesperson will tell you, people buy with their emotions, then use the facts to justify the way they feel. What the asker is really saying is "I don't feel good about your idea, and I want to".

Through your pre-wiring, you should have an understanding of the emotional perspective of your stakeholders, but the best place to start will be your own passion (I know, reality TV has ruined that word, hasn't it?).

It's so easy to start a project full of enthusiasm and energy, and then create a presentation that strips away all that feeling, trying to win the day with hard numbers. If the data is good, but it's not convincing, then what's probably missing is the story. Tell the story of the product, it's users, it's market, and the big piles of money everyone in the room will be sitting on if they would just agree with you. You build your influence but sharing not just your ideas, but your emotions as well.

Let me know your thoughts. And feelings.

People make products

I've been asked a question about product management tools, so I've decided to write a post on the theme "Tools don't make products, people do".

You're thinking "That's all well and good for sheep, but what are we to do?"

 

I think this is incredibly useful and practical. I'm techy, so I have a natural inclination to think about systems. Particularly if they're shiny. And every time I do, I end up coming back to this. To explain how I make use of this insight, first I'd like to talk about power. Forget any negative connotations. I just mean the ability to affect outcomes. Power can come from:

Your role: In a traditional org chart, this can dominate, but as a product manager there is a very good chance you'll have no authority over team members you will need to rely on every day.

Your skills: As someone with a technical background, I often find this useful for breaking the ice with developers, but the chances are, everyone will have more skills in their chosen speciality than you. For me, my skills are the lever, but I need a fulcrum.

Your relationships: This is the gold, but it's not a quick win. There's no short cut. Relationships can only be built through constant and consistent communication. And this is fulcrum which gives my skills the leverage they need.

Here's an example. An update has been delivered, but there's a problem, and in order to honour a commitment, you need to ask a team to work back. They might do it because you have the authority to make them. They probably won't do it because they respect your skills. But they will stay, and give their best, if they trust that you know what you are asking them to sacrifice. Do you the names of the kids they will not be tucking in tonight, because they are writing code?

From my own experience, every time a product under delivers, it is never a tool that is to blame, but a relationship that has misfired.

Please share your thoughts.

Its all in the fine print

I noticed the fine print on a TV commercial this evening. I often do. In fact I've realised that while I'm listening to the voice over, I'm generally scanning the bottom of the screen for the weasel words that describe why the product really is too good to be true.

This one was simple though. It said "your local store may have heaps or none". I thought, that's great. It's says exactly what it needs to. No more, and no less. No weasel words at all.

I think it's becoming clear that as consumers we are so much less willing to be sold to, spun, and misdirected. Not that it still doesn't work. But most of the time there's just no point. When you tell a clever lie, you're actually wasting an opportunity to tell a clever truth. And you won't get a 2nd chance.

What does your job mean to you?

This is a subject that I have had some time to reflect on recently. Last week I received a redundancy package, so I find myself with more time to reflect on a lot of things.

Who exactly am I? I think the only genuine way to answer that is to talk about the connections I share. I'm a son, and a brother. I'm a husband and a father. I'm a friend.

So employee and colleague are missing from the list. The irony is, if I had to place a value on what each role means to me, I would have placed those at the bottom. But it's hard to escape the impact their absence has on my state of mind. I like to think of myself as a progressive thinker. I don't like to imagine myself being trapped by a traditional mindset. And yet here I am. At home. During the day. I feel like I'm wagging school.

I have often predicted, frequently to my wife, that the nature of employment is changing. In general, and specifically, for me. I have been attempting to mentally prepare her for contracting, consulting, or start-up life, where a wage is as quaint and old fashioned an idea as not been seen in public without a hat.

But it appears I may have failed to prepare myself.

What does your job mean to you? Would your answer change if tomorrow it was gone? Should it?

I'm not a Ninja - I'm a Product Samurai

The label "Ninja" is so overused right now. Not quite as bad as "Rock Star", but it must be close. I understand the need for redefining terminology in a new work environments,  but if we're going to be more creative in the way we describe ourselves, then let's actually be creative, rather than relying on the first two pop icons that spring to mind.

I'm definitely not a ninja. Relying more on my interpretation than historical accuracy, ninjas rely very heavily on individual skill, and are available for hire to the highest bidder. They don't take sides. Their only cause is themselves.

That describes a lot of programmers I know (:)), but as a Product Manager, that's not the type of role model I want, and not the type of label I'm going to give myself. 

Instead, I'm a Product Samurai!

Yes, I have skills, but I am nothing without my personal value system. I apply my skills with honour. I stand for something bigger than myself, and I never stand alone.

That sounds more like it. What's your alternative title? (And don't say rock star).

I can't smell the herd

My primitive mind has it's own idea about what connectivity means.

I'm lying, not quite asleep, in the grass, beneath a copse of trees. Beyond, the savannah is visible in the moonlight. And around me sleeps the herd.

I can hear them breathing and grunting as they sleep. I can feel a warm body on each side of me. The rise and fall of a chest. And I can smell them.

These sensations tell me that all is well. I'm part of a group that will shelter and protect me, my mate, and our offspring.

My modern mind knows that I am more connected to the rest of my species than I have ever been. But I can no longer smell them. I tweet, update, connect and check-in. But is anyone really listening? None of these networks makes me feel at rest, within a group to which I really belong.

 

Everyone should know where they came from

Monday Mind

Sun rise bright on steel, Awareness warmed and pricked awake, Grips the sharpened edge.

Mit "Bane" Romney

Night Bus

Tuesday night falls mute, Grim payment made for love and home, Warm gift now awaits

I discovered the Higgs Boson!

New Samsung "Whale Researcher" Phone

Arcade gaming...Please refresh

I was remembering recently how much I used to enjoying playing games before seeing a movie. The cinema foyer had games like Daytona and Sega Rally, that offered experiences you couldn't get on a home console.

I was reminded when I saw the cinema had Daytona and Sega Rally. Seriously, they must be 20 years old!

We used to pay because the hardware was more advanced than at home. I'm assuming with the rise of 2nd and 3rd generation home consoles, the existing business model for arcade games fell apart. But I'd still like to play (and pay!)

What if instead of paying for access to next generation hardware, we were paying for access to the next generation of games?

What I would like to see is games being previewed in public arcades. People queue outside store at midnight for a new release. Surely they'd pay to play a preview? 

Imagine a PC, with a good graphics card and a network connection, built into a suitably robust form to survive public use. Game publishers can pay to have their games previewed, gaining valuable feedback and helping to generate buzz. Gamers can pay to play intro levels of games, and then register by scanning a QR code, for rewards and bonuses from the publisher. Distribution and payment could all be electronic, cutting operating costs.

Surely this is win, win, win, win....win?

Who's in?

An App Store is not an app

For something that is so crucial to iOS, and from a company that generally appears to get User Experience, I'm amazed that Apple haven't done something about the App Store App.

There are some of my issues:

1. Whenever you choose to install or update an app, it takes you out of the store to show you - the icon. Which you can't use. I tend to install apps in batches and check them out later, so this behaviour is completely wrong. 
2. I can't tell that there is a newer version of an app, by looking at the app itself. I have to periodically go back to the store.
3. I'd also like to be able to work through the update list, selectively choosing updates to apply, without having to navigate back to the App Store from where it decides to drop me.
4. The content in the store is static. I'm sure a very high percentage of serious publishers produce a trailer for their app. Would it be so hard for us to be able to see those when it matters - while making the purchasing decision?
5. There's no social context. There are over half a million apps. A (very) basic search model is not going to cut it. This is a circumstance when social search would be incredibly useful. If I know my friends are using an app, not only is it more likely I will enjoy it, but for so many apps, not knowing any other users kills it entirely.

The conclusion I've reached - the App store is not an app. It's features and functions needs to be broadened and improved, and then blended into the overall experience of the OS. The device is the store.

I want to group my apps in different ways, and change the views. What apps have I installed this week for example?

I want all my games to be together, and based on what I and my friends are playing, I want to see recommendations for new games, with trailers.

I want to see that there is an update for an app as I decide to use it, and choose to update to the new version now, later or never.

I want to subscribe to app channels, so I can offload some of the selection workload to trusted curators.

These are just a few ideas which barely scratch the surface of what could be possible, once you forget about the store as an app, and starting thinking about it as an integral part of the whole device.

Any other ideas?

Night bus

Snort and sniff filled air, Tunnels blocked with phlegm and traffic, Bus trip without end

The Internal Startup

There are reasons startups are able to innovate better than established companies. They are smaller, leaner, more agile. Thay are hungrier - sometimes literally.

So can an established successful company create a level of innovation that will allow them to compete with their more nimble competitors, or are they all destined to become dinosaurs, either squishing little mammals beneath their clawed toes, or just dying off quietly.

One answer could be an internal startup. Here's how it could work:

All employees are invited to contribute ideas.
This should be open to everyone and every idea. Projects that directly relate to the existing business are probably more likely, but creative ideas that at first glance might seem ridiculous should not be excluded.
Ideas are refined into project proposals.
This is where ideas should be allowed to have sex with each other and produce cuter, more highly evolved idea babies. Again, everyone is encouraged to participate, contributing suggestions.
Everyone votes
I'm sure this will be controversial, and some managers will be insisting on making the final decision, but if you are really smarter than all of your employees combined, then why are you hiring so badly?
One or more projects are put into an incubator.
Each project will have a pair of founders who are able to display the same passion for the concept that any start up founder would have, short of having their house on the line. They will be able to "hire" staff by stealing the best personel from other projects. This might seem crazy, but there's no such thing as being partially committed. Members of the existing management team will play the part of investors, receiving regular updates and mentoring. Other than this though, the project will be left alone to develop a minimum viable product as quickly as possible.
Present and pivot
The startup team will present their idea to the rest of the company, and based on the feedback, the "founders" and "investors" will decide whether the project should continue, be re-integrated back into the main business, or be thrown back into a new round of ideas.

This model gives innovation a chance to grow within your organisation without being subjected to the usual processes, which are likely to dilute ideas, if not destroy them entirely. The visionaries within your company have something to aspire to. They get the opportunity to work on new ideas in a less structured environment for a period, without the associated risk that comes with working for a start up. You will be able to attract a different type of employee, encouraging innovation throughout the company. Who wouldn't want to work for a company that does this?

Of course not every project is going to produce your next killer product, but the willingness to fail is essential to innovation, and unlike a real world startup, the lessons learned from each project will then disseminate throughout your organisation, so in this case, there really is no such thing as failure.

What do you think? Could this work?


For some real world examples see:

Microsoft Gets A Clue From Its Kiddie Corps - The Daily Beast

Wells Fargo relies on internal ‘incubator’ to spur innovation - San Francisco Business Times

I've decided to change the world. Now I just have to decide what to change it into. Maybe a pumpkin.

Why we live in Story Space

Stories allow us to make connections between change and meaning.

Worthwhile stories always include change. Luke becomes a Jedi. The three little pigs move in together. A story without change is just a postcard. This character, is in this place, at this time. Who cares? Next time you find yourself disappointed by a story, ask yourself how the hero changed from the beginning to the conclusion. If the answer is that they didn't, then that might explain why you feel let down (The Descendants, I'm looking at you).

Good stories also make change inevitable, by forcing their character to change. Something happens, what Robert McKee calls the inciting incident, which creates a situation in which change is inevitable. When's Luke aunt and uncle are killed, he doesn't have the option to say "I just want to go back to the way things were". We know Luke is going to change, and we want to know what's going to happen.

Change alone though is not enough to make a story. Even inescapable change is not exclusive to stories. But only humans (that I know of) attach meaning to change, and is this meaning that defines the story.

A story begins with a premise. This is the question that the story must answer. But it must give more than an answer, it must also offer an explanation. The power of the story comes from the gravity of the question and the insight of the explanation. 

Consider "Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love and live happy ever after". Boring.

What about adding "because they both grow up and understand what love means?". Less boring? Well maybe, maybe not, but now it's a story. This is what happened, and this is why. 

We live in story space because we all know that change is inevitable, but we all long to find meaning and understanding. Without this, change will sweep away all of our efforts, and we will leave the world neither better or worse than we found it. The power of explanation is the basis of  out hope, that life might not be pointless after all.

That is why we live in story space.

Ads for new staff are Dear John letters to your current team. Ideally let them write the ad. At least ensure no painful surprises.

Life in Story Space

The fundamental unit of human experience is the story.

How's that for bottom line up front? I've been obsessed with stories all my life, but since reading (repeatedly) Robert McKee's "Story", I've been thinking about stories in different ways. For me it laid out a way of looking at stories, built from their fundamental building blocks. It provided a framework for de-constructing stories, or creating new stories, that seemed to make sense to me on some deeper level.

Since then I've started to see stories everywhere, and I now believe there are profound lessons that can be learned from this approach. All of our memories of the past and dreams of the future are stories we are writing about ourselves. If a human being is alive, they are making stories. So to understand stories is to understand how humans see themselves and their place in the world.

So this blog will be about Life in Story Space. I will be looking at how story logic can be used as a framework for different kinds of problems, and hopefully providing some insights on a wide range of topics. I hope the content here gives you a unique way of looking at the world, and at the power of stories.

Are you In The Loop?

Because professional creatives who want to be In The Loop just love to FOLLOW...right?

What about some design too?

Tweet #idontfollow

Flutter or FOLLOW?

Isn't this better?

Rise of the Context Shifters

Who are the Context Shifters? There's a good chance you're one already. I know I am. Just count how many devices you use to frequently access a single product/service? I use five for Twitter, and my guess is that's not even a high number.

When you have a single desktop PC, you have a single context. You sit in the one place and use a mouse and a keyboard to run desktop applications. The types of information and tools within an application are largely fixed. User centred design at least puts the user in the picture, but the frame is still quite small.

Fast forward to users carrying more than one internet enabled device on their person at all times, and a PC within reach for more than half of their waking life.

An application can now be thought of as an application space, encompassing all of the possible user contexts. Individual users don't have a single context, they shift contexts within the same application space. This is more than just an extension of a single session, moving from device to device. Context encompasses everything about an interaction with an application, so as my context changes, I want the app to respond accordingly.

This gives rise to the concept of "Context Loss" - the inconvenience a user may experience when switching contexts. This might only be a minor inconvenience, or it could be significant enough for a user to choose a to use only a single context in the future. Application design should include frictionless context shifting as a goal. Minimising Context Loss will help to embed an application in a users life, making it sticky and less likely to be abandoned.

Twitter

Rain falls clean as thought, Muddied soon by intermingling, Follow where you will.

Airbnb

Now a tired wish, No stranger to a weary mind, Welcome now to rest.

Flutter Lyon

Flutter words and ink, Confetti plays on sexy minds, Tattoed with wonder

A short story - The Crucible

A number of years ago I decided I wanted to write a novel. After a long process of narrowing down over 30 story ideas, I chose the concept I was the most excited about and began some development.

I wanted the world to have genuine depth, so I decided every main character (there are 17) needed a detailed back story.

In the end I couldn't justify the time I was going to have to dedicate to finish the project while working full time and raising kids, so I <sigh/> put it in the incomplete pile.

But one thing I did get done was this story, and I've always really liked. Every now and then I stumble across it and re-read, and I always enjoy the experience. So for no particular reason other than I can, I have decided to publish it here.

The Crucible

Does Lady Gaga really want 20 million FOLLOWERS?

For the most popular Twitter users, the service is an important part of how they engage with the community they have created around themselves.

We know that labels are important. Language can define emotion. So what emotions does the label FOLLOWER impose upon the relationship that a Twitter user has with their community?

Should a user with a community of over 20 million, have to settle for someone else's definitions?

Maybe Lady Gaga would prefer...

If you think the power to define your own labels would be a valuable feature, please Tweet #idontfollow.

No one wants to be a follower

Isn't it funny that one of the key functions, of one of the most popular applications ever, can create such a negative emotional response? Shouldn't we be talking about this?

No one wants to define themselves as a follower do they? Aren't there more positive ways this could be feature could be labelled?

Who wants to have followers anyway? It's a bit Pythonesque "I'm not the Messiah!". "He is the Messiah!".

I think the focus should be shifted away from the producer, and on to their content. If I like your output, I'll happily read it, watch it, accept it, prioritise it, learn from it, share it, or be inspired by it. But I don't want to follow you.

What if the owner could define the functions for their account? So Lady Gaga's page would tell you how many "Little Monsters" she has. I'm sure she would abandon the term follower in a heart beat.

If you like this idea, use #idontfollow to share your thoughts. Can Twitter be used to change Twitter?

Be your own disruption

I've observed that a lot of companies tend to follow a familiar arc. In the beginning they are the Disruptor. They innovate aggressively and achieve success by disrupting an existing market. But if they achieve a dominant position, they become the Defender, trying to beat off the next generation of Disruptors with  a progression of incremental improvements.

So if you find yourself in a dominant position, how do you maintain the level of innovation that got you there in the first place? By being your own disruption. Here is what I would suggest:

Encourage self-destructive ideas
You probably encourage new ideas, otherwise you wouldn't have achieved the success you have. But now you are there, the temptation might be to avoid new ideas that could potentially harm your own interests. You might look at a new concept and think "Great, but that will destroy the revenue stream of our flagship product. No way".

This may seem logical, but if you've just thought of it, the chances are somebody, somewhere is already putting finishing touches on their business plan, and your name is in it, under "Companies we will destroy".

If that idea is really a big threat, do you really want to leave it to someone else?

Apple weren't in the business of making phones, but they must have realised smart phones were a threat. The iPhone must have taken sales away from the iPod, which was their big profit product. If they had of defended instead, I'm sure we would still have a smart phone market now, but Apple wouldn't be part of it.

Make sure your vision is broad enough
Your vision should encompass any possible activity you might want to under take. If a destructive idea is a threat to your business, then it should be within the scope of your vision. If it's not you either need to review your vision, or prepare to be made extinct.

You also need to ensure that your planning activities encompass all of the space your vision defines. I'm sure Kodak didn't specifically define themselves as a "film company". They did make digital cameras. But perhaps film was so intrinsic to their self identity, that in practice they just couldn't see themselves in a market without film? Did a narrowing of their actual vision limit their ability to respond successfully to the threat that digital technology presented to their business?

Different teams for different reasons
If you've been on top for some time, the chances are your structures have subtlely changed over time to support an operational mindset. You might have more people testing and supporting than designing. This works for your existing product line, but you can't expect these teams to build you the next big thing, while they're busy keeping your current big thing running.

You may not have the right personalities either. If you haven't been able or willing to keep the creative geniuses on board that kicked off your winning product, then it might be that any brainstorming you do will only give you iterative improvements on what you already do.

Create your own skunk works. Devote a small proportion of your resources to separate creative teams that don't have to answer to the same strict requirements as the rest of the business. Applaud their failures. Celebrate their disasters. Manage them, but manage them differently. Keep an eye on top performers within the rest of the organisation, and give them a chance on an innovative team to see whether they have the right stuff.

I could spend a lot longer on this topic, but I hope this has given you some ideas for your organisation. If you have an idea, story, or feedback to share, please feel free to leave comments below.

The Ghost of Fiction Past...and Future?

After reading about Fifty Shades of Grey, I wonder whether a device from fiction's past, the Serial, could also be it's future?

During the Victorian era, periodical publications discovered a successful business model based on serialising novels and delivering them in small chunks to their readers. The model worked due to changes in society and technology. Sound familiar?

I'm obviously not the only person thinking about this. As a business model the pattern of serial e-book, to e-book, to souvenir hard cover, to t-shirts and lunch boxes, makes a lot of sense in the current market place. But what really appeals to me is the democratisation of  publishing. The same phenomenon has already occurred in other areas, such as music, with great impact.

Rather than a small number of "experts" guessing what we might like, and then investing millions of dollars in turning their guesses into predictions (Twighlight...I"m looking at you), readers vote by investing their time in a story on an ongoing basis. They have a direct relationship with the artist, and through feedback, probably a direct impact on the story itself.

As a result we should have more fiction published, with work more specifically targeted at a particular fan base, less money wasted on advertising, and more money in the hands of the author. Who loses? Oh that's right, all the middle men.

It's not a good century to be a middle man.

Welcome

This blog will most likely focus on making things, mostly software and services, and my ideas for how things can be made better, either the products themselves, or the lives of the users.

But I make no promises to restrict myself to a narrow subject range. My mind does wander, and so will this blog.

Thanks for taking a look. I will be making some design changes, hopefully improvements, in the near future, but in the meantime it's just about the words.

Enjoy.