"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.

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).

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?

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

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.