I have no voice, and I must speak.

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the conference. As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m speaking at the Software Marketing Perspectives conference in Santa Clara this week. So, the funny thing, or perhaps the ironic thing, is that I lost my voice this week.

While it was rough earlier in the week, as I recovered from the flu, it got progressively worse, and today, the day before I’m scheduled to speak, my voice is completely gone. I can whisper, and articulate a few words with a really hoarse, raspy voice, but if I try for more than 30 seconds, I’m done.

So, this puts me in an interesting position. How can I give my talk without the ability to speak? I have a plan B, but I won’t tell you what it is right now.

Tomorrow, after the conference, I’ll let you know the plan and how it went down.

BTW, bragging rights go to the first person who can identify the obscure sci-fi reference in the title of this post.

Saeed

What’s the deal with Software Product Management?

OK…this one has been bubbling inside me for a while, and tonight I decided to lay it out and see what feedback comes in. I’ll put on the flame proof suit now.

In our little world, we (Product Managers) think we are all that. We view ourselves as a critical component of the software development process.

How would developers know what to do if we weren’t around to provide market and product requirements?

How would the “sales droids” make their quotas without the help of Product Managers on those big deals?

Who else could define a coherent product strategy that is both aggressive in the market but achievable with limited resources?

Who else has the ability to be as technical as the engineers, as sales-savvy as the sales team and as hip and aware as the marketing team?

We are so dynamic, we can think strategically when needed, but can switch into tactical mode as the inevitable fires need dousing.

Yup, we’re definitely cut from a special stone.

Perhaps we are what we think we are and have the impact that we think we have in companies.

If that is the case, then let’s look at ourselves honestly and ask:

• Why is it so hard to find a standard or generally agreed upon definition of what Software Product Management is across the industry?

• Why are there really no formalized education programs for Product Management?

• How can a 3 day training course even begin to prepare someone to be a product manager?

• Why are our blogs and books filled with an endless supply of “tips and tricks”, as if that is the route to success?

• Why do people think that a smart sales engineer will automatically make a good product manager?

• Why do so many senior managers think that hiring lots of engineers is more important than hiring a few more product managers?

• Why are so many PM consulting firms selling templates and spreadsheets that are both “comprehensive”, yet “fully-customizable” and that enable you to “increase your professionalism”? Really? Is that what will make us successful?
  

If we take a step back and look at our profession, there are many other questions like this that are left unanswered. I wrote a bit about this topic previously in Product Management Maturity and If we’re so smart.

Think I’m being hard or unreasonable? I don’t think so. I’ve been in Product Management for over 10 years and I’m not looking to jump ship yet. I want to see if we can accelerate the process of maturing this field and helping those who are looking to become product managers avoid the struggles we “veterans” have faced.

What have we done in the last 10 years to make our lot better? And I don’t just mean incrementally better. I mean significantly better.

Software Engineering has really evolved in the last decade. The latest greatest things right now seems to be Agile/Scrum methodologies and mature development management tools. Sales and marketing both have matured as well.

Certainly marketing has taken a big leap forward given the integration of the Web and. in particular, hard analytics into the marketing process. Branding, positioning and other traditional marketing activities are still important, but the potential sophistication of marketing today is an order of magnitude above where it was a decade ago.

Selling still retains a lot of it’s old characteristics. Certainly there is no electronic replacement for a good relationship with a buyer or prospect. But sales automation has improved and there are a lot of mature and time tested sales methodologies to choose from.

And then we come to product management. What have we done in the last 10 years to really improve our profession and define ourselves to those around us? Given that there still isn’t some well understood definition of what we do, I’d say we haven’t done enough.

Instead of getting all hot and heavy about the latest development methodology, let’s develop our own well defined, clearly beneficial and easily understood models for product management. No one else is going to do it for us.

And a few years from now, if I’m still writing this blog, I’d hate to have to look back at this post and say, gee, not much has changed has it.

Saeed

Agile/Scrum Software Development and Product Management

I think ours is the only Product Management blog in the entire blogosphere that has not yet had at least one post on Agile/Scrum software development. That is….until now.

I’m not so sure it was a conscious decision on any of our parts. There is so much other good and relevant stuff to write about, like iPhones and iPods for example.

But seriously, I don’t think we have written about Agile because, and I’ll speak for the 3 of us, it’s not that critical to product management. There I said it!

NOTE: where I use “Agile”, it implies a combination of Agile/Scrum

If you are not familiar with Agile or Scrum software development, you can read more in many locations on the web. A good starting point is, as expected, Wikipedia. Read up on both Agile and Scrum methodologies. While quite distinct in many ways, it’s important to understand both Agile and Scrum and how they are inter-related in practice. In fact, the first line of the Wikipedia entry on Scrum reads:

Scrum is an iterative incremental process of software development commonly used with Agile software development.

While not an absolute definition, and clearly some may argue, I view Agile as more of a culture or approach to software development, whereas Scrum is more truly a methodology, with specific roles, practices etc. that can be implemented. In many cases, when people say Agile, they imply Scrum as well.

As mentioned earlier, Scrum defines a set of roles. One of the key roles in Scrum is the Product Owner. That role is defined as:

The Product Owner represents the voice of the customer. They ensure that the Scrum Team works with the right things from a business perspective. The Product Owner writes User Stories, prioritizes them, then places them in the Product Backlog.

Now, this would most likely map to the Product Manager in most software companies. While true at a high level, another key element of Scrum is the daily scrum meeting where every member of the team, including the Product Owner attends.

Now, imagine if you as a Product Manager had to attend a development meeting every day. When would you get out of the office? When would you meet with customers, partners, prospects etc.?

One big mistake a lot of people make is assuming that the Product Owner has to be the Product Manager. While conceptually that may be true, the Product Manager cannot, and in my opinion, should not attend these daily scrum meetings. I’ve worked in PM role in two previous companies that used Agile/Scrum development methodologies, and I think I attended one Scrum meeting. We still had regular communication with the development teams and regular product reviews etc. but we weren’t embedded into the development process the way some people might think we should be.

Other roles such as Product Designer need to be defined to take that day to day decision making role and act as the Product Owner, or at minimum, be the proxy for the Product Owner (if that is the PM) so that the PM doesn’t get bogged down by daily scrum meetings.

Keep in mind, Agile/Scrum is a DEVELOPMENT methodology. It is a great model for developers and engineers and other R&D team members to work and communicate more efficiently. There are very clear benefits to this model. It provides greater visibility into current work status, work remaining, can identify development hurdles earlier and can communicate them outward more easily.

But, in the end, it is still a development methodology. It should have minimal impact on Product Management’s job as a cross-functional leader marshalling the product from development through marketing, sales etc.

Here’s an analogy. Sales teams invariably follow some kind of sales methodology. It could be strategic selling, solution selling, or conceptual selling. It could be some other model, or even none at all. If the sales team decides to adopt or change their sales methodology, do other related teams like Marketing or Product Management have to change how they work?

The answer is NO. So, then why should those changes happen to Product Management if the development team adopts Agile/Scrum? Our job remains the same. Understand the market, customers, competitors, merge that in with business objectives etc. define what needs to be built and move that through all the stages of development/launch/post launch to enable product success.

If in a few years, some better development methodology comes along, and is adopted by the engineering teams, will that change what Product Management does?

NO.

Development methodologies should be a grey box for Product Management. We should have an understanding of them, but we don’t need to become an “embedded” part of their implementation. It’s all about loose coupling and clear lines of communication. We have our objectives, and Development has theirs, and when we need to interface, we do so in an efficient and mutually convenient manner.

Let me put it this way, and pardon the analogy if it is a bit inappropriate. Product Management and Development don’t need to be married to each other to be efficient. The relationship needs to be more like a “friends with benefits” arrangement. i.e. the two hook up on a regular or as needed basis.

Saeed

I’m speaking at Software Marketing Perspectives

Just wanted to do a bit of self-promotion and let you know, I’ve been chosen as one of the keynote speakers at the Software Marketing Perspectives conference, next month in Santa Clara.

My topic — on Friday May 9th — is called:

Information Supply Chain: Aligning Diverse Teams to Minimize Time-to-Revenue for High-Tech Products

I actually spoke on this topic last year at the SMP conference in Boston, but had a terrible time slot. Last session on the last day. On the bright side, I know that the people who came to my talk really wanted to be at the talk!

I guess they liked the topic and asked that I present it again as a keynote. I’ve blogged about this topic a bit in this series of articles, but the topic really deserves a lot more focus and detail and in fact, over the past year, as I’ve thought more about it, I’ve realized that this is something that could help solve a big problem I’ve observed in growing companies.

When companies are small — from startup to about 50 people — information flows very well. People can stay synchronized with each other simply because they work closely together and there are tight working relationships between groups. Also teams are very small, so the personal relationships of individuals help strengthen the communication flow all around.

But, as companies grow, say from 50 to 150 people (and beyond), problems start creeping in. Everyone no longer knows everyone else. Team sizes start to grow. The personal relationships across teams get weaker. Hierarchy and bureaucracy starts setting in. Roles and duties get redefined and gaps start appearing in the information flow.

What worked with 50 people doesn’t work with 150 people. The company is growing but processes cannot be put in place to keep communication flowing properly. If you’ve worked in such a growing company, I’m sure you’ve heard someone say something like this:

How come we seemed to get so much more done in less time when we were smaller?

If an Information Supply Chain is defined for those critical cross-team junction points, a lot of the communication problems can be eliminated. Everyone doesn’t have to know everyone else to be successful, they just need to who depends on them and what information is needed when.

That structure, of mapping and addressing dependencies can scale, regardless of who is on each team or even where they are located. I’ll leave it there for now, and I’ll report back once I return from the conference.

Hope to see some of you there.

Saeed

Why is innovation hard for large organizations?

I came across an interesting post on this topic, and I have to say, that I really agree with what the author, Kareem wrote. In it he mentions three key reasons for the general failure of large companies to innovate:

1. They must protect their current business
2. Too much bureaucracy or too many stakeholders in the process
3. They don’t provide the proper financial incentives for innovation.

I’m sure most of us who have worked in larger companies have experienced the first two. I’ve also seen a lot written about the first two points related to big company culture, management practices etc. People today cite Apple as a great example of a company that has figured out how to deal with those two points.

I want to spend the rest of this post talking about point 3, which I think is critically important and of which I have not seen as much writing.

In any general cross-section of employees, there will be a small subset who can be deemed as truly entrepreneurial and innovative. A lot of them probably come from the Product Management and Engineering teams! And most of those people are smart enough to understand the value they can bring to a company as well as to themselves if they can deliver a successful product to market.

The problem is, in a typical large company, the ROI proposition for bringing an idea to market is completely skewed in favour of the company. Kareem says it really well in his article:

People are incredibly quick to learn which behavior is rewarded in any system. If you want to innovate, there are two options: remain in a system that pays out an annual salary and a relatively meager bonus for your awesome product. Or, strike out on your own, and build a product that might have a significant pay off, while living off savings or investment.

Now imagine a large technology company that has set aside a large pool of money for acquisitions. That number could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars or even higher. The company wants to make acquisitions that help bolster it’s current market position as well as take it into new (likely adjacent) markets.

There are probably lots of innovative startups out there, working on new products that are potential acquisition targets. Now as the company is out there evaluating the market and potential targets, and then spending big bucks to acquire those companies (likely making the founders of those companies wealthy), what are the innovators inside that company thinking?

They are thinking:

“Hey, how do I get me some of that?”

Now imagine if the company took, say, 5%-10% of that acquisition pool and used it to create a fund that would invest AND if successful reward new innovative products by employees. The structure of how this would be done would have to be worked out carefully so as to ensure transparency in the process of who got funded, and clarity in how success was measured and rewarded, but in theory it is possible.

I can think of at least one model, where an quasi-independent group would review the ideas and decide how to provide an internal equivalent to angel/seed funding to get the project to a stage where it could be evaluated in detail. This model would be no different than what one would face if they took their idea to an Angel or VC for funding.

Regardless of how it is done, there could be significant advantages for the parent company by doing this.

• It sends a very clear message that existing employees can see significant upside if they are major contributors to success in the company
• It significantly reduces the potential for “brain-drain” in the company, by stopping some of the best innovators from leaving to form new companies outside
• It provides a lower cost option for the company to “acquire” new innovative products than going out to market and paying a premium for “hot” acquisitions.

The return for the employees who go this route would be lower than what they might get if they were to strike out on their own, but then again, the risks they would face would also be lower. They could leverage many of the large company’s resources as well as the large customer base of the company. While some hardcore innovators may not like this situation, I’m pretty sure many others would.

Imagine an incubator, funded by the large company (and possibly by other external investors as well) that would provide the environment for these ventures to develop, grow and ideally graduate and become successful. If the venture is one that the large company wants to acquire, they can do so relatively easily given their stake in the company. If they don’t want to acquire the company, the market can decide the value of the company and like any other VC, they can regain their investment (and much more) by some kind of liquidity event.

What do you think of this? Is it possible for large companies to develop incubators for their own employee’s to create innovative products and companies? Or are there other issues and complexities that would make this concept more likely to fail than succeed?

Saeed

GeneTree … are you serious?

A couple of things up front:

• I’m not a privacy bigot. You can find me on facebook, LinkedIn, Plaxo, multiple blogs, flickr, my own personal website, and my corporate bio page. I post fairly liberally about myself online.
• I probably have the best existing genealogical records for my family. I’ve spend HOURS formally interviewing my oldest living relatives, writing down their thoughts, touring grave yards, going to family farm land that my family lost during the great depression. I’m fairly interested in the topic.

So as I’ve started to think more about social networking, I became interested in the possibility of social networks to make genealogy work in the large. It makes intuitive sense to me that social networking is an ideal way to build a genealogical graph. The information is distributed and hard for one person to collect, but not so hard when each person contributes a node and a few branches.

Then I stumbled on Genetree. This company uses genetic testing to automatically build family trees, or at least to connect distant relatives.

OK, sorry, you lost me there. I have to submit my genetic material to a testing lab, have it encoded and stored in your data center, so that you can broker connections between me and my long-lost relatives in Scotland and Alsace-Lorraine?

Yeah, no. No thanks. Let me know how that goes for you. By the way, congratulations on getting funded. Can I speak with your investors?

Xobni: Cleaning up email

If this product works as advertised, it will help a lot of us. Email has become the unstructured data repository from hell. I read somewhere that up to 80% of corporate data sits in email somewhere. Filing email into folders is fine for some people, but most of us are not that structured, and even if we are that structured, it’s not always clear where an email should be kept for reference sake.

Xobni is trying to help change this. Check it out by clicking the badge below (or this link), and let me know what you think. I’m going to experiment with it as well.

Alan

How much revenue for each PM in your company?

Someone asked me a question recently and I couldn’t find an answer on the Web, so I decided to ask all of you for help.

After reading my article, “You can never have too many Product Managers“, the person asked me whether I knew of any published numbers that provide guidelines for the number of product managers a company should have relative to it’s revenue.

The answer is, unfortunately: it depends.

It depends of the stage in the lifecycle of the product, the market, the kind of customers etc.

To get data, I need your help. In return for 30 seconds of your time — that’s all it will take I promise — I’ll collect the data and share it back with all of you in a future post.

Survey is closed. Click here for the results.

Thanks.

Saeed

What’s the deal with Personas?

The CrankyPM recently posted a good little rant on personas. It’s drawn some interesting comments from both sides of the persona camp (PCamp? ). BTW, I’m totally jealous as she snagged a great title — Persona non grata — for her post.

I’ve been incubating the following persona related post for a while, and thought now a good time as ever to finish and post it.

There’s been a fair bit of writing related to personas as a tool for better understanding users and their requirements. Adele Revella has The Buyer Persona blog, and Bonnie Rind has her Product Personas blog. And of course, the accredited father of the persona concept for product design is Alan Cooper. Cooper’s firm has a number of persona related articles on their site. Perfecting your Personas by Kim Goodwin provides a good overview for those who are interested in understanding the basics.

She starts:

A persona is a user archetype you can use to help guide decisions about product features, navigation, interactions, and even visual design. By designing for the archetype—whose goals and behavior patterns are well understood—you can satisfy the broader group of people represented by that archetype.

This makes complete sense and whether one is explicitly familiar with personas or not, it’s what most Product Managers tend to do, some better than others.

Later Kim writes:

There is seldom a one-to-one correlation between personas and job descriptions. In some cases there will be multiple personas with the same job description; in others, a single persona can represent people with a wide range of jobs.

Thus for a single job — say an administrator — there could be personas representing new administrators who need lots of prompting, and experienced administrators who prefer command lines and know exactly what they need to do. Again, not much to debate here.

Later on Kim writes:

You can also add life to the persona by using environmental details to reinforce important characteristics. For example, if someone tends to be incredibly busy at work, don’t just say he’s incredibly busy; instead, say there’s a sandwich on his desk that he’s been trying to find time to eat for three hours.

Now this is where things get interesting, and this is the issue that Cranky fixates on in her post. And to be honest, it’s really hard to disagree with Cranky. Imagine the look on a bunch of developers faces as you start laying out the persona, describe their environment, their goals, their workflow, and the fact that a sandwich has been sitting on their desk for 3 hours.

Might as well stamp the words — Marketing dweeb — across your forehead and then tell them you’re going to get a soy latte at the brasserie. First of all, I’ve yet to meet a development team that cares about these kinds of details. They don’t want to know that Albert, the community college grad who provides DB2 database administration support likes to watch Ren and Stimpy videos while he waits for nightly database backups to run.

They also don’t want to know that Sachiko, the business analyst, has an MBA from a second-tier Midwestern university, is planning the details of her upcoming marriage, and thus doesn’t have time to conduct proper and formal analyses for the new CRM system that is needed.

These are all completely unnecessary details in the B2B context. For consumer software or products, these details may be very important.

A while back, I worked on a new Administration Console for an enterprise middleware product. The product itself was in widespread use, but there was a real push to make it “enterprise ready”, which meant that things like security and role based permissions were important.

The developers spoke about the target user — “the administrator” — in very vague terms. There was also confusion around the fact that some users of the product could act as both administrators and operators depending on the circumstances.

We needed clarity on this and a way to distinguish who did what, when and why with the product, and who the target would be for the new Administration Console. So, we decided to talk to customers to get some raw data. After a number of customer visits and calls, we determined the following:

• There were four major “administrator” roles within our customer base
  • Network Administrators
  • Infrastructure Administrators
  • Application Administrators
  • Operations Administrator

• These four roles were generally consistent across customers, though responsibilities crossed over between roles in different customers
• Administration teams were structured very differently across organizations
  • Some customers had administration teams with global responsibilities
  • Others had teams with specific geographic focus (e.g. Americas, APAC, EMEA)
  • Others had teams responsible for specific applications

From these and other findings, we came up with specific definitions of the roles. Here’s the definition of the Infrastructure Administrator which we decided was the target user for our Administration Console.

An infrastructure administrator is concerned with a specific set of hardware and software running on that hardware. This set of hardware/software is usually domain specific. I.e. it is assocated with a particular enterprise application, such as Siebel, PeopleSoft, an external web application or some other system.

The infrastructure administrator’s job is to ensure that the particular hardware and services, particularly the services, they are responsible for are operating efficiently and that any general maintenance, such as application data backups, server shutdowns etc. are managed in an efficient way.

In the context of our product, an infrastructure administrator is responsible for starting/stopping repositories, configuring servers, performing repository backups etc. In most cases, but particularly with small to medium installations, the infrastructure administrator also handles inter-repository migration of metadata. i.e. they do the deployment from development to test, and test to production.The infrastructure administrator is the primary user of the Administration Console, though from our discussions it is clear that they do not need to use it everyday.

The developers really understood this description. We had similar ones for the other three types of administrators, and throughout the development of the Administration Console, we regularly referred to these roles, their descriptions and other findings from our research when questions arose as to what should or shouldn’t be part of the console. Notice there is no mention of personalities, habits, level of disorganization on someone’s desk or anything that detracts from the role and it’s focus.

So, what’s deal with Personas? Technically nothing, unless you insist on using them with engineers or other people who just couldn’t give a damn about all that extraneous “marketing fluff”. A big part of Product Management is communication, and speaking in the language of others. If engineers don’t “grok” personas, don’t force them down their throats.

Saeed

Product Manager vs. Product Management (part 5)

In part 4, I discussed processes, and talked about loosely-coupled and tightly-coupled processes. The reason I wanted to introduce those is because when I talk about understanding the Information Supply Chain and defining key Product Management tasks, it is in the context of supporting loosely and tightly coupled processes.

First, let’s define “Supply Chain”

A coordinated system of organizations, people, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service in physical or virtual manner from supplier to customer.

This is roughly what Wikipedia says at the beginning of it’s page on the topic. The page needs work, but I like the definition. Note the terms “coordinated”, “people”, “activities” and of course “information”. A supply chain can be a complex entity, and certainly in the physical world, it involves moving physical goods (raw materials, parts, finished products) from place to place, to those who need it, as they need it (just-in-time delivery).

In the software world, and particularly in the context of the software development process, the focus is on delivering high quality information to those who need it as (or before) they the need it. One nice thing about information is that there are no inventory or warehouse costs for storing a document that is delivered early. Along with time, information quality is also important. A good requirements document delivered on time is much better than a poor document delivered early.

If you take a step back and look at the product development process, it is fundamentally about information flow and optimizing that flow. Deliver requirements late or poor requirements on time, and extra work must be done to accommodate for that. If requirements are not clear and precise, it can impact the amount of testing that must be done as the implementation of those unclear requirements may be sub-optimal.

Beyond the actual development process, if the requirements aren’t clear or, if they don’t correctly address market needs, then marketing and sales have to do extra work to achieve their goals. I’m not saying that everything is the result of faulty requirements, but simply illustrating the downstream impact of a single deliverable — the PRD. The same is true for every other information transaction that occurs. If the communication is not clear, or delivered in a “language” or with content unsuitable for the target audience, friction ensues.

We’re all familiar with the famous “tire swing” cartoon, which very succinctly illustrates this point.

(click to enlarge)

The software development process is complex, risky and full of unknowns. It’s really not like building a house, for example, where structural strengths of the materials are well known, the design is well understood, the land around it is suitable, and it’s very unlikely that every year, the ground it’s built on changes consistency. In general, it’s rare that the assumptions that were made in building the house are no longer valid. This is what happens to houses when that occurs.

(click to enlarge)

When this happens to a house, it’s time to get a new house. When this happens in the software world, people call support and expect someone to fix it! But I digress.

Given the risks in the product development process, it is important to understand who needs what information, when they need it, and for what purpose. One can then identify what role each team, including product management plays in this information supply chain, and what outputs are needed. I wrote about this topic a bit in a previous post, but its worth repeating here as it is critical to getting down to the definitions of deliverables that are the ultimate goal of this exercise.

If one were to look at all stages of the product development process, and identify all the parties (internal and external) that were involved at each stage, and map the intensity of their activities during those stages, you’d end up with a diagram that looks something like (but not necessarily like) this.

(click to enlarge)

This is a very simple heat map showing (on a scale from 1 to 3), the level of intensity of involvement of each group (shown on the left hand side) during each stage in the development process, from research, through development and out into launch etc.

Looking at the heat map, it’s clear that most of the intensity — and thus activity — is on the right hand side, i.e. the latter stages of product development, launch and release. The majority of the activity on the left hand side is in the top left, and related to product strategy, product management and product development teams.

So the question is, how do you optimally get from the left hand side to the right hand side? Or put another way, what information must flow between the groups, across the stages to ensure that the activities on the right hand side can be performed optimally?

To answer that for the whole diagram would not only be a huge task, but somewhat off topic. This blog is called On Product Management and not On What Everyone Should be Doing in my Software Company.

So, let’s look at the Product Management line only. Aside from making the task at hand simpler, this is also a good simplifying assumption for the whole supply chain process. The impact of product management on downstream activities is clear. So, if you can get that right, you’ve addressed a big part of the problem of optimizing downstream activities of other teams.

(click to enlarge)

The Product Management team is heavily involved from the early stages right through until almost the end where the intensity of involvement in a release drops off after the release is out in the market. There is still some activity of course, but in reality, when the product is launched, other teams such as Sales and Support are heavily focused on it, and Product Management focuses on upcoming releases.

The task now is to look at each stage, and list out the deliverables that must be created so that other teams can do their jobs in latter stages. Keep in mind that this is not a list of activities at a given stage, such as talking to customers, analyst meetings, win/loss analyses etc, but a list of deliverables that will be passed on down through to other teams so they can complete their work.

For example, a PRD may be the result of things like customer visits, analyst meetings and win/loss analyses, but the deliverable to the development team is what is important in the Information Supply Chain, because without it, they can’t do their job. How you created it is less important (to them). The assumption is, you are doing what you need to do to deliver the right requirements to them.

So, a bit of homework.

Think about your company, and what deliverables you need to provide to other teams at each stage of the development process. Also think about what others may need to deliver to you so you can get your job done as well.

In the next post, I’ll drill down even further into the specifics of deliverables at each stage and provide examples to help you define a Product Management Information Supply Chain for your company.

Saeed

Related Posts
Product Manager vs. Product Management (part 1)
Product Manager vs. Product Management (part 2)
Product Manager vs. Product Management (part 3)
Product Manager vs. Product Management (part 4)
Product Manager vs. Product Management (part 6)