Posted onMay 14, 2010bysaeed|Comments Off on The Importance of Perspective
Steve Johnson has a video on his site that shows a wonderful optical illusion. I’ve embedded it here for your viewing convenience.
This video is a great example of how important a role perspective plays in how we interpret our environment.
Perspective is also incredibly important for people when researching, designing or building products.
Specifically for Product Managers, it’s important to be conscious of how your perspective (your background knowledge, assumptions and existing viewpoints) on a situation influences how you interpret it.
To maximize your perspective, and avoid false assumptions and conclusions, try to get as many inputs as you can when researching requirements. This does not simply mean talk to more people, but make a conscious effort to to improve your domain knowledge, document and validate your assumptions clearly, and talk to different types of people in different roles, in different types of companies and with different needs.
It’s actually quite amazing how much insight you can gain by consciously broadening your perspectives on a given situation.
While we did talk about a number of topics, the metrics discussion dominated the first 1/2 of the call.
One of the questions — What metrics should be used to measure the effectiveness of Product Managers? — got me thinking a bit.
My answer on the call was that first the focus should be on metrics for the Product Management organization, and then a breakdown from there on metrics for individuals based on objectives and tasks that support the goals of the organization.
To me that seems like a logical approach, because all other organizations in a company, includes sales, marketing, technical support etc. have metrics defined and measured that way.
So what’s the problem?
So why is it so hard to come up with metrics for the Product Management organization? Well, it goes to the heart of the major issue with hi-tech Product Management today.
And that is that most companies don’t look at Product Management as a holistic function within the company, but rather as a set of individuals or small teams working on a variety of product related tasks.
Look around and see how the focus of Product Management is different in different companies.
Look at how widely the reporting and organizational structures are for Product Management. It is part of Marketing in some companies, part of Engineering in others, a standalone department in others.
Look at the ongoing debates related to when Product Management roles should be defined and introduced in a company.
If you’ve worked in or have been exposed to Product Management in different companies, compare and contrast the tool sets (or lack of them) used by Product Management organizations versus the tools used by other departments to do their jobs.
And if people don’t look at Product Management and it’s objectives in any holistic and standard way, how can they set about defining and measuring key metrics for the Product Management organization?
Metrics should focus on measuring intended outcomes
For Sales organizations, the key metrics (product sales/bookings etc.) are directly tied to the intended outcome of the function: generating sales and revenue. There are numerous secondary metrics that are tracked such as sales breakdown by product/product family, by deal size, by geography, by new vs. existing customer etc.
And don’t forget all the sales funnel metrics that are used to track progress and success, such as average time to close, win/loss ratio etc. The important metrics are clearly tied to the intended outcomes of the activity of the sales organization.
For marketers it’s a bit more complicated because there are different roles in marketing and different intended outcomes. The two primary outcomes that can be applied to marketing are related to lead generation and market/industry awareness.
And from there numerous metrics can be identified related to number of leads, cost per lead, lead quality, lead to prospect conversion ratio etc.
Metrics for awareness are numerous, but basic metrics focus on “mentions” by press, analysts and other influencers in publications, reports, blogs, and via social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
And what of Product Management?
What is the primary objective of Product Management? In a previous article on this blog entitled Product Management Metrics (part 1), I defined the mandate of Product Management as:
To optimize the business at a product, product line or product portfolio level over the product lifecycle.
Don Vendetti of Product Arts, wrote a series of guest posts, entitled Measuring Product Management. In part 3 of his series, he provided his definition of the Product Management mandate:
To deliver measurable business results through product solutions that meet both market needs and company goals.
I like Don’s definition. Both definitions share the same spirit about business focus, but Don’s phrasing is clearer and more explicit than mine. But I do think that mention of the product lifecycle is needed because that has a huge impact on the objectives and the required focus of Product Management.
Don’s use of the words “measurable business results” is crucial to this discussion.
So what are those business results? Well it depends on the business and the company goals. 🙂
Those goals depend on the many things. Some companies care about revenue. Others care about market share. Others care about profitability. Others only care about getting acquired. And those goals can change with time.
Some choose to be technology focused, while others are sales, marketing or market focused. Some companies have a single product, while others have portfolios of products.
Depending on the company’s goals, size and level of maturity, the market conditions, it’s financial status and it’s overall strategy, Product Management’s objectives will change and so the metrics to measure Product Management will also change.
I’ll stop here, but I’ll pick up this discussion in an upcoming, and long overdue post that will be entitled Product Management Metrics (part 3).
NOTE: This is a bit of a long post, but it is also long overdue. In it, I present some needed steps to address the innovation issue in Canada. So, bear with me on the length and I really would like to hear your thoughts on the topic.
Back in the fall, I wrote part 1 and part 2 of this series.
Part 1 talked about the overall problem that was described in an article in the Globe and Mail on the same topic.
In part 2, I wrote about the Conference Board of Canada’s annual study entitled How Canada Performs, A Report Card on Canada, and in particular Canada’s consistently miserable ranking on Innovation.
The final numbers for the 2009 Report Card are finally(!) out, and yet again, Canada scores a D on Innovation.
(click to enlarge)
Here’s a video from 2008 describing the issues identified in the report. Nothing has changed from 2008 to 2009 so the comments are still valid.
According the video above, The biggest problem Canada faces regarding innovation is:
our failure to turn good ideas into products and services that can be sold on the world markets.
Did Edison actually invent the lightbulb?
Here’s a story to illustrate this point. I’m sure you’ve heard of Thomas Edison. Who hasn’t?
But have you heard of James Woodward or Thomas Evans? Probably not.
Woodward and Evans, two Canadians living in Toronto in the 1870s created the first electric lamp with a shaped rod of carbon held between electrodes in a glass bulb. The gas in the bulb was nitrogen. They patented this invention in Canada in 1874.
They tried to raise capital to form a company to further research and develop the product, but were met with ridicule. Who could possibly use such a thing?
In 1876 Woodward received a US patent for the invention. In 1879 Edison bought out the patent completely and used it in his own pursuit of electric light.
It’s important to note that Edison was working simultaneously on his own electric light as was British inventor Sir Joseph Swan. In 1880, Swan and Edison teamed up to create the first commercially viable bulb.
So did Edison “invent” the lightbulb? Clearly no. But he was the first to bring a viable bulb to market and make it available to the masses. And that’s why he’s remembered for the lightbulb, and Woodward and Evans are not.
Groundhog Day all over again?
This story, unfortunately, has been repeated many times over since the 1880s. There are many similar examples of Canadian innovations and technology that only gained broad success AFTER being bought by foreign companies or AFTER the inventors went to the US or overseas to more receptive markets. Whether in software, hardware, biotech, or other areas, the story repeats itself into the present.
Finding solutions
So what can be done to start changing this truly sad state of affairs? Here are few suggestions. They are not comprehensive, nor fully fleshed out, but to me these are important steps that must be taken.
Fully utilize the skills and abilities of the Canadian workforce
Fix the financing issues for entrepreneurs
Match technologists with experienced Product Management and Marketing resources early on
Create a national culture that celebrates innovation
Resource industries can no longer be the primary focus of Canada’s international trade strategy
I’d certainly love to hear what you have to say. Whether you live in Canada or not, it doesn’t matter. No country is immune to this problem, though certainly some countries have far more focus on it than others.
1. Fully utilize the skills and abilities of the Canadian workforce
This is a message for employers. Canada has an educated, driven and skilled workforce capable of making great contributions in the workplace — if given the opportunity.
A recent article in the Globe and Mail entitled, Returning Canadians Chilled by Workforce, looks at the experiences of people with overseas experience coming back to Canada. The following quote from the article talks about Roy Pereira’s experience after returning to Canada from Silicon Valley.
Instead of his experience translating into a valuable asset for Canadian companies, he discovered it was much more difficult than he expected to find a job that allowed him to use his skills and knowledge.
I totally agree and experienced the same thing. When I was looking to move back to Canada from California, most interviewers focused on the Canada/US exchange rate and salary differences in the two locations. They didn’t care about my skill set, my contacts, my experience etc.
This narrow minded thinking impacts everyone, new immigrants as well as returning expatriates. There needs to be a cultural change made by employers. We are competing in a global economy and international experience and contacts are invaluable in that regard.
People are truly the most important assets knowledge-based companies have, and employers and managers MUST learn how to use those skills to their advantage instead of trying to force fit people into narrow definitions that do little, if anything, to truly benefit from the skills people have available.
2. Fix the financing issues for entrepreneurs
This topic could fill several blog posts alone, so I’m going to focus on one very specific point.
When I say, fix the financing issues, the reality is that there needs to be a better, more symbiotic model that can help both the entrepreneurs and the financiers become successful.
Most tech companies in Canada don’t need millions of dollars in series A and B financing. What they need most is targeted assistance very early on. As Rick Segal says:
… we have to learn how to fail faster.When it comes to software, you can build, test, rework, and test again for under $100,000. We need a structure in place that allows that kind of money to be thrown at something to see if it works, and if it doesn’t, kill it and try something different.
He’s basically talking about dollar amounts that are traditionally supplied by Angel funds. A healthy and efficient Angel funding network would do wonders to help small entrepreneurs get over that initial hump and get some market validation.
Or perhaps something more like YCombinator is needed in Canada. Either way, small amounts of well targeted early stage funding will have a huge impact on moving small companies forward to the next stage in their evolution. There is a lot of room for improvement in this area.
3. Match technologists with experienced Product Management and Marketing resources early on
OK, this may sound completely self-serving but it isn’t. It’s absolutely true and absolutely critical. And it goes to the heart of what the Conference Board of Canada identified as the biggest weakness we face in innovation. i.e. taking good ideas and turning them into successful products.
The early stage funding model as described above is about being lean. Given that, there is little margin for unnecessary mistakes. So, while it may be good to fail fast, failing fast for the wrong reasons is stupid. And even worse is working on something that is bound to fail and not knowing it for far too long.
This is where focused Product Management will add significant value for early stage companies, because success is not simply about the technology or the product that is built. It’s about being lean and efficient, ruthlessly efficient in all the steps needed to bring the product to market and make it successful.
Everything from identifying the right market problems to solve, finding valuable market segments, positioning products against competition, defining pricing models and launching products are critical to success. In short Product Management will help the technologists focus on the right problems and the optimal outcomes. These are not skills that are widely available in Canada, let alone in the high tech industry in general. But they do exist and need to be utilized.
Look back to my post on Bill Campbell of Intuit and you can see that Silicon Valley has the same issues.
Only with the combination of technical skills, necessary funding AND market knowledge can success rates for entrepreneurs improve.
4. Create a national culture that celebrates innovation
Canada has many examples of innovators in it’s history. The telephone, electron microscope, the zipper(!), insulin and newsprint were all invented by Canadians. But, with the exception of Bell’s telephone, very little of this history is taught to Canadians in school. We have a society that is frightfully ignorant of it’s own history and accomplishments.
Not only do we need to teach our children and students about Canada’s history of innovation, but we also need to change the culture to celebrate and focus on innovation today.
How can we do this? Use the Participation model, but apply it to Innovation!
Participaction, started in the early 1970s, was (and still is) a national initiative to get Canadians to be more physically active. It included TV, Radio and print advertising. It included corporate sponsored runs and other activities. There were Participation challenges in various cities across Canada. It got the country moving again and is credited with creating a bit of a fitness craze in the 1980s in Canada.
We need an analogous program to get Canadians aware of our history of innovation, and both the value and potential that it can bring to this country. Like Participaction, the program must be multi-faceted and continuous over a period of many years. Education, events and initiatives to bring people with ideas, money and market savvy together would help accelerate the efforts of entrepreneurs across the country.
A coordinated Participaction-like program could help reshape the innovation landscape in Canada over the next 10 years.
5. Resource industries can no longer be the primary focus of Canada’s international trade strategy
I’ve left this one to last because it may be the most contentious and least likely to happen in the short term.
Canada is a resource rich country. There’s no denying that. But for far too long resources like oil, gas, lumber, coal, potash, nickel, gold have dominated both the economy and the political mind. But we need to change that. Resources will play a prominent role in the Canadian economy for decades to come, but software, green-tech, biotech, life sciences and other knowledge based industries must grow in size and economic influence in Canada.
Our political leaders are far too focused on short term economic incentives and promoting low value jobs in the resource sector. They do this because it is easy to do and has short term political benefits. It also supports the current power structures in this country, as they have significant interests in resource industries.
The resource sector can’t be ignored, but focusing on it cannot be done to the detriment of high-tech, biotech and other industries where Canada can make significant gains.
Alberta was “king of the world” 2 years ago, sitting atop hundreds of BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS of dollars of oil in the tar sands. Today, with the world economy depressed and both the demand for and price of crude oil well below peak levels, things don’t look so bright there. Yes, demand for oil will pick up, but other factors including alternative fuels and ecological awareness of the impact of excavating the tar sands are working against Alberta.
Why not learn a lesson from this and invest in a more diversified economy while there is still time? We need policies that look to the next decade and the next generation, not simply to the next budget or the next election campaign.
Canada needs a diversified, technologically efficient economy that can utilize the intelligence, knowledge and drive of it’s population. There is little debate on that point.
The key questions are how best and how soon it can be done. I’ve outlined a few suggestions here. I’d love to hear from the rest of you on this topic, whether you live in Canada or elsewhere, because I’m sure Canada is not unique in this regard.
Saeed
P.S. Here’s a great Canada focused blog that covers this topic as well as many others related to the future prosperity of Canada. It is both thoughtful and insightful. I highly recommend it.
It started with an interview on Red Canary, talking to Product Management leaders in Toronto, including Alan Armstrong, Stephen Pollack, Lee Garrison and Roy Pereira.
Interestingly enough, I know all of these people personally. I have worked with Lee & Alan, worked for Stephen, and know Roy through very close common contacts.
In the interview, they each answered the following six questions:
Tell us about the best product you’ve ever encountered? Why do you like it?
How do you know a great product manager when you meet one?
What’s your favorite interview question?
When is the best time for a start-up to hire a product manager?
What has been the defining moment in your career?
Mistakes. What was your biggest?
Steve Johnson took up the challenge and posted his answers to those questions on his blog, and most recently Scott Sehlhorst did the same.
I thought it was time to join the discussion myself. So here are my answers to those same six questions.
Tell us about the best product you’ve ever encountered? Why do you like it?
I’m a big fan of any product that “just works” or surprises/delights me in some way. I don’t have a “best” product, but here are a few that I really like and use regularly.
The Blackberry – It does what it promises,efficiently and in a very compact form factor. It’s not perfect, but it’s really good, and it can take a beating like no other device I’ve seen. I’ve dropped my Blackberry many times and it is no worse for wear. To quote an old advertising phrase — “it takes a licking and keeps on ticking”.
Dyson vacuum cleaner — I’ve blogged about Dyson previously, but after 3 years, the thing still sucks more than any other vacuum and leaves it’s competition in the dust. Sorry couldn’t resist. 🙂 What really amazes me about it is that their customer service is also really great. A small part broke on the bottom of the machine. I called the toll-free number clearly visible on the cleaner itself. The person on the phone quickly confirmed which part was broken and they shipped me a replacement free of charge a couple of days later. The cleaner was clearly designed for this kind of diagnosis and service. Awesome.
The Honda Civic — We’re a Honda family so I don’t have experience with other brands of cars, but then why would I need to? I love the Civic because it just works. I’m terrible when it comes to maintenance and oil changes etc. but even with minimal attention it gets me where I need to go. It’s both totally reliable and easily affordable. That’s what I want in a car.
How do you know a great product manager when you meet one?
If a product manager adheres to all of these rules, then they must be great! 🙂 Certainly product managers need to be smart, analytic, understand technology and markets, and be great communicators and leaders.
But if there is one thing that I think really defines a great product manager, it’s the ability to “connect the dots” in seemingly unrelated or conflicting contexts. Perhaps another way to say this is product managers need a strong mixture of creativity, curiosity and intuition.
Steve Johnson answered this question with the line:
A great product manager sees patterns.
Scott wrote:
Great product managers are polymaths, with several areas of deep expertise and skill.
While written differently, these are similar answers and tie in well with the ability to connect dots.
A lot of times product managers need to find solutions to problems that are highly constrained — usually WRT budgets, resources or time. Finding solutions that satisfy business, technical and market requirements, and being able to sell those solutions to executives or other doubting Thomases are hallmarks of a great product manager.
What’s your favorite interview question?
The one I like to ask potential product managers is:
What one word best describes Product Management?
I’ve asked that question on the blog. Here are the results.
It’s always interesting to observe interviewees struggle with the question as it usually catches them off guard. And of course, once they come with an answer, the obvious follow up question is “Why?”
When is the best time for a start-up to hire a product manager?
This is a great question and core to how our industry understands and values Product Management. I’m clearly biased here, but I have to agree with Stephen Pollack’s response:
Too many people don’t actually realize the full scope of the Product Management role. It’s not just about product requirements, even at the very earliest stages of a company. I’ve seen too many founders of companies create offerings (I won’t call them products), that didn’t completely address market problems, that weren’t differentiated from competitors, or that didn’t target specific market segments and problem domains.
And what happened then? They brought in “a product manager” to help address the issues. Sorry, way too late. Why spend another year and potentially millions of dollars to fix problems that you could have addressed right at the start?
What has been the defining moment in your career?
I’d say it was leading the Product Management efforts of the flagship product of a public company in Silicon Valley. The release was described by the CTO as “the biggest, most ambitious release in company history.”
That effort consumed my focus for almost 2 years, and I learned so much during that period. I’ve shared some of it publicly.
I ran a large beta program during that release and used that experience to write this article on betas.
I also gained some insights into leadership, particularly when dealing with people across departments, geographies and areas of focus.
Mistakes. What was your biggest?
I’ve certainly made my share. My biggest was probably not understanding (for far too long) the impact personal motivations and politics played in Product Management. I’ve written that for product managers, “Every activity is part of a sale.”
Virtually everything we do in Product Management relates to influencing others to support our goals. In most companies, Engineering won’t simply do what the PM asks. Darn. 🙂 And certainly in larger organizations, with significant constraints, misaligned objectives and even compensation conflicts, people will focus on what is of benefit to them. They will optimize locally (i.e. what’s best for them or their team).
A lot of what Product Management is about to get teams to optimize globally (i.e. what’s best for the product or the business), sometimes at the cost of local optimization. This is where selling becomes important. The sale is in getting other teams to agree to do what you need, and to get that, you have to understand their motivations, drivers, goals and objectives. Once I understood that, life became much easier for me as a product manager.
Saeed
P.S. I’d love to see the Cranky PM’s answers to these questions.
Posted onFebruary 10, 2010bysaeed|Comments Off on Toronto Transit Commission – How not to handle bad PR
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is dealing with a real PR problem right now. There have been a number of photos and videos taken by transit riders and posted on the Internet showing TTC workers sleeping on the job (such as in the photo below) or otherwise doing things that did not provide a positive image of the transit commission.
Newspapers, television and radio news programs have reprinted the images and run articles and news segments on this story.
Many employees of the transit commission aren’t pleased.
Background on the TTC
Here’s a bit of background for those who are not from Toronto. The TTC operates all of the public transit buses, street cars and subways in the city of Toronto and has the 3rd highest daily ridership of any transit system in North America. Only New York and Mexico City (both significantly larger than Toronto in population) have transit systems that carry more passengers. The TTC is an integral part of people’s lives here.
There have been a number of issues in the last few years such as transit worker strikes, fare increases, ticket and token shortages, and service issues that have led to growing negative attitudes towards the TTC and the services it provides. Most people would probably say that the TTC does a good job in general, but there are certainly many areas for improvement, and the TTC hasn’t appeared to be the most responsive organization.
Now there are 3 parties with stakes in this situation. There is the TTC management, the TTC workers (drivers etc.) and the public.
The public have legitimate gripes with both the workers and the management. Now, it is only fair to state that the recent pictures such as the one above are not the key problem here, and it is clear that only a very small number of workers are behaving this way. But for an already frustrated public, these images — and they are powerful — are what is putting the frustration over the top.
The TTC has made a number of mistakes in handling this situation.
1. They have not come out and openly acknowledged the problems that their customers (the general public) faces regularly
This is the first step that any company should take when dealing with problems such as these. Acknowledging the problems does not mean accepting the blame, but it does begin a communication process about the grievances. It also starts to frame the key discussion points so that constructive dialogue can occur. Otherwise the result is increasing distrust and frustration from the customers who become further entrenched in their views. This can quickly lead to customer attrition.
2. The TTC itself is embroiled in it’s own (rather public) conflict between management and the workers
This is probably one of the biggest problems facing the TTC and it is the customers that are punished through drops in service, striking unions or other issues. But management keeps their jobs and the unionized workers focus even more on their own grievances.
The net result is that not only do customers suffer, but their needs are basically ignored while the two groups fight it out.
Here’s part of a statement from TTC chief general manager Gary Webster to workers. This is excerpted from this article in a local Toronto paper.
In a memo sent to all TTC employees on Saturday, Webster says, “I am becoming increasingly tired of defending the reputation of the TTC; tired of explaining what is acceptable and what is not; and tired of stating the obvious: that much of the behaviour being reported is, indeed, unacceptable.”
“Two weeks ago I said that the vast majority of TTC employees care about the organization and do a good job, but we can all do better. I asked everyone to respond well. Some of you did. Clearly, some of you did not.”
He is referring, of course, to the bus driver filmed taking an unscheduled coffee break in the middle of his route about a week ago, not long after a pair of ticket collectors were snapped sleeping in their booths.
The resulting video and photos have incited a maelstrom of discontent among riders already familiar with poor service from front line TTC workers.
“The culture of complacency and malaise that has seeped into our organization will end,” Webster warns.
“I hold all of management responsible to make this happen. Reviews and plans are under way to address systemic issues regarding customer service, but real change starts with you.”
But (Bob) Kinnear (head of the union representing the TTC workers) blamed some of the issues frustrating both the public and TTC workers on transit managers and the commission board, which consists of politicians.
He also blasted chief general manager Gary Webster for his statement over the weekend that appeared to brand all TTC workers as deficient in their work ethic and attitudes.
“The worst thing for a good union is bad management,” Kinnear said. “If you have strong management and a strong union, you meet in the middle.”
Kinnear did ask for calm on all sides and to try to work together to solve the problems, but the finger pointing on all sides, particularly publicly just exacerbates the problem.
3. Some TTC workers started a very poorly thought through social media campaign
In a tit-for-tat move, some TTC workers created a Facebook group, called Toronto Transit Operators against public harassment.
The organizers of the group describe it’s purpose as follows:
This is a group where Operator’s [sic] can give suggestions on how to fight back to the recent photo and video harassment from passengers just looking to make trouble for us. And post photo’s [sic] of your own of passengers breaking the rules.
The “just looking to make trouble for us” line shows a complete inward mindset with no attempt to understand the real issues at hand. Also, the irony of the group name and that last sentence in the description seems to be lost on the group’s creators, although one group member, Mary Bruno Tidona, pointed it out quite plainly. See the image here for more info.
There were many people in the group who clearly supported the transit workers, but there were also a lot of responses from people pointing fingers at politicians (local, provincial and federal), at the public, at their management, at “the system”, but rarely if ever at themselves. One comment that suggested that the few workers who do sleep on the job etc. get the boot was met with this response.
If you’re going to use social media, at least understand that you’re engaging in a conversation with others and not an excuse making or brow beating exercise. That may work in broadcast media where the few control the message to the masses, but in a Facebook group, for example, you’re only inviting ridicule.
4. TTC management have responded with old school thinking — repeat the obvious and add more features
On January 27, 2010, the TTC proudly proclaimed their commitment to customer service excellence. Is there anyone who would openly state they are NOT committed to customer service excellence? The web page on their site looks like a well crafted communication piece that announces a lot but doesn’t really indicate that they understand the core problems.
Front and center is the creation of a panel. The description is the following:
This panel will have representation from customers, the private sector, TTC employees and the public transit industry. The panel will review and approve a terms of reference then begin the work of assessing existing plans to improve customer service, advise on where the TTC should seek outside expertise to achieve its objective, conduct public consultations, and draft a customer charter or “bill of rights.” It is intended that the advisory panel will publicly report its recommendations by June 30.
Honestly, this is the best they can do in 2010? Create a panel and report back in 5 months? How about something more inclusive, using social media (effectively!), involving community groups in a series of TransitCamps starting at the end of February? Nope. Just old school thinking.
Beyond the panel, the web page also lists a number of new “features” they will add to the system. These include:
a beta of a new trip planning application
50 new ticket vending machines across the system
improved plans to help customers and employees during subway delays
a new SMS messaging capability at all 800 streetcar stops
new video screens and better system status communication with ticket collectors and employees
a review of training programs for new employees and those going through re-certification
Now this is a nice list, but it’s simply a list of incremental features being added to the system. How will any of this – with the possible exception of better training — address the core issues of the public?
Incremental changes to the system, like incremental changes to a product, are not game changers. And while it is very difficult to make major changes to something as complex as a transit system in a short period of time, there is certainly a lot more that can be done to make the system more efficient and better address passenger needs.
I grew up in Toronto and used to love the transit system and it was only after I got married that I stopped using it regularly. And the few times I have used it since my marriage, I’ve found it excruciatingly painful and time-consuming.
I think the Toronto Transit Commission needs to understand there are alternatives for people and they will use them when the TTC fails to deliver appropriate value. I’ve found an alternative to the TTC — same initials though — Take The Car. It does have it’s downsides, but it gets me where I’m going and I always know when it will depart and arrive.
Saeed
Tweet this article: @onpm – Toronto Transit Commission – How not to handle bad PR – http://bit.ly/9swydU – #ttc #marketing
Comments Off on Toronto Transit Commission – How not to handle bad PR
Tom Grant has started an interesting series of posts entitled Against a Grand Theory of Product Management. The articles are interesting reading, but make sure you have your thinking cap on when you start, because Tom is discussing an important but rather abstract topic.
He pulls in references ranging from Middle Range Theory (something I’d never heard of before) to Darwin’s theories (something I think we’ve all heard of but probably don’t adequately understand) to help convey his points. I had to read the posts a couple of times each to better grasp the specifics of his arguments.
If someone can figure out why even the most meticulously written and reviewed requirements don’t stop some tech companies from making products that their users don’t like or can’t understand, that’s a big contribution to our little field of study. Best to have more middle-range theory before even thinking about the GToE [Grand Theory of Everything].
This is a great question. But before I answer it, I want you to watch the following video. It is from a TED Conference talk given in February 2008 by Robert Lang. Not only is this a fascinating video, but as you’re watching it, keep Tom’s question in mind. Don’t read on though until you watch the video. 🙂
[BTW, if you are impatient and read ahead, the important stuff starts at about 2:30 in the video.]
Lang talks about the evolution of origami, that took it from a traditional Japanese art form that most of us associate with creating things like this:
and turned it into an art (and science) form that allows people to create things like this:
And what caused that evolution? In Lang’s words, the answer is “mathematics”, or more specifically, the creation and utilization of a set of rules that provide a language for defining what can and can’t be done in origami.
The rules define the crease patterns — the lines along which folds are made — in the paper. And there are 4 rules:
2-colorability — any valid crease pattern can always be coloured with only 2 colours and will not have the same colour in two adjacent areas.
modulus (M-V) = +2 or -2 — at any interior vertex, the number of mountain folds and the number of valley folds will always differ by 2
For any vertex, the sum of alternate angles around that vertex will always be 180 degrees. e.g. a1+a3+a5 … = 180 degrees & a2+a4+a6… = 180 degrees.
No self-intersection at overlaps – a sheet when folded cannot penetrate itself
[Note: if you don’t understand these rules, watch the video. 🙂 ]
Now these 4 rules define the properties of valid crease patterns, but there’s still something missing. How can those rules be applied to create sophisticated origami? In short, what goes in the box? (see 4:40 of the video)
Lang discusses that as well, and provides this diagram:
In short, the physical subject is reduced to a tree figure defining the key components (“flaps” in Lang’s terminology) of the subject. In this case, those are the legs, antennae, horns etc. of the beetle. That’s fairly easy.
Then some process must be used to take that tree-figure and create a base form for the final origami. He calls that the hard step.
And finally the base form can be refined to create the finished model. That’s fairly straight forward.
The “hard step” is accomplished using the rules defined above and the language for applying those rules. Given those rules are mathematical in nature, they can be written preciselyand unambiguouslyand then executed to create the final model.
What does this have to do with product requirements and Tom’s question?
When looking at product requirements, there are analogies to Subject-Tree-Base-Model example given above.
Product Managers investigate real world problems, needs, scenarios etc. (Subject).
They then take their learnings and create abstracted representations of them (requirements) using artifacts such as problem statements, personas, use cases and user stories (Tree)
These artifacts are then used by engineering teams to create prototypes and mockups etc. to ensure that the requirements were understood and addressed in the product. (Base)
The final product is built, tested, tweeked etc. with the appropriate “fit and finish” before being released. (Model).
Sounds pretty good so far right?
But herein lie the problems.
There currently is no language for requirements like the one defined for origami, that can precisely and unambiguously convey what is needed and define that in a way that ensures it can be built.
Requirements should be implementation neutral, but as we all know in technology, the ability to fulfill a requirement can often be limited by technology choices and decisions that were made well before the requirement existed.
Other constraints such as time, resources, knowledge, legalities, finances etc. all factor into how well a requirement can be met, or perhaps if it can be met or not.
In many cases requirements contain unknowns or ambiguities that are filled in by assumptions during the development process. This is a reality of developing products in a business environment. In the origami situation, this is would never happen. A model (like the stag beetle) can only be built when the full crease pattern is defined.
There is no concept of people “liking” or “understanding” the origami in Robert Lang’s rules. i.e. Tom Grant asks about why companies build product their customers don’t like or understand.
This last point is key and deserves a little more discussion. What people like and understand is complex and is not static. In general, what people like is based on overall experience and emotion. It is not something that (currently) can be defined in a set of requirements.
i.e. users of this product must feel giddy with excitement the first time they use this software
So, can origami teach us something about product requirements?
Absolutely. The origami path from Subject->Tree->Base->Model forms series of transformations that is akin to the requirements gathering, communication and development process used when creating products.
Once a set of clear foundational rules for origami were defined and understood, not only did they open up new possibilities for forms never thought possible, but those rules formed the grammar for a language that makes precise and unambiguous communication also possible.
There is almost certainly a set of rules and language for precise definition and communication of requirements, but it has not yet been clearly formalized. That is likely a necessary stepping stone in the maturity cycle of product development.
But even with that requirements language, changing market landscapes, customer preferences and needs, technological, resource and time constraints will all work together to make product success a “grey box”, where those with great vision, insight and execution are likely to succeed but never guaranteed that success.
Michael Moe is the interviewer. This exchange takes place about 4:20 into the video.
Click the image above to open a window and view the full interview.
Michael Moe
So, what are the key metrics that you track when you’re working with a company. How do those metrics change as the company goes from being a startup, to an emerging company and as it gets larger? How rigourous are you with early stage companies?
Bill responds:
The rigour that goes into the first product is the most important thing. Everybody talks about great companies. Great companies start with great products. You can’t make chicken salad out of you know what.
This is a truism if there ever was one. How many great startups can you think of that had mediocre products? People may not know the company well, if at all, but they hear about a product and the product (good or bad) defines the company.
Bill continues:
I’m a big believer that you really track the progress of the product. I go back and talk about Mike Homer and a Product Marketing* like person. What are we doing to make sure we have something that we can ship and release? Get it out into the market place.
Tracking that one single thing — what can we do? who is it for? how do we guide it? Getting great product into the market place would the single most important thing.
That would be the number one metric that I’d judge and boy you’d go a long time in your company before you stopped doing that.
While not technically a “metric”, Bill again focuses on making sure the thing that is being built is being built for the right people. Making sure an identified target audience (and set of valued usage scenarios) are front and center during this early phase.
This answer also support’s Bill’s earlier statement that Product Management skills are key at the very earliest stages and should be hired in right at the start IF those skills are not strong amongst the founders.
One final note
What’s most interesting about this answer from Campbell is that he doesn’t say great companies start with great people. That’s what a lot of people would say, but it’s not true. Great people can build great products which lead to great companies, but there are many well known examples of companies started by experience or knowledgeable people (e.g. Cuil and Cassat) that have failed to live up to expectations. Once a company builds a great product (or service) that people use, that drives company growth, and ideally makes the company a leader in it’s market segment, can a great company emerge.
In part 1, I discussed the findings described in an article entitled Canada’s Innovation Gap, which was published in the Globe and Mail earlier this year.
In short, it indicated that Canadian businesses are not investing in research and development at the levels they should be (relative to businesses in other countries), and the heavy reliance of the Canadian economy on the resource and manufacturing sectors (both beaten down heavily in the recent economic downturn) put Canada at risk of falling behind other nations in economic growth, standard of living etc.
It’s a sobering article, and if you live in Canada, you should read it, because unless there are clear changes in how we conduct business in Canada, we’re headed for some hard times ahead.
I had mentioned that in this post I would look at some of the solutions proposed by the article’s author Konrad Yakabuski. But in researching the topic more, I came across some other research from the Conference Board of Canada (an independent think tank) that provided additional context on the innovation problem in Canada.
I’ve reproduced some of the Conference Board’s research below, but as always, go to the source and get the full details there.
***Warning to readers who worry about Canada’s future. The information presented below is rather ugly.
The scorecard below shows the 2008 numbers and some of the 2009 data. The final 2009 data will be released soon. The grading is similar to how many schools grade students. A is the best, followed by B, C and D. I didn’t see any Fs in the scores, so D can be considered the worst mark.
As you can see, Canada does fairly well in the first 4 categories, but rates a D in Innovation.
The following scorecard shows how Canada rates against a number of other industrialized nations in innovation. Canada occupies the lowest category, along with Austria, Australia, Italy and Norway. A surprise for me was seeing Ireland with an A score. I don’t know much about the Irish economy, but I have never pictured them as a more innovative country than say Germany, Japan or even Sweden and Finland.
And finally the Conference board provides a breakout of the various categories that make up the Innovation score. The table below — you’ll have to click on it to see it clearly — makes it patently clear that Canada’s innovation problems are widespread.
Click the image above to view in detail
Cs and Ds across the board for Canada. What’s most surprising is that Canada only got a C for scientific articles and a D for the manufacturing category. Even with good educational institutions, it seems we’re not publishing enough new research. And for a country that has traditionally had a large manufacturing sector, most of it is clearly pretty low tech; processing for natural resources, and of course, the auto manufacturing plants in Southern Ontario.
So, what can be done? One thing to keep in mind is that what the Conference Board, and the original article by Konrad Yakabuski talk about is innovation by large corporations and universities, Hi-tech manufacturing is not something done by startups. Fundamental research is not done by entrepreneurs. The objective here is not to simply raise Canada’s grades on national report cards.
The objective must be to create, grow and instill a business environment and culture that enables entrepreneurs, small, medium and large companies to develop and go to market with new products and services on an international scale. Our captains of industry and successive governments have enjoyed direct proximity to the world’s most affluent nation for decades, but have focused on short term profits without long term investment and growth in mind.
In Part 3, (I promise) I’ll look at some of the ways to help address the innovation problem.
Saeed
BTW, if you want to see what other Canadians think of this problem, read the comments on this article in MacLean’s magazine. The article itself is not too interesting, but most of the reader comments are spot on.
You know you’re a Products Geek, when you find a show like Pitchmen appealing.
Pitchmen, on the Discovery Channel, is a behind the scenes docudrama about infomerical marketers and how they identify products to promote, develop the pitch and then take the products to market.
The show stars the late Billy Mays and Anthony Sullivan, two very successful and well known television direct marketers.
While it’s very easy to brush these guys off as selling gimmicky items to uninformed consumers, there are lessons to be learned from watching these guys operate.
And that’s what I like about the show. It presents some of the discipline and process they follow for the products they market and sell. Here’s a list of some of the behind the scenes work they do.
1. They look for problems that a lot of people have.
Stain or smell remover: Yes
An acoustic shark repellent: No
2. They test out the products and validate they actually live up to their claims.
Can the odor remover get rid of foul smells from hockey equipment?
Can a vertical grill actually cook as well as a traditional horizontal grill?
3. They listen to others carefully, getting feedback from potential users of the product.
For a self-rotating pool side lounge chair, aimed at removing the need to manually rotate a chair to get optimal exposure of the sun, they enlisted some swimsuit models to test them out. After the trial, they not only asked what they thought of the product, but asked how could the chair be improved. One of the testers suggested cup holders. Not a bad suggestion.
4. The benefits of the product have to be clearly demonstrable with a number of use cases.
For a food grater, they grate garlic, chocolate, cheese, citrus zest and other foods. The objective is to present a broad number of real use cases to show utility and value. This is clearly an area where technology companies need to improve when thinking about how they demo their own products.
5. They always try to find at least one “Wow!” aspect for each product.
For a shoe insert product that claims to eliminate impact from running or other sports, they put their hand under a pad made of the same material as the insert, and then hit the pad with a hammer. Then they took their hand out and wiggled all their fingers to show they were undamaged. Can you say “Wow!”?
6. They craft the messaging and the pitch, being very particular to the words they choose.
Whether via rhymes or alliterations or carefully crafted wording, the right word at the right time can make a big difference in how a product is perceived. For example, with a product for grating food, the lines “grate cheese with ease” and “for zest it’s the best” are used. Don’t think these stick in people’s memories? Remember that line from the OJ Simpson trial? “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must…”
7. They ensure price points that will be appealing for their audience.
With a vertical grill product (think of a big single slice toaster that grills burgers, steaks etc. vertically) they went to one of their partner companies who tried to source a manufacturing partner that could build product cost-effectively enough that they could sell it for $50. The partner couldn’t bring the price point low enough and so they said “No” to the product, even though it met all their other criteria.
8. They are data driven business people.
While they may come across as shady marketers, they are clearly rather sophisticated (and successful) in what they do. They test out their pitches in local markets, measure the results, adjust their pitch, and test again. When they go national, they are very confident that they have something with mass appeal that people will buy.
This is probably the most important lesson that Product Managers should remember. They definitely follow the “Nail it, then scale it” mantra.
Overall, I find Pitchmen to be a bit of a guilty pleasure. I’ve got it scheduled for recording on my PVR. Even so, it is educational and every episode reminds me of basic marketing principles that have broad applicability and value.
While this post is targeted at the innovation, funding and technology issues in Canada, it may apply to other geographies as well, particularly if you don’t live/work in technology hot spot such as Silicon Valley or Boston or Banglalore etc. This is a topic that is very dear to me, given that I currently live and work in Canada, but spent 6 years earlier this decade living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area.
A couple of weeks ago, there was an great article in The Globe and Mail newspaper (one of Canada’s leading daily papers) entitled Canada’s innovation gap. The article, by Konrad Yakabuski, outlined what I think is both an accurate and troubling picture of the state of R&D and innovation in Canada. Here are some highlights from the article.
Innovation in Canada is in deep trouble. Productivity is stagnating; the manufacturing sector in imploding, and the government policy makers seem asleep at the wheel.
Once the flagship of Canadian high tech, Nortel is being dismantled and it’s best assets are being sold to foreign companies.
While Blackberry maker Research in Motion is a true global leader, and often cited as an example of what is possible in Canada, there are few if any other Canadian companies that can be held in the same light.
Canada’s economy is heavily resource based, and those companies spend very little of their revenues on R&D, even though they made enormous profits before the recession due to high commodity prices.
While Canada was moderately successful at moving from a provider of raw resources to foreign countries to a more modern economy, the last 10 years have reversed that process.
Historically, the small group of elites that got rich on these resources controlled the political levers to ensure nothing changed. [Note: I personally think this still applies although not as much as it once was]
Innovation is the only sure way for Canada to be more productive.
I could go on. It’s a great article, and it should be a wake up call to every politician and business leader with any sense of commitment to the future and well-being of this country.
Change is a process
Change is needed on a lot of fronts. While many politicians are quick to highlight that the Canadian economy has faired better than other industrialized economies in the current economic crisis, it doesn’t change the fact that there has been a huge disruption in the Canadian economy, widespread layoffs, plant closures and bankruptcies.
Keep in mind that billions were spent to help manufacturing companies, particularly automakers with vociferous unions, but little if any was spent or allocated to help technology companies or create environments to make investment in high-tech much easier. A quote from the article:
“Canada is not being productive because it’s not being innovative,” said Robert Brown, chief executive officer of Montreal-based CAE Inc., the world leader in aircraft flight simulators and training. “A lot of innovation occurs at the interface with the customer. But when you look at the make-up of Canada’s economy, with so much dependence on resources, there is less contact between [our biggest] companies and end users.”
I think this is a polite way of saying that there are a lot of companies that are more than happy to cut down trees or dig minerals or pump oil out of the ground and then ship it off to some other country to be processed and have value added to it.
Aside from being innovative, Canada needs to look to add significant value to whatever industries it has. We have great R&D minds in this country, but there are problems in productizing the research and funding and scaling businesses.
My personal experience
I moved to California back in 2000 to seek better opportunity – i.e. professional and financial gain — than I could find here in Canada. One of my best friends from high school — a brilliant guy who did his undergrad at Harvard and his Ph.D at Princeton, is now a research professor at another Ivy League school, even though he really wanted to come back and live and work in Canada. He told me back in the early 90s that the opportunities just weren’t here for him. He’s a great example of the brain drain this country faces on a regular basis.
I moved back to Canada a few years ago for personal reasons and I have to say it wasn’t easy coming back. Aside from the nicer weather in California, I knew that my career opportunities would be more limited than they were there.
And trust me, there is a huge difference in the technology industry here in Toronto and that of Boston or San Francisco. Everything from the amount and quality of investment funding, to the networks of people with connections into technology giants to the breadth of skill sets of individuals, and even to the aspirations of company founders are very different.
We’ve got brilliant people
I’m not slagging anyone here. There are very bright, dedicated and passionate people here. I’m proud to know a number of them. But when it comes to goals, too often a Canadian VC or company founder sees a $50 million exit as a big win, whereas in the US, that’s on the low end of their success scale.
And that exit often means jobs moving to the US or offshore. In many cases the key people in the acquired company (the bright, dedicated and passionate ones) move down to the US to work “at corporate”, and the brain drain continues.
I don’t want to paint a completely bleak picture of the situation here. As I said earlier, there are very bright, talented and passionate people here. In fact, after I moved down to Silicon Valley in 2000, one thing I realized was that the people down there are not smarter than the people here.
But the level of investment financing, the personal networks of skilled people, the institutions like Stanford and Berkeley all provide a critical mass of infrastructure that enable risk taking and innovation on a scale we don’t really have in Canada. The infrastructure and culture there pull bright people from other parts of the country and other parts of the world.
The issue is not the people here in Canada, it never has been. It’s all the other business levers that innovators need to “nail and scale” their businesses to be world leaders. I personally think the co-founders of RIM (Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie) should be viewed as national heroes, on the same scale as Wayne Gretzky or Gordie Howe (famous hockey players for those of you who didn’t grow up on hockey!).
I’m sure Mike and Jim had numerous incredibly lucrative offers to sell their company over the years. But they didn’t. They held on, grew the company, fought off lawsuits, challenged rivals and continued to innovate and create a global leader based in Waterloo Ontario. And just recently RIM was named the fastest growing company in the world by Fortune magazine.
So what can be done to close the innovation gap? Konrad offers some solutions in his article. I’ll get more into that in part 2. But in the mean time, I’d like to hear what you think, particularly if you are here in Canada, or are Canadian and are living/working outside of Canada.
In 
On Product Management 
