Know the different between product and project managers

Product management is in its pure abstract form is deceptively simple. There are really only three outcomes any product manager can impact, which I describe as the value triangle. During my experience as a product management consultant I have observed these three key product management goals being lost as the business forces product managers to invest most of their time being project managers. 

A great product manager is the conduit between sales, marketing, the customer / user and engineering teams (including UX / Designers). Product managers capture the creativity and intelligence of the business as well as the user to shape products that engineering can deliver, resulting user / customer value and realizing the company strategy.

All the techniques employed by a product manager should result in adding value to the product. The product manager focuses on what I call the value triangle, at the three corners of the triangle are:

  1. Add a new feature
  2. Make product changes to encourage users to a valuable feature more frequently 
  3. Make product changes to encourage users to users more valuable features

Making a product change is quite a diverse statement, it may involve reducing feature set, removing complexity, adding new options, user journey changes, UI tweaks, etc. 

Adding a new feature is typically going to impact the users workflow associated with the product and the product manager has to aim to understand that impact and how this new feature improves and adds value to the user. 

As one corner of the value triangle is focused on, another corner will likely be compromised. It is a careful balancing act to deliver the required value. In complex products the value triangle should be modeled to fit different user / market segments (or personas).

While many product manager roles will have to use the project management skills and techniques this is not their core responsibility.  The key product artifacts such as product vision, product value proposition, product roadmap, product concepts, product feature descriptions, the product backlog, product analytics and competitor analysis are all tools to enable communication or achieve collaboration.

Often these artifacts get confused with project management artifacts where the focus is the resources allocation, removing impediments, stakeholder expectation management (typically around cost and schedule), contract management, role definitions and accountability.  

Product managers do often manage release plans and by default have to fulfill the role of project management, but it is a mistake if this becomes their core role. Product must think of value proposition and the user / customer first, this can be a conflict of interest when they are wearing the project manager hat where typically delivery on time and under budget is the core goals.

Do you have hidden revenue streams among your internal tools?

Many companies have wonderfully sophisticated and clever tools to support their organisational workflows. These workflows are what deliver their customer value and result in profit for shareholders. These workflow's are everywhere such as how news publishers collect date specific information and package it as tv shows, websites and newspapers or how restaurants collect edible ingredients then convert it to beautifully presented scrumptious dining experiences. Typically these workflows follow some industry common practices, but at microscopic level are full of unique details.

It is a fair assumption to say that those tools that support the workflow add value to the organisation. Knowing that your organisation has tools that are valuable, drives some organisations to package the tool and sell it to others?

I have experienced a number of organisations who decide to repackage their internal systems by converting them into products to create new revenue lines. And why not? Some of the most successful product organisations rely on "Eating their own dog Food" - meaning they use their product daily themselves. EG Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc, etc. 

Typically these organisations are at core product organisations. However some organisations have flipped their tools into successful products, eg Basecamp - a web agency that productized its internal project management tools with so much success that they turned into a project management software company. Unfortunately most who go down this road, will fail. 

Obviously building and selling a product is tough and full of potential dangers which might cause failure. These organisations who see potential opportunities to productize their internal tools have one big challenge in common. They have the wrong culture.

R&D for internal tools focus on the inane unique details of the workflow that exist in no other company in the exact same way. The feature lists are often dictated by HiPPO (highest paid persons opinion) and saying "no" is rarely an option.  These internal tool end up like swiss army knives - they do all sorts of things and very few people know what most of the "blades" are for. Worst still most of the assorted features added to the tool are used by very few people and not very often.

The best products in the world have great product managers who's main job is to say "NO". Great products solve one problem and they achieve it through simplicity. They ignore all edge cases. They avoid those features that very few people actually will use. In most cases they take away options to achieve value. 

For internal tools to be turned into valuable products, you need a culture that allows product teams to say "no". You need a collaborative and evidence based culture that relishes experimenting to prove what to say "yes" to. And importantly, you need a culture where "failure" is encouraged! Failing is learning what does not work, which is critical to achieving big success as it directs product managers towards those key features that delight users with value.

Before you choose to productize your most loved workflow tools - first set your business up for success and create a space and culture that empowers the product team to say "no" and let it deliver the revenue goals you have dreamed of.

 

 

5 reasons why the online recruitment experience still sucks

The general state of the online talent attraction experience is shameful. The web has matured, even my local plumber and butchers offer a smoother, easier to use and simpler experience than many Fortune 500 career sites. Recruiters accept that it is ok to provide a sub standard online experience.

I believe online recruitment experience is out of date because of the following reasons:

  1. Lack of tools delivering best practice online experience.
  2. Overwhelming volume of 'legacy' systems deeply rooted in recruitment.
  3. Defensive mechanism held by some recruiters where they promote the myth that a painful application process filters out poor candidates and leaves the only the top talent. Where as the only certain truth here is it reduces application volume.
  4. Impossible to measure the unknown - recruiters can only measure what talent applies to jobs. The quality and potential of talent that drop out of the online experience comes with no metric.
  5. Inadequate statistics to provide insights around the true performance of the current talent attraction experience.

Unfortunately many UX concepts and best practices completed ignored. If you don't believe me, and think the landscape is better let me know so I can share numerous examples. Countless fortune 500 companies  show candidates a page with a full job advert, on clicking apply the candidate is presented with the full job advert again, but in a different layout requiring them to find the apply button (which has moved) and click it again. This experience will result in drop off where potential hot talent leave the website instead of clicking the second apply button. Do these companies measure this drop off (probably not, specially as it is across multiple vendors)? do these companies know how much marketing budget acquiring talent is wasted from driving talent away? Ironically a few of these examples are from very successful e-commerce businesses who would never put up with such an experience for there customers. 

10 years ago, when many of todays recruitment processes and online practices were designed the general populations experience of the Internet was very different. Today people are used to easy to use and fast online services. In my opinion the frustration levels felt by many candidates can only have a negative impact. 

It feels absurd that the recruitment industry consider a career site as high performing if it generates completed applications from 3% of its attracted audience. Is it really acceptable that career sites, with millions of dollars of targeted marketing spend, frequently fail to obtain an application from 97% of its talent visitors? 

I want to see an online recruitment landscape, including small staffing agencies through to the Fortune 100, where the online experience is simpler for the candidate. Simpler means - easier, more obvious and less friction.

Less waste of talent visitors logically would reduce the need to attract so many talent visitors and save significant advertising dollars. 

 

 

5 tips for a Job First Mobile First career site

Why bother with a recruitment website?

Typically it is to attract talent and convert them into applications. Often a great deal of time and money will be invested to help the job seeker land on the career site. The career site can make or break the ROI of effort to attract talent. Unfortunately many recruitment websites seem to hide the 'goods' from the talent - they are NOT job first! 

The career site has a key role - it should show off the jobs, communicate what working at the company is like and help the right talent apply. If you accumulate all of this the objective is to convert quality applications

Career site conversion of talent visits to applications is typically poor - about 3% . Failing to be optimal on mobile web will turn away 4 out of 10 talent visitors - wasting a significant amount of investment to attract them in the first place. The career site experience needs to support the objective as well as function on mobile. I describe it as "job first mobile first".

The talent journey starts with the question "are there jobs I could do, in a location I want to work". Typically only when a job is available does the research start to ensure its the kind of company they want to work for. This is true for the majority (c80%) of the workforce who is pragmatic and wants to stay in their local community. The careerist (c20%) puts their career path first and is searching for a specific job and company with the right brand as their next stepping stone.

Last week at a conference I presented at, a common questions I received was what employer sites I would suggest are "doing it right". There are a small number that really impress me and PepsiCo is one of them. PepsiCo recently relaunched their career site. They have done a very good job with "job first mobile first". There are a few areas on mobile optimization where it could be fine tuned, but it is better than most (maybe I am too picky)! 

PepsiCo's career home page has a very prominent call to action to find jobs. At the bottom of job descriptions the call to action to find more jobs is clear to improve the experience. I haven't had chance to catchup with Chis Hoyt but I expect the new site is converting visitors to start apply with more success than the old one.

I urge you to go and review the following:

  • What is the talent journey on your site?
  • How many clicks are needed to find a suitable job?
  • How easy is it to learn about the company?
  • What is talent is on a mobile device?
  • What help do you give candidates? 

This should give you an idea of how you are doing today and hopefully inspire you with what you can do better.

Employers ignore community genius

Last week with about 1,800 other people, I attended a technical conference in Chicago on the programming framework called Ruby On Rails (RailsConf2014). The event included 81 different talks from active members of the Ruby On Rails community, each one had something to share and wanted to help others in the community. 

Unlike rigid corporate driven technology communities, the influencers / creators of the technology do not follow a corporate statement and need not have a “message” that is “on strategy”. This was evident as the core rails team (the group of people who develop the technology and manage contribution from the community) had polarizing opinions on various topics. These views were made public and discussed in different talks. Can you imagine that happening at a Microsoft or Apple conference? From many years of experience I can share that such closed technology events have talks that are 'on message' and disagreements are kept strictly behind the scenes.  

As key influencers of the community openly discuss their opposed views it encourages debate throughout the community. A community that has the ability to explore alternative views in an easy manner with the goal of progression and helping more people at its heart felt very powerful. 

These opinions were not hampered with the politics found in the work place, as none of those taking part are looking to ‘score points’ to achieve promotion. I am not suggesting the community is ego free, but the willingness to listen and consider different perspectives is highly active. 

As I enjoyed improving my skills in the Ruby on Rails technology stack, I found myself feeling overwhelmed that such an advanced and valuable asset has been built by people all over the world, remotely communicating and sharing without profit being the motivator. There is a common belief throughout the community which along with the specific technology flavor brings everyone together. However the ‘Rails Way’ is loose enough not to prevent creativity and innovation. 

Compared to traditional corporate controlled technology development, Ruby on Rails (and I expect other open source projects) feels efficiently developed and rapidly finds the path of least resistance to achieve its goals. 

The traditional company could learn and borrow from communities like this to better use the genius in the organization. Too often only the opinions of those who have climbed a politically fueled ladder to senior management have voices that are heard. Too frequently the honest views are kept silent, because failure is seen as a weakness and blame will be credited with negative career consequences. How often was that silent view the missing key that could have saved looming disaster or complete waste of resources?

The total intelligence of an organization is huge, there will be amazing insights that could change the companies fortunes throughout the business at every level. Unfortunately the label of hierarchy job titles regularly creates a culture where the true aggregate genius of the company is lost. 

An open culture should be embraced by organizations and the power of the community tapped to improve all aspects of a companies execution from product development, customer service, commercial strategy through to employee treatment and support. 

In a global commerce filled with knowledge workers the draconian approach to company structure is not only outdated, it is inefficient. I ask everyone to look deep into their culture to consider if it really works for them or works against them. You think you are open - can employees ask “why”, can they say “maybe this would be better”, dare they go talk to or email the CEO, what happens if there is failure?