Skip to main content

Google and Agile

Does Google practice agile product management? Yes!

We see from Evelyn Rodriguez's notes that Google's product development process includes:
  • Iteration - Quickly and repeatedly produce a working version of the product for review, improving it with each iteration.
  • Experimentation - Work on high-risk products and "research" the market demand and requirements by releasing the products quickly for feedback.
  • Expedient solutions - Initially favor simple, good-enough solutions over complexity or perfection.
  • Small teams collocated with product manager - Form teams of three developers and one product manager. Scale up to larger projects by dividing large teams into smaller "modules".
  • Sparse documentation - Document requirements and design, but don't spend too much time up front.
You may be able to glean an overarching theme from the practices above: the most reliable market understanding comes from putting real products in front of users. Keep in mind that these practices don't obviate the need for a product manager, as evidenced by the fact that Google has a product manager for every three product developers. You still need someone who:
  1. Has the facilitation skills to elicit and interpret feedback from users.
  2. Understands branding principles and how they influence product requirements.
  3. Clearly distinguishes problems from solutions.
  4. Champions the needs of the market.
We at Cauvin, Inc. practice agile product management.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the