Skip to main content

Mike Lunt on "Selling" to the Development Team

My friend, Mike Lunt, writes:

There are many jobs that a product manager may do, and while most focus the vast majority of their time gathering requirements and selling the products to the sales team, I contend that another equally important role is necessary. This role involves selling the engineering team on the value the new features or changes in the product will have for the customer (and ultimately the success of the group). In other words, for a product to be successful, the engineering team must be motivated to implement the product manager’s feedback. Many projects have failed or been plagued by engineering feature creep because the team did not have confidence in the information stream coming from the product manager(s).
A product manager's responsibility is to help the entire product team fully understand and appreciate the needs of the customer. This responsibility underscores the product manager's facilitative role. The most effective product managers facilitate not just customers, but sales, marcom, and developers.

Mike goes on to propose some ways that a product manager can use objective data to persuade developers. While objective data is helpful, I think fundamental facilitation techniques - active listening, the Socratic method, etc. - are what's most important.

Comments

Mike Lunt said…
Roger, I agree that facilitation should make up the bulk of the information flow; however, it would also help to show which customers caused the basis for existing features. Instead of using customer A and customer B, engineers often want to have some basis for the features being proposed, especially when prioritzation occurs. For instance, the question about why certain features are being proposed in front of other features seems like a good place to implement some objective data. Maybe a good post on the negative effects of showing objective data might help sway me.
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Mike, I don't dispute that objective data can be helpful. So I don't feel compelled to produce examples of negative effects of objective data.

I do think, however, that the emphasis should not be on features, but on problems that customers are trying to solve. Go here for details.
Mike Lunt said…
Yes, talking about a customer's problems helps the team synergize a solution. I'm glad to hear that adding objective data can be helpful, and in this case, it seems like it would be good to identify which customers are having the particular problems being discussed. My point is I rarely see this kind of objective customer data along with the problems or features being proposed, and it is a good opportunity for the product manager to build additional credibility with the engineering team, especially when the prioritization occurs.

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