Lessons from the experiences of a hi-tech Product Manager
Product Frameworks are Rubbish. Now use one. [Product Management]
This article is part of a series on Product Management based on my experiences.
Throw a rock at a product department and you’ll hit a few frameworks. Mostly with contrived acronyms (yet cutesy in a dad-joke kind of way). For market analysis you’ll hear about Porter’s 5 forces, and talk about TAM and SAM (Total and Serviceable addressable markets). For general frameworks you’ll get 5 Whys, North Star, OKRs (from the 1970s!) CIRCLES are useful for product interviews. For prioritization — MoSCoW, Kano, WSJF and RICE. AARRR by investor Dave McClure for analytics. For end-users you’ll get JTBD (Job To Be Done), Google’s HEART framework, and story mapping. Search any one of these terms and you’ll get a nauseating amount of articles regurgitating the frameworks, usually cutting and pasting the same typos as the article before.
And they’re all rubbish. Hogwash. Pretty stories without teeth.
Let me explain. Are these frameworks serious legitimate tools on which to obediently base real product decisions? Does any CEO or senior product officer hold a meeting and say ‘I ran Kano, and this is the way we’re taking the product at our company!’ I think not. Why? Because if these frameworks were objective comprehensive tools, the world of products would be far more placid. We wouldn’t need copious amounts of data — to capture it, to analyze it, to derive insights. We wouldn’t need heated impassioned arguments about what decision we should make for our product or company. We wouldn’t have an uncanny amount of uncertainty or ambiguity after we neatly progressed through the framework. We would simply plug input in to our cookie-cutter framework, and like a magic ball, know exactly what to do. Would we need product managers, you worry? Fear not — we still need someone to blame when messy beautiful reality shreds our immaculate plans with unanticipated behaviors, unexpected unfolding cascades of events, and unintended consequences. Enter, the culpable PM.
But, alas, framework or no framework, at the end of the day a human being has to make a decision. Many many small decisions that snowball into major effects for a product or feature. And all the product frameworks in the world — thoughtful, organized, methodic as they are — will not unequivocally guide the decision maker to make the right call.
But why can’t frameworks alone guide us to optimal decisions? Why aren’t they THE way forward? Because by the mere application of the framework, the stakeholders are interjecting their own biases, beliefs and opinions. For example, when assessing whether a feature is ‘MUST have’ or ‘Should have’ in MoSCoW, decision-makers can disagree. Say some of the target market users must have this feature, but others can live without it and find workarounds. One PM can argue it’s Must Have, and another can cite those that will get along fine without it. Who is right? Who cares. The point is that the framework itself is warped by our usage of the framework. It’s like Schroedinger’s cat — our interaction with the framework changes its outcome.
To anyone who works as a product manager, all this is obvious. Of course, I overstated the futility of frameworks — their claim was never to provide an unequivocal Right Answer, but only to help guide thought and focus decision-making. To generate discussion. To reveal points that may have been overlooked. As a way forward. So, yes, of course, frameworks can be of value. Let’s admit their limited role and use them a massive grain of salt.
‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory’ — attributed to Kurt Lewin
If all these frameworks are so fallible, why do we go on using them? Well, some Product Managers simply don’t. They cite ‘Product Sense’ or experience or industry expertise instead.
Admitting to ourselves why we use frameworks
But there are other explanations of why we use frameworks, even though we don’t believe them to be oracles. Awareness of these reasons can provide perspective and ultimately lead to more ‘honest’ decisions.
To boost confidence.
For those of us who do use them, these frameworks help boost confidence. We feel more confident pointing to some structured way of thinking rather than saying ‘I feel like we should decide X, and I’m not sure why.’ We don’t trust our gut instincts enough, though there’s an ample body of research that claims we should (see Gerd Gigerenzer), since our unconscious knows more than we think. Yet in our culture and society, it is viewed as amateurish, puerile, and foolish to make decisions based on intuitions or premonitions. So we can point to a framework to justify to ourselves our predetermined decision.
To be respected.
Another reason we use frameworks is that we suspect that other people will respect our decisions more. It’s not just I think blah blah, but rather, we hide behind a fancy framework, and point to it as the authority.
To move forward.
A third reason we use frameworks is that it helps us move forward. Staring into the vastly expanding expanse that is the universe, with the future ever elusive, is terrifying. We need something to hold on to, like crutches, so we can be brave enough to step — no, leap- into the uncertainty that is tomorrow, and make a bold decision that may be glorious off the mark.
Recap
Decision frameworks can help spur thinking and generate ideas, but don’t hide behind them. Take responsibility for your decisions.
Thanks for reading.
References
About this Series
This article which is part of a series on Product Management based on my experiences.
About The Author
I’m a UX Designer turned Product Manager, with experience in startups, freelance, and international B2B companies. Writing helps me reflect & continuously learn. Connect with me on Twitter.
