13 Myths And Misconceptions About Product Managers

The good news: product management is now being seen as a legitimate profession and increasingly critical to a company’s growth strategy.

(Ok, maybe it was always thus in Silicon Valley, but the rest of the world is now catching up.)

The bad news: There are still many myths and misconceptions folks have about our profession.

Here are some common ones:

  1. Product Managers are proxies for project managers.
  2. Product Managers are “technical people”, so it’s not necessary to involve them in business, sales, marketing, pricing or (worst of all) strategic discussions.
  3. Product Managers are “technical people”, so naturally they define/understand the database structure, system design, server configurations, etc.
  4. A Product Manager is a “technical role”, so must sit under Engineering or IT.
  5. A Product Manager’s primary (only?) job is writing requirements…
  6. …And how hard can that be? (One of my favorite quotes from non-PMs: “I could write those requirements over the weekend.” Go for it, boss.)
  7. If the product has a technical issue, like something wrong with the data model, SQL stored procedure, or the system design, the PM is responsible and answerable. (Uh, no.)
  8. A Product Manager can come up with a product roadmap without a well-defined product strategy.
  9. A Product Manager can come up with a product strategy without a well-defined business strategy.
  10. A roadmap is simply a case of plotting a bunch of features on a timeline with dates. How hard can that be?
  11. The Product Manager must come up with delivery estimates and dates, and stay true to them no matter what. (Because we product manages are fortune tellers, of course.)
  12. The Product Manager must spend most or all of their time with the development team / in the scrum. (Nope. They must equally spend time, if not more, in the market.)
  13. The Product Manager is “CEO” of his or her product. (Nope. The CEO is the CEO.)

10 Things To Do To Appear ‘Innovative’

Being “innovative” is all the rage nowadays. Companies big and small, tech and non-tech, are striving to seem innovative to employees and customers.

I’ve worked at such companies, and I’ve helped many product managers working at such companies through my product help calls. As such, I’ve seen companies that are actually trying to be innovative, and those that seem more interested in giving the appearance of being innovative.

So here are ten things a company can do to appear innovative than actually be innovative:

#10. Start using buzzwords, like “MVP”, “lean”, “experimentation”, “hypothesis” and “failing fast” without actually understanding what they mean or what they involve.

#9. Visit Silicon Valley a lot, and come back to share stories of t-shirt wearing founders and how everyone there uses Macs.

#8. Start sponsoring and hosting lots of local tech meetups.

#7. Change the office to look more “startupy”. Or better yet, build a brand new one with an open floor plan, sofas, “nap rooms”, and an Xbox.

#6. Offer lots of free food and unlimited sodas, and host “Pizza Tuesdays” and Wednesday afternoon NERF gun battles.

#5. Tell folks at company town halls that you’re embracing innovation. Just keep saying this. Over and over.

#4. Declare that “mobile is the future”.

#3. Enthusiastically share with employees the millions the company is spending to acquire hot tech startups and entrepreneurs (instead of investing in the existing employee talent).

#2. Declare “entrepreneurship” as a corporate strategy. Or better yet, start challenging employees to be more “entrepreneurial”. Make sure they put it in their professional development plans.

#1. Launch an innovation lab. It may not actually do anything real, but this must be done.

Do these 10 simple things and your company can look innovative too.

How To Streamline Your Product Development Process

By Emily Hunter

Many businesses are sustained and driven by product development. From small businesses to multinational corporations, the creation of new products is vital to market survival, especially in a world where trends, likes, and dislikes appear to change on an almost daily basis. Because of the swiftly changing market, many businesses have looked for ways to make the standard development process a little faster, or at least a little smoother.

In standard product development, there are several stages in the process like idea generation, screening, commercialization, and so forth until the product is finally ready for launch. While this development process works well, and is still in use by a great many organizations, it doesn’t always foster quick change and a fast development cycle.

A Holistic Emphasis

Holistic processes, used by major companies in the United States and Japan, do not get rid of a company’s stages of development, but merge them. When the idea is born, for example, it might move through the development team before the screening team compares and contrasts it with new product-related ideas, but both ends work in conjunction with one another. Instead of moving through incremental stages, everyone simultaneously contributes until the product is done.

Today, when a product needs to be built before the next big thing comes along, flexibility is a must. Having more hands on deck during product development requires more trial and error than the standard linear method. However, it also necessitates more communication between departments, which fosters transparency and openness through every level in a company. Once everyone understands what the other departments do, they are far more likely to take advantage of cross-departmental collaboration, allowing the company as a whole to reap the benefits of teamwork.

A Little Push

As always, development begins with an idea. In many cases, it’s a very broad idea — one that requires limits to be stretched and tested. When ideas arise in big companies, they are usually generated and imposed from above, unlike small companies, which can think big and aim for something they’ve never tried before. The problem with “thinking big” is that big ideas are often daunting to execute in real life.

Naturally, the idea has to be feasible. It also has to have a time limit. It’s going to be challenging, so everyone involved will have to be pushed a little — by themselves, by management, by the other members of their team. Enforce deadlines, maintain high standards, and monitor the quality of work, but do so within reason. Too much pressure can destroy a team, but just the right amount can drive people to achieve accomplishments they never believed possible.

A Team of Their Own

Product development teams tend to be extremely independent. Basically, they are given a concept, and they build a design around that idea. If the people involved are qualified in their specializations, the project will gain a life of its own. If upper management is involved in starting this kind of team, they should remember that such an arrangement works better if they just stay out of it. Shifting already established parameters as the potential to destroy the entire process.

Over time, the team will develop its own personal goals in an effort to complete the task in the time allotted, often fostering a strong sense of unity through the shared task. In effect, management won’t have to move the goal posts because the team will do this on their own. With each victory inspiring them to further success, every challenge overcome will instigate another even more difficult challenge in a kind of snowball effect.

Streamline Appropriately

The process of streamlining product development is great for many companies, but it is not for everyone. A freeform creative process tends to involve a great deal of overtime. For instance, a team that is not willing to put in the extra creative hours to bring an idea to life would be better off with the standard, more stratified process. Likewise, the naturally unstable and flexible teamwork setting of a holistic development process is not conducive to a huge project involving hundreds of people.

Some companies are run by a single individual who basically invents the products on his or her own and then gives the specifications to a design team. In this cases, it’s best to simply design the product as ordered rather than trying to improve upon the design.

Dealing with Change

It’s not easy to do something different from the standard procedure, especially the “old way” is deeply engrained into a company’s routine practices. However, change is often necessary. A new streamlined product development process may feel a little strange at first, and it may seem like it’s not quite working, But every new process takes some getting used to. Whether it’s a new software program or new machinery, mastering an innovative new process typically produces fantastic results.

Emily Hunter has been writing about business topics for many years, and currently writes on behalf of the product development specialists at Pivot International. In her spare time, she cheers for Spirit of Atlanta, Carolina Crown and Phantom Regiment, creates her own sodas, and crushes tower defense games. Follow her on Twitter at @Emily2Zen.

Why Products Fail [PODCAST]

Why do products fail?

What are the three important milestones for a new product?

Why is it so important to get to market fast?

How do you manage stakeholders when building a new product?

What is an MVP?

What are the key skills of a good product manager?

How do you stay in touch with current trends?

I had the privilege of being interviewed on a podcast series called Yours Productly where we discussed not only these topics, but also:

  • The Product Canvas: why I created it, how to use it, and its growing popularity
  • My upcoming book: what it’s about, why you’ll want to read it, and the feedback I’ve received so far
  • Lean Startup and Customer Development
  • And what I’ve learned from my product help sessions to over 100 product people around the world.

Frankly, I was amazed at how much ground we were able to cover!


You won’t be disappointed!

Yours Productly is a podcast series hosted by Ravi Kumar, founder of ProductCamp Singapore, where he talks about the business of building great software products with product rockstars and marketeers like Rich Mironov, Steve Johnson, Michael Eckhardt from Chasm Institute, Roman Pichler, and John Mansour, among many others.

Create Your Business Case Using Customer Development

A few weeks ago, I spoke at the Modev MVP Conference and the Lean+Agile DC Conference about using a bootstrapped Customer Development approach to pursuing a new product idea in an existing company.

I talked about how the traditional product innovation process of writing a business case with long-term financial projections, then writing a big PRD, then doing development and launching doesn’t work, and presented a case study of a better approach that used Customer Development and Lean Startup practices that produced far more impactful results.

Here my slides from those talks (same set used for both):

How To Get Quality Customer Insights (Spoiler: It’s Not About Time)

A Sales Exec and I were debating whether amount of time spent with a customer is a measure of the quality of the customer interaction.

His argument:

Just curious — do you see 23 touches for 5 mins the same as 23 touches for 1 hour each — I think it is different and material.

From my perspective, I need to allocated a certain number of hours per week with customers, and believe that number in a normal week is likely 5 hours. I am not sure if that is right, but 5 hours out of 40 per se seems about right. To me, a 3-hour dinner with a customer will be very revealing.

Time matters… Speaks to quality, don’t you think?

His assumption here is that there’s no meaningful insight to be gained in a 5-minute conversation. He’s also arbitrarily picked 5 hours per week. (Why not 4? Or 2? Or 8?)

My response:

Here’s how we should think about it.

Why are we seeking VOC? What’s the purpose?

At the most fundamental level, in any situation, there are three kinds of customer insights we’re trying to gain:

  • Problem Discovery
  • Problem Hypothesis Testing
  • Solution Hypothesis Testing

There are many techniques to accomplishing these. The specific ones we use depends on the situation.

For problem discovery, a series of 1-on-1 interviews is best. These take time. 45-60 minutes an interview across 10, 20, 50 customers, for example.

For hypothesis testing a broad problem domain, again, 1:1 interviews may be best to start with.

So in this case, I’ll opt for 23 phone conversations of 30-60 mins each, because I know neither email nor a survey nor a 5-min phone conversation will provide me the richness of insight I need.

For solution hypothesis testing, it can vary.

If I’m validating a mockup of a potential solution the customer has never seen before, a 20-60 min interview may be needed.

In all the above situations, I want the richness of the fluidity of the conversation, have an opportunity to ask follow-up questions, and feel the customer’s emotional responses.

But let’s say I’m trying to validate the need or usefulness of a specific feature — i.e., will it or does it solve a specific, previously identified customer problem.

In this case, using an email or an automated tool would enable 23 touches in 5 minutes, and work perfectly. I could do it via phone calls, which would have taken longer, but ultimately would have given me the same quality of insight.

Another example is having weekly meetings with the Sales team.

The meeting doesn’t preclude the opportunity for a Product Manager to get on sales calls and demos. However, there’s great efficiency and value to these meetings, because in 30 mins I get buyer feedback across all our products from 9-10 folks who are making a large number of customer calls every day.

Which technique to use in any given situation depends on the type of VOC one is seeking, the purpose of seeking it, ability to access the customer quickly, the time available to seek and act on it, and of course reasonable judgment.

With respect to allocating time for yourself to obtain VOC, that’s a different thing.

You’re a busy person, so it’s perfectly reasonable you need to figure out how much time to allocate for VOC vs. other tasks.

But that’s solving your problem — your problem of time allocation.

It’s different than the how, what and why of obtaining the VOC itself.

And provides no guarantee of the quality of customer insight that you may gain.

No, I Can’t Give You A Roadmap For Our New Product (Yet)

Cartoon by Roger LathamA fellow product manager that’s working on a new product idea recently wrote to me:

“Common feedback I receive from our our engineers and executives is they don’t have a good grasp of the product vision. They say, “OK, that’s great, we can build that. But where are we going with this if we find the hypothesis to be true? What’s the long term vision for the product?” In essence, they’re asking what’s the end goal in 2-5 years, and if you show me that I’ll have a better sense of the architecture and tools I need to account for.”

This product manager is right at the very initial stages of their product idea, where he still needs to test the problem and solution hypotheses. But he’s already being asked for a long-term product roadmap! Sound familiar?

While the request seems perfectly reasonable, it’s misplaced at such an early stage. The question about architecture and tools seems perfectly reasonable on the surface, but it’s a scale question, and is not the right one to be focusing on before you even know if you’ve identified the right customer problem and have proof that your solution approach is viable to solving that problem. Execs are trying to assess the potential market opportunity, the underlying investment that will be needed, and the speed to achieving ROI. So naturally they want to see the long-term roadmap. Again, perfectly reasonable on the surface, but at such an early stage, you’re likely in no position to be able to answer the question.

Even at the conceptual stage, you likely have a list of potential features in your mind. You could prioritize them using one of the many scorecarding techniques written about by seasoned product practitioners. (See this, this, this, and this, to reference just a few.) These are all very valid techniques written by product folks who really know their stuff.

If you do that, though, you’ll be wasting your time. Creating a product roadmap is predicated on having a coherent product strategy, which is predicated on having a validated understanding of who are your customers, what are their pain points, and whether they’ll find your solution valuable. If you don’t even know if customers will buy your solution, what’s the point in having a roadmap?

So when do you develop a roadmap for a new product? I get this question a lot on my product help calls, so I thought I’d share my answer here.

For a startup product, the first step is always to identify the customer segment and customer problem. Quickly capture your product vision, formulate your customer, problem and solution hypotheses, and systematically test them. As you go along, you need to identify potential “innovator” customers and early adopters to whom you could deliver your solution — typically you build the product for these folks first. If practicable, test pricing at this stage as well.

Figure what you absolutely must deliver to these folks to solve their #1 problem, and work like hell to deliver it as quickly as possible. All other features get cut from scope and sit in the backlog. Again, with respect to pricing, what the customer is willing to pay to solve for takes clear precedence over anything else.

After delivering this, say, MVP, you need to actively gain feedback from these early customers. You’re using your delivered product to gain deeper insights into the customer’s problem, and you’re trying to understand what you need to improve in the product to (a) get these customers to stick, and (b) attract more new customers.

In addition, now that you have an initial set of engaged customers, you can also try to test their second level set of problems (or discover new ones). Understanding those problems may identify new enhancements/features. You’ll now be armed with a set of improvements, fixes and new ideas that you can put into the backlog.

If you have a sales force, and have armed them to sell your MVP, make sure you’re actively gathering feedback from them as well. Of course, not all their feedback may be feature-related — some may be about testing and evolving your sales messaging and positioning. However, as it relates to feature gaps, you put those into the backlog as well. I pay particular attention to feedback that’s preventing a customer sale.

You’ll have a pretty good backlog at this point, so you can now start building an initial roadmap. Start by prioritizing the backlog based on a reasonable customer-centric set of criteria that also help deliver on your company goals. I typically skew my priorities heavily toward voice of customer (VOC) feedback. While at any stage of the product lifecycle, features should solve tangible customer problems, it’s even more important at this early stage.

I also factor in the company’s strategic goals. For example, if the company’s focus is retention, features that create stickiness may carry more weight; if the focus is growth through customer acquisition, then sellable features may be more important; if it’s revenue through customer penetration, features that drive engagement and up-sells may take priority.

I also make some allowance for operational issues. I may not necessarily have a scale problem (yet), so these type of issues may not take precedence over VOC or driving revenue; however, I don’t want to completely ignore technical debt or reasonable operational fixes.

Once you have a prioritized list, socialize it. (Read this post by Bruce McCarthy on using “shuttle diplomacy” to get buy-in.) For the top priority items on the list, get t-shirt sizing from Engineering, and make a final call to sequence out the items based on customer value vs. LOE. Now you’ve got a validated product in the marketplace with a decent first-pass roadmap that you can build upon.

RIP PRDs. Long Live “Agile Conversations”

Many of my free product help calls are about ways to pursue customer development and gather VOC, bootstrap new product efforts, and apply lean principles to product management activities. I recently had an email Q&A with a fellow PMer in which I shared what’s worked for me. So I decided to post my answers here — of course, your mileage may vary, but perhaps there may be some nuggets that may help you.

Voice of the Customer (VOC)

Besides web analytics, do you have any tools you use to facilitate getting VOC from the market? Customer interviews are great, but my experience is that it can be hard to get this feedback on a continuing iterative basis. Are there tools you use to make sure you have the #1 customer problem identified?

  • For identifying the #1 problem, nothing beats interviews. You need qualitative feedback, especially at the early stages.
  • Solution hypothesis can be also be validated qualitatively via interviews, as well as quantitatively — e.g., watching engagement metrics on a feature.
  • Regardless of the stage of the product, I always dedicate time every week to speak with my customers.
  • For now, we capture this feedback in Google Docs. Works well enough.
  • That said, lots of tools to choose from: ListenLoop, Survey Monkey, Google Forms, UserVoice, and Intercom.io, to name a few.
  • Sometimes plain old email and phone work best!
  • UserTesting.com is an option for usability testing. 5 respondents is good enough.
  • Can also ask for feedback directly within the app itself. Many apps, like Jira and Basecamp, now do this.
  • Which tool you use depends on the type and frequency of the VOC you’re looking for, and the lifecycle stage of your product.

Hypothesis Testing

What do you do to create your hypothesis and metrics, and at what stage in the process? Ash’s model in the Lean Stack works to an extent, but it is focused more on startups as you know.

For startup product, yes, at just about every stage we’re testing hypotheses — see my post on using validated learning for a new product idea. If you’re doing problem validation right before the sprint, it’s too late.

For a launched product, depends on the nature of the hypothesis to be tested. If it’s an optimization type hypothesis — e.g., do customers convert at a higher rate with copy A or copy B — A/B testing or engagement metrics may work fine. Tools like Optimizely can help.

If it’s a more pivot vs. persevere type test, then it depends on the specific component of your product strategy or business model you’re testing. For example, if you’re reliant on lead gen to fuel inside sales, testing sales pipeline metrics, product positioning and sales commissions becomes important. If you’re an e-commerce play reliant on SEO/SEM, those are the metrics to focus on.

Problem/Solution Interviews

I have recently tried to combine problem/solution interviews into one interview, because l found that at the beginning of the Solution Fit interview I could test to make sure that I had the #1 problem nailed. As you stated in a response to one of my comments on your blog, you find that with an existing customer base you often have a good idea of what the #1 problem is, and that you can often just verify this in the Solution Interview.

I’ve done both: combined and separate. Pure problem interviews are great for immersing yourself into your customer’s world — what they do today, where they feel the pain, and how they articulate it. However, it is true that sometimes you need to get them to react to something to give some structure to your discovery.

There’s also an aspect of knowing your customer. If it’s a new product to existing customers, I may already have a pretty good idea of their pain points, and how well they articulate their problems. So I may combine the problem and solution interviews. If it’s a new product to new customers with whom I’m less familiar, I may prefer a pure problem interview to allow me to understand the customers better.

Ultimately, just need to use good judgment based on the nature of the problem, the solution you’re envisioning, and your target customer.


As you preach, long MRD/PRD’s make no sense. However, there is some need to provide our business analyst with some form of requirement. What do you do in these cases? I have a Feature Requirements doc I created, but I sometimes feel it is overkill. What would you recommend?

  • We don’t write MRDs, PRDs, or any sort of traditional functional spec. It’s a total waste of time.
  • If we have time, budget and bandwidth, we’ll always get a Designer to create the screens before getting it to Engineering. Doing otherwise is a waste of Engineering’s time. Only caveat is I keep my Engineering Head / Chief Architect informed and involved.
  • Since the Designer is the recipient of the stories, we can write them at a fairly high level. We don’t get hung up too much on granular acceptance criteria — the use case, user goal or job story is much more important at this stage.
  • As such, at times we’ve provided just a 1-pager with bullets. Because design is iterative, we lean more heavily on interactive ongoing conversations than paper.
  • If we don’t have time, budget or bandwidth for a designer, PM just hacks the screens — Balsamiq, ppt, whatever. Not ideal, but sometimes you just have to make do. I’ve literally sent a photo of a whiteboard doodle, and written the story around it.
  • As much as possible, for major new features or flows, we will do customer validation. Yep: phone interviews with screen shares. 5 may be good enough.
  • We don’t have a Business Analyst, so PM writes the stories directly, including me. It’s not hard, and removes a middle man. Not saying a BA/BSA is never needed — just saying in our case we haven’t had the need for one, and have managed fine.
  • When ready to provide the stories to Engineering, we do write more granular level stories. Granularity is determined by the detail put into the screens. Let’s say we had a designer mockup every detail — every click, button placement, font, color, and even copy —then it’s just easier to add the mockup as support documentation and point to it in the acceptance criteria. If the design was more high-level, like a ppt hack or my silly whiteboard doodle, naturally I need to provide more specificity.
  • We use Aha.io to capture ideas, convert them to features, write stories, attach documentation, do prioritization, and map out an executable roadmap. It has some super cool features:
    • It will spit out a req doc from the stories you write. This is helpful if you’re using a 3rd party dev firm and need to provide them a written doc during the initial planning stages. So we no longer need to use MS Word.
    • It has an awesome Jira integration feature, where I literally click a button and boom, everything is automatically placed in the Jira backlog.
    • It allows me to publish out status on our roadmap execution to senior execs. This is extremely helpful, as it gets me away from PowerPoint and Excel crap.

Ultimately what really matters is joint understanding between PM and Engineering. If there’s a good relationship, both sides can come to an agreement on how the reqs should be delivered. I’ve found regardless of how the reqs are documented, ongoing conversation between PM and Engineering is the key.

Want to learn more? Faced with similar challenges? Just pick a slot on my FREE product help time!

A 5-Step Roadmap To Validate Your Product Idea

Here’s a scenario:

Top Exec at your company comes to you and says, “Yesterday, I was talking to Big Industry Player and they mentioned how they have Shiny Object. I think we should have Shiny Object too. How fast can we get it done?”

Sound familiar?

At last weekend’s ProductCamp DC event, my co-founder and I hosted a session called “Tales From The Product Frontlines”. Our first topic was about this very scenario, and it so energized the participants that it took up 30 of the 45 minutes we had been allotted!

During the session, we asked product people questions like:

  • What do you do now to vet new ideas, whether your own or from some other source?
  • How is that working?

Most folks talked about having some sort of governance structure, such as an Executive Steering Committee to vet new ideas based on some established criteria. Many talked about the need to create a business case, and some advocated that Product Management is best suited to do that, regardless of where the idea came from. Yet, after the session, every person I spoke with told me they felt writing a business case was a total waste of time.

Why is this? Because the old ways just don’t work.

Pragmatic Marketing’s 2013 survey revealed that product managers spend over a month’s worth of time writing business cases. These business cases are filled with highly assumptive 3- or 5-year projections that are used to support significant investment asks. It’s no wonder we hate this — we’re staking our professional credibility on these unvalidated assumptions!

The problem is we were never taught a systematic method by which to obtain the crucial information needed to inform a business case.

So what’s the solution?

Let me pause here to say if you’re hoping I have a magic secret for quickly validating a product idea, or if you’re totally married to writing business cases or MRDs, then stop. This post isn’t for you, because:

  • It’s different and requires you to THINK.
  • It’s hard work.
  • It can take some time to get results.

But it works. I’m writing for the 10% who (1) realize I’m telling the truth (that the old ways just don’t work), and (2) are willing to try something different.

(Thanks, Kevin Dewalt, for putting this so well, and forgiving me a little plagiarism!)

The solution is validated learning

Bottom line is spending time writing a big document is a colossal waste of time. Instead, focus on validated learning.

Because any new product idea is based on assumptions, those assumptions need to be validated. This can be achieved by formulating testable falsifiable hypotheses around the riskiest assumptions, and rigorously testing these hypotheses.

The process of validation can be outlined in 5 steps. Each step generally follows this meta-pattern:

  • Formulate hypothesis.
  • Test hypothesis.
  • Analyze results and learnings.
  • Decide to pivot or persevere.
  • Repeat.

In full disclosure, I’ve used these this process to validate ideas for software products, but I imagine it could be adapted for any product concept.

1. Write down your customer hypothesis.

Most folks typically start with the solution first. So this step forces you to take a giant step back and think very deliberately about your customer. If you’re pursuing a new product idea in an already existing business, this could be your existing customer base or a segment of it. If you’re a true startup, you may have some work to do here.

Note, by customer I mean the individual who will buy your product. Even in B2B, you need to think about the specific individual or set of individuals to whom you will need to sell your solution. That’s your customer.

2. Write down your problem hypothesis.

What problems does your idea solve for the customer? One way to do this is to think about the goal or job the customer is trying to accomplish. For example: “I believe [customer] has a problem achieving [goal].” Or: “I believe [customer] is trying to accomplish [job], because [desired benefit].”

I typically use the Product CanvasTM to do this, as it allows me in a focused manner to break down the problem domain into discrete problems, and then formulate hypotheses around what I believe to be the top problems that my solution absolutely has to solve for first.

3. Validate your customer/problem hypothesis.

Now it’s time to validate your hypotheses. You do this by talking to folks you believe meet your target customer demographic. Be sure to define a minimum success criteria, which is the minimum amount of data you will need from the test to justify investing more time, effort or resources into proceeding with the idea.

When you’ve met your minimum success criteria, analyze your data, and decide whether to Pivot or Persevere. A pivot is a fundamental change in direction of your business model or product strategy. At this early stage, you could expect a pivot in terms of a change to your target problems, your target customer, or both. This may mean going back to step 1 or 2. However, if the results of your test prove your customer/problem hypothesis, you may decide to persevere, and move on to step 4.

4. Validate problem/solution fit.

Now that you’ve validated your customer/problem fit, you need to validate whether your idea is a potentially viable solution to the customer’s problem.

There are many ways to go about this, but nothing really beats creating a visual representation of your envisioned solution in the form of a wireframe or mockup. To keep things simple and minimize work, I look to design a representational screen or flow for each discrete problem identified on my Product Canvas and validated via the previous steps.

The primary goal of this stage is to garner early customers who endorse your solution vision, and would be willing to use (and ideally pay for) an early version of the product. You’re also looking for directional feedback to identify the “right” handful of features to build for these early customers to prioritize your product development.

Formulate hypotheses around your screens, define your minimum success criteria, then reach back out to the customers you had interviewed earlier and demo the screens to them. Also try to mix in some new folks who fit your target customer demographic.

When done, just like you did at the end of step 3, analyze your data and decide whether to Pivot or Persevere. At this stage, you may pivot on the solution, the problem or even the customer. Or, if you’ve validated your hypothesis, you may have problem/solution fit, and can move on to step 5.

5. Validate your solution via an MVP.

There are many misconceptions about what constitutes an MVP, and I’ve written about these before. In short, an MVP is an actual product that attempts to deliver real value to customers. It’s “minimum” in the sense that it’s an attempt to deliver the absolute necessary set of features or capabilities needed to solve the customer’s problem for which the customer will pay. A primary outcome of the previous step is being able to understand your customers’ problems at a granular level, which helps prioritize the initial set of features to build. This drives the definition of your MVP.

Once again, formulate a set of testable hypotheses to ensure you’re continuing to drive your product development based on validated learning. Depending on the complexities of the problem and solution, and the nature of my target customer, I may opt to first demo the MVP before actually delivering it. The results of your MVP test will again determine whether to persevere or pivot.

If you’ve got this far, you’ve validated critical components of your product idea. It doesn’t mean your idea is guaranteed to succeed, but you will have gained a far better understanding of the market opportunity, allowing for a far less assumptive and much more robust business case for your new product idea. In fact, this is exactly the process you’d follow for a more bootstrapped approach for a new product idea.

Using Customer Development To Create The Business Case For Your New Product

Many of my product help calls are from folks frustrated with being able to pursue a new product in an existing company. They complain about how difficult it is to secure resources and garner internal stakeholder buy-in.

If you find yourself in this position, congratulations! As painful and frustrating as it is, many successful product people I’ve met have gone through exactly what you’re experiencing — including me!

The problem is the way we’ve been taught to pursue this — to first write a business case, business plan or MRD — just doesn’t work. The fact is, people think writing a business case is a waste of time and hate it.

And no where are we taught how to cultivate stakeholder support. Like it or not, every project in an existing company, regardless of the size of the company, needs an internal champion or sponsor. Lack of stakeholder buy-in can kill any product endeavor not matter how good your product idea may be.

So it’s no surprise really that product people are frustrated.

So here’s a new process I’ve tried recently that worked much better for me:

Bootstrapping My Product Using Validated Learning Milestones

That’s right, I bootstrapped it. I deferred asking for major dollars and resources until I absolutely needed to. Here’s what I did:

  1. I quickly sketched out my product strategy. The Product Canvas works perfectly for this. No wasting time writing a multi-page document no one is going to read.
  2. I decomposed the product strategy into critical learning milestones meant to answer the most important questions in my product strategy:
    • How does our target customer describe the problem?
    • How are they solving it today?
    • Why is that solution not working for them? In other words, why is the problem still a pain for them?
    • How can we know before we invest a lot in development, sales and marketing that the solution we’re thinking of building really solves the problem?
    • How quickly can we get our first customer?
    • What are the most important features we need to have in our go-to-market product?
  3. I figured out what’s the least amount of work I need to do to maximize my learning for each milestone.
  4. I broke down my investment need into these milestones, showing how ROI could be tangibly achieved based on measurable results.

Here’s what the investment plan looked like:


So where’s the bootstrapping part?

Well, in the past, I would have asked to spend money on 3rd party market research (four to five figures), a design agency to craft the user experience (five to — I’m ashamed to admit — six figures), a usability study (five figures), and a large development team (many figures). This would be costly and take a long time before I would have delivered the product to a single customer. And it’s a tough business case to make.

Instead, because I had broken down the plan into these learning milestones, I was able to easily accomplish the first two milestones by spending little to no money at all. The first is simply my time, so requires no money. To validate our solution hypotheses, I used Balsamiq to sketch a handful of the key screens of our solution. Total cost was $79 for the tool and my time.

When we were ready to design the user experience, since we didn’t have an in-house designer, we commissioned a cracker-jack freelance designer — way cheaper than hiring an expensive design agency, and way faster. It got the job done. If you happen to have an in-house designer, even better, since your investment “ask” may only be some of their time.

This is classic bootstrapping — using the resources you have at your disposal for as long as you can to create traction.

This approach not only allowed me to conserve precious funds and resources, but also allowed me to be less assumptive and more data-driven in identifying my investment ask at subsequent stages. It also enabled me to not only build early traction with customers, but also have them help me define the minimum feature set we’d need to develop to go to market — labeled as the Minimum Sellable Product (MSP) in the picture above.

Here are the benefits that resulted:

  • Instead of writing a massive business case based largely on guesswork, I needed only to sell a bunch of mini-business cases. Way quicker and easier to do.
  • Each mini-business case was informed by the learnings from the previous stage, making each subsequent mini-business case better informed, more robust, and an easier sell.
  • The product strategy was informed by real market insights. (What a product manager needs to do anyway!)
  • I had a customer driven product roadmap that was tough for anyone to dispute as it was informed directly by tangible customer insights, which defined what went in our MVP vs. MSP vs. roadmap vs. nice-to-have.
  • This enabled our product development efforts to be more focused, as I had all the ammunition I needed to fend off arbitrary new feature requests that risked derailing our product development.
  • Because of our “co-innovation” approach with our customers, we were able to get “earlyvangelists” that we are leveraging to generate momentum for our broader market launch. Customer Development in concert with Product Development!
  • All of this made it much easier for me to garner, maintain and accelerate buy-in from my internal stakeholders, because:
    1. My plan showed a clear milestone-based investment plan with the ROI to be gained at each phase.
    2. Smaller continual investments are easier to digest and support than a large upfront one.
    3. Each investment stage was grounded in real customer data, increasing confidence in pursuing the product.
    4. My stakeholders felt involved in the process, as I made sure to keep them informed and provide them an opportunity to provide feedback.
    5. This, in turn, kept me one step ahead of any potential concerns they may have had, and I could make sure to address them at a future stage.

Need someone to talk to about pursuing a new product at your company? Just pick a slot on my FREE product help time, and I’ll be happy to chat!

Note: Customer/Problem Fit and Problem/Solution Fit were first defined by Ash Maurya in his book “Running Lean”. Minimum Viable Product was coined by Eric Ries. The first I had come across the term Minimum Sellable Product was in this Slideshare presentation.