Together, we go far

By Chris Bruner VP of Product, Vivun

This is the third article in a three-part series exploring how product and field teams can transform their organizations by working together more closely.

A system of product feedback will work as long as those capturing the feedback believe it is being used to drive decisions. It will, of course, not be the only thing that drives decisions. Jyoti Bansal describes the basis for product prioritization as four lists: sales, existing customers, technical debt, and innovation.

The leaders of other functions understand this, but where things go awry is when product teams handle decision-making in a black box, where it’s unclear how we are weighing those different considerations. When that happens, it often leads field team members to believe that feedback is not taken seriously. Their motivation to share feedback wanes, and the product team is left without the insights that it needs.

This is why I like vehicles like product council and design review that involve both product and field. There you can transparently share all of the options weighed and all of the factors that went into a recommendation. Then you can drive key decisions together with the field and company leadership. This ensures buy-in and understanding of key decisions, and it ensures that teams understand the valuable role that product feedback plays. More importantly, it fully leverages the insights of the field team members who spend the most time in front of customers at critical moments (buy or don’t buy? Renew or don’t renew?). They will, in many cases, catch mistaken assumptions and help you improve upon them. In all of the organizations I have seen, this results in better decisions. 

I have heard a concern from some that this implies too great a level of democracy in product decision-making. I think, though, this may misconstrue the most important problem. If my days at McKinsey & Company and in product have taught me anything, it is that those who set up and drive the decision meeting may wield a tremendous amount of power over its outcome. To me, the issue is rarely whether we can move people to the decision that we believe in; the issue is whether we are doing so responsibly. Are we paying enough attention to the new perspective or insight that should change our calculus? 

If decision meetings feel chaotic or feel as though they are not moving to the right decisions, this can be addressed by meeting design. While the right approach will vary by organization, what we have found works best is below: 

1. In product council, focus this on what objectives product teams should be pursuing (using specific roadmap items as examples of what could be done to fulfill those objectives rather than as the centerpiece of the discussion). This keeps the group focused on high-level problem-prioritization while leaving space for teams to iterate on the best solutions separately.

2. Before the meeting, share a state-of-the-union agenda and preread, including…

• A summary of the objectives previously agreed to
• How well you are trending against those objectives
• What the most important barriers are
• What decisions need to be made
• For each decision, what the product team recommends and why, along with any supporting analysis

3. The analysis in the preread should make full use of the insights you have assembled above, combining the “four lists” of sales opportunities, existing customer needs, technical debt, and any new innovation opportunities, with discussion then focusing on how these lenses are best prioritized against each other. 

4. During the meeting skip the read out and focus the discussion on the decisions to be made, the options, the recommendation, and the debate around them, guiding the group to a clear conclusion or clear next steps on each area.

We practice this on a quarterly rhythm, but we, of course, also find that sometimes substantial decisions need to be made in between those quarterly sessions. In those cases, we organize “mini councils” ad hoc, when needed, in a similar spirit. These follow a similar pattern but focus on a single, specific decision that needs to be made.

When product teams practice this, in my experience, there is much greater alignment and buy-in, and there is much greater shared commitment to decisions that are made. This translates into more effective product launches and better experiences for both prospects and customers. Above all, in my experience, it leads to better decisions. It yields not only strategic alignment but also the much more important outcome of strategic alignment on the right direction.

I appreciate all the readers who have followed me through this three part series on product-field partnership.

In organizations where product and field partner well together, the magic is palpable. Product is able to move faster to the most compelling hypotheses. Product teams do not do less discovery; they do better discovery. The invaluable insights and intuitions of sharp field team members are elevated and receive their due. Product efforts can be tied more readily to business outcomes, and better, more data-driven decisions are made. 

I invite product teams to consider whether we are fully valuing our field experts and to consider whether we have fully explored what true partnership looks like. I welcome the thoughts and comments from those in the community on your own experiences.