Generated by AI

Product Management Framework, the 3Ps: Process

This post is part 2 of my product management framework series. You can find Part 1 on People here.

‘Process’ is a loaded word. I’ve worked with people (*cough* engineers) who think Process keeps them from doing the real work and I’ve collaborated with senior leaders who have insisted on more Process than was required for a large project. Finding the right balance for Process while keeping stakeholders aligned and chugging along a project can be challenging.

Sometimes spending upfront time on a clear process saves us several weeks of disagreements, lost time, and effort. Here are some common problems I’ve come across that usually indicate a new process or process update is needed. Broadly, these problems can be categorized into 3 buckets that impede: Execution | Clarity | Alignment (I’ve called out the usual sources of the problem and/or solutions in italics below):

I Diagnosing Execution problems:

1. Frequent disagreements on the priority of features or implementation details that slow down execution ( → Roadmap and priorities not clear or not aligned indicating the need for a better process)
2. Team spinning for several weeks assuming they need to align on a decision when the real decision maker is the VP of the org and the team’s job is to just present options and their best recommendation in a leadership review ( → Purpose of the leadership review not defined well, process for reviews not smooth, who the decision-makers are, is not clear)
3. Slow or bloated product development (Metrics, Roadmapping, Product brief, Hypothesis-driven experimentation, Launch workback timeline etc.) I cover this in Part 3 of this 3P series on Product!
4. Delays in product launches because the cross-functional team (legal, policy, privacy, etc.) is not looped in at the right time ( → Need clear process for alignment with XFN. More in my post on Product.)
5. Too much process: E.g. roadmap planning takes forever, leadership reviews and reporting take forever ( → (i) add structure to the planning process, explicitly timebox roadmap planning, use retros to determine the right cadence for roadmap planning, and explicitly debug the most time-consuming parts of the process, (ii) set explicit expectations with leadership on the cadence of reporting & reviews and (iii) establish the purpose and expected outcome of each review, and (iv) incentivize/recognize process efficiency improvements)

II Lack of clarity:

1. Lack of Team rituals and processes — manifests in delays and costs in several ways. ( → Do people understand the purpose of team meetings, is there a smooth flow to each meeting? Do you have established forums for different themes/problems such as all hands, off-sites, hackathons, war-rooms, retrospectives, and premortems?)
2. Team not sure what the source of truth for a project is aka too many documents ( → Need to establish a canonical source of truth for key documents and socialize the document instead of each person spawning their own version of the truth)
3. Ineffective leadership reviews i.e. team or leadership does not get what they want out of the review ( → Establish purpose of review, a recommended review format (update/decision needed/escalation?), required attendees and how/where people can learn more). See the Traffic Light approach.
4. People not rowing in the same direction — this usually manifests as a lack of alignment on the vision, strategy, goals, or priorities of projects and work happening in silos. ( → Do clear communication channels exist for specific purposes? Where can you find the product roadmaps? Leadership decks and feedback? Weekly team updates? How can people keep up with the latest, most relevant information?)

III Lack of alignment/Frequent disagreements

1. Lack of alignment up the chain, information in silos, product pivots or priorities not clear ( → The basic principle needed here is Communication of the right information on the right channels at the right time. Some examples are lack of clear upward comms through the different levels, lack of a consistent set of channels to post product updates, no process around how leadership feedback is communicated or how teams catch up on product work in adjacent teams to avoid overlap, etc.)
2. Ineffective escalations or escalations that are unpleasant surprises (→ Some best practices are: (i) to jointly agree with the opposing team or person that it is unlikely they will come up with a common solution and escalate together — this way no party is taken by surprise (ii) to escalate in a timely manner and not treat escalation as a bad thing to do (iii) to ensure escalation meetings have the necessary decision-makers in the room)
3. Team talking past each other/Low trust/Lack of ‘connection’ ( → While there are many reasons for low trust, establishing a regular forum for people to connect informally, a culture that shares gratitude and props, and teams that connect and have fun help establish trust which makes aligning on decisions easier)

Have your favorite process improvement to add to this list? Let me know! You can find part 1 on People here and part 3 on Process here.