PM/UX: Salon/Studio Product Manager
They say as product managers, we should not jump to a solution, but naively the solution has already crossed our minds
Very interesting writing from Banalaesthetic when conveys what is happening to the world of photography today. This is a slap in my face and also a concern for me as someone who loves photography as well as someone interested in the field of product management.
When a photographer wants to photograph an event, in his mind he already knows what the result will be like, whether based on his thoughts or based on his references. For example, when a photographer wants to take a photo of office workers coming home from work, maybe in his mind he already has a picture of how tired the office worker’s face looks, so the photographer will look for the object of someone tired, is that happening? Yes, it is, but the photographer will miss many other moments that happened, such as people jostling for public transportation, or even people reading the newspaper while waiting for public transportation. In other words, the photographer only validates 1 moment out of 1000 other moments. This is what salon/studio photographers do, they have prepared the entire concept to produce pictures/photos that match their wishes.
As product managers might do now, users will therefore only find similar features on different platforms/apps. So are we salon/studio product managers who are ready with a concept or are we street product managers who are ready to meet humans to accept the unexpectedness? We can be both, but I hope we don’t become salon/studio product managers when we’re on the street.
These phenomena can be explained by the concept of systems thinking:
Problem
A gap between the ideal and the real condition (present)
Gap -> Problem = Ideal — Present
We often simplify problems because our frame of mind feels that we have already handled the problem without going deep into the problem.
“The Way You See a Problem Is the Problem” — Stephen Covey
Capture Effects
Capture effects happen because our minds try to recognize everything
Our minds do this thing where they try to make sense of everything around us by putting them into patterns we already know. When we can’t find a familiar pattern, our minds look for something similar. This sometimes makes us think we know what people want without actually asking them. It’s like our minds are always trying to find connections between what we know and what’s happening.
Mental Models and Dominant Design
Mental models are maps of the world in our minds
Mental models are a combination of paradigms, values, and knowledge. Mental models are like maps created in our minds to understand the world. They can be simple, like comparing things to metaphors, or complex, like a whole way of thinking. These models are our beliefs and frameworks that help us make sense of things. We often use them without realizing it, and sometimes, of course, they’re not perfect. Despite using mental models intuitively, it’s important to recognize that our mental models can be flawed.
In system thinking, a mental model is a structure of intangible thoughts that limits how we perceive things and make decisions. It’s like a filter through which we see the world, and it can affect our choices in real life.
An example of a simple mental model might be assuming certain groups are inherently better at specific tasks. Mental models can be something as simple as — “boys are better at mathematics than girls” or “left-handers are more creative than right-handers”. Relevant to how we create and define user personas?
In the broader context, mental flexibility emerges as a necessity. The willingness to adapt and redraw boundaries becomes crucial when dealing with dynamic systems, be it in technology, nature, or interpersonal relationships. Whether it’s working with computers, in nature, with people, or in organizations, it always reminds me that my mental models are not complete, the world is complex, and there’s so much I don’t know. Prepare our minds for surprising things, isn’t that fun?
Or maybe mental models work when we are drawing user flows and doing guesstimations, especially when prioritizing and market sizing?
For example, when we create a user flow for an e-commerce application, we will unconsciously create a flow similar to the e-commerce flow that we usually use as a reference (architecture/dominant design). This will be useful for users, because users have this mental model, if the user’s mental model matches what the application is doing and how it’s designed and organized, users perceive it as easy to use and intuitive. But for developers, do we create it because we consider the user’s mental model, or are we stuck with our mental model? Apart from that, when we do guesstimation in prioritizing or market sizing we also unconsciously assign weights/values based on our mental model.
Lateral Thinking
Lateral thinking encourages us to hit the PAUSE button when we find ourselves rushing to conclusions
Have you ever watched the Loki series? It’s like when you imagine different ways things could happen, creating new storylines in the multiverse. Kind of like how The Simpsons sometimes predicts the future. Just consider all the different possibilities of what might happen!
It’s akin to unlocking different doors of possibility before settling on a conclusion. Embrace the spirit of lateral thinking, dive into the multiverse of possibilities, and let our imagination navigate through the diverse branches of potential outcomes. After all, in a world filled with uncertainties, lateral thinking becomes our key to unlocking creativity and exploring the endless realms of what could be.
I believe that there is an interesting connection between lateral thinking and the multiverse concept presented in the Loki series. Lateral thinking involves creative ways of solving problems or generating ideas by considering unconventional or straightforward points of view. This connection shows how lateral thinking can be applied in the context of the complexity of the multiverse, where every choice has the potential to shape an alternative reality.
We may only focus too much on one path, but believe in the ability of our minds to be able to do more than that!
Archetypes
An archetype (/ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is a universally understood symbol term or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Our model of thinking can be adjusted based on current thoughts or by adopting other established models. This could mark the beginning of understanding Traps and Opportunities. Archetypes themselves are neither inherently good nor bad; what’s less good is when we have only a few archetypes and are unwilling to look for more archetypes.
But this is not about a well-researched system of archetypes.
S-Curves
Relevant to this graph? Yes, S-Curves, we often see them in Technology S-Curves, Adoption Life Cycle, Product Life Cycle, and others. Each curve signifies the need to create new metrics, and we typically seek references. While each curve produced may exhibit similar behavior and treatment requirements across different companies, does it always lead to success?
We may have observed Senior Product Managers who frequently move from one company to another tend to bring with them thought patterns and solutions similar to their previous experiences. For example, when they are recruited by a new company, they may apply the same approach as in their previous workplace. This reflects the tendency to rely on existing and comfortable thought templates. This phenomenon is also common among consultants who have encountered various problem patterns and their solutions. However, as we gain more experience, we realize that learning should involve the development or even the creation of new and more innovative thought templates.
Having 1000 ideas that come from other people’s problems or our experiences is good, having 1 idea that comes from our real problem is also good.
Competitor Analysis
In situations where we face similar problems to competitors, there is sometimes a tendency to adopt solutions that have proven successful for them. However, the essence of competitor analysis lies in trying to find gaps or shortcomings that competitors do not yet have, which could become value propositions for our business. Competitor analysis is carried out to find gaps in something that competitors don’t have, but instead, it turns out that we are interested in gaps in something that we don’t have compared to competitors. The challenge arises when we are interested in an aspect that we do not have expertise in, without an adequate understanding of the background or customer demand regarding competing products, such as the application/feature in Product B. The problem arises because we do not know the reasons behind the success of the application, whether it comes from customer requests or research results. If this world is just imitation, why are there still so many layoffs? Why can’t everyone be successful?
So what if the pattern works? Yes, congratulations we are lucky to be part of that pattern.
Framework is just for stakeholders
A product manager will use user stories, but for what purpose? Are we truly writing from the user’s heart? Don’t we create user stories to hand over to engineers or designers to make the work easier? Likewise with other frameworks/tools. I hope frameworks and tools are truly utilized, not merely as assessments and procedural steps. They should serve as valuable instruments to yield meaningful outcomes.
We may have the same pattern, but our powers and opportunities may not be the same. Wait…..how sure are we that our patterns are really the same? Have we investigated it thoroughly? 🤭
References
Bono, D. E. (2016). Lateral thinking: A textbook of creativity. Penguin Life.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture. Elsevier / Butterworth-Heinemann.
Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2011). Thinking in systems: A Primer. Earthscan.
