0 -1 product development refers to building a new product or service line from scratch (0) to bringing its first iteration into the hands of customers and users (1) The first step to develop a 0-1 product is to deeply understand the market need. I look at this from the buyer perspective, the end user perspective, and the competitive landscape perspective. Unless you understand, what's needed, what exists, what's missing, and what will differentiate your solution and validate your need to exist, you cannot begin the next phase, which is product definition. 

Customer feedback is critical to how we build, and we incorporate it at every step of the product development process. We get customer feedback from a variety of places. When building new products we proactively reach out to customers to learn about their needs and make sure we’re creating the right solutions for them. We have a User Research team that regularly speaks to customers via a variety of methods - everything from interviews and surveys to card sorting and field studies. Along our product development process, we have specific touchpoints where we make sure to utilize user research to get deep insight into the pain points our customers face, and the best solutions to help them. Our customer-facing teams, like sales and customer success, are also talking to customers constantly as part of their daily jobs. These teams rigorously record all of the feedback they hear and compile it into a ranked Voice of the Customer (VOC) list, all managed within Asana. Asana’s VOC program is a critical input into our roadmap process, and helps us prioritize the most pressing needs brought up by customers.

The level of detail that people on other teams need depends on what they are using the roadmap for. Our roadmap planning tool enables us to create multiple views of the roadmap - we tailor each view to the use cases of the consumers. For example, we have the following views: * A view for our quarterly planning process - this view is primarily used to communicate to execs so it focuses on the high level business goals that each roadmap item supports and doesn’t contain many implementation details. * An internal view that go-to-market team members can use to understand estimated delivery dates for items in active development or beta - this view contains much more detail - for example the user needs that the release addresses and how to sign up for betas. * A public view that is available to our customers - this view contains customer facing explanations of each project and information on how our customers can help us develop it. For example, an item might have a few questions about the customer’s use case and interested customers can send us answers to those questions.

The transition from a Sr Product Manager role to a director level usually focuses on developing your strategic thinking, influencing others across the organization, and guiding larger portfolio decisions. In other words, you’ll need to grow from an execution-based mindset to that of one centered on longer-term vision, team leadership, and effective decision-making (at scale). In my experience, these are the key areas that one should focus on. Skill Sets to Develop: 1. Strategic Vision & Storytelling: Climbing up the ladder isn’t just about managing more product roadmaps; it’s about defining the strategy and market direction, gaining a deeper understanding of the business strategy and how it relates to long-term execution plans and anticipating future market needs. A key bit of being at a higher level of telling that story and connecting those dots for others. Be good at explaining what the strategy is and why it's the right path for your organization. If you can't bring people along the journey, you will never get their full support. 2. Stakeholder Management: The higher you go, the more internal and external stakeholder management you will have. In lower levels that's more at a feature level management, but at a Director level, it's more about strategy implications and trade-offs with your stakeholders. 3. Leadership & Talent Development: Typically at the Director level or above is managing a team of Product Managers. For me, I have been managing Product Mgrs for nearly a decade and find it one of the most rewarding parts of the role. Growing a team of strong product thinkers and empowering them to execute efficiently is a huge part of moving up that corporate ladder. 4. Process Process Process As you move up, you need to ensure your team has the tools and processes in place to support them. You are less in the weeds each day and thus have to ensure that you have enabled them with a framework to follow that will make them successful in their careers and drive your product forward. However, I despise process for the sake of process (a common issue at larger organizations). Be willing to challenge a process that isn't adding value and ensure that what you drive provides your team the room to grow. I like to think of it as guardrails for my team. I don't tell them specifically what to do and a playbook/process to follow letter by letter. I provide them with guidance and point them down the right path with some guardrails to ensure they don't make a left when they should be going right. While I drive the overall process, I always remember that "just cause it wasn't done exactly how I would do it doesn't mean it wasn't done right."

Our product development lifecycle process looks very similar to a double diamond design process but with an adapted approach for our organization. While there are best practices for a product development processes, I've found that there is a decent amount of adaptation and adjustment that needs to happen to customize an approach for the needs of the organization. I've not seen 2 product lifecycles that are the same. At a minimum, a product development process should help reduce friction for the R&D teams, create clarity around what we need to know before we invest, and insight into the variables that influence those decisions. The most mature and refined PDLC programs also create consistant expectations of each role that participated in the product development process, sets criteria for high quality output, and provides clarity on what to do next through each stage. This is extremely benefitial when you think about onboarding new PMs to the team, as well as supporting the growth of PMs new to the role. Depending on the needs and maturity of your organization, you can chooste to implement a light version of this process that focuses solely on alignment and rescource allocation, or lean more into a more detailed process that provides more clarity on activities you expect the teams to execture for each stage. A good process provides time and space for the team to engage in activities focused on discovery, exploration, and time in a particular problem space. In this stage. you should avoid solutioning at all costs. There should be a stage for concept exploration, and I strongly encourage my teams to explore more than 1 concept. Sometimes the first concept we surface is not the best for the job, but inertia and time constraints prevent us from exploring more. I recommend my teams take the time, because it saves us on the rework later. Once a concept has been validated, there should be a stage that allows you to define the high level requirements and start thinking about an experience that would make it as easy as possible for customers to realize value from your chosen solution for the problem space. For me, customer validation of the specific execution is critical, because we are very rescource constraigned on the engineering side. If I can prevent rolling out soemthing that needs major rework, I will. Some organizations are more constraigned on the research or PM side in which case you may use the experience itself for validation. There are many types of product development lifecycles, and you should choose an execution that solves the most prevalent R&D problems your organization is facing. 

Going from an IC PM to a manager role was one of the most gratifying transitions in my career. Having been a manager before in a different context prior to becoming a Group Product Manager at HubSpot, I had some prior experience leading teams and operating in an environment with broader scope and complexity that helped ease the transition. That said, I do recall a couple of things: * Saying no to your pet rock: As an IC PM, you’re the biggest fan of your own product ideas first and foremost. Given my drive for intellectual honesty, I’ve generally taken pride in my ability to arrive at the best possible answer (even if it’s not originally my own) throughout my career. I do still remember early on as a GPM saying no to ideas I thought were great in the past was a practice of self-restraint. Fortunately, this comes naturally now. Now my role has shifted to ensuring teams are focused on the most impactful work, and having strong empathy for teams when we have to say no to the incredible ideas they harbored. * Finding the right cruising altitude: Within the context of HubSpot, there’s a Product Lead player-coach role between PM and GPM. During my time as a Product Lead, I found it challenging and thrilling all at the same time to be at the right cruising altitude depending on the task at hand and who I was communicating with. The way you communicate with the team you’re PM-ing is probably not the same way you would communicate with executive leaders. * Finding your people: This is something I recall from shortly after I shifted to GPM. As an individual contributor (IC) PM you develop very deep relationships with the designers and engineers you work with day in and out. You’re in zoom meetings or on slack with them most of the day. Especially in a hybrid world, it took me a moment to shift my mindset to a broader definition of team and intentionally spend more time with the PMs and peers in the product leadership team. Fortunately, I love building new connections and HubSpotters are very warm and eager to meet new folks so this was a fleeting moment. I’m sure there are a lot more, but these were top of mind.

This is a good one. I think there are two that often get missed and largely it is because they are hard to measure and expensive to move. 1. Product excellence. How do you measure customer delight in an impactful way? CSAT and NPS have lots of opportunities to be gamed and are frankly easily ignored. Some of the best products I've used focus on finding the right critical user journeys and continuously measure the success rates of those quantitatively and qualitatively 2. Product health. Cold boot, warm boot, latency for critical actions, crashes, uptime. All of these things contribute to Product excellence but are much more directly measurable and can really sneak up on you

I would say there is no substitute to real user data. User research is table-stakes. But in my experience, not always representative of "actual" usage, so don't overindex on specifics. Rather validate if the problem statement is indeed important for the user segments. Because if it is, then they might be more patient with your iterations towards solving their needs. Else they are very likely to abandon very early on and never return. A good way to test is whether they are willing to pay for the solution. Paper mocks UXR is helpful once you have narrowed themes and want to develop MVP scope. Then go build MVP and ship to a small user segment to learn and iterate. This step is the journey. Scale up only when you see hockey sticks for atleast one feature. Also retention loops should be naturally showing up by then.

Great question. It's really hard to prioritize small, iterative product improvements against large new features/bets. In my experience you need both, as well as a few other aspects. The way we do it in my teams is to think of it as balancing investment levels between different buckets, and to dedicate capacity to each of these buckets. Otherwise it's a constant struggle. We've tried to describe it in this section of the Atlassian product discovery handbook talking about ideas, and that one about prioritization. A couple of different types of buckets: * Boulders, rocks and pebbles * Boulders: large investments with potentially big payoff but high uncertainty, too. E.g. one or multiple teams over one or multiple quarters. * Rocks: medium sized investments with fewer risks, but potential for delighting users. E.g. one team for a month. * Pebbles: Small, typically straightforward change. E.g. one person for a week. * Don't underestimate the impact of rocks and pebbles! In my experience users LOVE to see the app they use get better every time, that's a great way to create fans. * RUF: Reliability + Usability improvements + new Features. Think of the RUF framework as a pyramid: * At the base of the pyramid there's Reliability. Reliability is about building trust. Trust takes a long time to build, but can be destroyed very quickly — a single event of data loss or security breach can be a serious source of churn, let alone repeat incidents. So you need to invest in your product's reliability first and foremost. * Usability Improvements comes second: a feature is rarely “done” — it’s part of a system and that system needs constant tuning. In your roadmap, it is important to allocate budget and resources to keep investing in improving your current feature set. * At the top of the pyramid is new features, both large and small. Then you decide how you want to invest in each: E.g. for a super early stage app you might be spending all your time on boulders and rocks, and little in reliability or usability improvements. For a more mature product you might spend 50% in the reliability bucket and only 10-20% on new features. Then how you actually implement that in your team can vary. In my teams we look at it at investment over time: we might be focusing on a boulder for a quarter, then go back and tackle a few rocks and pebbles. Some of the teams have a rotation where 1 engineer is focusing on pebbles each week. etc. But the important part is to have a strategy and make it a conscious choice, vs something that you react to every time you get a new request from a customer or stakeholder.

I talked about my take on desirable qualities in one of my previous responses, so I’ll focus on the common mistakes I’ve personally made in my career in the past, that hopefully will help others avoid those pitfalls. * Mistaking motion/effort for progress (This is also one of Meta’s posters on the wall in our campuses) * Rushing to prove my value (whenever I switched roles or teams). * Not being able to articulate the “So what” well. Eg: I’ve launched this shiny new feature, so what? * Assuming everyone has the context (and motivations) that I have * Assuming everyone understands how I communicate (and my jargons) * Not stepping up soon enough to grab a new opportunity a.k.a feeling scared * Asking for permission * Getting comfortable in a role; growth & learning plateaus