He has been a manager of Engineers for a long time now and, during our lunch, made the point that different Engineers are needed for different levels of product maturity.
There's the 0.0-to-1.0 Engineer, the 1.0-to-2.0 Engineer, the 2.0-to-3.0 Engineer, and so on. For example, in the pre-1.0 phase, you need developers who are fast and creative and can help you get the product to market quickly. (And, depending on the state of your funding, are willing to be paid in burritos and a place to crash.) Once you get past 2.0, you need developers who can polish a product to perfection, who can make it stable, who can release it on a reliable cadence and have it work out of the box. One of these is not better than another -- it's just what the company needs at different periods of maturity.
I've heard the same said of CEOs. "He's a great start-up CEO" or "He's the CEO you need when you want to take the company to the next level".
But I think this concept applies to everyone: Marketing, Sales, Finance, Product Management. Good CEOs actually recognize this and make the appropriate changes at the appropriate time for the company.
So, what kind of Product Manager am I? I like to think of this in terms of revenue. Am I the pre-$5M guy? The $5M-$100M guy? Or the $100M+ guy?
I'm not the first kind, I don't think. I like a bit more structure than that job requires. Nor am I the "keep it warm guy". I think I'm the kind associated with 1.0-to-2.0 -- the product is shipping, but it needs its revenue to hockey stick. I'm the guy who takes the original concept and finds 10 new market variants and three new packaging options and turns $5M into $100M. However, I'll need to think about this more.
This is useful, though, because it tells me what kind of opportunity I should look for next.
It's also useful to ask yourself in your job (whatever that is): What version are you doing now and what version should you be doing?
Mark - I definitely see you as a 1.0 -> 2.0 kind of guy.
ReplyDelete0->1.0 guys are often people with low associative barriers. They can think about volcanic disruption and develop a totally new model for database design.
2.0->2.1 guys are traditionally what Buckingham and Clifton call Maximizers. They love to take something good and make it perfect or great.
1.0->2.0 guys can take a look at the past and the future and know how to connect them in ways that others might not get. They love to make things happen but don't want to stick with them while they are perfected. I think that describes you well.