Best results
The best results come from combining a healthy structure with plenty of room for freedom and creativity.
Jan Hoglund
The best results come from combining a healthy structure with plenty of room for freedom and creativity.
Jan Hoglund
Made a few updates to my website, and tried to learn some new CSS transforms, but it proved too much for the time I had.
Read a bit of The Unicorn Project and Better Value Sooner Safer Happier. They both have in common the point that people who create products need to be outcome-focused and that means watching how people use the product to see if it really is achieving the outcome.
Added a few more feeds to my content discovery Slack. I should probably write about it at some point.
Thought about concepts like ‘system-of-record’ and ‘safe-to-fail’, which I think are at the structures layer in a systems iceberg, and how ‘organisational environments’ that make those concepts possible or effective are at the mental models layer. So, when we see those concepts fail in the ‘patterns’ layer, maybe it’s because we didn’t understand them at the deeper layers. Systems-of-record, for example, only work in certain organisational environments, but if we don’t interrogate the environment we’ll only ever see the patterns of the system-or-record failing. Maybe the iceberg needs a different metaphor, perhaps a building where the mental models are the foundations and if they aren’t strong then the structures above will be shaky.
Read lots of research papers about donating to charity to help identify research questions for some interviews we want to do. I’m hoping that grounding the user research in existing academic research will give it more validity and intellectual robustness, which means we get more meaningful answers.
Wrote my weeknotes.
This week I did:
We’re planning some user research to help us understand why people donate to charity, so I’ve been going through lots of secondary research to help frame the questions we want to ask. There are lots of different perspectives but no academic consensus on why people donate to charity. Snip & Babiche (2011), said, “Trust in a charity organization, affinity with the cause of a charity organization, moral obligation to donate, and donating experience are factors that could positively influence people’s intention to continue donating to a charity organization, while perceived opportunism or risk is a factor that could negatively influence people’s intention to continue donating to a charity organization.” I’m really looking forward to the user interviews.
I wrote a blog post about a piece of work we did. The blog post went from idea to live in about 27 hours. I was aiming for 24 but there was some confusion about who was publishing it which delayed us. Speed of delivery is one of those things that is both important and unimportant. I think teams should know how to deliver quickly so they can choose whether to deliver quickly.
I think we all agree it’s better to start with the outcomes we want to achieve and then figure out the outputs that will get us there, but when that’s not possible it’s good to be able to reverse engineer outcomes from outputs.
I’ve been trying to get into the habit of writing daynotes, which as you’d expect are smaller versions or weeknotes. I try to capture a few things that I’ve thought about that day.
I completed 46 tasks across 13 projects. I averaged 9.2 a day, which is a drop from last weeks 9.6. Three days next week and I’ll have a month’s worth of data to review. I want to try to understand if I’m focusing the right amount on the right things. I also shared my tracker with a colleague in case its helpful for them.
In the last five days, my three most popular blog posts were What’s the difference between a roadmap and a delivery plan? with 42 views, Case study on Amazon’s approach to innovation and competition in the knowledge economy, with 33 views, and Systems thinking for product managers with 19 views. Total views was 349.
I read:
I read this article about why collaborative ideation is bad, not to find why, I mean who needs more than four words to make that point, but for the last section that mentions how to ideate alone. Last week I started thinking about how there aren’t really any well-established frameworks for developing ideas. Maybe this will help.
“…whether it’s called “full stack product management” or not, the essence of the product manager’s role remains the same: to be knowledgeable in multiple disciplines and bring them together” I prefer the term “full loop product management”, but I guess the point is the same.
This is an interesting study on what Silicon valley tech companies expect from product managers, and it’s a long way from full loop. It’s not that different from how the charity sector sees the role of a product manager.
And I thought about:
For a little while I’ve been trying to figure out what makes digital product teams different from other teams. One idea I’ve had is that most teams figure out what problems they need to solve and establish ways of working and processes for that solve them, and then they repeat again and again. That’s the nature of their work. Product teams face new problems each time. Attempting to solve every new problem in the same way will lead to sub-standard solutions. The nature of product work is that it is novel. Maybe that’s part of the difference. It’s also why product teams need to spend time reviewing and improving their working processes, because they might not work on today’s problem.
Some prioritisation frameworks attempt to prioritise work by what’s convenient for the organisation. Impact/effort does this. What work is most likely to achieve the goals (impact) for the least effort. But, if we want to be focused on delivering value to our users then we should prioritise the most valuable work, even if it’s harder for us.
This diagram tries to show how the most value is delivered when we remove the biggest barrier, and that as we remove progressively smaller barriers the value diminishes until there’s no reason to invest anymore.

Your sensing loop should match your controlling loop. Steer too often–swerve. Steer too infrequently–crash.
Kent Beck
Worked on 11 different things today.
Put together a prioritisation framework using impact, reach, progress and dependencies. It occurred to me that prioritising by impact/effort is choosing to do things that are most convenient for us because we’ll always look for high impact and low effort. Prioritising what solves whole problems for users regardless of how hard it is for us is a better way to go.
Started working on a literature review of research into charity donations. Lots of interesting knowledge for us to understand how to use.
Realised that one of the flaws in my RSS-based content discovery system is that it doesn’t include any feedback mechanism to the authors of the posts. No likes on social media, maybe only the vaguest of website analytics. It’s not really a problem for me, but I wonder if it means I should make more effort to provide feedback in some other way.