What user stories are really about

User stories do not have to follow the format, “As a [persona], I [want to], [so that].”

User stories do not have to be used to assign work to developers.

User stories do not have to have “story points” or be used to estimate how long work will take.

User stories are so much more…

A user story is a ‘boundary object’, a conceptual object that has can be interpreted differently by different people but which have enough immutable content to maintain the integrity of what it is communicating. They allow “coordination without consensus”, meaning that not everyone has to agree on how to define and interpret the information the boundary objects holds in order to make use of it how they need to.

The concept of boundary objects was introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer in a 1989. They describe boundary objects as:

Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.

User stories are a way for people with different domains of knowledge to share a common understanding in a way that makes sense for their specialised knowledge domain and has . A good user story makes sense to a content designer thinking about content and to a developer thinking about code. The story is talking about one thing only, but different people with different perspective can understand the story in a way that makes sense to them.

Writing good user stories isn’t about following a prescribed format, it is about creating boundary objects that work across domains and give people the knowledge they need.

Lightweight digital governance

About lightweight digital governance

What is lightweight digital governance?

Governance is about collective responsibility.

Lightweight governance assumes competency and sets out to create the best conditions for people to get things right.

Lightweight digital governance is about using modern, agile, digital, ways of thinking and doing to create the best conditions for collective responsibility to flourish.

When those conditions exist, things are improved, how they are improved improves, and those improving them see the improvements.

What’s the difference between lightweight and heavyweight governance?

Heavyweight governance focuses on having decision-making controls and checkpoints separated from those doing the work.

Lightweight governance focuses on ensuring people have all the skills and knowledge they need to make the right decisions about their work.

A lightweight digital governance model

Lightweight digital governance

One part of the governance model ensures the thing being governed aligns with strategy, sets the standards, designs the procedures and provides the training.

The other part of the model implements the standards and procedures, does the necessary work, checks it for quality, releases and monitors it to feedback on how well those standards and procedures meet the needs, whether there are gaps in the training, and new things need to be governed.

The model is:

  • Cyclical – the cycle can be monthly, quarterly, annually, etc., depending on the needs of what is being governed, but it relies on a feedback loop for its success. This helps the governance to improve as it improves what is being governed.
  • Separates activities – but doesn’t separate the people or their responsibilities. Those involved in implementing a standard can be involved in using it and providing feedback to improve it.

An example

Governing a charity’s website.

Those involved decide that in order to govern the website effectively that need to take collective responsibility for accessibility, branding, performance, security.

A traditional heavyweight governance model might make different teams responsible for each of those things, but lightweight governance recognises that creates a coordination burden that leads to more trouble than it’s worth, so it’s better that one team with all the skills it needs take on that responsibility.

The team sets the standards for the website, e.g., WCAG 2.1 for accessibility, password length for security, and they write the procedures for checking readability scores or vulnerability testing, and they create training in how to use the procedures to achieve the standards.

They then create content on the website, develop new functionality, etc., applying what they learned in the training, and feeding-back on how that’s working so it can be improved.

The more quickly things move through the cycle, the more quickly they are improved, so critical changes should move quickly and less important change can move slowly.

Why charities shouldn’t be user-centred

First, what is user-centred design?

User-centered design (UCD) is a collection of processes that focus on putting users at the center of product design and development.

Ekaterina Novoseltseva

Over the past few years, more charities have been adopting user-centred design practices when building a new website, redesigning grant making processes, and creating new products and services. It’s good progress away from creating these things based on what the organisation thinks is important or the opinions of senior people, but it isn’t without its problems.

UCD is always constrained by its purpose of meeting the needs of individuals. But by focusing on the needs of individuals charities can inadvertently reinforce the continued existence of those needs. UCD has it’s place in meeting immediate needs, but it doesn’t create long-term change. It isn’t equipped to move beyond identifying and responding to the needs of individuals and into the systems that create those needs.

System-shifting design, with its emerging practices and approaches that focus on how systems can be redesigned, offers charities a different way to think about how best to help people. SSD often works in an attempt to remove the problems that people face rather than just making it slightly easier for people to deal with the problems.

System-shifting design is very new, and I don’t know of any charities using it, but if a charity has a mission or ambition to create change then it’s likely to be a more successful design methodology than UCD.

Strategy as a decision-making tool

A strategy is:

a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim

I disagree. I think that’s an outdated view of what a strategy is.

In the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous modern world, strategy should serve more as a decision-making tool for facing situations that weren’t predictable when the strategy was created. Any strategy that serves only as a plan of action, a to do list, is limited to what was known at the time.

The platform charity conundrum

We could say that they are broadly two ways organisations create value: pipelines and platforms.

Pipelines are the traditional business model of every organisation prior to the invention of the internet and of many to this day. They takes resources in one end, process them in some way that makes them more valuable, and push them out the other end for customers to buy. The same process applies whether the organisation is processing buried coal into power station fuel, silicon into microchips, or as a charity does, someone who needs help into someone who doesn’t.

Platforms are modern business models. They require data and the ability to match uniqueness, e.g., Ebay matching unique second-hand items with a buyer or AirBnB matching unique places to stay with people wanting to book a room. They rely on the network effects enabled by the internet to be self-reinforcing. The famous Uber napkin sketch (below) shows how as one part of the business increases it drives increases elsewhere. This is the power of platform business models.

David Sacks' napkin sketch of how Uber operates as a self-reinforcing platform
David Sacks’ napkin sketch of how Uber operates as a self-reinforcing platform

The challenge, in creating a platform business model for a charity, is the inherent self-reinforcing aspect. A truly self-reinforcing platform charity would be increasing the number of people that need it’s help, but the purpose of a charity is to decrease the number of people that need help.

How a charity platform model fails
How a charity platform model fails

The diagram above is by no means a perfect representation of how a platform charity would operate, but shows the issue of by growing to provide more services/help people, the charity lessens the need, which reduces awareness of the problem, which in turn would reduce funding, etc. To fully make use of a platform model, the charity should be trying to increase the need for it’s services, but that isn’t a morally acceptable position for a charity.

So, this is the charity-as-a-platform conundrum. More thinking required to figure out if a charity could operate as a platform.

Towards a definition of a technology charity

I wonder if we’ll ever have ‘technology charities’ like we have technology companies?

Well, there doesn’t seem to be an agreed definition for tech companies to use as a basis for a definition of a tech charity so I’ll have to do a bit of creative thinking.

To give myself a frame to work within, I’ll start with three criteria, and I’ll make each criteria on a four point scale. So, a charity that is

The criteria are:

  • How they approach developing software to deliver value (including using data as part of the value)
  • How they approach using software to interact with beneficiaries
  • How they approach technical capabilities within the organisation
Low-tech charityTech-enabled charityTech-first charityTechnology charity
SoftwareUses COTS platforms in isolation and doesn’t collect data from them.Uses multiple COTS platforms to deliver value and connects some of them to allow data exchange.Develops software on top of COTS platforms to deliver some core value and collects and uses some data to add value.Creates proprietary software to deliver the core value of the organisation and collects and uses data as part of the value.
InteractionInteracts with beneficiaries over separate channels with no single view of the interactions.Interacts with beneficiaries via multiple channels and records interactions in separate platforms.Interacts with beneficiaries via multiple channels and has an incomplete view of the interactions in a single platform.Uses proprietary software as the primary means of interacting with beneficiaries and creates a single view of all interactions.
CapabilitiesNo internal or outsourced capabilities.Very limited internal or some outsourced capabilities.Internal capabilities across general skill sets.Full internal capabilities for managing proprietary software, data, etc.

Next step is going to be to test these definitions against some real charities.

Charity product model canvas – iteration 5

Charity opportunity canvas
Charity canvas – iteration 5

About the canvas

This version includes quite a lot more than iteration 4.

Strategic goal

Show how this opportunity fits with the organisations strategy. If it isn’t clear to everyone how this opportunity contributes to those goals then it should prompt the question of whether to continue to explore the opportunity.

Project name

So everyone knows which project this canvas is about.

Project team

Those working on the project should be the ones using the canvas.

Others involved

Opportunity type

Is this a new opportunity for the charity or are we replacing/improving on an existing one? Is it about income generation or service delivery or something else?

Delivery method

This might be a bit specific, but if you have different delivery methods (and you should) then it’s useful for reminding the team how they are approaching this project.

Date

When the canvas was last updated.

Users

Put the people you are trying to help in the centre. Be as specific as you can. “Everyone” is not the user.

Problems

What problems are those people facing that you are going to try to solve?

Barriers

What barriers prevent people from solving this problem, or from accessing other solutions? There could be a bit of market analysis here to understand other solutions.

Solutions

How will you solve the problems people are facing?

Outcomes

What will people be able to do if they are using your solution that they can’t do without it? How will life be improved for them?

Acquisition

How are people going to find your solution?

Retention

How are you going to keep people using the solution?

Resolution

How are you going to solve the problem in a way that means your solution becomes redundant?

Positioning

Why should this organisation be tackling this problem? Should be thought about from legitimacy and marketing point-of-view rather then philosophically. If your organisation doesn’t already have a natural fit to the opportunity or problem then it’ll be much harder to get traction for your solution.

Channels

Simple logistics question. Will the solution be in-person, over the phone, on a website, etc.

Feedback

How are you going to get feedback from users on your solution and iterate to keep meeting their needs.

Cost to build & cost to maintain

How much is the solution going to cost? Helps with planning budgets and knowing if the solution is viable.

Resources to build and resources to maintain

What things need to be in place to make the solution feasible? Does it need a CRM or email service provider, or buildings, etc., etc.

Launch metrics and ongoing metrics

How will you measure whether the solution is achieving the outcomes you defined?

Using the canvas

Start in the middle with the users.

Fill the canvas organically, not as a linear sequence. Add to each of the boxes, and as that makes you think of other things in other boxes, add them to.

Think about how you might show which things on the canvas are proven and which are assumptions (which shows you where you need to work on validating things).

Little tip – if you can’t fit everything in the boxes then you’re probably trying to tackle too big a problem. Focus.

How the charity sector sees the role of a product manager

Introduction

This short study is intended to offer some observations about how the role of the product manager is perceived across the charity sector. It is not in anyway to criticise the job descriptions used by charities in advertising these roles as the best job descriptions are surely those that accurately describe the job. The intention here is to consider whether, and if anything what, the job descriptions might be able to tell us about what charities expect from product managers.

Twenty three charity sector product roles advertised in May and June 2022 were included in the study. All of the job ads were used to create a list of thirty three characteristics, and then each job analysed against the list.

Observations

All of the role descriptions fitted within the generally accepted role that product management plays within an organisation, that of bringing together user needs, organisational goals and using technology to achieve them.

Within the roles there is variety about the purpose of the role. Some were more focused on managing technology to achieve organisational goals with little mention of user needs, whilst others were focused on organisational goals (even if these weren’t defined in the job ad) with little mention of the technologies. Understanding user problems and meeting user needs was the least mentioned. Perhaps this results from an assumption that the organisation already understands its user’s needs and intends to improve how they are meet through technology, or because the concept of being user-centred hasn’t been adopted.

All of the roles, even the senior and ‘head of’ level, were very focused on delivery. There was very little mention of developing business models, validating market assumptions, or other strategic product work. This may suggest that, whilst charities are adopting more technology and recognising the need to manage it, they are still yet to adopt more contemporary digital approaches and product thinking.

Analysis

What product management roles are called

Different role titles used in the job ads.

  • For 23 roles there were 14 unique job titles, 19 if those titles include the product in brackets, e.g. (CRM)
  • 47.83% roles had unique titles, including Head of Product Management, Head of Product Delivery, Lead Digital Product Manager, Senior Product Development Lead, Senior Digital Product Manager, Senior Product Development Officer, Senior Product Development Lead, Innovation and Product Development Manager, Web Product Manager, Digital Product Owner and Junior Product Manager
  • 21.74% of the roles had the job title Product Manager
  • 13.04% used the title Digital Product Managers
  • 8.70% were called Product Owners

How much product managers are paid

Salaries of product management roles specified in the job ads.

  • The average salary is £45,976.45, from twenty two of the roles as one did not specify the salary
  • The lowest salary mentioned was £27,000 and the highest was £83,000
  • Of the two ‘Head of’ level roles the salary ranged from £48,231 to £83,000
  • Senior level roles averaged £44,300
  • Individual contributor roles averaged £45,865

What product managers work on

Different types of products the job ads suggest product managers will work on.

  • 91.30% of product managers would work on existing products
  • 34.78% would be working on building new products
  • 65.22% would work on external facing products
  • 26.09% working on internal products
  • 52.17% of the ads mention an outcome or goal the product manager would be aiming to achieve with the product

How product managers work

Working practices mentioned in the job ads.

  • 52.17% of the roles ask the product manager to be user-centric, to understand user needs, but only 26.09% would be involved in user research
  • 52.17% would be expected to monitor the performance of the product
  • 39.13% would use continuous improvement and iterative development
  • 30.43% mention using agile practices

What product managers are responsible for

Aspects of managing a product that the product manager would have responsibility for.

  • 86.96% would be managing stakeholder relationships
  • 60.87% would be managing supplier relationships
  • 52.17% would be responsible for managing projects
  • 34.78% had line management responsibility. Two heads of product, three senior product managers and three product managers
  • 34.78% would be responsible for managing the budget for the product
  • 30.43% would be responsible for product strategy
  • 26.09% would manage the product roadmap
  • 26.09% would be responsible for prioritising work on the product
  • 17.39% would be responsible for product vision

What skills do product managers need

Skills and characteristics mentioned in the job ads.

  • 65.22% would need communication skills
  • 34.78% would be to be analytical
  • 26.09% need to be able to cope in a fast-paced and rapidly changing environment
  • 26.09% need influencing skills
  • 13.04% would need a growth mindset to succeed
  • 13.04% need negotiating skills
  • 8.70% need facilitation skills
  • 8.70% need to be creative
  • One role required the candidate to have a PhD in biology and others required particular specialist knowledge relating to the business model for the product, e.g., licensing

DigiScot Talk: Asynchronous working as part of a learning culture

Introduction

I work on the product team that focuses on young people -facing products. That includes the digital services we build ourselves and the off-the-shelf products like Zoom and Teams. Our team has about twenty people and we’ve never all been in the same meeting at the same time. We work asynchronously, which for us means being in-sync about the important things; the outcomes of the work, and not being tied to less important things like having to all work at the same time and in the same way.

We don’t have all the answers. We’re still learning how to make this work for everyone, but three of our priorities are how we learn and share knowledge more effectively, how we give people the freedom to work in ways that are best for them, and how we quickly respond to changes and new problems.

Learning, and integrating learning into the organisation Our team (in fact, I think, everyone who works for any modern knowledge work organisation) has two jobs; learn, and integrate that learning into the organisation. This should be the goal for all modern knowledge workers who are creating new knowledge. If that knowledge stays in the head of one person it can’t be utilised effectively by the organisation. So having effective ways of sharing information is an essential aspect of async working.

Meetings are not that. They aren’t effective ways of sharing information. They are left over from a time before the internet when organisations didn’t have any other means of telling people stuff. Meetings and calls have their place, but they serve a social purpose rather than an information sharing one. They can help people feel connected, help with team cohesion, etc., so I’m not saying we need to never have meetings, but we need to clear on what purpose they serve. Meetings aren’t even great for discussion because they favour quick thinkers and don’t allow for equal input from slower reflective thinkers. And in any discussion it’s usually the loudest most persuasive voice that wins.

Writing and drawing instead of always talking and listening are under-utilised asynchronous tools for thinking and communicating. More asynchronous working gives us more opportunities for everyone to contribute and learn. It gives us time to be considered and reflective, deliberate and thoughtful. It prioritises depth of thinking and writing over the speed of thinking and talking.

Communicating, and pulling information when it works for you

Async communication work best when everyone gets to contribute at a time that works for them along with all the other work they’re doing, has time to develop their thoughts on the subject, and learn from what others think. Compare this to joining a video call with no agenda or preparation, and being expected to think effectively and make good decisions. It’s no wonder that so many meetings end with an action to arrange another meeting.

We still have way too meetings, but most of our discussions take place in Word documents. The body of the document contains what we’re talking about, and the discussion takes place in comments, and once something is agreed it’s written into the document. When someone sends an email the information in it is limited to those the email was sent to. That’s what email is good for; passing a fixed piece of information that doesn’t really require any discussion to a fixed group of people. But if we want people to contribute, to build on the information and improve it, and to learn as they do it, then putting the same information in a shared document and working on it together gives us better quality decisions and longer-lasting information which is available to anyone and for as far into the future as needed, which is hardly ever the case with meetings, calls and emails.

The challenge with communication is to create ‘pull’ systems where the information is available when someone needs it, and not ‘push’ systems which send information to people when they’re working on something else and so causing distraction and information-overload. All those products which send a notification email every time an update is made, or show how many chat messages you haven’t viewed yet are bad for really effective asynchronous working because they push themselves to you and demand your attention now regardless or whether you’re in the flow with something else.

Even though we write lots of documents, I’m always keen to guard against assuming that they have all the information in them. So I’m big on encouraging questions. When someone asks a question they are coming from a particular context which affects the answer they need and means the right information might not be in the document. When I reply to question, even if the answer could have been a single sentence, I’ll often try to explain about the background, why the decision was made, what implications or unknowns we’re aware of, all because keeping that information in my head doesn’t help anyone else learn. I’m sure some people find that really annoying and just want the short answer but we all have to make sacrifices for the goal of learning.

Working together, in small lightweight temporary teams within teams

Asynchronous working allows for different ways for teams to organise themselves and their work. We want to be synchronised around outcomes; what we want to achieve and when, but we want to try to remove as many dependencies as we can so that we’re able to respond to change without any drastic impact on the project.The 20-person strong team I’m part of is a cross-functional team, which means it’s made up of people with different skill sets, and is focused the one big project we’re working on. But sometimes something new comes up. A new problem to solve, something we didn’t know about before. It might be considered part of the project we’re working on, or it might not. We don’t want to distract everyone on the team, so we get together a small lightweight temporary project teams made up of people from within the larger team and outside of it to focus on solving the new problem.

One of those times was when we wanted to make it easier for young people using Microsoft Teams to ask for help. So we set up one of these lightweight temporary teams made up of someone from our safeguarding team, a designer, a developer and me. We started a Word doc, all added to it to get to a good enough understanding of the problem to solve, what constraints we faced, and what solutions could look like. We settled on the solution being an app that would live in Teams and have its own button in the Teams menu so that if someone had any questions they could click that button and the app would open and provide them with ways of getting help. So, even though our colleague from the safeguarding team had never worked this way before the rest of us were familiar enough to help her contribute effectively and we were able to design a solution within about 48 hours of picking up the work, and alongside other work we were doing. If we weren’t working asynchronously it have taken us longer than that to find time when everyone was available to have meeting to talk about the work before even doing any work.

Amy Edmondson, professor at Harvard, calls this way of working ‘Teaming’. She describes it as “teamwork on the fly. It involves coordinating and collaborating without the benefit of stable team structures,” It’s a skill that enables groups of people who aren’t part of a formal team and don’t have a history of working together to work effectively together for a short period of time. I think the asynchronous mindset of not having to be doing the same thing at the same time as someone else helps with adopting this way of working because it has a low overhead for organising people. All it takes is a document and writing clearly what we’re thinking about to get started.

Asynchronous teaming also has an interesting side-effect. The people who work in those teams, they spread knowledge from one temporary team to another, which helps to increase learning for everyone. It creates a network of knowledge transfer. It uses Stanford professor Mark Granovetter’s idea about the strength of weak ties. Where we talk about how not being in offices means we miss out of those informal coffee-break chats, creating a these network where everyone talks to people that they wouldn’t have if they only worked within formalised team boundaries means people, maybe it can help.

Asynchronous working at its best leads to a learning culture where two things are true: One, people know stuff that is beneficial for them to know, that isn’t necessarily part of their formal job title, and they don’t know how they came to know it. And two, learning and knowledge sharing are regarded as an implicitly beneficial activity as much as the producing of outputs of work. We’re still working on achieving both of those, but if you’re interested in trying asynchronous working I’d say the three things to try out are:

  • Make writing and drawing the default ways to communicate before meetings (not as well as).
  • Focus on sharing knowledge and learning rather than coordinating people and work.
  • Pick a small problem and get a group of people who wouldn’t normally work together to solve it.

Resources

SVCO blog post: How to share ideas when you don’t share a space

What is agile project management?

If you search online for ‘agile project management’ you get video of people talking about project managing an agile development process. Well duh. I think we can do better than that.

Project management that had agility would be adaptable, accepting of uncertainty and responding to change, would deliver value at the earliest opportunity, and would bring people together to share knowledge and shape the plan.

How might this approach show itself in something like a project plan? Instead of starting with a high fidelity plan that has unknown gaps, maybe the plan would start in low fidelity, defining the big chucks of the project so all those involved get some immediate value from the plan. Maybe the big chunks are things like scope, time, budget, people. And then as more information becomes available the plan is iterated upon to reach a slightly higher degree of fidelity, and again to even higher fidelity, all the time delivering value.

Fidelity increases with each iteration

This kind of approach acknowledges that there are unknowns in the plan and would fuel conversations as people fill the gaps, meaning people have to work together to develop the knowledge. The plan is the output of those conversations but it’s the collaboration that makes the plan a reality.

“I love it when a plan comes together”

Colonel John ‘Hannibal’ Smith