Product vs technology – The 3 C’s of product-tech relationship

Say good day to Remco and Bas

Sławomir Turkiewicz: Good day Remco, Good day Bas. As I ready for our dialog, I found that CM.com had solely not too long ago established a multi-year partnership with the Dutch Olympic Committee. In consequence, the Dutch will use CM.com’s expertise for ticketing, occasion apps, and cellular communication throughout the 2024 Olympics and Paralympic Video games in Paris.

That appears like an enormous deal – congrats. Are you able to inform me extra about it?

Remco Magielse: Thanks for having us. I’ll step again to make clear why these offers are so essential to us.

We began out as an SMS aggregator 25 years in the past. We’ve grown by sending messages globally to our prospects, including extra choices and channels as we grew.

6 or 7 years in the past, we additionally began making apps that assist prospects ship messages to and reply buyer questions. We additionally developed voting expertise. It was, for instance,  used for the Eurovision tune contests to depend votes.

As you’ll be able to see, we now have developed extra value-added software program layers on high of our messaging platform.

Then, we began with ticketing as a separate platform. It helps our prospects ship an excellent end-to-end mobile-first expertise. Buying tickets on the go and scanning them with a telephone, getting drinks, making funds – it’s all built-in and lined in use circumstances for one of these reside occasion. We’re completely different from common ticket suppliers in making an attempt to assist the occasion organizer promote out this occasion. We’re not simply there to ship tickets. We assist them with the optimum association. 3 years in the past, we examined and showcased this resolution on the Dutch Grand Prix. This well-known occasion returned after nearly 30 years.

The Olympics is one other step towards offering purchasers with software program that improves buyer expertise. Utilizing our platform, they’ve all of the ticket-related capabilities underneath one platform.

Am I proper to imagine that these capabilities additionally embody AI? In any case, CM.com positions itself at the moment as an AI-driven conversational software program. How will you utilize these AI-based capabilities throughout the Olympics occasion, Bas?

Bas Gijzen: There are a number of touchpoints the place we combine generative AI.

We assist firms reply shortly and precisely to their purchasers, for instance by making up for employees shortages. Lots of our prospects have a contact middle or a buyer help desk someplace. They will’t endlessly scale the variety of employed brokers at peak occasions. Hiring extra consultants only for one occasion that runs for a number of weeks doesn’t make sense. And so our AI-based instruments use pure language detection to answer the top consumer’s language, partially making up for human brokers. 

We additionally provide an AI assistant that helps consultants reply to buyer contact software program. It additionally shops human-provided solutions within the data base to be used later.

Remco: There’s additionally some AI in our buyer information platform. We do buyer profiling primarily based on interactions customers have in numerous channels. In case you land on a web site, you is perhaps focused by an Instagram commercial, go right into a dialog, after which to a touchdown web page the place you’ll be able to order tickets. They’re delivered by way of e mail. All these interactions fall right into a single platform the place the occasion organizer can section them and tailor their message towards completely different consumer lessons.

The Dutch Grand Prix expertise with CM.com

Expertise & product relationship

AI is, in fact, a fraction of the subject material you guys cowl.

Once I heard in regards to the Olympics deal, I assumed that your technology-product relationship is a bit just like the Olympiad – the interval between two separate Olympic occasions. It’s essential enhance it constantly over time and by no means lose sight of your rules. How do you see it out of your perspective?

Remco: A pattern that you simply positively see at the moment is that product and tech are coming nearer collectively – to the purpose that you simply usually see one particular person doing each as a CTPO. This reveals how a lot we transfer in direction of technology-based merchandise through which expertise and merchandise are deeply interwoven.

At CM.com, we rent product and tech individuals individually. Their tasks overlap to an extent, however there are some variations. Product persons are extra outbound-focused. They spend extra time on exterior communication, market, and buyer wants. They push data outdoors the group and again. They’ve a high-level perspective by default.

Expertise, alternatively, focuses on the interior workings of the merchandise. They’re detail-focused. So once I ask Bas if we will do one thing technology-wise, I belief that he has the reply I search. In flip, he trusts me in terms of buyer insights.

Naturally, it doesn’t imply that I by no means step into the tech territory, and he by no means steps into the product territory. There’s additionally a whole lot of overlap in our day-to-day work.

Bas: I agree. Whether or not specializing in the product or tech, it’s all about understanding tradeoffs.

Tradeoffs exist in each the product and expertise area. You may’t goal all buyer varieties without delay. You may’t select all applied sciences on the identical time. It’s essential use your time correctly and concentrate on actions that deliver you essentially the most worth in return. I feel that the principle job of tech and product individuals is to help one another with the data obligatory to know the trade-offs and make the very best choices for the sake of everybody.

I’ve already talked to CTOs about how the technology-product relationship has modified. Evidently again within the day, these departments labored in silos. The tech chief was answerable for infrastructure, which was seen as a price. The product chief solely dealt with product cycles.

Let’s begin with you, Bas. How do you see the function of a tech chief at the moment?

Bas: The expertise has change into far more complicated and encompasses all product improvement elements.

Today, all the pieces is linked in a technique or one other. Each software, module, or function communicates with one another. 20 years in the past, most methods had been constructed to run independently of different methods.

The complexity of expertise has penalties. For instance, you’ll be able to’t get away with doing issues on a budget as simply as you might earlier than. Specifically, these low cost options don’t scale, ultimately creating a whole lot of burden or technical debt. In consequence, the tradeoffs between completely different choices have gotten extra pronounced.

Person expectations are additionally at an all-time excessive. Again within the day, it was quite common not to have the ability to switch cash over the weekend. Right this moment, the consumer expects a cash switch to take not more than 10 seconds – 24/7.

The rising problem of maintaining with expertise and consumer expectations requires tech & product individuals to band collectively. They should alternate data and cooperate with one another much more to realize their targets.

What about you, Remco? As a Head of Product, do you are feeling the identical?

Remco: Sure. I might name the cooperation and communication Bas talked about as engaged on a shared imaginative and prescient. Figuring out the place the product is heading and understanding the alternatives and limitations forward takes a whole lot of work for each events at the moment.

I additionally agree about buyer expectations, particularly within the B2B context. The product should adjust to all the pieces, be totally configurable, scale globally, and function 24/7.

These days, it’s additionally less complicated to place a brand new product onto the market. You launch a lot earlier as a result of there may be extra concentrate on post-release iteration and transforming. It’s simple to see why: most merchandise at the moment are software-based. It’s simple to tweak them at any given second. In {hardware}, product improvement is far more front-loaded – there isn’t a lot you are able to do as soon as it’s out.

That’s most likely additionally why these expertise and product roles merge nearer. The expertise’s impact on what you ship as a product is far more obvious.

One factor that hasn’t modified is the significance of understanding the worth proposition. Are you able to articulate the worth that your product has for the client? That’s nonetheless important – why and the way a lot cash would the client spend on it?

You talked about the influence of expertise, Remco. The earlier CTO vs Standing Quo interviews satisfied me that at the moment’s tech chief is extra product-oriented than ever. There’s an more and more giant overlap between expertise and product. Is the work of a product chief additionally getting extra technical?

Remco: It’s positively the case. With so many merchandise constructed round software program, you might want to perceive the technological constraints through which you progress if you wish to remedy an issue for the client. Will the product deal with the site visitors when the client spends twice as a lot time in it? What if it wanted to scale 100 instances?

Product supply additionally works in a different way at the moment. It’s simple to ship one thing as soon as. However to ship one thing day-after-day to 10,000 prospects globally, as trendy software-driven merchandise usually require, is a problem. This implies you want an environment friendly product-engineering group.

Conflicts

Let’s speak about product-technology conflicts. If the tasks of those two division leaders overlap, clashes of various views are unavoidable.

The product chief needs to introduce an enormous new function. Nevertheless, the tech chief can see that it’ll take extra time to implement than the product believes it can. It could require a serious rewrite. How do you resolve it?

Bas: Like I stated, communication is the best way to go. You each must go to the whiteboard, break down what must be completed, think about completely different choices, and determine whether or not to proceed and tips on how to proceed.

It’s essential decide why one thing just isn’t technically possible and how one can change product necessities to show the scenario round. Maybe one thing is simply too massive? Maybe some compromises or shortcuts in product improvement will be made. Or, on the contrary, maybe including one thing on high of the present resolution may very well be a game-changer, like creating an MVP as a part of the principle resolution.

On a facet notice, it is best to most likely not quit on a product concept simply because it will take a whole lot of time to construct. If it is smart and you establish that the return on funding is worth it, then it is best to make it occur, even when it took months to develop. Having stated that, usually, it’s higher to have a workable resolution in 4 weeks reasonably than an ideal one in 12 weeks or months.

What about you, Remco? How nervous are you about technical constraints in your day-to-day work?

Not an excessive amount of. That’s as a result of we’re good at MVP improvement, which helps you’re employed round every kind of constraints, offered you iterate over time. A current instance is a brand new function we launched referred to as Safeguard, which helps firms keep away from pointless prices by stopping bot site visitors.

There’s a whole lot of fraudulent site visitors within the messaging area. Bots generate messages, and our prospects pay the price of sending them. We got here up with an concept for a bot-detection function, however we estimated it will take 9 months to finish. We couldn’t decide to this then. As a substitute, as Bas stated, we returned to the whiteboard and tried to determine the best deliverables that may deliver essentially the most worth. Ultimately, we had been in a position to provide you with a workable resolution that was truly delivered in a number of weeks.

On the finish of the day, battle just isn’t a nasty factor. When used effectively, it encourages individuals to speak and devise artistic options.

What if the tech division needed to gradual product improvement to find time for refactoring? The tech chief is in a tricky spot as a result of refactoring could haven’t any fast enterprise worth. There could also be a battle alongside the velocity vs. high quality axis. Are you able to keep away from it?

Bas: As a tech chief, I imagine that it is best to at all times refactor a bit. In the long term, it truly accelerates improvement.

We often save a while every week for work that doesn’t immediately influence the roadmap. One group calls it a free-choice Friday, and one other one – whatever-you-want Wednesday. Typically, builders use that point for refactoring.

I imagine that builders ought to refactor the code they really labored on growing. It fosters accountability. If a developer works on a brand new function, they need to take into consideration tips on how to implement it in a method that can make additional improvement simpler. As Kent Again says, it is best to attempt to make a tough change simple after which make the straightforward change.

One other Boy Scout rule is at all times to attempt to make issues a little bit cleaner than earlier than you got here. In case you try this, the standard of the code ought to stay good.

You may additionally must take away some outdated libraries or implement key security-related modifications. Such refactoring is usually a challenge of its personal. It is best to talk about it with the product division and put it on the roadmap.

How do you are feeling about placing refactoring on the roadmap, Remco?

Remco: It doesn’t matter how massive a refactoring challenge is. What issues is that if it has some buyer worth. Some optimizations could also be technically difficult and attention-grabbing to deal with however finally add little to the underside line. It’s higher to speculate that point into one thing else. Clients don’t care about clear code. They gained’t pay a penny extra for it. 

However you’ll be able to often discover a method to make use of refactoring to assist prospects. In case your optimized code helps course of messages sooner or removes some redundancy to extend uptime, you add buyer worth.

Nonetheless, the problem is to determine how massive the profit is in comparison with the hassle invested. In case you had been to extend uptime from 4 9’s to 5 9’s, which took you 20 weeks of labor – was it price it? Every case wants a separate dialogue. Once more, it’s all a couple of fixed suggestions loop between manufacturing and expertise

Characteristic prioritization can be an attention-grabbing space. Usually, the product chief has extra of a say in it. Nevertheless, the tech chief could have product concepts of their very own. How would you introduce them, Bas?

Bas: I try this by developing with an instance. I’ll typically make a small proof of idea. It should be one thing that may be completed actually shortly and simply, although.

If I can’t try this shortly, then all I can do is make my case out loud and attempt to see if the product group feels the identical method.

Basic processes & synergy

We mentioned potential battle areas between the tech and product departments and attainable options. Let’s make it extra normal now. What are an important guidelines either side ought to bear in mind to cooperate successfully and permit synergy to happen?

Bas: It’s essential do all the pieces with the client in thoughts. Naturally, that requires deep analysis into your goal’s preferences, however fortunately, some buyer wants are fixed. Just about each software program product at the moment needs to be quick, safe, and compliant. There’s additionally seemingly some expectation of how the particular class of software program your product belongs to ought to look. I wouldn’t suggest straying too removed from it.

Typically, the client may need a singular want that requires growing a brand new function. It’s not at all times the appropriate factor to hurry to improvement. It’s essential think about promoting this potential new function to different prospects. Nevertheless, if you’ll find a solution to make it adaptable, then it is best to go for it. There’s hardly something higher than options knowledgeable by your prospects’ precise wants.

Remco, you talked about a CTPO – one supervisor who wields each expertise and product energy. He believed that being a CTPO provides you a singular skill to have a look at the intersection of expertise and product to see the invisible obstacles within the improvement course of. Can two individuals try this, too?

Remco: Sure, two individuals can even fill the identical function. In the long run, each roles contain decision-making. We determine on the subsequent function to construct and tips on how to construct it.

Fulfilling each the expertise and product roles provides you the velocity benefit when deciding: you’ll be able to merely determine by yourself. But when the choice is to be correctly knowledgeable, you might want to construct round your self a powerful group able to difficult your concepts. In any other case, you’ll get into tunnel imaginative and prescient.

This tunnel imaginative and prescient can occur even you probably have a companion to problem you. Typically, I’d get an concept that I assumed was good. However then Bas would clarify to me how there was no method it may ever work. At different instances, his enter wouldn’t put my concept to relaxation however as a substitute make it stronger by serving to me perceive potential threats and drawbacks higher.

What do you consider it, Bas? Is the rising reputation of a CTPO function a very good pattern?

Bas: As Remco stated, I feel a CTPO wants a powerful help group to tell and problem its insurance policies. Alternatively, when you have got two individuals, their problem is to get alongside nice. Solely then can they produce glorious outcomes.

You two positively get alongside nice. I can see that. However I additionally assume there’s an excellent hazard in relying an excessive amount of on a private relationship. Individuals come and go. How can the technology-product relationship be constantly improved even when the leaders change? Am I proper to imagine that it requires the appropriate organizational tradition?

Remco: In a wholesome group, an worker’s departure ought to be a possibility for others to tackle their tasks. Final yr, we noticed that occur when a few of our key workers pursued different alternatives.

For leaders, discontinuity is one more problem to handle. In doing so, it is best to rely as a lot on the method as on people. There’s a fragile stability concerned since you don’t need to be a completely processed-driven group the place persons are simply numbers.

Training is the important thing to discovering and holding the individuals who hold the group going, and it’s strongly associated to managing development.

We’ve been by way of some years of hyper-growth the place we tripled the group. It modified the dynamics in our group as a result of we all of a sudden had individuals who needed to dedicate themselves nearly totally to educating others. We’re now striving to streamline the training course of. The objective is to unlock much more time for our greatest and most senior workers however nonetheless be certain that newcomers get all of the data they should take over when their time comes.

Bas: A method we enhance training is thru course of automation. Individuals concerned within the processes are inspired to search out methods to automate as a lot of them as attainable.

Automation is one other method you’ll be able to attempt to lower the dependence of your group on anybody particular person, sustaining a sure stage of high quality when your new hires are nonetheless studying.

Sources

Thanks to your insights, Remco and Bas. Once more, I can positively see why CM.com grows so shortly and continually innovates underneath your management. 

It is best to by no means run out of alternatives to be taught from observe. Nonetheless, may you suggest some books or supplies to managers who need to foster the product-technology relationship extra successfully?

Remco: There’s one ebook that I feel everybody within the product area ought to learn, Impressed by Marty Cagan. It’s most likely on the bookshelf of numerous Product Managers.

An Elegant Puzzle from Will Larson is one other one price trying out. It describes precise conditions within the engineering administration function so you’ll be able to simply apply them to your circumstances. It’s nonetheless very up-to-date.

Bas: I’d add Excessive Programming Defined by Kent Beck and The Software program Engineer’s Guidebook by Gergely Orosz. The primary one is fairly outdated, however it’s nonetheless full of fantastic sensible recommendation for many who work in fast-paced, iterative environments. The opposite one is an effective supply of information for tech individuals who need to change into leaders.

What’s subsequent? Three actions for CTOs to take

And that’s it! What do you consider Bas and Remco’s method to coping with trendy software program improvement challenges by way of sturdy product-technology cooperation?

If you wish to implement their findings in observe:

1. Abandon silos and collaborate extensively over product improvement. You’ll lose extra time growing the mistaken function or not taking tech limitations significantly!
2. Contemplate all tradeoffs when making a product improvement resolution. Solely product and expertise have the know-how to do this collectively. And once they do, they could even provide you with new concepts to deal with an issue creatively.
3. Contain each your product and engineering individuals in training efforts – streamline and automate them as a lot as attainable to decrease the attrition charge of your high performers and decrease dependence on anybody particular person.