Comments on: Crossing the Internal Chasm http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/2009/09/crossing-the-internal-chasm/ Turning Ideas into Products Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:45:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Thierry Roullier http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/2009/09/crossing-the-internal-chasm/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Thierry Roullier Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:17:15 +0000 http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/?p=145#comment-37 Mark I fully agree with your comments. While the product manager met all his or her launch objectives, the launch is flawed by a structural organizational issue, which is usually not fixable by product managers themselves. What we advocate here is that they act as the individual who can identify the issue for their new product as well as future products. It is a lonely courageous endeavor, but it is a necessary one when this type of issues occur. Mark I fully agree with your comments. While the product manager met all his or her launch objectives, the launch is flawed by a structural organizational issue, which is usually not fixable by product managers themselves. What we advocate here is that they act as the individual who can identify the issue for their new product as well as future products. It is a lonely courageous endeavor, but it is a necessary one when this type of issues occur.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mark Hart http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/2009/09/crossing-the-internal-chasm/comment-page-1/#comment-36 Mark Hart Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:07:03 +0000 http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/?p=145#comment-36 If one has a perception that the "launch was flawless" but there is "trouble in paradise" that includes: - Missing capabilities because of the features selected - Insufficient sales force support - Conflicts with other product managers the launch was not flawless. Stated another way, the beliefs and choices made during development were not validated during the early, actual sales. Although the initial suggestions to handle these problems include "incentives" or a "rolling thunder approach" that may help to meet the promised quota, this will not prepare the development organization or the managers to improve the development process for the next products. How will this company achieve and maximize a sustainable competitive advantage through new product development, innovation, and growth? I suspect that the mismatches illustrated in this post can be used to inspire the appropriate solutions. By Mark Hart OpLaunch: Non-reductive, collaborative approaches to achieve launch success in new product development. NPDP posted 5 days ago If one has a perception that the “launch was flawless” but there is “trouble in paradise” that includes:
- Missing capabilities because of the features selected
- Insufficient sales force support
- Conflicts with other product managers

the launch was not flawless. Stated another way, the beliefs and choices made during development were not validated during the early, actual sales.

Although the initial suggestions to handle these problems include “incentives” or a “rolling thunder approach” that may help to meet the promised quota, this will not prepare the development organization or the managers to improve the development process for the next products.

How will this company achieve and maximize a sustainable competitive advantage through new product development, innovation, and growth? I suspect that the mismatches illustrated in this post can be used to inspire the appropriate solutions.
By Mark Hart OpLaunch: Non-reductive, collaborative approaches to achieve launch success in new product development. NPDP

posted 5 days ago

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Locke http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/2009/09/crossing-the-internal-chasm/comment-page-1/#comment-23 David Locke Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:58:46 +0000 http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/?p=145#comment-23 My comment originates in Moore's technology adoption lifecycle. It applies to all categories of goods, but it puts goods at different points in the lifecycle. A consumer good is always a late market good, because of the economics involved. I've had to deal with the early adopter posts claiming that the early adopter has changed. Well, no. The technology B2B early adopter is different from the consumer early adopter. The fundamental issue relative to disruptive technology is population uncertainty. Poisson games deal with population uncertianty. So Moore's normal curve can be reconstructed as a series of Poisson distributions. Poisson distributions enable Markov processes, which are key to Hidden Markov nodes. These two points leads to a reframing of Moore's technology adoption lifecycle. The technical enthusiast exists in each phase of Moore's lifecycle. The early adopter exists in each phase as well. This means that there is a chasm in each phase. A consumer good does not begin at the far left of Moore's lifecycle. You can cross that chasm anywhere in the lifecycle with any good or category. I agree with Christensen's separation concept, but for a few more reasons. Sadly, Christensen has not succeeded in selling this concept during his consulting engagements. His consulting firm has returned to orthodox processes as a result. My comment originates in Moore’s technology adoption lifecycle. It applies to all categories of goods, but it puts goods at different points in the lifecycle. A consumer good is always a late market good, because of the economics involved.

I’ve had to deal with the early adopter posts claiming that the early adopter has changed. Well, no. The technology B2B early adopter is different from the consumer early adopter.

The fundamental issue relative to disruptive technology is population uncertainty. Poisson games deal with population uncertianty. So Moore’s normal curve can be reconstructed as a series of Poisson distributions. Poisson distributions enable Markov processes, which are key to Hidden Markov nodes.

These two points leads to a reframing of Moore’s technology adoption lifecycle. The technical enthusiast exists in each phase of Moore’s lifecycle. The early adopter exists in each phase as well. This means that there is a chasm in each phase. A consumer good does not begin at the far left of Moore’s lifecycle. You can cross that chasm anywhere in the lifecycle with any good or category.

I agree with Christensen’s separation concept, but for a few more reasons. Sadly, Christensen has not succeeded in selling this concept during his consulting engagements. His consulting firm has returned to orthodox processes as a result.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Thierry Roullier http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/2009/09/crossing-the-internal-chasm/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Thierry Roullier Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:50 +0000 http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/?p=145#comment-21 Thank you David for your very insightful and detailed comment. Just to make sure we are on the same page, this post dealt with any new product, not just a transition from a product to the same functionality, but delivered as a service. I am ashamed to say that I must catch up on my Christensen reading (I have only read the Innovator's dilemma), but I agree that as you move to a web service offering, the cost structure, the channels, and the type of customers become different. You must also face the fact that some of your exisitng customers may want to go the service route, which may further hit your profit margin. Keep on commenting. Thanks Thank you David for your very insightful and detailed comment.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, this post dealt with any new product, not just a transition from a product to the same functionality, but delivered as a service.

I am ashamed to say that I must catch up on my Christensen reading (I have only read the Innovator’s dilemma), but I agree that as you move to a web service offering, the cost structure, the channels, and the type of customers become different.
You must also face the fact that some of your exisitng customers may want to go the service route, which may further hit your profit margin.

Keep on commenting. Thanks

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Locke http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/2009/09/crossing-the-internal-chasm/comment-page-1/#comment-18 David Locke Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:21:36 +0000 http://www.b2bproductmakers.com/?p=145#comment-18 To the customer, the transition to a web service should look continuous. You do this by providing them with account management features before you move the product to the web. To the company, the move to being a provider of web services is a big change. It requires the company to change. It is disruptive. But, the disruption should happen at the level of the executive. The market should drive the executive. That chasam should happen at a distance from the product manager, unless that product manager is in a product strategist role. The transition to a web service actually happens with the transition to Moore's late market. That transition required cost management, because margins thin and growth is over, so you present growth numbers by squeezing the business. That transition required something Moore called "task sublimation," and it turns out that moving to the web automatically sublimates tool tasks, and eliminates feature bloat that provided geeks with customizations. Those customizations are no longer needed. Changing the application framework changes the features used at the hit end of the frequency of use power curve, automatically. You will insert a few new tool tasks, but you will subsequently reduce them, so the user is focused on their goals. Since moving the organization to web services is disruptive, you might want to take Christensen's advice and create a separate company to do this phase of Moore's technology adoption lifecycle. If you don't create such a separation, you will have people to layoff, and they won't be there the next time you build a product. Pay attention to the fact that your pricing will change, the buy will change, your sales force will become redundant, and you will have to focus revenue generation on sidebands once your functionality finds its revenue baseline. You will need to find your multisided markets, so you can act as a platform. You will deal with premium and free. A web service company is an entirely different animal from a product company. To the customer, the transition to a web service should look continuous. You do this by providing them with account management features before you move the product to the web.

To the company, the move to being a provider of web services is a big change. It requires the company to change. It is disruptive. But, the disruption should happen at the level of the executive. The market should drive the executive. That chasam should happen at a distance from the product manager, unless that product manager is in a product strategist role.

The transition to a web service actually happens with the transition to Moore’s late market. That transition required cost management, because margins thin and growth is over, so you present growth numbers by squeezing the business. That transition required something Moore called “task sublimation,” and it turns out that moving to the web automatically sublimates tool tasks, and eliminates feature bloat that provided geeks with customizations. Those customizations are no longer needed. Changing the application framework changes the features used at the hit end of the frequency of use power curve, automatically. You will insert a few new tool tasks, but you will subsequently reduce them, so the user is focused on their goals.

Since moving the organization to web services is disruptive, you might want to take Christensen’s advice and create a separate company to do this phase of Moore’s technology adoption lifecycle. If you don’t create such a separation, you will have people to layoff, and they won’t be there the next time you build a product. Pay attention to the fact that your pricing will change, the buy will change, your sales force will become redundant, and you will have to focus revenue generation on sidebands once your functionality finds its revenue baseline. You will need to find your multisided markets, so you can act as a platform. You will deal with premium and free. A web service company is an entirely different animal from a product company.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>