I recently chatted with an experienced product manager friend, and he asked me about a popular framework. "I can't believe it's an actual thing," he mentioned. "The concept is so core to good product management that I don't understand why people need a specific framework to describe that one concept."
There's also a tendency to reinvent the wheel - or at least rerun whole arguments repeatedly - within organisations. Having a framework there is like a process ADR.
Great article John. This is such a core statement:
"It's one thing when the framework teaches those skills, allows people to practice, and encourages them to shed the framework eventually."
The only "frameworks" that should be considered persistent are really more like principles, such as Mission Command. If any framework is framed (ha!) as an end goal, then I feel that it's either been poorly interpreted, or there's money behind it.
Another good thing with frameworks, esp. well-established ones, are that they provide a common reference and vocabulary. This is really important in large enterprises and/or teams that have a steady stream of new joiners. Some will already be familiar with the framework(s) in use and the others can easily be directed to the framework description (or even training, as needed). Being explicit and require a low level of contextual knowledge can speed up the on-boarding considerably.
Frameworks are a good starting place but I've seen so many average product people 'wearing the badge' because they saw an article about a framework and 'learnt it'. For me a framework's most useful function is to aid learning of insightful professional skills from.
There's also a tendency to reinvent the wheel - or at least rerun whole arguments repeatedly - within organisations. Having a framework there is like a process ADR.
Great article John. This is such a core statement:
"It's one thing when the framework teaches those skills, allows people to practice, and encourages them to shed the framework eventually."
The only "frameworks" that should be considered persistent are really more like principles, such as Mission Command. If any framework is framed (ha!) as an end goal, then I feel that it's either been poorly interpreted, or there's money behind it.
Another good thing with frameworks, esp. well-established ones, are that they provide a common reference and vocabulary. This is really important in large enterprises and/or teams that have a steady stream of new joiners. Some will already be familiar with the framework(s) in use and the others can easily be directed to the framework description (or even training, as needed). Being explicit and require a low level of contextual knowledge can speed up the on-boarding considerably.
"Most product experts are not skilled learning experience designers and teachers."
@John: Can you please point out to some materials helping one to improve in these areas? TIA!
I’m curious, which framework prompted the discussion?
What is the framework in question ?
Frameworks are a good starting place but I've seen so many average product people 'wearing the badge' because they saw an article about a framework and 'learnt it'. For me a framework's most useful function is to aid learning of insightful professional skills from.
We all have to start somewhere.
Did you ever go deeper into ACTA John? I loved the Common Cog article featuring you, and am intrigued by exploring that whole area more deeply