You can execute agile processes perfectly by the book and still have a product that sucks.ĭon't be married to processes just because that's what you learned.Ī great product is one that delights users, not one that had 50 burnup points in the latest sprint retro. But none of it addresses the fundamental problem: The gold standard is to use some agile principles (personally a fan of standups and retros), reduce processes and give teams autonomy as long as they create a meaningful impact. You cannot blame your users to be stupid that they don't understand your interface, at some point you have to admit that the problem is the interface. But when is that the problem of the framework? And the reason why it goes wrong so many times is that people "misunderstand" it constantly. It has the INTENT, for sure, we all want to create great products. Your product might become worse with more features but you need to have a check in your system to notice.Īnd that's measuring customer success. You could make it harder or impossible for people to unsubscribe and artificially push short-term revenue. No, it's not - you can pump revenue with really bad habits that don't help your customer. "But what if has an impact on revenue? Isn't that proof?" Outcome success driven: We increase engagement from x to xĪnd the latest iteration does NOT work if you don't define first the correlative connection between how much your product is used (engagement) and what impact that has on value capture metrics like revenue etc.īecause if you do that consistently it means that you might have a perfect product as per requirements, great code, and great quality but it does nothing as the tests show, therefore it doesn't get shipped. We went through an evolution in goal setting: The goal is to test a hypothesis around the measurable impact on customer success and then make a decision: Product-Led principles are now necessary to bring it over the finish line because agile processes have a fundamental flaw:Īsking the customer what they think is not a specific enough method to create good products after you shipped something. Agile was invented to deal with the weaknesses of waterfall projects to be closer to the customer and create software faster and more iteratively Waterfall was invented to deal with the absolute chaos that no organization at all brought. We never tried to actively create products that are not good. <- No, waterfall processes also cared about the customer but there is a key component missing. Organizers can adjust meeting options ahead of time to permit attendees to share content as well."We are agile, we test iteratively and get customer feedback often". You can stop sharing a PowerPoint or Whiteboard by clicking Stop Presenting.įor all other content, click the Stop Sharing button.īy default, only those with the Presenter or Organizer roles are permitted to share content.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |