Sometimes, you measure commitment by the hour

During a breakfast meeting this morning, someone asked a very sharp question: Are businesses really operating differently because of social media? I then jumped in the car, drove from San Francisco back to our Foster City office, and heard how Cisco has used social media to change product launches.

The obvious change, of course, is lowering the cost, if you're not renting out the Moscone Center for a big launch party. Slightly less obvious changes include the ability to reach more people in more countries. , the virtual launch also makes it possible to reach more people, in more countries, than Cisco could with traditional face-to-face events.

So far, we're just considering changes in capability. Doing product launches cheaper, faster, better is an important innovation, but it's not a sign that a company is operating or thinking in a significantly different way. You might buy a cheaper, better, and faster car, but you might not change your driving habits one bit, or take more care to follow the traffic laws.

Therefore, during this conversation with Cisco, the one change from going to virtual product launches that really stuck out was operational: the marketing effort continues beyond the big ballyhoo day. Cisco employees remain engaged in conversations with customers through social media channels.

Contrast that with the old Moscone Center-style launch events. Everyone shows up for the big photo op, and then they go home. Sure, leads get entered into the CRM system, but that's hardly the same as continuing a conversation with the people you met at the launch event.

Of course, that means that some people at Cisco have to dedicate time to that continued conversation, instead of racing off to the next big launch event. There's a business decision behind allocating resources in this fashion, based on a different set of assumptions and calculations than the "marketer with a megaphone" launch events of 15 or 20 years ago.

Are social media for real? Yes, when they effect how companies operate.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]

Is "social product management" for real?

Here's an important rule of thumb, if you're a researcher such as myself: Don't name something unless it really exists. That sounds fairly obvious, but unfortunately, in the history of the technology industry, there's a sad history of failed neologisms. In some cases, these phrases exaggerated the importance or complexity of some relatively mundane aspect of the world. That's how the superheated usage of the term knowledge management turned into a four letter word. In other cases, people use neologisms designed to describe things that might (or might not) exist in the future as if they already existed now. I've heard some presentations about the Semantic Web that certainly fall into that category.

Therefore, when I use a phrase like social product management, believe me, I'm using it very carefully. Over the course of the last week, I've had occasion to use it on several occasions, most recently at last night's open house for PMs in the Forrester Foster City office. (Thanks to all who attended, by the way.)

Social product management passes the sniff test for neologisms because it describes something that's really happening: social media are changing the way that product managers and product marketers work. Here are a few manifestations, excerpted from the research I've been doing for the last several months:

• Social media figure increasingly in the to-do lists for PMs. Whether it's answering forum postings or monitoring "chatter" about your company on Twitter, PMs are spending more time using social media to get some aspects of their job completed.
• Social media demand new skills to master. It's abundantly clear that using social media, in either an inbound or outbound capacity, takes real skill. Unfortunately, not everyone has learned how to  spot the social media outlets where particular kinds of stakeholders congregate, or how to collect and interpret a representative sample of aggregate social media activity.
• Social media frequently require investment. It takes time and effort to figure out which social media channels are worth your attention. In some cases, new tools, such as listening platforms, can be a big force multiplier in these efforts.
• Social media require new attitudes to work. Everything falls apart if the company isn't ready to take social media seriously. Strangely, customers expect social media to be the place where conversations happen, instead of providing yet another brand of megaphone for vendors to announce their greatness. They also expect you to follow up on these conversations. Weird, but true.
• Social media foment professional crises for PMs. The natural consequence of the previous bullets are some tough conversations between PMs and their managers. Topics include How the hell do you expect me to do this in my free time to Why use these new sources of intelligence if we continue to make the same mistakes in the decision-making process? However these conversations turn out, the fact that they're happening at all means that social media are having a real effect on the PM job.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying that social media obliterate everything that PMs used to do. Far from it. In pretty much every aspect of the job where social media are relevant, they supplement existing PM tasks, deliverables, or resources. For example, as useful as innovation sites may be (users propose features, comment on them, vote on them), you still need to have occasional face-to-face conversations with people in customer organizations. If 5,000 people vote for a great new feature, Ion flux regulator, that doesn't tell you why it's important to them, how they expect it to work, and other critical details that bear directly on prioritization and design decisions.

Therefore, the phrase social product management does have weight and purpose, to the extent that social media are changing the way that PMs in the tech industry work. Me absolvo, it's not just another meaningless buzzword.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]

Workshop on "social product management" is done!

Had some great conversations with the workshop attendees on how PM teams are incorporating social media into their customer and market intelligence (including, but not limited to, requirements). Thanks to all who attended.

Interestingly, we spent a good deal of time talking about the type of questions people ask. In trying to make sense of both social media and PM deliverables, I made a distinction between problem-centric questions, which center on the customer, and product-centric questions, which (as the name implies) focus on the vendor's products and services.

In the technology industry, people are far more used to posing product-centric questions. Gradually, companies are learning the importance of the problem-related questions. However, it's easy to slip from one into the other. It reminds me of how I used to struggle with guitar fingering. As a novice player, I would concentrate for a while on keeping my fingers straight on the frets. Inevitably, as I started to think about other things (strumming, rhythm, etc.), I'd start to roll my fingers slightly to the side, which made it harder to hit the notes I was trying to reach.

Problem-centric questions are a lot like good fingering: it takes time, experience, and discipline to reach the point when you shake free of the bad habits. Obviously, there's a time and a place for product-centric questions, but not every time.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]

Social product management workshop coming soon

For anyone interested in using social media as a resource for product requirements, persona development, use cases, and other customer insights, the workshop on this topic is scheduled for later this month.

The goal is to give you specific, practical guidance that you can use the day after the workshop. Therefore, I'm asking attendees to bring examples of their current challenges in gaining customer insights, from either a product management or product marketing perspective. We'll use those scenarios during some hands-on exercises.

Here's the link to the workshop, if you're interested. Space is limited, and based on the number of questions I get about this topic, it should be a lively session.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]

How an ISV uses "inbound" social media

 In this week's Heretech podcast, I spoke with Alex Bender of Archer Technologies about the role the Archer community plays in the development process, all the way through the release. If you click the thumbnail shown below, you'll see their process in graphic detail. While Alex and I didn't get into all the specifics of how they do it, we did cover most of their "social product management" approach in the podcast. 

Among other interesting aspects of how they use their community as a resource for innovation and adoption, the role of partners really stands out. Of course, in the governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) space, you have an ecology of partners who are experts in things like Sarbanes-Oxley and risk management best practices. They'll tell you in plenty of detail why your product isn't really doing the job it should as a GRC tool.

GRC implementers and advisers have a very explicit kind of domain knowledge. However, if you stop to think about it, almost any partner has domain knowledge that's valuable to ISVs. To cite an obvious example, how does the average organization implementing your technology define the project? What obstacles do you impose at the critical landmarks in the implementation?

We usually talk about communities as consisting of customers. However, I think it's worth including partners whenever you talk about your community strategy.

Workshop on social media for development teams

In October, I'm doing a workshop in the Foster City office about social media for product teams. How can social media fill in the gaps left by traditional requirements? Which social media outlets should you use to answer particular questions? What skills and investments are required? What's the tangible business benefit?

A big part of the workshop is hands-on experience with the questions your team faces. Bring an example of a burning question that the product team needs to answer (e.g., What's the impact of dropping this feature? Is our product a good fit for similar business problems in other markets?), and we'll explore how to use social media to find substantive, useful answers quickly.

For more details, click here. Also, in a couple of weeks, colleague Laura Ramos is doing a workshop, "Making B2B Marketing Work," that chock full of useful content.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]

That was the week that was, part 1

If someone had stuffed me into the trunk of a car and driven to a remote location in the  Sierras, I could not have been more out of touch with the outside world than I was for a good chunk of the last week. As I mentioned earlier, I had two major projects to do on a short deadline, with barely enough time to finish them. Practically all other priorities went out the window, including (sadly) blogging and podcasting.

One of the projects covered exactly the same topic as a recent post, "Beware of the naked man," about differences in social media behavior across different demographic segments. The client wanted us to profile the same roles in different industries. Where did they go in Social Media Land, and what were they doing there?

The results from this study put these differences in stark detail. I can't talk about the specific roles and professions from this research project, but I can give an unrelated (and fairly obvious) example. If you were to look at doctors and college seniors, you'd see major differences, not only in where they go (forums, social networking sites, etc.), but what they do while they're at this locations. In this kind of research, we combine the social media behavior profiles (official name: Social Technographics) constructed from surveys with follow-on research about the specific locations and activities. Doing this kind of research is no small amount of work, which is why I was pretty busy this week.

These demographic differences are often the culprit behind Social Media Disappointment Synrdome (SMDS). Sufferers of SMDS have created some company-sponsored social media outlet, such as a CEO blog or technical forum,  and then waited for people to show up...and waited...and waited...Of course, the source of SMDS, in many of these cases, is the lack of motivation for anyone to participate in these social media.

All of which shows why our social media methodologies--the larger POST strategy for the entire company, and the PLOT approach designed for inbound activities--make the technology an enabling detail, not the starting point of the strategy. Social media don't connect people; people connect people. Social media are just a powerful technology for making these connections. The contours and content of a particular social media outlet must be appropriate for the type of connections these people want to create.

Forrester colleague Oliver Young recently noted how the term Web 2.0 has quickly fallen out of fashion. That's probably a good thing, since Web 2.0 has more of a technological connotation than social media does. A small semantic difference—one phrase starts with Web, and the other with social—reflects a profound insight into who's using these new technologies, and why.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]

Beware of the naked man

I forgot to cross-post "Beware of the naked man" last night. Since people kindly left comments to the post, I have to rectify that oversight.

The post is about the role of social media in product requirements. Is it a supplement or replacement for other requirements sources? How hard is it to get good information out of social media?

The misuse of social media

The "inbound social media" research grew to massive proportions, then underwent mitosis to become three separate documents, because it's difficult to encapsulate the discipline of using social media. Like any new field, social media are fraught with both opportunity and risk.

In the particular application that I was investigating, social media as a new source of requirements data, people can commit the same mistakes with this new source of information as they have with the old ones. For example, important players in the product development process often make decisions based on the customer with whom they last spoke. An equally common temptation is to listen to customers who echo what you want to hear, and disregard the rest.

In the best possible circumstance, you get a single person who appears representative of a larger user population, gives you credible insights, and even articulates their needs clearly. The obvious problem is that you're only listening to  one person, who will never be 100% representative of the larger population. That's especially bad if the population contains distinct segments of people with different needs, habits, and skills, and you have to build something that fits the bill for more than one of these cohorts.

If you're not taking advantage of the opportunity to use social media to collect more data than you could through traditional, labor-intensive methods  (for example, customer meetings), you're missing a big part of the reason for paying attention to social media in the first place.

And if you don't believe me, take a look at this item from The Guardian about how British businesspeople went gaga over a single 15 year-old intern's analysis of how teenagers use social media. To be fair, both traditional and social media contributed to the buzz around the document. But that's the point: you can repeat all the mistakes of old media when using new media.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]

Picking the right social media for requirements

All three parts of the series on social media as a new source of requirements data are now published. The first shows how product teams can use social media to create reach more accurate conclusions than traditional sources of requirements (customer visits, enhancement requests, customer advisory boards, etc.) alone can provide.

The second document distills the lessons learned from attempts to use social media in this "inbound role" into a methodology, PLOT (persona, location, options, test). Since the choice of which social media can best answer particular kinds of questions isn't immediately obvious, I devoted the third document to that topic alone.

During the research for this series, it became glaringly obvious that there is a major dividing line in the type of information that product teams collect and analyze:

• Product-centric, which related directly to the company's products and services. How many people have voted for a particular feature is a good example.
• Problem-centric, which depicts the customer's world. The patterns in how organizations adopt particular kinds of solutions, for example, is vitally important for product teams, even though the best form of that information makes no reference to the vendor, or even the supporting technology, whatsoever.

Shown here is a graphic that summarizes the kinds of requirements information that falls into these two categories. To borrow a phrase from William James, the breadth of social media options appears, at first glance, as a "blooming, buzzing confusion." This distinction between product-centric and problem-centric issues is the first of several filters needed to select the right social media outlet to answer a particular question.

This distinction is also critical for determining whether the company's current investment in social media can be at all useful for the product team. Already in many technology companies, Marketing's enthusiasm for social media inspires skepticism in Development. In the worst cases, it's almost as if someone were to propose to John Calvin, "The papacy has some interesting ideas about transubstantiation. Why don't we look into them?

This product/problem distinction helps decide whether the existing social media channels will be of any use to the product team. In some cases, they certainly will be. In others, either the company will need to build additional social media tools, or the product team will need to look outside the company's web presence altogether.

[Cross-posted at The Heretech.]