How do we define product?

When I wrote this article in April of last year, I was focused on the juxtaposition between projects and products, and boy oh boy did it ever resonate with you. Not only that, but the concept of moving from “project to product” was soon everywhere, so I felt especially cool in having explored the topic here before getting buttonholed in a meeting.

But I'm not sure that the article ever actually defined what product is. And for that, well, I feel a little foolish. I mean, we talked about moving from one framework to another, without really defining the future state. Good thing you all are cool, or I’d probably be in some Twitter war with one of you all these months later. 

So let’s take another run at it, shall we?

Just what is the modern definition of a product?

Most business leaders I encounter understand and believe in the iterative ways of working represented by agile and product management. But they still can't quite get their brains around what their product IS. They know what they sell, but they don't necessarily understand that they have a broader product that needs to be managed with the same strategic intent as the things they sell (whether those are physical products, services, etc.)

The revolution of the product approach is that it focuses on all the things that “surround” the thing you sell — all the ways your product (sold) is discovered, purchased, accessed, utilized, serviced and experienced. So even if your product is a handmade canoe, you still have to think about your business in digital terms, because that’s the market your customers are playing in: an interconnected, omni-channel, digital world. 

Let’s look at an example — degreed educational programs

Let’s try a more complex idea, and see how we might define the products that need to be managed: degreed education, such as a traditional MBA program. 

Obviously, the faculty and administrators of the MBA program treat that program as a product — they think about things like pricing, curriculum, faculty-to-student ratios, accreditation competition, market forces, alumni feedback, recruitment funnels, etc. 

But in this expanded definition of product, we also have to look at everything AROUND the program itself. What is the delivery mechanism (online, in person or hybrid?) Where is the curriculum captured, and how is it shared with the students (paper, Google Classroom, a private learning management system?) How are textbooks distributed (eBook, print books, hybrid?) How are students recruited (Websites? In-person or virtual fairs? Email marketing? Print marketing?)

The likely answer to all of this is something like … “all of the above.” As administrators plan all of these activities, they have to make decisions about how the physical and virtual experiences flow into and out of the others, and how it all comes together as a cohesive experience that meets the expectations of students considering multiple programs, as well as the needs of employers who might be paying for their employees to attend, not to mention the university of which the program is a part of a broader curriculum.

And of course, all of these things change and iterate over time. You don't just build it once and then forget about it. This is true not only of the academic program itself, but also all of the elements that surround the product: the experience of discovering, applying, enrolling, participating, graduating, finding internships and jobs, etc. It’s only in that comprehensive definition of the product that the true value to the student (customer) and the business (the school) is realized. 

Of course, if you asked a school administrator what their product is, they’d likely respond with the kinds of degree programs they offer. But they ALSO have to manage all the rest of the experience with the same discipline and strategy as the “sold product” — or else risk falling behind their competition. 

Why does everything always have to change?

I think we all realize at this point in time that the customer experience is shaped by businesses that don’t appear on our map of competitors. I often share the story of my time as product manager overseeing scheduling capabilities for health care services. I was not competing with other clinics offering the same services as our company, and how they enabled online scheduling. I was competing with Great Clips, who allowed me to see the wait time for an appointment at the salon down the street. And I was competing with Jiffy Lube, who had online scheduling via websites. Those interactions set my customers’ expectations even more than other health care contexts. 

That muddling of the marketplace of experiences is what keeps product people on their toes. The constantly shifting patterns for how technology meets — or fails to meet — a user's needs require agility in how we approach products. 

In the old world, the MBA administrator I talked about above could plan for program changes one, two or even three years out. Now, they must make changes to classroom support, content distribution channels, even curriculum in something approaching real time, as the market moves and customer expectations move with it. 

So, it’s no longer going to work to put together long timelines of cascading work, handed off from one team to another, only to be realized in 6, 12 or 18 months. Teams need to be structured and equipped to move more nimbly and deliver on those changes much, much faster — which is where the iterative nature of agile and product management come in. 

Now that we’ve defined the products more expansively, we can also then manage them in this iterative approach — because we understand that our products are so much more than just the things we sell.