Inventors With No Fear of Falling Off the Bike

Two bicycle-related stories caught my attention as I was catching up on some reading over holiday break. They will both be of interest to product managers and fans of beautiful design.

The first story is about Israeli inventor Izhar Gafni, who designed a cardboard bicycle... yes cardboard! Gafni's goal is to make production costs low enough to allow the bikes to be sold at retail for no more than $20. Such a low price could transform the lives of people living in poor countries who still walk miles per day to go to work or school, or to visit a doctor. He and his invention have been featured in the Huffington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and Dezeen, and it sounds like all the attention means that funding won't be the reason for success or failure of this unlikely, new product.

The other story is about a pair of Swedish inventors who turned everything that was known about bicycle helmets on its head (pun intended) and designed what they call the Hövding, or the "invisible bicycle helmet." Anna Haupt and Terese Alstin started developing this product as part of their Master thesis in 2005, and they haven't stopped since. The Hövding is an improbable blend of technology, materials, and fashion that may be making the major cycling gear manufacturers ask, "Why didn't we think of that?" Check out this 3 minute video to see how it works. Their company has received $10M in venture funding so far and now has 16 employees.

What makes these stories so appealing is that they are examples of industry outsiders who brought a unique perspective to a problem, then came up with a solution the so-called experts may never even have considered. This is humbling to those of us who work in product development and product management, as we are expected to be the experts and messengers of our markets. It's tempting to conclude that we should bring people or firms from other disciplines on board to help us, but if these brilliant ideas are 1 in a million (or even 1 in a hundred), what's the likelihood that such investments will actually lead to anything real? I think a more a sensible approach is to take the opportunities that come our way a little more seriously. Think twice before dismissing the email or phone call from the "young kid" with a big idea. And that silly prototype from the little startup company at the trade show? (It doesn't even have feature x, y, or z!) It might just be your next product.

Newspapers Can Rethink Their Business and Survive (A Product Managers View)

An insightful feature in this week's Christian Science Monitor about the ongoing struggles of the newspaper business made wonder if many people in this business understand the discipline of product management. If they did, the substance of these stories might be a little different.

We all know that the printed newspaper industry is in peril. Revenue has been drastically declining because classified and help-wanted ads have moved to the internet. Subscriptions continue to decline as more people get their news from free, online sources. According to many in the industry, this is the decline of modern civilization as we are losing sources of original reporting. There may be a kernel of truth to this, but in my opinion we are not losing too much.

The reality is that most people who subscribed to newspapers didn't actually read most of the newspaper anyway. They scanned the headlines, checked sports scores, and maybe read the Dave Barry column and letters to the editor, along with a comic or two. This type of short attention span news consumption was no different than what's happening online now, without the wood pulp. My 3 pound Sunday paper contained 2.5 pounds of mattress ads and 1/2 pound of fluffy special interest stories. And not just this year or last year, but for as long as I can remember! That's why I stopped subscribing; not because my attention span has gotten shorter.

So what's the kernel of truth in the dire prediction? Borrowing a quote from the referenced feature, it's that newspapers have historically provided "local journalism that holds leaders accountable and knits communities together," and they can continue to do so. The subset of people that were interested in this stuff still are; and they're still willing to pay for it. This is where the product management-thinking comes in. Good product managers know how to successfully match the needs of the market with their company's distinctive competencies. The market still wants news, but it has lots of ways to get most of it now... except at the local level. Newspapers have journalists, reporters, and delivery mechanisms that can provide that news, but they remain mostly focused on the wrong things... compiling content from around the world that is available from a thousand other sources.

What if newspapers focused 100% of their decreasing people, resources, revenue, and time on local news and journalism, and delivered it in an electronic-only format? That subset of readers who really care about the journalism would still be willing to pay for this, and although circulation would decline, so would costs. Over time, circulation might actually increase as the "Voice of Springfield" refocused itself on walking the walk, instead of being the voice of the world with 1 page about Springfield. In other words, newspaper companies need to stop thinking about how to prop up their historical business, and start doing what they're good at for the people that are willing to pay for it. If they do that, maybe they have a chance.

Product Managers Can Learn From Babies and Toddlers

A recent, wonderful article at fastcompany.com about Fisher-Price made me ask myself, "From a product manager's perspective, are babies and toddlers the ultimate user?" Let me explain. Fisher-Price is an 83 year old company that started out selling painted, wooden blocks for kids to play with. They have managed to stay successful and relevant through a delicate balance of adopting new trends and technology, and sticking to their roots. Among other things, the article describes Fisher-Price’s PlayLab proving ground for new products, where employees simply observe the way babies and parents play.

As product managers we are charged with being the voice of the market and being in tune with what users need and are willing to pay for. To know what potential customers want and will buy, we can simply ask them, but experienced product managers know this only gets you so far. People answer the questions you ask them; not the ones you don't ask them. They often tell you what they think you want to hear. Occasionally they lie. A good facilitator can sometimes break through these barriers and extract the truth, but it gets harder as the products, features, and solutions become more disruptive. This is particularly true for technology products. Potential customers will reliably tell you they prefer the white BMW over the green one, but try asking them about BMW's iDrive system when they've only used old, analog, discrete controls and it's a whole different scenario. Good luck with that.

To outwit our users, we product managers take a different tact. We don't ask them what they want; we watch them. We experience their worlds, understand what frustrates them, and try to gain insight into product gaps that force them to a work-around, substitute, or completely different product. As Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot just by watching." Armed with these observations, our development teams will come up with clever ways to address the problems.

This takes us back to Fisher-Price. When the users are babies and toddlers, there is no choice other than simply observing them. No questions to ask, and no answers to lead them to. You're forced to see what makes them tick and what frustrates them in a pure, unfiltered way. Does this make them the ultimate end-user? Perhaps.

Next time you visit a customer for a day-in-the-life-of visit, take a page from Fisher-Price's book: imagine your user in diapers, bring along some Goldfish crackers, and keep your mouth closed.

Product Development Use Cases and the Libyan Civil War

We all know that social media played a role in last year's Arab Spring, but I certainly didn't appreciate the extent of that role. This article from Technology Review is a fantastic read: Technology Review: People Power 2.0.  It provides some truly mesmerizing examples of how social media was used in the Libyan civil war to gather intelligence and receive critical weapons knowledge.   For product development professionals, it also leads to an interesting discussion regarding "use cases."

Most product development processes require "use cases" to be created very early in the process.  The purpose of doing this is to try and define all the ways a customer or user will interact with the product.  In other words, what will they use it for, and how do they want to go about doing that?  From my experience developing new products, I've concluded that there are typically three valid categories of use cases:  1) The ones the development team and product management come up with based on their experience; 2) The additional ones actual or potential customers and users come up (using interviews focus groups, demonstrations, etc,); and 3) The ones nobody came up with, but the product ends up being used that way none-the-less.  Kleenex and WD-40 are well-known, classic examples of the third category in which the unanticipated use cases led to vast, commercial success.  More recent examples are SMS text messaging and Gorilla Glass.

I have a hunch some of the examples cited in the Technology Review article fall into the third category as well.  In one example, Twitter was used to crowd source weapons knowledge, and an unusual type of landmine was identified in less than 40 minutes.  In another example a rebel commander received critical information about how a certain type of rocket launcher works from two civilians a continent away, using Skype.  This allowed his brigade to successfully attack the weapon.

I'm fairly certain Twitter never had a focus group to understand how their product might be used for weapons identification.  I'm also reasonably sure that Skype doesn't have an "intelligence" division tucked between the cubicles focused on small business and grandma.

So what does this all this mean regarding the way we develop new products?  I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Today's product development methodologies work pretty well, and most companies are able to bring new product to market faster than ever.  But product development professionals need to be opened-minded and acknowledge there are potential use cases that nobody can imagine... think of Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns."  I once worked for somebody twenty years ago whose philosophy was to "just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks."  Perhaps he has never been more right.