Skip to main content

General or Specific? Broad Vision or a Customer?

When drafting a product roadmap, the tension between the vision and the specific customers often comes into play.  Founders and product leaders love to talk about the grand vision and seeing the future from the beginning.  From my experience the grand vision was a product of analysis of many individual customers.

I have seen many failed product teams who were afraid to focus on any specific customer.  They didn’t want to overoptimize the product for too small of a customer base and become a consulting company.  It is true that there is a danger where one large customer is hijacking your roadmap and you start getting so deep into features or special built integrations that you fail to build a mass market product.  More often the “visionary” product has no grounding.  The teams that can’t waste their time digging deep with their early adopters miss the opportunity and never build anything useful for anyone.

When we launched DocuSign API, we had 3 (three) customers who had access to a private endpoint.  We worked diligently with them to ensure that they could complete their use cases with the functionality we provided.  Unsurprisingly we were wrong about the edge cases many times.  We had to re-work a few things and only after the first customers had successfully used the integration to derive value, we opened the API to more developers.  We used this type of recipe almost all the time.  Whenever we strayed from it, we had to eat some humble pie and realized that no matter how great we knew the market we missed details.  The cure has always been customer contact and solving concrete problems.  Ultimately, we had to do a quick follow release and instead of doing this iteration in private we did it in public.

When Polly.io engineering team launched Loan Exchange and the Pricing Engine we worked diligently with a first set of big partners like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, PennyMac and several others.  Until we got our functionality 100% correct, we resisted onboarding other clients because mistakes could result in losses of several million dollars.

The stories of visionary products are often a result of many experiments and stress tests that we never see in public.  A lot of people assume that even though they have had months or years of failed experiments or endless polish, it’s better to come across as the modern-day Einstein.  I caution teams that adopt this approach.  Go from specific to general because the general might be different than what you expected.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SDET / QA Engineer Interview Checklist

After interviewing and hiring hundreds of engineers over the past 12+  years I have come up with a few checklists.  I wanted to share one of those with you so you could conduct comprehensive interviews of QA Engineers for your team. I use this checklist when I review incoming resumes and during the interview.  It keeps me from missing areas that ensure a good team and technology fit.  I hope you make good use of them.  If you think there are good questions or topics that I have missed - get in touch with me! SDE/T or QA Engineer interview checklist from Mike Borozdin If you like this checklist you might want to check out these posts: Emotional Intelligence in Software Teams   and  Good-bye manual tester, hello crowdsourcing!

Code versus Configuration

At Ethos we are building a distributed mortgage origination system and in mortgage there is a lot of different user types with processes that vary depending on geography.  One of our ongoing discussions is about how much of the logic resides in code vs. being in a workflow system or configuration.  After researching this topic for a bit, I have arrived at a conclusion that the logic should live outside of code very infrequently, which might come as a surprise to a lot of enterprise software engineers. Costs of configuration files and workflow engines First thing that I assume is true is that having any logic outside of the code has costs associated with it.  Debugging highly configurable system involves not only getting the appropriate branch from source control, you also need to make sure that the right configuration values or the database.  In most cases this is harder for programmers to deal with.  In many FinTech companies where the production data is not made readily acce

Intuitive Programming - Comments

Comments are a topic of vibrant discussion.  Ever since programmers could leave some text in the program that was ignored by the machine the debate started: “what’s a good comment, what’s a bad comment, why comment?” There are endless instructions to programmers that say many of the following things: 1) Describe your function! 2) Don’t write in the comment what you wrote in the code. 3) Tell people why you are doing what you are doing. What I think has been missing from this discourse is the audience for comments and through those audiences there is intent.  The code is being read, skimmed or analyzed by people and tools.  So what are the audiences and reading modes? 1) Maintaining and enhancing the code 2) Skimming through the entire module or file to figure out what the overall structure is 3) Reviewing the test files to check out the test coverage and edge cases 4) Seeing the docstrings of functions while being in a separate file altogether 5) Reviewi