IMO that presents an opportunity: If 1:1 throughput isn't possible given the platform, what are the different ways we could approximate it? If we have to do design in advance, how much should we do, and which parts? All of these become useful challenges that can increase the role of feedback in your design when you take them on as such.
A product manager who doesn't understand implementations will not be able to negotiate when an implementation bears on interface design or scheduling decisions. Conflicts arise all the time between implementation, interface and schedule. To resolve them one has to understand all three.
This doesn't mean the product manager must understand code. It means there's a trade-off. If they don't understand software implementation, they need somebody on the team who does (what the article calls a "Technical Product Manager.") Adding another person is possible, but it hikes up the overhead and communication costs while dragging down the speed of development and decision-making.
The best case is a product manager who can understand a given implementation if and when it bears on decisions about what is possible in the interface or the production schedule. That person can make informed decisions because they understand all the factors.
It's fine that not everybody can do all three, but imo we should stay conscious of the trade-off and keep the bar high.
Yes, you can be a PM without knowing code, but it's hard to be an excellent one.
A technical PM maybe doesn't code on a daily basis anymore, but one who understands technical challenges is highly valuable. A good PM who knows the chops can easily debug things when a customer calls, design good features and know whether it'll be easy or hard to implement,set more realistic goals,or call out BS from developers who says some easy task will take 4 weeks or something is impossible to implement.
I don't think so, you can have some middle men to be in charge of that and just shout very loudly if the things turn different. Obviously in this case you need a top team that is hard to find and build and was key in the Apple's case.
a middle man "shouting very loudly if things turn different" sounds more like a project manager, who gets a specific plan and tries to manage the development process after things have been prioritized and broken down by the PM and a tech stakeholder (usually more efficient).
I've noticed breakdown occurs when a PM is unable to understand and balance the constant push-pull of tech capabilities with desired functionality, or the ability to "satisfice"
The only differences between conference sessions and workshops are a) length and b) number of people in the room. How you use an hour in front of a room of people is up to you. Conference sessions don't have to be limited to bullets on a slide or purely declarative knowledge.
I'd hate to plod through some example that I could work through better on my own time.
At conferences I want to be exposed to new ideas that I can then go look up on my own. Just to pick an example at random, as someone who has never used Haskell, I'd much rather hear about "so, what the hell is a monad, really", rather than, say, someone sitting there showing me how to write hello world in Haskell.
I don't know about modesty, but it's correct that I was limiting myself to subjects that I know about. We have a shortage of truly great software designers and coders. So I think it's important that we shore up our methods for passing on knowledge and experience in these areas. If we treat it like somebody else's job, or academia's job, then we won't see the improvements that we want to see in conference quality, applicants for our job openings and so on.
Ever since I have watched your videos and read your blog, I've learned more about UX/UI than ever before. I don't think people realize how hard it is to find good content when getting started in the field. You hear about a lot of big name designers and UX/UI guys and try to learn from their twitter/blog but no one teaches like you do. I really appreciate your philosophy on teaching and honestly can't express how grateful I am for the content you have shared. If we meet someday I am definitely going to buy you a beer :)
My cocktail title at 37signals is "Product Manager," so whatever experiments are going on with management aren't completely past tense. I do UI design, work with the programmers, help design and dev work together and contribute strategy ideas to the partners.
Despite the cocktail title, there still isn't a clear "path of authority" or anything like that. The buck stops at the partners, and the rest of us function like a meritocracy. The ones with a track record or expertise on a given topic have a respected voice, and there is always opportunity for expertise to shift or widen over time. It's that fuzzy-edged quality to the role that makes it feel experimental for me.
I recommend going to a group to learn in person. It's easier to decide if you feel at home with a certain group of people than to judge books and theories about meditation when you don't have personal experience.
If you look for Buddhist groups, you'll find different kinds. The best way to avoid new-agey or flakey groups is to check their sources. Do they have a teacher who is a good example? Who was the teacher's teacher? Authentic Buddhist lineages of teacher and student trace themselves back for generations, and the teachers praise their teachers -- not themselves.
There are many authentic lineages. You'll find Japanese Zen schools which prefer a lot of discipline. There are also four Tibetan schools. The school of the Dalai Lama is called the Gelug school. It is the newest of the four schools and strongly emphasizes study and theory. The older Kagyu and Nyingma schools specialize in meditation and direct experience. In my experience, Kagyus tend to be more "learn by swimming" types and the Nyingma prefer a broad overview and more distance. I don't have experience with the fourth school, the Sakya.
I've meditated in the Kagyu school for six years now as part of the Diamond Way centers (http://www.lama-ole-nydahl.org/diamondway-buddhism/). Which group you find isn't important. The important thing if you want good results is that you find something authentic which fits you, and if it fits, stay with one thing without mixing. Different Buddhist schools use the same words for different things and different words for the same things, and it gets even more confusing if you mix Buddhist and non-Buddhist sources.
I heartily agree with the recommendation of going to a group to learn in person. Learning to meditate from a book is like learning to swim from a book; it may be possible, but it's far from optimal.
Personally, I do pretty traditional shamatha meditation these days.
Even within a single tradition, you may fine that some teachers click with you and some don't. It's a fine balance, but if you find someone who resonates with you, stick around and learn from them.
Some people have the notion that when you have a good idea, all you need is some money and time in order to be successful. It's not like that. You can have all the money in the world (look at big corps like Microsoft), and you can have great ideas, but unless you can execute, the money and ideas don't matter.
