The ethics of “conquering” other planets

I’ve been knee deep in hard sci-fi stories like Red Mars and Babylon’s Ashes over the past few months, so I have a special affinity for stories about space colonization at the moment. David H. Grinspoon’s The logistics and ethics of colonizing the red planet is a really interesting take on the ethics of colonizing a new planet:

Today on Earth we are grappling with the fact that you cannot “conquer” a planet, even if — especially if — it is your home and your life support system. If we go to Mars with the idea that we can charge ahead and subdue a new world, our efforts are doomed. We should rather study how we might learn to help cultivate a Martian Biosphere that is balanced and self-sustaining, as is the Earth’s.

When video games > work

The Economist has an in-depth and very interesting feature about people1 who forego regular employment to live with their parents and play video games instead. The kicker that Escape to another world closes with is quite something…

A life spent buried in video games, scraping by on meagre pay from irregular work or dependent on others, might seem empty and sad. Whether it is emptier and sadder than one spent buried in finance, accumulating points during long hours at the office while neglecting other aspects of life, is a matter of perspective. But what does seem clear is that the choices we make in life are shaped by the options available to us. A society that dislikes the idea of young men gaming their days away should perhaps invest in more dynamic difficulty adjustment in real life. And a society which regards such adjustments as fundamentally unfair should be more tolerant of those who choose to spend their time in an alternate reality, enjoying the distractions and the succour it provides to those who feel that the outside world is more rigged than the game.


  1. Well, young men… 

Rogue One as a story about engineering and design ethics

Spoilers abound so proceed with caution, but Rogue One: an ‘Engineering Ethics’ Story is so very good:

What Galen Erso does is not simply watch a system be built and then whistleblow; he actively shaped the design from its earliest stages considering its ultimate societal impacts. These early design decisions are proactive rather than reactive, which is part of the broader engineering ethics lesson of Rogue One.

The exploration of how Galen didn’t just walk away but took an active role in the destruction of the Death Star is interesting and highly relevant to what I consider an “ethical awakening” in our use of technology. It’s one thing to #DeleteUber — and those campaigns can certainly be effective, in that case to the tune of 500,000 accounts. It’s quite another to “infiltrate” your company and basically sabotage its technology because you believe it’s ethically dubious. The really complicated question is who gets to decide whether or not a company’s “ultimate societal impact” is good or bad. And, of course, who watches the watchers…

Doing research when you have no time or money

In How to get the most value out of remote user research (without breaking the bank) I write about our research process at Postmark. I know a lot has been written about research, so why add more words? The main thing I wanted to discuss is how we designed a process within a pretty impossible-sounding constraint:

Improve our products iteratively through research without slowing down our development process or increasing our stress levels at work.

So the post goes over the different things we put in place to try to do that. Check it out!

Alexa, make my kids more self-sufficient

I accidentally went to a Best Buy the other day. To make a long story short, after an unplanned but long and pleasant chat with an Amazon rep I walked out with an Amazon Echo. Much has been written about Alexa and how good it is, and everything you’ve read about it is accurate. But I want to focus on a different aspect of Alexa: how it’s making my kids more self-sufficient.

See, the thing about kids is, they need you all the time. And that’s cool, because we’re their parents and we love them and we want to be there for them. But some tasks are incredibly boring and menial. I’ve outsourced some of those to Alexa to the great delight of our kids, who continue to find new things she never gets tired of doing.

Alexa, turn on some music that Mom and Dad are totally sick of

The biggest win for my kids so far has been the realization that they can listen to any music they want to. Right now it’s the Moana and Trolls soundtracks. Over and over and over and over and over and… But that’s ok, because my wife and I can be in another room, and they can listen to Get your hair up as much as they want without driving us insane.

Alexa, help us not fight over the iPad

We let our kids do iPad. Let’s just get that out of the way first. Anyway, it’s usually a choice between TV or iPad, and when they choose iPad it tends to result in a constant fight over whose turn it is. Not any more. Now they each get two turns of 10 minutes, and Alexa keeps score. They use Alexa to set the timer, and there hasn’t been any fighting (well, about this…) since.

Alexa, make us laugh

My daughters aren’t big fans of my jokes. It’s fine, I’m not bitter about it. Anyway, they discovered Alexa tells jokes too. I personally think my jokes are way better than hers, and here’s my proof:

Like I said, I’m not bitter about it.

Alexa, are we bad parents?

This is, of course, the big question when it comes to technology. Should we immerse our kids in it or should we shield them from it? We all find our own way when it comes to parenting, and even though we’re still working on what this technology balance looks like, my current feeling is that voice-activated UI doesn’t have many of the issues that are traditionally brought up as negatives about kids and technology.

First of all, Alexa is inherently social. It’s conversational, friendly, and it never gets tired. We laugh at her together. The Echo is not an “alone” device, and I think there’s something really powerful about that. But second, it’s also really useful. Our kids love asking it questions, and coming up with new ways to trick it into a misunderstanding.

Conversational UI certainly has a long way to go. But I will say that I am so far pleasantly surprised with the natural way in which it integrates with our family life. It’s not a substitute for human interaction and connection, and our kids get that. But as a useful playmate of an entirely “other” type of technology, it’s a winner.

Deep Work and the power of attention

Craig Mod’s How I Got My Attention Back is one of those essays that I think will become a classic. It strikes that rare and difficult balance of talking about technology dependence without falling into the “ALL TECHNOLOGY BAD!” trap we often see in similar pieces. There’s so much that resonated with me, but this part in particular stood out:

The more I thought about my attention the more I thought about the limits to human scale. How technologies inevitably amplify ourselves — the best and worst parts — in a way that is almost impossible for us to comprehend. How that scale is so easily co-opted to attenuate our attention with the worst possible diet of high-sugar, high-carb nothingness.

I also appreciated the point he makes that as much as we tend to blame ourselves for being too “weak-willed” to give up Facebook or Twitter, we have to remember that there are thousands of people on the other side of that product who are trying to figure out new and innovative ways for us not to give it up. He quotes from Bianca Bosker’s Addicted to Your iPhone? You’re Not Alone:

“You could say that it’s my responsibility” to exert self-control when it comes to digital usage, he explains, “but that’s not acknowledging that there’s a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job is to break down whatever responsibility I can maintain.” In short, we’ve lost control of our relationship with technology because technology has become better at controlling us.

I’ve had my own struggles with this over the past year as I dealt with a huge personal loss. In the end, my re-entry to a more sustainable online presence came from a very unlikely source: a book I would never have read if someone didn’t force me…

Our CEO sent us all a copy of Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World and asked us to read it. I expected to snigger my way through it but boy, was I wrong. It is a fantastic plea for taking back our attention at work, and it provides some really useful guidelines on how to do that. For my part, the idea of “work blocks” is one I’ve taken to heart, and it’s done wonders for my productivity. I also bit the bullet on RescueTime, and it really is as good and useful as everyone says it is.

Work blocks

For more on work blocks and other non-digital productivity methods, check out Chris Bowler’s excellent resource on Working with Pen & Paper.

So I guess my one recommendation is, read Deep Work. Even if (or maybe especially if?) you don’t usually like business books. You won’t be disappointed.

Product Management for well-established products

There’s a lot you need to get right when launching a new product. There’s figuring out the user needs and the business goals; there’s testing hypothesis and finding product/market fit; there’s prioritizing the roadmap (or more likely these days, deciding not to use a roadmap at all)… the list goes on and on. So naturally there’s quite a bit of writing on this topic. Most product management advice (including, ahem, a certain book) covers this area of fresh or updated products very well. What we see less of is articles and books about how to manage a well-established product.

What do I define as a well-established product? It’s fuzzy, but I see it roughly as a product that has been in the market for more than a couple of years, has a steady and growing revenue stream, as well as a few healthy competitors. The reason I’m interested in well-established products is because, well, Postmark (where I work) is one. We have a product that most of our customers love, and it’s growing in both users and revenue. Of course we have ideas on how to make it better, but we’re in a different stage of our journey. We’re not frantically playing catchup with competitors or trying to complete a bunch of features that aren’t adding value to any customers yet.

This is, I’ll admit, a wonderful position to be in as a product manager. But it doesn’t mean there’s no work to do. I’ll stop short of pulling out the “software is never done” trope (in fact, I’d argue that software can be done). I will say that we’re definitely not done with ours yet. So as a product manager, I learned this year that well-established products face a different set of challenges than newer products. Here’s an incomplete list of my hypotheses about managing such products:

  • Prioritization becomes a much finer art (with a little less science).
  • Roadmaps become more important.
  • Process becomes more necessary.

I’d like to spend a little time discussing each of these issues separately.

Weekend work

Prioritization

When I started at Postmark we went through a full product discovery and prioritization exercise. I wrote a long post about it on our blog: How we built a product vision and roadmap. I also followed that up a few months later with From roadmap to shipping: effective product management for remote teams — a post on how we moved from strategy to execution. Something I didn’t get into in those posts is how my understanding of prioritization evolved as we moved further into the details.

Postmark is a tool for developers. That means that feedback from customers comes in often, and it comes in detailed. Feature requests are usually incredibly specific (and useful), ranging from a field that’s needed in an API, to missing functionality and how that affects their business. Due to the sheer volume of high-quality feedback we get, I learned quickly that I needed an efficient way to categorize and prioritize things as they come in, otherwise everything would just go die on a backlog somewhere.

The biggest shift here was to move to a system where we prioritize themes, not individual problems or features. A theme is loosely defined as a particular customer problem or opportunity we need to solve — similar to the “hypothesis” nomenclature in lean development. Now, when new ideas come in to JIRA (Yes, yes, I know; more on JIRA later) — either internally or from customers — I follow a set of steps to (1) process and (2) prioritize them:

  1. First I do a gut check: is this something we’d ever do? Does it point to a customer problem or business opportunity that would be beneficial for all of us to solve? If so, great. If not, the request gets rejected with a note so we can get back to the customer or internal stakeholder.
  2. If a theme already exists for a particular idea (e.g., Improvements to the Bounce webhook, or Improvements to the Statistics page), I add it there, and considered it processed. It would be too overwhelming to think through the details of every single idea, but I know that when the time comes to work on a particular theme, it’ll be there, and we’ll go through it then.
  3. If a theme doesn’t already exist for that idea, it gets a little trickier. Is this important enough to group together with other things to create a new theme? Do we expand a theme to “make room” for the idea? This is where things get decidedly less certain, and I have to be comfortable with a certain amount of fluidity. I might create a new theme, only to merge it into something else later. That’s ok. As long as it’s somewhere manageable where we won’t forget about it, I’m happy.

During our quarterly planning I don’t make the team go through every single JIRA ticket (to their enormous relief). Instead, we discuss our OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) for the quarter, and then decide which themes to work on that line up with those OKRs. Once our themes are prioritized, I work with the teams to figure out how best to address it — it’s usually a combination of some of the ideas already inside that theme, and a few new ones we come up with.

And this leads me to my next point…

Roadmaps

I’m still quite amazed at how out-of-fashion roadmaps have become. It seems to me that a lot of people got burnt by 2-year corporate plans that weren’t allowed to change, and then decided that the only way to deal with that (admittedly atrocious) situation was to get rid of roadmaps altogether.

I respectfully disagree.

I’ve written about this before, so I’ll just reiterate one bit here:

The purpose of a product roadmap is to set forth a long-term vision for the business, and break that up into smaller, meaningful pieces of work, based on what you know now. It’s fallacy to believe that this is an unchangeable list of dates about where the business is headed. A product roadmap that doesn’t react to day-to-day changes in the market and within the company is a pretty dumb document.

This is, in my experience, especially true for a well-established product. There is a lot more leeway to mess around and see where things go on a new product. With an established product, it’s way too easy to get off track (Evernote, anyone…?). So what I argue for is a flexible quarterly roadmap of prioritized themes. You don’t write down dates next to a long list of features. You don’t make hard commitments for releases that might never happen.

Instead, you put together a list of themes you’d like to work on, in order of priority, based on how closely they align with your objectives and key results for the quarter. And then you meet every week as a core team to discuss a couple of things:

  • Did any new theme arise over the week that is important for us to discuss?
  • If so, and if we should work on it soon, what does it replace?
  • If not, then let’s get back to work.

This keeps the roadmap flexible, and it keeps the team aligned on what the most important themes are for the product and our customers.

Process

Which brings me to my last point… process. I’ll quote Michael Lopp on this until the day I die:

Engineers don’t hate process. They hate process that can’t defend itself.

Considering the sheer number of detailed input we get on the product as well as the amazing ideas coming from inside the team, there’s no way I could just wing it. Maybe there are some PMs who can hold everything together in some kind of virtual kanban board in their heads, but I just can’t do that.

So yes, we use JIRA, and you know what? It works for us. The Customer Success and Marketing teams submit ideas and hypotheses with links to the customers who request it. If and when those ideas make it into a theme, they continue to add more customers to it as we go. They can always see where something is in the development process, and when it gets released they get to go tell a bunch of customers that the thing they asked for is now live. And that is really cool.

I understand why people hate JIRA, I really do. But I think I’m such a big proponent of it because we were able to come up with a way for it to benefit the whole team, and actually make their lives easier, not harder. We have a process that can defend itself. And I don’t think you can work on a well-established product without something like that.


This year has been an enormous learning experience for me. I’ve never worked on a product like Postmark before. It’s a product that is basically universally loved, where feedback comes in from people who are passionate about it and can’t imagine their development lives with out it.

As much as it is a dream to work on a product like this, I feel like I had to learn a whole new set of skills to be effective as a product manager in such an environment. I know I still have a long way to go, but I can tell you one thing — I’m excited to learn more in 2017.

Effective product management for remote teams

A few months ago I wrote a post about how we build a product vision and roadmap for Postmark. It’s now almost 6 months later, and I just published a big post on the Postmark blog about how things are going. From roadmap to shipping: effective product management for remote teams is about how we moved from vision to execution, and how we dealt with the many challenges that remote teams bring to the equation. For example, on communication:

As a remote team we have to walk a fine line between working in private and working in public. We see this as a basic sine wave, where balance is extremely important. Work in private too much and you become silo’d and isolated. Work in public too much and it gets distracting for the rest of the team (and you never get time to focus). So we ran with the sine wave metaphor to create a diagram that outlines our ideal approach to private/public working and how we gather feedback.

You can view the post to see this diagram as well as a bunch of other topics:

  • How we made the transition from an exciting grand vision to the daily grind of working on projects and features to make that vision a reality.
  • What tools we decided to use on a day-to-day basis to keep everything running smoothly — and how our use of these tools evolved over time.
  • The challenges and opportunities of being a (mostly) remote team, and how we try to make sure we communicate enough without overdoing it.
  • Some remaining challenges we haven’t quite figured out yet.

Easy features can be very expensive

James Gill has a good overview of How bad features are born:

Most importantly, does this feature deserve to exist? Why are you working on it?

If you’re embarking on a new feature primarily because you’ve seen a competitor release something similar, then you probably haven’t thoroughly considered or even identified the problem you’re trying to solve. If you’re jumping into a new feature because it seems like “it wouldn’t be too hard to do” that’s great, but does it actually deserve to be built right now?

The biggest danger I see is this “it’s easy to implement” argument. A feature might be easy to implement, but that doesn’t make it “cheap”. The problem with implementing even easy features is that they’ll most likely remain in the product forever. That creates the potential for lots of (expensive) maintenance and support.

Also see How Much Does A New Feature Cost?

Effective remote teams over-share

Joe Tullio has some good tips for remote teams in Distributed UX teams: Early lessons learned. This part, in particular, is something I think many teams ignore because it can feel like busywork:

At Google, we have an internal “snippets” tool for posting regular updates on our work, typically at a weekly cadence. Snippets serve to share the latest mock versions, research reports, study plans, hiring updates, and anything else that feels noteworthy.

To be fair, snippets are a diligence task; I’ve been on teams where these updates were neglected for months at a time. However, my far-flung teammates have been instrumental in encouraging the rest of us to share updates, as they benefit greatly from seeing them. We’ve come up with several ways of reminding ourselves to do them, through calendar appointments, shared compilations, and as a last resort, the tried-and-true email nag.

I’ve written about a similar approach we follow in Useful daily standup meetings for remote teams, and I stand by it. The benefits far outweighs the “cost” of spending a few minutes thinking about your day and updating your team about what you’re working on.

More

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. ...
  7. 113