4 ms·

> One day, there may be graduate degrees and definite career paths to product management, but not today. What he has described is a multi disciplinary generali

by RyanZAG 11y ago

> One day, there may be graduate degrees and definite career paths to product management, but not today. What he has described is a multi disciplinary generalist with knowledge of each business sector and training in how to manage organizational goals and people. There is actually a current post graduate degree for that exact task - the MBA.

sologoub 11y ago
Unfortunately, many MBAs are still looking at the world through a manufacturing lens. Software sector is fairly different in that you don't have a conveyor belt and "plant size" is only marginally useful in that you cannot replicate productiveness exactly. For product marketing aspects of that job, an MBA is useful, but again, one needs very solid grounding in the subject matter itself. MBA is more of a way of thinking, as opposed to a blueprint in how to do X.
- jeffjose 11y ago
  I go to Wharton, and can weigh in from an inside perspective. There's a lot of interest for tech generally, and PM role is probably the most coveted one. This is because most companies favor people with a background in technology (or at the very least a passion for technology). You might be able to get a job/internship in a tech company in Ops, BizDev, Corporate Strategy or Finance with a whole lot of background in tech, but PM roles definitely require one.
  - stvswn 11y ago
    Also went to Wharton, and I'm a PM. My background was only a CS minor as an undergrad (8 years ago) and that I taught myself Rails in order to attempt a startup. This demonstrated a propensity for software but is completely useless practically. I've learned almost everything on the job. I use my MBA for: statistics (I'm stronger here than most SWEs), marketing, communication skills, and understanding business use cases. Watching very effective PMs, I think soft skills (leadership, communications) are more highly correlated with success than "technical prowess." The ability to grok technical concepts is kind of table stakes, but being very technically talented isn't necessary (and such talent would probably be wasted).
    - sologoub 11y ago
      Great perspective! From my own experience, having a strong grasp of the overall architecture and implications thereof is very important, however, thinking that you can do better than the Engineering team or that you know how that system should be designed is a liability. Collaboration is the name of the game.
      - stvswn 11y ago
        Right, I don't mean to imply that technical knowledge isn't central to the job. It is. But it can be learned. A lot of engineers on this thread might not realize that within MBA programs, the word is out -- "don't even try to be a PM, you need a technical background." As if "coding" is something ultra-intimidating and therefore if you can't already do it, you can't be a PM. My company has a reputation for this constraint, like we only hire people who were full-time SWEs in a past life. It's simply not true. Once you get here, though, you have to understand the technical architecture, for sure. But being a PM isn't alone among careers, here -- most careers have a steep learning curve when you're starting out.
    - MaxScheiber 11y ago
      I recently graduated from the Wharton / SEAS undergraduate dual-degree program. I can't currently think of any PMs that didn't have a technical background. I completely agree that being able to grok technical concepts is necessary, and that being a good software developer isn't. However, it is pretty difficult for someone to grok technical concepts in a way that can add value to software engineers without some soft of software engineering or computer science background. I haven't been able to think of a better way to pick up the technical context than to actually program. The banking analogy is the stereotype of the "clueless" MBA associate who didn't put in the two years as an analyst, can't build models, and therefore doesn't add much value to his or her analysts. In other words, I submit that it is significantly easier to fully understand the architecture, as sologoub is referring to, with a technical background. It seems like your CS minor and Rails experience gave you the necessary background, which supplements the soft skills that PMs also need. A lot of my friends and peers who were "interested in technology" but did not understand software engineering took jobs as PMMs, venture capital analysts, or investment banking analysts on a TMT desk. I think this makes sense; I can't see them being very good in a PM role. It wouldn't surprise me if this were somewhat different for MBAs, though.
sanderjd 11y ago
I like this. I'm a software developer but I often find myself on the "pro" side of debates about the value of an MBA (often with MBA-holders), and I have long thought product management is the most important role in a software company, but I didn't realize until I read your comment that those two opinions are probably one and the same.

by RyanZAG 11y ago

sologoub 11y ago

Unfortunately, many MBAs are still looking at the world through a manufacturing lens. Software sector is fairly different in that you don't have a conveyor belt and "plant size" is only marginally useful in that you cannot replicate productiveness exactly. For product marketing aspects of that job, an MBA is useful, but again, one needs very solid grounding in the subject matter itself. MBA is more of a way of thinking, as opposed to a blueprint in how to do X.

jeffjose 11y ago
I go to Wharton, and can weigh in from an inside perspective. There's a lot of interest for tech generally, and PM role is probably the most coveted one. This is because most companies favor people with a background in technology (or at the very least a passion for technology). You might be able to get a job/internship in a tech company in Ops, BizDev, Corporate Strategy or Finance with a whole lot of background in tech, but PM roles definitely require one.
- stvswn 11y ago
  Also went to Wharton, and I'm a PM. My background was only a CS minor as an undergrad (8 years ago) and that I taught myself Rails in order to attempt a startup. This demonstrated a propensity for software but is completely useless practically. I've learned almost everything on the job. I use my MBA for: statistics (I'm stronger here than most SWEs), marketing, communication skills, and understanding business use cases. Watching very effective PMs, I think soft skills (leadership, communications) are more highly correlated with success than "technical prowess." The ability to grok technical concepts is kind of table stakes, but being very technically talented isn't necessary (and such talent would probably be wasted).
  - sologoub 11y ago
    Great perspective! From my own experience, having a strong grasp of the overall architecture and implications thereof is very important, however, thinking that you can do better than the Engineering team or that you know how that system should be designed is a liability. Collaboration is the name of the game.
    - stvswn 11y ago
      Right, I don't mean to imply that technical knowledge isn't central to the job. It is. But it can be learned. A lot of engineers on this thread might not realize that within MBA programs, the word is out -- "don't even try to be a PM, you need a technical background." As if "coding" is something ultra-intimidating and therefore if you can't already do it, you can't be a PM. My company has a reputation for this constraint, like we only hire people who were full-time SWEs in a past life. It's simply not true. Once you get here, though, you have to understand the technical architecture, for sure. But being a PM isn't alone among careers, here -- most careers have a steep learning curve when you're starting out.
  - MaxScheiber 11y ago
    I recently graduated from the Wharton / SEAS undergraduate dual-degree program. I can't currently think of any PMs that didn't have a technical background. I completely agree that being able to grok technical concepts is necessary, and that being a good software developer isn't. However, it is pretty difficult for someone to grok technical concepts in a way that can add value to software engineers without some soft of software engineering or computer science background. I haven't been able to think of a better way to pick up the technical context than to actually program. The banking analogy is the stereotype of the "clueless" MBA associate who didn't put in the two years as an analyst, can't build models, and therefore doesn't add much value to his or her analysts. In other words, I submit that it is significantly easier to fully understand the architecture, as sologoub is referring to, with a technical background. It seems like your CS minor and Rails experience gave you the necessary background, which supplements the soft skills that PMs also need. A lot of my friends and peers who were "interested in technology" but did not understand software engineering took jobs as PMMs, venture capital analysts, or investment banking analysts on a TMT desk. I think this makes sense; I can't see them being very good in a PM role. It wouldn't surprise me if this were somewhat different for MBAs, though.

sanderjd 11y ago

I like this. I'm a software developer but I often find myself on the "pro" side of debates about the value of an MBA (often with MBA-holders), and I have long thought product management is the most important role in a software company, but I didn't realize until I read your comment that those two opinions are probably one and the same.