3 ms·

I like the separation of The Company, but highly disagree with keeping The Customer separated from The Product. I would like to see more of what can be done as

I like the separation of The Company, but highly disagree with keeping The Customer separated from The Product. I would like to see more of what can be done as we focus more on combining these, not segregating them. As a developer the very rare chances I have had to go on a sales visit were eye opening in an astounding way. Sure, maybe don't have developers cold calling, but making product developers a part of the sales process can only help with the feedback loop.

AstralStorm 10y ago
The branches should never be separate, in the end every branch cares about final product, that it sells. What is missing in the model is strategy - there should be people responsible for an overall strategy. That part requires communication with all branches while having a general vision. In a small company, that function always belongs to CEO. Next, someone who cares about internal company health. In some companies, this would be called "operations". Those people would handle adherence to rules, mood and day to day infrastructure. (maybe part of hiring process) Think of them as legal branch of a government. This makes it four. Tossing these two as one (company machine) is problematic. Strategy needs to "be plugged into" all of the processes quite directly, as well as being aware of external conditions.
beat 10y ago
Some segregation is inevitable. It's a result of complexity. At a certain point, the company becomes too big and complex for everyone to be doing everything, and you need to specialize, not just distribute the work. The Product/Customer divide makes sense to me, because what you do about them is different. Sure, customer steers product and vice versa, but the "Customer" machine is about sales funnels, marketing language, customer service, etc. The "Product" machine is about specs, coding, release schedules, etc. Implementing a new feature and selling a new feature are different tasks, requiring different skillsets.
lloyddobbler 10y ago
I think your hangup may be more about the words Brad used to describe the 3 machines than their actual functions (which I totally understand. I had the same initial reaction to Brad's post. Across the board, every part of the org should be customer-focused.) Another way of naming these 3 distinct operating groups: Build | Acquire | Operate Or in our company's case, GTM - Go To Market | EPD - Engineering, Product & Design | G&A - General & Administrative I don't think Brad meant to imply that only one branch was focused on customers. I think it was just a simplification to make the names more accountability-focused & less function-focused, as Brad worked through it. (NOTE: I'm an employee of the company that sparked this post.)

AstralStorm 10y ago

The branches should never be separate, in the end every branch cares about final product, that it sells. What is missing in the model is strategy - there should be people responsible for an overall strategy. That part requires communication with all branches while having a general vision. In a small company, that function always belongs to CEO. Next, someone who cares about internal company health. In some companies, this would be called "operations". Those people would handle adherence to rules, mood and day to day infrastructure. (maybe part of hiring process) Think of them as legal branch of a government. This makes it four. Tossing these two as one (company machine) is problematic. Strategy needs to "be plugged into" all of the processes quite directly, as well as being aware of external conditions.

beat 10y ago

Some segregation is inevitable. It's a result of complexity. At a certain point, the company becomes too big and complex for everyone to be doing everything, and you need to specialize, not just distribute the work. The Product/Customer divide makes sense to me, because what you do about them is different. Sure, customer steers product and vice versa, but the "Customer" machine is about sales funnels, marketing language, customer service, etc. The "Product" machine is about specs, coding, release schedules, etc. Implementing a new feature and selling a new feature are different tasks, requiring different skillsets.

lloyddobbler 10y ago

I think your hangup may be more about the words Brad used to describe the 3 machines than their actual functions (which I totally understand. I had the same initial reaction to Brad's post. Across the board, every part of the org should be customer-focused.) Another way of naming these 3 distinct operating groups: Build | Acquire | Operate Or in our company's case, GTM - Go To Market | EPD - Engineering, Product & Design | G&A - General & Administrative I don't think Brad meant to imply that only one branch was focused on customers. I think it was just a simplification to make the names more accountability-focused & less function-focused, as Brad worked through it. (NOTE: I'm an employee of the company that sparked this post.)