This article simply talks about one reason that could cause a large product to fail. In my experience, an internal management focused approach is fine, but can

This article simply talks about one reason that could cause a large product to fail. In my experience, an internal management focused approach is fine, but can still lead to an organisation that is good at successfully failing. The focus on the team is interesting, specifically the "hold them accountable for clearly defined KPIs" point. What about the product owner and manager? What happens to them when the product is delivered feature complete and on schedule but still fails? As developers we have peer reviews, in my experience, product managers rarely have people review their work. Meaning there are very few people that can push the product manager to improve his/her strategy/tactics/approach. I find it's usually a senior manager or C level that has the most influence over a product manager. The flaw in this is that the person reviewing the work is not an expert practitioner thus cannot provide concrete advice. The author mixes in methods from LEAN and agile with statements such as: - "Start with the smallest scope you can deliver that provides value to your users." - "Let them choose their own tools and processes. And then support their decisions." However, given that is well tread ground, I think the author's main point is to address the issue in large teams whereby "no one is fully committed". The key piece of advice is "Pick a group of people who are willing and able to shake up the status quo in your organization." Nevertheless, I would say that the act of doing this naturally turns your project team from a large one into a small one. The advice is not unique and has definitely been tried, with myself witnessing a product manager that effectively created a startup within a startup. One should not discount the manifestation of this phenomenon as a visible sign of organisational disfunction. In addition to the implied comment that people not on a team were not good enough to meet certain criteria, you also end up with a clique situation as described by a former Valver [1]. All this comes back to the point that no one is fully committed and a toxic environment begins to form. Unfortunately the answer to getting commitment from people is even higher level and ethereal, best described as ensuring the company has mission and purpose. Similar to Dan Pink's focus on mastery, autonomy, and purpose - but executed at a cohesive organisational level. I would summarise what's needed as real leadership. Meaning someone that can rally everyone around a product and the company. Once you have defeated apathy, commitment can be channeled into extra-ordinary outcomes. What a lot of managers don't seem to understand, or be willing to practice, is that getting and building commitment often means building meaningful professional and personal relationships with the people you work with, which is at odds with the often mercenary nature of businesses. [1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/