3 ms·

I think a big part of the problem is bad design, churn, and lack of technical skill in product managers.

uoaei 3y ago
So why am I getting passed up for product manager positions? Is this problem not recognized in industry or is there more to the story?
laerus 3y ago
It's good to have product and project managers with technical skills but the problem is when they make technical decisions and disguise them as requirements.
lmeyerov 3y ago
The article's stance is those are effects, not causes: As a product succeeds and establishes lockin, management may decide that devoting resources to improving the product's design has less relative ROI than devoting those resources to targeting new users who are not locked in. Those new users may be in an adjacent market that needs new features, which is typical when a product started in an intentionally narrow niche. New features crowd out the designs for old market users -- it's hard to stuff 10lb of shit in a 5lb bag -- and as the senior PMs & designers move to the new growth areas, more junior ones sub in to the old ones, and struggle even more. It takes a LOT of design & product discipline & effort to avoid this. I think that's generally a disaster for consumer products, but in enterprise, which often pays for everyone else, the issue is much less clear, and especially on time scales that matter to individual employees. I'm always impressed when companies escape these kind of disincentive structures!
- safety1st 3y ago
  It's a weird article because he muses about what the causes might be, and quotes/links Corey Doctorow. If you follow the link Doctorow explains what he thinks the causes of enshittification are. Very broadly they boil down to monopoly/market power and governments either crafting the law to favor big tech or failing to enforce it when it doesn't. Doctorow is right and it basically all comes down to competition. Internal politics or internal anything aren't really the pivotal factor in product quality. To understand this you have to look at the market not just one company in it. If Company X has a lot of competition and product quality is required to beat them, it'll inevitably improve its quality or die. But put that same company in a situation where they have no effective competitors and it's virtually guaranteed that product quality will start to slip. Stuff like "oh they have good engineers and give them the time to make stuff better" is an effect not a cause. Competitive marketplace -> investment in R&D -> higher quality products.
  - mason55 3y ago
    Yeah if you look at products that went from good to bad and started getting good again, it’s almost always due to competitors starting to have an impact. People will disagree with me but Jira is getting a lot better lately and I’m convinced it’s due to competition that popped up because Jira sucked so much. The challenge is going back to a mode of building a good product again. Not only do you have to notice that you’re losing and be willing to invest again, you have to kick out all the extractors and convince the craftspeople to come work on a product that they all think is a piece of shit.
  - lmeyerov 3y ago
    Agreed, I think the monopoly scenarios play out similarly/worse to the lock in ones -- monopolies are basically the extreme case of lock in. They're the ultimate removal of end-user influence on purchase decisions. Frustratingly, well-designed competition isn't necessarily enough, especially for b2b. Even when there is a challenger, that mostly impacts new customers. For locked in ones, renewal cycles and implementation burden may make it more 6-10 year levels to even be a serious conversation as long one as the legacy product functions. There are only so many Global 10K's, and that's a good chunk of the b2b user population. An interesting way to avoid the trap is 'mission focus'. If a company culture is mission-focused -- which is often easier in founder-led scenarios -- then decisions come from more than these $ reactions.

So why am I getting passed up for product manager positions? Is this problem not recognized in industry or is there more to the story?

laerus 3y ago

It's good to have product and project managers with technical skills but the problem is when they make technical decisions and disguise them as requirements.

lmeyerov 3y ago

The article's stance is those are effects, not causes: As a product succeeds and establishes lockin, management may decide that devoting resources to improving the product's design has less relative ROI than devoting those resources to targeting new users who are not locked in. Those new users may be in an adjacent market that needs new features, which is typical when a product started in an intentionally narrow niche. New features crowd out the designs for old market users -- it's hard to stuff 10lb of shit in a 5lb bag -- and as the senior PMs & designers move to the new growth areas, more junior ones sub in to the old ones, and struggle even more. It takes a LOT of design & product discipline & effort to avoid this. I think that's generally a disaster for consumer products, but in enterprise, which often pays for everyone else, the issue is much less clear, and especially on time scales that matter to individual employees. I'm always impressed when companies escape these kind of disincentive structures!

safety1st 3y ago
It's a weird article because he muses about what the causes might be, and quotes/links Corey Doctorow. If you follow the link Doctorow explains what he thinks the causes of enshittification are. Very broadly they boil down to monopoly/market power and governments either crafting the law to favor big tech or failing to enforce it when it doesn't. Doctorow is right and it basically all comes down to competition. Internal politics or internal anything aren't really the pivotal factor in product quality. To understand this you have to look at the market not just one company in it. If Company X has a lot of competition and product quality is required to beat them, it'll inevitably improve its quality or die. But put that same company in a situation where they have no effective competitors and it's virtually guaranteed that product quality will start to slip. Stuff like "oh they have good engineers and give them the time to make stuff better" is an effect not a cause. Competitive marketplace -> investment in R&D -> higher quality products.
- mason55 3y ago
  Yeah if you look at products that went from good to bad and started getting good again, it’s almost always due to competitors starting to have an impact. People will disagree with me but Jira is getting a lot better lately and I’m convinced it’s due to competition that popped up because Jira sucked so much. The challenge is going back to a mode of building a good product again. Not only do you have to notice that you’re losing and be willing to invest again, you have to kick out all the extractors and convince the craftspeople to come work on a product that they all think is a piece of shit.
- lmeyerov 3y ago
  Agreed, I think the monopoly scenarios play out similarly/worse to the lock in ones -- monopolies are basically the extreme case of lock in. They're the ultimate removal of end-user influence on purchase decisions. Frustratingly, well-designed competition isn't necessarily enough, especially for b2b. Even when there is a challenger, that mostly impacts new customers. For locked in ones, renewal cycles and implementation burden may make it more 6-10 year levels to even be a serious conversation as long one as the legacy product functions. There are only so many Global 10K's, and that's a good chunk of the b2b user population. An interesting way to avoid the trap is 'mission focus'. If a company culture is mission-focused -- which is often easier in founder-led scenarios -- then decisions come from more than these $ reactions.