← Guest Book Review: “User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development” by Mike Cohn   ●●●   The Top Product Management Blogs 2010 →

Strategic Thinker

November 26th, 2009 | Product Management, Strategy

I sometimes wonder what makes a person a ’strategic thinker’. What attributes does someone need to be considered a strategic thinker? I like to fashion myself as a strategic thinker. I know that in most situations, whether personal or professional, I will start to envision what the future will look like. I am not sure this is a distinguishing feature from anyone else. I suspect everyone, in some way, does mental scenario execution to gauge what the future might look like.

This page (link) provides some interesting attributes that assist in strategic thinking. These include using facts, working with boundaries, consequence and risk analysis and decision making.

There is no doubt that product management is a strategic role (or should be), but how do you put the right person in place when everyone will claim to be a strategic thinker. I am not sure there is magic recipe here, but having someone who has successful products in the past is a possible indicator they can repeat it. Not a guarantee though.

A lot of the work that product management should be doing helps one become a strategic thinker. All of those enhancements, win/loss reports, call reports are your facts. The boundaries are framed through your persona development and then consequence, risk analysis and decision making come out during roadmapping sessions and release planning.

Having all of these things doesn’t necessarily mean you will have a winning strategy, but it will give you some evidence to put in place a plan and allow you to think strategically.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related Posts:

  • Shared Links 09-Feb-2010
  • Budget and your Strategy
  • Agile 2010 Submission Request

    • markallenroberts
      The key to strategic thought is using facts not opinion, intuition, and my personal favorite…”years in this industry”. Find market truth, determine your internal truths as I discuss in my blog http://nosmokeandmirrors.wordpress.com/2009/11/... , and you have one more step…I will be blogging about the last truth this week.

      Once you have the truths, you can develop a strategy that is market driven and leverages your capabilities.

      Mark Allen Roberts
      www.outbsolutions.com
    • bobcorrigan
      "Facts" are slippery things, like statistics. Show the same set of them to someone with one year of experience and you'll get a different take than you'd get from a scarred veteran. Who is right? Who knows.

      But I do know that if you've got a process for gathering subjective and objective market evidence, you're better positioned to make solid strategic choices than an organization that relies primarily on the gut. Whaddya know, I've written an article on how to do this, and why it's hard: http://tinyurl.com/yjq966l
    • I'd actually take a step back and consider a Systems Thinker as opposed to a strategic thinker. A strategic thinker can envision a future. I would contend that even a tactical thinker can create such a picture. A systems thinker though is going to be able to turn thoughts into reality.
      From wikipedia -
      Systems thinking is any process of estimating or inferring how local policies, actions, or changes influence the state of the neighboring universe. It also can be defined, as an approach to problem solving, as viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to present outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further development of the undesired issue or problem.

      "Using facts, working with boundaries, consequence and risk analysis" all define the system your working within. Understanding this you can chart a course and make the necessary decisions.
    • Interesting term Larry, but I am not sure I understand the difference.
    • The product manager has an additional challenge when it comes to strategy, because the PM needs to solicit, understand, articulate and integrate the strategic thinking of the organization's leadership with the PM's own thinking on the topic.

      A typical PM failing is to be strategic in a vacuum - believing that, as the "product owner", the PM's thinking on strategy is somehow more important than anyone else's. This results in lots of unhappiness between the PM and management, with Predictable Results for the PM.

      "Being strategic" may also be at odds with what the organization expects from the PM, which is to "be tactical" (write requirements, manage launches, do demos, etc). This also results in a lot of unhappiness, more Predictable Results, but not as many exits.

      It's complicated. Best to be a shepherd.
    • It truly is a complicated and political role.
    • Great topic!

      Finding the data, comprehending the data, and applying the data are all starting points for a good product manager. But to really be strategic, you need to step beyond the data and be able to apply social, technical, and economic trends to your long term decisions.

      Thanks,

      Josh
    • These (social, technical, and economic) are all data points that must be considered in the big picture. Good point Josh!
    • I think of strategy in terms of context and consequences. Knowing the current big-picture is important to understanding context - making decisions that take into account the realities beyond the silo of the immediate decision you're facing. This helps with making globally-optimal decisions (versus locally optimal). That's definitely enough to be better at making decisions, but alone is not enough to be "strategic."

      Every product decision you make has consequences too - both internal and external. There are ramifications (if we add this capability, we impact our organization in the following way, which then leads to ...). Every decision you make also affects your market - it affects your customers and your competition.

      When you provide a solution to a particular problem for your customers, once they adapt to having that solution, their next question is "what is my biggest as-yet-unsolved problem?" This changes their needs.

      When you provide a solution (or better solution) to a particular problem, your competitors are now competing against something different - and will (or at least should) respond with changes to their product (or positioning or pricing or sales tactics).

      Thinking strategically, to me, then, must include thinking about the ramifications and responses to your actions. Like a game of chess - each time you move, you change the board. What then will your opposition's next move be (and how will it further change the board)?
    • This is a great analogy for developing a roadmap and using competitive intelligence as an input / validation step.
    • Similar to what Saeed mentioned, strategic thinking is understanding how the big picture and details fit together. Someone who focuses only on details and doesn't question and understand the big picture will never be strategic. But someone who is always striving to connect the details to larger goals and realities, and who plays a part in shaping those goals and realities, is a strategic thinker.
    • Well said Roger!
    • I view strategic thinking as a process of connecting dots in logical and prioritized ways.

      i.e. of all the things we could do to attain certain goals, here's what we should do, and here are the outcomes that can be achieved.

      It's about quickly filtering out less important factors and bringing clarity to those that are more important.

      I do agree with Chris that many people are not able to do this. People who can't make those early decisions on what is important and what is not, fall into either analysis paralysis or the opposite, which I call utopia myopia.

      http://onproductmanagement.net/2008/03/25/whats...

      Saeed
    • Anyone can make decisions, I wonder if the process is what holds them back.
    • Agreed. Anyone can make decisions, but the real skill is limited to those who consistently or regularly make good decisions about the paths to follow by focusing on what is important.
    • Yes.
    • Thinking in terms of a future vision is not something that comes naturally to everyone. Most people look for leadership to drive them forward to a future reality.

      In terms of strategy and being a strategic thinker you need to be able to plan that out in advance starting with your distinctive competence and what sets your product apart. Only then can you envision where you can lead.
    • Chris, I agree that it might not come naturally but I suspect everyone is capable.

      One question though, wouldn't your current distinctive competence potentially box you into too narrow a focus?
    • Great question Stewart! I think it really depends on your planning horizon. That is to say is the objective to build on your past success or to move away from an earlier strategy.

      I think you could argue a lot of companies have built their product to be an industry leader. And then tried to diversify only to fail. Sometimes not being able to reproduce that initial success.

      What I am saying is that often times you have the strengths needed to build out or on your existing strategy to take on even more verticals or competitors. Due to your distinctive competence which gives you the advantage over your peers.

      If you think of it from a tactical strategy perspective sometimes it is always best to lead from a position of strength.
    • I still like the connection though. The distinctive competence sort of sits as an umbrella over your strategy and if the two are not aligned then you have a issue to be resolved.
    blog comments powered by Disqus