Product manager vs. project manager: who is what, and why is each important

During our first 2 weeks of class, I have been assessing how my company handles project management, and where to find our PMO group. Regrettably, our company does not have a dedicated group that handles all our company’s projects. This led myself to re-assess how our company operates under its current organization, which based on our customer needs, Hotwire serves to be a fun, spontaneous travel site that attracts advantageous travel geeks. Our goal is to develop a great travel experience, and this hinges on product development. Product development has similarities with project management, developing a scope, executing on the deliverables, quality control, and completion. So I searched what was the main difference between these organizational groups, and found an article that describes how a product manager sees the difference (listed at the end of this post).

The article discuss the differences between product and project management. Product management is “focused on the end-to-end life cycle of an identified value-proposition”, and I see this group supporting an on-going goal. Ultimately, product managers serve the purpose of delivering products to its customers. The article breaks down project management simply as having a “narrower scope, delivering an outcome defined by someone else”, and which gives the impression that project managers have a purpose based on around strategic decision makers.  The article gave me the impression that product managers are miss understood, and should have a clearer view of their role in the organization.

So, I as reflect on the author’s view of product management and project management, I see the similarities with my own firm, but in the reverse. Project managers have an unclear role in our organization because of how our company organizes it’s priorities around product development. As a Hotel Account Manager, I work closely with our product teams, who oversee different functionalities on our site. These functionalities include product placement, special tagging, promotion features, and specialized amenities (like free parking or complimentary breakfast). In addition to these different product types, our product teams are organized into different categories like mobile, supplier tools, content, pricing and email marketing.

When it comes to our company’s project managers, they are involved in new product releases, technology conversions, and having ownership over key initiatives. Some of these initiatives are related to our companies score card that track different strategy goals, and our project managers are either key senior managers or proven contributors assigned to a special project. To give further insight, our team assigned one of Regional Managers a project to oversee a conversion of a sister travel site. Our Regional Manager led the project for 3 months, and after completing the project, continued to manage his region. Ultimately, I believe our company is set up for success, but I wonder how we could be a better organization with a dedicated PMO team.

Does anyone see a similar project management set up with their organization?

http://www.jtpedersen.net/2013/01/25/whats-the-difference-project-manager-vs-product-manager/

 

Agile: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

According to the Project Management Institute website, the PMI Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP) is their fastest growing certification.

In the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Agile methods are discussed under the Project Lifecycle definition as follows:

“Adaptive project life cycle, a project life cycle, also known as change-driven or agile methods, that is intended to facilitate change and require a high degree of ongoing stakeholder involvement. Adaptive life cycles are also iterative and incremental, but differ in that iterations are very rapid (usually 2-4 weeks in length) and are fixed in time and resources.”

The Agile concept grew out of collaboration between seventeen software developers around 2001. Their ideas evolved into the publication of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development, focusing on “delivering good products to customers by operating in an environment that does more than talk about “people as our most important asset” but actually “acts” as if people were the most important, and lose the word “asset”.”

According to our textbook, “The key point is that traditional PM techniques were developed to operate in the predictable zone where the scope of the project is fairly well defined and technology to be used is established. Agile lives in the unpredictable zone.” (Larson and Gray 584). Key differentiators of Agile include; continuous design, flexible scope, high uncertainty, and self-organizing teams engaged in high customer interaction.

Clearly Agile Project Management has reached the point of mainstream adoption. In our ever shifting, rapidly expanding world, think of the following types of projects which fall into the Agile sweet spot:

  • Where requirements will change drastically during the lifecycle.
  • The customer does not provide the specifics of what they want up front, but has a loose idea instead.

I spoke with a coworker, an experienced Product Manager, who feels that Agile is great in concept, but harder in implementation, especially in large organizations. The Agile model thrives on simplicity, which may be difficult to achieve in a big firm. Our employer is global, so a geographically distributed Engineering and Marketing group makes face-to-face meetings more difficult and prolongs the quick iterations that Agile strives for. Although, technology is helping to bridge the gaps.

Another topic of discussion surrounded total buy-in at the enterprise level. Agile is not something to dip your toes in. Success is realized and repeated through dedicated Agile teams. The Agile model does not necessarily align with a matrix team environment and may end up defeating the purpose due to a lack of team cohesion.

 

Questions / Discussion:

What are your thoughts on Agile Project Management? Good, bad, indifferent?

Feel free to share any personal experiences surrounding Agile, a shift away from Traditional PM or a hybrid approach.

Is it realistic to introduce Agile on a team-by-team basis? Do you see any roadblocks?

 

References:

http://www.pmi.org/certification/agile-management-acp.aspx

http://agilemanifesto.org/

Larson, Erik W. and Gray, Clifford F. (2011). Project Management: The Managerial Process. New    York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Japan’s Car market conundrum

In class, we discussed the idea that productivity is a measurement derived from how much outputs are produced over how many inputs are put into the production. Knowing how important production is, I decided to compare the math with the practice of making cars.

An article in the Economist discusses how large Japanese automobile manufacturers such as Nissan, Toyota, and Honda make money by large productivity. The article reports that many car makers believe that a firm must churn out at least 6 million cars in order to make money. This makes sense, as more production eventually becomes cheaper due to economies of scale.

However, the main purpose of the article was examining how market followers, such as Mazda, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, and Subaru are making a profit without the mass production. Being smaller firms, they do not have the means to compete on volume, as is the norm with the market leaders. To further emphasize their desire for independence, many car markers have thumbed their nose at merging with their larger competitors, instead focusing on exporting their cars to the US, and capitalizing on cheap labor from places such as India. So, through a mixture of tax breaks and the focus on improving efficient consumption of oil, smaller car manufacturers have been able to cling to their independence.

However, there are problems on the horizon. It is apparent that many of the large car manufacturers are focusing on new fuel mediums. This is due primarily to the effect oil pollution has on the environment. Pro-environmental pressures are making noise about continued development of oil-powered cars. In addition to these pressures, government officials add further strain by passing stiff taxes on the purchase of oil. It is known that the development of cleaner fuel will result in more jobs, but it also puts the smaller car manufacturers at a disadvantage.

In this market, it can safely be assumed that the market followers should have merged with the leaders. In this case, productivity is, indeed, an important component. In the current situation, these car manufacturers enjoy freedom from the sway of the big three. However, in the long run, the tax breaks and oil efficiency will be phased out, and once more, productivity will be the primary dominant measurement of success.

However, falling oil prices may stave off environmental watchdogs and provide a saving grace for the smaller companies, allowing them time to transition from oil to another fuel source. Also aiding these smaller companies is Japan’s history of supporting failing businesses. But it is uncertain whether or not this will be enough to prop up the smaller companies, as Japan has just exited a deflationary period, resulting in a weakened currency and a more expensive bailout bill .

Given all of this, what do you think that the followers should do to protect their business? Do you think that gas prices will afford enough protection? Will Japan continue their history of bailing out failing companies now that they have weaker currency?

“Lots of Oomph; Japanese Carmakers.” Economist 25 Oct. 2014: 68. Print.

“Replacing Oil: Alternative Fuels and Technology.” Replacing Oil: Alternative Fuels and Technology. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Burger King Vs. McDonalds

1104_BKGlobal                          1104_BKAmerica

Burger King and McDonalds have historically been pretty similar companies. They both provide fast and convenient food for a low price, and tend to offer similar types of food. This past year, however, the two companies have been losing some of those similarities. As a result of this, both have been performing differently as well.

For almost every player currently in the fast food industry, the last couple of years have been rough. Consumer preferences have been changing, there is more competition, and economic problems have hit the industry hard in comparison to many other industries. Burger King, however, has been able to make some progress while their biggest competitor, McDonalds, has continued to take a hit. The reason behind this seems to be the difference in strategy both companies have chosen.

As Burger King continues their attempts to rebrand themselves, they’ve done a couple things that have worked out well for them. Most notably, they have reduced the size of their menu but increased the quality of items they continue to offer. McDonalds on the other hand continues to develop and offer more items. This has caused an increase in complexity and a decrease in the quality of what they’re offering. After looking at how both companies have performed over the last year, it’s pretty obvious that Burger King has taken the better route.

When attempting to choose the process strategy of a company, the executives need to focus on customer requirements, cost, and efficiency. Burger King’s strategy has done a good job in all of these aspects. They’ve been able to increase the quality of the products they offer, tailoring them the preferences of their customers, while also reducing cost. Their money isn’t tied up in new product development or in item lines that aren’t attractive to the market. McDonalds has basically done the opposite. By continuing to develop and introduce multiple new products, their cost has risen and they haven’t been able to focus on what their customers’ preferences are. McDonalds is big enough and does have the money to do this and not notice any substantial loss in market share, but if they continue to do it, that might not continue. If the trends of this last year continue, the gap between them and Burger King is only going to get smaller.

The view of McDonalds seems to be that their strategy has worked in the past, so eventually it should work again. Do you think that Burger King is just utilizing a recovering economy, and that their new strategy will eventually stop working when it fully recovers, or is this a trend likely to continue? Is it better for a fast food restaurant to place more value on quality or variety?

Source:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-05/hard-times-for-hamburgers-hurt-mcdonalds-more-than-burger-king#r=read

NFL Playbook to Corporate Culture

Pete CarrollAlthough there are variables to every industry and organization, employee engagement is largely contributed to social connections created throughout the workplace, which is an enormous driver to productivity. Healthy company culture creates higher employee retention, motivation, and commitment to the overall organization and its future.

Last year’s Superbowl champions, the Seattle Seahawks, were by no means an overnight success. Head coach, Pete Carroll’s list of accomplishments come with controversy; however, it’s hard to not to take note especially since he’s won championships on both an NFL and NCAA level. Love him or hate him, his cutthroat management style can give us all a brief lesson on successful employee management and the importance of corporate culture.

Within Coach Carroll’s first year, he completely reorganized the Seahawks with 502 transactions. In a business perspective, these transactions take the form of layoffs, terminations and new hires. He was able to recognize that not only did poor performers need to be removed, but those who allowed an environment of poor performance needed to go as well. Reports have shown that poor performers have detrimental affects on productivity, because not only are they not upholding company standards, but they also influence coworkers with their bad habits. It’s difficult to implement massive organizational shakeups but, simply recognizing when cuts need to be implemented can be the determinant between creating a winning or losing team.

Unsurprisingly, decisions such as these are often difficult and unpopular. Last month, Percy Harvin, who contributed to the 2014 Superbowl win with an 87-yard kickoff return for a touchdown, was traded to the Jets. Although Harvin has had a lackluster performance this season, this mid-season trade still took many by surprise. It was later revealed the main objective behind the trade was due to Harvin’s anger management issues, which caused physical altercations with teammates and prevented him from fully fitting in with the team. Despite his contributions, the organization knew it was best to part ways.

2014-08-15-NFL_QB_salary_performance_original_original

Just as important as letting go weak links or those who are not a culture fit, retaining talent is also a vital contribution to an organization’s success. There’s no question that this is the reason why the highest salaries in the NFL are granted to quarterbacks who not only throw the most touchdowns, but also limit turnovers. Translating back to the business world, this shows that organizations must be able to recognize management achievement by rewarding and compensating accordingly. When managers are able to create a framework that creates great corporate culture, it not only creates durability for long-term success, but it opens the doors for new organizational opportunities.

How important do you think corporate culture is within the workplace?

Do you think strategies such as Coach Carroll’s are too drastic to apply to an organization whether big or small?

Do you see any other strategies organizations can borrow from the NFL?

 

 

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-sephton/an-nfl-guide-to-employee-_b_5683400.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sylviavorhausersmith/2013/08/14/how-the-best-places-to-work-are-nailing-employee-engagement/
http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/10/18/seahawks-percy-harvin-trade-jets-golden-tate#

 

Put your Music to Work

Businessman with headphones on

For a long time, music was thought to have been a hindrance to effective time utilization and completion of tasks. Listening to tunes at work was considered something no one did for fear of either getting fired or simply being unfocused.

However, the tables have turned. Music has been shown to increase focus, awareness, and even boost productivity in typical workplaces such as the office. Granted, tuning out to your favorite Taylor Swift song is not recommended for high customer interaction jobs such as McDonalds or Chipotle, but in the more traditional office settings, with often endless rows of busy-bees confined to cubicles, music can become a lifesaver and a productivity-booster.

According to FastCompany.com, a blog geared around operational management strategies, studies have shown that employees engaging in repetitive tasks can benefit greatly from listening to even the simplest songs at work. “The effects music can have in relation to repetitive tasks were further explored in this study, which showcased how assembly line workers displayed signs of increased happiness and efficiency while listening to music” (FastCompany).

Additionally, even articles by the New York Times vouch for music’s effectiveness in the workplace, “In one study involving information technology specialists, she found that those who listened to music completed their tasks more quickly and came up with better ideas than those who didn’t, because the music improved their mood.” (NYTimes)

In an article by Time Magazine, music is cited as being a real help in recalling facts and boosting memory recognition: “Adults aged 18 to 30 were asked to recall a series of sounds presented in a particular order. Participants’ performance suffered when music was played while they carried out the task as compared to when they completed the task in a quiet environment. Nick Perham, the British researcher who conducted the study, notes that playing music you like can lift your mood and increase your arousal” (Time)

Although there have been many studies showing that music does help with employee satisfaction, happiness, and productivity in certain workplaces, how do you feel about allowing/using music in the workplace? Do you believe that there are instances where it should not be allowed? In what setting would you feel most comfortable allowing employees to listen to music? If not allowing employees the option to listen to their individual headphones, how else would you attempt to increase productivity at a workplace, if not by music?

Works Cited:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3032868/work-smart/how-music-affects-your-productivity
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/jobs/how-music-can-improve-worker-productivity-workstation.html

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/12/does-listening-to-music-while-working-make-you-less-productive/

Paging Dr. Technology

 

Does your doctor use an iPad, tablet, laptop, or computer at any point during your check up? I for one have experienced several doctors utilizing technology during a doctor’s appointment, paying more attention to the technology than my medical concerns.

Information technology is being implemented across the medical industry. Paper has become a nonentity, and more doctors are straying away from the old fashioned version of record keeping. Digitalizing records, and utilizing electronic health records to supervise patients’ medical histories is becoming the new norm. However, productivity will decline if this new technology is not executed correctly.

According to the article, How Electronic Patient Records Can Slow Doctor Productivity, the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) should be advantageous to all medical institutions, but “in general, larger offices in the study that employed EHRs recorded productivity gains, but certain types of smaller practices lost productivity.”

When EHRs are applied, they can create subtle changes within the practice, thus ultimately changing the way the operation functions. The “communication patterns” of the staff become incompatible, and doctors, nurses, and clinical staff are finding themselves spending more time working on the systems than with patients. This in turn, is extending their workday, they now have to do more work, and they may lose business from disgruntled patients.

EHRs were originally put into operation to promote efficiency and make patient care safer. EHRs allow for “patient data to be shared relatively easily between providers within a given practice” and eliminate the possibility of penmanship errors. The best part about EHRs is that they can immediately detect errors that are made, which makes this type of record-keeping effective and beneficial to the medical field.

Higher levels of production in some medical institutions have seen high productivity; these institutions utilized more EHR usage and increased delegation. Larger medical facilities now hire an EHR staff and that staff becomes responsible for maintaining the data, entering the data, and also helping all other staff with EHRs.

The article hypothesizes that smaller medical institutions are more face-to-face oriented, and focus on establishing a doctor-patient relationship through communication. Additionally, some smaller medical institutions do not have the means to pay for an increase in their EHR systems or an EHR staff to promote delegation within the office.

The article concludes with this statement: “We often look at systems on the basis of their technical capability, the fact that they can store this many records or process that many requests in this period of time. But when we ask how that technology can improve productivity, we have to consider that the true capability of the system depends on the context in which it is adopted.”

Why do you think that productivity declines for some institutions? Do you feel that these new information technology systems are beneficial? Or are they creating a rift in your doctor-patient relationship?

 

Sources:

Article: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7452.html

 

Human vs. Robot: The Battle for the Workforce

In class we learned how increasing productivity and efficiency of process can lead to larger profits for the firm. One of the methods used to increase productivity was the incorporation of robots into the workforce. We learned that robots can be used in a variety of ways, such as milking cows, constructing cars, or transporting. With decreased cost of production and human error, robots are among the most supported guarantors of future profits. However, not everyone supports the growing use of robots in the workforce. According to the Economist, robots are the death of the lower – middle skilled workforce and the beginning of “premature deindustrialization” (The Third Great Wave, p. 4)

The terms “efficiency” and “productivity” have always been referred to positively; as efficiency in process rises, productivity rises.” Thinking this through, we define efficiency as the better use of resources, the decrease in human labor per product, and the increase in output from freed – up labor, which ultimately should result in an increase in wages. In essence, to increase productivity, efficiency has to increase; and efficiency is synonymous with less cost and more revenue. Revenue is then used to reward workers for their high productivity. It is here that the robot-human conflict comes in.

It does not take a seer to foretell the replacement of low-skill human laborers by robots. The Economist outlines that, in a correct system, as technology replaces human workers; the higher skilled workers make more money and spend more money, creating new jobs (Technology isn’t working, p. 6). However, it is no stretch of the imagination that businesses are reluctant to increase the wages of their employees, and this issue is the problem. Average human productivity increased last year at a rate of 2.5%, while wage increase lagged at 1%. This shows that, as output increased, people earned marginally less than what would have been normal. Without increased wages, people cannot spend, and without spending, there is no new creation of jobs.

Furthermore, we know that robots do not require payment for their services. And as we saw on Monday, their accuracy and precision removes the problem of human error, making them the epitome of efficiency. These facts make them a more viable solution to increasing output. As the Economist observes, COOs and managers see that robots can dramatically increase a firm’s output without having to receive payment, and so they invest in more robots (6). This results in less need for human labor, which leaves many unemployed, which ultimately leads to less sales and more inventory.

As time moves forward, technology will continue to improve. We saw this with video cassettes to DVDs to online streaming and the ipod series, and now we are seeing the workforce demography change as well. I feel that businesses have to find a balance between robot and human workers in order to maintain cash flows. I find it interesting that something so helpful in the workforce could lead to such problems, and it merits discussion.

How do you feel about robots entering the workforce? Do you really think it will be all that bad? How do you think low-skill laborers will make a living if their jobs are occupied by technology that does not need money to survive?

“The Third Great Wave.” Economist 4 Oct. 2014: 56, 58. Print.

Honey, I Shrunk The Inventory

Working at T-Mobile I learned a lot about Operations. I learned that T-Mobile’s inventory has more items than just phones. It contains items such as handsets, covers, headphones, chargers, and other accessories. The inventory is counted at least once a month and the process involves manually counting each SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) in the front of the store and in the back of the store where the inventory is locked. After each count the result is compared to the inventory at the beginning of the month plus new-ordered inventory minus the sales and minus all the items that have been returned for various reasons. In theory the manual count should equal to the remaining inventory on file, but in real life it doesn’t happen.

Honey, I shrunk the Inventory

In real life the store manager uses personal judgment when opening large business accounts and he is able to give some SKUs for free. Sometimes when the employees sell or return the SKU they may accidentally scan a different SKU (each color or pattern of the certain cover has its own SKU!). Sometimes the returns are not scanned correctly, and sometimes it happens that a phone cover falls under a closet. In real world there is a certain percentage for which the loss is acceptable.

When the loss of inventory is bigger than a set percentage it becomes an issue. That may indicate that there is theft in the store, or mishandling of inventory or perhaps just plain incompetence. The steps to fight the high “shrink” percentage include a weekly count of the inventory, daily reports, probations and write-offs for the employees who are caught for scanning wrong items at POS or not scanning them at all. The store managers are being judged by the “Shrink” metrics, their salary and performance reviews can be seriously affected by the higher percent of “Shrinkage”.

Another metrics that affects managerial performance is traffic conversion. It is measured on daily and monthly basis and it’s designed to measure sales productivity. Each store has a device mounted inside of the store, just above the door, and it measures the number of people who walk-in. Then the number of sales is divided by number of “walk-ins” and that ratio represents the sales conversion rate. A low conversion rate shows low productivity and it means that the store manager should step up his game.

One of the ways to fight a low conversion rate is to make sure that the sales associates talk about current promotions. That they look at the customer’s account to see if the customer has any type of need and that need has a solution in a form of a product they can offer. That the employees are asking the customer the right questions that may help discover other needs. So next time when you are paying your bill or buying something at your carrier’s store consider whether or not you think of the sales representative’s questions as product pushing or simply discovering customer needs.

Turn Right to Save Money!!

UPS

 

Improving the efficiencies within a corporation are usually the biggest tasks for upper management to tackle, and especially for a global company like UPS (with operations in over 220 countries and over 395,000 employees (UPS)): How do they stay efficient and be competitive? and Where should they put their focus?

Over the past few years UPS has been testing and implementing a new system to save time, money, and gas consumption within their operations. How did UPS, one of the largest shipment and logistics companies in the world, come up with one of the easiest solutions to being more efficient in these areas? Well they did it by just turning right!! When I first read about this, I really didn’t believe it and was in wonderment – is it really this easy? UPS did numerous studies on the effects of left turns and the data showed lost time at backed up left turn lanes, a waste of gas, and a disproportionate number of accidents. (Priceonomics)

When I did some research and looked at the numbers that UPS came up with, I was really blown away. According to Bloomberg during their testing phase during 2010 – 2012 UPS saved, “more than 1.5 million gallons of fuel and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 14,000 metric tons, eliminated 206 million minutes of idling time and saved more than 1.5 million gallons of fuel.” This simple idea didn’t come about over night though. It took UPS almost a decade to design and implement an onboard program – Orion, On-Road Integrated Optimization and Navigation, that will utilize incoming pickups and reroute trucks to be the most efficient. This was first introduced in 2012 to about a quarter of their fleet and will eventually be on all their trucks by 2017.  According to UPS, the reduction of 1 mile per day for every driver will save the company as much as $50 million a year in fuel, vehicle maintenance and time. (Forbes)

With social responsibility being a prevalent topic in society and used in marketing and PR, UPS has found a way to use this to their benefit in more than one way.  The benefits are clear-cut: not only does this benefit the company’s bottom line but also benefits social causes that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and car emissions.

What other ways do you see this benefiting society?

 

 

http://www.pressroom.ups.com/Fact+Sheets/UPS+Fact+Sheet

http://priceonomics.com/why-ups-trucks-dont-turn-left/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-30/ups-uses-big-data-to-make-routes-more-efficient-save-gas.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/11/01/meet-orion-software-that-will-save-ups-millions-by-improving-drivers-routes/