Psst!... How To Make A Great Product

So you want to make a hit product. How do you know if your plan is a good one? How do you maximize your chances of success? 

Releasing a new hit product is the best thing any company can do to grow and attract investment. A hit product can grow revenue and users exponentially with very little (or no) marketing investment and can be the rocket fuel behind a company’s ascent for years (think iPhone). 

And yet very few products succeed at being the rocket boosters they could be. Most new products either produce only incremental gains that don’t justify the time and expense of getting them to market, or actually turn out worse than the current product, or never ship at all. 

Building something users don't want to use is the number one reason start-ups fail. I believe this is entirely avoidable. 

In helping companies improve their products, I’ve developed a framework to understand if a new product is headed for success or failure. This framework is useful when working with product departments and executives to get them to think about product development in what I believe to be the right way. 

The framework classifies product inputs, processes, outputs, feelings, and results as being either Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary

• Primary inputs and processes produce Primary products, which is to say, Powerful products.
• Secondary inputs and processes produce Secondary, or just So-So products.
• And Tertiary inputs and processes produce Tertiary, or Terrible products.

I call this the PST (Primary-Secondary-Tertiary or Powerful-SoSo-Terrible) Product Framework. Or “Psst!" for short.

Here’s how Psst! works: take any product process and run it through the following table. Answer the following questions:

• Is your vision for the product Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary? 
• Is your process to develop the product Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary? 
• Are the inputs being used for the product process Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary? 
• Is the feeling among the team Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary? 

	Primary or Powerful Products	Secondary or So-So Products	Tertiary or Terrible Products
Vision	Exponential growth in one or more key metrics important to the company.	Incremental improvement in one or more metrics important to the company.	Incremental improvement in one or more metrics important to the company.
Process	The team has the requisite product management, customer research, UX, and graphic design skills and experience to deliver a hit product. Responsibilities and accountability on the team are clearly assigned and understood. Ultimate autonomy and accountability lies with an experienced product lead. The team runs a product process that uses (ideally all) the Primary Inputs listed below. The process is iterative. There is an appreciation in the company that product development is both art and science, creative as much as it is technical. There is a healthy back and forth between the product leaders, the design leaders and customers. The team identifies and keeps things that are working while identifying and re-inventing things that aren’t. The process is not time bounded or is given ample time. Discovering a great product is given more priority than meeting a specific aggressive deadline. The process and all company departments bend over backwards to meet the needs of the customers. The process is Metric Driven - Success is clearly defined. Specific numerical metric goals have been agreed between the product lead and the CEO and communicated to the team.	The team has some of the requisite skills and experience and is aware of specific skill or experience shortfalls,(consciously incompetent) and devotes time to active learning in those areas. Responsibilities and accountability on the team are mostly clear. There is heavy influence from outsiders on the decision making process. The product lead is micromanaged from above. The team runs a planning process that uses a mix of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary inputs. There is political influence in the process. The process is waterfall based but includes a few iterations. Both things that are working and things that aren’t are re-invented. The process is time bounded but within the time bounds there is ample time for creativity. The process and all company departments partially disregard customer wants and needs due to internal considerations. Metric Based - Success is vaguely defined. The metrics that the product is supposed to affect are identified but no targets have been set.	The team is lacking product management, customer research, user experience and graphic design skills and experience, and are unaware of this fact. The team is at the unconscious incompetence stage of the learning ladder at delivering a hit product. Responsibilities and accountabilities on the team are unclear. Crucial design decisions are made by committees of people who lack the requisite skills and experience and who haven’t done customer research. Safe compromises kill creativity and boldness. The planning and design process is based on politics. Those with higher status dictate what “should be in the new product” and those with lower status fall in line. Secondary and Tertiary inputs are used. The process is waterfall based, with customer validation happening late in the process after most of the budget has been spent. Things that are working are thrown out in favor of re-invention (ie. needlessly reinventing the wheel) while broken things are kept. The process is bounded by aggressive delivery dates that stifle creativity Internal company considerations like the preferences of the engineers or executives trump the wants and needs of customers. Metric Ignorant - Success is undefined. The new product is supposed to be “better” but has no explicit metric goals that it is expected to achieve.
Inputs	Deep customer research Wholistic consideration of customer behavior. Conviction about what future customers will want & the easiest way to give it to them that aligns with the company mission and goals. Conviction around current articulated and unarticulated customer pain points. Clarity on the company’s long term mission and vision (ie. how will the future be different and what differentiated and valuable role will we play?). Clarity on the current and future business model and conviction around how to design the product to accelerate or establish new revenue to meet actual targets. Clarity on the growth model, and conviction around how to accelerate or establish growth to meet actual targets. Deep understanding of newly available technologies and resulting opportunities. Deep understanding of new UX concepts, trends or conventions and resulting UX opportunities. Deep understanding of new aesthetic concepts, trends and conventions and resulting opportunities. Customer needs are primary and trump internal considerations. Company bends over backwards internally to meet customer needs.	Some customer research, but filtered through hunches, opinions and groupthink of the internal product team. Some weak conviction about the future mixed with an analysis of feature requests and the competitive set. Consideration of articulated customer pain points. Vague understanding of the company’s long term vision. Clarity on the current business model. Lack of clarity on future business models. Consideration of how to incrementally boost current revenue. Clarity on the current growth model. Lack of clarity on future growth models. Consideration of how to incrementally boost current growth. Superficial understanding of new technologies and opportunities. Superficial understanding of new UX concepts, trends or conventions and resulting opportunities. Superficial understanding of new aesthetic concepts, trends or conventions and resulting opportunities. Company partially disregards some customer needs due to internal considerations.	Hunches, opinions & groupthink from people inside the company about what the new product “should” be. A literal interpretation of what a small sub-section of vocal customers say they want and deep feature analysis of competition. No consideration of customer pain points. Unclear or no understanding of the company’s long term vision. A belief that business model considerations and revenue are separate from the product. A belief that growth and marketing considerations are separate from the product. A re-implementation of currently utilized technologies without consideration of other (potentially new) opportunities. Ignorance of new UX concepts, trends or conventions. Re-implemenation of current UX strategy without consideration of other opportunities. Ignorance of new aesthetic concepts, trends and conventions. A re-implementation of currently utilized aesthetics without consideration of other opportunities. Internal considerations (budget, timeline, technology, marketing, etc.) trump customer needs.
Feeling	The internal feeling of building and shipping a Primary Product is likely to be nervous excitement. The product team is more excited than nervous. Executives and board are more nervous than excited, but trust in the product team.	The internal feeling of shipping a Secondary Product is likely to be dull excitement. Everyone has a gut feeling that the product isn’t going to be a hit but also that it isn’t going to flop	The internal feeling of shipping a Tertiary Product is likely to be nervous excitement. Product team is more nervous (and aggravated) than excited. Executives and board are more excited than nervous, having intervened to make sure the product team “got it right”.

So now that you’ve run your vision, processes, inputs and feelings through the table, are they mostly Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary? 

Based on the answer to this question, you’ll be able to tell if you’re headed for Primary, Secondary or Tertiary outputs and results as displayed in this second table: 

	Primary or Powerful Products	Secondary or So-So Products	Secondary or So-So Products
Outputs	Primary products are: Visionary - the product skates where the puck is going, building a platform for the company’s vision of the future. User Focussed - the product starts with the aims of current or future customers and builds the UX from the customer backwards towards the company, incorporating all potential technologies and touchpoints available. Opinionated - the product has conviction about how to delight customers in new ways, solving problems customers knew they had, as well as ones they didn’t know they had in a simple way. Intimacy Generating - customers feel more seen and therefore a more intimate connection with the company after using the new product Growth Oriented - the product has been designed around accellerating the company's actual or expected growth model at a deep level. Delightful - the alchemy of UX design, graphic design and product management have produced an experience that is simple and useful and that people love to use Exciting - people are excited to tell and show their friends the new product.	Secondary or So-So products are: A mixture of visionary and incremental. Elements of future vision are sacrificed for short-term incremental considerations Balance company and user considerations - users get some of what they want and need, but not all of it. Some key touchpoints are ignored. Indulgent - the product gives users everything they asked for, but nothing they didn’t. Complexity increases. Connection Maintaining - the product doesn’t increase intimacy with the customer but doesn’t decrease it either. Growth Acknowledging - the product attempts to make growth a little easier. Fine - users can figure out how to use the product well-enough. Some new features are great and some are confusing. Cool - people are fine to use the new product but won’t brag about it.	Tertiary or Terrible products are: Incremental - the product doubles down on outdated assumptions, potentially gaining some short term traction at the expense of added complexity and long-term success Company Focussed - the product uses language and assumptions that benefit the company’s internal operations, but confuse users. Many key touchpoints are ignored. Conflicted - the product ships with conflicting features that confuse users about how to use the product, and about the soul of the company Customer Alienating - customers feel “unseen” by the new product and feel less connected to the company as a result. Growth Ignorant - the product ignores or overlooks growth considerations in favor of other priorities. Overly Complex or Over Simplified - rather than risk taking an opinion, the product either adds too many features or takes key ones away, reducing the overall usefulness of the product for everyone. Meh - customers are not excited about the new product. To them it seems mostly the same as before, with a few things better and a few things worse
Results	The likely results of shipping a Primary product are: 1. An exponential boost in one or more key metrics, valuing the company to a new level of success 2. Vastly improved customer ratings or Net Promoter Score 3. New kinds of people start to become customers of the company. Growth accelerates. 4. Favorable reviews in the press. Product makes a good story 5. Company morale is sky high. Everyone feels like a hot shot.	The likely results of shipping a Secondary product are: 1. An incremental boost in one or more key metrics, arguably enough to justify the investment. 2. Customer ratings or NPS remains about the same or slightly higher 3. Current customers are happier but there aren’t many more of them 4. No real press pick-up or mentions 5. Company morale takes a hit. People wonder why they spent so much time working on the product to get middling results	The likely results of shipping a Tertiary product are: 1. An incremental boost in one or more metrics, but not enough to justify the investment 2. Customer ratings or NPS unchanged or slightly lower 3. Subset of current customers are happier but growth remains unchanged 4. No real press pick-up or mentions 5. Company morale takes a hit. People involved leave the company.

The Psst! Framework can be really useful to revisit from time to time through the product development process to keep everything aligned and headed towards success.

Conversely, it’s sad to watch a group of talented people fall into using a tertiary process and tertiary inputs and then be surprised when they end up with tertiary outputs and results.

Remember it’s never too late to switch over to primary inputs and a primary process. Use the feeling of the team as a gauge to tell if you’re onto something visionary, or spending time and effort on something unremarkable.

What To Do If You’re Headed For A Secondary or Tertiary Result?

If you notice your team is using a secondary or tertiary process or inputs when you're after a primary result, here’s what I recommend:

1. Sound the alarm. Send this article to either the product lead, or the CEO or a board member and start a conversation about the likely result of the product development process and how to improve it. 

2. Get a new product lead. Typically top-notch product leads won’t stand for anything other than a primary process using primary inputs, so if this isn’t what’s happening you need to question the leadership of the product team. Placing a skilled, experienced person in charge of the project is the fastest way to turn it around.

3. Conduct a 5 Why’s process for the product to get back to the root goals of the new product. Why does it deserve to exist. Why Why Why. 

4. Use the tables above to identify all the places that secondary or tertiary processes and inputs are being used, and brainstorm ways they can be replaced with primary processes and inputs. 

5. Revisit the long term company vision. ie. how will the future be different and in what unique way will we add value? Write it on the board. Then brainstorm ideas around how the new version of the product could significantly realize this vision.

6. Take a 48 hour “Creative Pause” where the project stops for 48 hours. Use this time for everyone on the product team to come up with 5 ways the process and product could be improved using Primary processes and inputs. Have a meeting at the end of the pause and work out a plan to incorporate the best into the project going forward. 

And if these don’t get the project back on track, there’s always the bold option to:

7. Start over. Use what’s been done already as a learning opportunity and part of an iterative process, and start the product development process over from the beginning. Often this can go faster and smoother than trying to rehab a product that is too far along to be saved. Remember the seed of great products is the creativity and vision of the product team coupled to a well-run iterative process that involves customer research and a clear company vision. If these things were missing at the beginning, it might be a better use of everyone’s time to just start over with them in place. 

Leadership Leadership Leadership:

In closing I want to mention the team element one more time: Product development is an artistic, technical process. A good analogy is of building a building: Just as you would expect only an architect to be able to design and produce a top-notch skyscraper, great products require the technical and creative expertise of a skilled product lead. Many companies miss this, and dive into product development with a team that doesn’t know what they don’t know about the discipline. It’s sad and wastes time and money and is completely avoidable.

Getting your product right is the best investment you can make in your business and I hope the Psst! Product Framework helps you get there.