Organizational Development: Product Fit

PRODUCTS & RELATIONSHIPS


Someone once asked me a few questions. If I had to reflect on strategy, providing some of my most loved (or most hated) products and services, or organizations I think are most vital to our future. Share my thoughts on strategy about what this organization can learn. In what ways do they need to change? How they should do it? What I propose?


When I think of a product I think of how functional it is then I ask several questions beginning with fundamentals and then relationships. First and foremost, it is truly important that organizations understand people. There is simply nothing less to it. A thought may rest, and contemplate this as ‘elementary’ or even ‘irrational,’ to some, but the underlying rule most are different due to (psychology) sets of demographics, cultures, and (*economics) market fit; this also includes emerging markets. HBR March 2015 issue discussed some major points in sustainable and innovative practices in emerging markets and product development – (characteristics: It seeks to alleviate social problems & opportunities in innovation.)

Mark a start beginning with community and the act of doing global goodness… this opens the door to product customization in development with much potential.

Wants and needs may vary infinitely so it is important to establish a structural narrative resembling the climate of our times. It is also important to understand there is no cut and paste method to each objective. Mark a start beginning with community and the act of doing global goodness… this opens the door to product customization in development with much potential.

Here are some questions. These allow value thinking towards *route of strategy processes:
•Is this a realistic product?
•Look at price marks: who, including myself, can afford this? (are there better products? does competitor offer the same or better?)
•How does this product align with current products on the market? can I use them interchangeably, can they support one another?
•What are the organizations’ current CRM (customer relationship management) channels how supportive are they in B2C, and/or B2B?

Consumer spending in the technologies sector has really enhanced the focus on developed technology; created space and artificial intelligence. Although, these are considered great investments, they also bridge the gates to liability and risk.

This brings me back to the questions listed it is the organizations’ responsibility to practice due diligence on specific products and services, where quality and trust are a concern (actually, all of it). Just recently, Google(NASDAQ:GOOGL) allegedly downloaded binaries to computers running Chrome, turned on mics and “listened without consent.” Then, in 2014, the release of Google Glass was sub-par. The reason for this happening? Google did not develop this product based on bottom-up hierarchy (the needs of the customer). Instead, it chose the ‘top down’ adverse-holistic method in *untimely product deliverance, which ultimately led Glass down its lonely path. The ‘unexpected’ low rate of buyers interest left a foul taste for Google, something they are not use to, perhaps, leading them to shift blame. I call it their rookie move in “untimely product management,” and a very arrogant one. I must conclude that, it was a disappointment to hear Google admit the fall of Glass was perpetuated by some premature release of an ‘unfinished product’–Glass. Indeed, this is a mature multi billion-dollar company, of huge success with exceptional talent and unlimited potential. And here we are, discussing the reason to not extend much value in ethics, or market fit. There will be blind spots a disruptor may be unwilling to analyze, re-adjust, or micro-include, but, in the end it should be faced–and for this purpose, Google disappointed with Glass.

There is a lot of risk and skill surrounded by being a disruptor and it is not easy. It also takes a lot of capital, research & development, all while trying to stay afloat, maintaining a flourishing cycle.

Testing alpha one way–beta. There’s great admiration for (UAT) user acceptance testing. Its formal assurance that new processes work, are in the best interest of the end-user. It’s also a tried method of reliability, (often of) and variables the organization can manipulate until proven–substantially–to correlate a ‘designed measured cause.’ The other: (TAAR) Test, Analyze, Adjust, and Repeat. There are many ways to come up with interesting Bayesian (probability) models which will lead to more developments angled at supporting the mission, of exceptional, product oriented-driven for impact.

I’ve learned throughout the positions of my career, as it was a process in both public (govt.) and private. Trust is everything. There is no point in developing technical products that cannot intersect, transcend, redefine *quality, within sustainable, startup & corporate innovations.

I would recommend developing a holistic approach in model development: this would conjoin theory with practice, and serve to work fluidly, increasing specific metrics, i.e., *conversion* and generate a larger, broader presence in cross-functional markets.


End goals: Sustainable Relationships & Innovation (SRI) Checklist

Return on Investment (ROI)
•Products and Platform usage
•Reputation & Quality
•Research & Partnerships
•Future & Implementation

Advertisements

One thought on “Organizational Development: Product Fit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s