Skip to main content

Small Company Syndrome: Program Manager or Product Manager?

I just had an interesting conversation with someone who was recently promoted in a smaller company to being "Product Manager". A lot of these titles get huge publicity because of how familiar terms have become in the software industry. While it might be more useful not to get hung up on a title and just concentrate on doing what you need to do - it does help to identify what your role should be if you aren't sure.
 
Of course, in really small companies, those roles are all combined with the role of chief cook, bottle washer, janitor, tester and admin assistants but it would be interesting to note if these definitions are still valid for most software companies.
 
According to some training literature (gleaned from MS Secrets) , the areas of responsibility for a product manager are
 
- Oversee a business
- Recognize and pursue marketing opportunities
- Represent the customer in product development
- Take responsibility for trade-offs between functionality and ship date
- Take responsibility for the marketing and sales process
 
For many smaller companies, this is more in line with the actual product marketing manager or team. Instead, smaller companies should typically look at the definition of a program manager, responsible for:
 
- the product's vision
- the product's specifications
- the product schedule
- the product development process
- all implementation trade-offs
- coordination of product development groups
 
Other roles are a little more obvious but the title Product and Program Manager always seem (to me at least) so difficult to separate that some clarification might be helpful.
 
 
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....