We’ve moved
Dear all,Â
I moved my blog to medium https://medium.com/@hpalan
Come visit me there! 🙂
Hubert
Sade Olutola
Keni
One Nice Bug Per Day
hello vonnie
Show & Tell
Monterey Bay Aquarium
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
we're not kids anymore.
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

Andulka
DEAR READER
Three Goblin Art
No title available
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
tumblr dot com
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
styofa doing anything

#extradirty

Janaina Medeiros
cherry valley forever
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Philippines
seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Chile

seen from Chile
seen from United States
seen from Puerto Rico

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@hubertpalan-blog
We’ve moved
Dear all,Â
I moved my blog to medium https://medium.com/@hpalan
Come visit me there! 🙂
Hubert
Why trying to be Steve Jobs might not work out for Marissa Mayer
I just read a great article on Marissa Mayer’s quest to reinvent Yahoo by Nicholas Carlson in NY Times.
 Nicolas does a great job of highlighting the steps that Marissa has made over the two years she’s been the CEO of Yahoo, and how her strategy of being like Steve Jobs and focusing on beautiful product design and great user experience is not working out, but he doesn’t explain why that might be the case.
 I want to propose that the main reason for the strategy not turning Yahoo around is not so much poor execution of the strategy, but the fact that it is the wrong strategy in the first place.
 Let me explain. One of the widely accepted reasons to Steve Jobs' success is his focus on perfect product design and meticulous user experience. So one might think that following the same recipe and redesigning and upgrading the user experience of widely used Yahoo products should boost up usage and attract new customers, right? It seems like Marisa thinks so. Well, there is one big difference: Yahoo’s customers differ a great deal from Apple’s customers in their preferences. Apple’s customers have been early adopters, innovators, believers, "trouble makers", who breathe Apple’s vision of thinking differently, they value user experience, design and simplicity above anything else, they belong to a different tribe. Of course many Apple products are maturing and many late adopters are coming on board, yet it is the more innovative, “early” crowd who introduces others to Apple’s products.
 Let’s look at Yahoo’s brand and user base. Is this a group of customers that is going to be excited by updated user experience? No. Mainly because Yahoo’s users are conservative with lower risk and innovation appetite, who value familiarity, who have high anxiety about trying something new, users who developed a habit of using Yahoo a long time ago. To them, it doesn’t matter if you improve the products and make them slightly better, the anxiety and the fear of change far exceeds any increase in the products' value. Yahoo would have to deliver something 10x better so that the users would be genuinely willing to overcome the pain and switch.
 So, what about new users? What about attracting new users who do appreciate great design? They don’t have the habit of using the current product. Well, that is true, but they have a habit of using some other products to get the same jobs done (check weather, read news, etc.). And to them you need to again deliver 10x better value to overcome their habit and make them switch. They might put higher importance to great user experience, so the task of delivering 10x value might be easier, but it is still damn hard. More importantly though, the Yahoo brand doesn’t attract people looking for great design, it doesn’t attract innovators, the "think different” folks. They are much more likely to actually be detracted by such brand characteristics. Steve Jobs was in a very different situation - he could have tapped into Apple’s DNA and rejuvenate it. He needed to find a new product category to create and dominate, but he had the advantage of perfectly aligned company DNA and what the brand stood for. Of course he needed to sweep the house, but the foundations were solid. That is a far cry from where Yahoo is now.
 So what should Marissa do? It seems like her current strategy is scaring the current user base away and at the same time the updated products are not good enough to attract new users. Instead of focusing on improving the experience of the current products, she should adopt more of a harvesting strategy for the current mature products, produce great content and create more motivators and rewards for people to come back more often. When it comes to introducing new products, she should focus on products that would appeal to the current conservative audience, which are most likely products solving jobs ancillary to the jobs Yahoo users already get done with the current products. Of course it is not as sexy as trying to build a great new disruptive product for a new target market, but I don’t think Marissa has the time to look for such a black swan right now.
 What do you think?
  Hubert is the founder and CEO of productboard.com check it out!
From our ProductBoard blog:
We have been recently looking for some great design and engineering minds to join our ProductBoard team. Having done hundreds of interviews in the past, I have been following my recruiting routine of screening candidates, asking about their past experiences, fishing for concrete examples of...
Czech out my latest post on our ProductBoard blog
There are two critical lenses through which a great PM needs to look to decide what functionality a product should have - Value and Complexity.
Product value is the benefit that a customer gets by using a product to satisfy her needs minus associated costs. Complexity is the effort associated...
The final post of a five-piece series on Product Management from our ProductBoard blog:
This is the fifth and last post of a five-part series on Product Management. Start the series here.
In my previous post I described how different mental models cause misalignment among individuals and teams. I will now share thoughts about a potential solution.
What Options Are...
Here is the fourth post of a five-piece series on Product Management from our ProductBoard blog:
This is the fourth post of a five-part series on Product Management. Start the series here.
In my previous post I challenged you a little on why we have a big problem in getting everyone on the Product Management team, as well as the company at large, on the same page. Here is...
Here is the third post of a five-piece series on Product Management from our ProductBoard blog:
photo credit: The British Library | Image from La Mort le Roi Artus: Guinevere, defended by two hundred knights, is besieged in the Tower of London by Mordred
This is the third post of a five-part series on Product Management.
In my previous post I addressed the great divide...
Is Your Business Getting Disrupted Outside In Or Inside Out?
Land Slide Disruption, Seattle 1932 | photo credit: Seattle Municipal Archive
Outside In
I just recently interviewed a product manager at one of the world's largest software companies. He told me about their product management process for an established product. Product that has been around for quite some time. The way it works, he explained, is that Product Managers collect feature requests from the large and important customers and conduct a series of workshops with the customers to prioritize the requests. All the PMs for the product then get together to consolidate their spreadsheets with feature requests. They assign dollar values, based on the “revenue-at-risk”, which is revenue that would be lost if the customer requesting the feature decided to leave. They put it all together and prioritize the feature pipeline.
It might sounds like a solid and scientific approach to product management. After all you go out and talk to the customers, collect their feature requests and prioritize based on the most important metric for the company - revenue.
The problem is that this approach, while potentially keeping some of the large current customers for a while, is also the best recipe for getting disrupted by a company that will build a better product by not listening to what features customers want, but by really understanding the core goals or jobs that customers (and more importantly non-customers) are trying to get done. Because the moment there is a better alternative to getting their jobs done, the customers will switch. Because that is really what matters to them. To get their job done as well as possible, not the features, even though they might be asking for them.
Getting a job done is what matters to your customers, not features. -tweet this
It is right out of Clayton Christensen’s Innovator's Dilemma.
Inside Out
Just today, I talked to a friend who was complaining to me, how all the best people are leaving the startup he is working at because of bad culture, caused fundamentally by lack of trust and accountability among the leadership team. The company leadership, unaware of the core problem, has been trying to keep the people by promoting them and giving them more responsibility and free lunches. Â It must work right? After all, people want bigger titles, more perks and bigger salaries!
Well, it turns out that while this approach helps keep people around a little longer, they eventually quit and leave for a company with better culture. Because that is what really matters to them. The culture, not the titles, even though they might be asking for them.
Culture is what really matters to your employees, not titles and benefits. -tweet this
It is right out of Hubert Palan’s Leader’s Dilemma. Wait, I haven’t written that book yet…
Are you getting disrupted? Why? Or why not?
Hubert is a founder and CEO of ProductBoard.com check it out!
Here is the second post of a five-piece series on Product Management from our ProductBoard blog:
photo credit: Macduff Everton / Iconica / Getty Images
This is my second post in a five-part series on Product Management.
In my previous post I talked about the structure of Product Management and its different roles. I will now dive into what I call the great divide and how we...
Hubert is a founder and CEO of ProductBoard.com check it out!
Here is the first post of a five-piece series on Product Management from our ProductBoard blog:
This post is the first of a five part series on Product Management. In this post I describe the structure and typical roles within Product Management. Then I will address the great divide that exists between the roles, and I will provide a comprehensive overview of different approaches and...
Hubert is a founder and CEO of ProductBoard.com check it out!
The real reason why Facebook bought WhatsApp - it is all about owning the habit
There is one fundamental characteristics of being human and that is that we are social animals. We strive in communities, we seek friendships, we like to share moments and memories with others. In order to do that we need to communicate with others. From this fundamental perspective Facebook's benefit to users and WhatsApp’s benefit to users is very close.Â
Obviously there are many more jobs-to-be-done that Facebook offers to it’s users over WhatsApp, but both of them are after the job “I want to share a moment/thought with somebody”.
There are many more applications that I can use for this job than Facebook or WhatsApp. The war is fought though over who will “own" my habit of actually doing so. If my brain develops a very strong habit of “I need to tell my friend about X => go to WhatsApp and send a message” Facebook is in trouble. They obviously want me to use the Facebook messenger instead. And what if WhatsApp started adding more social-network-like features while still owning my strong habit? Facebook could be in trouble. Well done Facebook, well done. What do you think?Â
Hubert is a founder and CEO of ProductBoard.com check it out!
Is your startup focused? It should be. Here's 4 reasons why.
image source:Â Â elegant WordArt
Doing research for ProductBoard.com, by now I have interviewed dozens of startup founders. I see how founders continually make the same mistake. They lack strategic focus.
They are so excited about their product's big opportunities that they are afraid to focus and pick a concrete market segment due to the fear of “missing out” on the rest of the market. They end up going after many segments while simultaneously communicating a very broad message. You probably have heard it many times "our product is so great, anyone can use it”, or “it can be used in so many different situations”, and I could go on and on. This fear and lack of focus is dangerous, especially for a funded startup that is burning through cash while still looking for a product market fit. So what happens if you don’t get focused? 1) Prospective customers get confused You want to be as precise with your targeting and messaging as you can. Universal messages that are supposed to work for all segments end up not working for any. It is critical to create in your prospects' minds crystal clear association between the need they have and your product. Don’t be afraid to focus the messaging. Be as precise as you can about what job/goal/need your product satisfies, and how better and different it is from other alternatives. Speak the language of your customer's goals. 2) Employees get confused You want your team focused. Multitasking is a myth and the more things people work on at the same time, the lower their productivity. Especially if your goal is to invent something new. If you are still looking for a product fit, test one hypothesis after another and measure results. Don’t do everything in parallel. Or if you already achieved product-market fit and are looking to find untapped market segments, build a small independent team that will explore new opportunities. This eliminates distracting the rest of the company before the opportunity is actually validated. 3) Engineering resources get spread too thin It is likely that different customer segments have different goals and needs, thus need different functionality from your product. If you try to build a product for too many segments, you are forced to built too many different features for each segment. Which costs $, time and causes distraction. 4) You attract unnecessary attention Even if you have a grand vision to take over the world (we all do, at least I hope so!) make sure to be smart about how you execute the individual steps to get there. If you have something truly disruptive, start small and try to stay off the incumbent's radar until it is too late for them... :)
What do you think? What experience do you have with lack of focus? Let me know!
WHY I QUIT GOODDATA AND WHAT I SAID IN MY FAREWELL EMAIL
November 1st 2013 was my last day at GoodData. I left to start ProductBoard a company that will change how we build products that people love. It is very early, so please sign up and be part of building something amazing from the very beginning.
Over four years at GoodData, I had been building a world class Business Intelligence platform and living the life of a Silicon Valley startup Product Manager with all of its pros and cons.
On the pros side stands the opportunity to meet and learn from the best VCs, entrepreneurs, sales teams, engineers and industry experts. To see how hundreds of companies measure and run their businesses, to participate and help win challenging sales battles in the field and to build great PM and UX teams. See people grow, help them advance in their careers, and last but not least to build great friendships.
On the cons side are the thousands of hours burned on harnessing chaos, answering countless emails about features and feature requests, the never-ending discussions with fellow leadership members about focus and priorities, and the constant struggle for transparency and alignment.
One might argue that this is what startup life is about. Perhaps some of it, but I don’t think it has to be that way. Of course startups operate under extreme uncertainty and myriad changes, but I believe there is a better way to manage the whole product development process, to prioritize, to communicate plans and progress, to learn and iterate, and to align everyone in a company - including management, marketing, product, design, and engineering - a better way to build amazing products. That is what I set on working on and that is why I quit GoodData.
Here is the farewell email I sent:
Dear all,
today is my last day at GoodData. I have spent close to four years here and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with so many great people on so many different teams. Thank you all for all the long hours you've been designing, building, testing, marketing, selling, implementing and supporting the product as well as running our finance, legal and HR.
Thank you also to so many of you who trusted me and opened doors to your personal lives. I promise to cherish our friendships in the years to come.
I have always said that GoodData has the opportunity to be behind every business decision ever made. It is an aspirational vision, but I've always liked it because it puts in front of us something bigger yet tangible. I have always seen in it not just the chance to build a better product or beat the competition, but to make a bigger impact and truly change the world. Thank you all for being part of it.
All the best,
Hubert
I would like to thank all of you already helping with ProductBoard. It is a great journey and I am grateful for all your help and support. I set on the path to change the world at GoodData and I am still changing the world with ProductBoard, just in a cooler way.
Onward,
Hubert
FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD TO STARTUP SUCCESS
I wrote this post originally as a guest post for a popular blog of my friend and Haas MBA classmate Rags Srinivasan, whom I also thank for the title.
Let me tell you a short story. My wife, Jenna, and I went for a run early in the morning to the Oakland hills today. We had an idea where we wanted to go, but we didn’t have a map and so didn’t know how to get there. As we ran we asked several dog-walkers along the way for directions. As it turned out, different people had different and conflicting opinions about both the directions as well as quality of the road (it was after a rainy night and so, running in a very thin-sole running shoes, I asked if the way they are recommending would be muddy or not). Eventually after a few wrong turns we found our way, but of course contrary to what people said, it was pretty muddy. Why am I telling you this? I just recently quit my job at GoodData and started working on my own startup. Our morning run got me thinking about how similar the story is to the challenges that you have as a founder, building a startup or a new product. You have an idea of where you want to get - to your dream target audience with a great need, that your perfect solution will satisfy. You need to create a product roadmap that would navigate your team, but you not only not have a map, you don’t even know if there are any roads out there. So you go out and you start asking for advice. You talk to advisors, investors and one potential customer after another trying to discover the roads and choose the best and shortest one. Advisors and investors give you conflicting advice about the best way, because even though they are great runners, they never ran the same route. Different potential customers suggest different features they would want, even though they are not really sure if they really need them. They are like the people walking dogs you ask for advice, who are not sure about the route either, but since you ask they will make up an answer. So you run in circles and take many wrong turns. You hope for smooth paths, but they turn out to be muddy. Hopefully though, you end up finding the right way and reaching your goal. My friend and mentor Arthur J. Collingsworth always said: “Persistence, persistence, persistence.” So no matter if you are running in some hills, building a startup or working on a new product, persevere and keep on running. See you out there, Hubert
How to keep your inbox down to zero. Every day.
In May 2012 and I decided to finally get through the backlog of my emails and I embarked on a long journey of ploughing through my inbox. After several days, on May 14th 2012, I finally reached the summit of Inbox 0. And the best part, I have stayed there every since. Here is how I do it:
1) For every email ask yourself "What do I need to do, not to receive an email like this again" -Â Now, of course I don't mean the emails where your best friends are inviting you to a free trip to Hawaii. I mean the "other" emails. the emails where you are asked to explain something, plan something, forward an introduction etc. Teach people where they can find the information, create shared google docs, teach them how to use linkedin to ask for introduction. Simply do anything to teach them how to fish rather than giving them a fish.
2) Book a time on your calendar to focus on emails, don't let them disturb you otherwise - this is old but fundamental concept. Read more in 4 hours work week, or in a great Marc Andreessen's post.
3) Use asana (or your favorite task manager) to create tasks for emails that require more effort or have a due date later in the future - I simply create a task in asana and paste a link to the email there. It might seem like just pushing the email problem into an asana problem, but the key difference is that I can then prioritize all my tasks in one place. It is much easier to prioritize one pipeline than two.
4) Use gmail and it's priority inbox -Â teach it what emails are important, ignore the others.
5) Set up filters - for things like automatic calendar notifications, so that they don't clutter your inbox.
6) Make your gmail calendar public (just showing busy/free, not detailed info) and just send a link to it whenever you are scheduling a meeting. This will save you a lot of back and forth about who is available when.
7) Use productivity tools - I use TextExpander, which is an awesome tool for saving time on typing repetitive text. you can set up shortcuts for any text you want. I use it e.g. for:
inline commenting - I have a shortcut for "Hi xxx, please see my responses <HP>inline</HP>."
addresses, cell phones, etc. - I have shortcuts for my work, home address, email addresses, cell phone, work phone, urls, etc.
the mentioned meeting invites - I have a keyboard shortcut for: "To make scheduling easier, I have made my availability public. Please pick any available slot that works for you: [link to my calendar]."
 What productivity tricks are you using? Let me know!
6 Reasons Why Designing B2B Software is Hard
We all know that building enterprise software is hard, that selling to the enterprise separates the men from the boys, that enterprise buyers are different and thus sales cycles are long and complicated. As if that’s not enough, we also hear how enterprise (B2B) is behind the consumer space (B2C) when it comes to usability and design. Why is that? Why are there so many more B2C startups which have great UX and why there are so few delightful enterprise applications?
Let's start with the obvious reasons:
1) Numbers Game
There are more startups in B2C than in B2B, thus more designers focus on B2C - this is a simple numbers game. It is true that the number of B2B startups seeking funding is getting closer to the number of B2C startups (B2B 48% vs B2C 52%), but this is only recent. Plus, there are many more B2C startups and super simple consumer projects that are bootstrapping. The pains and needs of consumers are more understood, thus the barriers-to-entry are lower.
2) Mindset
B2B companies tend to have a mindset where the appreciation for great design is lower - B2B entrepreneurs often focus solely on problem solving rather than on providing delightful user experience. Engineering mindset rules, left brain wins over the right brain. This creates a vicious cycle. Creative talent is less attracted to working in a hard-core engineering culture, thus B2B companies can't hire great designers. Catch 22.
 The little less obvious reasons:
3) The buyer is not the user
Jason Fried of 37signals points this out. When the buyer is not the user there is less pressure on great usability because the buyer is not the one continuously bugged by usability glitches and thus doesn't care.
4) Usability isn't a priority
Usability hasn't been a priority beacuse it hasn’t been scrutinized during the buying process. Historically, freemium and free trials didn't really exist in the world of B2B. It is much easier for a salesperson to paint a rosy picture of great usability with a shiny slide deck and datasheets. Just look around B2B websites - how often do you need to request a demo where an experienced sales engineer takes you through a designed-to-wow walk-through? Smoke and mirrors. This is changing, Zendesk, Box.net are great examples, but the market has a still long way to go.
And the least obvious reasons:
5) The designer is not the user
This is a big one. Understanding the user is the fundamental first step for any designer on the path to great UX, and bridging this gap in B2B is very hard. If a young, talented designer designs a sleek game, a new social networking app, or even a task management app, she can design, test and quickly iterate because she is basically following what is known as genius design - she represents to a large extent the target user persona and designs the product for herself. On the other hand, designing something as complicated as, for example, a business intelligence application is a whole different ball game. Designers need to understand how a VP of Sales, or a Head of Marketing think and what goals they have. Yet, these are roles in which the designers have likely never been. This is why Alan Cooper invented personas, and why UX designers follow user-centered design practices, conduct extensive user research and write context scenarios - to bridge the user-knowledge gap, or I should probably say...abyss. And this is really hard.
6) Lack of passion
Really great designers are not motivated by money. They seek recognition, they are working on perfection, on changing the world. It is harder to get excited about a new Enterprise Budgeting solution with a limited potential user base than it is to get excited about designing a "cool" social networking app for potentially millions of users. B2C users provide more praise and are more passionate about products, which in turn fuels the B2C designers’ passion. B2B users tend to be less vocal, thus killing the passion of the B2B designers. Another Catch 22.
 We face all these challenges at GoodData as well, but we are lucky - our leadership is design-oriented, including our CEO Roman Stanek, who is also an amazing photographer. We managed to build a strong UX design culture that attracts top-notch designers. Our UX process is cutting edge, with personas, scenarios, customer experience maps, service blueprints, usability testing and myriad listening channels.
We can't afford not to delight our users. Making users happy long term is the foundation of any SaaS business. We are transparent, our platform has open APIs and anybody can sign up to experience our product, allowing us to listen to the users and gain great feedback.
And what about the passion? That’s easy, because we ARE changing the world. We are fundamentally changing the experience of business intelligence. Our goal is to be behind every business decision ever made. And we will be.
How are you solving these design challenges? What else are you finding hard about B2B design? Let me know!!!
  Hubert heads Product Management at GoodData. He is passionate about design and is laser focused on continuously delivering great products with delightful user experience. Follow him on twitter @hpalan.