Great products aren’t just shipped; they’re understood. In my product management practice, the difference between a good release and a great one often comes down to disciplined documentation that moves at the speed of delivery. That’s why the docs-as-code approach has become a cornerstone of how I build, lead, and measure product experiences across teams.
As I reflect on leaders who set a high bar in this craft, one description stands out: "With years of experience as Senior Documentation Manager, Jeff leads teams and oversees the end-to-end creation of documentation using docs-as-code methodology." That concise statement captures a model I deeply respect—one that treats documentation as a first-class citizen in the product lifecycle.
In practice, docs-as-code integrates documentation into CI/CD pipelines, version control, and peer review workflows—exactly how we ship software. This elevates quality, enforces consistency, and accelerates responsiveness to change, all while enabling rigorous content audit and UX writing standards. When documentation evolves with code, it becomes discoverable, testable, and measurable—key traits for scalable product management leadership.
The downstream impact is tangible. Users ramp faster through onboarding, in-app guides, and product tours because the narrative aligns with the product’s true state at any given commit. Support tickets drop, developers work with greater clarity, and PMs gain the feedback loops needed for continuous discovery. In a product-led growth motion, this clarity compounds—reducing time-to-value and enabling teams to ship confidently.
Equally important is the leadership pattern behind the methodology: aligning product, engineering, and customer-facing teams around shared truths. I’ve seen empowered product teams operate at their best when documentation is embedded in planning, sprint reviews, and release gates. This creates a single source of truth that scales knowledge, preserves intent, and shortens the path from decision to delivery.
For me, the standard expressed above isn’t just a role description—it’s a blueprint for operational excellence. When we manage documentation with the same rigor as code, we build trust at every touchpoint and create the conditions for sustained product velocity. That’s the level of clarity and execution I strive to foster across every product line.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
I’ve spent my career building and scaling product platforms, and I’ve seen firsthand how the right AI Strategy can unlock disproportionate impact. Foundational AI platforms are the engine room of modern analytics—when they’re done well, they compress time-to-insight, improve quality, and empower empowered product teams to deliver outcomes that matter.
Across leading analytics ecosystems, including Amplitude analytics, the winning pattern is consistent: invest in a unified analytics platform that abstracts complexity while enabling rapid iteration. By standardizing data governance and privacy-by-design, teams gain the freedom to experiment confidently without sacrificing compliance or security.
For me, “foundational AI platforms” means pragmatic building blocks that product and engineering can trust: evaluation harnesses for models, retrieval pipelines that surface the right context, feature stores that ensure consistency, and CI/CD with robust observability. When these AI workflows are in place, behavioral analytics, anomaly detection, and A/B testing stop being one-off projects and become repeatable capabilities.
The payoff isn’t just efficiency—it’s strategic differentiation. Internal innovation accelerates when teams can go from idea to live experiment in days, not quarters. That speed shapes the future of AI analytics: richer insights woven directly into product experiences, LLMs for product managers to prototype faster, and analytics that feel conversational, contextual, and deeply actionable.
Execution still makes or breaks the vision. I align product strategy around outcomes vs output OKRs, pair product trios with forward-deployed engineers, and use a clear build vs buy rubric for platform components. The goal is platform scalability without reinventing the wheel—own the parts that differentiate, integrate the rest, and keep your interfaces painfully simple.
If you’re leading this journey, start by mapping your critical use cases to platform capabilities, close gaps in data governance, and stand up an eval-driven development loop. Within one or two quarters, you should see a measurable lift in deployment frequency, a sharper signal on performance, and a culture that ships with confidence. That’s how foundational AI platforms empower internal innovation and help define the future of AI analytics.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
I keep a running list of product wisdom that sounds great on a slide but quietly sabotages execution. Recently, I revisited that list after a deep conversation with a seasoned CPO from a leading security and compliance platform and reflected on how these lessons show up in my own operating rhythm. What follows is my practical playbook for scaling product organizations without losing speed, quality, or the soul of the product.
Most big-tech veterans struggle when they leap into startups because the safety net of process disappears. At a startup, the buck truly stops with you—there’s no committee to shield a decision and no process to rescue a weak plan. The mindset shift is simple to say and hard to do: own outcomes end to end, reduce your reliance on institutional scaffolding, and make decisions with incomplete information while keeping standards high.
“Great product leaders stay in the details.” I sample artifacts every week—PRDs, design flows, user research notes, postmortems—and I read customer threads to calibrate my intuition. To maintain shipping velocity as headcount grows, I instrument a few critical indicators (deployment frequency, change failure rate) and favor outcomes over output. Data guides my attention; it never replaces judgment.
As teams scale, I use a blunt rule to keep speed high: small autonomous teams, small batch sizes, short feedback loops. One clear owner, one prioritized backlog, and weekly demos to customers. We ship thin slices, not big bangs. And “Great CPOs should avoid comfort metrics”—the easy dashboards that rise when nothing meaningful is moving. I push for outcome-centric OKRs tied to customer value, not vanity charts.
Rigid hierarchies derail quality decision-making. They slow signal, encourage escalation theater, and suppress the truth from the edges. I shorten paths between PMs, engineers, designers, research, and go-to-market leads, and I strip out stage gates that don’t add learning. Above all, I refuse to “Stop making your team fetch rocks”—randomized executive requests without context. Instead, I frame clear problem statements, explicit constraints, and observable success criteria.
Revenue and product can feel at odds, but they don’t have to be. The key to a quality CPO and CRO relationship is a shared operating model: one customer narrative, a joint pipeline of problems worth solving, and a common scorecard. We meet weekly, review the same signals, and align on sequencing: what we solve now for impact, what we stage for scale, and what we sunset to reduce complexity. When trade-offs get tough, we anchor on customer value and long-term defensibility.
Who ultimately oversees the quality bar? I do—and I do it through clarity, exemplars, and consistent feedback loops, not micromanagement. When I leave feedback, I make it actionable and specific: name the user scenario, note the friction, propose a sharper decision frame, and suggest a smaller, testable slice. I expect narrative memos and crisp acceptance criteria; I offer rapid, detailed responses so momentum never stalls.
Open office hours are my forcing function for transparency and speed. Anyone can bring a thorny escalation, a design in progress, or a customer insight. Pair that with weekly 1:1s—non-negotiable for developing leaders and unblocking work—and the organization learns to surface issues early, make faster decisions, and self-correct without drama.
Here’s a glimpse into my working week: Mondays set priorities and confirm the few decisions that matter; midweek is for deep reviews across roadmap, research, and engineering readiness; Thursdays I’m with customers and partners; Fridays I write and synthesize. I leave space for unscripted time with individual contributors—because ICs are the unsung heroes of a company—and I celebrate excellent craft out loud.
The hardest leadership skill is knowing when to push and when to give space. I push on clarity, sequencing, and quality; I give space on solutions and implementation paths. I reject comfort metrics, reinforce outcomes vs. output, and keep the organization close to customers and details. If you’re stepping from big tech into a startup or scaling your product org through rapid growth, these practices will help you ship faster, decide better, and raise the quality bar without burning out your team.
“Outcomes over outputs” is the right mantra—and one I’ve championed across product teams—but turning it into daily practice is where most teams stumble.
It’s simple in theory: focus on the impact of what we build, not just shipping features. In reality, it’s rarely black and white because most teams are asked to do both—hit outcomes and deliver specific outputs—at the same time.
In a benchmark survey, 20% of product teams claim to be outcome-focused, nearly half describe themselves as working in a mix of outcomes and outputs, and about 30% are still primarily working with outputs. I’ve seen versions of this in my own org: we aspire to outcomes, but our rituals, roadmaps, and reporting still reward shipping.
Here’s how I draw the line clearly, coach my teams to avoid common traps, and negotiate better, more actionable outcomes that unlock genuine product discovery and business results.
Simple definitions we live by
An output is something you build or produce—a feature, a project, an initiative. It’s something your team ships.
An outcome is the impact of that output—a change in customer behavior or a business result.
Josh Seiden puts it well in his book Outcomes Over Output: “An outcome is a change in human behavior that drives business results.”
Shift from shipping to shaping results. This graphic clarifies outputs vs outcomes, revealing that value emerges between deliverables and impact—when features change customer behavior and move business results.
I distinguish business outcomes from product outcomes. Business outcomes are typically financial metrics that measure the health of the business (e.g. increase revenue or reduce costs) while product outcomes measure a customer behavior in the product or a sentiment about the product.
Here’s a simple example I’ve used with platform teams. Many B2B companies support a number of integrations. Integrations are outputs. Having integrations alone doesn’t create value. Customers using and finding value in those integrations—that’s an outcome. If those customers retain their subscriptions longer because of the integrations—that’s also an outcome.
Building something isn’t the same as creating value. That’s the core of this distinction, and it’s what separates empowered product teams from feature factories.
Why this distinction matters for empowered product teams
When we task teams with delivering outputs, they’re done when the software ships. When we task teams with delivering outcomes, they aren’t done until the software ships and has the expected impact.
That small shift changes almost everything about how a team works: what we measure (impact, not just delivery), how we know we’re done (measurable behavior change, not release notes), the autonomy we grant (told what to achieve, not what to build), and the planning artifacts we use (an opportunity solution tree beats a feature roadmap when we’re exploring the best path to an outcome).
When I assign outcomes, I’m giving the team latitude—and responsibility—to figure out the best path to success. That’s what opens the door for real product discovery and continuous discovery habits.
Shift your lens from shipping features to achieving impact. This side-by-side visual explains how outcome-driven teams measure success, grant more autonomy, define 'done' by results, and plan with an opportunity solution tree.
Examples: spotting outputs disguised as outcomes
Clear-cut example: “Our outcome is to deliver an Android app.” An Android app is something we build and ship. It’s clearly an output.
To get to an outcome, I ask, “What’s the value of having an Android app?” or “How will we know the Android app is successful?”
We might answer: “Having an Android app will allow us to engage more users. We’ll know it’s successful when people engage with the app on a regular basis.”
This answer uncovers the hidden outcome: engage more people. Now we can set the right scope: increase the percentage of engaged users across any platform; increase the percentage of engaged mobile users; or increase the percentage of engaged Android users.
Any of these outcomes gives us more room to explore than a fixed output. Maybe we don’t need a native app at all. We could deliver the same engagement through a mobile web experience, notifications, or email. And we’re not done when we ship—we’re done when the right people are actually engaged.
Tricky example 1: measure the value creation moment (hires, not applicants)
Move beyond shipping features to the impact that matters. This visual maps the path from build an Android app to the real goal, increase engaged users, by asking why, defining value, and owning results.
When setting outcomes, it’s tempting to choose the easiest-to-measure metric. But a good outcome measures the customer’s value creation moment.
I worked at a company that helped new college grads find their first job. When I started working there, the primary outcome was “increase job applications.” This technically is an outcome—it measures a specific behavior in the product.
But it doesn’t measure the value creation moment. A job seeker doesn’t get value when they apply for a job. They only get value when they get the job. Similarly, employers don’t get value from any job applicant, they get value when the right job applicant applies.
Many job boards try to measure qualified applicants—instead of counting any applicant, they compare the credentials of the applicant to the job description and only count qualified applicants. This is better. But it still doesn’t measure the value creation moment. Both the job seeker and the employer get value when an open job is successfully filled. The right metric is hires.
Yes, “hires” can be hard to instrument because it happens off-platform and incentives misalign. Measure it anyway, even with proxies. The easy metric isn’t always the right outcome.
Tricky example 2: measure impact, not user-generated output (the course reviews trap)
I worked with a team that helped students choose university courses. They set their outcome as: “Increase the number of course reviews on our platform.”
Confusing activity with impact? This visual breaks down four common outcome traps—measuring at the wrong moment, mistaking outputs, chasing adoption, and relying on sentiment—so teams focus on real value.
Sounds like an outcome, right? It’s a metric. You can measure it. It’s an action users take on the site—writing a review. But it’s actually an output in disguise.
Reviews are valuable when they help a student evaluate a course. They don’t create any value if a student never sees them. More reviews aren’t always better, especially if they’re clustered where nobody looks.
A better outcome is “Increase the number of course views that include reviews.” Now we’re measuring impact on the decision moment, not just the production of content.
If you can hit your metric without helping customers, you’re tracking an output, not an outcome.
Tricky example 3: measure success, not just adoption (the traction metric trap)
“Increase the percentage of users who viewed the performance report.”
This looks like a good outcome. It measures a specific behavior in the product. It’s within the team’s control. But it’s what I call a traction metric—it measures adoption of a single feature, not value to the customer.
Why teams get trapped in shipping features: a vicious trust cycle fuels micromanagement, while performance-linked outcomes push safe targets. Break the loop and refocus on customer outcomes that truly move the needle.
Two problems arise. First, people can view the report and still not find what they need. Second, we might have perfectly happy customers who don’t need the report at all. Driving usage of an unneeded feature wastes time and erodes trust.
Measure the value creation moment, not just feature adoption.
Tricky example 4: pair sentiment with behavior
I define a product outcome as a metric that measures either 1. a specific behavior in the product or 2. a sentiment about the product. But sentiment metrics—like CSAT or NPS—can be tricky on their own.
Sentiment metrics are outcomes, but they aren’t directional. They don’t tell us where to explore or set guardrails for what to avoid. So I pair a behavior with a sentiment, for example: “Increase engagement without negatively impacting satisfaction.” I use sentiment as a counterweight.
Facebook and Instagram illustrate why this matters. Meta is exceptional at driving engagement—but to a fault. Many of us don’t like these addictive products. Pairing engagement with a satisfaction guardrail prevents “engagement at all costs.”
Why getting this right is hard (and how I counter it)
Ready to move from shipping features to creating impact? This visual playbook shares five practical moves—translate metrics, partner with teams, iterate, avoid traps, and dig deeper—to turn outputs into measurable outcomes.
The trust cycle. Managers don’t trust that teams can reach outcomes on their own. So managers micromanage the outputs. Teams, in turn, don’t communicate their progress toward outcomes—they communicate their progress on features. This reinforces the manager’s belief that they need to stay involved in the details. It’s a vicious cycle.
I break it by asking teams to show their work—share assumptions, research, opportunity solution trees, and evidence behind choices—and by giving feedback on the thinking, not just the solutions.
The accountability trap. When performance reviews are tied to hitting outcomes, teams play it safe. They sandbag their targets. They disguise outputs as outcomes to guarantee “success.”
I treat outcomes as learning opportunities first. When we start on a new outcome, I set a learning goal—“learn what moves the needle on this metric”—before a performance goal—“increase X by Y%.” This creates space to explore without fear.
How I get teams started with better outcomes
Translate business outcomes to product outcomes. Business outcomes like revenue, retention, and market share are lagging indicators—by the time you see them, it’s too late to act. Product outcomes measure behavior changes within the product that lead to those business results. They’re leading indicators within the team’s control.
Negotiate outcomes with your team. Outcome-setting should be a two-way conversation. Leadership brings the cross-company context. The team brings customer insight and technical realities. Neither side dictates; we co-own the target and the constraints.
Stop celebrating shipped features and start celebrating change. This visual contrasts a feature factory mindset with a true product team, urging teams to track impact, not output, and define success by outcomes.
Expect to iterate on your metrics. Your first outcome metric probably won’t be right. That’s normal. Sonja at tails.com went through four iterations—from 90-day retention to 30-day to 5-day to behavior-based metrics—before landing on something actionable. Thomas at Bluestone Analytics iterated three or four times before finding the right metric. Iteration is the work.
Watch for common mistakes. Outputs disguised as outcomes. Traction metrics masquerading as product outcomes. Sentiment metrics without direction. Business outcomes assigned directly to product teams without translating to behavior change.
Use the right artifacts. Replace feature roadmaps with an opportunity solution tree to explore multiple paths, test assumptions, and sequence bets explicitly against a clear outcome.
Align OKRs with outcomes. If your company uses OKRs, make sure the “KR”s are true product outcomes (behavior change and value creation), not a list of features to ship.
The bottom line
When we shift from an output-first mindset to an outcome-first mindset, it doesn’t mean that outputs stop mattering. Product teams will always ship features, and the ability to do so quickly and with quality still matters. This shift simply ensures those features achieve the intended impact. We aren’t done when we ship—we’re done when what we shipped has the intended impact.
Measure success by the impact of what you ship and you’ll build a product team that learns, adapts, and creates real value. Measure success by what you ship and you’ll get a feature factory.
Quick self-check: is your “outcome” really an outcome?
Ask yourself: 1) Does it measure a behavior change or a sentiment tied to value creation? 2) Could we hit it without helping customers? 3) Is it adoption of a single feature (a traction metric) or a result that customers and the business care about? 4) Do we have a counter-metric to prevent unintended harm? If you stumble on any of these, refine it before you commit.
The world can feel like it’s spinning, and as a product leader, I feel that pressure acutely—juggling customer needs, stakeholder expectations, and the relentless news cycle. I recently listened to a powerful conversation with Teresa Torres and Petra Wille about staying grounded when everything feels “bonkers,” and it offered a practical, human way to keep showing up without losing yourself.
What resonated most was the invitation to live my values through small, consistent actions. Rather than waiting for grand gestures or perfect solutions, I’m leaning into the mindset of “Something is better than nothing.” It’s the same spirit we bring to continuous improvement in product: make a change, evaluate impact, iterate.
“Create the world you want to live in” has become a daily prompt for me. I’m applying it to how I spend my attention, time, and platform—three scarce resources for any product management leader. I’m not going to do everything perfectly, but I can make better trade-offs this week than I did last week, and I can keep improving.
Practically, that looks like reconsidering which speaking invites I accept, especially when representation is skewed. If a stage is heavily male, I now ask organizers about their plan for balance before committing. I also question travel expectations for short talks when a high-quality virtual experience is possible—good for sustainability, budgets, and energy. These choices compound, just like product roadmapping and sprint planning decisions.
Petra’s “under-complexity” lens was a wake-up call. In product, oversimplified narratives—whether a single KPI, a vanity metric, or a forced binary—usually increase fear and bad decisions. The same is true in civic discourse. To counter that, I’m seeking more nuance on purpose: reading multiple sources on the same story, listening for who’s not in the room, and noticing how the same facts can carry different meanings depending on who’s telling it.
One simple habit helps: I’ll read The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal on a headline, then follow up with Tangle by Isaac Saul, which lays out “what the left says / what the right says / editor’s take,” sometimes including perspectives from affected communities. It’s a lightweight form of personal knowledge management that improves my product judgment and my citizenship.
Another idea that stuck with me is swapping media proxies for human connection. In product, we don’t ship based on secondhand opinions—we run customer interviews, co-create with users, and build empowered product teams. The same principle applies in community: talk to someone directly affected, ask real questions, and stay curious. When conversations get heated, I try to build bridges, reduce proxies, and look people in the eye.
I’m also reflecting on platform responsibility. Even a “small” platform can snowball through weak ties inside a company or community. I’m asking: When should I speak up? Where should I draw lines? And when is “staying in your lane” actually a way to avoid necessary leadership? These are the same stakeholder management questions we navigate in product strategy—assess impact, clarify intent, and act with integrity.
Local grounding matters, too. I’ve found energy and clarity in community-level action: voting, attending public protests when it feels right, mentoring, and supporting nonprofits like World Pulse. I love the framing of “don’t mess with my neighbors”—it keeps me focused on tangible care when the internet starts to feel like reality. I’ve also seen leaders use angel investing in agriculture-related efforts as a counterbalance to “internet reality,” channeling resources into durable, real-world outcomes.
If you want to experiment this week, pick one small lever you control: where you spend money, time, attention, or your platform. Add nuance by reading at least two different perspectives before reacting. Replace proxies with people by talking to someone with lived experience. Reduce polarization by asking, “what shaped that view?” before judging it. And go local—connect with neighbors or a community group and let small actions compound.
If you’d like to hear the full conversation that inspired these reflections, you can listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Here are the direct links: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1sxEFquu73ZB9fL9gGk6Om and Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/kh/podcast/staying-sane/id1794203808?i=1000755696295
Resources I’m exploring and recommend: World Pulse (https://www.worldpulse.org/), The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/), The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/), and Tangle by Isaac Saul (https://www.readtangle.com/ and https://www.readtangle.com/author/isaac-saul/). For builders and writers, I also appreciate Ghost (https://ghost.org/) as an open-source publishing platform. If you work in or with the MENA ecosystem, take a look at MENA Product Summit ’26 (https://www.prdkt.plus/summit26). Colleagues like Jeff Merrell (https://jeffdmerrell.com/) and grassroots efforts such as No Kings Protest (https://www.nokings.org/) offer additional perspectives and ways to get involved.
If this resonates, share it with a teammate who’s been feeling the weight of the world. I’d love to hear one small, values-aligned action you’re taking this month—what “something” will you try next?
I’m consistently drawn to stories where product strategy and operational grit collide to change real lives. Zipline, the world’s largest commercial autonomous delivery system, is one of those rare cases. Serving 5,000 hospitals across multiple countries and saving an estimated 17,000 lives per year, it embodies the kind of mission-driven execution I try to model in product management. The arc—from a near-dead home robot startup to a scrappy bet on drone blood delivery in Rwanda, to 135 million autonomous miles flown—offers some of the clearest lessons I’ve seen on hiring, leadership, and product-market fit under extreme constraints.
One principle that immediately resonated with me: why Zipline doesn’t hire for experience. The idea behind “Why Zipline hires teenagers over PhDs” isn’t a dismissal of expertise; it’s a commitment to learning velocity, ownership, and unteachable hunger. The best startup employees, as described here, are “heat-seeking missiles for pain”—people who chase the hardest problems, not the shiniest projects. In my org, I look for the same signal: candidates who can move from ambiguity to action, who find the bottleneck without being asked, and who care more about outcomes than optics.
I also appreciated the unapologetic stance that “blind references are a non-negotiable.” In high-stakes builds—especially in regulated or safety-critical categories—the cost of a mis-hire compounds. I routinely validate for two traits during references: intellectual humility and accountability. “Can candidates admit when they screwed up?” is a powerful filter. If someone can’t name a hard mistake and how they specifically changed as a result, they’re unlikely to scale with the organization.
Equally important is clarity about who not to hire. The employees Zipline doesn’t want are those who optimize for status, process theater, or low-friction work. In practice, that means pressure-testing for problem-finding, not just problem-solving. I often design interviews around messy, cross-functional constraints (regulatory, operational, and financial) to see who can integrate tradeoffs, not just ideate features. That’s how we build empowered product teams that ship consequential outcomes, not outputs.
There’s a reference to “Zipline’s secret leadership playbook,” and while the specifics remain private, the spirit is unmistakable: first principles decision making, ruthless focus, and a culture that rewards radical responsibility. Translating that to my product organization, I emphasize five behaviors: orient to the mission under uncertainty, run fast but close the loop with data, communicate constraints early and often, own the long tail of consequences (especially in safety and reliability), and scale judgment by teaching the why, not just the what. That blend of clarity and autonomy is the backbone of product management leadership at any growth stage.
On the other side of the culture coin is “Why you should always fire quickly” and “The brutal firing advice that shaped Keller’s leadership.” I’ve learned (sometimes the hard way) that slow decisions erode trust and team velocity. Moving quickly doesn’t mean being harsh; it means being fair, explicit, and humane—tight feedback loops, role clarity, and decisive action when the gap persists. If your bar is clear and your coaching is consistent, acting fast protects both the mission and the team’s energy.
Strategically, the origin story reads like a masterclass in choosing the right problem. The team moved “from toy robots to drone delivery: Zipline’s pivot,” then partnered deeply with Rwanda, where “How Rwanda’s health minister changed everything” is a pivotal moment. It wasn’t a linear climb—”How Zipline almost died – twice” and “Why Zipline’s launch was a ‘complete disaster’” underline a tough truth: breakthrough products rarely arrive fully formed. What matters is the operating cadence that turns early chaos into repeatable reliability—especially when the stakes are measured in minutes and lives.
Scaling from 1 hospital to 5000 required more than product brilliance; it demanded systems thinking across logistics, compliance, safety, and community trust. That’s stakeholder management at its highest level. The product lessons are durable: anchor on outcomes, not artifacts; build reliability as a feature; and practice founder-led GTM where your credibility is on the line with customers and regulators. This is where first principles decision making beats benchmarking—particularly in novel categories where there are no playbooks to copy.
There’s also a hard-nosed operational takeaway in “The 10x hardware cost rule every founder should know.” My read: assume total cost of ownership will balloon once you account for manufacturing variability, support, redundancy, maintenance, and compliance. In product strategy, I treat those multipliers as design inputs, not afterthoughts. If the unit economics can’t survive these realities, the idea isn’t ready—no matter how elegant the prototype looks in a lab.
Across all of this, a few product management patterns stand out for me: build teams around outcomes vs output OKRs; hire for slope, not just intercept; make continuous discovery routine with real users (in this case, clinicians and health systems); and treat operational excellence as a product surface. When a mission is this consequential, culture becomes a safety system—and every leadership decision compounds into either speed with quality or speed with regret.
For leaders building in complex domains, this journey is a blueprint: pick problems that matter, hire “heat-seeking missiles for pain,” keep blind references non-negotiable, lead with first principles, and scale with responsibility. Do that well and even a “complete disaster” launch can become the inflection point of a category-defining company that flies 135 million autonomous miles and saves 17,000 lives per year.
I’m often asked how to translate early-stage experience into outsized product impact at scale. In my own practice, I study real career arcs that crystallize the habits of high-leverage product managers—especially those operating at the intersection of analytics and AI strategy.
Consider this path: Lucas is a Product Manager at Amplitude. Previously, he was employee #1 at Command AI, acquired by Amplitude in October 2024. Lucas studied computer science at Princeton.
What stands out to me is the compounding effect of being an early builder. When you are employee #1, you live close to the user problem, own outcomes end-to-end, and develop a bias toward focused, continuous discovery. That foundation creates durable instincts around product strategy, sharp prioritization, and empowered product teams—skills that transfer directly to later-stage environments where clarity and speed become competitive advantages.
Acquisition integration is where those instincts meet enterprise rigor. Folding Command AI into a unified analytics platform like Amplitude requires disciplined product roadmapping and sprint planning, precise stakeholder management, and a strong POV on where AI augments core “Amplitude analytics” versus where it creates net-new value. The north star remains unchanged: deliver measurable customer outcomes that strengthen product-led growth and reduce time-to-value.
On the AI front, I’ve seen the most successful PMs treat gen ai and LLMs for product managers as means, not ends. They anchor use cases to concrete analytics workflows—accelerating insight generation, surfacing anomaly detection, improving retention analysis, and driving user activation—while validating each step through continuous discovery and rigorous experiment design. This balance of ambition and evidence protects teams from shiny-object drift and keeps investment tethered to business impact.
Execution-wise, the playbook is straightforward but unforgiving: clarify the problem through customer interviews; define crisp outcomes vs output OKRs; map the journey end-to-end; ship in thin slices; and iterate with observability baked into every release. Along the way, keep your cross-functional partners close—solutions engineering, customer success, and GTM—so that your learning loops extend beyond the product surface and into real adoption dynamics.
If you’re building analytics or AI-powered experiences today, borrow these lessons: translate early-stage builder energy into enterprise-scale focus; make AI serve the product, not the other way around; and use Amplitude analytics to close the loop from idea to impact. That is how PMs compound credibility, accelerate careers, and, most importantly, create products customers can’t live without.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
There’s a moment in every product leader’s career when the bravest decision isn’t to build—it’s to stop. That’s why the “Kill Your Darlings” theme resonated so strongly with me. In this episode of All Things Product, Teresa Torres and Petra Wille dig into the courage and craft it takes to sunset products that look successful on the surface yet quietly block your path to meaningful growth. As someone accountable for portfolio outcomes, I’ve learned that disciplined endings are often the catalyst for exceptional beginnings.
Listen to this episode on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
The heart of the conversation is that uncomfortable middle ground between obvious failure and runaway success: products that are profitable, loved by customers, but fundamentally flatlining. Teresa shares candid stories from her own business, including a decision to cut 40% of revenue on purpose. I’ve been there—choosing to retire a “working… kind of” product to free up discovery capacity felt risky in the moment, but it created the focus we needed for durable growth.
Here’s the trap: some traction can be more dangerous than no traction at all. Early fans are not the same as durable product–market fit, and “stable but not growing” can lull leaders into maintaining instead of learning. Every hour of design, engineering, and go-to-market attention that props up a flatlining product is an hour not invested in the next breakthrough—an opportunity cost that rarely shows up on a dashboard, yet compounds month after month.
From a portfolio perspective, this is continuous discovery in action. If we want empowered product teams to tackle meaningful outcomes, we have to protect their capacity from zombie work. That means setting clear thresholds for when we double down, shift strategies, or sunset—before attachment and inertia take over. When I’ve institutionalized this discipline, our throughput of high-quality bets increased, and our confidence in what not to do became a strategic advantage.
Organization design can make sunsetting harder than it needs to be. Dedicated, long-lived teams are fantastic for compounding capability, but they also create emotional and structural ties to specific products. Petra’s point lands: leaders need explicit sunsetting conversations and a portfolio decision-making cadence that sits one level above teams. In my org, we treat sunsetting as a strategic reallocation—not a verdict on a team’s talent—so people are celebrated for learning, not punished for outcomes outside their control.
Killing profitable products can be the right strategic move when the growth ceiling is clear and the opportunity cost is high. I’ve chosen to “burn the ships (on purpose)” more than once—retiring add-ons that generated reliable revenue but diluted our value proposition and spread discovery thin. Yes, it stings in the quarter you do it. But it’s astonishing how quickly focus restores momentum when you create intentional space for what’s next.
Practically speaking, I make sunsetting easier and less traumatic by operationalizing it: Regular portfolio reviews focused on outcomes and opportunity cost; a visible “sunsetting” column so everyone sees what’s on the table; the Horizon (H1 / H2 / H3) model to balance core, adjacent, and transformational bets; and making portfolio decisions one level above teams to avoid local optimizations. Add explicit exit criteria and success metrics for endings, the same way we set entry criteria for new bets.
Another theme I appreciated is designing for the right customers. Teresa highlights intentionally limiting access and pricing to work with customers who show agency and commitment. I’ve applied the same principle: when we’re clear about who we serve and who we don’t, our product–market signal sharpens, churn narratives simplify, and roadmaps get crisper. Focus is a growth strategy.
If you’re leading a product portfolio, running discovery, or wrestling with a product that “works… kind of,” this conversation is permission to act. Product–market fit isn’t binary, and mediocre success can be the most dangerous place to stay. Sunsetting is a portfolio decision, not a team failure; teams shouldn’t be punished for reaching the end of a product’s natural lifecycle. If experimentation isn’t in your DNA, killing products will always feel traumatic—so make space for it intentionally, not passively.
Key moments and themes worth bookmarking: 00:00 – Why “kill your darlings” matters; 04:30 – The dangerous middle ground; 09:30 – The opportunity cost of “okay” products; 14:30 – Sunsetting in product organizations; 19:00 – Real examples of killing revenue streams; 28:00 – Designing for the right customers; 33:30 – Burn the ships (on purpose); 38:00 – Making sunsetting easier with Regular portfolio reviews, a visible “sunsetting” column, the Horizon (H1 / H2 / H3) model, and making portfolio decisions one level above teams; 46:00 – Normalizing product lifecycles.
Resources & Links:
Follow Teresa Torres: https://ProductTalk.org
Follow Petra Wille: https://Petra-Wille.com
Mentioned in this episode:
Ways to Work with Petra Wille
Product at Heart
CDH Membership by Teresa Torres
Product Talk by Teresa
Product Talk Academy by Teresa
Enduring Ideas: The three horizons of growth
Join the Conversation:
Have thoughts on this episode? Leave a comment below.
Full Transcript
Full transcripts are only available for paid subscribers.
Ever feel like your product team is “lost in the woods”? I’ve certainly been there—when strategy gets fuzzy, outcomes drift, or constraints aren’t clear. What helped me reframe the chaos was borrowing “lost person” patterns from search-and-rescue and mapping them to product strategy, product discovery, and team behaviors. The result is a practical playbook for product management leadership that keeps empowered product teams moving toward outcomes—not just outputs.
Listen to this episode on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
Here are the five patterns I see most often—and how I turn each one into forward motion: settle in place (freeze), chase shortcuts, follow the first visible path, use your own navigation (intuition/taste), and retrace your steps. Each of these has a smart, minimal move that helps teams reorient fast without abandoning continuous discovery or product strategy discipline.
Settle in place (freeze). Sometimes the smartest move is to stop. When my team lacks context or authority, I pause delivery work and escalate instead of improvising fixes. This prevents thrash, protects focus, and creates the air cover we need to realign outcomes vs output OKRs.
Chase shortcuts. Shortcuts can be brilliant—or overconfident. I’ve learned to pressure-test whether the “road” is where we think it is before we commit. That means lightweight experiments, clear exit criteria, and the humility to pivot. Think about big bets like Spotify podcasts: compelling vision, but you still have to validate assumptions step by step.
Follow the first visible path. The obvious option isn’t always the best one. My job as a product leader is to make multiple paths visible before we choose. I lean on opportunity solution trees and KPI trees (or driver trees) to surface alternatives, align stakeholders, and keep empowered product teams focused on customer impact and product-market fit—not just the loudest idea.
Use your own navigation (intuition/taste). Judgment matters, especially for product trios making fast calls—but it’s not a replacement for evidence. When my “compass” conflicts with what we observe, I anchor back to customer interviews, rapid tests, and discovery loops. Intuition should guide where we look, while data validates how we proceed.
Retrace your steps. When we’re drifting, I go back to what used to work: principles, quality practices, and discovery habits as feedback loops. Returning to fundamentals—clear problem statements, crisp value propositions, and disciplined outcomes—rebuilds momentum fast.
Team prompt to try: If your team is “lost” right now, which pattern are you defaulting to—and what’s the smallest move you can make this week to get oriented (escalate, test a shortcut, map options, validate intuition with evidence, or retrace to a principle)? I use this question in weekly reviews to keep us grounded in continuous discovery and product strategy.
Resources & Links:
Follow Teresa Torres: https://ProductTalk.org
Follow Petra Wille: https://Petra-Wille.com
Mentioned in the episode:
Lost Person Behavior: A Search and Rescue Guide on Where to Look – for Land, Air and Water
Robert J. Koester
Examples referenced: Xerox, Nokia, Kodak, Volkswagen emissions scandal, Spotify podcasts, large-org tooling contexts like Oracle and SAP
Opportunity Solution Trees: Visualize Your Discovery to Stay Aligned and Drive Outcomes
KPI Trees: How to Bridge the Gap Between Customer Behavior, Product Metrics, and Company Goals
Let's Read Continuous Discovery Habits Together (January 2026) for Continuous Discovery Habits (and the idea of habits as feedback loops)
Shifting from Outputs to Outcomes: Why It Matters and How to Get Started
I’d love to hear how your team navigates these patterns. Which small move will you try this week? Leave a comment below and let’s compare notes on product discovery, stakeholder management, and product roadmapping that actually drives outcomes.
I’m thrilled to invite you to our March session of the CDH Book Club. Continuous Discovery Habits turns five this year. And to celebrate we are reading the book together. I’ve seen firsthand—leading product trios and empowered product teams—that sharpening our discovery habits is the fastest way to better outcomes vs output OKRs, tighter team alignment, and more confident product strategy.
Each month, I am releasing an in-depth reading guide that includes:
The chapters we will be reading
A preview of the most important concepts we'll be learning about
Short videos you can share with friends and colleagues to help spread the ideas
Individual and team discussion questions to help you absorb and engage with the reading
Team exercises to help you put the ideas into practice
Additional reading to help you go deeper on the core ideas
We’ll be discussing each month’s reading in the comment section and we’ll gather quarterly to discuss on a live call. I’ll be there to trade notes, compare experience maps, and share what’s working across product discovery practices.
Joining late? No problem. I monitor the comments on each reading guide throughout the year. Start with the current month or go back to January—whatever works for you. You can ask for help, share what’s working, and connect with other readers at any point.
If you want to participate, grab a copy of the book (or dig up your old copy), share the "Spread the Love" videos, reserve some time to do the team exercises, and register for the community sessions. Let’s do this!
This Month’s Reading
Chapters:
Chapter 4: Visualizing What You Already Know
Estimated reading time: ~14 minutes
This chapter will introduce you to:
Why starting individually—rather than as a group—is the fastest path to unlocking your team’s collective intelligence
How drawing (even badly) forces you to get specific in ways that words never will
The strategic choice of setting your experience map’s scope—too narrow and you miss opportunities, too broad and you lose focus
How diverse perspectives become your team’s secret weapon when you know how to synthesize them
Why your first experience map isn’t truth—it’s a hypothesis you’ll test and evolve with every customer conversation
Need a copy? Grab the book.
Share the Love with Friends and Colleagues
We learn best in community. Use the following short videos to share the key concepts from this chapter with friends and colleagues. Invite them to participate in the book club with you. In my teams, these quick hits help us align faster before we co-create an experience map or opportunity solution tree.
Visualize your thinking – To bring others along
Unlock team alignment – With visualizations
Reflect & Discuss What You Read
When we reflect and discuss what we read, we absorb more of the material. It helps us put what we learn into practice. Don’t skip this step. In my own practice, the real unlock came when I treated mapping as a living artifact that shapes customer interviews, not a one-off deliverable.
Most of us believe we work collaboratively, but we’ve never truly experienced what it means to build shared understanding from diverse perspectives. This chapter challenges you to get uncomfortable—to draw when you’d rather talk, to work alone before working together, and to see your maps as living documents rather than one-time deliverables.
Individual Reflection
Think about the last time your team tried to align on what you know about your customers. Did everyone start by creating their own perspective first, or did you jump straight into a group discussion? What happened as a result?
When was the last time you drew something at work? What stops you from using drawing as a thinking tool—is it discomfort with your drawing skills, lack of time, or something else?
Look at your current work. If you were to create an experience map right now, what scope would you choose? How does your desired outcome help you determine what to include and what to leave out?
Team Discussion
As a trio, each person should identify one unique perspective they bring to your team’s understanding of your customer. How might these different viewpoints create blind spots if you only relied on one person’s view?
When your team disagrees about what customers need or want, how do you typically resolve it? Do you debate until someone wins, defer to the most senior person, or test your different hypotheses?
Does your team have a current experience map? If so, when was the last time you updated it based on what you’re learning from customers? If not, what’s preventing you from creating one?
Put It Into Practice
Understanding why experience maps matter is different from actually creating one that drives your discovery work. These exercises will help you practice the discipline of starting individually, synthesizing diverse perspectives, and using your map to guide customer conversations. My suggestion: timebox, embrace imperfect drawings, and let the artifact lead your next interview script.
Exercise: Create Your Individual Experience Maps
Time: 20 minutes individually, 45–60 minutes with your team
Do this: Individually first, then share with your trio
Start by agreeing on the scope of your experience map based on your current outcome. Each member of your trio should then independently create their own experience map using pen and paper (or your favorite digital drawing tool).
Focus on drawing the customer’s experience, not your product’s features. Where do they get stuck? What goes wrong? How do they work around problems? Don’t worry about drawing well—boxes, arrows, and stick figures are perfectly fine.
Once everyone has created their individual maps, schedule time to share them with each other. As you explore each person’s perspective, ask questions to understand their thinking. Pay particular attention to the differences between maps—this is where the richest insights emerge.
Exercise: Co-Create Your Shared Experience Map
Time: 30 minutes with your team
Do this: With your product trio
Bring your individual experience maps together and work to synthesize them into a single shared map. Start by identifying all the unique nodes (distinct moments, actions, or events) across all three maps. Arrange them in a comprehensive flow.
Collapse similar nodes, but be careful not to overgeneralize. Add links to show relationships and flow between nodes—including loops, error cases, and abandonment points. Finally, add context about what customers are thinking, feeling, and doing at each step.
As you work, avoid getting bogged down in endless debate. If you disagree about details, draw out the difference rather than debating it. This often reveals you already agree or helps you pinpoint exactly where your understanding differs.
Remember: This map is your current hypothesis about your customer’s experience. Use it to guide your upcoming customer interviews and plan to evolve it based on what you learn.
Go Deeper: Additional Reading
If you prefer an audio summary of this month’s reading, including the book chapters and the following resources, I’ve included an audio version for paid subscribers at the bottom of this post.
Supplementary Reading
Why Drawing Maps Sharpens Your Thinking
Core Concept: Collaborative Decision-Making in a Product Trio
Other Voices
To Draw or Not to Draw: Is Traditional Sketching Still Relevant in the Digital Design Era? by Julia Ku
Journey-Mapping Approaches: 2 Critical Decisions to Make Before You Begin by Kate Kaplan
The Visual Language of Comic Books Can Improve Brain Health by Mary Widdicks
Mapping Your User’s Day with the User Clock Sketch by Ben Crothers
Our Live Discussion Schedule
Our live discussion sessions are for paid subscribers. Sessions are not recorded. Invitations will go out to Supporting Members and CDH Members two weeks before the scheduled event. But reserve the time on your calendar now.
Wednesday, March 18, 2026: 9am–10am PDT and 4pm–5pm PDT
Tuesday, June 16, 2026: 9am–10am PDT and 4pm–5pm PDT
Thursday, September 17, 2026: 9am–10am PDT and 4pm–5pm PDT
Wednesday, December 16, 2026: 9am–10am PST and 4pm–5pm PST
Audio Summary
This summary was produced by NotebookLM. The sources supplied were the book chapters as well as all of the additional reading.
Listen here: March — Draw the User Clock to Build Empathy (audio)
This article is part of the CDH Book Club celebrating the five-year anniversary of Continuous Discovery Habits. See all book club posts.
Where is the true boundary between product and engineering—and what happens when it gets blurry? I’ve led and coached teams through this question many times, and I’ve learned that clarity here isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s foundational to quality, velocity, and team health.
I’ve seen well-intentioned product managers step in to “help” by taking ownership of bug triage, tech debt prioritization, or even system architecture. At first, it feels productive. Over time, it creates role confusion, slows decision-making, and burns out PMs—while paradoxically lowering engineering quality. The “CEO of the product” myth and legacy IT, project-based mindsets are usually at the root. Treating engineers as “order takers” breaks down in evergreen product environments.
The healthiest collaboration model is simple and disciplined: The product trio owns the “what”; engineering owns the “how”. Product managers are not people managers for engineers—and shouldn’t be accountable for engineering quality. Our job is to frame the problem, align on outcomes, and continuously discover value with customers—not to supervise technical execution.
If quality is a problem, the solution is escalating and fixing the system, not managing individual bugs. In practice, that means surfacing patterns and elevating them to engineering leadership, who can address root causes—staffing, skills, code health, CI/CD gaps, observability, or process design—rather than asking PMs to paper over issues with status updates. This keeps accountability where it belongs and reinforces outcomes vs output OKRs.
One high-leverage move is to remove unnecessary intermediaries. Removing the PM as a middleman creates better flow and clearer ownership. Create direct paths for stakeholders to get bug status without routing everything through product. Use dashboards, shared tools, or Slack channels instead of one-off updates. In my teams, shared Jira views, Slack incident channels, and status pages eliminated handoffs, improved stakeholder management, and gave engineers the space to solve problems end-to-end.
Strong engineering leadership is non-negotiable. What strong engineering leadership should own (and why that matters) is the technical system, quality guardrails, sustainable pace, and the practices that uphold them—incident management, code review rigor, test coverage, and SLOs with SRE. Skilled engineering teams naturally push back when boundaries are crossed—and that’s a good thing. It signals ownership, craft pride, and a pathway to durable execution.
When do I step in as product? Primarily to clarify desired outcomes, sequencing, and trade-offs—bringing customer and business context to the table. I structure product roadmapping and sprint planning around value slices and risks, not task lists. I align on decision rights early: architecture and tech debt strategies live with engineering; product strategy, positioning, and success metrics live with product; discovery and prioritization live with the product trio.
Here are the system-level moves I’ve found most effective: Escalate systemic quality issues to engineering leadership, not individual contributors. Advocate for real engineering leadership if your org expects product teams—not IT teams. Then reinforce a culture of continuous discovery so product, design, and engineering make better upstream decisions together. This is how empowered product teams ship higher-quality outcomes—without burning anyone out.
If you’ve ever found yourself acting as the middleman for bug status or being asked to “own” engineering decisions outside your expertise, you’re not alone. Reset the boundaries, make work visible, and double down on shared outcomes. In my experience, the moment we clarify roles and remove status theater, quality rises, cycle time improves, and everyone does the job they were hired to do—better.
Human-in-the-loop oversight is the fastest and most reliable way I know to elevate AI quality, build user trust, and reduce risk. At HighLevel, my teams treat oversight as a product feature—not an afterthought—because dependable AI experiences come from deliberate design choices across data, models, and people.
When I say “human-in-the-loop,” I mean a system that blends automation with targeted human judgment at key moments: during data curation, prompt engineering, evaluation, deployment, and post-launch learning. This approach turns “AI workflows” into measurable, repeatable processes and keeps me honest about what’s working, what’s drifting, and where a human safety net must step in.
Architecturally, I start with a retrieval-first pipeline to ground outputs in trusted knowledge, then wrap it in guardrails. Deterministic preprocessing, careful prompt engineering, and post-processing validators catch obvious failure modes. Confidence thresholds and policy checks route ambiguous or sensitive cases to a human reviewer, while clear, auditable traces show why the system chose automation versus escalation. This balance supports reliability at scale while preserving agility for “agentic AI” patterns when they add value.
Quality is only real if I can measure it, so I build with eval-driven development from day one. I maintain golden datasets, rubric-based scoring guidelines, and an automated evaluation harness that runs on every change to prompts, models, or data. Pre-production gates protect against regressions, while production telemetry surfaces drift by segment and use case. When it’s time to run experiments, I use A/B tests sized with a minimum detectable effect (MDE) to avoid overfitting to noise.
Operationally, I optimize for outcomes, not output. I track task success rate, time-to-resolution, safety violation rate, hallucination rate, and cost-to-serve, then connect these to outcomes vs output OKRs. The signal I want is simple: are we reliably solving the user’s job-to-be-done with lower effort and higher confidence? If not, I tighten prompts, refine retrieval, or expand human review where it pays off most.
Risk governance is non-negotiable. I design with privacy-by-design and data governance from the start—role-based access, audit trails, PII redaction, and red-team tests for safety. Clear reviewer playbooks and calibration sessions reduce bias and ensure consistent decisions. These practices aren’t bureaucracy; they’re how I operationalize AI risk management while maintaining velocity.
Teams make or break this model. I empower product trios to own the full lifecycle—discovery, build, and learning—so feedback loops close quickly. In-product feedback widgets, reviewer queues, and incident management playbooks help us respond in hours, not weeks. Over time, human review becomes a targeted scalpel rather than a blanket requirement as the system learns and improves.
Economics guide the level of oversight. I treat each workflow like a portfolio: where the value of accuracy is high and ambiguity is common, I route more to humans; where tasks are simple, frequent, and well-bounded, I automate aggressively. The goal isn’t zero humans—it’s optimal humans, deployed precisely where their judgment compounds ROI.
If you’re getting started, begin with one high-impact workflow, establish your golden set and evaluation rubric, and wire in a simple review queue. Prove the lift, then scale. In the short video above, I walk through the patterns I use to design these loops, measure quality with rigor, and ship AI that teams—and customers—can trust.
