Expanding from a single hero product to a resilient multi‑product portfolio is one of the most consequential moves a SaaS company can make. I’ve navigated this shift firsthand and studied how leaders approached it at companies like Stripe and Watershed. What follows is the playbook I use to assess new product ideas, structure teams for 0‑1 execution, and run rigorous product reviews without losing momentum on the core business.
I start by clarifying the type of multi‑product strategy we’re pursuing. Are we building adjacent features that deepen adoption, launching true net‑new products for new buyers, extending a platform with new primitives, or assembling a bundle that compounds customer value? That choice dictates everything else—resource allocation, hiring profiles, team topology, and the shape of our product discovery.
Stories from Stripe’s multi‑product success reinforce a principle I believe deeply: launch with small, high‑trust teams and a brutally clear problem statement, then iterate fast with real customers. When adding products like Stripe Billing and Stripe Treasury, the work required not only great execution but also adapting to new buyer profiles and purchasing motions. The lesson I apply is simple—don’t assume the new buyer is just a variant of the old one.
Resource allocation is where strategy meets courage. I protect the core product’s roadmap while ring‑fencing a few exceptional builders to pursue secondary bets. These squads operate with clear, outcome‑based goals and tight feedback loops, not sprawling OKR spreadsheets. The aim is to make small, reversible bets at first, then scale conviction with evidence—market pull, repeatable use cases, and early revenue signals.
Team structure matters even more than headcount. I form new‑product squads that behave like a startup within the company—full‑stack ownership, minimal dependencies, and direct access to customers. The early team must combine product discovery instincts with the ability to ship. Great early‑stage product thinkers show crisp problem framing, a bias for learning, and the humility to change course. One common fail‑case I watch for is hiring purely for potential over demonstrated ability to drive ambiguous work from zero to one.
Hiring the right people for 0‑1 work is its own craft. I look for signals of self‑direction, obsession with customer outcomes, and the ability to reason from first principles under uncertainty. I use five interview questions to unearth hidden talent among product candidates, all designed to reveal how they validate problems, reduce scope intelligently, earn trust with engineers, and handle the uncomfortable middle of product discovery.
Even the best teams stumble when product, packaging, and go‑to‑market are misaligned. I’ve seen what happens when an organization assumes the existing buyer will adopt the new product in the same way—pricing misses the mark, activation drops, and sales enablement lags. The fix is to revisit the buyer, refine the value proposition, and rebuild the path to value so the first‑run experience matches the new buying journey.
To keep new bets honest, I treat them with “definite optimism”—a clear, written view of what success looks like and a pragmatic path to get there. I focus on the sequence of proof: problem validation, consistent user pull, and evidence of repeatable adoption. In a new or early market, I combine a methodical approach (milestones, stages of validation) with analytical rigor (leading indicators, customer expansion patterns) to decide which products to prioritize and when to scale.
Goal‑setting for new products must be measurable yet forgiving of discovery. I favor outcome‑centric checkpoints over vanity metrics, and I evaluate bets by expected learning speed and cost of delay. This keeps us moving fast without confusing activity for progress.
My product reviews are anchored by 12 questions that force clarity on problem, user, value, and risk. I often share these questions as a pre‑read so teams can self‑diagnose and come in focused on decisions rather than updates. “The Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car Story” is a helpful reminder for me that distribution and execution are as decisive as the product idea itself. When building for net‑new‑customers, I re‑focus the questions on buyer change, activation friction, and early‑life cycle signals.
User feedback is the lifeblood of 0‑1. I collect inputs across interviews, product analytics, and support tickets, but I interpret them through the lens of the problem statement rather than raw feature requests. Product development must start with problem validation; otherwise, speed becomes a liability and discovery masquerades as delivery.
I also learn from builders who think in systems and act with urgency. Jack Dorsey: https://twitter.com/jack. Patrick Collison: https://twitter.com/patrickc. Shreyas Doshi: https://twitter.com/shreyas. Their public writing on product strategy, execution, and outcomes vs output informs how I evaluate talent, decide what not to build, and keep teams aligned as we scale beyond one product.
I’ve spent enough cycles scaling product organizations to know that leaders grow—or their companies stall. In this reflection, I distill the practices I rely on to scale an org, develop myself, and raise the performance ceiling across teams, especially when the economic environment demands sharper focus and better decisions.
To ground this discussion, I often point leaders to exemplary people-first operators. Jack Altman is the co-founder and CEO of Lattice, a people success platform for building engaged, high-performing teams. Lattice has raised over $330M, and was last valued at $3B. His work on culture and performance—captured in “People Strategy”—reinforces many of the principles I use daily.
I start with self-awareness because it’s the keystone. If I can’t see my own patterns—when I’m avoiding conflict, over-controlling, or confusing activity with outcomes—everything else degrades. I cultivate self-awareness by writing brutally honest weekly retros, asking my staff for one piece of constructive feedback every month, and running periodic 360s to reveal blind spots. The goal isn’t comfort; it’s truth. When I improve my signal on reality, my decisions get faster and my team gains confidence.
Difficult conversations are a gift to performance. I’ve learned to tackle them quickly, with empathy and specificity. I name the gap between expectation and outcome, share observable examples, state the impact on the team, and propose a clear path forward with timelines. If emotions run hot, I slow down, seek to understand, and stay on the behavior and results—not the person. Avoidance compounds culture debt; candor repays it with interest.
Scaling a company introduces predictable failure modes. I’ve seen leaders confuse hiring errors with management errors; it matters which you’re facing. A hiring error shows up as persistent gaps in role fundamentals even after clear expectations, coaching, and time-bound support. A management error usually stems from ambiguous goals, poor context, or inadequate resources. I assume management error first and fix the environment. If results still lag, I revisit the hire.
Delegation versus control is a healthy tension. Early, I’ll “micro-mentor” on critical work to teach quality, taste, and judgment—then expand autonomy as pattern recognition develops. My rule: delegate outcomes, keep ownership of standards and context. I never give up the responsibility to set the bar for the team and to protect the product vision; those are one-way doors that define the company’s trajectory.
Building a product organization that compounds requires clarity and context. I ensure every product trio understands the strategy, customer segments, and constraints. We anchor on outcomes vs output OKRs, maintain a living strategy doc, and write decision memos that document trade-offs. When context flows, people need fewer approvals and produce better work, faster.
On so-called micro-management, here’s my take: it’s a tool, not an identity. Early in a function or with a new leader, I may be intentionally hands-on to transfer judgment. The moment competence and trust are proven, I deliberately pull back. The mistake isn’t micro-managing; it’s forgetting to stop.
CEO-level context setting is non-negotiable. I articulate the narrative behind the plan—the why, the constraints, the risks, and what we’re not doing. Transparency isn’t oversharing; it’s sharing the right information at the right fidelity so people can make aligned decisions. I model this with written updates, open Q&A, and by explaining how major calls were made.
Some of the most valuable leadership work happens in uncomfortable conversations. I prepare by drafting the core message, testing it for clarity and fairness, and deciding what success looks like for the person and for the business. I also own the decision. When the stakes are high, I don’t outsource the final call or feedback to a proxy; accountability builds trust.
Speed versus accuracy in decision-making is situational. For reversible bets, I bias to speed, time-box the experiment, and set clear kill criteria. For one-way doors, I slow down, increase the sample of perspectives, and pressure-test assumptions. I counter hidden biases in group discussions by starting with silent written proposals and independent scoring before we debate out loud.
I’ve even experimented with removing myself from recurring meetings for a cycle. The outcome: decisions kept moving, and I learned where my presence added value versus created drag. Now I show up intentionally—for feedback on taste, to unblock cross-functional issues, or to deliver context—then get out of the way.
Here are four practices that consistently pay off for me: protect deep work blocks for strategic writing, conduct weekly customer calls, review hiring quality monthly, and keep a running list of hard problems only I can solve. This keeps me oriented toward leverage, not busyness.
Talking to customers is an art. I avoid solution-leading questions and ask about current workflows, pains, and the last time the problem showed up. I go five whys deep, quantify the value of a better outcome, and listen for language customers use to describe success. The best product discovery lives in those unpolished details.
Great leaders are constant learners. I rotate through books, operator peer groups, product management leadership communities, and curated newsletters. I also treat my own organization as a learning system—post-mortems, pre-mortems, and lightweight experiments build institutional knowledge faster than any single playbook.
To maximize employee performance, I use a simple model: Clarity x Capability x Motivation x Environment. Clarity means crisp expectations and definitions of done. Capability is skills and experience, which I grow via coaching and targeted practice. Motivation blends purpose, recognition, and meaningful goals. Environment covers tools, psychological safety, and focus time. If any factor is near zero, performance collapses; my job is to diagnose and raise the lowest one.
When long-time employees stop scaling with the company, I address it early. Sometimes a role redesign or releveling unlocks success. Other times, a dignified, well-supported transition is the right call for everyone. Avoiding the issue erodes trust; handling it with clarity and care strengthens culture.
Low-performing but well-liked employees create a leadership test. I separate likability from impact. If values are strong but performance lags, I set a time-bound plan with clear checkpoints. If progress doesn’t materialize, I act. Keeping someone in a role they’re not meeting hurts the team and the individual by delaying a better fit.
When someone is let go, I’m thoughtful about what to share. I communicate the change promptly, state the role-level rationale without gossip, thank the person for their contributions, and reinforce the plan going forward. The aim is to honor privacy while maintaining clarity about standards.
In today’s tougher macro environment, I refocus on capital efficiency, ROI-driven roadmaps, and slower, more deliberate hiring. I raise the bar for product bets, validate earlier with customers, and price for value. Constraints, when embraced, sharpen strategy and execution.
Aligning career goals with company goals is ongoing work. I use growth frameworks, individual development plans, and quarterly conversations that link business outcomes to skill-building. When people see a path to mastery and impact, performance accelerates.
Most leaders underestimate their team’s potential. I raise expectations with ambitious, outcome-based goals, ensure people have the context to operate like owners, and celebrate learning velocity as much as wins. When standards, support, and trust rise together, teams routinely outperform even optimistic forecasts.
I get asked constantly how I decide when to trust my gut, when to lean on data, and when to take a big swing versus iterate. As a product leader, my answer has been shaped by hard-won lessons building B2B SaaS, product-led funnels, and enterprise features. Recently, I revisited Slack’s approach to decision-making, product reviews, and balancing product-led vs sales-led growth—and distilled a set of practices I use with my teams today.
Noah Desai Weiss is the Chief Product Officer of Slack, and has an accomplished track record inside and outside of the company. He started Slack’s Search, Learning, and Intelligence division, led the Self-Service (SMB) Business, and led the Expansion and Virtual HQ product areas (responsible for Huddles, Clips, and more). Before joining Slack, Noah was the SVP of Product Management at Foursquare (raised over $390m), and was a Product Manager at Google.
The throughline for me starts with a simple truth: not all decisions should be data-driven. Early in a product’s life—or when exploring a novel experience—data is often either unavailable or misleading. That’s where intuition, taste, and judgment come in. I treat intuition as a hypothesis generator and momentum maker, then instrument quickly to validate direction. This blend of “When to use intuition vs data to drive decisions” has saved me from overfitting to small datasets and from analysis paralysis when speed was the real advantage.
I’ve learned that “Taste and judgment are learnable.” You can coach it. Review artifacts together. Run side-by-side comparisons of design explorations. Write down what “good” looks like and why. My teams keep a living gallery of exemplary UX patterns and empty-state copy that exemplifies our bar. Over time, this scales the craft of intuition across a larger org—just as “How Slack scales intuition across their product org” suggests.
Of course, there are “Challenges of intuition-led product building.” The biggest are founder or leader overreach and survivorship bias. I mitigate this with timeboxed discovery: we commit to a clear decision date, capture our priors in writing, and express our confidence as a range rather than a point estimate. This sets up a healthy dynamic for “Managing pace vs accuracy in decision-making.” We move fast when reversibility is high, we move slower when the blast radius is large.
Matching people to the work matters too. Some product problems are inherently ambiguous and benefit from researchers, designers, and PMs who derive energy from the unknown. Others are best led by optimization-oriented builders who light up when the metric moves. I’m explicit about “Matching people to data vs intuition-driven work,” and I rotate folks so they can build both muscles.
In remote and hybrid environments, I’ve found the most underrated traits are proactive context-sharing, crisp written communication, and the ability to create signal in Slack and docs. “Underrated qualities for remote workers” aren’t just stylistic preferences—they are execution speed ups. I look for people who make everyone around them smarter asynchronously.
On product process, I’m inspired by “How Slack runs product reviews.” My rubric: one problem statement, a tight narrative memo, the bet framing (assumptions, risks, kill criteria), and outcomes tied to “outcomes vs output OKRs.” We align on the decision owner, consent vs consensus, and the next irreversible checkpoint. This keeps reviews from becoming theater and pushes decisions to the right altitude.
Culture shows up in small moments. “The importance of a team’s ‘vibe’” is tangible: Do we demo early? Do we celebrate learned negatives as much as wins? Do engineers, designers, and PMs feel joint ownership of the experience, not just their function’s slice? When the vibe is right, latency from idea to insight collapses—and that compounding is everything in product discovery.
Portfolio balance matters. I aim for a mix that lets us keep shipping customer-visible improvements while reserving room for breakthroughs. “Balancing “big swings” with incremental improvements” requires explicit ring-fencing: 70/20/10 works well for many orgs. Big swings get stage gates and PR/FAQ-like artifacts; incremental bets get weekly ship cadence and tight measurement. When we miss, we run pre-mortems and decision journals, reinforcing “Rituals for good decision-making.”
Go-to-market is where strategy meets friction. My guidance on “Advice on product-led vs sales-led growth” is to design the handshake up front. Let product-led growth do the land—self-serve activation, collaborative aha, bottoms-up virality—and let sales-led growth do the expand—security, compliance, procurement, multi-workspace governance. Instrument the handoffs, define eligibility heuristics, and ensure pricing doesn’t punish adoption. This is also where “Which products should focus on end-users versus executives” gets real; optimize early journeys for end-user success while giving executives the portfolio-level control and analytics they require.
I’m continually impressed by “What Slack learns from Salesforce.” Enterprise trust, admin controls, and scalable GTM motions can coexist with consumer-grade product craft. That hybrid DNA is powerful. I’ve adopted similar patterns: build for end-user joy, layer enterprise-grade controls, and price to match value realization, not procurement theatrics.
Speaking of pricing, “Pricing lessons from Salesforce and Marc Andreessen” pushed me to keep pricing simple enough for PLG while being flexible enough for enterprise. Seat-based pricing remains intuitive for collaboration products, but usage and “SaaS pricing” add-ons can map value to heavy features without overcrowding your price page. The key is to test willingness to pay early, avoid grandfathering yourself into a corner, and treat packaging changes like product changes—with discovery, rollout plans, and success metrics.
Humility isn’t fluffy—it’s an execution advantage. “Slack’s humility and why it matters” resonates with how I try to lead: ruthlessly honest about what we don’t know, eager to learn from customers quickly, and unafraid to reverse course when the evidence changes. That humility turns into speed because we stop defending past decisions and start iterating toward truth.
When working with a strong product voice at the top, “How to build product with a product-focussed founder” comes down to mutually agreed principles. Capture the founder’s taste in explicit heuristics, define the moments where their judgment should overrule the process, and codify how dissent and disagree-and-commit work in practice. This protects clarity without stifling creativity.
Here are the topics I unpacked and continue to apply across teams: “When to use intuition vs data to drive decisions,” “The most underrated traits in a remote work environment,” “How Slack runs product reviews,” “The importance of a team’s ‘vibe’,” “Managing pace vs accuracy in decision-making,” “Balancing “big swings” with incremental improvements,” and “Advice on product-led vs sales-led growth.” Each one is a lever that compounds when used together.
Curious to learn more about Slack? You can try Slack Pro and get 50% off using this link.
I’m always looking for crisp, scalable ways to drive product strategy, organizational alignment, and cross-functional performance that actually ship outcomes. Studying Loom’s operating system—and the career arc behind it—offered a masterclass worth sharing. Anique Drumright is the COO at Loom, a video communication tool for streamlining workflows. Loom has raised over $200M, and was last valued at $1.5B. Anique has a proven track record across product development, executive leadership, and building high-performing organizations. Before joining Loom, Anique was the VP of Product at TripActions, where she scaled the team over 8x globally, and she has also held multiple roles at Uber.
In this breakdown, I dig into best-practice product management, how to achieve alignment at scale, the mechanics of cross-functional performance, Anique’s approach to finding top organizational talent, how to hire for roles outside your area of expertise, the most common fail cases with internal and external recruitment, and the specific interview tactics that actually surface the truth.
One theme I return to often is the transition from product management to executive leadership. As a PM, I optimize for customer insight, prioritization, and execution velocity. As an exec, I optimize for clarity, systems, and sustained energy across teams. The job shifts from owning a roadmap to owning the conditions under which many roadmaps thrive—organizing for outcomes, setting non-negotiable standards, and removing ambiguity.
Storytelling sits at the center of launch excellence. I love how Loom anchors launches in a human narrative: define the painful “before,” demonstrate the transformative “after,” and spotlight one memorable capability that makes the switch inevitable. I pair this with a crisp narrative memo, a demo-first internal review, and a simple, outcome-oriented success metric—so product, marketing, and sales sing the same chorus.
Managing cross-functional scope and performance requires ruthless role clarity and shared measures of success. I align on a single definition of the customer problem, agree on leading indicators we can move now, and assign one DRI per decision. When we use outcomes vs output OKRs, we unlock better trade-offs: fewer features shipped, more customer problems solved.
Organizational alignment is both essential and fragile. What looks like misalignment is usually mismatched time horizons, unclear ownership, or different definitions of success. The antidote is explicit agreements: who decides, how we decide, and what “good” looks like this quarter. When in doubt, I over-communicate context, not tasks.
I’ve seen at scale—Uber is a notable example—that alignment travels fastest through shared rituals, not longer documents. Weekly business reviews, lightweight decision logs, and a common operating cadence create a heartbeat the org can follow. The point isn’t ceremony; it’s repeatable clarity.
My go-to alignment rituals are simple. A Monday priorities memo sets the narrative and the week’s must-win outcomes. Midweek, a cross-functional stand-up surfaces risks and unblocks dependencies. Friday, we close the loop with a red-yellow-green on outcomes and a short retro on decisions—not just results—so we compound learning.
One-on-ones are performance multipliers when they’re designed well. My winning format: start with energy and focus (what’s giving or draining energy), review outcomes not activity, walk a single thorny decision to closure, and end with explicit asks in both directions. Over time, this builds trust and speed.
When and how to help functional leaders matters. I jump in when a decision is high-impact and ambiguous, when speed has stalled, or when the problem crosses multiple functions. Otherwise, I coach on principles and expect leaders to own the path. If I’m often in the weeds, we have a structure or talent gap—not a diligence problem.
Hiring outside my domain expertise starts with outcomes, not resumes. I write the first-90-day outcomes, name the decisions the role must own, and recruit with a structured case that mirrors the real job. I bring in a domain advisor to probe depth and run a work-sample test to reduce false positives from polished storytellers.
For senior leaders, my favorite interview questions are simple and hard to fake: Tell me about the last time you changed your mind on a critical decision—what evidence moved you? Walk me through your operating cadence—meetings, artifacts, and decisions—in a typical month. Describe your hardest cross-functional miss and the system you changed to prevent a repeat. The specificity of answers reveals the operator from the commentator.
I adjust the hiring process when I’m outside my depth: heavier emphasis on work samples, more structured rubrics, a domain expert panel, and reference checks that test for actual outcomes. When the role is pivotal, I’ll run a paid trial project with clear guardrails; reality is the best filter.
Common patterns of failed external hires: they manage optics over outcomes, never rewire the system, and don’t create leaders beneath them. Failed internal promotions often show up as scope growing faster than judgment, a reluctance to reset standards with former peers, or success limited to a familiar domain. Avoid over-promotion by decoupling recognition from scope; celebrate excellence without inflating title or span prematurely.
To get honest answers in interviews, I normalize candor and ask for receipts. I request artifacts—planning docs, dashboards, postmortems—and I probe for the counterfactual: what would you do differently if you had to do it again? In reference checks, I ask for moments of truth: the hardest feedback you gave them, a decision you disagreed with and how they handled it, and the exact conditions under which you would rehire them tomorrow.
Sustaining energy is an executive’s quiet superpower. I watch team energy levels as closely as metrics. What inspires people in a company is progress they can feel, standards that mean something, and leaders who tell the truth. If we keep those three alive, performance follows.
A month in the life of a COO (and frankly any executive operator) is a portfolio: setting the narrative and outcomes, running the operating cadence, calibrating talent, and clearing systemic blockers. The best leadership dynamics work because roles are explicit, trust is earned through delivery, and debates resolve into single-threaded ownership—not committee compromises.
Resources for further exploration: Loom (https://www.loom.com/), Navan (formerly TripActions): https://navan.com/, Teach for America: https://www.teachforamerica.org/, Uber: https://www.uber.com/.
Timestamps I mapped my notes to for quick scanning: [00:03:00] similarities and differences between PM and executive leadership roles; [00:06:53] storytelling in launches; [00:10:01] cross-functional scope and performance; [00:13:41] goal-setting with functional leads; [00:16:59] organizational alignment; [00:20:40] alignment at scale; [00:24:06] alignment rituals; [00:25:23] one-on-one format; [00:27:49] supporting functional leads; [00:29:13] hiring outside your expertise; [00:32:55] interview questions; [00:33:55] adapting the hiring process; [00:36:09] failed external hires; [00:37:40] failed internal hires; [00:39:05] avoiding over-promotion; [00:40:51] inspiration; [00:45:40] getting honest answers; [00:47:12] reference checks; [00:51:29] a month in the life of a COO; [00:52:52] energy levels; [00:54:53] leadership dynamics; [00:57:30] outsized career influences.
Early-stage B2B marketing is where momentum is made or lost. In my product leadership work, I’ve seen that getting from zero to one requires uncommon focus, founder-led GTM discipline, and a tight feedback loop between product, sales, and marketing. In this narrative, I share the playbook I use—and the patterns I took from top operators—to help SaaS teams build credibility fast, compound learnings, and scale repeatable growth.
Alex Kracov is the CEO and Co-Founder at Dock, and the former VP of Marketing at Lattice. Alex joined Lattice as the first marketer and third employee, and he helped to grow the business from seed to 1850+ customers. Prior to Lattice, Alex was a consultant at Blue State Digital — the team that elected President Obama and orchestrated projects at Google. Since leaving Lattice in 2021, Alex co-founded Dock, a B2B platform that has streamlined the customer buying experience for clients like Loom, Origin, and Instabug.
Here’s the agenda I use to guide founders and early marketing leaders: the 2023 SaaS marketing playbook; how to start your early-stage B2B marketing; how to prioritize resources across multiple marketing bets; how to think about attribution; Lattice’s unorthodox million-dollar marketing campaign; how to hire for early marketing roles; what makes a standout marketer; and advice for building your first website.
When I spin up early-stage B2B marketing, I start by defining the shortest path to signal. That means a crisp ICP, problem-first messaging, and one or two channels where our buyers already congregate. At this stage, I bias toward founder-led discovery calls, live product walkthroughs, and tight content that proves outcomes—not features. This creates the raw material for positioning, case studies, and a credible top-of-funnel narrative.
Short-term versus long-term goals must be explicitly balanced. I set near-term pipeline and learning targets (e.g., qualified conversations per week, time-to-insight from experiments) alongside long-term brand assets (evergreen content, customer proof, category POV). The rule of thumb I apply: stabilize one growth motion before layering the next, so we don’t overfit to noise or dilute the message.
Allocating resources across marketing bets is a portfolio problem. I structure it as 70/20/10: 70% on the core motion that’s already working, 20% on adjacent bets with clear hypotheses, and 10% on contrarian experiments that could unlock step-change distribution. Weekly syntheses convert experiment data into decisions—double down, redesign, or retire.
On attribution, I’m pragmatic. Early on, precision is less valuable than directionality. I pair multi-touch analytics with qualitative inputs (self-reported attribution, sales notes, community signals). The question I ask: which narratives and channels consistently show up in won deals? That blend avoids over-crediting the last click and keeps us honest about how trust is actually formed in B2B.
Your first website is a conversion engine and a trust anchor. The first thing people should see on your website is the problem you solve, the outcomes you deliver, and a frictionless way to see the product in action. I recommend a tight hero message, social proof above the fold, a short demo video or interactive experience, and clear CTAs for both buyers who are ready now and those who need to explore.
Brand and positioning mature with evidence. I translate discovery insights into a simple hierarchy: category, problem, unique insight, product proof, outcomes. At Lattice, strong brand clarity met operational excellence; at Dock, product-led collaboration sells the value by making the buying experience itself the demo. In both cases, the lesson stands: great B2B brands tell a truth buyers can quickly verify.
Bold bets can be force multipliers. Lattice’s unorthodox million-dollar marketing campaign underscores a principle I use sparingly but decisively: when the narrative, timing, and distribution are aligned, a high-conviction investment can set the agenda for your category. The bar is high. The insight must be non-obvious, the creative durable, and the measurement plan rigorous.
Hiring for early marketing roles, I optimize for learning velocity, narrative craft, and cross-functional empathy. The ideal first marketer is a full-stack generalist who can research, write, ship, analyze, and partner with sales and product. Experience matters, but potential—ownership, curiosity, systems thinking—often outperforms. I scale the team once one motion is repeatable and there’s a clear backlog of work we can’t tackle without specialization.
Conferences and communities are underrated if used deliberately. I set specific objectives (target accounts, partners, customer content) and treat events as field research and content engines. Every conversation informs messaging; every meeting has a next step; every session becomes a clip, post, or asset. The outcome is pipeline plus reusable proof.
My 2023 SaaS marketing stack emphasizes speed to insight: product analytics to observe behavior; a CRM and marketing automation platform to orchestrate journeys; lightweight data pipelines for attribution; a CMS for shipping content fast; and collaboration tools that put buyers and sellers in the same workspace. What matters most is not the logo set—it’s the operating cadence that converts data into action.
If you’re going from zero to one, keep it simple: validate your ICP, ship a compelling narrative, pick one channel to master, and measure what buyers say and do. Sequence beats scope. Credibility compounds. And the best marketing is a mirror of a product that solves a painful, urgent problem—beautifully.
Timestamps: [00:00:00] Intro [00:02:45] The challenges and opportunities in early-stage B2B marketing [00:05:13] How to think about short-term versus long-term marketing goals [00:07:31] Allocating resources across marketing bets [00:09:13] Signs your marketing is working [00:11:20] The most underutilized marketing strategy [00:13:03] Creating your company’s first website [00:14:22] How Lattice formed its brand messaging and positioning [00:18:22] Dock’s innovative approach to marketing software [00:20:14] The first thing people should see on your website [00:23:10] Lattice’s most successful early-stage marketing tactics [00:28:05] Determining which marketing strategies are still relevant [00:30:25] Lattice’s unorthodox million-dollar marketing campaign [00:33:26] Why Alex had an outsized impact at Lattice [00:37:05] Lessons from his first marketing hires [00:39:41] When to scale your marketing team [00:40:55] Building an effective early-stage marketing team [00:42:30] A tough conversation with the CEO & Co-founder of Lattice [00:44:46] Achieving early-stage marketing alignment [00:46:20] Transitioning from employee to entrepreneur [00:49:19] Getting the most out of conferences [00:50:47] Selecting marketing channels in the early stages [00:52:44] Hiring marketers for experience versus potential [00:56:34] The 2023 SaaS marketing stack [00:58:19] Advice for Zero to One marketing [00:60:46] What successful B2B marketing looks like
I obsess over building high-velocity engineering organizations that ship meaningful outcomes. When I evaluate what reliably moves the needle—across startups and scaled enterprises—it always comes back to alignment, disciplined management, and a modern view of engineering productivity. Recently, I revisited a set of insights that crystallize these themes and translate them into practical rituals any leader can adopt.
Kellan Elliott-McCrea is a Head of Engineering at Adobe, overseeing Frame.io, a newly acquired video review and collaboration platform. He is known for his experience and expertise as an engineering leader. He was previously a VPE at Dropbox, and CTO at Etsy where he built and led a team of 300 people, from tech and platform reboot through to IPO. Kellan also built and scaled teams at Flickr, and has a coaching and advising practice for companies looking to supercharge their engineering teams.
Here’s what we dig into when we talk about world-class engineering orgs: how software engineering has changed in the last 10-15 years; the future of software engineering, and the impact of AI; the importance of alignment and tactics for achieving it; how to think about and enable engineering productivity; lessons on culture from Adobe, Dropbox, and Flickr; concrete tips for being a better manager; and rituals for building business literacy throughout an org.
Let’s start with a reality I see in my own work: engineering teams are bigger than they were a decade ago, despite dramatically better tools and platforms. The reason isn’t inefficiency—it’s scope. Today’s products carry higher bars for reliability, privacy, security, compliance, and multi-surface experience. The coordination surface area has exploded. That’s why operating models must evolve: clear interfaces between teams, standardized decision-making, and reliable cross-functional rhythms are no longer nice-to-haves—they’re throughput constraints.
Alignment, then, is the ultimate speed multiplier. I’ve learned the hard way that slow teams are rarely under-skilled; they’re misaligned. “Slow teams are misaligned teams.” To counter this, I anchor on a few tactics: articulate a clear strategic narrative (why now, why us, why this), commit to outcomes vs output OKRs, and institutionalize decision logs so debates don’t reset every sprint. When teams know the customer problem, the business bet, and how their work ladders up, the flywheel starts turning.
On engineering productivity, I avoid vanity metrics and favor a portfolio: flow and focus (interruptions, WIP), system signals (lead time, deployment frequency, change fail rate), and outcome alignment (how progress maps to customer value and revenue impact). Tools matter—DX investment in CI/CD, observability, and paved roads—yet the largest gains usually come from simplifying priorities and reducing cross-team coupling. Fewer, better bets will beat “more tickets shipped” every time.
The future of software engineering is inseparable from AI. In my practice, I treat gen ai and gen ai for product prototyping as core accelerators: copilots for code and tests, scaffolding services that convert specs to boilerplate, and retrieval-augmented knowledge that collapses the gap between tribal lore and action. The key is to measure impact at the team level—cycle time, defect escape, and learning velocity—so AI augments engineering judgment rather than creating hidden complexity.
Culture is the compounding edge. Lessons on culture from Adobe, Dropbox, and Flickr converge on a few essentials: invest in psychological safety and clarity of purpose, operationalize blameless learning, and make information radically accessible. “How Complex Systems Fail, by Richard I. Cook, MD” is a touchstone here—complexity punishes organizations that rely on heroics and rewards those that build resilient systems and shared mental models.
For managers, I return to a short, durable list. Schedule real one-on-ones that prioritize coaching over status. Write more than you speak; clarity scales through documents. Run crisp, time-boxed decision forums with pre-reads and owners. Close the loop on feedback—especially in moments of disagreement—by documenting trade-offs and naming the decider. These concrete tips for being a better manager build trust, accelerate decisions, and enable autonomy.
Every high-performing engineering org I’ve led invests in business literacy as a first-class ritual. I recommend monthly “Finance 101” briefings, customer support ride-alongs, and deal reviews to connect engineers to revenue realities. Pair that with tactics and rituals for enabling effective teams—weekly written updates, demo-driven reviews, and pre-mortems—and you get sharper prioritization and far better cross-functional coordination.
Why so few companies successfully go multi-product? Most underinvest in platforms, shared services, and explicit funding models for internal APIs. The remedy: treat platforms as products with clear roadmaps, SLAs, and customer empathy; align incentives so teams don’t fork capabilities in the rush to ship; and adopt technical governance that favors standardization where it compounds and freedom where it differentiates.
For compensation and career architecture, I pressure-test common models by asking: does this design reward the behaviors we say we want? If we value outcomes, impact, and enabling others, the ladders should reflect it. When the incentives match the mission, the org learns faster and scales cleaner.
My bottom line: if you want to supercharge your engineering org, anchor on alignment, measure what matters, and leverage AI to elevate—not replace—engineering judgment. Do that, and you’ll turn coordination costs into compounding advantages that show up in customer value, velocity, and morale.
The ground rules for product development have changed in the post-LLM world. I’m sharing a practical, first-person playbook—lessons I’ve pressure-tested in my own product org—to help you build AI-native products with confidence, cut through hype, and deliver outcomes that compound.
Sprig is an AI-powered user insights platform that has raised over $88m. Today’s discussion features two key individuals in Sprig’s journey so far: Ryan Glasgow, Sprig’s CEO and founder; and Kevin Mandich, Sprig’s Head of Machine Learning. Before Sprig, Ryan was an early PM at GraphScience, Vurb, and Weeby (all of which were acquired), and Kevin was an ML Engineer at Incubit, and a Post-Doctoral Researcher at UC San Diego.
In today’s episode, we discuss: Key lessons from the Sprig founding story; Product development in the pre vs. post-LLM world; How to overcome AI skepticism; How to evaluate new models and how to know when to switch; Why you need an ML engineer; Sprig’s “AI Squad” team structure; How Sprig upskills all team members on AI.
Founding story takeaways I keep returning to: conviction compounds when paired with continuous discovery. Early on, prioritize direct customer signal over elegant architectures. I’ve seen the fastest learning loops come from a tight PM–ML partnership that prototypes quickly, validates with real users, and refactors only after signal stabilizes. The Jobs to Be Done Framework: https://hbr.org/2016/09/know-your-customers-jobs-to-be-done remains my favorite lens to separate what the model can do from what the customer actually needs done.
Pre vs. post-LLM product development requires a mindset shift. Pre-LLM, we wrote deterministic systems and pushed the edge with models like Google’s BERT model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BERT_(language_model). Post-LLM, we design probabilistic systems, treat prompts like code, and invest in evaluation harnesses from day one. I routinely prototype with Chat GPT: https://chat.openai.com and scaffold experiments with Langchain: https://www.langchain.com/ to compress discovery cycles. The key is shipping guardrails and UX affordances that make non-determinism feel trustworthy.
On AI skepticism, I don’t argue—I demonstrate. I target one painful workflow, build a narrow, high-precision solution, and expose transparent failure modes with a human-in-the-loop escape hatch. This reframes AI from magic to leverage. In customer-facing settings (think customer support ai strategy), we measure deflection and satisfaction together so automation never outpaces user psychology.
Evaluating new models—and knowing when to switch—demands a clear rubric: task quality (ground-truthed), latency at p95, unit economics, privacy/compliance, and operational reliability. I run shadow evaluations before swapping production dependencies, then phase changes behind flags with canaries and backstops. Tools like Auto-GPT: https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT are useful for ideation, but I never skip rigorous offline and online evaluation before a cutover.
Why you need an ML engineer: the fastest teams pair a product manager who owns the problem framing with an ML engineer who owns the feasibility frontier. This duo translates ambiguous jobs into measurable tasks, instrumented datasets, and iterative model/UX improvements. In my experience, this partnership reduces time-to-learning more than any single tooling decision.
Sprig’s “AI Squad” team structure mirrors what I’ve seen work: a cross-functional pod with a PM, ML engineer, data engineer/analyst, design, and platform partner. The squad ships thin slices end-to-end, owns their eval suite, and meets weekly to review errors, edge cases, and customer feedback. We track outcomes vs output OKRs to ensure velocity serves impact—not the other way around.
Upskilling the entire team on AI is non-negotiable. I’ve had success with lightweight rituals: weekly demo hours, prompt libraries maintained in Jira: https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira, red-team exercises to uncover failure patterns, and internal brown bags where engineers and PMs teach each other. Small, frequent exposure beats heavyweight training.
For deeper exploration and hands-on experimentation, I reference: Auto-GPT: https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT; Chat GPT: https://chat.openai.com; Google’s BERT model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BERT_(language_model); Jira: https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira; Jobs to Be Done Framework: https://hbr.org/2016/09/know-your-customers-jobs-to-be-done; Langchain: https://www.langchain.com/; Sprig: https://sprig.com/.
Timestamps: (02:50) Intro (04:57) What attracted Kevin to Sprig (05:53) Kevin’s background before Sprig (07:56) How Ryan gained conviction about Kevin (09:55) Key technical challenges and how they solved them (18:46) How to overcome AI skepticism (21:47) The early difficulties of building an ML-enabled product (25:06) Evaluating new models and knowing when to switch (35:09) Using Chat GPT (37:23) Product development in the pre vs. post-LLM world (39:53) The impact of AI hype on Sprig’s product development (45:36) Balancing AI automation with user-psychology (48:47) Do recent LLMs reduce Sprig’s competitive advantage? (51:00) The importance of “selling the vision” to customers (54:40) How Sprig structures teams (57:25) How Sprig upskills all team members on AI (60:25) 3 key tips for companies trying to navigate AI (66:05) Major limitations with LLMs right now (70:27) The future of AI and the future of Sprig
Three guiding principles I use daily: first, reduce surface area—start with one high-value job and earn trust with reliability. Second, treat evaluation as a product—version prompts, log failures, and continuously retrain on your own data distributions. Third, design for collaboration—pair AI with human judgment and transparent controls so users feel empowered, not replaced. Post-LLM success isn’t about chasing models; it’s about building resilient systems, teams, and learning loops.
I sat down with Dan Siroker to explore the product, fundraising, and AI strategy lessons behind Rewind AI’s rapid rise — and to reflect on what I would adopt in my own product management practice today. Dan Siroker is the co-founder and CEO at Rewind AI, a personalized AI powered by everything you’ve seen, said, or heard. Dan launched Rewind to an emphatic response on Twitter, and used a public pitch video to fundraise at a $350m valuation. Prior to starting Rewind, Dan co-founded Optimizely, which reached $120m ARR before being acquired by Episerver, a content management company. Dan was also the Director of Analytics for Obama’s first presidential campaign.
What stood out immediately was Rewind’s journey to Product Market Fit and how deliberately the team instrumented learning loops. As a product leader, I pay close attention to how founders reduce ambiguity: narrow the target segment, ship thin slices, measure engagement cohorts, and iterate fast. Rewind’s early focus on utility and trust — not novelty — created the conditions for PMF while the team resisted the temptation to over-scope.
I was especially interested in how Rewind works and how the team managed scope while building a category-creating product. By focusing on personalized recall powered by on-device intelligence and a clear privacy narrative, they avoided the common trap of trying to solve everything for everyone. My own rule of thumb is to enforce brutal prioritization around the highest-intent jobs-to-be-done, then earn the right to expand. That same discipline shows up in Rewind’s cultural mantra for shipping and validating fast.
Lessons from Optimizely echo throughout. Being a second-time founder sharpens pattern recognition — from building high-clarity cultural values to operationalizing product-market fit. I’ve found that codifying operating principles early helps a team move faster with fewer collisions, and Dan’s approach to open feedback and public learning raises the bar for transparency.
On product positioning as a category creator, the team leaned into outcomes over features, which is critical when the mental model is new. Rather than compete in a features arms race, they framed a compelling before-and-after: instant, searchable memory that augments cognition. In my experience, that level of narrative clarity drives founder-led GTM and accelerates word-of-mouth.
We also dug into where to build in AI, and what makes a “wrapper” thin versus thick. My take: thin wrappers add shallow convenience on top of foundation models; thick wrappers integrate proprietary data, workflow depth, distribution advantages, and durable UX moats. Founders should aim for thick wrappers with unique data flywheels, not commodity interfaces easily displaced by platform shifts.
Operationalizing Product Market Fit remains a craft. I routinely use leading indicators like activation rate, day-7/day-30 retention for key actions, and sentiment via structured PMF surveys. Rahul Vohra’s framework for measuring and optimizing Product Market Fit: https://review.firstround.com/how-superhuman-built-an-engine-to-find-product-market-fit is a proven playbook. Pair that with cohort-based instrumentation and tight audience segmentation to reveal the “sharpest edge” of value.
On AI hype, we aligned on a pragmatic view: real value accrues where latency, accuracy, and privacy meet workflow depth. Apple’s Silicon: https://www.macrumors.com/guide/apple-silicon/ and on-device acceleration will keep unlocking new consumer experiences, while ChatGPT: https://chat.openai.com/ has reset expectations for natural interfaces. The cautionary tales of Google Glass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass and Google Wave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Wave remind me that timing, social acceptability, and use-case clarity matter as much as technical novelty.
Data privacy is now a core buying criterion, not a checkbox. I see a clear trend toward local-first approaches, explicit consent, and user agency — especially for products that touch memory, identity, and personal archives. Framing value through Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html helps prioritize trustworthy utility over gimmicks.
Dan’s one-of-a-kind Twitter fundraising strategy was a masterclass in founder-led GTM. By sharing a public pitch and engaging directly with early users and supporters, he compressed feedback cycles and aligned community, product, and capital. For reference, see Dan’s public Twitter fundraise: https://twitter.com/dsiroker/status/1646895452317700097 and Dan’s Rewind demo tweet: https://twitter.com/dsiroker/status/1638799931891920897. The transparency extended to leadership practice as well, with Dan publicly sharing his own 360 performance reviews: https://twitter.com/dsiroker/status/1689763756459675650 — a bold move that builds trust.
I’m watching what’s next for Rewind with interest, particularly around thicker integrations, extensibility, and collaboration patterns. In the next decade, I expect assistive AI to become ambient, multimodal, and context-aware — an ever-present copilot that feels less like a tool and more like an extension of cognition.
Referenced: Paul Graham: https://twitter.com/paulg
Referenced: Rahul Vohra’s framework for measuring and optimizing Product Market Fit: https://review.firstround.com/how-superhuman-built-an-engine-to-find-product-market-fit
Referenced: Rewind AI: https://www.rewind.ai/
Referenced: Scribe (which morphed into Rewind): https://www.scribe.ai/about
Where to find Dan Siroker: Twitter: https://twitter.com/dsiroker
Where to find Dan Siroker: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dsiroker
Where to find Dan Siroker: Personal website: https://siroker.com/
Where to find Dan Siroker: Blog: https://medium.com/@dsiroker
My takeaway for founders and product leaders: obsess over segmentation, instrument for learning, and tell a crisp narrative that earns trust. Thick wrappers, privacy-first design, and founder-led GTM are how you win the next wave of AI.
I build and ship AI products in an environment where the frontier changes weekly, so my planning system has to be adaptive, evidence-driven, and unapologetically outcome-focused. In this piece, I share the frameworks I use to set goals for generative AI, balance research with product execution, and scale responsibly — drawing sharp lessons from one of the most influential applied AI companies operating today.
Consider Runway, an applied AI research company shaping the next era of art, entertainment, and human creativity. Runway has raised $237m and was one of Time Magazine’s “100 most influential companies” in 2023. Runway has been a persistent viral sensation in recent years, and is behind many of the most famous AI demos online.
I’ve learned to be cautious about “The limitations of being “customer-driven” when building in AI”. Traditional product discovery assumes needs are legible and solutions are relatively deterministic. In generative AI, user desire often follows model capability, not the other way around. The job is to triangulate: run tight user loops to validate perceived value, instrument objective model quality, and explore novel interaction patterns that customers can’t yet articulate. I treat this as a portfolio of discovery bets — some customer-led, some capability-led, all evaluated against clear outcome thresholds.
Balancing research development with product development requires organizational design that prevents context-switching tax while preserving velocity. I pair research pods with product pods, supported by forward deployed engineers and domain PMs who translate evaluation metrics into user-visible milestones. Safety and content moderation sit on the critical path, not as afterthoughts — think policy definition, classifier tooling, abuse red teaming, and clear escalation playbooks. This balance is how you move from a great demo to a dependable product without losing momentum.
Goal-setting amidst constant change in AI starts with outcomes vs output OKRs. I write OKRs in terms of user impact and model performance thresholds — for example, target ranges for latency, quality scores against a golden dataset, or creator retention — then let teams choose the highest-leverage outputs (data pipelines, fine-tuning, UX improvements) to get there. Why I don’t plan very far ahead: I treat the annual view as a vision and bet map, the quarterly view as a constrained slate of outcomes, and the 6–8 week cycle as the execution heartbeat. AI roadmaps are hypotheses; evaluation harnesses and launch gates are the truth.
Community is a force multiplier. Forming a vocal community and fostering community requires real access and real listening: early release cohorts, office hours, and transparent changelogs. How they picked users for early release matters — diversity of use cases, sophistication of workflows, and willingness to give crisp feedback. Expanding past the first 100 users of Gen-2 demands readiness: evaluation parity across modalities, scalable infra, and safety coverage. Done well, this motion compounds learning while building authentic advocacy.
For founders, my advice echoes the core lessons above. Start with a narrow, high-intent wedge and prove durable value fast; let founder-led GTM compress the feedback loop; instrument everything from day one; and resist the urge to over-plan features before you’ve nailed outcomes. Product-market fit lessons in AI often arrive via small, fast experiments — not grand, long-range plans. Ship thin slices that demonstrate unmistakable value, then iterate toward a system, not a single feature. When in doubt, shorten the loop and improve the evaluation harness.
People often ask: Will AI replace video editors? My view is that AI will replace zero editors who master these tools — and many who don’t. The winners blend taste, storytelling, and generative leverage. The products we build should honor this reality: design for control, iteration, and co-creation, not just automation.
For builders focused on gen ai for product prototyping through production: keep your demo muscle strong, your evaluation stronger, and your outcomes strongest. Invest in community, treat safety as a feature, and let your OKRs steer what ships — not the other way around.
I’m often asked how I translate lessons from hypergrowth engineering organizations into practical playbooks for product and platform teams. In this piece, I unpack the patterns I’ve seen repeatedly work—anchored by what I admire about Will Larson’s approaches at Carta, Calm, Stripe, and Uber—and how I apply them to build resilient, high-velocity orgs.
Will Larson is a case study in modern engineering leadership. As CTO at Carta—an ownership and equity management platform—he helped guide the company after it raised at a $7.4b valuation in 2021. Before that, he was CTO at Calm, founded Stripe’s Foundation Engineering org, and led Uber’s Platform Engineering people and strategy. He’s also the author of Staff Engineer and An Elegant Puzzle, both essential reads for leaders leveling up from line management to org design.
When I craft an engineering strategy, I start by writing down a small set of clear principles. This isn’t performative; it’s an alignment mechanism. Principles reduce decision thrash, make trade-offs explicit, and help teams navigate ambiguity without constant escalation. I’ve found the discipline of writing them down upfront pays off 10x in execution quality later.
For the strategy document itself, I structure it so anyone can understand the why, what, and how in one sitting. A useful pattern: a sharp problem definition, a few guiding policies, and a concise set of coherent actions. That scaffolding keeps the strategy legible and actionable across functions—especially as it ladders into product roadmaps, platform investments, and talent plans.
Every engineering strategy has two parts. First, compounding capabilities: the platform, tooling, and architecture that unlock future velocity. Second, targeted bets: focused initiatives that advance near-term outcomes. Neglect either and you either stall out later (too many quick wins, no compounding) or fail to ship value now (all compounding, no customer impact).
Turning strategy into action requires ruthless translation. I map each guiding policy to a small number of initiatives with owners, milestones, and outcome metrics—not output. This is where outcomes vs output OKRs matter: measure the user or business result, not just the deliverable. It’s also where you surface dependencies early and avoid the Hidden Variable Problem that quietly derails timelines.
I’m particularly intrigued by Carta’s unique “navigator” model, which blends technical leadership with cross-functional guidance to accelerate execution while preserving autonomy. In my experience, similar patterns work when leaders are explicitly accountable for both system health and product outcomes—reducing the gap between platform decisions and customer value.
Engineering velocity is explainable, measurable, and optimizable. I anchor on DORA and the research from Accelerate (book), and I complement it with the SPACE (framework) to account for satisfaction and collaboration, not just delivery. The story I tell executives is simple: pick a few canonical measures, instrument them consistently, and then drive the feedback loops—branching strategy, CI/CD hygiene, change size, and operational excellence.
Choosing the right metrics for an engineering org matters as much as the metrics themselves. I use a balanced set: delivery (lead time for changes, deployment frequency), quality (change failure rate, availability), and flow (work in progress, batch size). Then I pair these with narrative context so the numbers inform decisions rather than become a game to win.
On policy, nuance beats orthodoxy. Great leaders define clear, default rules while acknowledging real-world exceptions. I’ve learned to document the policy, define who can grant exceptions, and track exception volume to spot design flaws. The goal isn’t rigidity—it’s predictable operations with a safe on-ramp for edge cases.
Micromanagement is a symptom, not a root cause. Telling someone “don’t micromanage” is often counterproductive. Instead, I focus on what’s missing—trust, clarity, or visibility. If leaders can see the plan, the risks, the checkpoints, and the demo cadence, they don’t need to hover. If they still do, fix incentives and accountability, not just behavior.
I avoid management anti-patterns by watching for early signals: policies without principles, roadmaps without strategy, meetings without decisions, or dashboards without actions. The best engineering executives pair systems thinking with crisp communication. They’re close enough to the details to ask sharp questions, yet disciplined enough to scale through managers and staff engineers.
Executive communication is an asymmetric game. I tailor the message to the decision horizon: one slide for the ask, one for the trade-offs, one for the plan and risks. The Minto Pyramid (framework) helps—lead with the answer, then support it. In meetings, the fastest way to derail progress is to lack a clear owner, a time box, or pre-reads. Fix those and you reclaim hours every week.
For presentation feedback, I’ve found a cadence that works: clarify the objective, highlight the single biggest risk, and eliminate anything that doesn’t move the decision forward. A bad sign with direct reports is when updates are status-only and insight-light; I coach toward “what changed, why it changed, and what you need.”
For early-career engineers, the most durable advantage is compounding learning: pick hard problems, write more than you think you should, and seek out leaders who invest in your growth. For team development, I borrow a simple model: staff your keystones, instrument your systems, and build a culture where the best ideas win, not the loudest voices.
If you want to explore the foundations behind these practices, start here.
Accelerate (book): https://www.amazon.com/Accelerate-Software-Performing-Technology-Organizations/dp/1942788339
Good Strategy, Bad Strategy (book): https://www.amazon.com/Good-Strategy-Bad-Difference-Matters/dp/0307886239
DORA: https://dora.dev/
SPACE (framework): https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm
Minto Pyramid (framework): https://untools.co/minto-pyramid
Carta: https://www.carta.com/
Calm: https://www.calm.com/
Stripe: https://www.stripe.com/
JavaScript: https://www.javascript.com/
KAFKA: https://kafka.apache.org/
Ruby on Rails: https://rubyonrails.org/
To go deeper on Will’s writing and perspective, these are great starting points.
Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/lethain
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/will-larson-a44b543/
Personal website/blog: https://lethain.com/
An Elegant Puzzle (book): https://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Puzzle-Systems-Engineering-Management/dp/1732265186
Staff Engineer (book): https://staffeng.com/book
I spend a lot of time helping teams reconcile two pressures that define modern product management: ship fast enough to learn and compete, but slow enough to be safe, ethical, and useful. Studying Bard offers a crisp blueprint for navigating that tension and leveling up how we build with Generative AI.
Jack Krawczyk is a Senior Director of Product at Google, building Bard. Bard is Google’s collaborative, conversational, and experimental AI tool that’s bridging the gap between humans and bots, while addressing ethical considerations around AI. After joining the project in 2020, Jack helped ship Bard in less than four years. Bard sources information directly from the web, and now enables users to inquire about and summarize YouTube videos.
From a product management lens, the most valuable takeaway is the sequencing: problem definition → principled constraints → rapid public learning with clear guardrails. I’ve seen this order de-risk speed. When we anchor teams on a tight product thesis and ethical framework, we unlock faster iteration without drifting into feature theater.
Shipping early—especially with a Large Language Model (LLM)—can feel risky. Yet the decision to open Bard to the public quickly reflects a disciplined bias toward learning velocity. In my experience, the longer we delay real-world feedback with LLMs, the more our internal assumptions calcify. Early exposure surfaces edge cases, calibrates safety systems, and drives better prioritization than any lab-only evaluation can.
Ethics in AI is not a separate workstream; it’s a product requirement. I anchor cross-functional reviews on harm modeling, transparency, and user agency. Bard’s framing makes this explicit: collaborative, conversational, experimental—language that signals co-creation and responsible exploration rather than unfettered automation. That positioning matters for trust and sets expectations for both quality and limitations.
Differentiation in AI assistants increasingly hinges on live context and modality. Bard sources information directly from the web, and now enables users to inquire about and summarize YouTube videos. In practice, this moves Bard beyond static Q&A toward dynamic sensemaking. I advise teams to ask: what fresh, authoritative context can our system responsibly ingest to reduce hallucinations and increase actionability?
On development speed, I look for a culture that marries ambition with measurable risk reduction. That means small, end-to-end vertical slices; evaluation harnesses aligned to user outcomes, not model vanity metrics; and weekly red-teaming that actually changes the roadmap. Outcomes vs output OKRs are critical here—optimize for quality-adjusted learning per unit time, not just feature count.
Early user research should be embedded, not episodic. I’m a proponent of forward deployed engineers paired with product and research to observe failure modes in the wild and close the loop quickly. With LLM-based experiences, qualitative signals (confusion, trust breaks, cognitive load) often precede quantitative ones; instrument both and let them inform each other.
Deciding when to ship comes down to clear thresholds. I pressure-test launch criteria with two prompts: what would change my mind tomorrow, and what could break if we’re right but too early? For AI features, I also require recovery paths—explanations, undo, source attribution—so that small misses don’t become trust-ending moments.
As for the competitive landscape—Bard versus ChatGPT, and others—users ultimately reward utility, reliability, and workflow fit. I encourage teams to pick a sharp use case, lean into their unique distribution or data advantage, and prove value in minutes, not weeks. “Generative AI” is table stakes; reliable outcomes in a real job-to-be-done is differentiation.
Zooming out, I see three fronts shaping the future of LLM, Generative AI, and AGI: model capability, grounding and retrieval quality, and product ergonomics. Most teams overinvest in capability and underinvest in grounding and UX. The fastest wins often come from better retrieval, tighter prompts, and clearer affordances—not just a larger model.
For aspiring AI developers, start narrow and instrument deeply. Pick a workflow with painful status quo, ship a thin slice, measure correctness and confidence, and iterate with real users. For non-LLM companies, the mandate is different: augment your core product where AI reduces friction or unlocks frequency—don’t bolt on a chatbot because everyone else did.
For product leaders, AI changes the craft in two ways. First, prototyping is faster—use this to expand the option space early. Second, evaluation requires new muscles—build an experimentation and safety stack that blends qualitative red-teaming with quantitative reliability and cost controls. The leaders who thrive will combine taste with statistical rigor.
If you want to go deeper, these references are useful: Bard: https://bard.google.com/; ChatGPT: https://chat.openai.com/; Duet AI: https://cloud.google.com/duet-ai; Free courses on machine learning by Andrew Ng: https://www.andrewng.org/courses/; Google Assistant: https://assistant.google.com/; Introducing Google Assistant to Bard: https://blog.google/products/assistant/google-assistant-bard-generative-ai/; Large Language Model (LLM): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model; Meena: https://blog.research.google/2020/01/towards-conversational-agent-that-can.html.
In sum, the Bard blueprint reinforces a simple truth: ship with a thesis, learn in public with care, and let principled constraints accelerate—not slow—your path to product-market fit. That’s how we create value fast, build ethically, and stay ahead in the next era of AI.
If your teams can produce prototypes, specifications, and code faster with AI, why does the roadmap still feel slow? The work did not disappear. It moved from creating the first draft to deciding what deserves customer and production trust.
That shift changes your leadership job. You are no longer optimizing only for delivery capacity. You are building a system that turns uncertain AI behavior into reliable customer outcomes. That system needs sharper bets, separate exploration and industrialization modes, evidence-based operating rhythms, clear decision rights, and people who can exercise judgment without waiting for permission.
The bottleneck has moved from production to judgment
AI makes many artifacts cheaper to produce. A team can generate interface concepts, implementation options, test cases, documentation, and working prototypes before it has proved that the underlying problem matters. That is useful leverage, but it creates a throughput trap: more plausible work enters the system than the organization can evaluate responsibly.
Feature count, ticket velocity, and lines of generated code become even weaker management signals in this environment. They measure activity at the stage where activity is becoming abundant. The scarce resources are customer insight, technical taste, attention, and the willingness to stop work that has not earned further investment.
Start every meaningful AI initiative with a one-page bet brief. It should be precise enough for product, design, and engineering to disagree before code creates momentum.
Customer and job: Name the user, the workflow, and the moment in which the problem occurs. Avoid broad labels such as productivity assistant.
Outcome: State what should improve for the customer or business. A launch is not an outcome. A completed task, resolved case, retained account, or reduced source of friction can be.
AI responsibility: Specify what the model must classify, retrieve, decide, generate, or recommend. Also state which parts of the workflow should remain deterministic.
Evidence: Define the cases that will demonstrate useful behavior, including common tasks, difficult edge cases, and unacceptable failures.
Constraints: Make latency, cost, privacy, security, explainability, and human-review requirements visible before the team chooses an architecture.
Failure boundary: Describe what happens when confidence is low or the system is wrong. Name the fallback, escalation path, and person accountable for the customer experience.
Rollout: Identify the owner, initial exposure, feature-flag plan, rollback mechanism, and decision that the first release is meant to inform.
This brief prevents a common category error. Product acceptance and engineering acceptance are related, but they are not identical. Product acceptance asks whether the workflow creates meaningful value. Engineering acceptance asks whether the system is reliable, observable, maintainable, secure, and economical enough for its intended use. An impressive demonstration answers neither question on its own.
I would not approve a production AI bet whose success criteria describe only what the team will ship. The brief should make it possible to observe a customer result, inspect system behavior, and decide whether to expand, revise, or stop the investment.
Separate exploration from industrialization
AI work becomes expensive when leaders ask one team to discover the product and harden the platform at the same time. Exploration rewards speed, range, and cheap learning. Industrialization rewards repeatability, control, and operational discipline. Both matter, but they should not be confused.
Explore the customer outcome
Give a small, mission-aligned group protected time to test the riskiest assumptions. Product should bring a specific customer problem. Design should make the interaction and trust model tangible. Engineering should expose feasibility limits early. A forward deployed engineer or another technically fluent customer-facing person can shorten the loop by observing the workflow where it actually happens.
Use prototypes to answer questions, not to create the appearance of progress:
Does the proposed behavior remove a real step from the user’s job, or merely relocate it to review?
Can the user tell when the system is uncertain, and do they know what to do next?
Which inputs produce useful results, and which expose brittle assumptions?
Does the workflow still create value after human verification time is included?
What did the team learn that changes the product, model, data, or distribution decision?
Protect focus time during this phase. The team needs room to test alternatives, inspect failures, and discard work without having to defend every abandoned prototype as lost output. Use a weekly evidence demo to maintain urgency without filling the calendar with status meetings.
Industrialize the proven behavior
Once a workflow earns further investment, treat the AI capability as a production system rather than a model call. The system includes prompts, retrieval, data transformations, tools, permissions, deterministic checks, user controls, monitoring, and recovery paths. Reliability comes from the whole chain.
The transition should be explicit. Before moving from exploration to industrialization, confirm that the team has:
a repeated customer need rather than a technology looking for a workflow;
an observable outcome and a credible leading signal;
a representative evaluation set with difficult and unacceptable cases;
a named owner for model quality, service reliability, and the end-to-end customer experience;
known latency and cost constraints for the intended level of use;
privacy, security, data-governance, and access-control requirements;
a staged release plan with feature flags, monitoring, fallback behavior, and rollback;
a decision rule for expanding, revising, or ending the bet.
Automated tests should cover deterministic components. Evaluations should cover AI behavior. Observability should connect technical events to user outcomes so the team can distinguish a model-quality problem from a retrieval failure, tool error, interface problem, or poorly defined task. Version the prompts, configurations, and evaluation sets that influence behavior; otherwise, the team cannot explain why performance changed.
Do not interpret exploration as permission to ignore safety until later. Irreversible constraints belong in the initial brief. The distinction is about the maturity of the implementation, not whether privacy, security, or customer harm matters.
The release target should be the smallest remarkable workflow, not the largest collection of AI features. Give the user a short path to value, opinionated defaults, understandable controls, and a complete recovery experience. A narrow capability that can be trusted will teach you more than a broad copilot whose value is difficult to locate.
Run the organization on evidence, not AI activity
An AI team does not need a new ceremony for every new tool. It needs a tighter truth loop. The operating rhythm should move evidence from customers and production into decisions while preserving enough uninterrupted time for builders to think.
Write the intent before work begins. The one-page brief records the problem, constraints, owner, and success measures. If the intent changes, update the brief instead of allowing assumptions to diverge across meetings.
Protect maker time. Reserve no-meeting blocks for implementation, evaluation, and failure analysis. Keep recurring capacity for prototypes, developer experience, and technical debt so short-term AI pressure does not hollow out the platform.
Hold a weekly evidence demo. Show the real workflow, not a slide about completion. Demonstrate where the system helped, where it failed, what evidence was collected, and which decision is now required.
Record the decision. Capture the evidence considered, assumptions still open, trade-offs made, owner, and next review point. A decision log lets the organization improve judgment instead of repeatedly debating the same context.
Inspect outcomes separately from delivery status. Review customer impact, learning, service quality, and business effect. Delivery milestones remain useful, but they should not masquerade as proof of value.
A good evidence demo is not a performance. The team should be able to show a failed evaluation, explain what it invalidated, and receive credit for preventing a weak assumption from reaching customers. If every demo ends with a green status, the mechanism is probably rewarding confidence rather than truth.
Scope discipline matters here. AI expands the number of ideas that appear feasible, so the backlog will grow faster than the team’s capacity to validate it. Remove low-leverage work, consolidate teams around fewer outcomes, and use customer impact as the tie-breaker. Otherwise, faster prototyping produces a larger inventory of unfinished decisions.
Match decision speed to reversibility. A reversible interface experiment can move with guardrails and a named owner. A choice involving sensitive data, security exposure, an irreversible migration, or reputational risk deserves a pre-mortem and wider review. Treating every choice as a committee decision slows learning; treating every choice as reversible hides real risk.
Healthy debate is part of the cadence. Invite dissent in written RFCs, challenge assumptions rather than people, time-box the decision, and commit once the window closes. Truth travels faster when high standards are delivered with respect.
Keep decision rights clear as roles begin to overlap
AI lets more people create artifacts outside their traditional discipline. A product manager can generate a prototype. A designer can test implementation details. An engineer can draft a product specification. That overlap can accelerate discovery, but it does not erase accountability.
Role
Primary decision right
Required contribution to an AI bet
Product
Why this problem matters and what outcome the team will pursue
How the experience communicates value, control, confidence, and recovery
Workflow design, feedback, error states, human handoff, and trust cues
Engineering
How the system works and what production standard it must meet
Architecture, data flow, evaluations, testing, observability, security, reliability, and rollback
All three
Whether the end-to-end outcome is good enough to expand
Shared evidence, customer exposure, failure analysis, and an explicit recommendation
An artifact created with AI remains subject to the decision rights of the discipline that must stand behind it. Code generated by a PM is a prototype until engineering accepts responsibility for operating it. A model-generated requirements document is not product strategy until product has resolved the customer and business choices inside it. A generated interface is not finished design merely because it looks polished.
Lead declaratively at the team level. Set the intent, constraints, measures, and decision deadline. Do not prescribe every prompt, framework, or implementation step. Guardrails create safety; room to choose creates ownership. This is especially important when tools and techniques change faster than executive expertise.
You should move into the details under three conditions: the bet carries an existential reliability, security, or reputation risk; it is a pivotal zero-to-one decision; or cross-functional misalignment keeps recurring despite clear ownership. Enter to diagnose the system, expose the trade-off, and model the expected standard. Then step back out. Staying in the work turns executive attention into a dependency and quietly replaces the accountable team.
Hire for judgment before tool fluency
AI hiring can over-index on familiarity with the latest model or framework. Tool fluency has value, but it decays quickly. In an evolving product area, prioritize adaptable builders who can reduce ambiguity, derive a solution from first principles, and learn from failed assumptions. Add deep specialists when the motion and interfaces are stable enough for specialization to compound.
Interview for the derivation, not merely the answer. Give the candidate an ambiguous customer problem and ask them to identify the first assumption they would test, the evidence they would collect, the failure they would refuse to expose, and the point at which they would stop. Ask what would change their mind. A polished solution with no falsifiable reasoning is a warning sign.
Develop the same judgment inside the organization. Bring product managers into sales and support workflows. Let engineers observe customers rather than receiving filtered requirements. Rotate people through adjacent responsibilities when it improves their understanding of the whole system. Ask precise what-if questions during reviews: What if the retrieval result is stale? What if the tool executes twice? What if the user cannot verify the answer? What if the cost works in a pilot but not at broad adoption?
Do not convert faster first drafts into permanently higher commitments before the quality loop proves that the gain is real. AI can reduce effort in one stage while increasing review, integration, or operational work elsewhere. Manage the whole value stream and the team’s energy, not the speed of the most visible artifact.
Key takeaways
Optimize for reliable customer outcomes and decision quality, not the volume of AI-assisted output.
Require a one-page bet brief that defines the customer job, AI responsibility, evidence, constraints, failure boundary, owner, and rollout.
Run exploration and industrialization as distinct modes with an explicit transition between them.
Use weekly evidence demos, protected maker time, decision logs, and outcome reviews to shorten the truth loop.
Keep product, design, and engineering decision rights clear even when AI allows their artifacts to overlap.
Hire and develop people for technical taste, first-principles reasoning, customer fluency, and rate of learning.
At your next planning review, choose one active AI bet and force it through the one-page brief. If the team cannot name the customer outcome, representative evaluations, unacceptable failure, accountable owner, and rollback path, the bet is not ready to scale. Protect the next build block, schedule the evidence demo, and make the next investment decision from what the team learns.
References
Shivam.Consulting Blog – The Human Side of Engineering Leadership: Practical Plays to Build Creative, High-Performing Teams
Shivam.Consulting Blog – Build Enduring Software: Minimum Remarkable Products, Customer-First Culture, and Org Design Lessons
Shivam.Consulting Blog – Leading Up, Down, and Across the Org: Hard-Won Lessons in Executive Effectiveness, Culture, and Speed
Shivam.Consulting Blog – Developing Technical Taste: My Playbook for Next-Gen Engineers, AI Strategy, and 2024 Scaling
Shivam.Consulting Blog – Inside Intercom’s Bold Reboot: Lessons in AI Strategy, Ruthless Focus, and Culture
Shivam.Consulting Blog – Mastering Altitude Shifts: Hard-Won Product Leadership Lessons from Anneka Gupta’s Journey
