God could not be everywhere – so he made man invent “digital”.

An interesting experience the other day made me stop and think about this phenomenon called “digital” that has everyone so excited.

I was driving to work and stopped at a gas station to fill-up my tank. However, when I reached for my wallet, I realized that I had left it at home. I had no cash or cards with me. I panicked. I was already running late. Neither could I drive away, nor did I have the time to leave my car and go back for my wallet! In that dark moment came inspiration. I did have my mobile! So I fired up my mobile-wallet app, scanned the QR code at the gas station, paid with a click and was on my way in a jiffy. Woohoo, “digital” to the rescue!

That set me thinking. Why was this experience so powerful? This was like having an ATM where I needed it, when I needed it! Not only that, to the vendor, it was like having a cash-register connected directly to their bank account. If the gas station had a NFC capable POS, I could have moved cash from my bank to their bank by just waving my phone! “Digital” is omnipresent. Bank accounts, health data, weather information, maps and directions, public records, music, movies, books, real-time video from across the world, a dictionary or the complete encyclopedia – you name, you have it – whenever you want it, wherever you want it. Today, it is with us through gadgets and wearables, and all around us in thousands of digitally-enabled “things”. Tomorrow, it will be within us through implantable chips. And one day, at the moment of singularity, when the boundaries between brain and chip dissolve, it will be us.

Is this just about being everywhere? No, that is just the beginning. Not only is “digital” everywhere, it is also interconnected. An internet of digitally-enabled “things” bound together in a myriad of connections, talking to each other, exchanging information, acting in collusion. And, when the light of AI and analytics is thrown on this vast pool of interconnected data and events, “digital” becomes omniscient. The Google map in my car can see the data from all other cars along my route to tell me that I am heading into a traffic-jam, immediately sifting through all other possible routes to come up with the best alternative - all this, while continuously communicating with a satellite thousands of miles up in space! If that is not a pretty good definition of “all-seeing”, tell me what is.

Now what happens when these astounding powers of digital are coupled with robotics and sensors? The results are truly magical. Scientists can effortlessly control a Mars rover millions of miles away, surgeons can conduct extremely complicated surgeries remotely, cars drive themselves and warehouses become completely automated! “Digital” is becoming omnipotent. As more things become digital, as computing power multiplies and as more and more data is collected, the possibilities of digital keep expanding.

But why now? Why did the digital curve jump the chasm only recently? To explain, let me take you back to an interesting product that I built more than fifteen years ago as part of a team at HP’s Advanced Technology Labs. We were building a banking product based on “Zero Latency Enterprise” technology. While a customer withdrew cash at the ATM, a recommendation engine would do a near-real-time analysis of the customer’s relationship history, and come back with personalized up-sell and cross-sell offers on the screen. If the customer opted-in, an email would be sent to the salesperson’s palm-pilot to initiate necessary action. This was as close to “digital” as you could get fifteen years ago. But the ecosystem that truly propels digital to its current omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent capabilities simply did not exist in those days. Our recommendation engine did not have the insight into the customer’s online activities, social circles, loyalty and credit cards, location history, online and offline purchases, club memberships, investments, online-trading transactions – the mountain of data that is available today. Nor could we reach the customer anytime, anywhere through their smartphone to make offers at the point of purchase or to send location-aware promotions. And, AI and robotics were still in their infancy. You can see how the possibilities would be limited even a few years ago.

“Digital” has come of age today because the network effects of the Internet of Things has crossed a tipping point, compounding the impact of the technology. I am not omniscient enough to see where this new technology wave will take us, but I can definitely advise you to grab your surf-board and start riding this wave – and be prepared for a wild ride!

So you think you are a Technology Company? Think again.

I was recently asked to speak on technology at our company town-hall, and since our company is in the middle of a transformation to a “Technology Company”, I decided to make that the anchor-point of my talk. Why? Because I have found that most companies and their employees do not really “get” this concept, leading to many interpretations and confusions and hence resulting in lost opportunities. I wanted to make sure our employees got it right.

As I thought through my talking points, I came up with a small list of misconceptions about what a Technology Company really is. I decided to share all the thoughts I had gathered here, in anticipation of an interesting discussion and feedback from a larger forum…

So what is a “Technology Company”? The most common explanation I have heard is - a Technology Company is one that effectively uses technology to be successful in business. If you let yourself believe that, you are in deep trouble, in my humble opinion. Merely “using” technology may have been a good strategy in the 70s and 80s, but today, being technology-enabled is just “table stakes”. Can you name any business today that has not adopted technology? You can’t, right? Even local mom-and-pop shops now use mobile-payments and take delivery orders on Whatsapp. So, would you call all of them Technology Companies? I am sure you wouldn’t. So, what is it that Technology Companies do differently?

Well, to answer that, let me borrow a term coined by Tom Peters. The term he uses is “Re-Imagine”, which I think perfectly captures the essence of what I am attempting to convey. Technology Companies are companies that use Technology to Re-imagine business, rather than to just automate or enable existing business. They use technology to find completely new ways of doing business, they even invent new kinds of business on the strength of technology. At a Technology Company, technology defines business, rather than the other way around. Ask the big banks, and they will tell you how they thought interconnecting their branches and installing billion-dollar “core-banking” systems to centralize their operations would be all the technology play that was needed, only to be left gaping at upstarts like Atom (UK) and Ally (US), the new “online-only” or “direct” banks, that have redefined (Re-Imagined!) what the banking business is. This quote from an article in Wired magazine (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/digital-only-banks) sums it up nicely – “I could make a compelling argument to say that Atom is actually a data company that happens to have a banking license”. Well, there you have it. I could not have put it any better myself. But wait, it gets even better – “Atom's competitor, Mondo, is perhaps best known in the tech world because it has run a series of hackathons to imagine new banking functions”. See what I mean?

The second common fallacy I find is the idea that Technology Companies are about the latest and greatest technologies. I have seen companies become a veritable museum of new technologies, in an effort to embrace all that is new and shiny, thinking that just being on the latest technology will give them a business advantage. They keep building “Next-gen” versions of their existing products using new technologies, thinking that will automatically make the product better. No. Technology is just a tool, it is how you use it that counts. Yes, the latest technologies may have capabilities that could give you advantages, but only if you apply those capabilities to business in innovative ways. Try this exercise. List out the top 50 companies by R&D spend. Next list out the top 50 innovative companies. See how many names in the two lists match. Surprised at the lack of co-relation? You shouldn’t be. Re-Imagination happens when business ideas and technology capabilities come together in previously un-conceived ways to result in completely unforeseen outcomes. That is why it is so difficult. That is why it so often blind-sides established players. And, that is why it is so valuable.

As I was finishing up my preparations for my talk, I tried to anticipate counter-points that would come up, so that I could go in prepared. One of the top questions I knew folks would have was – “Hey, we have been in this industry for decades, and have unique knowledge and expertise in the domain, and that is our biggest competitive advantage. Why do we need to become a Technology Company”? Very good question, and many companies think along these same lines and go – “Oh yeah, that’s right! So, if I use technology to automate or enable these unique business strengths I have, I should be a winner on all counts, right”? Umm…hold on. I know that logic sounds very reasonable. But don’t jump to conclusions yet, follow me closely here. The problem is that your “unique business knowledge and expertise” is competitive in the context of how business is done today! It is tuned to the way the business works today. What if the context changes to a “Re-Imagined” way of doing business? Would your well-practiced orchestra go completely out of tune? Would your years of in-grained processes and culture make it all the more difficult to turn the ship and catch a new prevailing wind? You bet it will! Tell me, did Amazon have decades of experience as a book-seller? Or was Uber a taxi-fleet operator for a century? They are true examples of how Technology Companies change the game.

Well, that brings us to one final interesting question – if you are a true Technology Company, do you always remain so? Can you rest on your laurels and be assured of continuing success? Aha! Life is never that simple. Remember, you rose to ascendancy because you were the first to use technology to “change” how business was done, so if you stop changing, what happens? Yes, you are right; your competitors will soon catch on. What was unique to you will soon become established business process! Your days ahead of the pack will be numbered, and soon the herd will be all around you. And now, you will be as susceptible as the others to a new upstart who changes the game again. So you see, to retain your Technology Company badge, you will have to continue using technology to change the game. Look at Facebook, the guys who wrote the rule-book on social media. They are now trying their best to catch up to the new brats in town – Snapchat and Instagram! The only company (that I can think of) that has relentlessly held on to the Technology Company badge is Apple. No wonder both their customers and their shareholders love them so much.

Hope I was able to get you to think differently about this topic. So, what do you think? Do you agree? Which of the fallacies listed above have you encountered? Do you have some more examples? What are your examples of great Technology Companies? I would love to know. Or, do you disagree? If so, please enlighten me with your point of view through your comments.

Flying the product kite - creative tussle between Product Management and Engineering

If you have built software products as part of either Engineering or Product Management, I am sure you have often wondered why these two roles sometimes seem to be at cross purposes. Product Management always seems to want the greatest features now, and engineering always seems to be explaining why a feature is technically infeasible or difficult to complete in so short a time. You are very sure both sides are trying to bring their best to the game, and you keep wondering how they can play better as a team.

These kinds of experiences led me to the need for a simple analogy describing the relationship between Product Management and Engineering - something that teams could easily grasp, something that would stick. So where did that search lead me? It led me back in time to the days of childhood and the joy of flying kites!

In my model, Product Management can be pictured as a kite, soaring among the clouds, with Engineering as the little kid on the ground, holding the string firmly. Please see the picture below the next paragraph, where I have attempted to represent this visually. (Note : This is just my way of looking at this relationship. You readers may have other ideas or opinions. I would love to hear about them, and I look forward to your comments)

Product Management is up there facing the winds of change blowing through the business environment, trying not to be left behind. They have their head truly in the clouds, thinking up grand new features to leave competitors languishing in the lower echelons. Being up high, they are also able to gaze at distant horizons and see the future of the industry, and they may also look through their telescopes at other kite-flying teams to see what the competitors are up to. Engineering, on the other hand, is the kid running around on the tough technology terrain, trying to avoid prickly technical problems and the hard rocks of architectural dead-ends. They are the anchor, grounding the product in solid engineering, the voice of practicality and logic and reason that keeps the kite from being torn apart by the wind or snared by the electric pole. And just like the skillful interaction between kite and flier helps them reach new heights, close coordination between Product Management and Engineering is the only way to launch a successful product and keep the organization's banners flying.

If you have flown kites, you know that the only way to make the kite rise is to pull on the string, against the wind. Similarly, Engineering needs to have a firm hold on the string to help and guide Product Management through turbulent business scenarios. Another thing you will also know from your kite flying days is that to get the kite higher up in the sky, you need to successively pull on it and release the string to allow more and more of the string to play out, carrying the kite higher and higher. This is very important for Engineering to understand. The successive pulls on the string are equivalent to engineering hardening of the product where feature-creep is kept on a tight leash and the product resilience and performance is improved. The successive relaxations of the string are the innovations, hackathons, new technology adoptions and release marathons that Engineering undertakes to feed Product Management's needs for better features, improved user experiences and insightful business intelligence.

Kite-flying disasters are quite common when either of the parties stops playing as a team. An unruly kite that fails to respond to the inputs of the flier ends up in tatters or high-up on a tree, and a flier that pulls too insistently on the string is left with either a stalled kite or a broken string. These are important lessons for Product Management and Engineering to keep in mind.

By the way, in no way do I want to imply that these roles of kite and flier are rigid and exclusive. Far from it. Good engineers are expected to understand business and be aware of developments in the domain, and if they do, they can also become partners to Product Management in driving features. I have seen many instances of this happening. I have also seen equally commendable cases of Product Management being cognizant of the challenges faced by technology, and working with Engineering to create a road-map that provides enough space for deep technology transformations. So yes, the parts played by the kite and flier can overlap, and they often do. However, the analogy presented here does provide a very simple story of what the generic and ideal relationship between Product Management and Engineering should be like.

What do you think? Do you see your kite-flying lessons being as handy in product development and engineering as envisioned here? Or do you feel that product development is too serious a sport to be compared with mere kite flying? Do let me know through your feedback.