Good Stories of Innovative Product Ownership

My recent conversation with a colleague, who works for a very successful non-profit company, made me wonder whether reconsidering the role of product and product ownership might enable non-profit organizations within the field of education to experience new levels of innovation.

Does a product have to be real to have value?

My colleague described his for-profit company's dedication to the development of "portfolio products" as well as "real products". His explanation of why helped me to understand five important points.

1. The more products and organization has the better; the product development process is what drives innovation.

2. Some of an organization's products represent industry expectations - others represent industry innovations. Both should exist together by intention.

3. An organization's portfolio of products, whether services or things, should represent all that they could choose to implement if given the opportunity.

4. If a "customer" asked to purchase a product listed in the portfolio, it is the organization's choice as to whether to "activate" the product or not.

5. Products should be thought of as paths that enable an organization to reach the outcome rather than as the outcome itself (ex. a new professional opportunity vs excellence within the education profession).

Our conversation led me to wonder about about the creation of pre-products vs byproducts. Considering product development as a process designed to create or revise a vision rather than in response to operational, logistical, and thought parameters of an existing has promise and flips traditional non-profit planning processes upsaide down.

What does innovative product ownership look like?

My colleague's company operationalizes an interesting twist on the more traditional definition of product ownership. A quick Google search of the term pulls up many interesting references, especially from the software industry. My non-profit lens sees the concept as almost offensive. Is this a departure from a constructivist approach to product development? Does the Byzantine hierarchical structures live within this designation? I asked him to tell me more about the expectations for this role within his firm. Three themes emerged from his story that I appreciated:

1. Innovative product ownership emphasizes connection over control. In a true reflection of Scandinavian culture, "ownership" of a product is about dedication to a product through actions that nurture and care for it rather than those that might comandeer the path of its development.

2. The product owner has no ownership in the definition of what might make the product of value - or in fact "successful". Instead, the owner is dedicated to exposing the product to as many perspectives as possible. The owner must not confine the product to his/her vision of it. Instead, the work of an owner is to expose the product to as many perspectives as possible to enable it to emerge beyond its infancy into something extraordinary - guiding that emergence with objective dedication.

3. Once a product becomes "real" its value to the organization lessens. The product's innovative value to the organization is in its development rather than in its implementation. If the product owner has done a good job, the organization has advanced beyond the fixed benefit that could be realized through the implementation of the product. Measurable profits and/or positive social impact, are the byproducts of a job well done.

4. Everything might be thought of a product. Products should face internally as well as externally. A business process is a product, just a new program is a product. The outreach plan, the brochure, and the new service can all products depending on what surfaces when.

Perhaps the most important lesson was that product ownership is seen as temporary and non hierarchical within my colleague's firm. Everyone is encouraged to give it a try and to learn along the way.