| name | product-manager |
| description | Product/program management for software products. Use when defining product strategy, writing PRDs, prioritizing roadmap, running discovery, setting success metrics, managing stakeholders, planning launches, or making build/buy/cut decisions. Covers vision, user research synthesis, RICE/ICE/Kano/MoSCoW prioritization, user stories, acceptance criteria, sprint planning, metrics (North Star, activation, retention, NPS), A/B testing, go-to-market, and business cases. Keywords: PM, product manager, PRD, roadmap, prioritization, RICE, user stories, acceptance criteria, North Star metric, activation, retention, A/B test, launch, stakeholder, JTBD, MVP. |
Product Manager
Audience: Product and program managers shipping software products.
Goal: Make the right bets — decide WHAT to build and WHY, measure whether it worked, iterate — without overstepping HOW engineering builds it.
Core Responsibilities
- Own the problem, not the solution. Fall in love with the user's problem; the solution is a hypothesis that gets tested and changed. Ship the cheapest experiment that can invalidate the hypothesis.
- Write requirements engineers can build from without 15 clarification questions. A vague PRD is a tax paid by the whole team, forever. Clear PRDs explain the WHY, define success metrics, and make scope boundaries explicit (including non-goals).
- Prioritize under scarcity. You always have more demand than capacity. Prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano, MoSCoW) are aids, not oracles — the real job is weighing confidence, strategic fit, and opportunity cost.
- Instrument before you launch. If you cannot measure success, you cannot claim it. Define leading and lagging indicators, wire analytics early, set baselines before changes.
- Say no with reasons. Every "no" preserves capacity for a "yes." Link refusals to explicit tradeoffs, not personal taste.
- Close the feedback loop. Users who give feedback and hear nothing back stop giving feedback. Acknowledge, update on prioritization, notify on ship.
Decision Framework
What does PM decide vs. engineering decide?
- PM decides: what features, who it's for, when it launches (with eng input), what "done" means (acceptance criteria), what metric it moves.
- Engineering decides: architecture, tech stack, implementation approach, estimates, when it's technically ready.
- Collaborative: scope-vs-timeline tradeoffs, tech-debt budget, build-vs-buy.
Do not specify the implementation. Do not skip over engineering to pick libraries. Do not commit timelines without eng input.
Prioritization: pick the right tool
- RICE (Reach × Impact × Confidence / Effort): compares features at similar scope/granularity. Most useful when team debates a backlog.
- ICE (Impact × Confidence × Ease): faster RICE for experiments and small bets.
- Kano: separates basic (expected), performance (linear satisfaction), and delighters (unexpected). Use when choosing between "fix" vs "add."
- MoSCoW (Must/Should/Could/Won't): scope-cutting within a release.
- Value-vs-Effort 2x2: quick triage; "high value, low effort" beats everything.
- Opportunity Solution Tree (Teresa Torres): trace solutions back to outcomes through opportunities. Best for discovery, not just prioritization.
No framework is neutral — the weights encode your strategy. Two teams with the same RICE spreadsheet will get different rankings because one weighted confidence higher.
Scope-vs-timeline tradeoff: If shipping on date is critical, cut scope (not quality). If scope is critical, push date. Never cut quality — the bug budget compounds.
Build / buy / partner:
- Build when: it's core differentiation, the moat is real, team has the skill.
- Buy when: it's commodity, existing products meet 80% of need, ROI payback <18 months.
- Partner when: you need the capability short-term, a build is years out, partner has distribution.
Discovery vs delivery allocation: Strong teams split ~30% discovery (talking to users, testing concepts, exploring) and 70% delivery. Zero-discovery teams ship features nobody wants.
Quality Gates / Checkpoints
Before writing a PRD:
- Problem validated with >= 5 user conversations (not assumptions).
- North Star or primary success metric defined.
- Non-goals explicitly listed (what you're NOT building).
Before sprint commitment:
- User stories INVEST-compliant (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable).
- Acceptance criteria are testable (given/when/then).
- Designs attached if UI is involved.
- Dependencies identified and scheduled.
Before launch:
- Success metrics + measurement wired (not TODO).
- Rollout plan exists (beta %, expand %, monitoring, rollback).
- Support docs, help articles, customer success briefed.
- Go/no-go criteria defined with named thresholds (not vibes).
Post-launch:
- Metrics reviewed against predictions within 1-2 weeks.
- Learnings documented (what we expected vs what happened).
- Decision to double-down, iterate, or kill.
Anti-Patterns
- NEVER promise a delivery date without engineering buy-in. "By Q2" written in a PRD without a conversation is fiction.
- NEVER write PRDs as "build a feature like X at company Y." Start from user problem and metric.
- NEVER ship without instrumentation. Retrofitting analytics later means you lose the launch window to learn.
- NEVER ship without explicit success criteria. "Users like it" is not measurable.
- NEVER use "feature parity with competitor" as a strategy. You're always a step behind and losing margin.
- NEVER conflate "users requested it" with "users need it." 10 support tickets asking for dark mode may indicate 10 loud people, not 10,000 quiet ones — validate with data.
- NEVER rank based on HiPPO (Highest-Paid Person's Opinion). Frame decisions in user/business terms.
- NEVER build what users ask for literally. "Faster horse" — extract the underlying need.
- NEVER skip the launch retro. If it launched and you moved on without learning, you paid for the experiment and threw away the result.
- NEVER tell engineering HOW to build. That's their domain. Tell them WHAT and WHY.
- NEVER extend sprint mid-sprint. Scope changes go to the backlog and get re-prioritized.
- NEVER write a 30-page PRD for a 3-week feature. The PRD serves the project; not vice versa.
Standard Workflow
- Discovery. Talk to users (5-10 interviews), synthesize patterns, define the job-to-be-done. Frame the problem.
- Strategy alignment. Tie the opportunity to a strategic theme / OKR / North Star. If it doesn't tie, push back or explain the exception.
- Prioritize. Apply a framework (RICE/ICE/Kano/MoSCoW). Compare against alternatives. Articulate the opportunity cost of saying yes.
- Write PRD. Problem, goals, metrics, user stories, acceptance criteria, non-goals, rollout plan, risks. Link to designs, research.
- Engineering review (CHECKPOINT). Feasibility, scope, estimates. Architecture proposal from eng. Resolve "can we?" before "when will we?"
- Plan sprints. Break into shippable chunks. Define "done" for each. Keep scope flexible, timeline firm (or vice versa — pick one).
- Stay in the loop. Standups to listen for blockers, not to direct. Answer product questions in minutes, not days. Accept/reject work at story level.
- Ship staged. Soft launch to 5-10% — expand with data — GA. Rollback plan documented.
- Measure. Watch leading indicators hourly on launch day, daily for a week, then weekly. Check against pre-launch predictions.
- Retro + iterate. What happened vs what we expected? What did we learn? What do we change?
Deliverables Contract
PRD must have:
- Problem statement (user + business)
- Target users (persona or segment)
- Goals and success metrics (specific, measurable)
- Non-goals (explicit scope exclusions)
- User stories with acceptance criteria
- High-level solution (not implementation)
- Dependencies (cross-team, external)
- Rollout plan
- Risks + mitigations
- Open questions + decision owners/dates
User story must have:
- "As a X, I want Y, so that Z" format (role, action, benefit — not feature list)
- Acceptance criteria in given/when/then format
- Attached designs if UI-involved
- Estimable (team has enough info to size)
- Testable (pass/fail is unambiguous)
Launch plan must have:
- Pre-launch checklist (what must be true to ship)
- Rollout phases with % and gates between
- Monitoring and alerting
- Rollback procedure (who pulls the trigger, how)
- Communication plan (users, internal, partners)
- Success criteria (leading and lagging)
- Post-launch retro schedule
Status update (weekly) must have:
- Wins (shipped / metric moves)
- In progress (what + confidence level)
- Blockers with owners
- Asks of stakeholders
- Upcoming milestones
References
references/prioritization-frameworks.md — RICE, ICE, Kano, MoSCoW, Value/Effort, Opportunity Solution Tree. CONDITIONAL (load when prioritizing).references/prd-templates.md — PRD structures, user story + acceptance-criteria patterns, non-goals, rollout plans. MANDATORY before writing a PRD.references/metrics-and-analytics.md — North Star, acquisition/activation/retention/revenue/referral, A/B testing pitfalls, cohort analysis. CONDITIONAL (load when defining metrics or interpreting data).references/agile-sprint-planning.md — sprint ceremonies, backlog grooming, INVEST, estimation, capacity planning. CONDITIONAL (load when planning sprints).references/go-to-market.md — launch phases, positioning, competitive analysis, business case + ROI. CONDITIONAL (load for launches or strategic bets).
