英文原文来自：https://medium.com/product-design-at-bluecore/great-product-managers-are-outcome-thinkers-66fa5d69cfac

优秀的产品经理都是“结果导向思维”

BY Max Bennett（Bluecore产品副总）

翻译：Kevin嚼薯片

产品管理是一门构建恰当产品的手工艺活。这活包括（1）发现 以及 （2）交付 这些合适的产品。然而很少人讨论的第三点是，如何在开始之前正确定义何为“恰当”。

在过去的几年里，我自身的产品思维已经迭代了好几次（源于我犯过的错误），并不断探索何为“恰当”。在整个过程中，我注意到不同的产品管理模式，会产生三种不同的思考方式：技术导向思维、问题导向思维 和 结果导向思维。彼此之间并不在同一个层面上。

低级的产品经理是“技术导向思维”

对于产品新手来说，会对于自己能处于一个构建产品的岗位而感到兴奋，并通常以技术导向思维的方式开始。他们把“构建恰当的产品”定义为“可行且全新的东西”。

“我们能创造什么新东西？”——技术导向思维

然而，技术导向思维很容易就会制造出明显错误的东西，因为它无法解决真正的客户问题。Google Glass、亚马逊Fire手机，以及Segway是明显的例子。这三种产品都使用了新技术，效果很好。Google Glass在增强现实和语音识别方面取得了突破。亚马逊Fire手机有创新的3D功能。Segway有独创的自我平衡技术。但这些产品都没有解决真正的问题。为什么我不用手机，而是用戴在头上的一个东西来拍照？谁在乎在亚马逊Fire手机上看到3D？我在哪里使用Segway，在公路还是人行道上？所以很少有人购买这些产品。

技术导向思维的人最终会认识到，“可行且全新的东西”过于宽泛。他们通常会逐渐从技术导向思维转变为问题导向思维。而导致这种思维转变的原因是，人们想要的是“专注于问题”或“感受问题而非解决方案”的那个东西。

请注意，技术导向思维对于那些开拓未知领域的组织来说仍然是至关重要的，比如研究和工程师团队，但这并不是产品经理的工作。技术导向思维的人发现并发明了新的做事方法，然后由产品经理来选择性地运用，去改变世界。这并不是说技术导向思维不好，而是使用技术导向思维的产品经理会误解他们在项目中担当的角色。

好的产品经理是“问题导向思维”

问题导向思维的人对“构建恰当的产品”的定义会收窄。他们定义是“能真正解决用户问题的东西”。当然，为了解决真正的问题，解决方案也必须是可行的。问题导向思维的人对于“恰当”的定义，是技术导向思维的人的一个子集。

“这将能解决什么问题？”——问题导向思维

这种对“恰当”的精确定义是正向的，因为它过滤了那些不能解决真正问题的产品。然而，问题导向思维的人主要专注于避免开发无用产品的风险，而不是专注于建造伟大的东西。出于这个原因，问题导向思维的人会按部就班地构建一些平庸的产品，这些产品不会以任何深远及有意义的方式去改善世界、商业或用户的生活。

在发布了好几个平庸的产品后，好的问题导向思维者最终会进一步细化他们对“恰当”的定义，以确保他们的产品不仅能解决问题，还能有意义地改善世界。它们进化成我所说的结果导向思维。

优秀的产品经理是“结果导向思维”

结果导向思维的人对“构建恰当的产品”有着最严格、最精炼的定义，即：能达到预期结果的东西。当然，为了达到预期的结果，必须解决真正的问题以及建立可行的方法。因此，结果导向思维的人所定义的“恰当”的集合，并不是与技术导向或问题导向的背道而驰，而是它们的一个特殊的子集。

“解决这个问题能获得什么结果？”——结果导向思维

在解决真正问题的过程中，结果导向思维的人会发现并获得极少数的那些真正能达到他们想要的结果。结果导向思维建立的产品可以扭转企业的局面，事半功倍，取悦、帮助、链接各种各样想要达到的人和结果。他们发现并获得这些东西，仅仅是因为他们把结果作为思考和决策的基础。

埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）就是一个很好的例子。他创建SpaceX，并不是因为火箭重复着陆的技术（技术导向思维）。他创建SpaceX，也不是用来解决昂贵的卫星发射问题（问题导向思维）。他创建SpaceX，是实现将人类送上火星，并使人类成为太空生物的目的（结果导向思维）。结果导向思维的人构建的东西，是以他们想要的方式去改变世界。优秀的产品经理应该是结果导向思维型的人。

在文章底部打赏并留言，将获得《产品经理能力模型地图》和《运营能力模式地图》高清无码版本。

Great Product Managers are “Outcome Thinkers”

BY Max Bennett

Product Management is the craft of building the right things. Part of this craft is about (1) discovering and (2) delivering these right things. But a third, and less discussed, part of this craft is about correctly defining what “right” even means in the first place.

My own product thinking has evolved several times (mostly due to mistakes I have made) over the last few years as I continue to refine my definition of what “right” means. Throughout this process, I have noticed three distinct types of thinking across different product management organizations: Technology Thinking, Problem Thinking, and Outcome Thinking. These are not created equal.

Bad Product Managers are “Technology Thinkers”

People new to product management, excited about being in a seat where they get to build things, often start off as Technology Thinkers. They define the “right things to build” as “things that are feasible and new”.

“What new things could we build?” — Technology Thinker

Of course, Technology Thinkers quickly build things that are obviously wrong because they don’t solve a real customer problem. Google Glass, the Amazon Fire Phone and Segway are mainstream examples of this. All three of these products used new technology and worked well. Google Glass used advancements in augmented reality and voice recognition. The Amazon Fire Phone had innovative 3D features. Segway had innovative self-balancing technology. But none of these products solved a real problem. Why do I need something on my head to take photos, don’t I have my phone? Who cares if I can see in 3D on my Amazon Fire Phone? Where do I use a Segway, in the road or sidewalks? Few people bought any of these.

Technology Thinkers eventually realize that “things that are feasible and new” is too broad a definition of “right”. They typically then evolve from Technology Thinkers into Problem Thinkers. Making this improvement in thinking is what people mean when they say things like “focus on the problem” or “fall in love with the problem, not the solution”.

Note that Technology Thinking is still crucial in organizations tasked with pioneering the realm of what is possible, such as research and engineer groups, it just isn’t the job of a PM to do this. Technology Thinkers discover and invent new ways of doing things, and then PMs selectively apply them to change the world. It is not that Technology Thinking is bad in general, it is that PMs who use Technology Thinking misunderstand their role in the pipeline of progress.

Good Product Managers are “Problem Thinkers”

Problem Thinkers have a narrower definition of what the “right things to build are”. They define it has “things that solve a real customer problem”. Of course, in order to solve a real problem, the solution also has to be feasible. The set of things that Problem Thinker’s define as “right” to build is not disjoint from that of Technology Thinkers but rather a subset of it.

“What problem would this solve?” — Problem Thinker

This refined definition of “right” is good because it prevents building products that don’t solve a real problem. However, Problem Thinkers are primarily focused on managing the risk of building useless things, as opposed to focusing on building great things. For this reason, Problem Thinkers regularly build mediocre products that don’t improve the world, the business, or customers’ lives in any deliberate or meaningful way.

After shipping several mediocre products, the best Problem Thinkers end up further refining their definition of “right” to ensure their products don’t only solve a problem, but also improve the world meaningfully. They evolve into what I call Outcome Thinkers.

Great Product Managers are “Outcome Thinkers”

Outcome Thinkers have the strictest and most refined definition of what the “right things to build” are:_things that achieve desired outcomes._Of course, in order to achieve desired outcomes, one must also be solving a real problem and building something feasible. Hence, the set of things Outcome Thinkers define as “right” to build is again not disjoint from that of Technology or Problem Thinkers, but rather a special subset of it.

“What outcome would solving this problem achieve?” — Outcome Thinker

Of the things that solve a real problem, Outcome Thinkers discover and deliver the special few that actually achieve the outcome they want. Outcome Thinkers build products that turn businesses around, double revenue, half costs, delight people, save people, connect people, or any other outcome one might dream up. They discover and deliver these things, in part, simply because they make outcomes the bedrock of their thinking and decision making.

Elon Musk is a great example of an Outcome Thinker. He isn’t building SpaceX because it is now feasible to re-land a rocket (Technology Thinking). He isn’t building SpaceX to solve the problem of costly satellite delivery (Problem Thinking). He is building SpaceX to achieve the outcome of getting humans to mars and making humans a space faring species (Outcome Thinking). Outcome Thinkers build things that deliberately change the world in the way they want it to be changed. The best Product Managers are Outcome Thinkers.

翻译：Kevin嚼薯片

关键字：产品经理, thinkers

版权声明

本文来自互联网用户投稿，文章观点仅代表作者本人，不代表本站立场。本站仅提供信息存储空间服务，不拥有所有权，不承担相关法律责任。如若转载，请注明出处。如若内容有涉嫌抄袭侵权/违法违规/事实不符，请点击 举报 进行投诉反馈！