Good Product Manager/Bad Product Manager 优秀的产品经理/不合格的产品经理

中文为我的译文，英文为作者原文

优秀的产品经理/不合格的产品经理

——Ben Horowitz

 

优秀的产品经理要求你非常的了解市场、产品、生产线以及市场的竞争，并且要求你具有丰富的知识储备和自信来扮演好产品经理这个角色。一个优秀的产品经理就是一个产品的CEO。一个优秀的产品经理要对产品全权负责并以产品的成功与否来对自身进行衡量。他们要掌管正确的产品、正确的时间以及其它所有的细节。一个优秀的产品经理要了解包括公司、收入资金、市场竞争等等的相关信息，并且毫无借口的负责执行一个成功的计划。

 

不合格的产品经理有许许多多的借口。例如没有足够的资金，技术经理像个白痴，微软拥有10倍的工程师开发同样的产品，我太累了，我没有应有的指导。Barksdale就没有诸如此类的借口，产品的CEO也不应该有。

 

优秀的产品经理为了在正确的时间内交出正确的产品，不会把所有的时间浪费在和每个团队并肩作战。他们不会占用产品团队的所有时间，不会逐个功能的去管理，也不会为制作产品而费神。他们不是产品团队的一员，而是管理整个产品团队。优秀的产品经理并非技术团队的“市场资源”，他们相对于产品团队而言就像是技术经理之于技术团队。优秀的产品经理应对产品有一个清晰的定位，并把精力放在展示产品的特性上而非考虑如何实现。只有不合格的产品经理才会在解决如何实现的问题的时候得意洋洋。优秀的产品经理需要用清晰的书面、口头语言来进行沟通。优秀的产品经理在给出指示的时候必须正式，在收集信息的时候则相反。

 

优秀的产品经理会制作附加的参考资料、常见问题解答、演示和白皮书。不合格的产品经理抱怨他们花费了整天的时间来回答销售人员的问题。优秀的产品经理会预测严重的产品缺陷并且提供可靠的解决方案。而不合格的产品经理就只会等问题出现以后再亡羊补牢。优秀的产品经理会对重点问题（例如绝妙的主意、艰难的架构选择、艰难的产品决策、侵入市场或是退出）进行书面的记录。不合格的产品经理口头说明他们的观点并且感叹类似的问题不要再发生。一旦不合格的产品经理失败了，他们则会说自己之前就已经预测到会失败了。

 

优秀的产品经理会让团队关注收益与客户这两个方面，而不合格的产品经理则是让团队的关注点集中在微软正在构建多少个功能上。优秀的产品经理将能被强力执行的产品定义为好产品，而不合格的产品经理会把不能被执行的产品定义或者让工程师们随心所欲搭建地产品为好产品。 

 

优秀的产品经理从：1.在产品计划阶段，如何将高价值的东西交付到市，2.在产品发布阶段，如何攻占目标市场份额和取得目标收入——这两方面考虑，而不合格的产品经理却会混淆“产品的价值传递、产品能匹敌的竞争性功能、产品的定价和产品的普遍性”这几个概念之间的区别。优秀的产品经理能分解问题（逐个解决），而不合格的产品经理会把全部问题归在一起（形成一个大难题）。

 

优秀的产品经理会思考他们想要媒体写出怎样的报道，而不合格的产品经理却想要新闻报道涵盖产品所有的功能并且要求报道在技术上绝对精确。优秀的产品经理会向新闻媒体提问，而不合格的产品经理只会回答新闻媒体的所有提问。优秀的产品经理会假设新闻媒体和分析家们都很聪明，而不合格的产品经理想当然地认为他们都很愚蠢，因为他们根本不懂“推动”和“拟推动”之间的区别。 

 

优秀的产品经理在解释浅显问题这方面（宁可失之过于谨慎也要）解释清楚。而不合格的产品经理从不解释显而易见的问题。优秀的产品经理自己决定自己的工作（内容）和成功的道路，而不合格的产品经理却常常需要被告知该做什么。 

 

优秀的产品经理每周会准时发送他们的现状报告，因为他们的纪律性都很强；而不合格的产品经理经常忘记准时发送现状报告，因为他们并不是很注重纪律。

 

 

 

 

 

Good Product Manager/Bad Product Manager

Courtesy of Ben Horowitz

Good product managers know the market, the product, the product line and

the competition extremely well and operate from a strong basis of

knowledge and confidence. A good product manager is the CEO of the

product. A good product manager takes full responsibility and measures

themselves in terms of the success of the product. The are responsible

for right product/right time and all that entails. A good product

manager knows the context going in (the company, our revenue funding,

competition, etc.), and they take responsibility for devising and

executing a winning plan (no excuses).

Bad product managers have lots of excuses. Not enough funding, the

engineering manager is an idiot, Microsoft has 10 times as many engineers

working on it, I'm overworked, I don't get enough direction. Barksdale

doesn't make these kinds of excuses and neither should the CEO of a

product.

Good product managers don't get all of their time sucked up by the

various organizations that must work together to deliver right product

right time. They don't take all the product team minutes, they don't

project manage the various functions, they are not gophers for

engineering. They are not part of the product team; they manage the

product team. Engineering teams don't consider Good Product Managers a

"marketing resource." Good product managers are the marketing counterpart

of the engineering manager. Good product managers crisply define the

target, the "what" (as opposed to the how) and manage the delivery of the

"what." Bad product managers feel best about themselves when they figure

out "how". Good product managers communicate crisply to engineering in

writing as well as verbally. Good product managers don't give direction

informally. Good product managers gather information informally.

Good product managers create leveragable collateral, FAQs, presentations,

white papers. Bad product managers complain that they spend all day

answering questions for the sales force and are swamped. Good product

managers anticipate the serious product flaws and build real solutions.

Bad product managers put out fires all day. Good product managers take

written positions on important issues (competitive silver bullets, tough

architectural choices, tough product decisions, markets to attack or

yield). Bad product managers voice their opinion verbally and lament that

the "powers that be" won't let it happen. Once bad product managers fail,

they point out that they predicted they would fail.

Good product managers focus the team on revenue and customers. Bad

product managers focus team on how many features Microsoft is building.

Good product managers define good products that can be executed with a

strong effort. Bad product managers define good products that can't be

executed or let engineering build whatever they want (i.e. solve the

hardest problem).

Good product managers think in terms of delivering superior value to the

market place during inbound planning and achieving market share and

revenue goals during outbound. Bad product managers get very confused

about the differences amongst delivering value, matching competitive

features, pricing, and ubiquity. Good product managers decompose

problems. Bad product managers combine all problems into one.

Good product managers think about the story they want written by the

press. Bad product managers think about covering every feature and being

really technically accurate with the press. Good product managers ask the

press questions. Bad product managers answer any press question. Good

product managers assume press and analyst people are really smart. Bad

product managers assume that press and analysts are dumb because they

don't understand the difference between "push" and "simulated push."

Good product managers err on the side of clarity vs. explaining the

obvious. Bad product managers never explain the obvious. Good product

managers define their job and their success. Bad product managers

constantly want to be told what to do.

Good product managers send their status reports in on time every week,

because they are disciplined. Bad product managers forget to send in

their status reports on time, because they don't value discipline.