In a sense the outcome of such a mapping could yield which os the 3 x 3 x 3 selection (vertical, horizontal, across or whatever) leads to; product-market-fit (PMF), product-market-scale (PMS) and POWER
POWER;
“The product-market fit and power questions are different questions; one doesn’t necessarily answer the other… When you have a business model that gets you to product-market fit, there may be a power opportunity embedded in that and there may not be. Those are two very different problems. One is the problem of capitalizing on an inherent potential for power; the other is trying to figure out what you’re going to do to get power in something that currently doesn’t have it. That’s a very hard problem; it’s a second invent that’s every bit as hard as the product-market fit invent.” - Hamilton Helmer
Indeed, there is a mapping between the stages and the development methodologies - as you have correctly pointed out. The 3X model provides a good lens to help you decide which methodology to follow based on the stage of the product.
In terms of applicability of the 3X model at various levels, what Kent is hinting at is that the same stages are applicable at different levels. For example, while developing a feature:
- During the planning phase when you are trying to identify all the unknowns and dependencies, it can be mapped to the explore stage
- During the implementation phase any bottlenecks/roadblocks/hard problems or issues that you encounter and must be resolved to complete the feature can be mapped to the expand stage
- Maintenance, minor enhancements, performance upgrades to the feature can be mapped to the extract stage
Thanks for sharing Helmer's quote. The quote reiterates that Power can only be acquired via deliberate choices and decisions you make to be unique (not the best) - for example what is your product's unique value proposition, why is it difficult to copy, what unique activities are you performing. These choices and decisions are based on your understanding of customers, markets, and competitors (not stages of your product or methodologies that you use to develop the product)
In my opinion Kent Beck's model should not be seen as a theory to predict something. It is useful to identify how product development priorities/trade-offs change as the product matures
Hope I have answered your questions. Thanks for your comments.
I am also very curious to see; If there is probably a 3 x 3 x 3 mapping here;
- explore, expand, extract (3 stages) v/s
- product level, feature/idea level, enhancement level (3 levels) v/s
- agile, scrum-fall, waterfall (3 process)?
In a sense the outcome of such a mapping could yield which os the 3 x 3 x 3 selection (vertical, horizontal, across or whatever) leads to; product-market-fit (PMF), product-market-scale (PMS) and POWER
POWER;
“The product-market fit and power questions are different questions; one doesn’t necessarily answer the other… When you have a business model that gets you to product-market fit, there may be a power opportunity embedded in that and there may not be. Those are two very different problems. One is the problem of capitalizing on an inherent potential for power; the other is trying to figure out what you’re going to do to get power in something that currently doesn’t have it. That’s a very hard problem; it’s a second invent that’s every bit as hard as the product-market fit invent.” - Hamilton Helmer
Great set of questions.
Indeed, there is a mapping between the stages and the development methodologies - as you have correctly pointed out. The 3X model provides a good lens to help you decide which methodology to follow based on the stage of the product.
In terms of applicability of the 3X model at various levels, what Kent is hinting at is that the same stages are applicable at different levels. For example, while developing a feature:
- During the planning phase when you are trying to identify all the unknowns and dependencies, it can be mapped to the explore stage
- During the implementation phase any bottlenecks/roadblocks/hard problems or issues that you encounter and must be resolved to complete the feature can be mapped to the expand stage
- Maintenance, minor enhancements, performance upgrades to the feature can be mapped to the extract stage
Thanks for sharing Helmer's quote. The quote reiterates that Power can only be acquired via deliberate choices and decisions you make to be unique (not the best) - for example what is your product's unique value proposition, why is it difficult to copy, what unique activities are you performing. These choices and decisions are based on your understanding of customers, markets, and competitors (not stages of your product or methodologies that you use to develop the product)
In my opinion Kent Beck's model should not be seen as a theory to predict something. It is useful to identify how product development priorities/trade-offs change as the product matures
Hope I have answered your questions. Thanks for your comments.
Is there any relationship between explore, expand and extract stages to waterfall and agile processes? like say;
- explore (probably better to use agile process)
- expand (probably better to use scrum-fall process)
- extract (probably better to use waterfall process)