技能备份 - 2026-04-15 (40个技能)
This commit is contained in:
root
@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
|
||||
# Strategy & Positioning
|
||||
|
||||
Compressed knowledge module covering company/market research, positioning, product strategy, prioritization, and roadmap planning.
|
||||
|
||||
## Company & Market Research
|
||||
|
||||
### Company Research Framework
|
||||
|
||||
Research across 7 dimensions: Company Overview, Executive Quotes, Product Insights, Transformation Strategies, Organizational Impact, Future Roadmap, Product-Led Growth.
|
||||
|
||||
**Research steps:**
|
||||
1. Define scope: company name, research purpose, 3 key questions
|
||||
2. Gather overview: headquarters, industry, founding, size, key milestones
|
||||
3. Extract executive quotes: CEO (vision), COO (operations), VP Product (strategy), Group PM (initiatives). Cite source + date. Prioritize last 12-24 months.
|
||||
4. Document product insights: strategy overview, recent launches with market impact, product philosophy/principles
|
||||
5. Identify transformation strategies: digital (architecture shifts), AI (ML in product), Agile (methodology adoption)
|
||||
6. Map organizational PM impact: PM role in strategic decisions, cross-functional collaboration model, career paths
|
||||
7. Analyze future roadmap: planned initiatives, anticipated challenges, competitive threats
|
||||
8. Document PLG insights: self-serve onboarding, data-driven decisions, activation/retention/expansion patterns
|
||||
9. Synthesize: 3 strategic principles, 3 PM lessons, unanswered questions
|
||||
|
||||
**Source priority:** Earnings transcripts > podcast interviews > conference talks > executive blog posts > LinkedIn > company website. Go deeper than "About Us" pages.
|
||||
|
||||
### PESTEL Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Six macro-environmental factors. Define scope first: product name, analysis purpose, geographic scope, time horizon.
|
||||
|
||||
| Factor | Key Questions | Example Sources |
|
||||
|--------|--------------|-----------------|
|
||||
| **Political** | Government policies, stability, trade regs, taxation | Legislative databases, trade reports |
|
||||
| **Economic** | GDP growth, inflation, exchange rates, consumer spending | Census Bureau, BLS, World Bank |
|
||||
| **Social** | Demographics, cultural trends, lifestyle shifts, attitudes | Pew Research, demographic studies |
|
||||
| **Technological** | Advancements, R&D activity, automation, digital adoption | Gartner, industry reports |
|
||||
| **Environmental** | Climate impact, sustainability, resource scarcity, green regs | If impact is minimal, say so honestly |
|
||||
| **Legal** | Compliance (GDPR, AI Act), IP, employment law, safety regs | Legal databases, regulatory filings |
|
||||
|
||||
**For each factor:** State the specific impact on your product and what strategic action it implies. Generic statements ("regulations exist") are useless.
|
||||
|
||||
**Synthesis output:** Top 3 opportunities (with actions), top 3 threats (with mitigations), 3 strategic recommendations. Reassess annually or on major external events.
|
||||
|
||||
### TAM/SAM/SOM Calculation
|
||||
|
||||
Three-tier market sizing with citation-backed data.
|
||||
|
||||
**TAM** = Total market demand at 100% capture. Broadest possible.
|
||||
**SAM** = TAM narrowed by geography, firmographics, product constraints. "Who can we actually reach?"
|
||||
**SOM** = SAM narrowed by competition, GTM capacity. "What can we capture in 1-3 years?" Typically 1-20% of SAM in Year 1-3.
|
||||
|
||||
**Calculation process:**
|
||||
1. Define problem space (B2B SaaS, consumer fintech, healthcare, etc.)
|
||||
2. Select geographic region (US = Census/BLS data; EU = Eurostat; Global = World Bank/IMF)
|
||||
3. Identify industry segments with population + revenue data
|
||||
4. Narrow to target customer segment with firmographics/demographics
|
||||
|
||||
**Output format:** For each tier, show population estimate, market size ($), calculation math, source citation with URL, and key assumptions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Year 1-3 projections for SOM:** Include customer count and revenue. Ground in GTM constraints (sales capacity, conversion rates, marketing budget).
|
||||
|
||||
**Data sources:** US Census Bureau, BLS, IBISWorld, Statista, Gartner, Forrester, World Bank, Eurostat.
|
||||
|
||||
## Product Positioning
|
||||
|
||||
### Geoffrey Moore Positioning Statement
|
||||
|
||||
Two-part structure from *Crossing the Chasm*:
|
||||
|
||||
**Value Proposition:**
|
||||
- **For** [specific target customer/persona]
|
||||
- **that need** [underserved need -- pains, gains, JTBD]
|
||||
- [product name]
|
||||
- **is a** [product category]
|
||||
- **that** [benefit statement -- outcomes, not features]
|
||||
|
||||
**Differentiation Statement:**
|
||||
- **Unlike** [primary competitor or actual substitute behavior]
|
||||
- [product name]
|
||||
- **provides** [unique differentiation -- outcomes, not features]
|
||||
|
||||
### Stress Tests (apply to every draft)
|
||||
|
||||
1. Would the target customer recognize themselves in the "For" statement?
|
||||
2. Can you point to research validating the need?
|
||||
3. Does the category anchor you against the right competitors (or box you in)?
|
||||
4. Is differentiation provable with a demo, case study, or data?
|
||||
5. Does this positioning help answer "Should we build feature X?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Positioning Workshop Flow (Interactive)
|
||||
|
||||
5-question discovery sequence:
|
||||
1. **Target customer segment** -- B2B SMB / B2B Enterprise / B2C mass / B2C niche (or custom)
|
||||
2. **Underserved need** -- Adapted to segment from Q1 (time waste, lack of visibility, compliance burden, costly inefficiency)
|
||||
3. **Product category** -- Anchors buyer evaluation. Pick existing category unless you have strong rationale for category creation.
|
||||
4. **Key benefit** -- Outcome, not feature. Must be measurable (time saved, errors reduced, cost cut).
|
||||
5. **Competitive differentiation** -- Name the actual competitor or substitute behavior. Differentiate on outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
Output: Complete positioning statement + one-sentence summary + stress-test checklist + next steps (test with 5 customers, share with stakeholders, apply to artifacts).
|
||||
|
||||
### Positioning Quality Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- Target specificity: describable to a recruiter
|
||||
- Need clarity: emotionally resonant, not generic
|
||||
- Category fit: helps buyer evaluation, not "next-generation platform"
|
||||
- Outcome focus: what user gets, not what product has
|
||||
- Competitor honesty: real alternative buyers consider
|
||||
- Differentiation durability: not copyable in 6 months
|
||||
|
||||
## Product Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy Session Phases (2-4 week process)
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1: Positioning & Market Context (Days 1-2)**
|
||||
- Run positioning workshop. Define proto-personas. Map JTBD.
|
||||
- Decision gate: Enough customer context? If NO, run 5-10 discovery interviews (+1 week).
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2: Problem Framing & Validation (Days 3-5)**
|
||||
- Run problem framing canvas. Create formal problem statement. Optional: customer journey map.
|
||||
- Decision gate: Problem validated? If NO, run discovery interviews (+1 week).
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3: Solution Exploration (Week 2, Days 1-3)**
|
||||
- Generate opportunity solution tree (3 opportunities, 3 solutions each, POC recommendation). Define epic hypotheses.
|
||||
- Decision gate: Need to test solutions? If YES (high uncertainty), run experiments (+1-2 weeks).
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 4: Prioritization & Roadmap (Week 2, Days 4-5)**
|
||||
- Choose prioritization framework. Score and rank epics. Sequence roadmap by release. Optional: TAM/SAM/SOM for exec presentations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 5: Stakeholder Alignment (Week 3)**
|
||||
- Present strategy: positioning + problem + solutions + prioritization + roadmap.
|
||||
- Include "What's NOT on roadmap and why." Refine based on feedback.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 6: Execution Planning (Week 4)**
|
||||
- Break top epic using splitting patterns (workflow, CRUD, business rules). Write user stories with acceptance criteria. Plan first sprint.
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision gates are mandatory.** Skipping them causes building solutions to unvalidated problems or wasting time on low-uncertainty activities.
|
||||
|
||||
## Prioritization
|
||||
|
||||
### Framework Selection Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| Context | Recommended Framework | Why |
|
||||
|---------|----------------------|-----|
|
||||
| Pre-PMF, minimal data, small team | **ICE** or **Value/Effort matrix** | Lightweight, gut-check, fast scoring |
|
||||
| Early PMF, some data, aligned team | **RICE** | Structured but not overwhelming; balances data + speed |
|
||||
| Mature product, rich data | **Opportunity Scoring** or **Kano** | Leverages analytics, customer surveys |
|
||||
| Multiple stakeholders, misaligned | **Weighted Scoring** or **Buy-a-Feature** | Transparent, consensus-building |
|
||||
| Large org, cross-team dependencies | **Cost of Delay** or **Impact Mapping** | Handles coordination complexity |
|
||||
| Strategic bets vs. quick wins | **Value/Effort matrix** | Visual, intuitive for tradeoff conversations |
|
||||
|
||||
### RICE Scoring
|
||||
|
||||
Formula: `(Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort`
|
||||
- **Reach:** Users affected per month/quarter
|
||||
- **Impact:** 1 (minimal), 2 (high), 3 (massive)
|
||||
- **Confidence:** 50% (low data), 80% (good data), 100% (certain)
|
||||
- **Effort:** Person-months (include design, eng, QA)
|
||||
|
||||
Use RICE as input, not automation. PM judgment overrides scores when strategic context requires it. Always adjust for strategic fit after raw scoring.
|
||||
|
||||
### Prioritization Decision Logic
|
||||
|
||||
4-question assessment to select framework:
|
||||
1. Product stage (pre-PMF / early PMF / mature / multi-product)
|
||||
2. Team context (small + focused / cross-functional aligned / stakeholders misaligned / large org)
|
||||
3. Primary challenge (too many ideas / stakeholder disagreement / no data-driven process / strategic vs. tactical tradeoffs)
|
||||
4. Data availability (minimal / some / rich)
|
||||
|
||||
Stick with one framework 6-12 months. Reassess only when stage or context changes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Roadmap Planning
|
||||
|
||||
### Roadmap Types
|
||||
|
||||
| Type | Structure | Best For |
|
||||
|------|-----------|----------|
|
||||
| **Now/Next/Later** | Committed / High confidence / Exploration | Agile teams, uncertainty, continuous discovery |
|
||||
| **Theme-Based** | Strategic themes (Retention, Enterprise, Mobile) | Exec communication, strategic intent |
|
||||
| **Timeline (Quarters)** | Q1: A, B; Q2: C, D; Q3: E, F | Resource planning, stakeholder comm |
|
||||
| **Feature-Based** | Lists features without context | Anti-pattern. No strategic narrative. |
|
||||
|
||||
### Roadmap Planning Process (5 phases, 1-2 weeks)
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1: Gather Inputs (Days 1-2)**
|
||||
- Business goals: top 3 company priorities, key metrics, strategic bets
|
||||
- Customer problems: top 3-5 validated pain points (from discovery)
|
||||
- Technical constraints: blockers, enabling investments, migrations
|
||||
- Stakeholder requests: sales, marketing, CS inputs (not yet committed)
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2: Define Initiatives (Days 3-4)**
|
||||
- Write epic hypotheses: "We believe [building X] for [persona] will achieve [outcome] because [assumption]."
|
||||
- T-shirt size effort: S (1-2 wk), M (3-4 wk), L (2-3 mo), XL (3+ mo)
|
||||
- Map each epic to primary business outcome
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3: Prioritize (Day 5)**
|
||||
- Select framework using prioritization advisor
|
||||
- Score all epics collaboratively (PM + eng + product leadership)
|
||||
- Adjust scores for strategic fit (strategic overrides are legitimate)
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 4: Sequence (Days 6-7)**
|
||||
- Map dependencies (technical and logical)
|
||||
- Assign to Now (committed), Next (high confidence), Later (exploration)
|
||||
- Validate sequence with engineering for feasibility
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 5: Communicate (Week 2)**
|
||||
- Presentation structure: strategic context, roadmap overview, per-quarter deep dive, what's NOT on roadmap (and why), dependencies and risks
|
||||
- Focus on strategic narrative: "Here's why X over Y"
|
||||
- Frame as plan, not commitment: "Subject to change based on learning"
|
||||
- Gather feedback, refine, publish internally (and optionally externally in Now/Next/Later format)
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Gates
|
||||
|
||||
### Positioning Anti-Patterns
|
||||
- **"For Everyone"** -- No one feels it's for them. Pick the first segment; expand later.
|
||||
- **Feature Creep in Benefits** -- "AI, automation, analytics" is a feature list. Lead with outcome.
|
||||
- **Imaginary Competitor** -- "Unlike outdated legacy systems" is a straw man. Name the actual alternative.
|
||||
- **Category Confusion** -- "Next-generation platform for digital transformation" has no mental shelf. Pick a known category or commit to category creation.
|
||||
- **Differentiation Without Proof** -- "Revolutionary AI" without evidence is noise. Make it falsifiable.
|
||||
|
||||
### Research Anti-Patterns
|
||||
- **Surface-Level Research** -- Find executive interviews and product blogs, not just "About Us" pages.
|
||||
- **No Citations** -- Always cite source + date. Unverifiable = low credibility.
|
||||
- **Analysis Without Action** -- PESTEL and company research must end in strategic recommendations, not just lists.
|
||||
- **Outdated Information** -- Prioritize sources from last 12-24 months.
|
||||
|
||||
### Market Sizing Anti-Patterns
|
||||
- **TAM Without Citations** -- Cite industry reports (Gartner, IBISWorld, Statista) with URLs.
|
||||
- **SOM = SAM** -- No market has zero competition. SOM = 1-20% of SAM in Year 1-3.
|
||||
- **No Population Estimates** -- Always include customer counts alongside dollar amounts.
|
||||
- **Ignoring GTM Constraints** -- Ground SOM in sales capacity, conversion rates, marketing budget.
|
||||
|
||||
### Prioritization Anti-Patterns
|
||||
- **Wrong Framework for Stage** -- Pre-PMF startup using weighted scoring with 10 criteria kills speed.
|
||||
- **Framework Whiplash** -- Switching frameworks every quarter causes confusion. Stick for 6-12 months.
|
||||
- **Scores as Gospel** -- Scores are input, not automation. Strategic context overrides.
|
||||
- **Solo PM Scoring** -- Collaborative scoring (PM + design + eng) builds buy-in.
|
||||
- **HiPPO Prioritization** -- Any framework beats "who shouts loudest."
|
||||
|
||||
### Roadmap Anti-Patterns
|
||||
- **Feature-Driven Roadmap** -- Frame epics as hypotheses with success metrics, not feature names.
|
||||
- **Roadmap as Commitment** -- Communicate as strategic plan, subject to change based on learning.
|
||||
- **No Dependencies Mapped** -- Validate sequence with engineering. Unmapped deps = blocked quarters.
|
||||
- **Solo PM Roadmap** -- Gather inputs from all stakeholders (Phase 1), present draft for feedback (Phase 5).
|
||||
- **Strategy Without Exec Sponsorship** -- Secure exec commitment upfront. Schedule alignment presentation before starting.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user