Recently, I started consulting on a regular basis, and I am now feeling all of my time management skills put to the test.  I have always prided myself on good time management and good organizational skills, and I’m constantly tweaking my tools and process to optimize efficiency (yes, I am a self-repairing robot).  I am, in fact, an unapologetic “devotee” of David Allen and the “Getting Things Done” way of organizing and working. (Yes – it does look like a self help book, and yes, he does talk about reducing stress in your life, but it is extremely practical… I digress).  While working through a whole new set of processes for my consulting business, I ran across an old Powerpoint Deck that I put together a couple years ago for some time management training for my team.  Some of it is “loosely” based on GTD, and in order to get a glimpse of the “GTD way” you can take a look at the GTD Workflow Chart to understand a bit.I was managing a medium sized team, and it was a mix of a lot of different backgrounds — some music industry, some technology, some a little of both, some with a lot of experience, some not so much – you get the idea. The biggest productivity problems we had seemed, in many cases, to stem from some very core prioritization and work-flow issues.

Experience had taught me that as management, you simply can’t force people into “your way” of organization — especially in a rapid moving tech start-up environment.  People have to adapt to their own style and their own natural rhythm.  So, what I tried to do was formulate some really simple, non-preachy,  ideas around every day decisions that, in aggregate, eventually add up to all of the work we do.   There is definitely a good amount of “GTD” influence in here, but I tried to keep it light, simple, and more of a “guiding principle” kind of methodology instead of a “system”. You’ll even notice a fair amount of tongue in cheek in there — I was poking fun at myself for teaching “productivity”. Let me know what you think!  I’ll be posting some other interesting stuff about my experience with GTD soon.

A very good post and some really interesting insight, IMO, from The Heretech a few weeks ago about A Grand Theory of PM and its useless pursuit (also cross-posted here at Forrester Blog) .  I couldn’t agree more, in that the information economy we live is is just too complex and dynamic to try and nail down solid “truths” about product creation.  In fact, I advocate for methods and process that are, in themselves, designed to be MORE dynamic than the products we develop and not less, as is the case now.  If you think about it, the moment you create an MRD, it is probably out of date — there is already a new competitor, a new social networking dynamic, a new API, or a new technology that either you don’t know about or don’t yet understand.  Tom Grant’s opening salvo says it all:

When you’re start working in an unexplored field of study, such as PM in the technology industry, it’s tempting to propose the Grand Theory Of Everything (GTOE). It’s also the worst possible time to develop a GTOE.

I do, however, believe that “theory”, as a general  tool is very important, not so much for  “explanatory power“, but as guiding principle, analytical aid, and in a sense, an intellectual “port in a storm” when things get really complex and decision making becomes very hard.  I have been threatening for some time now to begin writing about my views on how economic theory (specifically modern micro-economic theory) is an excellent aid in product creation and decision making (its coming, really), and Tom alludes to the sociologic Middle Range Theory as a theoretical guiding principle, which I think is a good and relevant theoretical framework for PM work.  Theory has to be part of a PM’s tool box, and that theory, frankly, should come from a wide and not a narrow area of knowledge. Ultimately, if one can turn to Thorstein Veblen or Elinor Ostrom for inspiration rather than chasing down an arbitrary goal set for clicks on a new feature, then I think one’s decision making might end up more consistent and oriented towards the long run and quality outcomes (of course, selling that kind of thinking across the organization might be tough). Start-ups and small, fast-moving companies don’t really have th time or the resources to be drawing on a ton of empiricism for their decision-making.  Yes, we all need to measure certain things and use the empirical data to make decisions, but we have to be realistic about what we can measure, and more importantly, what real decision producing meaning we can glean from the data. Tom also points to the problem with lots of arduous up-front research:

If someone can figure out why even the most meticulously written and reviewed requirements don’t stop some tech companies from making products that their users don’t like or can’t understand, that’s a big contribution to our little field of study

Indeed, Tom. I am actually going to take a stab at this, but even if I’m not successful, I firmly believe that the era of the 20 page MRD was dead at least 5 years ago. We aren’t philosophers, us PM types, but can certainly use their wisdom from time to time.

As 2010 draws closer, I am reflecting back on 10 (well, 11, really) years working in the tumultuous intersection of music and technology. I’m still here, and although I have scars, I have benefited greatly from the experience, and I still hold out hope that both innovation and music will win the day.

While I cannot possibly document all of the lessons I’ve learned throughout an 11 year career, this post is a quick digest of some of the more interesting things to note.  I have, indeed, been looking at things through an “economic lens”  lately (more on that coming in new posts), and I apologize to those who find this boring or uninformative … I am but one man with one experience, so grains of salt taketh thou.

1. Its Complicated

Whenever a pundit, a colleague, or even my own big mouth would try condense the  problems and/or solutions of digital music into a “unified theory” or an “if / then /only” scenario, they were, are, and will always be wrong.  There are too many moving parts in an enormously complex system that touches copyright law, technology, government regulation, international trade, pop culture, consumer trends, markets, and … oh yeah – sometimes music. The blame game was, and is ,not only unproductive, but also fundamentally flawed if our goal is to understand how to move forward positively – - which brings me to the next lesson…

2. Incentives Matter and little else does

As I just stated… its complicated, but if you want to try and understand any one trend or event, the best way to accomplish this is to: 1 – understand the parties involved, and 2 – understand their incentives. We naturally do this when analyzing complex interactions, but ultimately, as I look back at all of the craziness and turmoil, it seems especially important to examine them very closely.  Now, just because someone acts on their incentive doesn’t mean they make a good decision (see: Bertelsmann/Napster, Sony Rootkit, RIAA suing dead grandmothers just to name a scant few) – - let’s just be clear on that, but if we can understand incentives, things start to make more sense, and it becomes easier to operate within the environement  – - mostly because we know where we can and cannot change behavior – - we should mostly disregard behavior and focus on changing incentives.  Which, leads me to my next lesson…

4. The Music business is a lot like the Oil business or illegal drug trade than anything else

Hear me out… I am NOT saying that people in the music industry are global warming drug traffickers…  I am over simplifying here to help make my point.  If we look at the most blamed digital media “culprits” of the last decade (Major labels/ RIAA, Publishers), we can look at their incentives, their core business structure, and then the clash with technology and their downfall becomes easier to understand.  The key takeaway is to understand that at its core, the music business is a “rent-seeking” business model, and that has been both its benefactor and now its apparent nemesis.  I like the Economist’s brief definition of “rent seeking:

Cutting yourself a bigger slice of the cake rather than making the cake bigger. Trying to make more money without producing more for customers. Classic examples of rent-seeking, a phrase coined by an economist, Gordon Tullock, include:

• a protection racket, in which the gang takes a cut from the shopkeeper’s PROFIT;

• a CARTEL of FIRMS agreeing to raise PRICES;

• a UNION demanding higher WAGES without offering any increase in PRODUCTIVITY;

• lobbying the GOVERNMENT for tax, spending or regulatory policies that benefit the lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers or consumers or some other rivals.

Whether legal or illegal, as they do not create any value, rent-seeking activities can impose large costs on an economy.

Hmm… sound familiar? Cartel behavior and price collusion? Government policies that benefit the firms at the expense of consumers and rivals? Well, normally, its great work if you can get it… being a rent-seeking monopoly normally pays off big, and it did for a long time for the music business when they controlled enough of the supply chain, but they don’t anymore, and now their incentives are no longer aligned with their potential partners (tech start-ups, for example), their “assets” (artists), or, and this is the biggest problem – - their customers.  Frankly, their incentives were never aligned with their customers… that’s the nature of rent-seeking.  In order to succeed in the present and future, they are going to need to get away from the that model, get off the government tit, and align their incentives with their artists and customers – - sorry — its a lot harder, but welcome to the world other competitive firms live in.

5. This is one broken-ass marketplace.

Healthy marketplaces all have some things in common: free flows of information and transparency, low barriers to entry, pricing mechanisms that clear markets (you know… where supply = demand), clear and easily enforced property rights, competition… I guess I should just rest my case right here.

6. We aren’t Special

Like Schopenhauer, I believe that music is a special art form that is essential to our well-being.  Hell – we probably all believe that. Music IS special.  As a business, it is not, however, nor should it be.  People who work in the music business are also not special. We should be exposed to the same harsh market forces and consumer fickleness as any other industry (the industry would be in better shape if it had been toughened up over time), and just because something’s “not fair” doesn’t mean its not happening (P2p, Oasis breaking up, etc.).  Many of the “less productive” discussions I have had during my career have pitted logic against emotion and a sense of entitlement, and this is uncovers the deep cultural problems industries face when they operate for so long in non-competitive environments.

7.  The Long Tail is both right and wrong

Chris Anderson’s Long Tail hypothesis was perhaps the most controversial, repeated, and otherwise most “2.0″ of all the decade’s digital music memes.  In 2009, it almost seems passe, and perhaps the general consensus is that its been partially debunked. Maybe so, but there were events, trends, and companies that broke the mold and did it Long Tail style… how about the Electronic and DJ crowd taking their ball and going to Beatport? How about artists shrinking their businesses and going it alone on the web?  How about social media allowing unprecedented connection between artist and their fans? Some of this stuff IS happening.  Was it a global phenomenon that changed everything? No, but in the chaos, it appears that the niche can survive and thrive… and like #1 says above… its complicated.

8. There is no silver bullet

This should go without saying, but it seems like every week, either Spotify or  some internet tax or some mobile play (or Apple) is getting credited with “being the next big thing” or “saving the industry”.  For 11 years going back, every week – - there was something – believe me.  All of these things in aggregate will lead to something, and that’s  the natural and bumpy maturation of the market, where trial and error eventually lead to better and better models. There is, however, no “one thing” – - no one model or company that is going to restructure or “save” the entire music vertical. In fact, when the industry focused its efforts on making sure there was just “one thing” (LP’s, CD’s, commercial radio), they created seeded their future doom.

9. Careful What You Wish For

When things get bad enough, you look in all directions for a way out – - that’s  human nature.  I mentioned the “internet tax” above, and to a lot of people, it might seem like a good idea.  It would be an absolute disaster for the industry, for technology companies, for everyone.  I can’t think of something more harmful to innovation than a tax at the core of the infrastructure.  But lot of people will keep wishing for some flavor of government intervention. We can only hope the industry doesn’t get what they ask for. The other “careful what you wish for” lesson I learned is that most indie labels are happiest when they can act just like majors. The law of unintended consequences is well in play, folks… be careful.

10. There is always hope

Is it darkest before the light? I don’t know, but what I did learn is that while things might move 5 steps forward and 7 back, sometimes the trend reverses itself. I still believe that innovation always wins, and I still believe the “industry” is in the process of aligning themselves with customers to create a new, healthy marketplace and business.  There are always counter-forces pushing back on this progress, but that will always be true. The one aphorism that always seemed to ring true all these years was “people aren’t going to stop listening to music” — that, I DO believe, and that is ultimately what is most important.

For a long time, I have been a fan of the “ecosystem” thinking with regards to product concepts and business practices, and it will undoubtedly become a consistent theme in this blog. My affinity towards ecosystem thinking comes at least partially from the frustration of working quite a while in an industry (digital music) where a healthy ecosystem is both lacking and desperately needed.  The core concept of the “Business Ecosystem” has been around for over a decade, and while the concept may be overused a bit, the logic behind it still rings especially true for media and the internet. Many of us in the digital media world have often found ourselves in a position of “explainer/evangelist” of the concept, due to the lack of a cohesive ecosystem – sometimes its hard for those at or near the top of the food chain to understand “balance” in a healthy ecosystem… but I digress – - different post.

4 Currency Explanation

Eric Ries’ well-crafted post, titled “Business ecology and the four customer currencies“, explains the “4 currencies” of money, time, skill, and passion and how they influence customers’ decisions. He does a fantastic job of illustrating the currency concepts and how important realistic customer segmentation is.  Eric has lots of good posts on Freemium concepts, and the ecology discussion is closely related.   He also pointed me to this DEEP article by Andrew Chen that goes into some interesting underlying economic concepts behind creating a successful freemium model – - definitely worth the read.

I have been thinking a lot about business ecosystems lately as I’ve been working through product concepts, and I think that as a “product people”, we ought to consider that our customers self-segment based on their mix of “customer currencies”. Ries provides currency definitions using gaming as an example, wherein the different user types achieve success using different currencies.  The basic concept is simple to understand (I”ll paraphrase here): players with money can buy success, players with lots of time can slog out success, and players with skill are good enough to achieve success quickly and cheaply. The players with a lot of passion are put into a special category, and he argues that while it may not seem like they have “what it takes” to be successful, they are often the hidden reason for the success of the game (and thus the ecosystem) overall.

Each of these four currencies represents a way for a customer to “pay” for services from a company. And this is true outside of games. Constructing a working business model is a form of ecosystem design. A great product enables customers, developers, partners, and even competitors to exchange their unique currencies in combinations that lead to financial success for the company that organizes them.

Ye Olde MRD

Customer Currency and Engagement

Applied 4 currencies Process

Recently, I’ve been trying to sort out my social media universe (insert joke here). Anyway, the last time I really thought about this stuff (maybe a year ago?), there a few and options, and now the bad news is that there are endless  options.  What I’m really talking about is managing multiple services and identities,  and  figuring out which service does what the best and how it all comes together.  I’ve come to a some conclusions for myself on how all of these pieces fit together, and it might be helpful for others to see one persons’ approach.  The first one to figure out is the two big ones, and how they should or should not interact.  Basically, I’m getting tired of seeing status updates posted twice in FB because people have their accounts linked, and I’ve stopped it, but for more reasons that just the annoyance factor.  I think I’m violating some kind of twitter etiquette by blogging about it – which is what Fast Company said Scoble said, but the post they link to on Scobelizer doesn’t actually say that… but really, I couldn’t care less, but you know there are rules, I guess.

Facebook vs. Twitter

The first real issue I had to resolve for myself  was to understand the relationship of these two services for me, and how to change my social networking behavior to match an optimal usage of each.  What I discovered (after 2 weeks in a sensory deprivation tank) is that Facebook = Fun, Twitter = Work.  That’s really an oversimplification, but its accurate.  Ultimately, it boils down to the nature of how each network is built, and the fact that I’ve been on Facebook much longer. The reality is that I like to use Facebook mostly socially to engage with (and joke around with) my friends.  Some of the things I say and do on Facebook I wouldn’t necessarily want broadcast to the world, which is what Twitter does best, IMO.

For me, Facebook is (or at least I’d like it to be) for friends, sharing links photos and videos, and frankly, for joking around.  I have discovered that my Twitter profile is, in a way, much more important for me as a public communication tool and identity.  Anyone can see my Twitter account and follow me (spammers aside), and I like it that way. As an internet professional, I must maintain a discipline (much as I must on my blog) to not divulge or say anything that would be harmful to the company I am working for (and as a result myself), but also, as an internet professional, I believe its imperative for me to share information and be an active and integral part of the internet. I would guess that more people will see a Tweet from me before they ever see my blog, my LinkedIn profile, or my Facebook profile. For me, Twitter is about acquiring knowledge, promoting what I do, and sharing ideas.  Those are some big concepts for 140 characters or less, but it seems to be the best platform. I think a lot of other people agree with me, and I see a lot of posts out there that share the same idea, like this one from Cogblog:

“Because Twitter is for sharing information with the world and Facebook is for interacting with friends, Facebook has an inherent virality that Twitter does not have in their current model. “

I know there are a lot of twitter fanatics out there who are adamant that it shouldn’t  be used primarily a “broadcast” tool very actively and dynamically, as is expressed in this post on Twittip.  For the record, they are right in that Twitter is a much more compelling service if used as two-way communication, and I’m starting to actually figure this out…  the “Lists” feature and the now intergrated Retweeting are going a long way to make the communication aspect more compelling.

I came to the conclusion that Twitter is really good at being a big part of and promoting my blog. Using http://Twitterfeed.com, I pull in items I have “shared” from in Google Reader, and now I have a very clean and flexible way of sharing articles via Twitter. Then, with the Twitter Tools WordPress plug-in (http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/twitter-tools/) I can auto-generate a blog post whose contents are a weekly digest of my Tweets Example: http://timjmitchell.com/2009/11/20/twitter-weekly-updates-for-2009-11-20/. This solves another problem… I have decoupled Facebook from Twitter, since I hated having to hit both networks with the same post. Once a week, I simply share my digest blog post on Facebook – - there is still integration, but its much lighter weight, and it promotes my blog and Twitter account in a much better way. I also display my Tweets directly in one of the side panels of my blog, I have a large “origami bird” follow icon always present, and every post has a “Tweet This” button provided by the “Tweet This” WordPress plug-in (http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/tweet-this/). Twitter is now the primary way in which I promote my blog or communicate with other bloggers. I often forget to set up proper Trackbacks, and Pingbacks are becoming too un-trusted and associated with SPAM. Twitter is natural for not only promoting a post, but also for directly commenting or indirectly commenting via your own blog posts via @replies #tags, or even direct messages. I also simply cross-post to my Tumblr blog from WordPress, and again, I allow my entire Twitter stream to appear on my Tumblr profile… this is a no-effort way to promote my blog and Twitter profile to another online community.