The online whiteboard of Kristofer Palmvik
Many experts doubt that NPS is indeed the right tool for these purposes. Some question the logic and science behind it. Many feel that usage and purchase metrics may be more representative of customer sentiment. In this article we’ll take a closer look at NPS and each of its parts.
Through a combination of hype and market momentum, NPS has gained a status of one-metric-that-matters that it likely doesn’t deserve. This is especially true today when we have much more indicative metrics that are based on what people actually do, rather than what they say they might do.
Experimentation isn’t just another process we add to the development cycle, it’s a complete shift in how we develop products. We have to be much more humble and curious, and to let the evidence guide us
We collect evidence of various types and gradually build a better understanding of the idea. We start with cheaper modes of validation (assessment, data gathering, early-stage tests), and move to more expensive ones only if the idea still looks good.
Your job is to get everyone into a place of true collaboration with broad shared context and clear goals. You should solicit the help and feedback of your stakeholders when you create your (outcome) goals, but then ask them to give you room to try out multiple ideas. When you make decisions, back them by evidence, and share broadly.
Evidence-based product development is not rocket science. Leadership (at all levels) is about choosing goals, not ideas. Execution is about progressively moving towards the goals by considering multiple ideas, testing and learning. This method is far more effective when you face uncertainty (and we all do, even if you’re in a business that has been around for decades). It’s also far quicker and more efficient. Just as important, investing in learning uncovers opportunities that can take you to new places.
There’s a common and highly destructive pattern I’m seeing time and again (and likely you have too). The leadership team falls in love with a big idea and turns it into a big project. This project becomes the top priority—apparently the future of the company depends on it. Other projects (including yesteryear’s top priorities) are deprioritized or defunded. Competing ideas are squashed like flies.
If after many quarters of trying you’re still not experimenting, there may be a deeper issue. It’s a strange thing, but many companies that say they want to experiment, don’t really want to experiment. They want the mechanics, but are unwilling to adopt the underlying philosophy.
The name Roadmap was a clever bit of marketing for release plans. However it’s clear that this tool, whatever you call it, has run its course. Today we know it makes no sense to commit months and quarters in advance to specific product/business ideas based on opinions, consensus and weak evidence.