<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How can you best manage a product atop a platform?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/2008/11/10/how-can-you-best-manage-a-product-atop-a-platform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/2008/11/10/how-can-you-best-manage-a-product-atop-a-platform/</link>
	<description>Your product management questions answered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:24:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gopal Shenoy</title>
		<link>http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/2008/11/10/how-can-you-best-manage-a-product-atop-a-platform/comment-page-1/#comment-497</link>
		<dc:creator>Gopal Shenoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/?p=91#comment-497</guid>
		<description>I second what John Mansour has said - that would be the primary criterion I would use to determine what goes into the app vs. the platform.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I second what John Mansour has said &#8211; that would be the primary criterion I would use to determine what goes into the app vs. the platform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Locke</title>
		<link>http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/2008/11/10/how-can-you-best-manage-a-product-atop-a-platform/comment-page-1/#comment-488</link>
		<dc:creator>David Locke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/?p=91#comment-488</guid>
		<description>In a discontinuous innovation context, your platform will be the technology, and your product will be a use and productization of that technology.  The technology focuses on enabling code. The product focuses on users and their needs. 

Typically, we use various third-party platforms via APIs. We have to time our development cycles relative to the upgrades to those APIs. We have to evolve the base functionality as it evolves in those platforms. Platforms have costs associated with them. 

We also broaden our markets when we sublimate a particular vendor&#039;s platform with those of other vendors. Since a client will more than likely have only one vendor&#039;s database in their infrastructure, we would only get paid by the client to support that vendor&#039;s database. When we move the application into the vertical, we will run into more platforms. Write the adopter before plugging into the database the client has. Expand the adopter to span other databases as the vertical market demands them. 

The functionality provided by these third-party platforms should be points of parity, and not points of difference. Low use, outilier functionality in these third-party platforms might have to be ignored. Discontinuities from third-party platforms should definately be ignored until they can be productized in a new product. Discontinuities in sustaining products will not be adopted by the market the sustaining products are facing. Discontinuities demand a new market, a new cost structure, and a new policy basis. Going further, discontinuities demand a new sales force, and new forcast realities. 

The in-house platform should be treated just like a third-party platform. The technology team should have a roadmap that lays out well defined functionality in their releases, and release dates independent of product releases. This will enable the product programmers to get their releases out the door without waiting for the technology. And, it enable the product managers for products to consider where the technology will be relative to the product roadmap. 

Even if you only have one productization of the underlying technology and one niche market now, you will need additional productizations, each with their own productization before you can go into the early hoizontal market. Keep your technology roadmap separate from your product roadmap. Synchronize them. 

One thing to beware of is any discontinuities in the technology platforms  after you have gone into the vertical or niche market. These discontinuities might drive your current market away. They require their own separate commercialization effort, which means starting with early adopter clients again. At some point after this new technology has a customer base, you may consider and plan a means to combine the technologies, but the new technology must present a value proposition to the market of the prior technology before you will make headway. 

See McGrath&#039;s early books for hints on managing a technology platform.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a discontinuous innovation context, your platform will be the technology, and your product will be a use and productization of that technology.  The technology focuses on enabling code. The product focuses on users and their needs. </p>
<p>Typically, we use various third-party platforms via APIs. We have to time our development cycles relative to the upgrades to those APIs. We have to evolve the base functionality as it evolves in those platforms. Platforms have costs associated with them. </p>
<p>We also broaden our markets when we sublimate a particular vendor&#8217;s platform with those of other vendors. Since a client will more than likely have only one vendor&#8217;s database in their infrastructure, we would only get paid by the client to support that vendor&#8217;s database. When we move the application into the vertical, we will run into more platforms. Write the adopter before plugging into the database the client has. Expand the adopter to span other databases as the vertical market demands them. </p>
<p>The functionality provided by these third-party platforms should be points of parity, and not points of difference. Low use, outilier functionality in these third-party platforms might have to be ignored. Discontinuities from third-party platforms should definately be ignored until they can be productized in a new product. Discontinuities in sustaining products will not be adopted by the market the sustaining products are facing. Discontinuities demand a new market, a new cost structure, and a new policy basis. Going further, discontinuities demand a new sales force, and new forcast realities. </p>
<p>The in-house platform should be treated just like a third-party platform. The technology team should have a roadmap that lays out well defined functionality in their releases, and release dates independent of product releases. This will enable the product programmers to get their releases out the door without waiting for the technology. And, it enable the product managers for products to consider where the technology will be relative to the product roadmap. </p>
<p>Even if you only have one productization of the underlying technology and one niche market now, you will need additional productizations, each with their own productization before you can go into the early hoizontal market. Keep your technology roadmap separate from your product roadmap. Synchronize them. </p>
<p>One thing to beware of is any discontinuities in the technology platforms  after you have gone into the vertical or niche market. These discontinuities might drive your current market away. They require their own separate commercialization effort, which means starting with early adopter clients again. At some point after this new technology has a customer base, you may consider and plan a means to combine the technologies, but the new technology must present a value proposition to the market of the prior technology before you will make headway. </p>
<p>See McGrath&#8217;s early books for hints on managing a technology platform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Building products on a platform &#171; Lead on Purpose</title>
		<link>http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/2008/11/10/how-can-you-best-manage-a-product-atop-a-platform/comment-page-1/#comment-473</link>
		<dc:creator>Building products on a platform &#171; Lead on Purpose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 04:45:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/?p=91#comment-473</guid>
		<description>[...] he asked me to answer is “How can you best manage a product atop a platform?” Take a look at my response and let me know what you [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] he asked me to answer is “How can you best manage a product atop a platform?” Take a look at my response and let me know what you [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SharePoint Fridays: Designing An Application To Run On A Core Platform &#124; Usability Counts: Usability, User Experience, Social Media, and SharePoint</title>
		<link>http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/2008/11/10/how-can-you-best-manage-a-product-atop-a-platform/comment-page-1/#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator>SharePoint Fridays: Designing An Application To Run On A Core Platform &#124; Usability Counts: Usability, User Experience, Social Media, and SharePoint</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/?p=91#comment-469</guid>
		<description>[...] There are some key questions you should ask before you select MOSS as your platform, and Ask A Good Product Manager has a great post about this. The summary [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] There are some key questions you should ask before you select MOSS as your platform, and Ask A Good Product Manager has a great post about this. The summary [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Mansour</title>
		<link>http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/2008/11/10/how-can-you-best-manage-a-product-atop-a-platform/comment-page-1/#comment-465</link>
		<dc:creator>John Mansour</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ask.goodproductmanager.com/?p=91#comment-465</guid>
		<description>The most simplistic approach to the platform dilemma is to view the platform as a common set of services (features) that products on that platform inherit.  To that end, features that are desirable to all products on any given platform should be built into the platform.  This will eliminate development redundancies and lower the cost of ongoing support and maintenance. 

The decision may not be as clear if there is only one product on the platform.  This is where strategy and vision are of utmost importance in driving these types of decisions for the short or the long term.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most simplistic approach to the platform dilemma is to view the platform as a common set of services (features) that products on that platform inherit.  To that end, features that are desirable to all products on any given platform should be built into the platform.  This will eliminate development redundancies and lower the cost of ongoing support and maintenance. </p>
<p>The decision may not be as clear if there is only one product on the platform.  This is where strategy and vision are of utmost importance in driving these types of decisions for the short or the long term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
