Marty Cagan: Strong Opinions, loosely held

频道: Lenny's Podcast
视频: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF3lkTCM5-c
原文语言: en
统计: 共 13 轮 · Marty 13

[0:06] Marty

Thank you. Um, also thank you to Lenny for running this and for inviting me actually to be a speaker. Um, I don't actually go to a lot of conferences. Uh, but when I do, um, I really enjoy them and I will tell you I can't I lost track of the people that came up to me and thanked me for content for books. People ask me to they have tattered copies of inspired and they ask for signatures and it's you know hugely uh flattering and humbling to see that. I did warn several of them that my talk was actually all about my regrets uh of which there are uh quite a few. So that is what I wanted to talk about. But I have been here with you all day listening to every one of the talks. And um I learned something really interesting from every single one of them. I observed and I'm sharing this for a reason, but I observed that there are two kinds of product in the world. Two kinds. I've always called them the project model and the product model. About half the speakers were from each. Obviously, I'm highly biased, but my world is both of them. And so, it's super interesting for me to hear, but hopefully you all can think back on the day and you saw dramatically different definitions of the job. Now, the truth is, as I was listening, I was like, "Oh, I got to talk about this and I got to talk about that. I don't want them to leave thinking this." But then Robbie from Google and Ki basically said what I would have said. loved it.

谢谢。也谢谢 Lenny 办了这场活动，还邀请我来当讲者。其实我不怎么参加会议，但每次去都很享受。跟你们说，今天过来找我、感谢我的内容和书的人，多到我都数不清了。有人拿着翻得破破烂烂的《Inspired》来找我签名，说实话，这让我既受宠若惊，又有点愧不敢当。我倒是提前给其中几位打了预防针：我今天的演讲其实全是在讲我的遗憾——而且遗憾还不少。这就是我今天想聊的。不过今天一整天我都在这儿，和大家一起听了每一场演讲，每一场都让我学到了很有意思的东西。我观察到一件事——我说这个是有原因的——我观察到，世界上有两种做产品的方式。就两种。我一直把它们叫作项目模式和产品模式。今天的讲者差不多一半属于这种，一半属于那种。当然我有很强的偏向，但这两种我在工作中都会碰到。所以听下来我觉得特别有意思，也希望大家回想一下今天，你们会发现，大家对这份工作的定义截然不同。说实话，我边听边想：「哦，这个我得讲讲，那个我也得讲讲，可不能让他们带着这种想法离开。」但后来 Google 的 Robbie 和 Ki 基本上把我想说的都说了。我很喜欢。

[1:50] Marty

Again, I'm biased, but loved them. What I want to talk about here is a little different. Honestly, it's uh something I've known I've needed to do for a long time, but I kept sort of procrastinating on it because uh this is a really hard question, especially for me. I have spent decades arguing certain points. Now, for those that don't know my work, I am actually one of those people. I'm not interested in the latest process. I'm not interested in the latest framework. I don't really care what you created an agent to automate. I don't care because that's not actually the job of product. That might give you some tooling to help you do the job, but that's not the job. The job of product is to solve problems for our customers and achieve outcomes for our business. That's what this is about. So that's what I'm interested in. And because I focus on principles, the truth is they're pretty durable. In fact, every time a new technology wave, you heard a very polite way of saying I must be very old to have seen all of these waves. But yeah, every wave you're like, will this invalidate those principles? You don't really know until you look at it. And of course, as as you know, all those waves were actually a lot of fun.

再说一次，我有偏向，但我很喜欢他们的分享。我今天想讲的有点不一样。说实话，这件事我早就知道自己该做了，但一直有点拖着，因为这是个非常难的问题，对我来说尤其难。几十年来，我一直在为某些观点据理力争。给不熟悉我作品的朋友说一句：我其实就是那种人——我对最新的流程不感兴趣，对最新的框架也不感兴趣。你做了个 agent 去自动化什么，我也不太在乎。我不在乎，是因为那并不是产品的本职工作。它也许能给你一些工具，帮你把工作做好，但那不是工作本身。产品的工作，是为客户解决问题、为业务取得结果。这才是核心。所以这才是我感兴趣的。也正因为我关注的是原则，说实话，这些原则相当经得起时间考验。事实上，每一次新的技术浪潮——刚才的介绍其实是很客气地在说，我肯定年纪很大了，才会经历过所有这些浪潮——没错，每一波浪潮来的时候，你都会想：这会不会让那些原则失效？不认真看一看，你真的不知道。当然，大家也知道，那些浪潮其实都挺好玩的。

[3:19] Marty

I am one of those. I mean, the reason I'm a product person is because I love the fact that what's just now possible is changing all the time. That's what makes it cool. Otherwise, I would not be doing this this area. I wouldn't have chosen this as a career. But with AI, I feel like I had to look at everything. Even the things that honestly I was taught are sacred. It's like you don't mess with this principle. I wanted to look at everything. That's what I did. Now, the first thing I had to figure out was where do I start? Because the truth is I treat my content as my product and I am literally doing product discovery every single week with product teams. In fact, a lot of many of you have been with me to know that's what I'm doing. I'm learning. That's what I've been doing here today is really discovery on product content. And it was very good for me to hear these other views, all of the other views. But anyway, the truth is I have a lot of things I've learned. Now most of the time I just write articles and publish stuff on more minor learnings. But what I wanted to do was to identify what I thought that I mean honestly I started brainstorming a list and it's a big list. It's kind of depressing but there's a big list. I wanted to pick the top 10 things that I genuinely regret. I genuinely if I knew then what I knew now now I decided to draw the line with the publication of the first edition of inspired which was in 2008 which I some of you weren't even born then but that's when I'm drawing the line but you have to realize I had been doing product for 25 years when I wrote that. So I had been a product manager. I went through the whole engineering side and I was a product leader for two and a half decades. So I had learned a lot from amazing people at some, you know, honestly the anthropics of the day, really good companies. So I decided let's draw the line there. Even though some of the things I'm going to

我就是这种人。我的意思是，我之所以做产品，就是因为我热爱这一点：「刚刚成为可能」的东西一直在变。这正是它酷的地方。不然我也不会干这一行，不会选它当职业。但有了 AI，我觉得我必须把所有东西都重新审视一遍，甚至包括那些说实话别人教我要奉为神圣的东西——就是那种「这条原则你别碰」的东西。我想把一切都重新看一遍，我也确实这么做了。首先我得想清楚：从哪儿开始？因为说实话，我把我的内容当作我的产品，而且我每一周都实打实地在和产品团队一起做产品探索（discovery）。事实上，在座很多人都和我一起共事过，知道我就是在干这个——我在学习。我今天在这儿做的，其实也就是对产品内容做探索。能听到这些不同的观点、所有这些其他观点，对我非常有益。总之，说实话，我学到的东西很多。大多数时候，一些比较小的心得，我就写成文章发出来。但这次我想做的，是找出我认为……说实话，我开始头脑风暴列清单，结果清单很长。挺让人沮丧的，但确实很长。我想从中挑出我真心后悔的前 10 件事——是真心的那种：要是当年就知道我现在知道的就好了。我决定以《Inspired》第一版的出版为分界线，那是 2008 年——在座有些人那时候还没出生呢——但我就以那时为界。不过你们要明白，我写那本书的时候已经做了 25 年产品了。我当过产品经理，整个工程那一侧也都走过一遍，也当过产品领导者，前后二十五年。所以我从很多了不起的人身上学到了很多，他们所在的公司，说实话就是当年的 Anthropic，都是非常好的公司。所以我决定就以那里为界。尽管我接下来要讲的某些东西，

[5:29] Marty

talk about are regrets that are less than six months old. Let's do that. Let's talk about it. 10 big things. The first one I want to start with is business viability because that's honestly the most embarrassing of them. There is no way for me to get around this. I completely understated the importance of business viability. Just so that everybody knows what I'm talking about here. Business viability. This is a product manager's job is to make sure at least in the product model is to make sure that the solutions are both the customer will buy it and it works for the business. That means you can afford to market it, you can sell it, you can service it, it's legal, it's compliant, it respects privacy, safety, ethics. This is a big thing even before AI. It's big. Those of you working on AI products, you know it's even harder. Business viability is a really big area. But the embarrassing truth is in the first edition of Inspire. I didn't even talk about it as a risk. Value, usability, feasibility. There were three risks that we talked about. Viability was buried in there. I'm embarrassed to say that. Now, I fixed it in the second edition, but that was 10 years later. This is one of those I had a lot of introspection because the truth is I kept asking how could I have gone so long with such a huge blind spot around products and I believe I know the answer to that and I want to share it with you because it's very relevant even today maybe even especially today because in my career for those that might know I almost all of my career I was working on developer tools and platforms which I still absolutely love that space. Who doesn't love claude code? I mean I love that space. However, you need to understand this. It's one of the few areas where a product manager can get away with pretty weak skills. Now, that's not the only one, but it's one of them. Now, that's not a a criticism. It's kind of a

其实是不到六个月前才有的遗憾。那就开始吧，我们来聊聊。10 件大事。第一件我想从商业可行性讲起，因为说实话，这是其中最让我难堪的一件，我怎么也绕不过去。我对商业可行性的重要性强调得远远不够。先让大家明白我说的是什么：商业可行性。产品经理的职责——至少在产品模式里——就是确保方案既能让客户愿意买单，又对业务行得通。也就是说，你负担得起它的营销，卖得出去，服务得了，它合法、合规，尊重隐私、安全和伦理。即便在 AI 出现之前，这也是件大事。很大的事。做 AI 产品的各位都知道，现在这件事更难了。商业可行性是一个非常大的领域。但令人难堪的事实是，在《Inspired》第一版里，我甚至都没把它当作一种风险来讲。价值、可用性、技术可行性——当时我们讲的是这三种风险，商业可行性被埋在里面了。说出来我都觉得难为情。后来我在第二版里改过来了，但那已经是 10 年后了。这件事我反思了很多，因为说实话，我一直在问自己：我怎么会在产品上带着这么大一个盲区走了这么久？我相信我知道答案，也想分享给大家，因为它在今天依然非常相关，甚至可以说今天尤其相关。原因是——了解我的人可能知道——我几乎整个职业生涯都在做开发者工具和平台，到现在我都特别喜欢这个领域。谁不喜欢 Claude Code 呢？我是真的喜欢这个领域。但你们得明白一点：这是少数几个产品经理能力相当弱也能混过去的领域之一。当然不止这一个，但它算一个。这倒不是批评，某种程度上这算是

[7:40] Marty

an advantage for those kinds of products. It's a much simpler space for viability. But for most products, especially for AI products, that is not true. And in fact, I used to be very excited about my um knowledge of engineering because I felt like it helped me learn new technologies. I came from an engineering background. That's what I studied. And it was like big advantage. I felt like that was my my sort of superpower. But today I would argue going forward and for all of you to succeed at every level, business viability, especially from a holistic systems thinking perspective. Second, problem discovery. Now the tr you know, I've always talked about product discovery has got problem discovery, figuring out what problem you're going to solve and solution discovery, solving that problem. The truth is the mistake I made was I just did not understand how strongly people would be drawn to the problem discovery side of that equation. In fact, a lot of people view themselves as the gatekeeper. That's their job as product managers to make sure they agree this is a problem to solve. Yes, you obviously need to make sure you understand the problem, who you're solving it for, and what the definition of success is. But honestly, that's not very hard. It's not very hard. And if you spend a lot of time on that, you're not going to do the real part you're paid for, which is solution discovery. You might think when a product fails, it's because you didn't um you know, it wasn't a big enough demand, not enough people had that problem. you're almost always wrong because what's going on is as soon as somebody else comes out with a better solution all of a sudden we know that that was never the issue. So problem discovery I should have emphasized yes problem discovery important little bit of time save time for solution discovery that's the essence that's where innovation happens the next big issue um and this is another one all of these

这类产品的一个优势：在商业可行性上，这个领域要简单得多。但对大多数产品来说，尤其是 AI 产品，情况并非如此。事实上，我以前对自己懂工程这一点特别得意，因为我觉得它帮我学习新技术。我是工程背景出身，学的就是这个，这算是很大的优势。我觉得那是我的某种超能力。但今天我要说，面向未来，想让你们每个人在每个层级都能成功，关键是商业可行性，尤其要从整体的系统思维视角去看。第二，问题探索。其实，我一直讲，产品探索包括问题探索——弄清楚你要解决什么问题；以及方案探索——把那个问题解决掉。说实话，我犯的错在于，我完全没料到人们会那么强烈地被这道等式里问题探索的那一边吸引。事实上，很多人把自己当成守门人，觉得产品经理的职责就是确认自己认同「这是个该解决的问题」。没错，你显然需要确保自己理解这个问题、为谁解决、成功的定义是什么。但说实话，这并不难。真的不难。如果你在这上面花大量时间，你就没法去做公司真正付钱请你做的那部分——方案探索。你可能以为，产品失败是因为你没有……就是需求不够大、有这个问题的人不够多。但你几乎总是错的，因为实际情况是：一旦别人拿出一个更好的解决方案，我们一下子就知道了，问题从来不在那儿。所以关于问题探索，我当初应该强调的是：没错，问题探索很重要，花一点点时间就行，把时间留给方案探索——那才是本质，创新就发生在那里。下一个大问题——这又是一个……所有这些

[9:52] Marty

kind of have uh you know good and bad sides but um I spent a lot of time talking about how important it is to understand the reason why we're working on whatever we're working on, whatever problem we're working on. I didn't make this phrase up. John Door did, but we need teams of missionaries, not teams of mercenaries. If you want missionaries, you have to make sure they understand the reason. And yeah, that is important, but that's so easy. And in fact, if you have a product strategy, which you should, we'll talk about that in a little bit. the reasons you're working on these problems is spelled out for the whole organization to see. So there's no big mystery. So what I want to talk about and I was really happy to see that Robbie called this out. There is a much more important why than why are we working on this problem and that is why are people not using our product. He called that out. I would love seeing that. And honestly that's kind of a surprise for Google. for for a while they thought it was all based on data and we're not going to talk to No, we need to actually talk to our customers to figure out why. I try products constantly. I bet most of you do too. That's what product people do. We're early adopters. We try it out. Most of them are crap products. You know this, right? We try it. We're not good. So, I churn. Almost nobody follows up anyway.

其实都各有好坏两面。我花了很多时间讲，理解我们为什么要做手上这件事、为什么要解决手上这个问题，有多重要。这句话不是我发明的，是 John Doerr 说的：我们需要传教士式的团队，而不是雇佣兵式的团队。想要传教士，你就得确保他们理解背后的原因。没错，这很重要，但这太容易了。而且事实上，如果你有产品战略——你应该有，这个我们待会儿会讲——那你为什么要解决这些问题，早就白纸黑字写出来、整个组织都看得到了。所以没什么神秘的。所以我想讲的是——我很高兴看到 Robbie 也点出了这一点——有一个比「我们为什么要解决这个问题」重要得多的「为什么」，那就是：人们为什么不用我们的产品？他把这一点点出来了，我太喜欢了。说实话，这话出自 Google 还挺让人意外的。有一阵子他们认为一切都得靠数据，我们不会去跟……不，我们确实需要去跟客户聊，才能弄清楚原因。我一直在试用各种产品，我敢打赌你们大多数人也是。做产品的人就是这样，我们是早期采用者，什么都要试一试。大部分都是烂产品，你们也知道吧？我们试了，发现不好用，于是我就流失了。反正几乎没人会跟进。

[11:19] Marty

Nothing. Not a survey, not a email, nothing to ask me why I churn. Probably the single most important question is why are people using our product or not using our product? And the part that really gets me is that's the key to unlocking so much innovation. And yet most teams never ask that question. The next one, humility. You know, the longer I go, the more important I realize that humility and a a truly open mind is so important to product people at every level. What does that really mean? Humility. It means knowing what you can't know and admitting what you don't know. Many of you know this, but instead most people the message they took away from my books was the C the product manager should be CEO of the product, which is kind of the opposite of a humility message. And yeah, this might sound like a personality trait to you, but it's not. I would argue this contributes directly to the root cause of so many failed products, which really leads me to maybe my single biggest regret. I honestly had no idea and I just didn't appreciate how powerful and deeply rooted the desire for predictability was. And that's from both product people and senior executives and how at odds that desire for predictability is with not just humility but innovation and outcomes.

什么都没有。没有问卷，没有邮件，没有任何人来问我为什么流失。最重要的问题，可能就是这一个：人们为什么用、或者为什么不用我们的产品？最让我受不了的是，这正是解锁大量创新的钥匙，可大多数团队从来不问这个问题。下一个：谦逊。你知道，我干得越久，越意识到谦逊和真正开放的心态，对每个层级的产品人都有多重要。这到底意味着什么？谦逊，意味着知道哪些事你没法知道，并且承认你不知道的东西。在座很多人都明白这一点，但大多数人从我书里带走的信息却是：产品经理应该是产品的 CEO——这差不多是谦逊的反面。是的，这在你听来可能像是一种性格特质，但它不是。我认为，它直接助长了大量产品失败的根本原因，而这也把我引向了我也许最大的一个遗憾：说实话，我当时完全没想到，也没真正体会到，人们对可预测性的渴望有多强大、扎根有多深——产品人和高管都是如此；也没体会到这种对可预测性的渴望，不仅和谦逊、还和创新与结果有多么冲突。

[13:04] Marty

Consider for a second I'm opening a can of worms here. I probably shouldn't but consider for a second the two big artifacts in the product world maps and PRDS. So road maps of course the prioritized lists of features we think we need to build and when and the PRDS which is how we describe the requirement of those features. Now for a second consider how much of an enabler those artifacts are for thinking that we know more than we really do. This is such an important point and so many people misunderstand this. You know, people keep asking the question, do you still need PRDs? Do we still need road maps? I I never heard that one posed till this morning. Uh despite Claire's optimism, I guarantee your road maps are not going away. We all know that the issue is not whether they are there. And it's never been whether they are there. The issue is what are you using that PRD for? If you're using it because you're forgive me arrogance and you think you know the answer so you're putting it in terms of requirements for your engineers to build that's the project model that's the root cause of so many failed products. If however you have learned and tested and and gathered the evidence you need to know what's going to be built is going to achieve the outcome then the PRD is just your communication device. It's not only harmless, it's actually useful. The same is true with road maps. If you put a bunch of features that are somebody's idea of what might work and you put dates there, you're going to waste most of your time. you're going to end up wasting most of the engineering capacity. And yes, the engineering time has gone way down. You're still wasting it. And the tokens aren't free. So predictability is at the root of this. And predictability is important, but it's not as important or worth uh trading off outcomes or trust.

大家想一想——我这是要捅马蜂窝了，可能不该捅——想一想产品世界里的两大文档：路线图和 PRD。路线图，当然就是按优先级排好的功能清单，列着我们认为需要做哪些功能、什么时候做；PRD 则是我们描述这些功能需求的方式。现在请想一想：这些文档在多大程度上助长了一种错觉，让我们以为自己知道的比实际更多。这一点非常重要，而太多人误解了它。大家一直在问：还需要 PRD 吗？还需要路线图吗？路线图这个问题，我直到今天早上才第一次听人提出来。尽管 Claire 很乐观，但我保证，你们的路线图不会消失。我们都知道，问题不在于有没有它们，也从来都不在于有没有。问题在于：你拿那份 PRD 来干什么？如果你用它，是因为你——恕我直言——傲慢，你以为自己知道答案，于是把它写成需求交给工程师去做，那就是项目模式，这正是大量产品失败的根源。但如果你已经学习过、测试过，也收集到了足够的证据，知道要做的东西能达成结果，那么 PRD 只是你的沟通工具。它不仅无害，而且确实有用。路线图也一样。如果你往上面堆一堆功能——那只是某个人觉得可能管用的想法——再标上日期，你大部分时间都会被浪费掉，最后大部分工程产能也会被浪费掉。没错，现在工程所需的时间已经大幅下降了，但你仍然是在浪费。而且 token 也不是免费的。所以，这一切的根源在于可预测性。可预测性很重要，但它没有那么重要，不值得拿结果或信任去换。

[15:19] Marty

Politics. The truth is I I we all know politics is important, but I thought good product work will carry the day. That was of course naive. And the truth is politics are everywhere. They're in the fabric of every company. And I now if you look at the last three years of my content, half of it is with dealing with politics and the other half is dealing with the impact of AI. It is a big topic. This is probably the one with the long long most damage created from uh like the book inspired. My initial work was all about product teams and product discovery because to me I what I really love is the craft of products and I wanted to write about the craft of product because there's a lot of principles and a lot of techniques and most people were just building stuff and shipping it and seeing what sticks and that's still true today. And that was an intentional choice to focus on the on the teams and the craft of product discovery. What I didn't appreciate was I I almost hardly mention product leadership, but I didn't realize the consequences of that choice. And the result is so many companies and I'm I'm sad to say this, this is still true today because by far somehow all these years later, Inspired is still selling like crazy. A lot of teams just read inspired and they think all they need to do is set up product teams, empowered product teams, a strong product manager, you can be awesome, and they think that's all they need to do and they'll be good. And of course, what so many companies have learned is that in empowered product teams, you don't just need less management, you need better management. And the role of product leadership is so critical. You just heard from Kyrie the point about context. That is what's so critical. At a minimum, it's the product strategy, which is your your prioritized list of problems to be solved. Another one that just um it's tough corporate governance.

政治。说实话，我们都知道公司政治很重要，但我当时以为，好的产品工作自然能胜出。那当然很天真。事实是，政治无处不在，它渗透在每家公司的肌理里。如今你去看我最近三年的内容，一半在讲怎么应对政治，另一半在讲 AI 的影响。这是个大话题。下面这一条，大概是《Inspired》这本书造成的伤害最深远的一条。我早期的作品全是关于产品团队和产品探索的，因为我真正热爱的是做产品这门手艺。我想写的就是产品这门手艺，因为里面有很多原则、很多技巧，而当时大多数人只是把东西做出来、发出去，看哪个能成——今天依然如此。聚焦在团队和产品探索这门手艺上，是我有意做出的选择。我当时没意识到的是——我几乎没怎么提产品领导力——我没意识到这个选择会带来什么后果。结果就是太多公司……我很难过地说，这一点今天依然如此，因为不知怎么的，这么多年过去了，《Inspired》还是卖得特别火。很多团队只读了《Inspired》，就以为只需要把产品团队搭起来——被赋能的产品团队，配一个强力的产品经理，你就能很出色——他们以为这样就够了，一切都会好。当然，很多公司后来都认识到：在被赋能的产品团队里，你需要的不只是更少的管理，而是更好的管理。产品领导力的作用至关重要。你们刚才听 Kyrie 讲了关于背景信息（context）的观点，那正是最关键的。最起码，要有产品战略，也就是你按优先级排好的待解决问题清单。还有一条，这个比较难讲：公司治理。

[17:28] Marty

I I'm not talking about PMO, which is process governance governance. I'm talking about corporate governance here. Oversight of the company. I I we've own all known that's a problem, but um I said this isn't something product can do anything about. And uh one of the most painful lessons over the years is helping so many companies actually get better at shipping great products only to see they become a target for people with very different motivations that are pro going to pull the product in a different direction. So that's sad. If you've I would encourage everybody to read Eric Reese's new book incorruptible. You know that this is a funny one. product is just not as gental as I made it sound in my books. It almost sounds academic, right? Where okay, your job is to solve problems in ways your customers love but work for your business. Yes, that's true. But it kind of hides the fact that it's not enough. You actually have to solve problems in ways that are dramatically better than your competition if you're going to get people to switch. And the truth is that product today a comp in the competitive open market product is a full contact blood sport and most people from my content you would not get that and a lot of teams aren't prepared. And the last point uh and you know I uh this is a point a few people have brought up which I'm thrilled to see but fundamentally good product work is about thinking.

我说的不是 PMO（项目管理办公室），那是流程治理。我这里说的是公司治理，也就是对公司的监督。我们一直都知道这是个问题，但我当时说，这不是产品能左右的事。这些年最痛的教训之一就是：我帮了那么多公司真正变得更擅长交付出色的产品，结果却眼看着它们成了一些动机截然不同的人的目标，这些人会把产品往另一个方向拉。这挺让人难过的。我鼓励大家都去读一读 Eric Ries 的新书《Incorruptible》。还有一条挺好笑的：做产品根本不像我在书里写得那么温和。听起来几乎有点学院派，对吧？就是说，你的工作是用客户喜爱、同时对业务行得通的方式去解决问题。没错，这是对的。但这多少掩盖了一个事实：光这样还不够。如果你想让人们换过来用你的，你解决问题的方式得比竞争对手好得多才行。事实是，如今在竞争激烈的开放市场里，做产品就是一场全接触的血腥运动。而从我的内容里，大多数人是体会不到这一点的，很多团队也没有做好准备。最后一点——今天有几位也提到了，我很高兴看到这一点——从根本上说，好的产品工作关乎思考。

[19:11] Marty

It's about thinking and I here's what's the the mistake. I did not appreciate the lengths that people would go to in order to avoid thinking. Uh, I wish I was joking. Uh, what does it show up as? It shows up as a craving for process, frameworks, and predictability. I structured inspired as people, process, and product. Big mistake. And I am worried that large language models will be used as an alternative to thinking, but the truth is that's already happened with process. And the truth is Elon Musk was right about this. In many companies, process is used as a substitute for thinking. So, please don't fall. I should have called that out. Called out thinking, called out the necessary foundation of product sense much more loudly and clearly. All right, those are the 10 big things that um I really genuinely regret. However, I will tell you, funny enough, ironically, I am feeling really good about the content overall, but more importantly, about all of our future as products. And I want to try to explain why. The main criticism that I've received on my content, honestly, over the last 20 years is that um people wish they could work like is described in Inspire. They wish they could. And they tell me there are two problems. One, their company is addicted to output and the predictability of that output.

关乎思考。我犯的错是这样的：我没有意识到，人们为了逃避思考能做到什么地步。我倒希望我是在开玩笑。它会表现成什么样？表现为对流程、框架和可预测性的渴求。我把《Inspired》的结构分成了人、流程和产品三部分。大错特错。我担心大语言模型会被当成思考的替代品，但事实上，流程早就已经被这样用了。在这一点上 Elon Musk 说得对：在很多公司里，流程被当作思考的替代品。所以，千万别掉进这个坑。我当初就该把这一点点明——把思考、把产品感这个必不可少的基础，讲得更响亮、更清楚。好，以上就是我真心后悔的 10 件大事。不过我要告诉大家，说来好笑也挺讽刺，我对这些内容整体上其实感觉很好，但更重要的是，我对我们所有做产品的人的未来都感觉很好。我想试着解释一下原因。说实话，过去 20 年里，我的内容收到的主要批评是：人们希望自己能像《Inspired》里描述的那样工作。他们很希望能那样。他们告诉我有两个问题。第一，他们的公司对产出上瘾，也对产出的可预测性上瘾。

[20:52] Marty

And two, it's hard. They think it's going to be hard to work that way. But look, in no small part, thanks to AI today, more places than ever understand the need for outcomes and not just output. And also, it is dramatically easier. You know, we talk about product discovery is build to learn. Everybody in this room, I hope you don't leave this session without an understanding that there's two kinds of building. Building to learn and building to earn. I that comes from many of you know a guy named Jeff Patton as a term, but we have lots of terms for this. But it's the difference between product discovery and product delivery. If you want to spend your time doing some pull requests on the front end, fine. Maybe you should just go be a developer. But if you want to make sure that what your engineers do build and provide to your customers, you should be building the learned, it's a totally different approach, totally different job. Your job is to make sure that when they do build that thing, you achieve the outcome you need. So here's the thing. Thanks to AI, the principles of the product model, the craft of product strategy and product discovery have never been more important. All right, I really hope this was useful to everybody. I do want to thank Shri Doshi and Teresa Torres who gave me feedback on early versions of this. And I again I want to thank Lenny for putting this party together. I hope this was useful.

第二，这很难。他们觉得那样工作会很难。但你看，今天在很大程度上多亏了 AI，比以往任何时候都有更多公司明白：要的是结果，而不只是产出。而且，现在做起来也容易得多了。我们常说，产品探索就是为学习而造。在座的每一位，我希望你们离开这场分享时都能明白：造东西有两种——为学习而造，和为赚钱而造。这个说法来自 Jeff Patton，你们很多人都认识他，不过这件事我们有很多种叫法。但说到底，就是产品探索和产品交付的区别。如果你想把时间花在给前端提 pull request 上，行啊，那你也许该直接去当开发者。但如果你想确保工程师真正做出来、交付给客户的东西没问题，你就应该为学习而造，这是完全不同的方法、完全不同的工作。你的工作是确保他们真正去做那个东西的时候，能达成你需要的结果。所以关键在于：多亏了 AI，产品模式的原则、产品战略和产品探索这门手艺，比以往任何时候都更重要。好，真心希望这些对大家有用。我还想感谢 Shreyas Doshi 和 Teresa Torres，他们对这次演讲的早期版本给了我反馈。也再次感谢 Lenny 组织了这场聚会。希望对大家有用。

[22:26] Marty

Thank you very much.

非常感谢。