RSS

Tag Archives: #TechLeadership

Dependency Management with AI: From Tracking to Forecasting

Dependency Management with AI: From Tracking to Forecasting

A few years ago, I was in a Roadmap Planning Onsite in a room full of incredibly smart, driven people, the kind of team any company would be proud of. Product leaders, engineers, designers, program managers, everyone aligned, everyone motivated. The roadmap looked solid, the timelines felt achievable, and there was real excitement in the air. If you had walked in at that moment, you would have confidently predicted a couple of successful launches. And yet… these launches slipped.

It didn’t happen all at once. First, a small delay in a review. Then a meeting got pushed out. A dependency that seemed “almost ready” turned out not to be ready at all. One team was waiting on another, and that team, in turn, was waiting on someone else. Before long, what had started as well planned initiatives turned into a series of urgent follow-ups, escalations, and frustration.

What struck me most was this: no one lacked talent, and no one wasn’t working hard. The failure wasn’t about capability. It was about something much quieter and far more dangerous…….unmanaged dependencies.

In smaller companies, this problem is easier to avoid. Decisions happen quickly, often made by a single founder or a small group of leaders. Teams are lean, and the same people who define the problem often see it through to completion. Dependencies still exist, but they are visible, human, and manageable. If something is blocked, everyone knows about it almost immediately, and adjustments happen quickly. The feedback loop is tight, and the risk is contained.

But as organizations grow, so does complexity. What used to be a simple flow, from idea to execution, turns into a chain of handoffs. Product defines the “what,” design shapes the experience, engineering builds it, QA tests it, DevOps deploys it, and along the way, legal, finance, content, and other teams may also get involved. No single person owns the entire journey anymore. Instead, execution depends on how well these teams coordinate with each other. And that’s where things start to break down.

Without a clear operating model and a strong way to track and manage dependencies, teams begin to work in silos. Each team focuses on its own deliverables, assuming that everything else will fall into place. Progress is reported optimistically, but risks remain hidden until it’s too late. Eventually, you start hearing the same familiar line: “We have done everything on our end, but we are blocked by another team.”

On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But when every team is saying it, it points to a deeper issue. It means the system itself is not working.

One of the most challenging aspects of dependencies is that they rarely fail loudly. They fail quietly, almost politely. A review gets postponed. A requirement remains unclear. A deliverable is “in progress” just a little longer than expected. Nothing feels urgent in the moment, so it doesn’t get escalated. But over time, these small slips compound. By the time the impact becomes visible, the situation is already critical. Deadlines are missed, launch dates shift, and trust between teams begins to erode.

I have seen this play out in both small and large organizations. In smaller teams, you might lose a few weeks before the issue becomes visible. In larger enterprises, the problem becomes even harder to detect. Dependencies spread across teams, tools, systems, and time zones. They get buried in JIRA, Asana or Trello tickets, scattered across calendars, and diluted across layers of communication. They don’t become less severe, they just become harder to see.

Take a simple example. Your team is ready to launch an A/B test. Everything is built, tested, and ready to go. You assumed that the experimentation platform team would support your test when you needed it. But it turns out that team is already running multiple experiments and doesn’t have the capacity to take yours on. No one flagged it early, no one anticipated it, and now your launch is blocked. What seemed like a minor assumption quietly becomes a major delay, impacting not just one feature, but potentially a significant portion of your roadmap.

This is why, in my experience, unmanaged dependencies are the single most consistent reason why even the best companies struggle to execute. It’s not technical difficulty. It’s not lack of talent. It’s the invisible gaps between teams.

What is encouraging, though, is that this is starting to change. One of the most powerful shifts I have seen with GenAI is the move from simply tracking dependencies to actively forecasting them. Instead of asking AI, “What are our dependencies?” teams are beginning to ask better questions like “Which dependency is most likely to surprise us?” “Which team is likely to become a bottleneck based on past data?” “What should we be watching closely in the next few weeks?”

This shift changes the entire tone of planning. Conversations move away from debating optimistic timelines and toward understanding risk and building resilience.

This is where AI plays a transformative role. AI is uniquely good at something humans struggle with at scale, it can reason across both time and structure. It can look at historical patterns and identify where delays typically occur. It can spot patterns in scheduling mismatches, highlight recurring bottlenecks, and even identify situations where one team consistently absorbs the impact of another team’s delays. Traditional tools (like JIRA, Asana, Planview PPM) show you connections between Features, Epics, and their relevant User Stories/Tasks. However, AI takes this further and it helps you understand the consequences of those connections.

And when teams start working this way, something interesting happens. Conversations become calmer and happen earlier. Risks feel less like surprises. Escalations decrease. Instead of reacting to problems at the last minute, teams begin to anticipate them and adjust ahead of time. The culture shifts from blame to problem-solving, from urgency to clarity.

In the end, execution doesn’t fail because people aren’t capable or committed. It fails because the space between teams is left unmanaged. When that space is made visible, when dependencies are not just tracked but understood and anticipated, everything changes. Teams move faster, with more confidence, and with far less friction. And that’s the real unlock: not just building great things, but building the systems that allow great teams to deliver them, consistently and predictably.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How AI is Redefining Product Management: From Writing PRDs to Rasing the Bar

How AI is Redefining Product Management: From Writing PRDs to Rasing the Bar

During my second week at Facebook, mid-pandemic, onboarding remotely into the VR org, I joined a product review where a PM spent more time challenging their own proposal than defending it. Before anyone else could question it, they walked through what might break, where adoption could fail, and what risks Legal or Infra would raise. By the time feedback started, most of the obvious objections had already been addressed. 

That was my first real glimpse into how the strongest product managers operate. They don’t just present ideas, they argue with them. I have seen similar behavior in startups, but there it usually comes from necessity, limited resources force sharper thinking. In Fortune 500 companies, this kind of rigor comes from discipline.

That’s where AI changes the game today. AI gives every PM a first-pass sparring partner, but only if you use it the right way. Today, most teams use AI to generate PRDs, architecture docs, epics, and user stories. That’s useful, but it misses the point.

The real leverage shows up when AI becomes the voice that challenges you: “Here’s what you might be wrong about.” It’s particularly effective at surfacing blind spots like downstream dependencies, operational risks, users you overlooked, or costs that don’t show up in feature narratives.

Over the past few years, I have coached many PMs to use AI differently. Instead of asking it to generate output, we trained AI to think like stakeholders. At Amazon, for example, we created detailed personas for 3rd party sellers, engineering leaders, legal, finance, marketing, and operations teams. PMs would then prompt AI to respond from those perspectives:

  • What would Legal push back on?
  • How would Finance evaluate this investment?
  • What risks would Operations flag?
  • What architectural dependencies could delay the launch?

Early on, the outputs had rough edges. But as models improved, this approach became increasingly powerful, because product decisions rarely live in isolation.

One PM I worked with used this exact approach while planning a new seller facing feature. On the surface, it looked straightforward, improving onboarding flows to increase seller activation. The PRD was clean, the metrics were strong, and engineering had already sized it.

Before finalizing, we ran the idea through stakeholder based AI prompts. When prompted as “Legal,” AI flagged a potential compliance issue with how seller data was being surfaced across regions. When prompted as “Finance,” it highlighted an unaccounted cost in supporting international payment reconciliation. And from an “Operations” lens, it exposed a spike in expected support tickets due to onboarding ambiguity in edge cases.

None of these were obvious in the original proposal. Catching them early avoided what would have likely been a delayed launch and a much more expensive fix post-release. That’s the real value.

Over time, PMs who use AI this way will produce sharper, clearer proposals, not because AI wrote them, but because weak thinking was exposed earlier, grounded in data and organizational context. Thus, AI becomes a forcing function for rigor. And that leads to a broader implication: Product excellence has never been about output volume. It has always been about decision quality and the outcomes those decisions drive.

AI is now raising the bar for decision hygiene and quietly exposing teams that rely on intuition without validation.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Operating Model for Product & Engineering Ops in the World of AI

New Operating Model for Product & Engineering Ops in the World of AI

When I first saw teams experimenting with AI before it became cool, the behavior felt really familiar. It reminded me of how teams treated Agile in the early days, something you “use/follow” rather than something that fundamentally reshapes how work flows. Teams were excited, curious, and well intentioned, but almost everyone was underestimating the change in front of them.

At larger enterprises like GE and Schneider, operations always lived a layer below the visible product surface. Customers never see the spreadsheets, the JIRA workflows, the dependency maps, or executive readouts, but those invisible systems determined whether strategy delivered the outcomes that we were looking for. AI is now inserting itself directly into that invisible layer.

Most teams today are using AI as a chatbot. They paste in meeting notes, ask for summaries, maybe generate a PRD draft or clean up status language. That’s fine, but it’s also like using a high performance engine only to power the radio. The real power shows up when AI becomes part of how decisions get made, not just how words get written.

I saw a version of this contrast clearly when working with startups versus large enterprises. Startups rarely debate whether a process is “ready.” They automate thinking early because speed leaves no alternative. In contrast, large organizations often wait for certainty, governance, and sign‑off, which delays leverage. AI flips this dynamic. For the first time, large companies can gain a startup‑like operational awareness without burning people out.

The biggest mental shift is this: AI is not just another productivity tool, it is an operating layer that sits between data and action. Every organization already has raw inputs: roadmaps, sprint plans, incident logs, metrics, emails, Slack threads. What most lack is synthesis at scale. Humans do this manually, inconsistently, and too late. AI changes that.

One of the most effective early experiments I have seen is when we stop asking AI to “do work” and start asking it to “explain the system.” Thus, I often ask questions like: What changed this week that mattered? Where are we accumulating hidden risk? What assumptions are we acting as if they are true, but haven’t validated recently? These questions help me sharpen my approach and provide insights that I can quickly review and validate with my organization’s strategy.

Another practical way to begin is to deliberately wire AI into your operating cadence. For example, before every weekly program review, I feed my model JIRA updates, dependency map, and roadmap changes. After that I ask it for a narrative and compare it against my overall understanding of the program. This approach has helped me cut down my manual tasks by almost 40%. Recently, I have started providing some additional context to my model and started asking it what tradeoffs it will make based on the information and using that to improve program’s execution. If you follow this approach, then overtime AI will become your partner and help you expedite decision making. 

I believe that the teams that win with AI won’t be the ones who generate content faster. They will be the ones who design systems where insight appears earlier, decisions happen cleaner, and surprises shrink. This isn’t a tooling upgrade, it is an operating model shift.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Navigating A/B Testing Challenges: A Journey Through Real-world Solutions

Navigating A/B Testing Challenges: A Journey Through Real-world Solutions

As a technology leader over two decades of experience, I’ve witnessed firsthand the transformative power of A/B testing in driving revenue growth and customer-centric innovation. However, this journey is not without its challenges. In this blog, I share my insights and practical tips to help you and your team master the art of A/B testing without sacrificing quality or speed.

Establish Clear Experimentation Guidelines: Overlooking experimentation guidelines can lead to unforeseen consequences, as I learned the hard way when we mistakenly mixed up test and control cohorts, resulting in inaccurate experiment results and a costly rollout. To prevent such mishaps, invest time in creating clear experimentation guidelines and educating your team on their proper implementation.

Utilize the Staging Environment: Never offload testing responsibilities onto your customers. Always test your experiments in a staging environment before launching them to a subset of users. In one instance, a company failed to test a payment integration in staging, resulting in a $30,000 loss. By adopting a rigorous staging environment testing process, you can identify and address issues before they impact your users.

Implement Feature Flags: Rushing experiments without a proper feature flag framework can lead to chaos. In one project, we had to revert to an older code version after launching an experiment due to the lack of feature flags. Establish a standardized practice for using feature flags to enable smoother experimentation and rollouts.

Enhance User Acceptance Testing (UAT): Relying solely on shift-left testing can introduce bugs into production. To address this, implement Sprint Demos, a practice that allows for early identification and resolution of issues. This agile approach ensures that your features are thoroughly tested before reaching users.

Maintain JIRA Hygiene: A well-structured JIRA framework can streamline experiment tracking and prevent delays. In one company, inconsistent JIRA usage led to a backlog of experiments exceeding their timelines, resulting in revenue loss. Regularly update and track experiments in JIRA to maintain a smooth workflow and identify experiments requiring attention.

Conduct Regular Product Reviews: If you’re running multiple experiments, consider implementing product reviews to collaboratively assess experiment results. This approach not only enhances team learning but also helps identify and eliminate underperforming experiments. Collaborative cleanups are crucial, especially when reviewing legacy solutions.

Implement Continuous Monitoring and Rollback Plans: Even with the best intentions, experiments can go awry. Always have a comprehensive rollback plan in place and continuously monitor experiment progress. Minor anomalies can escalate without proper monitoring. Establishing a regular monitoring cadence ensures swift resolution in case of unexpected challenges.

A/B testing is a delicate balance between innovation and stability. Each challenge we face presents an opportunity to refine our approach. By embracing these insights, you can navigate the world of A/B testing with confidence, delivering impactful features while maintaining velocity. Remember, A/B testing is an ongoing journey of learning and improvement. Embrace the challenges and continuously strive to optimize your experimentation process.


Relevant Hashtags: #ABTestingJourney, #SoftwareDevelopment, #InnovationStories, #TechSolutions, #CodingWisdom, #AgileDevelopment, #ExperimentationSuccess, #ProductReviewFramework, #SoftwareCrafting, #ContinuousMonitoring, #TechLeadership, #UATefficiency, #JIRAHygiene, #DevelopmentChallenges, #RollbackStrategies

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,