Operationalizing & Scaling the Product Trio Concept for HW Centric Portfolios

The concept of the Product Trio has gained significant traction in software-centric product development, especially in industries where digital products are the primary output. Popularized by thought leaders in product management and product development like Marty Cagan and Melissa Perri, the classic Product Trio consists of 3 key roles: 1) a Product Manager, 2) a Designer, and 3) an Engineer. This trio works collaboratively from ideation to execution, with the key objective being to break down silos and ensure a seamless integration across user experience, business goals, and technical feasibility. Ultimately, this approach should lead to an increase in decision-making speed and the delivery of a product that better aligns with user needs.

?

What is the Product Trio?

As defined and popularized by Marty Cagan in his influential book ‘Empowered: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Products’, the Product Trio represents the collaboration between a Product Manager (PM), Designer, and Tech Lead or Engineer. This structure is designed to increase alignment across the critical product aspects early in the product development process, reducing wasted time and resources on misaligned goals or miscommunication between departments.

Cagan further explains that while the Product Trio works closely and collaboratively, they maintain their key focus areas. The Product Manager focuses on understanding customer needs and the business objectives. The Designer is responsible for the user experience, ensuring that the solution(s) are intuitive and accessible. The Engineer/Tech Lead assesses the feasibility of the solutions, ensuring they can be technically implemented in an effective manner.

Melissa Perri, in her book ‘Escaping the Build Trap’, also emphasizes the importance of the Product Trio, noting that it helps "build the right thing, not just build things right" by ensuring the product is both valuable and feasible from the outset.

However, as valuable as the Product Trio seems to be in software development, its direct application to more traditional, hardware-centric portfolios, especially those in many B2B industries, requires some modification. If we consider a company that has a portfolio of cutting-edge tools for industrial manufacturing, there are a number of differences that may come into play:

1) The products delivered are often a complex mix of multiple disciplines including software, electronics, mechanics, optics, etc.

2) The portfolio complexity can be large with several different tools supplied along the manufacturing line.

3)?The UX is generally less important and has little to no influence on the purchase decision.

4)?Delivery timelines are very critical as they directly impact the customers ability to ramp or improve production.

5)?Delayed launches = lost revenue.

Therefore, while the core principles of collaboration and alignment remain relevant, the composition of the trio must evolve to meet the specific demands of these environments.

?

Why the Product Trio Needs to be Adapted for Hardware-Centric Portfolios

The traditional Product Trio is well-suited for software products where user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) play critical roles. In many B2B industries, however, the role of the designer is less critical in driving the business value, where usability and aesthetics are less of a driving force than functionality, reliability, and integration into broader systems. Don’t misunderstand – UX and UI is still important and the design is still an integral part of the teams – however, this role is not as critical in these situations as it is in, let’s say consumer software, and is not necessary in the trio.

If we consider markets such as medical devices, telecommunications equipment, or industrial machinery, the fundamental priority shifts from user experience to addressing technical complexity and system integration. Launching a product on time is critical as delays translate directly into lost revenue and missed market opportunities. Additionally, in many of these businesses with a low-volume and high-value customer base, products may need to be customized to suit different requirements, further increasing the challenges of managing a portfolio and prioritizing projects.

?

What’s Missing: A Project Manager and a System Architect

To address these challenges, the Product Trio can easily be adjusted to reflect the realities of the situation in these type of environements.

The first role required is that of a Project Manager. Hardware-centric projects often involve longer timelines, multiple external dependencies (e.g., suppliers, contract manufacturers), and non-software related risks such as component shortages or mechanical failures. Unlike in software development, where changes can be more rapidly iterated, hardware projects can require careful planning, strict milestone adherence, and tighter control over resources and suppliers. A strong Project Manager is essential to ensure that these complex variables are managed effectively, keeping the team on track to meet deadlines and avoid costly delays.

Secondly is a System Architect. This may be considered semantics or a small tweak from a tech lead, but it is very important to highlight that someone is required with a broad technical knowledge across all disciplines required. A good System Architect should possess in-depth knowledge of not just software but all relevant disciplines including optics, mechanics, electronics, image processing, and data pipelines (depending on the type of products developed). This person ensures that all subsystems can technicaly integrate, which is particularly crucial when a product involves multidisciplinary technologies. The System Architect ensures technical feasibility across the entire system.

?

A Modified Product Trio for Hardware-Centric Portfolios

Given these considerations, an optimal Product Trio in these environments should consist of the following 3 roles:

1) Product Manager – sets the direction and continues to own the product vision, aligning business objectives with customer needs, and driving product-market fit.

2) System Architect – defines the technology and ensures technical feasibility across the entire product, considering all relevant technologies such as optics, mechanics, and software, while coordinating with various engineering teams to bring the product to life.

3) Project Manager – drives execution and takes the lead in managing timelines, resources, and cross-functional coordination. Their role is to prevent delays and manage risks inherent to hardware development, where changes are often costly and difficult to implement once production begins.

Each role has the additional benefit of holding their two counterparts accountable along the process. The Product Manager ensures the Project Manager drives development of the right solution to the customers problem, flags issues early and enables feedback loops. He ensures that the System Architect delivers a fitting technological solution to the problem that is neither underwhelming, nor over-engineered.

The Project Manager must understand both the job-to-be-done and basics of the technology, but the key focus is on execution. He keeps the System Architect honest on what the effort and time is to implement while taking into account other factors such as resource conflicts. The Project Manager also keeps the pressure on the PM to ensure clear definitions of requirements and unambiguous priorities.

The System Architect (SA) provides technical consulting and sparring to the Project Manager, playing an active role in project meetings. The System Architect must also keep the Product Managers vision grounded in reality with what is achievable and leads the effort to uncover which technology would be the best fit.

This revised trio ensures that while business goals and technical feasibility remain priorities, project delivery is equally emphasized, reflecting the critical nature of time-to-market.

?

Scaling the Modified Product Trio for Larger Programs

For companies with larger portfolios or more complex product lines, the Product Trio can easily be scaled to a Program Trio by incorporating more senior leadership roles that adhere to the same disciplines but encompass a larger responsibility.

A Product Director, VP of Product or even CPO can play the role of the Product Manager over a larger number of product lines, portfolio or program. Naturally this is not as detailed as at the product level, but ensures strategic alignment across priorities and helps to balance resource allocation across different market segments.

The Project Manager can be scaled to a Program Manager for large-scale projects involving multiple products or product variants. This also helps coordinate across multiple teams and product lines, ensuring that the execution is managed coherently and efficiently with the strategic oversight required to identify and alleviate conflicts.

?

Conclusion

The Product Trio concept has proven its value in many cases, but as each business landscape is different, adaptation may be required and the trio must evolve. In many scenarios companies can benefit from substituting the Designer with a Project Manager and ensuring that a System Architect with the relevant breadth of technological understanding is in the mix. For larger programs, the trio can be scaled by incorporating senior leadership roles like Product Director and Program Manager, ensuring robust oversight as portfolios expand.

This evolution not only helps businesses manage complexity but also ensures they hit their critical launch dates, avoiding costly delays and maintaining a competitive edge in the market.

?

References

1. Cagan, M. (2020). Empowered: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Products. Silicon Valley Product Group.

2. Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How To Create Products Customers Love. Wiley.

3. Perri, M. (2019). Escaping the Build Trap: How Effective Product Management Creates Real Value. O'Reilly Media.

4. Müller, M. (2022). System Architecting in Multidisciplinary Engineering. Journal of Systems Engineering, 41(2), 123-130.