Project Management

Writing software, especially prototypes, is becoming cheaper. This will lead to increased demand for people who can decide what to build. AI Product Management has a bright future! Software is often written by teams that comprise Product Managers (PMs), who decide what to build (such as what features to implement for what users) and Software Developers, who write the code to build the product. Economics shows that when two goods are complements — such as cars (with internal-combustion engines) and gasoline — falling prices in one leads to higher demand for the other. For example, as cars became cheaper, more people bought them, which led to increased demand for gas. Something similar will happen in software. Given a clear specification for what to build, AI is making the building itself much faster and cheaper. This will significantly increase demand for people who can come up with clear specs for valuable things to build. This is why I’m excited about the future of Product Management, the discipline of developing and managing software products. I’m especially excited about the future of AI Product Management, the discipline of developing and managing AI software products. Many companies have an Engineer:PM ratio of, say, 6:1. (The ratio varies widely by company and industry, and anywhere from 4:1 to 10:1 is typical.) As coding becomes more efficient, teams will need more product management work (as well as design work) as a fraction of the total workforce. Perhaps engineers will step in to do some of this work, but if it remains the purview of specialized Product Managers, then the demand for these roles will grow. This change in the composition of software development teams is not yet moving forward at full speed. One major force slowing this shift, particularly in AI Product Management, is that Software Engineers, being technical, are understanding and embracing AI much faster than Product Managers. Even today, most companies have difficulty finding people who know how to develop products and also understand AI, and I expect this shortage to grow. Further, AI Product Management requires a different set of skills than traditional software Product Management. It requires: - Technical proficiency in AI. PMs need to understand what products might be technically feasible to build. They also need to understand the lifecycle of AI projects, such as data collection, building, then monitoring, and maintenance of AI models. - Iterative development. Because AI development is much more iterative than traditional software and requires more course corrections along the way, PMs need be able to manage such a process. - Data proficiency. AI products often learn from data, and they can be designed to generate richer forms of data than traditional software. - ... [Reached length limit; full text: https://lnkd.in/geQBWz6s ]

Every organization needs to innovate. But what type of innovation to give priority to? This simple matrix with four types of innovation may help. Innovation basically means introducing something new (‘nova’). This “something new” can be anything and that’s where the problem starts. In two ways. - First, by an overemphasis on product (or service) innovation, thereby not giving enough attention to other types - Second, by getting overwhelmed by all the innovation opportunities that are out there. To solve both problems at the same time, it helps to gain some clarity on what types of innovation there are. To that end, I’ve created this simple 2x2 matrix containing what I think are the four most important types of innovation for every organization. Let me first explain the two axes. The first is the inward-outward axis. Outward-oriented innovations are those innovations that are mostly targeted at the market, at doing something new for customers. Inward-oriented innovations, on the other hand, are innovating the organization itself. On the second axis, Operational innovations are typically quite technical and tangible, and focused on the practical work and output. Strategic innovations, on the other hand, regard how the organization is functioning overall and how it creates value. This leads to the following four types of innovation: 1. Product Innovation. The most well-known type of innovation in which you change, improve or renew an organization’s products and/or services, or create new ones. 2. Process Innovation. Often efficiency and quality-driven to improve the way the organization works on a day-to-day basis. This can concern any type of process. 3. Business Model Innovation. A newer type, focused on changing how the organization creates and captures value. Often focused on developing new revenue models. 4. Management Innovation. Less commonly known but critical, this type concerns innovating how an organization is organized, managed, and led. Often implies decentralization. All four types are important and with this matrix you can start managing your innovation portfolio. Ask yourself questions like: Do I have sufficient initiatives in all quadrants? And, which type of innovation should get priority now? [Featured in The Strategic Leadership Playbook. Originally published in June, 2023] More of this? For 63 more tools like this, plus step-by-step instructions for using them, get The Strategic Leadership Playbook. See link in the comment below. #innovationmanagement #processimprovement #productdesign #businessmodel

The partnership model isn't evolving. It's being systematically dismantled. PwC UK majorly restructured its business: → 123 partners exited (2x historical average) → 74 partners left in December alone → Tech apprenticeship program suspended → Career ceiling permanently institutionalized with MD title. This isn't just another cost-cutting cycle. It's the collapse of a centuries-old business model. For 150+ years, partnerships operated on a simple premise: senior experts scale through junior teams. But the economics have inverted: → Partner profits dropping across the Big 4 → The response? Cut owners, not just costs → Protect profit pools by shrinking the top → Automate and eliminate the bottom Value creation being completely rewired: → Expertise shifts from humans to systems → Leverage with technology, not junior staff → IP and platforms replacing billable hours → Scale without headcount growth The same pattern is emerging across firms: → EY's failed Projectsct Everest → KPMG's merger of 100+ units into 32 → Deloitte's reorganization to cut costs → All racing to transform as the consulting market slows The professional services pyramid isn't just shrinking—it's being replaced by a model where technology and orchestration create more value than armies of junior staff delivering services. The existential question: How does a partnership-based knowledge business survive when expertise can be digitized, automated, and deployed at near-zero marginal cost? What we're witnessing isn't the evolution. It's the beginning of its reinvention. - Numbers referenced from FT article.

🍱 How To Design Effective Dashboard UX (+ Figma Kits). With practical techniques to drive accurate decisions with the right data. 🤔 Business decisions need reliable insights to support them. ✅ Good dashboards deliver relevant and unbiased insights. ✅ They require clean, well-organized, well-formatted data. ✅ Often packed in a tight grid, with little whitespace (if any). 🚫 Scrolling is inefficient in dashboards: makes comparing hard. ✅ Start with the audience and decisions they need to make. ✅ Study where, when and how the dashboard will be used. ✅ Study what metrics/data would support user’s decisions. ✅ Explore how to aggregate, organize and filter this data. ✅ More data → more filters/views, less data → single values. 🚫 Simpler ≠ better: match user expertise when choosing charts. ✅ Prioritize metrics: key insights → top left, rest → bottom right. ✅ Then set layout density: open, table, grouped or schematic. ✅ Add customizable presets, layouts, views + guides, videos. ✅ Next, sketch dashboards on paper, get feedback, iterate. When designing dashboards, the most damaging thing we can do is to oversimplify a complex domain, or mislead the audience. Our data must be complete and unbiased, our insights accurate and up-to-date, and our UI must match users’ varying levels of data literacy. Dashboard value is measured by useful actions it prompts. So invest most of the design time scrutinizing metrics needed to drive relevant insights. Bring data owners and developers early in the process. You will need their support to find sources, but also clean, verify, aggregate, organize and filter data. Good questions to ask: 🧭 What decisions do you want to be more informed on? (Purpose) 😤 What’s the hardest thing about these decisions? (Frustrations) 📊 Describe how you are making these decisions? (Sources) 🗃️ What data helps you make these decisions? (Metrics) 🧠 How much detail is needed for each metric? (Data literacy) 🚀 How often will you be using this dashboard? (Value) 🎲 What constraints should we know about? (Risks) And, most importantly, test dashboards repeatedly with actual users. Choose key tasks and see how successful users are. It won’t be right at first, but once you get beyond 80% success rate, your users might never leave your dashboard again. ✤ Dashboard Patterns + Figma Kits: Data Dashboards UX: https://lnkd.in/eticxU-N 👍 dYdX: https://lnkd.in/eUBScaHp 👍 Ethr: https://lnkd.in/eSTzcN7V Orange: https://lnkd.in/ewBJZcgC 👍 Semrush: https://lnkd.in/dUgWtwnu 👍 UKO: https://lnkd.in/eNFv2p_a 👍 Wireframing Kit: https://lnkd.in/esqRdDyi 👍 [continues in comments ↓]

As a junior lawyer, I had to learn how to make it easy for supervisors to review my work. In case it helps, here's a step-by-step guide (with an example): 1️⃣Make it clear what the matter / document is and when input is needed. 2️⃣ Set out the context and approach to preparing the deliverable What needs to be reviewed, how was it prepared, and what’s the timeline? If you're attaching a document, include the live link to your file management platform (e.g. iManage or Sharepoint) as well as a static version. 3️⃣ Set out the next steps and your ask Make it clear what your supervisor needs to review. Set this out at the top of your email and proactively provide some recommendations. You can also follow up in person to make sure deadlines aren't missed. 4️⃣ Explain how the draft is marked up Make it easy to navigate with specific questions (either in the document or extracted in the email). If there are mark ups against a particular document / version, identify what that is. 5️⃣ Summarise your inputs Let them know what your draft reflects, and attach the relevant inputs so they can see everything in one place. This will give your supervisor confidence that you've captured everything, and make it easier for them to check your work. 6️⃣ Flag key aspects / assumptions If there are key assumptions / principles that have a big impact on how your draft is prepared, it's helpful to set them out in the email as a point of focus. Try to also set out the relevant clause / section / reference where possible. Is there anything else that you'd add? What else have you found helpful in making drafts easier to review, either as a junior lawyer or a supervisor? ------ Btw, if you're a junior lawyer looking for practical career advice - check out the free how-to guides on my website. You can also stay updated by sending a connection / follow. #legalprofession #lawyers #lawstudents #lawfirms

𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆, 𝗣𝗠𝗜 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝘄𝗲’𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 - 𝗼𝗻 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀. 📚 Read the report: https://lnkd.in/ekRmSj_h With this report, we are introducing a simple and scalable way to measure project success. A successful project is one that 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲, as perceived by key stakeholders. This clearly represents a shift for our profession, where beyond execution excellence we also feel accountable for doing anything in our power to improve the impact of our work and the value it generates at large. The implications for project professionals can be summarized in a framework for delivering 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗘 success: 📚𝗠anage Perceptions For a project to be considered successful, the key stakeholders - customers, executives, or others - must perceive that the project’s outcomes provide sufficient value relative to the perceived investment of resources. 📚𝗢wn Project Success beyond Project Management Success Project professionals need to take any opportunity to move beyond literal mandates and feel accountable for improving outcomes while minimizing waste. 📚𝗥elentlessly Reassess Project Parameters Project professionals need to recognize the reality of inevitable and ongoing change, and continuously, in collaboration with stakeholders, reassess the perception of value and adjust plans. 📚𝗘xpand Perspective All projects have impacts beyond just the scope of the project itself. Even if we do not control all parameters, we must consider the broader picture and how the project fits within the larger business, goals, or objectives of the enterprise, and ultimately, our world. I believe executives will be excited about this work. It highlights the value project professionals can bring to their organizations and clarifies the vital role they play in driving transformation, delivering business results, and positively impacting the world. The shift in mindset will encourage project professionals to consider the perceptions of all stakeholders- not just the c-suite, but also customers and communities. To deliver more successful projects, business leaders must create environments that empower project professionals. They need to involve them in defining - and continuously reassessing and challenging - project value. Leverage their expertise. Invest in their work. And hold them accountable for contributing to maximize the perception of project value at all phases of the project - beyond excellence in execution. 📚 Please read the report, reflect on its findings, and share it broadly. And comment! Project Management Institute #ProjectSuccess #PMI #Leadership #ProjectManagementToday

WEF's Global Risks Report 2026 is out 👉 (https://lnkd.in/eaMrdW67).. I put the findings in a 20-year perspective. I mapped 20 years of risk rankings. Two patterns stand out. Both troubling. The headline findings in this report: 🔵 geoeconomic confrontation is now the #1 risk in the short term, 🔵 economic risks are spiking, 🔵 50% of experts expect a turbulent or stormy outlook over the next two years. But the deeper signal only appears when you track the rankings over time (what I did, see 👇 ). ⚫ 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝟏 – 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 Not overnight. Not mechanically. But persistently. In 2007–2010, short-term risks were concrete and immediate: asset bubbles, oil shocks, chronic diseases. Fast forward to today. The long-term top risks for 2026 are: 🌪️ extreme weather 🌍 biodiversity loss 🧠 misinformation 🤖 adverse AI outcomes What changed is not that economic risks disappeared. It’s that structural risks began to act as crisis amplifiers. Extreme weather didn’t replace financial shocks, it reshaped them. Climate risks first entered the short-term top 5 around 2014. By 2020, climate action failure topped the list. “Tomorrow’s risks” became today’s stress multipliers, and increasingly, direct crisis drivers. The future didn’t wait. ⚫𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝟐: 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧, 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 This year, environmental risks dropped sharply in the short-term rankings. More worrying: their severity scores also declined in absolute terms. Yet over the 10-year horizon, environmental risks dominate the top 10. Twenty years of WEF risk data tell the same story: we consistently recognise long-term environmental threats, then consistently deprioritise them when short-term pressures mount. It's not that we don't know. It's that our attention economy is structurally biased toward the urgent over the important. The most interconnected risk for the second year running? Inequality (👇). It fuels everything else: polarisation, migration, political instability, resistance to climate policy. Perhaps that's where to start: 𝐢𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞. #GlobalRisks #WEF #ClimateChange #Sustainability #SystemChange

𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗟𝗟𝗠 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲? The LLM landscape is booming and choosing the right LLM is now a business decision, not just a tech choice. One-size-fits-all? Forget it. Nearly all enterprises today rely on different models for different use cases and/or industry-specific fine-tuned models. There’s no universal “best” model — only the best fit for a given task. The latest LLM landscape (see below) shows how models stack up in capability (MMLU score), parameter size and accessibility — and the differences REALLY matter.  𝗟𝗲𝘁'𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻: ⬇️ 1️⃣ 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝘀. 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁: - Need a broad, powerful AI? GPT-4, Claude Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro — great for general reasoning and diverse applications.   - Need domain expertise? E.g. IBM Granite or Mistral models (Lightweight & Fast) can be an excellent choice — tailored for specific industries.  2️⃣ 𝗕𝗶𝗴 𝘃𝘀. 𝗦𝗹𝗶𝗺:  - Powerful, large models (GPT-4, Claude Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro) = great reasoning, but expensive and slow. - Slim, efficient models (Mistral 7B, LLaMA 3, RWWK models) = faster, cheaper, easier to fine-tune. Perfect for on-device, edge AI, or latency-sensitive applications.  3️⃣ 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝘃𝘀. 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱   - Need full control? Open-source models (LLaMA 3, Mistral, Llama) give you transparency and customization.   - Want cutting-edge performance? Closed models (GPT-4, Gemini, Claude) still lead in general intelligence.  𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆? There is no "best" model — only the best one for your use case, but it's key to understand the differences to make an informed decision: - Running AI in production? Go slim, go fast. - Need state-of-the-art reasoning? Go big, go deep. - Building industry-specific AI? Go specialized and save some money with SLMs.  I love seeing how the AI and LLM stack is evolving, offering multiple directions depending on your specific use case. Source of the picture: informationisbeautiful.net

In 2011, the Amazon Appstore failed on launch and Jeff Bezos was furious. It was my fault, and I handled one aspect of recovery so poorly that one of my engineers quit. I still regret it 14 years later. Please learn from my mistake. The main lesson is that when you are leading through a crisis, it can feel like it is all about you. It isn’t. It is about: 1) Solving the problem 2) Guiding your team through it The product issue was that there were some pretty simple bugs, and we solved those problem well enough that I was eventually promoted. Where I failed was in guiding my team through the crisis. My leadership miss was that I neglected to encourage and support the engineer who had written the bad code. He did a great job stepping up and supporting the effort to fix the problem, but shortly afterward, he resigned. During the crisis, I failed to make clear to him that we did not blame him for the launch failure despite the bugs. I imagine that left room for him to think we blamed him or that he didn’t belong. It is also possible that others did blame him directly and that I was too caught up in the crisis to realize it. Both instances were my responsibility as the leader of the team. His resignation taught me a valuable lesson about leading through a crisis: No matter how bad the situation is, your team must be your first priority. If you make them feel safe, they will move heaven and earth to fix the problem. If you don’t, they may still fix the problem, but the team itself will never be the same. As a leader, here is how you can give them what they need: 1) Take the blame and do not allow others to be blamed. In some bug cases after this we did not release the name of the engineer outside the team in order to protect them from judgment or blame. 2) Separate fixing the problem from figuring out why it happened. Once the problem is fixed, you can focus on root-causing. This lowers the risk of searching for answers getting confused with searching for someone to blame. 3) Realize that anyone involved in the problem already feels bad. High performers know when they have fallen short and let their team down. As a leader you have to show them the path to growth and success after the crisis. They do not need to be beaten up on- they have taken care of that themselves. 4) See crises and problems as growth opportunities, not personal flaws. Your team comes with you in a crisis whether you like it or not, so you might as well come out stronger on the other side. As a leader, the responsibility for a crisis is yours in two ways: The problem itself and the effect it has on the future of the team. Don’t get too caught up in the first to think about the second. Readers- Has your team survived a crisis? How did you handle it?

Should you try Google’s famous “20% time” experiment to encourage innovation? We tried this at Duolingo years ago. It didn’t work. It wasn’t enough time for people to start meaningful projects, and very few people took advantage of it because the framework was pretty vague. I knew there had to be other ways to drive innovation at the company. So, here are 3 other initiatives we’ve tried, what we’ve learned from each, and what we're going to try next. 💡 Innovation Awards: Annual recognition for those who move the needle with boundary-pushing projects. The upside: These awards make our commitment to innovation clear, and offer a well-deserved incentive to those who have done remarkable work. The downside: It’s given to individuals, but we want to incentivize team work. What’s more, it’s not necessarily a framework for coming up with the next big thing. 💻 Hackathon: This is a good framework, and lots of companies do it. Everyone (not just engineers) can take two days to collaborate on and present anything that excites them, as long as it advances our mission or addresses a key business need. The upside: Some of our biggest features grew out of hackathon projects, from the Duolingo English Test (born at our first hackathon in 2013) to our avatar builder. The downside: Other than the time/resource constraint, projects rarely align with our current priorities. The ones that take off hit the elusive combo of right time + a problem that no other team could tackle. 💥 Special Projects: Knowing that ideal equation, we started a new program for fostering innovation, playfully dubbed DARPA (Duolingo Advanced Research Project Agency). The idea: anyone can pitch an idea at any time. If they get consensus on it and if it’s not in the purview of another team, a cross-functional group is formed to bring the project to fruition. The most creative work tends to happen when a problem is not in the clear purview of a particular team; this program creates a path for bringing these kinds of interdisciplinary ideas to life. Our Duo and Lily mascot suits (featured often on our social accounts) came from this, as did our Duo plushie and the merch store. (And if this photo doesn't show why we needed to innovate for new suits, I don't know what will!) The biggest challenge: figuring out how to transition ownership of a successful project after the strike team’s work is done. 👀 What’s next? We’re working on a program that proactively identifies big picture, unassigned problems that we haven’t figured out yet and then incentivizes people to create proposals for solving them. How that will work is still to be determined, but we know there is a lot of fertile ground for it to take root. How does your company create an environment of creativity that encourages true innovation? I'm interested to hear what's worked for you, so please feel free to share in the comments! #duolingo #innovation #hackathon #creativity #bigideas