"And while we are sad to see Gabor go, his departure is a big opportunity for Xobni." It's spin to present the loss of a technical founder as an opportunity. The fact that they couldn't keep him in a CTO role, distinct from a VP of Engineering role, speaks volumes. And it's an insult to characterize it as an "opportunity."
The blog entry goes on to list requirements for the new VP "The right person will:
champion our engineering ethos, [CTO]
deliver a fantastic product, [product manager]
on-time. [product manager]
be an able manager [vp engineering]
who excels at rapid company growth. [vp engineering]
know how to ship desktop software [product manager]
know how to add or remove process [CEO]
This is probably at least three people: a VP of engineering, a CTO, and a product manager. And I think the last is more properly the province of the CEO. Their detailed position description at http://www.scribd.com/doc/4062717/Xobni-VP-Engineering has this sentence:
"they must contribute as an architect, but still get their hands dirty coding." Those skills don't normally come in a package with an excellent manager who understands process and rapid company growth. This is the VP Eng vs. CTO split in a rapidly growing technology driven company.
Another blog entry just posted http://www.xobni.com/blog/2008/07/23/vroooom-%e2%80%93-build... adds the information that "We are pleased to announce that Josh Jacobson will be joining Xobni as our Director of Product Management and Brian Kobashikawa will join Xobni as our Principal Designer. Both of these guys were part of the Yahoo Messenger team..." Perhaps Gabor Cselle's problem was that his last job was at Google and not Yahoo with Jeff Bonforte the new CEO.
> know how to ship desktop software [product manager]
No, no, hell no.
Product managers define what they think the customer wants (scope creep). Project managers get something that is good enough out of the door (scope supression).
It's possible for one person to do both jobs, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
"Product managers define what they think the customer wants (scope creep). Project managers get something that is good enough out of the door (scope suppression)"
Brilliant, speaking as someone who has worn both hats at different times, that is the dichotomy in a nutshell.
I guess my experience has been that balancing features against ship date is a product management function, with feature content dynamically recalculated (including scope reduction) during the development process in response to new information and opportunities. Figuring out the detailed project plan is a project management function. But one person may do both.
"And while we are sad to see Gabor go, his departure is a big opportunity for Xobni." It's spin to present the loss of a technical founder as an opportunity. The fact that they couldn't keep him in a CTO role, distinct from a VP of Engineering role, speaks volumes. And it's an insult to characterize it as an "opportunity."
The blog entry goes on to list requirements for the new VP "The right person will:
This is probably at least three people: a VP of engineering, a CTO, and a product manager. And I think the last is more properly the province of the CEO. Their detailed position description at http://www.scribd.com/doc/4062717/Xobni-VP-Engineering has this sentence: "they must contribute as an architect, but still get their hands dirty coding." Those skills don't normally come in a package with an excellent manager who understands process and rapid company growth. This is the VP Eng vs. CTO split in a rapidly growing technology driven company.