Technology Sharing

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

Business construction -> process construction -> product construction -> digital realization (technology construction, IT construction). After the business flywheel starts turning, business actions generate data. The current status and constraints of the business also determine the product form. A radical product strategy is undoubtedly a YY for users and the market, and cutting one’s feet to fit the shoes is even more laughable.

Don’t worry about the users’ self-growth!

Users are not people, but utility combinations in different scenarios. When I don’t want to drive or take public transportation on a rainy day, online car-hailing products are likely to be my best choice. When I want to eat spicy food but don’t want to go to a hot pot restaurant, I may be a user of a hot pot restaurant.

Users cannot be educated. They grow by themselves with constraints and environment, rather than being educated by products and technologies. Products, technologies, markets, marketing, policies, etc. may all become external constraints and conditions for users. These together determine the evolution of user behavior and changes in choices, which is what we call "educating users" and "user growth."

In the past product practice, I accidentally came across a strange idea of ​​the big data department of the team. In order to make the results of a certain data product presented on the screen more regular and more "usable" (the data is expected to deliberately conform to common sense, for example, a time period indicator usually results in the "day" dimension. If a characteristic data exceeding a month suddenly appears, it is considered that the data is not very usable and does not conform to the norm), the business is expected to deliberately avoid certain business behaviors. Isn't this too funny! Using the result of the business to affect the cause of the business. If there is no cause, there is no so-called result at all, so how can there be any requirements for the cause.

Not to mention the low-level logical fallacy above.

Next,What do we want from data?

The answer is definitely not to hide, remove, or filter out information that should not be discarded. This part of information must be distinguished. Some of it is noise data, but a large part of it is truly important data - that is, risk data and discrete data. This makes the accumulated data traversable as a "business system." Just like the heavy rain, snow, and wind that only occur once every 50 or 100 years, you definitely don't think that this part of data should be eliminated.

The above data reflects real business, and we should never avoid them. Since these business behaviors have occurred in the past, even if the probability is very small and very accidental, it does not mean that they will not occur in the future. If we abandon these, talking about data support in the future is undoubtedly like a blind man touching an elephant.

You will also say that data can drive business optimization!

Data presents business results from a specific perspective. The results are related to a complex set of related factors. In addition, the data analysis department cannot replace the business perspective to look at problems. It is also difficult for non-business departments to share risks with business departments. They are not on the same boat, so it is inevitable that consciousness, ideas and behaviors will go their separate ways.

Those who say "I am doing this for the good of the business" are just talking nonsense. If there is a team responsible for business, data, and strategy, such as an all-round operations warrior, the situation may be much better. Data presents results, the organization finds problems/improvement points, and the business department finally drives business optimization itself.

Governing business for the sake of data governance?

Data cleanliness leads to data optimization, and data optimization leads to reverse business governance. This is the biggest joke! The so-called data governance and technical governance are naturally focused on the premise of serving business development, rather than governing business for the sake of data governance.

Without business development, data and technology are useless, unless data and technology are "business products" in operation, such as many large-scale model products at present. If not, business development requires technology, and technology supports business development. At this time, business is like the "brain", and the bones and muscles of the whole body are hardware/technical resources that can be deployed and combined. The brain will naturally induce changes and adjustments in consciousness due to its commands not being implemented, and then produce matching behaviors.