Project Management

What’s the point of a massive context window if using over 5% of it causes the model to melt down? Bigger windows are great for demos. They crumble in production. When we stuff prompts with pages of maybe-relevant text and hope for the best, we pay in three ways: 1️⃣ Quality: attention gets diluted, and the model hedges, contradicts, or hallucinates. 2️⃣ Latency & cost: every extra token slows you down, and costs rise rapidly. 3️⃣ Governance: no provenance, no trust, no way to debug and resolve issues. A better approach is a knowledge graph + GraphRAG pipeline that feeds the model the most relevant data with context instead of all the things it might need with no top-level organization. ✅ How it works at a high level: Model your world: extract entities (people, products, accounts, APIs) and typed relationships (owns, depends on, complies with) from docs, code, tickets, CRM, and wikis. GraphRAG retrieval: traverse the graph to pull a minimal subgraph with facts, paths, and citations, directly tied to the question. Compact context, rich signal: summarize those nodes and edges with provenance, then prompt. The model reasons over structure instead of slogging through sludge. Closed loop: capture new facts from interactions and update the graph so the system gets sharper over time. ✅ A 30-day path to validate it for your use cases: Week 1: define a lightweight ontology for 10–15 core entities/relations built around a high-value workflow. Week 2: build extractors (rules + LLMs) and load into a graph store. Week 3: wire GraphRAG (graph traversal → summarization → prompt). Week 4: run head-to-head tasks against your current RAG; compare accuracy, tokens, latency, and provenance coverage. Large context windows drive cool headlines and demos. Knowledge graphs + GraphRAG work in production, even for customer-facing use cases.

🎣 “They didn’t even cc me.” This was how Yumi, a senior marketing director, found out her billion-dollar product had been repositioned, without her input. The project she had been leading for 18 months was suddenly reporting into someone else. She didn’t mess up. She wasn’t underperforming. She just wasn’t "there". Not at the executive offsite. Not at the Friday “golf and growth” circle. Not at the CEO’s birthday dinner her male peer casually got invited to. She was busy being excellent. They were busy being bonded. 🍷 When she asked her boss about the change, he was surprised: “You’re usually aligned with the bigger picture, so we assumed it’d be fine.” In Workplace politic-ish: Yumi was predictable. Available. Yet not powerful enough to be consulted. 🔍 What actually happened here? Women are told to build relationships. Men build alliances. Women maintain connections. Men maintain relevance in power circles. It’s not about how many people like you. It’s about how many people speak your name when you’re not in the room. And in most companies, the real decisions - about budget, headcount, succession, are made off-the-clock and off-the-record. 📌 So, how do you stop getting edited out of influence? Try these: 1. 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗽.    Not the org chart. The whisper network / shadow organistion.    Who gets invited to early product reviews?    Who influences without title?    Start mapping that!     2. 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲-𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.    If your name hasn’t been mentioned by 3 different people in senior leadership this month, you are invisible to power, even if you’re a top performer.     3. 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴.    Skip the webinars and female empowerment panels.    Start showing up where strategy happens: QBRs, investor briefings, offsite planning, cross-functional war rooms.     4. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹.    Schedule recurring 1:1s with lateral stakeholders, not to “catch up,” but to co-build. Influence travels faster across than up.     5. 𝗕𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀.    If you vanished for 2 weeks and no one noticed, you’re not central enough to promote.     🧨 If any of this feels raw, it’s because it is. Brilliant women are being rewritten out of their own stories, not for lack of performance, but for lack of positioning. That’s why Uma, Grace and I created 👊 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿: 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀👊 A course for women who are done watching strategic mediocrity rise while they wait for recognition. It’s not about becoming someone else. It’s about learning the rules that were never designed for us, and playing like you intend to win. 🔗 Get it if you’re ready, link in comment. Or wait until they “assume you’d be aligned,” too.

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 ]

There are always situations in which you need to communicate fast and clearly. Especially in a crisis, in new situations, or when there is time pressure. The STICC protocol helps you achieve this. The STICC Protocol was developed by psychologist Gary Klein as a tool for managing the unexpected. STICC stands for: Situation, Task, Intent, Concerns, Calibrate and is a technique for productive communication about what to do when you face a new, unexpected situation. This is what it means: S - Situation = Here’s what I think we face. The leader summarizes how they see the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. T - Task = Here’s what I think we should do. The leader explains their plan for addressing the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. I - Intent = Here’s why I think this is what we should do. The leader explains the reasons why they think this is the best way of addressing the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. C - Concerns = Here’s what we should keep our eyes on. The leader mentions possible downsides or future consequences of the solution suggested to be taken into account as well. C - Calibrate = Now talk to me and give me your views. The leader asks others in the team to give their feedback and viewpoints, and especially invites them to disagree and add. This technique helps you in managing pressured situations in three ways: First, once something unexpected happens, it helps to develop appropriate responses. The five steps are aimed at discussing with a team what to do in cases that are not familiar. Through its focus on concrete action, on gathering different viewpoints, and on speed, the STICC protocol is a quick way to take appropriate action in new situations. Second, in step 4 (Concerns), you open up the discussion for further uncertainties and other changes that may follow. In this way, you mentally prepare people that there will always remain uncertainties. This helps in developing a crisis-ready mindset that is not only helpful in the current crisis, but also in the next. Third, the fact that a constructive dialogue takes place also facilitates communication and mutual learning. Even though the leader brings the suggestions here, it is the team together that comes to a solution. And while doing that, they learn together and from each other in an open and adaptive way, which helps further prepare them for future crises. My advice: use STICC whenever you have to communicate fast and clearly. === Follow me or subscribe to my Soulful Strategy newsletter for more: https://lnkd.in/e_ytzAgU #communicationtips #agile #teamexercise

It’s easy as a PM to only focus on the upside. But you'll notice: more experienced PMs actually spend more time on the downside. The reason is simple: the more time you’ve spent in Product Management, the more times you’ve been burned. The team releases “the” feature that was supposed to change everything for the product - and everything remains the same. When you reach this stage, product management becomes less about figuring out what new feature could deliver great value, and more about de-risking the choices you have made to deliver the needed impact. -- To do this systematically, I recommend considering Marty Cagan's classical 4 Risks. 𝟭. 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 Remember Juicero? They built a $400 Wi-Fi-enabled juicer, only to discover that their value proposition wasn’t compelling. Customers could just as easily squeeze the juice packs with their hands. A hard lesson in value risk. Value Risk asks whether customers care enough to open their wallets or devote their time. It’s the soul of your product. If you can’t be match how much they value their money or time, you’re toast. 𝟮. 𝗨𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗻𝘀 Usability Risk isn't about if customers find value; it's about whether they can even get to that value. Can they navigate your product without wanting to throw their device out the window? Google Glass failed not because of value but usability. People didn’t want to wear something perceived as geeky, or that invaded privacy. Google Glass was a usability nightmare that never got its day in the sun. 𝟯. 𝗙𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 Feasibility Risk takes a different angle. It's not about the market or the user; it's about you. Can you and your team actually build what you’ve dreamed up? Theranos promised the moon but couldn't deliver. It claimed its technology could run extensive tests with a single drop of blood. The reality? It was scientifically impossible with their tech. They ignored feasibility risk and paid the price. 𝟰. 𝗩𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗗𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 (Business) Viability Risk is the "grandmaster" of risks. It asks: Does this product make sense within the broader context of your business? Take Kodak for example. They actually invented the digital camera but failed to adapt their business model to this disruptive technology. They held back due to fear it would cannibalize their film business. -- This systematic approach is the best way I have found to help de-risk big launches. How do you like to de-risk?

Avoiding tough talks is a direct path to losing team trust. Here's how top leaders handle conflict: 1/ The Real Problem → Leaders stall, hoping conflict resolves itself → Feedback gets softened until it’s meaningless → The issue festers, and performance suffers 2/ Why It Matters → Projects halt because no one says what needs to be said → The wrong people stay in the room, the right ones leave → Culture declines and misalignment becomes the norm 3/ The CLEAR Framework → Cut the Fluff: Skip the warm-up and get to the point → Label the Behavior: Focus on actions, not identity → Explain the Impact: Make it real, why does it matter? → Ask for Alignment: Invite a response, not a lecture → Recommit or Redirect: Don’t end vague, end with clarity 4/ What Happens Next → Tension goes down, not up → People feel respected, not ambushed → Projects move forward, with trust, not silence 5/ Why You Need This → Leading isn’t about avoiding discomfort → It’s about creating clarity when others won’t → This framework gives you the words to do it right What's your biggest takeaway?

Have I mentioned we are data geeks?🤓🤓 Performance uncertainty remains one of the biggest barriers to wider uptake of #energy #efficiency technologies.💡 #Wind-assisted propulsion,💨 air-lubrication systems🫧 and other proven #retrofits can cut fuel use by double-digit percentages.📉 But real-world savings swing with weather, routing and operations. Without clarity on a retrofit’s actual contribution, neither shipowners nor charterers can forecast returns with confidence.🤷🏻♀️ And because we’ve always believed that #data📊 can give us the clearest truth, we set out to address this challenge.👊🏻 Our friends at Eastern Pacific Shipping Pte. Ltd. gave us access to the Pacific Sentinel, on which we installed a high-frequency data acquisition system as three suction #sails⛵️ were retrofitted onboard the MR tanker in March 2025. Calibrated sensors captured #power consumption, vessel speed, engine load, heading and wind conditions every 15 seconds. Over four months as the vessel traded spot around the Americas,🌎 we saw #weather and #performance at a fidelity far beyond the single daily datapoint in a noon report. Building on #ITTC and DNV methodologies, Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) and EPS implemented an “on-off’’ testing protocol,🎛️ comparing power consumption with the sails activated and deactivated under otherwise similar environmental and operational conditions to isolate the sails’ true contribution. Under the predominantly near-headwind conditions sampled, the vessel saw an average instantaneous power savings⚡️ of 7.2%, with a 95% confidence interval between 6.2% and 8.2%. Instantaneous savings ranged from +28% to –14%. These rare outliers highlight just how sensitive power savings are to wind speed and direction, and underscore the importance of tracking dynamic operational data.⚠️ Access report here:  https://lnkd.in/g_dRFtJp If we want to scale energy-efficiency retrofits, we must tackle performance uncertainty head-on. Shipowners won’t invest, and charterers won’t commit, if they can’t trust that the #savings will show up in their fuel bills.💵 We therefore developed a power savings polar heat map to predict energy and fuel savings with wind conditions. With 3rd-party verification, this will enable performance-linked financing of the retrofits.💰 This case study is but a first step in building that validation layer. And it ladders🪜 up to what we launched last week: #FEET — the world’s first blended-finance fund designed to support energy-efficiency retrofits through a pay-as-you-save repayment structure. Progress is incremental, and this marks a big step in the right direction.👊🏻 Together, we are stronger; together, we can💪🏻 Shane Balani, Zheng Yang Cheng 钟正扬, Bhushan Taskar, Goh Wan Ni, Pavlos Karagiannidis, Mirtcho Spassov, CFA, Mike Wilson, Rashim Berry, Cyril Ducau

Stuck in an endless loop of client changes? Lost track of what revision this constitutes? Yeah. Been there. Done that. The secret? It's not about saying no. It's about saying yes to the right things upfront. Every project that goes sideways starts the same way: Vague agreements. Fuzzy boundaries. Good intentions. Six weeks later you're bleeding money and everyone's frustrated. Here's my framework after 30 years of running two 8-figure businesses: The SOW is your salvation. Not some boilerplate template. A real document that covers: • Exact deliverables (not "design work" but "3 homepage concepts, 2 rounds of revisions") • Hours of operation ("We respond M-F, 9-5 PST. Weekend requests get Monday responses") • Revision rounds spelled out ("Round 1 includes up to 5 changes. Round 2 includes 3.") • Feedback cycles defined ("48-hour turnaround for client feedback or the project may be delayed or additional fees may be incurred") But here's what most people miss— Don't work on client notes immediately. Client sends 37 pieces of feedback at 11pm Friday? Producer sends conflicting notes from the CEO? Marketing wants one thing, sales wants another? Stop. Collect everything first. Resolve the conflicts. Get on the phone and discuss it with your client to get alignment. Separate the "have to haves" from the "nice to haves". Then present unified changes. "Based on all feedback received, here are the 8 changes we'll implement. This constitutes revision round 2 of 3." Watch how fast the random requests stop. No extra work that goes unappreciated. No more feelings of being taken advantage of. Communicate before the crisis, prevents the crisis from happening. "Just so you know, we're entering round 2. You have one more included. After that, it's $X per additional round." No surprises. No awkward money conversations. No resentment. Scope creep isn't a them problem. It's a you problem. And that's good news, because that means you are in control. They're not trying to take advantage. They just don't know where the boundaries are because you never drew them. Draw the lines early. Communicate them clearly. Everyone wins. What's your most painful scope creep story? What boundary would've prevented it? Small Business Builders #projectmanagement #clientmanagement #businessgrowth

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

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?