Should Opower use platform or initiative based Product Management structure - why?
Opower Case Brief-Harvard Business Review
Current situation
The home energy business has been going through a change in the last five years since the co-founders Dan Yates and Alex Laskey began Opower. During this time, they used monthly utility meter readings to enlighten people on how to save their energy. As of today, the company uses the data provided by smart meters to monitor energy consumption in real time.
Industry overview
Generally,
the utility is made of companies that deliver basic amenities such as electricity, natural gas, water and many more. While utilities earn profits, they are part of the public service landscape and are heavily controlled.
Firm details
Opower is a software company that redefines the way utilities relate to their customers. The company was formed in 2007 in Arlington by two Harvard graduates, Dan Yates and Alex Laskey. The company operated as an independent corporation until its acquisition by Oracle Corporation in 2016. The Opower product line is under the management of the Oracle Utilities global business unit (Eisenman, 2019).
Assumptions about the current situation
By 2009, the cofounders realized that the company needed a senior product leader who would spearhead the company's product development process. To achieve the required product development process, a high-level product plans with a two-year horizon were created. Additionally, a product road map spanning 12-18 months and revised quarterly.
Problems
As a startup, the company was faced with the problem of how to prioritize the product features. The management was under conflicting pressures. It wanted to establish a generalized extensible platform, but at the same time one that could be personalized to win big, even if it required accepting the prospect's costly product requests.
Symptoms and proof of primary and secondary problem(s)
The primary source of problems was that the company was required to maintain a product road map. The secondary source of the problem was that there was an ongoing pressure to develop custom solutions for its large customers. Additionally, its sales force faced competition from new players who were ready to develop customized solutions. As a result, there was tension between OPOWER sales and product teams (Eisenman, 2019).
Alternative's assessment
After considering several assessments, Opower decided to implement a utility's energy efficiency unit. This featured a large, PUC-mandated budget to be used on conservation projects. Further, the company concentrated its sales efforts on state regulators with a huge influence over utilities' decisions to chase conservation projects.
Strengths and weaknesses of each assessment
Opower's product management process was fruitful in the first years. However, as the company grew and its features became more complex, several weaknesses showed up. The team struggled to deliver requested features and had little time to create its vision of the product.