Situation
A consumer products company wanted a growth product team focused on software, not only hardware attach. I was the first dedicated growth PM for subscriptions. The work was to define how growth would operate: roadmap, testing strategy, and a shared view of what was already in flight.
Constraint
Growth ideas already existed across teams, with different philosophies about who owned experiments and how a growth function should sit in the org. Alignment on structure had to come before a testing factory.
Decision
I evaluated current structure, the history of growth at the company, and who actually held the levers.
- One-on-ones to surface held views on growth, features in progress, and testable opportunities.
- Consolidated experimentation concepts so product and subscription teams could argue from one list.
- Recommended options for a cross-functional growth team, with a strong bias toward alignment between product and the business rather than a siloed “growth department.”
Outcome
- A growth product roadmap and testing recommendations the organization could staff against.
- Explicit trade-offs on virtual teams versus a dedicated cross-functional group.
- The practice existed as a one-year in-house chapter—not a side project.
What I would do again
Discover philosophy first. If leaders disagree on whether growth is a team, a ritual, or a KPI owner, experiments will not save you.
What I would change
I would have written the operating cadence (who proposes, who ships, who reads results) as a one-page spec on day one, the same way I now run RFCs.