Personal agendas and biases still influence product decisions without adequate guardrails in place — even when the data is right there. Here's how a redefined product trio changes that.
The build trap and the product trio
We are beginning to see a shift in mentality from simply shipping features and building for the sake of delivering, towards a culture focused on outcomes. This shift is very much welcomed, although I can't help but smile at the over-glorification that seems to accompany it.
For the past 20 years, I've been working in UX and product design, deeply involved in hands-on user testing and business insights. While this shift in product management towards outcome-focused work is welcomed, it feels a bit overdue to me. But are we truly there yet?
Before diving into my thoughts, I want to clarify that I don't have an academic background. I started my own freelance design consultancy in 1999 at a very young age, which shaped my career with a practical, hands-on mindset. While I'm not always an advocate for more processes or academic approaches, I often see valuable research work going to waste. After 20 years in the industry, it's disheartening to see thorough, evidence-based work being overlooked in favor of split-second, biased decision-making. I truly understand and often advocate for prioritizing business momentum over academic thoroughness. It's all about knowing when to act, at what pace, and with the appropriate level of detail required for the situation.
but there's so much potential being wasted when data-driven insights are disregarded in favor of seemingly irrational human tendencies.
So what can we do about it ?
"Yet personal agendas and biases still influence the decision making process without adequate guardrails in place."
Many product managers still rely primarily on intuition, preferring data-informed rather than strictly data-driven decisions. Some even suggest that a single data point can suffice to guide major decisions if any at all, which highlights how much we depend on individual interpretations. Tech and user research teams strive to provide product managers with objective, unbiased data. However, personal agendas and biases still influence decision-making, often without proper guardrails in place. Product management often remains reactive and intuition-based, despite opportunities for more evidence-driven approaches. By adopting a more democratic model, product direction can be guided through methods grounded in multiple perspectives and comprehensive data.
What is a Product Trio?
The product trio — consisting of a product manager, UX, and tech architect — brings together unique expertise from business, customer experience, and technology. By working collaboratively from the outset, the trio ensures decisions are well-rounded, data-driven, and reflective of all key perspectives.
But, A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
and often the weakest link in product development is, relying on a single perspective without adequate validation.
Often vast amounts of research data and insights need to be considered multiple times during planning processes, but it is humanly impossible to incorporate every perspective and data point in all decisions.
Biases in Play
In the context of decision-making processes, several cognitive biases often come into play:
- Confirmation Bias: The tendency to interpret data in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs. This can happen when decision-makers look for insights in test data to justify their ideas, rather than allowing the data to highlight genuine issues.
- Groupthink: A tendency for teams to strive for consensus without critically evaluating alternative ideas or viewpoints. This often happens when group cohesion becomes more important than making the best decision, leading to reduced creativity and suboptimal outcomes.
- Authority Bias: Product managers may assume their perspective is superior due to their role, which can lead to decisions being made without properly validating them with UX or Tech teams.
- Anchoring Bias: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information (such as a single data point) can skew decision-making, especially if further analysis is overlooked.
- Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing with a particular direction because of prior investments, rather than objectively assessing its current value.
- Status Quo Bias: A resistance to changing traditional roles, like assuming product managers must maintain full control over product leadership, even when collaboration could yield better results.
- Availability Heuristic: Decisions may be influenced by recent or easily accessible data, rather than a comprehensive evaluation of all available information.
- False Consensus Effect: The assumption that others share the same opinions or perspectives, which can lead to underestimating the value of differing viewpoints, especially from UX or Tech teams.
- Bandwagon Effect: The belief that product managers should conduct user research could be influenced by popular industry trends, even if it is not the most effective approach. This often happens when group cohesion becomes more important than making the best decision, leading to reduced creativity and suboptimal outcomes.
Groupthink: A tendency for teams to strive for consensus without critically evaluating alternative ideas or viewpoints. This often happens when group cohesion becomes more important than making the best decision, leading to reduced creativity and suboptimal outcomes.
Authority Bias: Product managers may assume their perspective is superior due to their role, which can lead to decisions being made without properly validating them with UX or Tech teams.
Anchoring Bias: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information (such as a single data point) can skew decision-making, especially if further analysis is overlooked.
Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing with a particular direction because of prior investments, rather than objectively assessing its current value.
Status Quo Bias: A resistance to changing traditional roles, like assuming product managers must maintain full control over product leadership, even when collaboration could yield better results.
Availability Heuristic: Decisions may be influenced by recent or easily accessible data, rather than a comprehensive evaluation of all available information.
False Consensus Effect: The assumption that others share the same opinions or perspectives, which can lead to underestimating the value of differing viewpoints, especially from UX or Tech teams.
Bandwagon Effect: The belief that product managers should conduct user research could be influenced by popular industry trends, even if it is not the most effective approach.
Simply stating, "I consider these biases when making decisions," is itself a biased approach. When there are established methods to minimize these biases, why not use them?
In today's product landscape, it's time to move beyond the notion of product managers as mini-CEOs or spearhead decision makers. Product managers understand the business context, but UX and architects bring equally important perspectives, often with equal domain knowledge. The only key reason product managers often have a deeper business perspective is because product designers and architects are frequently kept out of the strategic product discussions. Whether by choice or by necessity.
To build great products, it is essential for the entire product trio to be involved from the outset. This doesn't mean everything must be an ongoing debate; rather, it's about establishing decision-making frameworks — like prioritization matrices — that objectively determine the next best steps in the backlog based on comprehensive data. Each member brings unique expertise: the product manager provides business context, the product designer focuses on user-centered approaches and market innovation, while the architect ensures technical feasibility and drives technical advancement. Instead of relying on one person's intuition or second-hand interpretations of guidance from UX and architecture, it is far more effective to make decisions based on firsthand knowledge and direct insights from all domains. This ensures decisions are well-rounded, made by those closest to the product, and grounded in direct expertise. It's proven that the best products are built on a foundation of validated methods, collaboration, and diverse perspectives — not personal beliefs and biased gut feelings. we have seen this from founders and CEOs for the last decade and forbes could tell you 9/10 of these products have failed.
Why is UX and Tech often kept at a distance from business strategy?
Instead of assuming that product leaders should conduct user tests, we should question why this trend is emerging. User testing, if done incorrectly, can harm your product — especially when the facilitator unintentionally biases participants. Proper user testing requires expertise to avoid leading participants and to react appropriately to insights rather than overreacting to individual data points. Simply looking for answers in data points can lead to confirmation bias, which is why it's essential to let data highlight problems through affinity mapping and other tools that filter out personal bias. Instead of oversimplifying user research as a task for everyone to perform, integrating UX and Tech more close to the business ensures more effective outcomes by leveraging specialized expertise and minimizing biases.
Where does the idea come from that UX and Tech can't navigate business processes and operations? In reality, both parties would greatly benefit from a closer relationship.
Developers use peer review processes, and product designers test with real users to eliminate biases and reduce the costly risk of product failure.
They map data-validated user journeys, create affinity diagrams, and validate through user testing. Developers, meanwhile, establish robust architecture and ensure a secure review process using frameworks to maintain objectivity. Product management, however, lacks an equivalent validation layer. To ensure unbiased, data-driven decision-making, product managers should adopt methods validated through collaboration and peer review, similar to those used by developers and designers. Rather than trying to compete with UX on user research, insights, and behavior analysis, product management should focus on bringing practitioners closer to the business.
This closer collaboration promotes purpose, autonomy, and shared accountability, which not only drives greater motivation towards achieving business goals but also increases motivation to get things right.
The product manager should loosen their grip on product leadership, allowing the entire trio to share accountability and prioritize democratically using frameworks that encompass UX, technical, and business perspectives. This approach should include broader considerations like product vision, strategy, diversity, or sustainability. By using these frameworks, decisions are made collaboratively, based on comprehensive data rather than relying on one person's potentially biased perspective. This helps to avoid human bias and ensures that critical insights are not lost due to limited cognitive capacity.
Relying on biased, split-second decisions is no longer sufficient. Every role within the product trio must have an equal voice, with shared accountability, grounded in data and collective insights. When the trio is present in key strategic meetings, questions can be addressed directly, rather than being filtered through individual biases or perspectives. This isn't about bureaucracy — but rather about democratizing the decision-making process. Let's embrace a future where decisions are transparent, collaborative, and data-backed, resulting in resilient, user-centered products driven by shared expertise.
Of course, flexibility is sometimes required, especially under pressure. However, speeding up decision-making should not depend solely on one individual, no matter their experience. The trio should establish a foundation for rapid decision-making through proven frameworks, ensuring collaboration even in fast-paced situations.
The use of validated methods, such as prioritization matrices, user journey maps, and architecture reviews, helps ensure that decisions are transparent and objective. These methods allow the trio to navigate complex trade-offs effectively and make informed choices that balance speed with quality. Moreover, involving all three roles ensures that no single agenda dominates the decision-making process. This shared responsibility fosters a culture of accountability, where decisions are backed by data and collective understanding.
At the end of the day, we might ask ourselves if there could be a scenario where the trio is reduced to a duo, consisting only of those directly shaping the product, who take on additional responsibilities like timekeeping and prioritization using democratic frameworks.
However, the "power of three" remains valuable in situations where the team may be unaligned or have conflicting interests. Having three distinct perspectives can help mediate differing views, ensuring balanced decision-making and providing a critical layer of accountability.
And there will be many situations going forward where chaos calls for a more direct approach. It can be hard letting go of the control, if that is the case then consider if you need to spend all the resources on research and validation in cases where it is clearly not meeting its potential and impact seems to be limited.
3 views