在会议上，这位演讲者承认了他的作品受到了热烈的欢迎，并观察到两种截然不同的产品模式——项目模式和产品模式，他选择坦诚地谈论他在产品管理方面的个人遗憾。他强调，他一直以来都专注于产品的根本目的：解决客户问题和实现业务成果，而不是转瞬即逝的流程或框架。 他的第一个也是最令人尴尬的遗憾是关于**商业可行性**。他承认在《Inspired》第一版中严重低估了其重要性。他解释说，商业可行性包括确保产品能够以可承受的成本进行营销、销售、服务，并符合法律、道德、隐私和安全标准。他将其盲点归因于他在开发者工具领域的工作生涯，在这个领域，薄弱的商业技能尚可容忍。然而，对于大多数产品，尤其是AI驱动的产品，围绕商业可行性的整体系统思维至关重要。 其次，他觉得自己过分强调了**问题发现**，却牺牲了**解决方案发现**。尽管理解问题至关重要，但他认为这并非特别困难。真正的创新和价值创造在于**解决方案发现**。许多归因于需求不足的产品失败，实际上是由于解决方案不充分。他主张减少在问题定义上的时间，而将更多时间用于创新解决方案。 他的第三个遗憾涉及**“为什么”**。尽管他普及了“传教士而非雇佣兵”（missionaries, not mercenaries）的概念，但他意识到“我们为什么要做这个问题？”这个问题通常可以由一个好的产品策略轻松回答。那个*更关键*、却常被忽视的“为什么”是：**“人们为什么不使用我们的产品？”**（流失分析）。他认为，理解流失是开启重大创新的关键。 接下来，他后悔没有足够强调**谦逊**。他觉得，他的书中普遍被接受的观点——“产品经理是产品的CEO”（the product manager as CEO of the product），几乎与谦逊背道而驰，并导致了许多产品的失败。这导致了他最大的遗憾：低估了产品人员和高级管理人员根深蒂固的**可预测性**渴望，以及这种渴望如何从根本上与创新和成果发生冲突。他用路线图和PRDs（产品需求文档）对此进行了阐释。如果这些产物是基于假设来规定功能（项目模式），它们会导致浪费。然而，如果它们在经过严格的发现和验证*之后*作为沟通工具，它们则是有用的。核心问题在于追求可预测性而非真正的成果。 他还承认他曾天真地相信好的产品工作可以克服**政治**。在目睹了其普遍影响力之后，他现在将其内容很大一部分用于解决组织政治问题。 一个主要的遗憾源于他过于关注**产品团队和发现技能**（discovery craft），却忽视了**产品领导力**。这导致许多公司误解，认为赋能的团队需要*更好*的管理，而不是更少。产品领导力在提供背景方面，尤其通过清晰的产品策略提供背景，至关重要。 他也从**公司治理**中学到了一个痛苦的教训。最初他认为产品对此无能为力，但他观察到成功的产品被更高公司层面的错位动机所破坏，他推荐了埃里克·里斯（Eric Ries）的《Incorruptible》。 这位演讲者承认他在书中将产品描绘得过于**温文尔雅**（genteel）。在竞争激烈的开放市场中，产品是一项“全面接触的血腥运动”（full contact blood sport），需要解决方案在竞争中具备显著的优势，而这一现实在他的早期作品中未能充分传达。 最后，他最后的遗憾是没有充分认识到人类**避免思考**的倾向。他指出，这表现为对流程、框架和可预测性的渴望。他担心大型语言模型可能会成为另一个取代真正思考的替代品，就像流程常常是那样。他总结说，他应该更响亮地倡导“产品嗅觉”（product sense）。 尽管有这些遗憾，演讲者仍对产品的未来表示乐观。他指出，常见的批评——即他的《Inspired》方法由于公司对产出的沉迷而难以实施——正在发生变化。由于AI等进步，对成果而非单纯产出的需求日益得到认可，产品发现（building to learn）也变得更容易。他总结道，产品模式、产品策略和产品发现的原则如今比以往任何时候都更加关键。

The speaker, acknowledging the flattering reception to his work and the observation of two distinct product models – project and product – at the conference, chose to deliver a candid talk about his personal regrets in product management. He emphasized that his focus has always been on the fundamental purpose of product: solving customer problems and achieving business outcomes, rather than fleeting processes or frameworks. His first and most embarrassing regret concerned **business viability**. He admitted to significantly understating its importance in the first edition of "Inspired." Business viability, he explained, encompasses ensuring the product can be affordably marketed, sold, serviced, and complies with legal, ethical, privacy, and safety standards. He attributed his blind spot to his career in developer tools, a sector where weak business skills could be somewhat tolerated. However, for most products, especially AI-driven ones, holistic systems thinking around business viability is paramount. Secondly, he felt he had overemphasized **problem discovery** at the expense of solution discovery. While understanding the problem is crucial, he argued it's not particularly difficult. The real innovation and value creation lie in **solution discovery**. Many product failures attributed to a lack of demand are, in fact, due to inadequate solutions. He advocated for spending less time on problem definition and more on innovating solutions. His third regret involved the **"why"**. While he popularized the "missionaries, not mercenaries" concept, he realized the "why are we working on this problem?" is often easily answered by a good product strategy. The *more critical* "why," often overlooked, is **"why are people *not* using our product?"** (churn analysis). Understanding churn, he suggested, is a key to unlocking significant innovation. Next, he regretted not stressing **humility** enough. The common takeaway from his books, "the product manager as CEO of the product," he felt, was almost antithetical to humility and contributed to many failed products. This led to his biggest regret: underestimating the deep-seated human desire for **predictability** among both product people and senior executives, and how this desire fundamentally clashes with innovation and outcomes. He illustrated this with roadmaps and PRDs. If these artifacts are used to dictate features based on assumption (the project model), they lead to waste. However, if they serve as communication tools *after* rigorous discovery and validation, they are useful. The core problem is the pursuit of predictability over genuine outcomes. He also acknowledged his naive belief that good product work would overcome **politics**. Having witnessed its pervasive influence, he now dedicates a significant portion of his content to addressing organizational politics. A major regret stemmed from focusing too much on **product teams and discovery craft** while neglecting **product leadership**. This led many companies to misunderstand that empowered teams require *better* management, not less. The role of product leadership in providing context, especially through a clear product strategy, is critical. He also learned a painful lesson about **corporate governance**. Initially believing product could do little about it, he observed successful products being derailed by misaligned motivations at higher corporate levels, recommending Eric Ries's "Incorruptible." The speaker admitted making product sound too **genteel** in his books. Product, in the competitive open market, is a "full contact blood sport," requiring solutions dramatically superior to the competition, a reality his early work didn't adequately convey. Finally, his last regret was not appreciating the human tendency to **avoid thinking**. This, he noted, manifests as a craving for process, frameworks, and predictability. He worried that large language models might become another substitute for genuine thought, just as process often is. He concluded that he should have championed "product sense" more loudly. Despite these regrets, the speaker expressed optimism for the future of product. He noted that the common criticism – that his "Inspired" approach is hard to implement due to companies' addiction to output – is changing. Thanks to advancements like AI, the need for outcomes over mere output is increasingly recognized, and product discovery (building to learn) is becoming significantly easier. He concluded that the principles of the product model, product strategy, and product discovery are more critical now than ever before.