Russ

"this mess? Who would you say is your number one guy you'd want right next to you?’ If they ask me this and I’m starting up, I say I want Russ. OK, that’s my boy, Russ. Why? Because Russ can do so many things, he has this multitalented thing that he can help me with. Whatever reason. ‘So who is yours?” We go through it. “Well, why are you asking for this guy?’ The process, the process—you go through it and through it and through it, until finally you look at it and you’ve got every- body right. All the priorities are right. And you’ve got the people, who your stars are. Then you start matching them up. Your number one star should go to your number one priority. Not very complicated.”"

"At CA memos have been replaced by brief face-to-face discus- sions and an oral OK. Russ: “I mean, it’s not so structured in"

"managing people. The product-owner has to make sure he’s got the appropriate people, that he’s got a team, and that the various responsibilities get met.”’ It was a form of neo-Darwin- ism. Russ: “But not everyone’s cut out for it. It’s a new concept that we created here, and it really takes a well- rounded, versatile individual. It’s got to be someone who's technical. He’s got to understand the vision, where the prod- uct is, where it’s going. Good with people. And support ori- ented. And development oriented. So we look from within and say, ‘OK, who deserves this shot, who might be good?’ And as talented as he or she may be, sometimes we find that this isn’t a product-owner, so they might be best going back to what they were doing before, being a development leader for instance. He might be very good at that, but not a very good product-owner.”’ Natural selection. As the framework evolved, product-ownership took on a tensile strength within CA. Product-owners became responsible to superproduct-owners, who themselves became responsible to what can only be called mega—product-owners—the ultimate product-owner being Charles. Little wonder that the product- owners who succeeded took on the characteristics of Charles himself: extremely technical, marketing-sensitive managers who could motivate and lead people and who kept their eyes on the details while shaping the vision. With this sort of manager, a skein of “ownership” cut through the entire structure of devel- opment, marketing, and support at CA, functioning not as a"

"no longer product-owners.’’ When product-owners couldn’t do the job, products were orphaned, whole staffs left directionless. Charles then had two choices: (1) bring in a new candidate for a product that had already defeated others, or (2) move the product under the aegis of an already successful product-owner and have him supervise new product-owners as a superproduct- owner. Either way, product-ownership became a litmus test of managerial talent. Russ: “You're running a product almost like"