I knew this one would spark some debate.
Thank you to those who supported the perspective, and to those who challenged it. Both matter. A few comments stuck with me.
One person said, “You don’t get it.” I understand the reaction.
But I’ve led product-oriented teams. I’ve used the language. I fully appreciate the push to align more closely to the business, to adopt a stronger go-to-market mindset, and to bring disciplines like UX, measurement, and continuous improvement into how technology work gets done.
Another comment was: “Why get hung up on words or titles? Organizations evolve.”
That’s fair. They do.
But words and titles aren’t trivial. They’re structural signals.
Sometimes modernizing language helps reinforce clarity.
Other times, it unintentionally creates confusion.
This isn’t an argument against evolving IT or adopting product thinking. Much of that evolution is necessary—and long overdue.
It’s a reminder that:
👉 Not every capability is a product
👉 Not every modernization improves clarity
👉 Not every naming trend improves clarity
The goal isn’t to defend old labels or resist change.
The goal is clarity—of ownership, of purpose, and of how work actually gets done.
Because in the end, organizations don’t struggle with intent.
They struggle with clarity.
And words play a bigger role in that than we often admit.
