โ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐โ ๐ถ๐ ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐บ๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐บ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ด๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐.
Based on my work at Org.Works, itโs also one of the most confusing roles in enterprise organizational structures.
A quick history:
๐ฐ1930s: Often credited to Procter & Gamble โ managing consumer products.
๐
1980sโ2000s: Tech companies adopted the concept for software and hardware products sold to customers.
โ 2010sโtoday: Agile methodology and digital growth expanded the idea into a mindset increasingly applied to internal technology and enterprise capabilities.
But this raises a fundamental question:
๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฒ๐
๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐น๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐?
Today, โproductโ is often used to describe:
โช๏ธinternal platforms
โช๏ธecommerce technology
โช๏ธenterprise systems
โช๏ธdata and AI capabilities
Hereโs where the confusion starts: ๐ง๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ปโ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐๐.
They are capabilities that support the products a company actually sells.
Some argue product management for internal tech is broader than ITโthat it encompasses requirements, UX, go-to-market coordination, measurement, and continuous improvement.
But the truth is, if those activities werenโt happening before, the issue wasnโt the label โIT.โ It was simply poor IT management.
So why the shift?
Partly because IT isnโt fashionable anymore. โProduct managementโ feels more modern. More Silicon Valley. More agile.
But rebranding internal technology in this way often creates clarity issues:
1๏ธโฃ It blurs accountability between business and technology.
2๏ธโฃ It fragments enterprise workflows into disconnected technology โproducts.โ
3๏ธโฃ It adds organizational layers without clear value.
4๏ธโฃIt blurs the distinction between managing internal capabilities and managing the products a company actually sells.
Yes, there are genuine gray areas. When real products are built on internal technologies โ AI models, IoT platforms, cloud services โ the lines get complicated. Those situations require strong ownership and clear accountability between product and technology teams. But complexity isn’t the same as equivalence. A shared foundation doesn’t make the foundation a product.
When everything becomes a โproduct,โ the term loses its meaning.
And that creates the very organizational confusion many companies are trying to solve.
I know many talented product leaders will disagree with this take, and thatโs exactly why the conversation matters.
