When I first began thinking about a Product Reference Model, I assumed it would become another documentation framework.
As a Product Owner, that was not particularly attractive. Most Product Owners already spend their days balancing stakeholder expectations, refining the backlog, making priority decisions and answering questions from delivery teams. Another repository sounded like another responsibility.
But perhaps that is the wrong way to think about it. As Product Owners, we rarely inherit a greenfield product. We inherit decisions. Business rules. Architecture. Operational procedures. Quality concerns. Technical debt. And, perhaps most importantly, we inherit understanding—or the absence of it.
One of the most common questions a Product Owner asks is remarkably simple:
Why?
Why does this capability exist? Why do these customers receive different treatment? Why was this integration introduced? Why is this feature impossible to remove? Why was this architectural decision made? Why is this quality requirement so important?
Those answers rarely exist in one place. Some are hidden in Jira. Some in architecture documentation. Some in source code. Some in BDD scenarios. Some in assessment reports. Many remain only in the memories of people who happened to be there.
The Product Reference Model begins to make sense when it is no longer viewed as documentation. Instead, it becomes a map of product understanding. The Product Owner continues owning the backlog. Architects continue owning architecture. Developers continue owning source code. QA continues owning assessments and quality strategy. Operations continues owning operational knowledge.
Nothing changes. Except that all these pieces become visible to one another. The Product Owner is no longer expected to know everything. The Product Owner is expected to know where the understanding lives.
That changes the role in an important way. The backlog is no longer the product. It is merely one viewpoint of the product. The Product Reference Model allows the Product Owner to navigate the complete product landscape without becoming responsible for maintaining every artifact personally. Perhaps that is the real value.
The Product Owner becomes the steward of product understanding rather than merely the owner of the backlog.
Stewardship is different from ownership. Ownership often implies creating and maintaining artifacts. Stewardship means ensuring that future Product Owners inherit enough understanding to continue making good decisions.
The Product Reference Model therefore does not make the Product Owner responsible for more documentation. It makes the Product Owner responsible for ensuring that the important answers remain connected. Perhaps continuity is not ultimately about preserving software. Perhaps it is about ensuring that every new Product Owner can understand the product they inherit before deciding how it should evolve.
Leave a Reply