Initial phone screen, then 1:1 coffee, then on-site with 3 staff members with "an exercise." As of this writing, the role has been open for close to 3 months, so I believe this is more of a "let's see what we can learn from the market" undertaking than a real hiring exercise; a search for free consulting/expertise. Consider: As outline below, the final interview exercise represented an inexplicable and near-complete disconnect from both stated role requirements/position description, and actual role requirements (i.e. what a successful Product Strategist must actually do for clients of a consultancy). The take-away is that this organization may not actually know how to identify/evaluate strategy -- let alone leverage it -- to create a real MVP, rather than just a prototype as design exercise. (Which I understand they do mostly.) This is (apparently) a design firm looking for product designers. A shame, because the people seem smart and lovely, but lack of practical strategy focus/capability seem to limit them to prototypes rather than MVPs. The case studies they cite seem to support this. Contemporary thinking is that strategy evolves (and is rightfully driven) by market needs; strategy does not originate from technology or design. Strategy informs design and technology; technology/design cannot (except in exceptional circumstances) drive strategy. (Reasonable minds might differ; that's a discussion I'd love to have, but it's not appropriate here.) If I were interested in creating (or contracting for) prototypes, this might be a fit. But this organization (apparently) does not target anything more deeply-engaged. If this was a "real" role, they did not regard me as a match, either.

The interview process was great. The team was communicative about what to expect and the people I would be meeting with. There was a mix of scenario-based questions and a product challenge.