By Teresa Torres · producttalk.org · @ttorres on X · LinkedIn
Teresa Torres argues that the engineer in a product trio should be the one with the most authority over technical feasibility, but that the word "lead" causes confusion because it conflates seniority, management, and decision authority. She explains that the trio's engineer is typically the most senior engineer, not a manager, and that this person is the core decision-maker for discovery. She acknowledges that senior engineers may prefer architecture and mentoring over discovery, and shows that another engineer can fill the trio seat if the lead explicitly opts out and gives up discovery authority. This matters because a trio missing the right technical voice wastes discovery effort when feasibility objections surface late.
01Key takeaways
- Avoid the vague word "lead"; define trio roles by decision authority and discovery responsibility, not by title or seniority.
- Choose the most senior engineer on the team for the trio when possible, since that person can veto infeasible ideas early.
- Make sure a senior engineer who declines discovery explicitly gives up say over discovery decisions, to avoid late torpedoing.
- If a substitute engineer joins the trio, have them vet feasibility and build buy-in with the rest of engineering as they test assumptions.
- Keep the substitute engineer and the senior lead in constant communication about architecture and data model implications.
02Key sections
- Why the word "lead" causes confusion
- Torres admits that terms like "tech lead" and "design lead" blur seniority with authority, and that engineers at one company were discouraged from joining trios because they feared a promotion or a career detour.
- What a trio's engineer actually is
- The trio's engineer is usually the most senior engineer on the team, a decision-making role rather than a management role, since trio members decide what to build with input from the wider team.
- When the senior engineer opts out
- Senior engineers often prefer architecture, code review, and mentoring, so they may decline discovery; designers, by contrast, usually want to stay involved in discovery.
- Conditions for a substitute trio member
- A substitute works only if the lead explicitly gives up discovery seniority and the substitute continuously aligns with the lead on feasibility, architecture, and data model decisions.
- Overhead and tradeoffs
- Having a non-lead in the trio adds coordination cost, but it remains workable if every party does their part.
03From the post
“Working as a product trio is the foundation for discovery. Without input from a product manager, a designer, and an engineer, it’s difficult for us to account for the cross-functional perspectives we need to build successful products. However, most companies tend to have more engineers than product managers”
04Frameworks mentioned
Summary and takeaways written by PM Atlas; quotes are short excerpts. © the original author.