The issue has been and always will be that if you only let Product determine the what, the wrong thing will be built almost one hundred percent of the time. They lack the ability to describe the "what" in a way that's practically achievable. The exact same problem exists with Design.
These people are good at their jobs, but only if they have the humility to admit that they should not be defining requirements on their own.
Development, Product, and Design require an equal voice and agreement on direction for all endeavours. Win together, lose together.
If Product don't include me in requirements gathering at all, it's their fault when it falls apart. That's hubris. It's equivalently my fault if I don't engage them. Engineering should never agree to build anything they didn't have a say in because they actually build it and can find problems with the "what" that were never even dreamt of. Equivalently, the best Product people I've worked with have always had a good idea I hadn't thought of.
Positioning one group to have final authority is a fatal mistake. The final authority already exists naturally - it's cost/benefit/time.
These people are good at their jobs, but only if they have the humility to admit that they should not be defining requirements on their own.
Development, Product, and Design require an equal voice and agreement on direction for all endeavours. Win together, lose together.
If Product don't include me in requirements gathering at all, it's their fault when it falls apart. That's hubris. It's equivalently my fault if I don't engage them. Engineering should never agree to build anything they didn't have a say in because they actually build it and can find problems with the "what" that were never even dreamt of. Equivalently, the best Product people I've worked with have always had a good idea I hadn't thought of.
Positioning one group to have final authority is a fatal mistake. The final authority already exists naturally - it's cost/benefit/time.