We keep debating whether the Product Owner should be technical or business-oriented, as if that were the big decision. It isn't. That debate is already late.
Today products don't just execute features. They learn. They decide. They automate. They take risks.
The PO emerging now is neither technical nor business-oriented. It is systemic. It integrates value, risk, learning and human impact. It decides under uncertainty. And it needs something it almost never gets: real authority.
The question is not whether the PO should know more about technology or business. The question is something else (keep reading and you'll find out) ⬇️
With the arrival of generative AI in real products and services, the classic PO profile falls short. Not obsolete, but insufficient.
The evolution is not about "knowing more about technical matters" or "understanding the business better". It's about managing new types of decisions.
What has really changed
1. The product is no longer just functionality
It now includes AI models, data quality, decision automation, ethical-legal impact and reputational risk.
→ The PO no longer prioritizes only features. It prioritizes system behaviors.
2. The backlog has lost its deterministic nature
Before: "If we do X, Y happens." Now: "If we train with this data, the system learns... but we don't exactly control how it will behave."
This requires a PO capable of:
Working with structural uncertainty Prioritizing experiments, not just deliverables Measuring value in learning, not just in output
3. A new responsibility emerges: governance
Although the framework doesn't say it explicitly, today the PO decides:
What to automate and what not to Where we allow AI to make decisions What risks we take on
If the PO doesn't understand this, someone else will decide for them: legal, IT or management. Usually late and badly.
The new PO profile (real, not ideal)
It is neither a "technical PO" nor a "business PO". It is a systemic PO who:
*- Understands the product as a sociotechnical system
- Communicates fluently with engineering, data/AI, legal and business
- Prioritizes with broadened criteria: value, risk, learning, sustainability and human impact*
It doesn't execute everything, but it integrates everything.
The mistake I see right now
Many organizations react by creating:
An "AI Product Owner" A "Technical Product Owner" A "bridge role"
→ The same old mistake: fragmenting responsibility.
The evolution is not about creating more roles. It's about:
Redefining the PO's mandate Clarifying which decisions belong to them Giving them the real capacity to say "no"
Opinion: The PO role has evolved, not because AI exists, but because complexity can no longer be ignored.
The current PO needs:
*- Less extreme specialization, more judgement
- More capacity to make decisions under uncertainty
- More real organizational backing*
And here comes the uncomfortable question:
Are we evolving the PO role, or just loading it with more responsibility without changing the system?
That is the real bottleneck.
Comments (2)
Log in to your Scrum Manager area to comment
Guest
28 Jan 2026 08:15The Evolution of the Product Owner: From Technical/Business Role to Systemic Role
Dear Jorge Sánchez López, your analysis shows a key point: the debate over whether the Product Owner should be technical or business-oriented is already behind us. Today the real challenge is managing products as sociotechnical systems, where AI, automation, and reputational risk are part of everyday work.
The current PO faces decisions under structural uncertainty. They no longer prioritize only features, but also system behaviors, ethical-legal impact, and sustainability. The lack of real authority limits their ability to protect value and organizational resilience.
Action proposal based on good practices:
- Redefine the PO's mandate, giving them real decision-making capacity.
- Integrate expanded criteria: value, risk, learning, human impact.
- Establish an agile governance framework that backs their decisions against management, legal, and IT.
- Train POs with a systemic vision, capable of dialoguing with engineering, data/AI, business, and compliance.
The role of the PO has evolved because complexity can no longer be ignored. The real bottleneck is not in the profile, but in the organizational system that still doesn't provide support for it. The lesson is clear: without authority and governance, the PO will keep accumulating responsibilities without the power to turn the product into an engine of trust and sustainability.ility.
La evolución del Product Owner: de técnico/negocio a rol sistémico
Estimado Jorge Sánchez López, tu análisis devidencia un punto clave: el debate sobre si el Product Owner debe ser técnico o de negocio ya quedó atrás. Hoy el verdadero reto es gestionar productos como sistemas sociotécnicos, donde la IA, la automatización y el riesgo reputacional forman parte del día a día.
El PO actual enfrenta decisiones bajo incertidumbre estructural. Ya no prioriza solo funcionalidades, sino comportamientos del sistema, impacto ético-legal y sostenibilidad. La falta de autoridad real limita su capacidad de proteger el valor y la resiliencia organizacional.
Propuesta de acción desde buenas prácticas:
- Redefinir el mandato del PO, otorgándole capacidad real de decisión.
- Integrar criterios ampliados: valor, riesgo, aprendizaje, impacto humano.
- Establecer un marco de gobernanza ágil que respalde sus decisiones frente a dirección, legal y TI.
- Formar PO con visión sistémica, capaces de dialogar con ingeniería, data/IA, negocio y compliance.
La figura del PO ha evolucionado porque la complejidad ya no se puede ignorar. El verdadero cuello de botella no está en el perfil, sino en el sistema organizativo que aún no le da respaldo. La lección es clara: sin autoridad y gobernanza, el PO seguirá acumulando responsabilidades sin poder transformar el producto en un motor de confianza y sostenibilidad.ilidad.
Automatic translation · View original
Jorge Sánchez López ★★★
31 Jan 2026 00:06The evolution of the PO isn't happening in training or in the theoretical framework.
It's happening in the real organizational contract that surrounds it.
As long as that doesn't change, it doesn't matter what we call it.
We'll keep having well-trained POs… trapped in systems that don't let them make decisions.
And here I do agree with you: the bottleneck is the organizational system.
But not so much because of a lack of "backing", rather because of a lack of coherence between what is declared and what is allowed in practice.
Responsibility gets expanded.
Authority doesn't.
And then accountability is demanded as if both things went hand in hand.
The question I'm really interested in is this:
Have you seen any organization that has truly changed this?
Not in the rhetoric, not in the slides… but in day-to-day operations, when there's risk, pressure, and conflict of interest.
That's where you can see whether the role has actually evolved or has just been dressed up.
La evolución del PO no se juega en la formación ni en el marco teórico.
Se juega en el contrato organizativo real que lo rodea.
Mientras eso no cambie, da igual cómo lo llamemos.
Seguiremos teniendo POs bien formados… atrapados en sistemas que no les dejan decidir.
Y aquí sí estoy de acuerdo contigo: el cuello de botella es el sistema organizativo.
Pero no tanto por falta de “respaldo”, sino por falta de coherencia entre lo que se declara y lo que se permite en la práctica.
Se amplía la responsabilidad.
No se amplía la autoridad.
Y luego se pide rendición de cuentas como si ambas cosas fueran de la mano.
La pregunta que me interesa de verdad es esta:
¿Has visto alguna organización que haya cambiado esto de forma real?
No en el discurso, no en la slide… sino en la operativa diaria, cuando hay riesgo, presión y conflicto de intereses.
Ahí es donde se ve si el rol ha evolucionado o solo se ha maquillado.
Automatic translation · View original