A-01 · Subject
Shinji Suginobe
I joined the fictional Tsumihana Broadcasting in April 1989, a month after completing information design at Kiyosane Institute.
Specification
| Ref. | Measure | Value | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S-01 | Product career from broadcasting to connectivity | 37 years | April 1989 to October 2026; five appointments across two fictional employers. |
| S-02 | Colleagues in my present product remit | 164 | Seven direct reports; the wider company employs 6200 people. |
| S-03 | 2026 delegated function expense | JPY 2.9 bn | Separate from JPY 348 billion calendar-year 2025 company revenue and network investment authority. |
| S-04 | Statutory board appointments | 0 | Executive presentations from July 2020; an outside seat would require first-appointment preparation. |
Modules of expertise
Career elevation
Stage 05 · July 2020 — present
Hoshinora Communications
I lead 164 colleagues through seven direct reports with JPY 2.9 billion 2026 expense, examining household moves, room-level needs and service-change journeys.
Stage 04 · July 2013 — June 2020
Hoshinora Communications
My 2019 remit covered ninety-six colleagues, five direct reports and JPY 1.7 billion annual expense, including a separate pause route for a television add-on.
Stage 03 · April 2005 — June 2013
Hoshinora Communications
I led fifty-one colleagues through four direct reports with JPY 620 million 2012 expense, developing household propositions with distinct viewing and account roles.
Stage 02 · July 1997 — March 2005
Tsumihana Broadcasting
I managed twenty-four colleagues through three direct reports with JPY 160 million 2004 expense and changed migration logic that discarded customised favourites.
Stage 01 · April 1989 — June 1997
Tsumihana Broadcasting
I began in an eleven-person analysis group after information design, without independent expenditure or line-management authority.
Detail drawings
01Detail
The moving-service prototype at Hoshinora Communications began with a same-day change from one address to another. It was easy to describe and aligned with a simple product workflow. A review involving one hundred households showed another situation: sixty-one wanted a seven-day overlap between homes, while thirty-nine wanted the same-day route. Some people needed to organise life across two locations before the move was complete. The product should not have treated that period as an exception merely because the catalogue preferred one change date. Keisuke Naruhase favoured retaining one route and letting service colleagues handle the overlap requests individually. He wanted to avoid a more complicated proposition before its demand was clearer. I thought the sixty-one accounts were enough to justify developing the second path explicitly, while still preserving the operational assessments required for an actual connection. A product route can recognise a customer situation without pretending to resolve installation or activation in advance. We supported JPY 210 million development of two paths. The overlap choice specified a seven-day period in the prototype account, while the same-day choice remained available. A later eighty-household pilot recorded forty-nine overlap selections and thirty-one same-day selections. Those were product choices within the pilot, not a report that every installation had occurred on schedule or that service had been uninterrupted at both addresses. The change cost us the simplicity of one journey and required clearer coordination with the teams responsible for the real service conditions. We had to explain what the customer was selecting, what still needed confirmation and who would provide it. I wanted that work inside the product rather than leave households to reconstruct an alternative through separate contacts after encountering an unsuitable default. The lesson was that moving is sometimes a period rather than a moment. The product did not need to assume every household moved in the same way, nor could it use the preference evidence to promise every operational outcome. Its contribution was a more accurate starting account of the transition, with the remaining responsibilities visible instead of concealed behind an apparently simple switch.
02Detail
At Tsumihana Broadcasting I approved a package-migration design that reset preferences when a profile moved into the new package configuration. The clean starting state made the transition easier to describe internally. A 120-profile test exposed the consequence: thirty-eight customised favourites were reset, while eighty-two default profiles were unaffected. The test could not be summarised as a successful package change without acknowledging the customer work the reset had discarded. Mirei Hatamori challenged my assumption that a changed package justified rebuilding the preference state. My first response focused on the simplicity of one reset path and the possibility that users could select favourites again. She asked why the product should require that repetition when retaining their choices was part of what they reasonably expected from a continuing service. The decision being questioned was mine, not an unexplained technical constraint imposed elsewhere. We allocated JPY 28 million to preserve preferences through the change and identify unresolved mappings. A later fifty-four-profile exercise produced forty-nine mapped profiles and five requiring manual review. I kept those five in the release discussion rather than use the majority result to describe every migration as complete. The work concerned a defined preference transition, not a finding about all customer data or a general assurance of error-free change. The revised approach gave up the simplicity of discarding state and starting again. Product and design colleagues needed a clearer account of what could continue and how an exception would be handled. That additional work was the consequence of treating the customer’s earlier choices as part of the service relationship rather than as decoration around the package entitlement. I retain this case because it shows how an internal notion of a tidy transition can impose hidden effort on the user. The eighty-two default profiles made the reset look harmless in much of the test. The thirty-eight customised ones showed why that was the wrong conclusion. A product leader needs to examine the person whose prior work is lost, even when a large part of the test appears unaffected by the same decision.
03Detail
A household media proposition had initially treated one shared profile as the natural companion to one account. The account administrator would manage the bill, and the product design assumed that the viewing arrangement should follow the same household boundary. In a sixty-household review, twenty-two wanted separate viewing profiles and thirty-eight preferred a shared one. The administrative unit was not a complete description of the way the service would be used. Keisuke Naruhase supported the shared default because it was easier to introduce and kept the product explanation short. I understood that advantage. I did not think it justified making the twenty-two households reconstruct their preferred arrangement outside the supported proposition. They were describing a different organisation of the viewing experience, not necessarily asking for separate bills or another commercial account. We supported JPY 94 million for optional individual profiles while retaining the shared route. Product work had to describe which preferences belonged to a viewing profile and which responsibilities remained with account administration. The technical implementation and the applicable privacy and permission questions required their own specialist assessment. The decision did not itself establish legal compliance or authorise a particular handling of real household information. The trade-off was a more differentiated product account and additional design work around the relationship between profiles and administration. We could no longer let the phrase one household do all the explanatory work. The result recorded here is the supported choice of profile arrangement, with the sixty-household observation kept within its reviewed scope. It is not evidence that separate profiles are preferred everywhere or that a particular arrangement improves retention. The case shaped how I examine bundles. A commercial unit, an administrator and an individual experience may be connected, but they are not automatically identical. The product should explain the relationship it has chosen rather than allow convenience in one part of the service to determine another without examination. That makes the offer more understandable while keeping the remaining specialist decisions where they belong.
04Detail
The household portfolio bundled a television add-on with the continuing broadband relationship. In the 2018 review, thirty of eighty participating households described seasonal use of the add-on and fifty described year-round use. The product-change journey had made it difficult to express the first situation without reconsidering the larger bundle. That was an internal packaging convenience which did not necessarily reflect how the household used its connection. Mirei Hatamori wanted a separate pause route for the add-on. The opposing view was that another state would complicate the product and its explanation, while the bundle was easier to maintain as one continuing offer. I accepted the cost of another state but disagreed with making the household’s seasonal viewing pattern determine the treatment of its broadband service. The two uses were connected commercially without being identical in the customer’s life. We funded JPY 180 million to develop a distinct add-on pause path. The product account had to say what paused, what continued and which conditions applied to the change. A sixty-four-household pilot recorded twenty-five choosing the pause and thirty-nine leaving the add-on active. Those choices did not establish a reduction in churn or prove that all seasonal viewers would prefer the same arrangement. The decision gave up some simplicity in the bundle catalogue and required a more explicit transition account. It did not provide advice about an actual subscriber’s contract or assert a right to pause a real service. The relevant commercial, operating and specialist reviews remained necessary for a live proposition. The case records what we chose to support and the pilot-stage evidence around it. I see the work as a reminder that a product boundary is a choice, not a fact about the household. Two services can appear on one bill while serving different rhythms. A CPO should be prepared to examine whether a convenient bundle is still helping people navigate change or is asking them to alter a service they want to keep simply to adjust another they use differently.
05Detail
The needs review contained 125 homes. Eighty accounts concerned a desired connection-tier change; forty-five described weak coverage in a particular room. Both could reach the product through a request for better internet, but they did not establish the same underlying need. A higher-tier option was easier to present from the existing catalogue. It was not a sufficient product response to every room-experience account. Keisuke Naruhase favoured keeping the initial journey centred on tier selection and allowing support teams to identify other issues later. I thought that risked making the commercial choice appear to answer a question the product had not examined. In-home wireless experience can depend on router, device and building conditions as well as the connection. The household’s report was not an engineering diagnosis, but it was enough to justify another route for finding out what required attention. We supported JPY 260 million for a separate coverage-assessment path alongside tier selection. Product colleagues had to describe why the route existed and what it would establish before any stronger service claim could be made. Engineering and support teams retained assessment of the actual conditions. We did not promise that a particular package or device would produce the same performance in every room. The choice added complexity to a journey that could otherwise have looked commercially straightforward. It also removed the apparent convenience of treating all 125 accounts as candidates for the same kind of upgrade. The eighty and forty-five figures describe stated needs in the review, not confirmed faults, completed installations or measured performance improvements after an intervention. The product lesson is about directing the question appropriately. A broad customer phrase can contain different situations, and the catalogue should not determine which situation the person is assumed to have. I want the proposition to help the household understand what is being considered and which assessment remains, rather than let the most easily purchased option become the answer before the actual room experience has been examined.
Peer review
Shinji did not defend the reset he had approved when our migration test erased customised favourites. He asked the team to preserve the customer’s work and kept the unresolved mappings visible after revision.
I wanted a single moving-service path. Shinji made the overlap between two homes part of the proposition, while keeping the installation and actual activation decisions separate from the product choice.
Working notes
I consider why the address-change journey should begin with the household’s actual transition, while keeping product choice separate from installation and network commitments.
Read the essayI revisit the reset logic I approved, the favourites it removed and the difference between moving a package and preserving the experience someone has built around it.
Read the essayI distinguish a connection-tier choice from a household’s experience inside the home, and explain why a product route should establish the question before presenting an upgrade.
Read the essayAn invitation
I would discuss household subscription design, product transitions or a possible first-board contribution where the question fits this experience. Outside work would require employer agreement and a review of the relevant commercial relationships. The examples are fictional and do not recommend a connectivity package, interpret a customer contract or certify service performance.
office@shinjisuginobe.example