Brian Caicco

I lead product design teams to ship clearer, more cohesive experiences, and I use design systems as one of my main levers to do it.

Over 15+ years in UX and product design, I’ve worked in complex, multi-team environments where the real challenge is alignment. I’ve unified fragmented interfaces into a single design system, turned ad-hoc design work into repeatable workflows, and helped product, design, and engineering rally around shared standards that actually get used.

At Capital One, that means setting clear patterns and governance, reducing design and dev rework, and helping teams ship with more confidence and less churn.

My view of design leadership centers on building the conditions where good work ships consistently.

For me, that means:
	•	Putting people before process
	•	Making clarity the default
	•	Focusing on impact vs. activity

I use systems, documentation, and storytelling to make it obvious how design decisions connect to business outcomes.

If you’re wrestling with scaling design quality, making a design system stick, or telling a clearer story about design’s impact, I’m always up for comparing notes.

Director of Product Design

I believe the best products don't just solve problems, they anticipate needs and create moments that make people say, "wow, that just works."

My journey into product management wasn't traditional. I started writing code, building apps for India's GST revolution. But I kept finding myself more excited about the "why" than the "how" - why users struggled, why certain features resonated, why some products became indispensable while others collected digital dust.

That fascination never left. It followed me through scaling payment systems at Razorpay, building AI-powered learning platforms at upGrad, and now to ETS, where I'm helping shape assessment experiences across borders and cultures.

What drives me? The intersection of three things:
- Technology that feels like magic but works like clockwork
- Deep empathy for user struggles and aspirations  
- Data-informed decisions that don't lose sight of human stories

My approach to product is a lot like my approach to CrossFit and cooking: start with fundamentals, iterate relentlessly, measure what matters, and never forget that the goal is progress, not perfection. Both taught me that consistency compounds, small improvements add up, and the best results come from respecting the process.

I'm passionate about AI-powered products, EdTech innovation, and the art of making complex systems simple. Always happy to connect with fellow product enthusiasts, founders building something meaningful, or anyone who wants to swap stories about product challenges over coffee (or debate the best post-workout meal).

Let's connect! 🚀

---
*All views and opinions shared here are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.*

Rishav Gupta

7 Types of Product Managers I have worked with:

1. The Data Paralytic
Has 15 dashboards but still can't make a decision

2. The Stakeholder Expert
Somehow gets everyone to agree (You never see them do it, but it works)

3. The Roadmap Rewriter
Changes priorities every Monday (Calls it "staying agile")

4. The Feature Hoarder
Adds to backlog, never ships (2,847 tickets and counting)

5. The Meeting Assassin
Solves in Slack what others need 6 meetings for

6. The Vision Seller
Can sell anything to anyone (Even features that don't exist yet)

7. The Pessimist Prophet
Predicts every disaster (Always right, never appreciated)

8. The Ship-at-all-costs
"We'll fix it in v2" (There is no v2)

Great products aren't built by one type of PM.

They are built by teams that know when to research, when to ship, and when to just make the call.

The best teams have a mix of all these types.

Which one are you?

Tag a PM who fits one of these types perfectly! 

#ProductManagement #PMLife #ProductStrategy

The “Why” behind the “How” | Product @ ETS

Your best engineers don't respect you.

And they're right not to.

Here's what they see:

You've never written production code.
You don't understand the technical debt you're creating.
You promise timelines they know are impossible.
You change requirements mid-sprint because a customer complained.

Then you talk about “partnership” and “collaboration.”

From their perspective? You're the person making their job harder while taking credit when things ship.

The brutal truth most PMs won't admit:

"Influence without authority" only works if you're bringing real value. Without it, you're just someone with opinions about other people's work.

The engineers who respect you aren't respecting your product skills.
They're respecting that you:

- Actually understand technical constraints
- Fight off stupid requests from sales
- Protect them from context-switching chaos
- Admit when you don't know something

Your fancy frameworks don't matter.
Your prioritization matrix doesn't impress them.
Your user research doesn't change their opinion of you.

What matters: Do you make their job easier or harder?

Most PMs make it harder and wonder why engineers are “difficult.”

So ask yourself: What did I do this week that made my engineers' jobs easier?

If you can't answer that in 10 seconds, that's your problem right there.

The PMs who get defensive reading this? You're exactly who this is for.

The ones nodding along? You already know what to do.

#ProductManagement #Engineering #HardTruths #TechLeadership #PMLife

Every organization has a “pace layer” problem.

And most PMs are optimizing the wrong layer.

Here's what actually happens:

Layer 1 (Fast): Features, experiments, UI changes
Layer 2 (Medium): Positioning, pricing, core workflows
Layer 3 (Slow): Architecture, business model, platform decisions

Most PMs spend 90% of their time on Layer 1.

Because it feels productive.
Because you can show progress weekly.
Because stakeholders can visualize it.

Meanwhile, Layer 3 decisions made 2 years ago are slowly strangling your product.

The database architecture that can't scale.
The pricing model that prevents enterprise expansion.
The platform choice that limits what you can build.

But nobody wants to touch Layer 3 because:

- It's expensive
- It's risky
- It won't show results this quarter
- You can't demo it

So organizations manufacture urgency around Layer 1.

“We need to ship this feature NOW.”
”Competitors are moving faster.”
”This customer needs it urgently.”

The urgency isn't real. It's organizational avoidance of hard, slow problems.

A counterintuitive approach:

Allocate your cognitive energy inversely to what your organization prioritizes.

If everyone's obsessing over Layer 1, you should be thinking about Layer 3.

Not to block Layer 1 work.
But to ensure Layer 1 decisions don't make Layer 3 problems worse.

The questions that matter:

“If we build this feature request, does it lock us into this architecture for another year?”
”Does this pricing exception make enterprise expansion impossible?”
”Are we optimizing this quarter at the expense of next year's options?”

Most product failures aren't from picking the wrong features.
They're from accumulating slow-moving constraints that eventually paralyze you.

What would you fix at Layer 3 if you had the time and mandate to do it?

#ProductManagement #Strategy #TechnicalDebt #SystemsThinking

Most PM negotiations are lost because you speak first after proposing something.

Learn to shut up.

The pattern:

You: “We think this feature will take 6 weeks”
[3 seconds of silence]
You: “But we could maybe do it in 4 if we cut some scope...”

You just negotiated against yourself.

The power move:

You: “We think this feature will take 6 weeks”
[Silence]
[More silence]
[Uncomfortable silence]
Them: “Could we do anything to speed it up?”
You: “Sure, we could reduce scope here and here...”

See the difference?

First scenario: You volunteer the compromise
Second scenario: They ask for the compromise

Psychologically, people value what they ask for more than what's offered.

The technique works everywhere:

- Pricing: “This will cost $50K” [silence] vs. “This will cost $50K... or we could do a smaller version for $30K”
- Timeline: “Ready in Q3” [silence] vs. “Ready in Q3... although we might be able to rush something in Q2”
- Scope: “This includes A, B, C” [silence] vs. “This includes A, B, C... but we could drop C if needed”

Most PMs are so uncomfortable with tension they fill silence with concessions.

The best PMs let others fill the silence with questions.
Then answer those questions.

The rule: After stating your position, count to 10 before speaking again.

It feels eternal.
It's usually 3 seconds.
And it changes the entire negotiation dynamic.

Try it in your next planning meeting.
The silence will feel awkward.
The results won't.

What's a negotiation where you spoke first and regretted it?

#ProductManagement #Negotiation #PMSkills #Leadership #PMLife

taplio

The Battle

Brian Caicco

Rishav Gupta

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreRishav Gupta's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Brian Caicco

Rishav Gupta

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Rishav Gupta's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreRishav Gupta's LinkedIn Performance