Archive

Doctrine

The Why of FlowChain: Deliberate Continuous Improvement

February 19, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Deming, Doctrine, Flow, Flow•gnosis, Flowchain, Improvement, Learning, Memeology, Metaflow, Organisational effectiveness, Prod•gnosis, Product development, Quintessence, Rightshifting, Software Delivery, Software development, Systems thinking, Value streams
Leave a comment

The Why of FlowChain: Deliberate Continuous Improvement

In my career, working with hundreds of companies, I’ve almost never seen organisations* take a truly deliberate approach to continuous improvement. It’s nearly always treated as an afterthought or add-on to business-as-usual (BAU). But real transformation requires making continuous improvement an integral and core part of daily work. This is the “why” behind FlowChain – enabling deliberate, in-band continuous improvement.

In other words, applying the same disciplines from product development, delivery, etc. to the business (sic) of delivering continuous improvements  – continuously improving the way the work works.

What Is FlowChain?

So what is FlowChain? At its core, it is a system for managing flow – both the flow of outputs and the flow of improvements to the way the work works, concurrently and by the same means. And by “flow”, I mean the steady progress of work from request to completion through all steps in a process. Flow is optimised when the right work is happening at the right time by the right people. Roadblocks, delays, and waste are minimised or eliminated.

Flow

Optimising flow delivers the following benefits:

  • Increased productivity – less time wasted, more work completed
  • Improved quality – fewer defects, rework minimised
  • Better customer service – faster response times, reliability
  • Higher employee engagement – less frustration, more joy

But achieving flow requires continuous improvement. Problems must be made visible. Waste must be reduced iteratively. Roadblocks must be cleared continuously.

This is why FlowChain incorporates improvement into its regular rhythm. Each cycle follows a deliberate sequence:

  • Plan – Select and sequence the upcoming work.
  • Execute – Complete the work while tackling issues.
  • Review – Analyse completed work and identify improvements.
  • Adjust – Make changes to improve flow.

Unlike most continuous improvement efforts – that are separate from BAU – FlowChain makes improvement an integral in-band activity. The rapid cycles provide frequent opportunities to reflect, gain insights, and act.

Compounding Benefits

Over time, the compounding benefits are immense. Teams develop a “flow habit”, where improving flow becomes second nature. Powerful capabilities like root cause analysis, A3 problem-solving, improvement katas, and change management are honed.

In my experience, this deliberate approach is transformative. Teams gain tremendous agency to systematically improve their own flow. The organisation as a whole cultivates a culture of continuous improvement. And customers experience ever-better service and responsiveness.

The “why” of FlowChain is simple – create focus, visibility, accountability, and agency to drive continuous improvement. The results – ever better flow, reduced waste, and sustainable transformation. Deliberate, in-band continuous improvement stops being an aspiration and becomes a reality.

*Ask me about the exception.

Universal Incompetence: Navigating Times of Rapid Change

January 2, 2024
Alien tech, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Doctrine
Leave a comment

Universal Incompetence: Navigating Times of Rapid Change

We hear constantly that we live in an era of rapid technological, social, and economic change. With each passing year, new knowledge, innovations and disruptions reshape the world around us in unpredictable ways. In this turbulent environment, it can often feel like no one really knows what they’re doing anymore. Expertise that was highly valued yesterday becomes rapidly obsolete. As a result,the phenomenon of universal incompetence pervades society.

Yet those in leadership positions feel immense pressure to pretend otherwise. Politicians, business executives, middle management, consultants, SMEs, and heads of organisations all desperately try to project an image of competence and preparedness. They spout confident predictions and gloss over their failed responses to emerging crises. No one wants to admit they feel lost and unqualified to lead.

It’s as if we are living in a modern day Emperor’s New Clothes fable. The rapid changes stripping away the competencies of the powerful are evident to all. But no one seems willing to openly state the obvious – the emperor has no clothes. For fear of instability and career suicide, the crowd maintains the illusion of competence at the top.

The great historian of science Thomas Kuhn analysed this phenomenon in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn showed how scientific progress occurs in fits and starts, rather than smoothly over time. Long periods of traditional “normal science” are periodically disrupted by radical innovations that upend existing paradigms. After these paradigm shifts, scientists must scramble to make sense of the new landscape. Even the experts feel like novices, unaware of what knowledge or skills the future may require.

The same pattern applies today outside of science. Technology and social changes are accelerating. Once-useful skills like proficiency with certain assumptions, beliefs and ways of working quickly become irrelevant. Jobs that seemed stable for decades can be automated virtually overnight. Almost no one can keep up with the pace of change or accurately predict what abilities and competencies will be valued next.

This situation leaves individuals, organisations, and society itself feeling lost and directionless. Leaders quietly wonder if they have the right talents and ideas to guide their organisations through turmoil. Educators struggle to prepare students for a future that remains unseen. Citizens feel their democratic institutions have become inadequate and irrelevant for the challenges ahead.

To navigate these rapids of change, we can choose, above all, to embrace humility. The pace of transformation is simply too great for anyone to imagine they have all the answers. Rather than vainly seeking competence, we might choose to strive for openness, flexibility and growth. This mindset will allow us to experiment with new ideas and abandon failed ones quickly as we learn, and as circumstances evolve.

Although the loss of stability is disorienting, it also contains the seeds of opportunity. While incompetence reigns, possibilities abound to craft novel solutions and chart new courses. Our admitted ignorance frees us from old constraints and categories. With a sense of creative curiosity, we can view this time as one of exploration and invention rather than collapse.

The winds of change are blowing fiercely. None of us can hope to grasp them fully. But if we face the future with humility and courage, we may yet build a world where rapid progress need not mean perpetual confusion and turmoil. Even in strange seas, humanity, attending to folks’ needs, and steady hands can show the way.

Idealism in Business

August 3, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Community, Culture change, Doctrine, Ethics
Leave a comment

Idealism in Business

In the complex landscape of modern business, where profits often overshadow principles (and status overshadows profits), a philosophy grounded in ethics stands out as a guiding beacon. Ethical idealism, a concept that merges morality with business practice, is emerging as a pivotal approach that aligns companies with broader societal values. Let’s delve into this concept and explore how it can shape and benefit business.

What is Ethical Idealism?

Ethical idealism is the commitment to a set of moral principles or ideals that guide decisions and actions. In business, it means operating with integrity, fairness, and a consideration for ethical implications beyond mere profit. Ethical idealism is not about a utopian vision; rather, it’s a grounded approach that balances financial goals with moral responsibility.

Integrity and Trust

Businesses that adhere to ethical idealism build a reputation for integrity and trustworthiness. This reputation can lead to increased customer loyalty and a competitive advantage. When a company’s actions reflect its stated values, it resonates with consumers and creates lasting relationships.

Employee Satisfaction and Retention

An organisation that operates on ethical principles provides a working environment that fosters satisfaction and engagement. Employees who believe in the company’s mission and values are more likely to stay committed and contribute to the success of the organisation.

Long-Term Sustainability

Ethical idealism encourages companies to think beyond short-term personal advantage and immediate profits. By focusing on ethical considerations, companies can develop sustainable business practices that minimise harm and maximise positive impact on society and the environment.

Regulatory Compliance

A focus on ethics often goes hand-in-hand with compliance with laws and regulations. An ethical approach ensures that a company adheres to legal requirements, reducing the risk of legal issues that can harm the reputation and financial standing of a business.

Enhancing Stakeholder Relationships

Ethical idealism promotes transparency and openness with the Folks That Matter™, including investors, customers, suppliers, and the wider society. Clear communication about the company’s ethical stance fosters better relationships and collaboration, leading to synergistic benefits.

Conclusion

Ethical idealism is more than a philosophical stance; it’s a tangible strategy that can steer a business towards success. It aligns the pursuit of profit with a commitment to ethical values, building a brand that resonates with customers and creating an organisational culture that engages employees, and indeed all the Folks That Matter™.

In a world increasingly concerned with corporate responsibility and social impact, ethical idealism sets a company apart from competitors. It’s a pathway that leads to long-term success, fostering a business model resilient to the vicissitudes of chance and tuned to the evolving expectations of society.

Indeed, ethical idealism in business is not an obstacle to success but a catalyst, driving companies to operate with conscience and conviction. Those who embrace this approach may find themselves leading the way in a new era of business, where ethical considerations are not just an add-on but an integral part of the corporate identity and strategy.

Talent: Just One More of the Many Delusions in Business

July 28, 2023
Alien tech, Article, Capability development, Culture change, Deming, Doctrine, Fellowship, Improvement, Organisational effectiveness, Productivity, Quintessence, Relationships, Systems thinking
Leave a comment

Talent: Just One More of the Many Delusions in Business

The business world is captivated by talent – an intoxicating attribute that often eclipses other factors. Many leaders believe that by hiring the most talented individuals, they will invariably achieve superior results. This notion, however, can be more delusional than it appears, particularly when viewed through the lens of W. Edwards Deming’s principles and systems thinking.

Deming, a renowned statistician, professor, author, and consultant, is best known for his groundbreaking work in improving production in Japan after World War II. His philosophy champions a systems perspective, emphasising processes, statistical variability, and the importance of culture in an organisation’s performance.

Talent – A Double-Edged Sword

As Deming and systems thinkers would argue, the excessive focus on talent can be misleading, obscuring the importance of organisational systems and culture.

There is a propensity in business to attribute success or failure solely to individual effort and capability, neglecting the critical role of the system within which these individuals operate. When an employee underperforms, it is easy to lay the blame on their lack of talent, rather than investigate systemic issues that may have caused the underperformance. Conversely, when an individual excels, it is tempting to credit their talent alone, ignoring how the system may have enabled their success.

This overemphasis on talent perpetuates what Deming dubbed the “prevailing style of management,” which involves managing by results or objectives, rather than focusing on improving the system. Such an approach can lead to short-term gains but overlooks long-term stability and sustainable growth.

The Power of Systems Thinking

Deming’s philosophy and systems thinking suggest a more holistic approach to understanding performance within organisations. It shifts the focus from individuals (and their talent) to the interconnectedness of components within an organisation, and to the power of interpersonal relationships.

Under this perspective, businesses are viewed as systems composed of interconnected processes. Here, a team’s performance isn’t merely the sum of individual talents; instead, it’s the result of interactions among team members, internal procedures, management practices, and the overall corporate culture.

A systems thinking approach emphasises that most problems and most possibilities for improvement lie in the system, not the individual parts (or talent). It’s estimated that about 94% of performance results from the system, leaving only about 6% attributable to individuals. This insight is a paradigm shift away from our intuitive, but delusional, individual-focused view of performance.

Building Better Business Systems

Recognising the power of systems over individual talent, how should businesses adapt?

Firstly, it’s critical to identify, understand, and improve the systems within which employees work. Rather than overemphasising talent recruitment, focus on the environment that enables or hinders their success.

Secondly, invest in training and development. In Deming’s view, education and continual training are critical to building better systems. Encourage an organisational culture where employees understand and appreciate the systems within which they operate.

Lastly, maintain a focus on continual improvement. Remember that most of the room for improvement lies within the system itself. Foster an environment that encourages questioning, rethinking, and overhauling systems as needed.

Conclusion

Obsession with talent should not distract businesses from the fundamental truth that systems and processes are the primary drivers of performance. Embracing Deming’s philosophy and systems thinking offers a more comprehensive, accurate, and ultimately effective path to long-term business success. Remember, a superstar employee might bring temporary success, but a superb system will bring sustainable growth.

The Hidden Biases That Keep Us Hooked on Management

April 6, 2023
Article, Business, Culture change, Doctrine, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Paradigm shifts, Productivity, Quintessence, Rightshifting
Leave a comment

The Hidden Biases That Keep Us Hooked on Management

💡 Are you tired of relying on the idea of “management” as the default solution to organisational problems?

➡ The strong inclination towards management as a solution for organisational problems can be influenced by bias in a variety of ways. These include:

  • Cultural bias: Western cultures tend to place a high value on individual achievement and personal success, which can lead to a focus on hierarchical management structures as a means of exerting control and achieving results.
  • Confirmation bias: Organisations and individuals may be predisposed to seeing management as the solution to problems, leading them to selectively seek out and interpret information that supports this view.
  • Limited perspectives: Management can be seen as the default solution for organisational problems due to a lack of consideration or awareness of alternative approaches or perspectives.
  • Financial incentives: Financial incentives can create a bias towards management as a solution, particularly among those who stand to benefit financially from its implementation.
  • Management industry: The management industry has a vested interest in promoting management as the solution to organisational problems, which can create a bias towards this approach.

Upton Sinclair’s dictum,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it,”

is particularly relevant in this context. Financial incentives and the influence of the management industry can create a powerful bias towards management as a solution for organisational problems, particularly when individuals stand to benefit financially from its implementation.

To address bias towards management as a solution, it is important to maintain an open mind, seek out diverse perspectives, and evaluate potential solutions based on their effectiveness rather than defaulting to a particular approach. This may involve exploring alternative management styles, such as servant leadership, or considering other approaches to addressing organisational challenges, such as self-organising teams, #Fellowship, and #NoManagement.

By remaining open to new ideas and approaches, organisations can avoid the limitations imposed by bias and better address their challenges and opportunities.

#NoPlanning

July 9, 2022
Alien tech, Capability development, Culture change, Dialogue, Doctrine, NoPlanning, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence
4 Comments

#NoPlanning

I’ve lost count of the number of folks I’ve encountered that see planning as sacrosanct, as gospel. I’ve also lost count of the number of occasions I’ve attempted to broach the subject with offers of e.g. dialogue and mutual exploration, only to be stonewalled.

In support of #NoPlanning, I offer the follow Ackoff quote:

“If you have the capacity for response to the unexpected, then you don’t have to plan for it. The important thing to do then is to continuously increase the capacity to respond to whatever occurs in the future.”

~ Russell Ackoff

I posit that #NoPlanning is the epitome of business agility.

Would you be willing to talk about it?

– Bob

Quintessential Product Development

January 13, 2022
Article, Culture change, Doctrine, Flow, Flow•gnosis, Flowchain, Metaflow, NoSoftware, Organisational effectiveness, Prod•gnosis, Product development, Quintessence, Risk, Value
Leave a comment

Quintessential Product Development 

In my most recent book “Quintessence” I map out the details of what makes for highly effective software development organisations.

As fas as software development organisations are concerned, it’s a bit of a moot point – as software is generally something to be avoided, rather than sought (see also: #NoSoftware).

“The way you get programmer productivity is by eliminating lines of code you have to write. The line of code that’s the fastest to write, that never breaks, that doesn’t need maintenance, is the line you never had to write.”

~ Steve Jobs 

Foundational Concepts

There are just a few complementary concepts that mark out the quintessential product development company. These are:

  • Whole Product.
  • Systematic Product Management.
  • Whole Organisation (systems thinking).

Whole Product

The quintessential product development organisation embraces the concept of “whole product”. Which is to say, these organisations emphasise the need to have every element of a product i.e. core product elements plus a range of “intangibles” – everything that is needed for the customer to have a compelling reason to buy (Mckenna 1986).

Systematic Product Management

Quintessential product development organisations take a systematic approach to flowing new product ideas and features through a number of stages – often in parallel (Ward 1999) – to predictably arrive at a successful new product in the market:

  • Inception – spotting a gap in the market, a.k.a. some (potential customer) needs going unmet, interesting enough to do some discovery.
  • Discovery – uncovering and proving the real needs of customers, the things they value, the likely usability of possible solutions, the feasibility of meeting everyone’s needs, and the viability of a product as a means to these ends. In essence, the key risks facing the proposed product. 
  • Implementation – building a whole product solution, i.e. both core elements and “intangibles”.
  • Launch – Placing the product on sale (or otherwise making it available to customers).
  • Feedback – Seeing how the market responds.
  • Pivot or Augmentation – Acting on feedback to either reposition the solution (in response to unfavourable feedback) or to incrementally update / extend the “whole product” offering to continually strengthen the product’s value proposition and appeal.
  • Cash Cow – Reap the commercial rewards of a strong product and market share.
  • Sunsetting – Wind down the product in a way that meets the ongoing needs of all the Folks That Matter™️ (e.g. continued support, spare parts, etc.; easing customers’ transition to newer products; etc.). 

Whole Organisation

It’s common for organisations to think in terms of silos. A Product Management or Product Development silo being but one more silo in a long and ever-lengthening list. 

In the quintessential organisation, the whole organisation is geared around – amongst other things – the task of regularly and predictably getting new products and new product features/updates out the door and into the hands of customers. In the longer term, new products are the life blood of most organisations, especially in the technology industries.

We only have to look e.g. Toyota and their TPDS (Toyota Product Development System) to see both an example of how this works in practice, and the huge benefits of the whole-organisation approach.

Quintessential product development organisations embrace a range of progressive ideas such as Prod•gnosis and Flow•gnosis.

– Bob

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2013). Product Aikido. [online] Think Different Available at: /wp-content/uploads/2013/04/productaikido041016.pdf [Accessed 13 Jan. 2022].

Mckenna, R. (1986). The Regis Touch: New Marketing Strategies for Uncertain Times. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Perri, M. (2019). Escaping The Build Trap: How Effective Product Management Creates Real Value. O’Reilly.

Ward, A.C. (1999). Toyota’s Principles of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering. [online] MIT Sloan Management Review. Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toyotas-principles-of-setbased-concurrent-engineering/. [Accessed 13 Jan. 2022].

That’s Rich

December 5, 2021
Article, Business, Community, Culture change, Doctrine, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence
Leave a comment

That’s Rich

In most organisations I’ve seen and worked with over the years, the prevailing belief of the Core Group seems to be ”these people (employees) are here to sweat and make us (the Core Group) rich” – where “rich” means ”loadsamoney”.

At Familiar (and some few other organisations I have read about) the prevailing belief was “the organisation is here to make the employees rich”. Where “rich” means “joyful, fulfilled, flourishing as people and community, having their needs attended to”.

See the difference?

Which scenario would you prefer to embrace?

– Bob

What Orgs Want

July 12, 2019
Culture change, Doctrine, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy
Leave a comment

What Orgs Want

Or, more accurately, what organisations need. (Wants and needs are very rarely the same thing).

First off, does it make any sense to talk about what an organisation might need? Sure, we can discuss the needs of the various groups within an organisation – the Core Group, the shareholders, the employees, and so on. And the needs of the individuals involved – not that the subject of individual needs get much airtime in the typical organisation.

NB I recently wrote a post about the needs of some of these groups in “Damn Outcomes!”.

Back at the main theme of this post: what might be the needs of a given organisation?

Well, like individuals, we make sweeping generalisations at our own risk. At least for individuals, we have some guidance in the form of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

From the perspective of Organisational Psychotherapy, an organisation’s needs, whilst fundamental, rarely receive much overt attention. In the course of the therapeutic relationship, the organisation itself may come to a clearer awareness of its own (collective) needs. Those needs may even change and morph as they emerge, become more explicit, and become a valid topic for dialogue and discussion (i.e. ”discussable”).

But we have some basic options for consideration re: the possible needs of an organisation. I wrote about these options some time ago now, in a post entitled “Business Doctrine”. Extrapolating from that post, here’s some possible business (organisational) needs:

  • The need to create and keep customers (Drucker)
  • The need to supply goods and services to customers (serve the needs of the customer) (Drucker)
  • The need to provide a service (Burnett)
  • The need to provide a product or service that people need and do it so well that it’s profitable (Rouse)
  • The need to act as a nexus for a set of contracting relationships among individuals (Jensen and Meckling)
  • The need to optimise transaction costs when coordinating production through market exchange (Coase)
  • The need to serve society (McLaughlin et al)
  • The need to maximise the medium-term earning per share for shareholders (US business schools)
  • The need to make a profit so as to continue to do things or make things for people (Handy)
  • The need to make money (Slater)
  • The need to make a profit (Watkinson Committee)

Given the Rightshifting perspective that the purpose of any given business is more or less unique to a time, a place, and the people involved, we might reasonable say that the needs of any given organisation are also more or less unique to a time, a place, and the people involved.

Summary

To sum up: I choose to believe that organisations, collectively, do have needs. Each organisation is different – it has its own, different and sometime unique needs. The dialogue involved in surfacing any given organisation’s needs brings benefits in and of itself. Absent clarity on those needs, how can the organisation decide on its priorities, on what matters?

– Bob

Further Reading

The Future Of Software-Intensive Product Development – Think Different blog post

 

The Needsscape

September 10, 2018
Antimatter principle, Doctrine, Organisational effectiveness
3 Comments

The Needsscape

-scape

suffix forming nouns

  1. Indicating a scene or view of something, esp. a pictorial representation: seascape, cityscape, soundscape.

Word Origin: Abstracted from “landscape”.

The Essence of Business

Business is, in essence, about attending to folks’ needs. Here’s a quick list of typical needs, to illustrate:

  • The financial needs of the owners and shareholders, and of staff.
  • The particular needs of customers, which the business’s products and services attempt to address.
  • The needs of suppliers for revenues.
  • The needs of wider society for commerce, prosperity, growth of social cohesion and living standards, wealth distribution, and so on.
  • The emotional needs of owners, shareholders, executives, managers and staff (examples: status, self-worth, compassion for others, making a difference, safety, love, esteem, curiosity, joy, learning, accomplishment, contributing to society, etc.).

I use the term “needsscape” to refer to the ever-changing set of Folks That Matter, and their ever-changing sets of needs. (Not all the needs listed above might feature in a given business’s needsscape).

In particular, the term Needsscape, for me, evokes the idea of one or more visualisations of the ever-changing set of Folks That Matter, and their ever-changing sets of needs, including the evolution of those sets over time. And especially visualisations of the current and relevant future set of Folks That Matter, their various sets of current and relevant future needs, and where the business is “at” in terms of attending to those folks and their needs. In other words, making all work (and objectives) visible, including attributes such as progress, status, and other interesting aspects of the work (aspects made interesting due, themselves, to the pertinent set of Folks that Matter, and their needs).

Indeed, all value-adding work is attending to (some) folks’ needs. And all wasted work is work where folks’ needs are undermined.

What value would a real-time (or near real-time) visualisation of the needsscape bring to your group and/or business?

– Bob

Further Reading

English Words Suffixed with -scape ~ Wiktionary entry

The Folks That Matter™

June 22, 2018
Advice Process, Antimatter principle, Dialogue, Doctrine, Engineering, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Software development
4 Comments

The Folks That Matter™

Stakeholders, team members, the Big Team, customers, users – call them what you will, they’re the people that we’re doing the work for. They’re the people to whom we deliver the fruits of our efforts. They’re the people whose reactions – and emotional responses – decide the success or failure of our endeavours.

Personally I like to call them The Folks That Matter™.

By way of example, Here’s a partial list of the groups and individuals that are candidates for inclusion in the set of The Folks That Matter™.

  • Your organisation’s Core Group
  • Your manager
  • Your project manager
  • Senior managers and executives
  • Your dev team
  • Other dev teams
  • Ops people
  • The PMO
  • Testers (when separate from the dev team)
  • QA folks (when present)
  • The Process Group (when separate from the dev teams)
  • Your business sponsor(s)
  • Other people across your organisation
  • Your (end) customer(s) (and their purchasing departments)
  • Commercial partners
  • Regulators
  • Wider Society
  • The Planet (Gaia)

The Interesting Angle

For me, when I’m involved building stuff, I have a need know who we’re trying to please, delight, satisfy, or otherwise engage with and deliver to. I need to know what folks need, and who to ask about the details of those needs, if and when the detail moves to front of mind. I need to know whose needs we can successfully discount when the inevitable resource (time, money, effort) crunches come. Whose needs we can reasonably consider as outside the scope of the endeavour in which we’re involved? And I need some heuristics to guide us in decisions on including, excluding and prioritising folks and their needs.

But there’s something much more interesting than who’s on and who’s off the list of The Folks That Matter™, at any given time. The much more interesting question for me, as an Organisational Psychotherapist, is: What governs the choices? How do folks get added to or removed from the set of The Folks That Matter™? Are the means the product of rational thought, discussion and evolution, or maybe they’ve just happened, or been cargo-culted. And what are the consequences of the prevailing means? What impact do those means have on the success or failure of our endeavours? And therefore on our bottom line?

By way of example, here’s some common means for tackling the question of means:

  • Consensus
  • The Advice Process
  • Autocracy
  • Dictatorship
  • HiPPO
  • Cost of Focus

(Aside: Each collective mindset in the Marshall Model has its own popular choice for these “means”: Autocracy for the Ad-hoc, Dictatorship or HiPPO for the Analytic, Consensus or the Advice Process for the Synergistic, and e.g. Cost of Focus for the Chaordic).

Is it helpful for folks on the dev team to be involved in some way in maintaining or keeping the list of the The Folks That Matter™? Is that possible, in any given organisation? Is the question even discussable?

When Resources Are Limited, Some Folks, Needs, HAVE To Not Matter

And what about the folks that don’t matter (that don’t appear in the set of The Folks That Matter™? I know many readers will baulk at the idea that some folks and their needs don’t matter. But, please, get over yourselves. In any situation where resources are constrained (i.e finite, not infinite), choices HAVE to be made. Lines drawn. Resources committed to some areas and held back or withdrawn from others. How could it be otherwise? Inevitably then, in this particular frame, there must be Folks Who Don’t Matter™.

Cost of Focus

Don Reinertsen states that the Cost of Delay – the financial or economic cost of prioritising one feature over another – is rarely considered in most organisations. Put another way, the way in which delivery priorities are selected and adjusted, the frequency and means of such adjustments, etc., are rarely discussed, and rarely even discussable.

I propose that Cost of Delay is a subset of the wider question stated above. The question of Cost of Focus.

By definition, we are not meeting some needs when we choose to or otherwise exclude certain folks with their particular needs from the set of The Folks That Matter™.

Maybe those excluded folks and their needs are indeed irrelevant, or their exclusion has little impact – financial or otherwise – on the success of our endeavour. But maybe, contrariwise, some of those excluded needs are in fact critical to our “success”. How would we know? The arguments for Cost of Focus are much the same as for its golden child, Cost of Delay.

FWIW, I’ve seen countless projects stumble and “fail” because they inadvertently omitted, or chose to omit, some crucial folks and their needs from the their list of The Folks That Matter™. Get Cost of Delay wrong, and we lose some money. Sometime a little, sometime a lot. Get Cost of Focus wrong, and we more often lose big time. Cost of Focus often has a much more binary impact.

What is Cost of Focus?

Cost of Focus is a way of communicating the impact, on the outcomes we hope to achieve, arising from excluding or including specific folks and their needs. More formally, it is the partial derivative of the total expected value with respect to whose needs we focus on.

“Cost of Delay is the golden key that unlocks many doors. It has an astonishing power to totally transform the mind-set of a development organisation.”

– Donald G. Reinertsen

Similarly, I’d say that unless and until we have a handle on Cost of Focus, the golden key of Cost Of Delay remains firmly beyond our grasp.

Put another way, until we have a means for deciding whose needs to attend to, the particular order in which we attend to those needs (cf. priority, Cost of Delay) is moot.

– Bob

Further Reading

Who Really Matters ~ Art Kleiner

Not Obviously Wrong

May 26, 2018
Culture change, Doctrine, General, Product development, Rightshifting, Software development
Leave a comment

Not Obviously Wrong

What’s obviously wrong in software and product development? The list is continually changing, but here’s some stuff which was not obviously wrong ten or twenty years ago, which has recently become obviously wrong, at least to many people in the world of software development:

Obviously Wrong

  • Big batches and queues of work (aka Waterfall)
  • Utilisation (i.e. keeping resources fully busy)
  • Ignoring stakeholders (a.k.a. The Folks That Matter™)
  • Big Design Up Front (BDUF) (a.k.a. long feedback loops, or none at all)
  • Violence in the workplace
  • The daily commute

And here’s a list of stuff which has not (yet) attained the status of “obviously wrong” – and so appears in the list labelled “Not Obviously Wrong”:

Not Obviously Wrong

  • Estimating (see: #NoEstimates)
  • Management
  • Command and control
  • Telling (ordering) people what to do
  • Leadership
  • Specialisation
  • Cost accounting
  • Projects (see: #NoProjects)
  • Big developments in big chunks with big groups of people
  • Ignoring the costs of delays
  • Testing (a.k.a. inspection)
  • Demanding compliance to defined ways of doing things (a.k.a. process dogma)
  • Separating ownership of the way the work works from the people that do the work
  • Agile
  • SAFe
  • Scrum
  • Kanban Method
  • Ignoring the Cost of (misconceived) Focus
  • Work (as contrasted with e.g. Serious Play)
  • Open plan offices
  • Local optimisations
  • Dress codes (suits, ties, etc.)
  • etc.

How do items get to move from the one list to the other? (note: everyone has their own two lists, and each item moves at different times for different folks). How do your two lists look, at the moment?

Unlearning

Looking at this another way, the obviously wrong list above has items that, although once not obviously wrong, now appear on many folks’ obviously wrong list, having made the transition through e.g. a process of reflection, evaluation, discussion and above all UNLEARNING.

No Hashtags

FWIW, it occurs to me that we might choose to regard the raft of #No… hashtags on Twitter as opportunities to consider in which of our own – and others’ – lists the related (hashtagged) topic appears.

– Bob

Business Development

July 16, 2015
Doctrine, Engineering, Leadership, Organisational effectiveness
2 Comments

Business Development

The word “development” in the phrase “business development” has always meant something very different than in the phrases “product development” or “software development”. The term “business development” is generally taken to mean finding new customers, building customer relationships, and such like. And thus responsibility primarily resides in the Sales & Marketing silo.

Maybe this is one reason why the idea of “developing” a business, in the same sense as developing a product or a software system, is pretty much unknown to business folks. Many’s the time I have invited business folks to consider the merits of taking a “development”approach to the construction and evolution of their business, only to receive little response other than a sea of blank faces.

Which makes me sad, because there’s an enormous amount of “development” practice, expertise and skills available to apply to the challenges of developing a business or other organisation. I’d say that some 80% of the know-how involved in developing products or software systems is directly applicable to “developing” an organisation.

Have you ever suggested to business folks that “development” know-how could have a massive impact on their bottom line? Or otherwise effectively meet many if not all of their core needs? What kind of reactions have you seen?

– Bob

Further Reading

What, Exactly, Is Business Developoment? ~ Scott Pollack
Prod•gnosis In A Nutshell ~ FlowchainSensei

I Love To Play With Organisations

July 12, 2015
Antimatter principle, Community, Doctrine
2 Comments

I Love To Play With Organisations

Having churned through many, many strap lines and personal branding statements over the past few years, I feel I’ve finally found one I like. One I can live by, and attempt to live up to:

“I love to play with organisations.”

I accept it’s a statement open to interpretations other than the one I have in my head. And maybe that ambiguity is a positive, in any case.

It’s The People

To clarify, I love to be involved with communities of people, contributing to what’s alive in those communities and in the people that make them up. I find joy in making and sharing relationships. And in attending to the needs of others. And some joy when that’s reciprocated, too.

I choose to call the nature of my involvements “play”. I accept the risk that some might choose to regard this as frivolous. I’d very much like to rehabilitate the idea of play as something positive, weighty and valuable.

“Accept the fact that we have to treat almost anybody as a volunteer.”

~ Peter Drucker

And what are volunteers but folks who want to play at what they’ve volunteered for?

In Practice

In practice, playing with organisations, for me, means getting involved with people as they work – or better, play – each day. Listening to how they feel and what they guess they and their communities might need.

Playing together with them to see and explore together how their individual needs dovetail into the needs of the communities in which they live, work, and play. And asking the odd (sic) question here and there to invite folks to consider if their current assumptions and modes of working/playing/living best suit their needs, or if there may be other ways, more effective ways, to do that.

I’d go so far as to declare my support for Marshall Rosenberg’s suggestion:

“Don’t do anything that isn’t play.”

~ Marshall Rosenberg

– Bob

Further Reading

Serious Play ~ Michael Schrage
LEGO Serious Play ~ The LEGO Group

Twelve Signs Of A Great Agile Evangelist

April 7, 2015
Agile, Antimatter principle, Coaching, Doctrine
5 Comments

Twelve Signs Of A Great Agile Evangelist

1. Don’t Talk About Agile.

The first rule of evangelising Agile is: You do NOT talk about Agile. The only folks who want to hear the word – or the gory details – will be those who are looking for a badge of some kind. Or for bragging rights at the golf club. Or tyre-kickers. Strong prospects will not be interested in the label, or the details, but rather in the fact that you understand and care about their problems (empathy) and have useful – and proven – solutions for them to apply. Some of these useful solutions may involve Agile things. Shhh. For example: Talk about their business issues, and the issues common to their business domain. Telcos might be interested in better customer service, and better customer experiences when using their online services, apps, etc..

2. Know Your Cause

“Doing Agile” is not much of a cause, really. Even “being Agile” doesn’t quite cut it. Why are you enthused by Agile? Personally, I see it as a means to move folks closer to a workplace – and a way of working – that allows those folks to realise more of their potential and get more of their needs met – whilst seeing others’ (customers, suppliers, managers, shareholders) needs better met, too. For example: “Effective agile means people more engaged with their work, more focussed on our customers – and our customers more engaged with our products.”

3. Get down with your motivation

Whatever it is that motivates you, embrace it. People can sense half-heartedness and dilettantism. For example: “We’ve seen major steps forward in happier workers, and organisations which are a joy to work in, and with.”

4. Work With Fertile Soils

Plant your cause’s seeds in fertile minds. With folks that are ready or at least willing to listen. If they think they know what their problems are, and that their existing strategies are good for addressing those problems, don’t waste your – or their – time. There will be a few folks who are either unaware of their problems – these may listen, or aware but dissatisfied with their current strategies (solutions). For example: Engage with new prospects, equipped with a checklist of those things that you believe signify fertile soils. Make it an early priority to gather the information needed to complete the checklist. If a new prospect rates poorly on the checklist, decline their kind offer to take things further.

5. Connect To Folks’ Needs

Make your cause relevant and specific to individuals and their existing needs. Help them see how your cause is a more effective strategy for them than their existing ways of working, and thinking. Of course, to connect with folks’ needs, you’ll have to attend to (explore) those needs. For example: Ask your contacts in the organisation what they need. Enquire as to whether there might be others they could suggest with whom you might have similar conversations. Discuss how new ways of working might address some of their needs, individually and collectively.

6. Supply Metastrategies

Many folks need help in acquiring a suitable metastrategy or two before they can move on from their existing strategies and adopt the one(s) you are proposing.

7. Be Honest About The Pitfalls

In many sales situations, standard advice is to avoid talking about the negatives. In Agile adoptions, avoiding mention of the pitfalls only sets up the client for failure. As DeMarco and Lister said in Waltzing With Bears “Risk Management is Project Management for grown-ups”. Maybe your audience has few to no adults? Then RUN! For example: Talk about the rates of failure (generally estimated at somewhere between 50% and 95%). Talk about the common failure modes (faux agile, management discomfort and resistance, change fatigue, organisational cognitive dissonance, etc.). And talk about some possible mitigations for those common modes.

8. Talk About The Benefits

What are the benefits? Not the old chestnuts of “faster, cheaper, quicker”. But benefits that directly address their own particular specific pain point(s). For example: “I understand your biggest competitor can add major new features to their flagship product in six weeks or less. With the necessary changes, we believe that your team could do the same, in timescales as short as two weeks.” In my post “Pitching Agile” I describe using The Three Box Monty as a sales tool in “selling agile” to executives.

9. Make The First (Or Next) Step A Small One

The Kanban Method, for example, cunningly says “start where you are”. Although this begs the question – where else could one start? In any case, engage the prospective client in discussing options and help them come up with their own way forward. For example: Visualisation (of a part of the current workflow) or explicitly limiting work-in-progress (recognising current implicit limits) might be places to start.

10. Don’t Try To Motivate People

Rah-rah motivational speeches and miraculous stories are best left for the God Squad. They have an audience that responds to that kind of thing. Use empathy rather that motivation.

11. Be Organised

Wow. Really? Not “appear well-organised” But actually be well-organised. For example: Have standard templates, checklists, and other documents and planning tools ready and to hand for each new prospect. Keep track of contacts, needs, dates, conversations, and so on. Again, clients and prospects can tell when you’re organised.

12. Be Humble

Don’t proselytise dogma. Don’t make grandiose claims. Don’t make any claims at all. Not even when you have ironclad evidence. Evidence rarely sways anyone. Great evangelists connect with people, and their existing needs. If what you’re selling isn’t what they need, then smile, wish them well, and move on.

– Bob

Further Reading

The Art Of The Start ~ Guy Kawasaki
The Art Of Evangelism ~ Guy Kawasaki
Value Forward Selling ~ Paul DiModica

What Is Agile Software Development?

December 22, 2014
Agile, Antimatter principle, Doctrine, Software development
6 Comments

What Is Agile Software Development?

The term “agile” now signifies whatever folks want it to. It’s a term that has achieved widespread recognition within the software development field, and with that recognition, dilution to the point of near meaninglessness.

Agile was (circa 2001) a reaction by a bunch of experienced, senior developers to both the conventional “heavyweight” and widespread “cowboy coding” approaches to writing software prevailing at the time.

Forget about talk of incremental, iterative approaches. Forget about “inspect and adapt”. Forget about “embracing change”. Forget about “quicker development of higher quality software”. Forget about “earlier realisation of investment”. Forget about methods or frameworks like Scrum, Kanban, DSDM, XP, etc.. And forget about practices like sprints, wall-boards, and the whole practices nine yards.

These are all post-hoc rationalisations of one basic truth: The Snowbird folks and their fans – then and now – were fed up with wasting their lives on failed and “challenged” software projects, on make-do-and-mend development, and wanted to do something about the quality of their lives at work. Theirs, and their peers. They felt a need to make more of a difference to the world than then-current software development approaches allowed.

Meeting Their Own Needs

Put another way, their championing of the agile cause was a means for developers everywhere to – rather unilaterally – attend to their own needs, including more closely living their (Theory-Y) values.

Sadly, lacking a whole-system, all-stakeholder, organisational-dynamics perspective, the result was a somewhat parochial thing. A thing that failed to recognise that software and its development rarely exists in isolation, and much more often happens in a context largely outside the control of those folks directly engaged in writing the software.

Now, some fifteen years on, we can see that the insanity – and tragedy – of agile – lies in the Sisyphean task of trying to build effective teams – and ways of working- inside ineffective organisations.

– Bob