[Or – what’s all this business improvement malarkey, and what’s in it for me?]

Waning Interest Post-Pandemic

As we’ve learned to live with COVID, much has changed in how businesses operate. Remote work is now the norm rather than the exception. Supply chains have been disrupted. Customer behaviours have shifted significantly. In the midst of this turbulence, it feels like interest in business improvement initiatives has waned and taken a backseat.

Survival Mode

The sluggish economy and persistent inflation have put many companies in survival mode, just trying to keep the lights on. Ambitious programmes to reengineer the way the work works, implement new systems, or drive improved effectiveness now feel like costly distractions. After all the chaos of the last few years, who has the bandwidth for that right now?

The Personal Upside

While the economic arguments for deprioritising business improvement are understandable, I think we’re missing something important – the personal upside. Streamlining operations, updating shared assumptions and beliefs, developing better practices, and finding ways to work smarter don’t just benefit the business. They allow each of us to be more successful and fulfilled as individuals.

The Costs of Inefficiency

Think about it – what does bloated, inefficient business activity translate to on a personal level? Wasted time on tedious manual tasks. Constant firefighting and rework thanks to poor ways of working. Headaches and frustrations navigating clunky systems and workarounds. At its worst, organisational dysfunction mentally drains and demotivates employees to the point they burn out or quit.

The Benefits for Individuals

On the flip side, smart business improvements that simplify and optimise how we execute allow us to flow through high-value work with less friction. We spend more time on the energising aspects of our roles utilising our skills and making an impact. Our days feel more productive and purposeful rather than mired in busywork and cleanup. More gets done, with less expended effort.And we learn.

From streamlined reporting that saves hours a week, to improved workflows that reduce costly errors, to delighting customers through superior service – the personal benefits of working at a well-oiled operation are massive in terms of satisfaction, growth, and work-life balance.

The Workplace Attraction Issue

Given the intensely competitive landscape for people, any organisation looking to attract and retain commited and engaged people might choose to prioritise continuous improvement as part of their employee value proposition. When people can channel their energies into engaging, rewarding work day after day, that’s when we build exceptional teams delivering exceptional results.

Don’t Brush It Aside

So don’t just brush business improvement aside as a nice-to-have these days. See it as key driver of personal success and engagement, helping your teams flourish while fuelling joy and delight in the (distributed) workplace.

Introduction

In today’s knowledge-driven economy, the nature of work has evolved significantly. Collaborative Knowledge Work (CKW) has emerged as a distinct category, requiring a tailored approach to management and organisational practices. However, most organisations continue to miscategorise CKW as e.g. regular office work, leading to a host of unintended consequences that undermine productivity, innovation, and employee engagement.

These consequences include:

• Incompatible work environments that hinder collaboration and creativity
• Ineffective management approaches that stifle autonomy and learning
• Lack of support for the collaboration essential to knowledge sharing
• Misaligned performance evaluation metrics not suited to complex knowledge work
• Insufficient professional development opportunities for continuously evolving skills
• Talent retention challenges due to unfulfilled expectations of growth and autonomy
• Stifled innovation potential from overlooking the need for experimentation

Incompatible Work Environments

CKW often necessitates specific spaces and tools that foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and creative thinking. Treating it as regular office work may lead to an inadequate work environment that hinders productivity and stifles innovation. Open spaces, whiteboards, and collaborative technologies are essential for CKW, but they may not be prioritised if the work is miscategorised.

Ineffective Management Approaches

CKW requires different management approaches compared to traditional office work. It emphasises autonomy, flexibility, and continuous learning. Applying conventional command-and-control management styles can demotivate knowledge workers and curb their creativity. CKW thrives in an environment that encourages self-direction, experimentation, and personal growth.

Lack of Collaboration Support

CKW heavily relies on effective collaboration and knowledge sharing among team members. Miscategorising it as office work may result in a lack of investment in collaboration tools, platforms, and processes, ultimately hindering the flow of knowledge and ideas. Without proper support for collaboration, the synergies that drive innovation and problem-solving may be lost.

Misaligned Performance Evaluation

CKW often involves tasks that are complex, non-routine, and difficult to measure using traditional metrics. Evaluating CKW workers based on metrics designed for office work can lead to inaccurate assessments and demotivation. Organisations must develop tailored performance evaluation systems that capture the nuances of knowledge work and reward creativity, problem-solving, and continuous learning.

Insufficient Professional Development

CKW requires continuous learning and skill development due to the rapidly changing nature of knowledge work. Treating it as office work may result in insufficient training and development opportunities, leading to obsolete skills and decreased competitiveness. Organisations must prioritise professional development and foster a culture of lifelong learning to ensure their knowledge workers remain at the forefront of their fields.

Talent Retention Challenges

CKW professionals often value autonomy, challenging work, and opportunities for growth. Misclassifying their work as office work may fail to meet their expectations, leading to higher turnover rates and difficulties in attracting top talent. Organisations that recognise and cater to the unique needs of CKW are better positioned to retain and attract the best knowledge workers.

Stifled Innovation Potential

CKW is often associated with the creation of new knowledge, ideas, and solutions. Treating it as routine office work may overlook the potential for innovation and the need to foster a culture that encourages experimentation and risk-taking. By failing to recognise the innovative potential of CKW, organisations may miss out on opportunities for growth, competitive advantage, and market leadership.

Conclusion

In an era where knowledge is a prized asset, organisations migh choose to recognise the unique nature of Collaborative Knowledge Work and provide the necessary support, resources, and management practices tailored to the specific needs of teams of knowledge workers. Failure to do so leads to a cascade of consequences that undermine productivity, innovation, and employee engagement, ultimately hindering an organisation’s ability to thrive in a rapidly changing business landscape.

In the world of organisational improvement and performance enhancement, W. Edwards Deming’s principles have had a profound impact. One of his most famous principles, the 95/5 rule, suggests that 95% of performance issues are attributable to the system and processes, while only 5% are due to the individual worker. This principle has however not led many organisations to prioritise systemic changes over individual development initiatives. So does Deming’s 95/5 principle entirely negate the value of individual coaching? Let’s explore.

The 95/5 Principle: Putting Systems First

According to Deming’s 95/5 principle, the vast majority of performance problems stem from flawed organisational systems, processes, and cultures. Focusing on individual skill development or coaching would be akin to treating the symptoms without addressing the root cause. Deming advocated for a systems thinking approach, wherein organisations critically examine and optimise their practices, policies, and culture to create an environment conducive to success.

In the context of collaborative knowledge work, this principle suggests that individual coaching efforts will have limited impact when the underlying organisational systems and processes are not optimised for effective collaboration, knowledge sharing, and collective problem-solving.

The Shortcomings of Individual Coaching

Proponents of Deming’s philosophy argue that individual coaching alone is insufficient in addressing performance issues within collaborative knowledge work environments. Even if individuals receive coaching to enhance their communication, teamwork, or creative thinking skills, these efforts will be undermined or rendered ineffective when the systems and culture within which they operate are counterproductive or siloed.

For example, imagine a scenario where knowledge workers receive coaching on effective knowledge sharing practices, but the organisation lacks a robust knowledge management system or has rigid hierarchical structures that discourage cross-functional collaboration. In such cases, the individual coaching will yield limited results due to systemic barriers.

Organisational Transformation: The Key to Collaborative Success

According to Deming’s principle, our primary focus should be on transforming organisational systems and culture to foster an environment conducive to collaborative knowledge work. This could involve:

• Optimizing communication channels and knowledge sharing platforms
• Breaking down departmental silos and promoting cross-functional collaboration
• Fostering a culture of continuous learning and improvement
• Implementing agile and flexible processes that adapt to changing needs
• Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms
• Organisational psychotherapy – enabling the organisation to surface and reflect on its shared assumptions and beliefs

By prioritising systemic changes, organisations create an enabling environment where individuals can thrive and collaborate effectively, minimising the need for extensive individual coaching.

The Verdict: Individual Coaching Has Limited Value

While individual coaching may provide some marginal benefits, Deming’s 95/5 principle suggests that it has limited value in the grand scheme of enhancing collaborative knowledge work. Organisations that solely rely on individual coaching initiatives without addressing the underlying systemic issues will experience suboptimal results and inefficiencies.

The path to success lies in embracing a systems thinking approach, transforming organisational assumptions and beliefs, structures, and culture to create an environment that fosters collaboration, knowledge sharing, and collective problem-solving. Only then can organisations unlock the full potential of their knowledge workers and achieve sustainable performance improvements.

In conclusion, Deming’s 95/5 principle entirely negates the value of individual coaching as a standalone solution for enhancing collaborative knowledge work. Instead, it calls for a fundamental shift towards organisational transformation, where systemic changes wrought through i.e. organisational psychotherapy take precedence over individual development initiatives.

Introduction

In the relentless pursuit of delivering value to customers, with unparalleled speed and reliability, the software development world has yet to widely embrace a revolutionary principle – the “Constant State of Ship”. This state, where software artefacts and products are perpetually poised for release into production environments within just 15 minutes’ notice, has emerged as a driving force behind best practices that enable true continuous deployment. Remarkably, this groundbreaking concept formed the foundation of the pioneering “Javelin” software development approach, a visionary approach conceived by FlowChainSensei (Bob Marshall) at Familiar circa 1996 and onwards, foreshadowing the industry’s even-now-yet-to-be-realised embrace of these practices.

The Power of “Constant State of Ship”

The “Constant State of Ship” serves us as an unyielding forcing function, inviting teams to adopt and adhere to a comprehensive set of best practices that catalyse the seamless flow of software into production. Let us explore how this principle reinforces each of thirteen fundamentals of Continuous Delivery (hat tip to Dave Farley):

The 13 Fundamentals Enabled

1. A Repeatable, Reliable ProcessWith the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams may choose to establish a well-defined, automated pipeline for building, testing, and deploying their software. This process needs to be repeatable and reliable, minimising the risk of human error and ensuring consistency across releases.

   The “Constant State of Ship” mindset suggests that teams have a streamlined, automated release pipeline that can be triggered at any moment. Manual steps and ad-hoc and emergency exception procedures become liabilities, as they introduce variability and increase the chances of mistakes during deployment.

   To achieve this repeatability and reliability, teams are supported to invest in build automation tools, automated testing frameworks, and deployment automation pipelines. Every step of the release pipeline can be codified, documented, and thoroughly tested to ensure predictable outcomes each time.

   Moreover, the “Constant State of Ship” principle fosters an environment of continuous learning and improvement. Any failures or issues encountered during a release are promptly analysed, and the release process is refined to prevent future occurrences. This cycle of continuous feedback and optimisation ensures that the release pipeline remains reliable and efficient, even as the codebase and systems evolve over time.

   By operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode, teams are invited to treat the release pipeline as a critical component of their software development lifecycle, investing the necessary resources and effort to make it repeatable, reliable, and capable of delivering changes to production environments at a moment’s notice.

2. Automate All the ThingsIn a “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, manual interventions become significant bottlenecks and risks, hindering the required velocity and reliability. Automation becomes imperative, spanning every aspect of the delivery pipeline, from code compilation to infrastructure provisioning. The threat of an imminent release leaves no room for error-prone manual processes that could delay or derail a deployment. Teams must automate build processes, test execution, environment provisioning, deployment steps, and release orchestration to ensure consistency and minimise the risk of human error.
3. Maintain a Releasable StateThe core tenet of “Constant State of Ship” requires that the codebase and associated artifacts remain in a perpetually releasable state. This principle invites teams to address issues promptly, maintain a high level of code quality, and vigilantly consider the accumulation of technical debt. Any defects, bugs, or instabilities in the codebase could potentially disrupt an imminent release, leading to costly delays or failures. Teams must adopt practices like continuous integration, automated testing, and ensemble programming to ensure that the codebase remains in a stable, deployable state at all times.
4. Focus on Robust (Real) Quality Assurance

   In the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, where the possibility of demand for an immediate release is ever-present, quality assurance cannot be treated as an afterthought. “Constant State of Ship” invites the integration of quality practices throughout the entire development lifecycle, ensuring that quality is baked into the software from inception to deployment.

   While testing plays a role, it is merely one facet of a comprehensive quality assurance strategy. Teams may choose to adopt a holistic approach that emphasises quality as a continuous, pervasive practice woven into every aspect of the development approach.

   This begins with cultivating a culture of quality-driven development, where every team member participates in collective ownership and responsibility for the quality of their work. Practices such as clarity of (quantified a la Gilb) requirements, ensemble programming, peer code reviews, adherence to coding standards, and continuous static code analysis can help identify and mitigate potential issues early in the development cycle.

   Furthermore, “Constant State of Ship” invites teams to embrace principles of iterative and incremental development. By breaking down complex features into smaller, manageable, well-bounded increments, teams can more effectively manage quality risks and ensure that each increment and subsystem meets the required quality criteria before progressing to the next.

   Continuous integration and deployment pipelines play a pivotal role in this quality assurance strategy, enabling teams to continuously validate and verify the software’s functionality, performance, and stability with each incremental change. These pipelines automate the execution of various quality checks, including unit tests, integration tests, and performance tests, providing real-time feedback and enabling teams to address issues promptly.

   However, quality assurance extends beyond mere testing alone. Teams have the opportunity to adopt a holistic approach that encompasses design practices, architectural decisions, and operational readiness. By considering quality implications at every stage of the software development lifecycle, teams can proactively identify and mitigate potential risks, ensuring that the software remains in a releasable state at all times.

   “Constant State of Ship” elevates quality assurance to a core discipline that permeates every aspect of the software development effort. By fostering a culture of quality-driven development and adopting continuous quality practices, teams can attend to the needs of all the Folks That Matter, with confidence, knowing that their software meets the highest standards of reliability, stability, and performance.

5. Implement Robust Deployment PipelinesAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” necessitates the implementation of robust deployment pipelines. These pipelines automate the entire process of building, testing, and deploying software changes, ensuring consistency and minimizing the risk of errors. With the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams cannot afford manual, error-prone deployment processes. Automated deployment pipelines provide a standardised, repeatable path to production, reducing the likelihood of failed or inconsistent deployments.
6. Monitor the PipelineRegular smoke testing of the deployment pipeline is crucial in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. This practice helps catch issues early, before they can impact production environments, ensuring the pipeline’s reliability and preventing costly downtime. The possibility of an imminent release amplifies the importance of having a thoroughly validated deployment pipeline. Smoke tests act as a safety net, verifying the integrity of the pipeline and identifying any potential issues that could disrupt a deployment.
7. Integrate ConstantlyThe “Constant State of Ship” mindset encourages teams to integrate their changes frequently, often multiple times per day. This practice surfaces issues early, reduces merge conflicts, and ensures that the codebase remains in a releasable state, ready for deployment at any given moment. Infrequent integration can lead to divergent codebases, making it harder to identify and resolve conflicts, which could potentially disrupt an imminent release. By integrating frequently, teams can maintain a stable, unified codebase that is always primed for deployment.
8. Evolve the ArchitectureMaintaining a “Constant State of Ship” over time invites the continuous evolution of the system’s architecture (see also: Reverse Conway). Are teams prepared to refactor and adapt their architectures to accommodate new requirements, technologies, and scaling needs, without compromising the ability to release rapidly and reliably? As products grow and evolve, architectural decisions made early on may become hindrances to continuous deployment. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites teams to proactively evaluate and evolve their architectures, ensuring that they remain flexible, scalable, and conducive to rapid releases.
9. Leverage Data EnvironmentsWith the constant possibility of an imminent release, the ability to provision and manage data environments becomes critical. Teams may choose to adopt practices like database versioning, data seeding, and data masking to ensure consistent and reliable testing and deployment across environments, minimising the risk of data-related issues in production. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a robust data management strategy that enables seamless and repeatable deployments, regardless of the data complexities involved.
10. Mirror Production EnvironmentsTo minimise the risk of issues arising from environmental differences, teams operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode may choose to ensure that their development, testing, and staging environments closely mirror production environments in terms of configuration, data, and infrastructure. This practice helps identify and address potential issues before they impact the live production system. The possibility of an imminent release heightens the importance of having production-like environments, as any discrepancies could lead to unexpected behavior or failures during deployment.
11. Codify InfrastructureManually provisioning and configuring infrastructure for each release becomes a significant bottleneck when operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. Adopting Infrastructure as Code (IaC) practices, where infrastructure is defined and managed through code, enables teams to provision and tear down environments rapidly and consistently, minimising delays and reducing the risk of configuration drift. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites a high degree of automation and repeatability in infrastructure management, making IaC a beneficial practice for ensuring rapid, reliable deployments.
12. Foster Collaborative OwnershipAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” invites a high degree of collaboration and shared ownership among team members. Siloed responsibilities and knowledge become obstacles to rapid delivery. Teams may choose to adopt practices that promote collective code ownership, cross-functional collaboration, and shared understanding of the codebase and delivery processes. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a culture of collective responsibility, where all team members are empowered to contribute to and understand the entire delivery process, enabling seamless and efficient releases.
13. Continuous ImprovementOperating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode exposes inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the delivery pipeline and processes with uncompromising clarity. Teams may choose to embrace a culture of continuous improvement, regularly reviewing their practices, identifying areas for optimisation, and implementing changes to enhance their ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably. The constant presence of imminent releases acts as a driving force for continuous improvement, encouraging teams to continuously refine their processes, tools, and practices to achieve higher levels of velocity and quality. FlowChain was designed to systematise this very purpose.

The Visionary “Javelin” Approach

The “Javelin” approach (initally named “Jerid”) pioneered by me and my teams at Familiar from 1996 onward, was truly ahead of its time, recognising the transformative power of the “Constant State of Ship” mindset. By enshrining this principle as a cornerstone from its inception, “Javelin” has paved the way for the modern continuous deployment practices that have since become poised to gain industry standard status. This pioneering approach, along with FlowChain and e.g. Prod•gnosis, Flow•gnosis, Product Aikido, etc. exemplifies the spirit of continuous improvement intrinsic to the “Constant State of Ship” principle, ensuring its enduring relevance and impact.

Deep Cultural Implications

Reshaping the Culture and Mindset

Adopting the “Constant State of Ship” principle suggests a profound transformation that extends way beyond technical practices and processes – it hints at a seismic shift in the culture and mindset of software development teams and their parent organisations. This metamorphosis permeates every aspect of the organisation, reshaping shared assumptions, beliefs, and ways of working. However, navigating such a profound cultural shift can be a daunting challenge, often met with resistance and inertia.

This is where the discipline of organisational psychotherapy plays a pivotal role. By applying principles from psychotherapy, sociology, and group dynamics, organisational psychotherapy facilitates teams’ cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm smoothly and effectively.

A Culture of Ownership and Accountability through Empowerment

The “Constant State of Ship” mindset fosters a culture of collective ownership and accountability. Organisational psychotherapy techniques, such as participative decision-making and fellowship, empower team members to take responsibility for the quality, stability, and deployability of the codebase and overall product. This sense of empowerment cultivates a culture of shared ownership, where individuals proactively address issues, collaborate across boundaries, and collectively strive for continuous improvement.

Embracing Transparency and Trust

Maintaining a “Constant State of Ship” requires a high degree of transparency and trust among team members. Organisational psychotherapy practices, such as surfacing shared assumptions and beliefs, encourage open communication and facilitate the identification of problems and risks early. By fostering an atmosphere where team members feel comfortable expressing concerns, sharing mistakes, and seeking help, a culture of transparency and trust emerges, enabling teams to collectively address challenges and ensure the software remains in a releasable state.

Prioritising Continuous Learning

The “Constant State of Ship” principle instills a mindset of continuous learning and improvement. With each release, teams gain valuable insights into their processes, tools, and practices. Embracing new shared assumptions becomes essential, as teams must continuously refine and adapt their approaches based on feedback and lessons learned. This culture of continuous learning fosters an environment of experimentation, where failures are embraced as opportunities for growth, and success is measured by the ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably.

Aligning Towards a Common Goal

Ultimately, the “Constant State of Ship” principle unifies teams around a common goal: meeting the needs of all the Folks That Matter with unparalleled speed and reliability. This shared mission transcends individual roles, responsibilities, and technical disciplines. It creates a sense of collective purpose, where every team member’s contribution, regardless of their specific function, is valued and recognised as essential to achieving this overarching objective.

By leveraging organisational psychotherapy techniques, organisations can accelerate and streamline the cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm. This discipline not only makes the transition quicker and easier but also more cost-effective, as it addresses the root causes of resistance and inertia, facilitating a smoother and more sustainable transformation.

By reshaping the culture and mindset of software development teams, the “Constant State of Ship” principle cultivates an environment conducive to continuous deployment success. It fosters a sense of collective ownership, transparency, continuous learning, and shared purpose – traits that are indispensable in today’s rapidly evolving software landscape.

Embracing the Future

When the ability to swiftly adapt and innovate is paramount, the “Constant State of Ship” principle emerges as a beacon, guiding software development teams towards a future of quiet competence and competitiveness. By embracing this mindset, as exemplified by the visionary “Javelin” approach, teams can unlock the power to attend to folks’ needs with unprecedented speed, reliability, and quality – solidifying their organisation’s position as industry leaders in the software development arena.

The Software Crisis is but a Symptom

The “software crisis” plaguing the tech industry for more that 50 years reflects a broader crisis spanning business, society, and our species. At its core is our inability as a species to fully grasp and manage rapidly change and wicked problems, both. But this crisis manifests in different ways across multiple levels of human endeavours.

The Business Crisis Begets the Software Crisis

In business, intense competition, shifting customer demands, changing social expectations, and disruption make consistent success an elusive goal. In society, we face polarisation, inequality, and loss of social cohesion. As a species, our advanced civilisation has exceeded our innate cognitive capacities. We are overwhelmed by the world we’ve created.

The Societal Crisis Begets the Business Crisis

The software crisis is just a symptom of crises in business, society, and our human systems as a whole. To truly address it, solutions are needed at each level. Organisational psychotherapy can help provide a framework for shared reflection and treatment.

Business operates within a broader social context beset by polarisation, inequality, and eroding social cohesion. Society’s challenges become business’s challenges.

When society tacitly promotes individual gain over collective well-being, so does business. When civil discourse and trust decline, companies struggle to collaborate. When opportunity is not distributed broadly, markets suffer.

Business could help lead society forward. But first, society must create conditions where ethics and human dignity come before efficiency and profits. By reflecting society’s imbalances, business contributes to the social crisis.

Organisational Psychotherapy Offers a Way Forward

Just as individual psychotherapy helps people gain self-understanding to heal, organisational psychotherapy facilitates collective self-reflection to foster change in groups, companies, systems, societies and the species. It surfaces the dysfunctional patterns that maintain the status quo.

Applications

Applied to the software crisis, organisational psychotherapy invites examination of the beliefs, behaviors, and power dynamics across the tech industry that contribute to the many and perrenial chronic failures. It enables new understandings and behaviors to emerge.

Similarly, organisational psychotherapy addresses dysfunctional aspects of business culture and society that exacerbate our challenges and frustrates our needs. It helps groups align around shared purpose, and adapt.

Ultimately, organisational psychotherapy a.k.a. collective psychotherapy is about creating the conditions for species learning. As we confront crises across business, society, and our species, we might benefit from the capacity for honest inquiry, collective problem-solving, and continuous learning. Organisational psychotherapy can guide that evolutionary process. The software crisis and beyond provide an opportunity for our organisations, businesses, societies, and species to increase our enlightenment. But we must be willing to courageously examine ourselves along the way.

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.

In many workplaces, there is an underlying pressure to keep employees constantly busy. The thinking goes that if people have any downtime at work, that time is wasted and money is being left on the table. This leads managers and leaders to pile more and more work onto employees’ plates in an effort to extract maximum productivity. However, this approach is actually counterproductive.

Software companies tend to be prime examples of this misguided busywork culture. There is often intense pressure to continually release new features and upgrades to products. The development team is expected to churn out a steady stream of product increments to show that they are adding value. However, much of this activity becomes useless busywork after a certain point.

Queueing Theory 101

This phenomenon can be explained by queueing theory – the mathematical study of waiting in lines. As Tom DeMarco wrote in “Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency”, workers and tasks in a company form a queueing system. If all workers are 100% utilised, queues grow infinitely long and lead times stretch without bound. Companies need slack resources to absorb variation. Trying to keep everyone 100% busy all the time is thus self-defeating.

The Human Dimension

Studies have also shown that human cognitive resources are finite. We all have a limited capacity for productive focus and good decision making each day. Piling on more and more tasks leaves less mental energy for each task. Workers become ineffective at judging what activities are truly important versus those just designed to fill time. The quality of output suffers even as teams scramble to check more boxes.

Additionally, constant busyness leads to burnout over the long run. Workers never get the chance to recharge because they jump from one urgent task to the next. The resultant stress and exhaustion eventually sap motivation and creativity.

Alternative: Focus

Instead of keeping people busy for the sake of looking productive, organisations might choose to create focus. When clear priorities are set, teams have the space to deeply engage with tasks that really further core goals and objectives. Quality output that moves the needle earns more than quantity of output or hours logged.

Rather than endlessly generating and implementing new product features, software teams can choose to carefully consider business objectives and what features will have the biggest impact. Saying “no” to nonessential work is often healthier than taking it on just to keep programmers coding around the clock. Less can truly be more when it comes to productive and innovative software teams.

The Benefits of Downtime

In knowledge economy workplaces, ongoing learning uplifts both individual and organisational success. However, prioritising constant busyness leaves little room for employees to actively absorb new information or develop additional skills. Building protected time for learning into work schedules is thus hugely beneficial compared to attempting to eliminate all downtime.

Sufficient breathing room between intensive assignments provides cognitive space for individuals to deeply internalize and contextualise what they have already worked on. Lessons sink in better when folks have moments to pause and reflect on how the dots connect. Such periodic integration of experiences builds flexible knowledge that better transfers to future contexts.

Dedicated downtime also makes room for individuals to proactively seek out cutting edge knowledge in their domain. Workers use the time to read journals, take online courses, attend conferences, engage mentors and collaborate with peers in the field. Through these networks, they rapidly update understanding and hone best practices awareness. Organisations thrive when individuals return to apply these learnings to internal initiatives.

Importantly,downtime allows employees to pursue self-directed skill building aligned to their own person al and career needs, not just immediate organisational requirements. When individuals direct their own learning, intrinsic motivations energise mastery far beyond what imposed trainings can deliver. Carving space for self-improvement helps attract and retain top talent as well.

Of course, workers also benefit from downtime that simply allows their brains to recharge after intense problem solving. Neural networks expend significant energy forming new connections demanded by complex tasks. Regular periods of low external stimuli are crucial for restoring the actual physical infrastructure enabling learning in the first place.

Rather than something to eliminate through added busywork, downtime facilitates ongoing renewal that powers future performance. Knowledge workers’ most precious asset is the human capacity for rapidly acquiring and applying new understanding. Protecting time and space for learning may thus provide the highest organizational return on investment of any activity, busy or not.

Finally, downtime provides the space to surface and reflect on both personal and shared assumptions and beliefs about the way the work works (i.e. the opportunity for organisational psychotherapy, whether facilitated or self-directed).

Summary

The impulse to minimise any workspace downtime is understandable but misplaced. Workers and companies both thrive when space is made for deliberate thinking, creative ideation, restoration, reflection, and collaboration. The busiest person in the office is rarely the most productive or effective. Organisations migh better choose to create focus for employees rather than frenetic stimulation. Whether explained through queueing theory or basic human psychology, purposeful work will always trump mindless busyness.

What Do Recruiters Know About Psychology?

When it comes to recruitment, the spotlight generally falls on skills, qualifications, and years of experience. But what about understanding human behaviour? Recruiters often talk about culture fit, team cohesion, and emotional intelligence, but how deep does their grasp of psychology go? It’s a mixed bag. A few recruiters invest time in learning behavioural cues and techniques derived from psychological research. Most stick to traditional stuff like CV screening and keyword matching.

What About Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking allows us to understand how individual components within an organisation interact with each other. Does a typical recruiter understand these nuances? Generally, the answer leans towards no. Recruiters often focus on filling a role rather than understanding how that role interacts with other parts of the organisation. This can lead to problematic hires that may fit a job description but disrupt a system.

How Important Are Group Dynamics?

Group dynamics explore how people interact within a group and how the group itself functions as a unit. Understanding this is key to fostering a harmonious work environment. A recruiter who appreciates group dynamics goes beyond placing a candidate based on skill set alone. They’ll look at how a new hire might impact the existing team culture and dynamics. However, recruiters often don’t delve deeply into this topic, as it’s usually considered the purview of internal HR teams or hiring managers (who, BTW, also rarely appreciate this topic).

Can Recruiters Improve?

Recruiters can certainly benefit from a broader understanding of psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. While a very few are already there, many could make strides by investing in study that delves into these areas. After all, the aim is to place candidates who don’t just fill a role but also contribute positively to the organisation as a whole.

Conclusion: Room for Growth

While it varies, recruiters generally have room to grow when it comes to understanding psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. Adopting a more holistic approach to recruitment can yield benefits for organisations and candidates alike. It’s difficult though, as dwelling on these areas risks alienating their hiring clients.

Are Senior Managers Learning?

It’s not a revelation to say that senior managers have extensive experience and a wealth of evidence at their disposal. But what’s worrying is when this reservoir remains untapped for genuine behavioural change. The failure to reflect on and integrate experiences into action is one of the major pitfalls in today’s business landscape.

What’s the Point of Experience?

Experience isn’t merely a notch on a belt or a line on a CV. It’s a treasure trove of lessons waiting to be dissected, understood and applied. Senior managers often claim years of experience as a merit badge. Yet, many fail to critically assess what those years have taught them and how they’ve adapted. Experience without reflection is like a book left unread on a shelf.

Where Does Evidence Fit In?

Evidence comes from data, case studies, peer reviews, and more. It’s the backbone for any well-informed decision. Senior managers usually have the privilege of having a team to gather and present evidence to them. However, merely acknowledging this evidence isn’t enough. One needs to understand its implications, question its limitations, and act upon its suggestions. Ignoring to do so results in a squandered opportunity for improvement and growth.

Why Don’t Behaviours Change?

Change is uncomfortable; that’s no secret. However, the discomfort of change is often less detrimental than the comfort of stagnation. Senior managers may feel that their years in the industry justify their assumptions and beliefs, thus rendering them unchangeable. This rigidity not only stifles their own growth but also sets a harmful example for the entire organisation.

How to Make Reflection Effective?

1. Schedule It: Reflective practice shouldn’t be sporadic or whimsical. Set a specific time each week or month to examine experiences and what needs to change.
2. Involve Others: A different perspective can be invaluable. Peer reviews, 360-degree feedback, or even just a chat with a team member can provide insights that you might not have considered. Organisational therapists are skilled in this role.
3. Action Plan: Turn reflections into concrete steps. Create an action plan that includes timelines and milestones to ensure that you’re not just thinking about change but actually implementing it.

What’s the Bottom Line?

In an age where being adaptive is more important than ever, failing to reflect on and integrate experience and evidence into changed behaviours is not just a personal failing. It’s an organisational risk. Senior managers, it’s time to tap into your wealth of experience and evidence, reflect on them and personally adopt the necessary changes. Your team, your stakeholders, and your future self will thank you.

Who’s Coaching New Coaches?

When an organisation decides to bring coaching into its culture, the focus is usually on its employees. Yet the coaches themselves are often left to endure rigid training, which stands at odds with the coaching philosophy. If organisations genuinely believe in coaching, why don’t they extend this to their new coaches?

What’s Wrong with Training Compared to Coaching?

Training enforces a rigid structure, pushing predetermined information towards the participant. This approach is inflexible and impersonal, falling short of individual needs. In contrast, coaching is a dynamic, two-way relationship tailored to the individual’s unique needs and objectives.

Why Do Organisations Stick to Training New Coaches?

Many organisations default to traditional training methods, even for roles better suited for coaching. This inclination towards training could be seen as a glaring oversight and a lack of genuine commitment to the coaching approach.

Is Training New Coaches a Misstep?

Absolutely. Training, with its push approach, is fundamentally ill-equipped for roles that demand behavioural change and personal development. Especially in the realm of Collaborative Knowledge Work. By clinging to training for their new coaches, organisations contradict and undermine their supposed endorsement of coaching.

Why Is Coaching New Coaches the Superior Option?

Coaching, unlike training, draws out an individual’s inherent potential. It enhances both the effectiveness and empathy of new coaches and helps foster a real coaching culture within the organisation.

What’s the Next Step?

Organisations might choose to move beyond training and embrace a coaching-centric approach universally, starting with their newest coaches. Doing so is not just lip service to a trend; it’s a necessary evolution for genuine development.

Is Coaching Itself Beyond Reproach?

As we sing the praises of coaching over training, it’s crucial to consider a larger issue: Is coaching itself the end-all solution for organisational development? No. According to quality management expert W. Edwards Deming’s 95/5 rule, most problems (95%) are the fault of the system, not the individual. Coaching often targets individual behaviours—the “5%”—and overlooks systemic issues that could be the root cause of performance limitations. Organisations might choose to scrutinise their coaching programmes to ensure they’re not just treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

Conclusion: Where Does This Leave Us?

If organisations are serious about adopting coaching, they might choose to apply the coaching approach at all levels, including new coaches. However, it’s worth reflecting on whether coaching itself, focused as it often is on the “5%”, is enough to address the underlying systemic issues that are impeding progress. To achieve lasting change and growth, organisations must consider systemic improvements as paramount. Anything less represents a missed opportunity.

Introduction: Facing the Problem Head-On

In this context, “strategy” refers to the planned methods and actions designed to achieve specific objectives within organisations or societies. Retardation in strategy is the continued application of outdated, dysfunctional, and ineffective methods. This issue affects a wide range of sectors, hampering not only individual organisations but also broader society, causing a slowdown in overall human advancement.

Identifying Retardation: Core Elements

To counter this issue effectively, let’s start by identifying major contributing factors:

Collective Assumptions and Beliefs

Collective assumptions and beliefs constrain the selection of credible strategies, often excluding the more effective.

Historical Effectiveness

Outdated methods persist because they were once successful, instilling a sense of trust or safety in their continued use.

Aversion to Risk

New strategies often stay on the sidelines due to the perceived risks that come with their adoption.

Bureaucratic Barriers

Byzantine hierarchical systems within organisations can create delays in adopting more effective strategies.

Cultural Factors

Social or organisational norms can also contribute to the persistence of dated strategies, even when they have lost their efficacy.

Consequences: What’s at Stake

Failure to modernise can result in a variety of negative outcomes.

Economic Loss

Ineffective strategies lead to the poor use of resources, causing various kinds of waste, and potentially causing economic stagnation, even decline.

Social Wellbeing

Obsolete thinking can detrimentally affect general welfare, such as perpetuating inequalities or restricting access to vital services like healthcare and education.

Environmental Degradation

Outdated or inefficient strategies can worsen environmental issues, including pollution and the excessive consumption of natural resources.

Solutions: Steps Toward Improvement

Breaking this detrimental cycle requires several targeted actions.

Emphasis on Learning

Fostering a culture that prioritises frequent evaluation and learning can prepare organisations and our societies to transition to more efficient strategies more easily.

Radical Curiosity

Implementing radical curiosity involves questioning established norms and practices fundamentally. It requires a willingness to explore beyond traditional solutions, which could lead to the discovery of more effective approaches.

Decentralisation and Subsidiarity

Empowering decision-makers closer to the actual problems can expedite change. The principle of subsidiarity—making decisions at the most immediate level possible—can further streamline this process, cutting through bureaucratic delays that often impede progress.

Accountability Mechanisms

Transparency and accountability, both in organisations and governments, are essential for encouraging ongoing updates and improvements in strategy.

Summary

Retardation in strategy constitutes a significant obstacle to both organisational and societal growth. Recognising this issue and actively pursuing more effective methods is critical. Immediate, decisive action can pave the way for sustained, significant progress in the future.

The Illusion of Training-Induced Change

Let’s start with a provocative statement: Training doesn’t change people; it only gives them options. There’s a widespread belief that sending staff on training courses is the magic key to fixing various performance or behavioural issues. But if you’re aiming to change people’s behaviours through training, you’re on to a loser before you even start.

The Gulf Between Teaching and Learning

Teaching and learning, though often used interchangeably, are not synonymous. Teaching implies the transfer of knowledge or skills from one person to another. Learning, however, is a more intricate process, deeply personal and emotionally charged. It involves not just the intake of information but the reshaping of perspectives, attitudes, and ultimately, behaviours.

People can be taught without learning a single thing. They’ll nod, take notes, even pass tests, but once they’re back in their familiar environments, it’s business as usual. Why? Because learning has only happened when behaviours have changed.

The Dynamics of Behaviour Change

Behaviour isn’t a switch you can flick on or off through an afternoon workshop. It’s a complex mosaic of habit, culture, context, motivation, and personal choice. Each person’s behaviour is influenced by a labyrinth of internal and external factors, which can’t be manoeuvred through PowerPoint slides and handouts.

The secret sauce in behaviour change is not teaching or training. It’s learning. And how does learning happen? Through curiosity—a deeply intrinsic motivator that spurs us to explore, challenge norms, and grow.

Radical Curiosity: The Gateway to Learning

If you’ve been chasing the mirage of training-induced change, redirect your energies towards fostering an environment that celebrates ‘Radical Curiosity‘. This is a step beyond the garden-variety curiosity that makes us click on an interesting headline. Radical Curiosity is the relentless pursuit of ‘why’ and ‘how’, the unquenchable thirst for knowledge that disrupts conventional wisdom.

When you are radically curious, you don’t just want to know what works; you want to understand why it works and how you can make it better. This is the sort of curiosity that can drive genuine learning and transformative behaviour change.

How to Cultivate Radical Curiosity

Here’s the million-dollar question: how do you instil Radical Curiosity in a team or an organisation? Here are some thoughts:

1. Open Dialogue: Encourage questions and discussions that challenge the status quo.
2. Safe Spaces: Create an environment where people feel secure enough to share radical thoughts without fear of ridicule or judgment.
3. Encourage Exploration: Give people the freedom to explore new ideas, methods, and even make mistakes.
4. Reflective Practice: Facilitate sessions where team members can reflect on what they’ve learned and how they can apply it to change their behaviours.

The Bottom Line

If you’re investing in training to change behaviour, you’re on shaky ground. The change you seek is rooted in the fertile soil of learning, nourished by the waters of Radical Curiosity. Replace your training programmes with initiatives that nurture curiosity, and watch how behaviours transform organically. That’s when you know learning has truly happened.

We often slip into the tempting belief that imparting knowledge is the same as instigating change. Teachers lecture, bosses dictate, and consultants advise, all under the presumption that their words, like magical incantations, will alter behaviour. But is this a groundless assumption? The answer may lie in understanding the difference between teaching and learning.

Teaching vs Learning: What’s the Real Score?

Teaching is an external process. An individual or system presents information, and the hope is that those receiving it will internalise it and act differently as a result. But teaching doesn’t guarantee learning. Learning is an internal process, something the learner does. It involves integrating new information into one’s existing knowledge base, and then applying it in a way that influences behaviour.

You Can Lead a Horse to Water…

No matter how brilliant the teaching, if the recipient doesn’t willingly engage with the material in a way that fosters understanding and application, it’s a fruitless endeavour. For real change to occur, the learner must be active in the process. They must take that information, digest it, and discover how to integrate it into their existing framework of understanding.

If behaviour hasn’t changed, then learning hasn’t happened.

The Inner Landscape

Real, lasting change occurs in the hidden corridors of the mind. It’s in the synthesising of new information with existing knowledge, in the wrestling with contradictions and the sparking of new insights, that learning manifests itself. This kind of deep cognitive processing can’t be induced by teaching alone; it’s an internal, learner-driven process.

The Efficacy of Experiential Learning

If the aim is to induce behavioural change, traditional teaching methods may not cut it. Experiential learning (a.k.a. normative learning), however, provides a more effective path. It fosters environments where individuals can experiment, make mistakes, reflect, integrate, and adapt.

Learn by Doing

The most potent learning experiences often come from making mistakes and subsequently adjusting one’s behaviour. In experiential learning, the individual is the actor, director, and the audience—involved in both executing actions and reflecting upon their outcomes.

The Role of Feedback

Another crucial component of experiential learning is feedback. Whether it comes from a mentor, peer, or is self-generated, feedback provides the raw material for reflection and behaviour modification. Without it, even the most earnest attempts at learning can go astray.

Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning

To see the behavioural changes we seek, we may choose to shift the focus from teaching to learning. Here are a few ways organisations can make that shift:

Cultivate a Learning Culture

Creating an organisational culture that values learning over mere instruction can lead to lasting changes. A focus on critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability encourages employees to be active learners.

Provide Autonomy and Resources

The more control people have over their learning process, and the more resources available to them, the more effective their learning will be. This could mean anything from providing time for self-directed learning projects to making online courses available.

Nurture Intrinsic Motivation for Authentic Learning

Rather than relying on external rewards and recognition as motivators, focus on cultivating an environment that nurtures intrinsic motivation. Alfie Kohn argues that when people are driven by their innate curiosity and passion for a subject, the learning is more meaningful, durable, and linked to positive behavioural change. Encourage exploration, critical thinking, mutuality, and the joy of discovery as the ultimate ‘rewards’ for learning. In this climate, deep cognitive processing and real understanding occur naturally, without the need for external incentives.

Summary

The gap between teaching and learning isn’t just semantic; it’s substantial. The path to genuine behavioural change lies not in the words spoken by the teacher, but in the cognitive wrestling done by the learner. Once organisations grasp this distinction, they stand a far better chance of effecting meaningful change.

Following on from my previous post, exploring how culture change is free when we change the way the works works, two pivotal questions emerge:

1. Why is the way the work works set up as it is?
2. How to effect meaningful changes in the way the work works?

To delve into these questions, we might choose to examine the intricate relationship between the way the work works and the collective assumptions and beliefs that govern it.

The Underlying Blueprint: Collective Assumptions and Beliefs

The way the work works isn’t established in isolation; it’s a manifestation of the organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs. Whether intentional or not, these foundational elements influence everything from task allocation to decision-making processes. If you’re puzzled about why the way the work works is set up as it is, your answer lies in your organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs.

Reciprocity: The Cycle of Influence

The connection between the way the work works and collective assumptions and beliefs is not one-sided. These assumptions and beliefs give shape to the way the work works, which, in turn, reinforces and perpetuates these assumptions and beliefs. For instance, if your work process places a premium on stringent oversight, it likely originates from a collective belief in the need for strong control.

Normative Learning: Unveiling the ‘Why’

Normative learning remains critical for breaking this cycle, as discussed earlier. It serves as a lens through which to surface and reflect on latent assumptions and beliefs, allowing for their questioning and potential alteration. In doing so, you unveil the ‘why’ behind the way your work is structured, thereby paving the way for meaningful change.

Summary

To understand why the way the work works is set up as it is, one must decode the collective assumptions and beliefs that have shaped it. Through normative learning and organisational therapy both, organisations can surface these hidden drivers, laying the groundwork for authentic, sustainable, and cost-free change. Acknowledging and tackling this intertwingledness equips you for implementing changes that are both effective and in sync with your evolving organisational beliefs.

Dismiss the notion that culture change requires a budget. In reality, culture evolves naturally when you alter the way the work works. The crux lies in acknowledging that the way the work works is direct consequence of an organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs. This is where normative learning comes in. Normative learning is not just beneficial but essential for inexpensive cultural change. It’s an avenue through which foundational assumptions and beliefs are scrutinised and potentially revised, making it an indispensable part of the transformation process.

The Reality of Zero-Cost Change

There’s no need for expensive training or consultants to initiate culture change. Such change is cost-free when you surface and reflect on the collective assumptions and beliefs that have shaped your existing systems.

Collective Assumptions and Beliefs

These collective assumptions and beliefs are not mere background noise; they dictate the way the work works. Often overlooked, these underpinnings steer behaviour and decision-making. To improve the way the work works, surface and reflect upon the collective assumptions and beliefs first.

Normative Learning

Normative learning is indispensable for staff and leaders to confront counter-intuitive truths. This leads to a revision of collective assumptions and beliefs, aligning with John Seddon’s assertion that “Change is a normative experience.” Authentic change happens when these collective assumptions and beliefs shift, resulting in behavioural and cultural change.

Systems: Outcomes of Collective Assumptions and Beliefs

Systems are not autonomous constructs; they are the consequences of collective assumptions and beliefs. Modify these through e.g. normative learning, and both the system and culture will adapt without additional expenditure.

Summary

By focusing on the collective assumptions and beliefs that inform the way thje work works in your organisation, culture change is achievable with minimal financial outlay. Normative learning provides an organic and enduring route to meaningful organisational transformation.

Translating Lessons to General Business Management

Right. Time to blow my own trumpet!

Over my 40+ years in software development, management I’ve had the privilege to witness and partake in the metamorphosis of the industry. More importantly, I’ve gleaned insights and best practices that, intriguingly, can transcend the world of software and have remarkable relevance in general business management.

1. The Power of Iteration and Continuous Improvement

From the early days, I learned that perfection is a journey, not a destination. Be it in software or thw way the work works, the essence lies in the willingness to refine, adjust, and evolve. Inspect and adapt, as they say. Continuous feedback loops and adjustments pave the path to excellence.

2. Flexibility Over Rigidity: The Business Dance

Having closely worked with many methods, I’ve understood that the real strength of any organisation is its ability to adapt at speed. It’s about being ready to dance to the tunes of the changing environment, and not just sticking to a predetermined set of steps.

3. Centrality of the User Experience

I’ve seen software applications flop not due to poor coding, but because they didn’t resonate with the users. Similarly, in business, if you’re not aligning with the needs and aspirations of your stakeholders, your strategies will not yield the desired results.

4. The Essence of Clear Communication

From countless team meetings to whiteboard sessions, one thing stood out: clarity in communication. It’s the bedrock upon which trust is built, misunderstandings are averted, and collective goals are achieved.

5. Risk Management: A Balancing Act

Every time we integrated a new feature or technology, risk was a constant companion. Likewise, in business, every decision – be it financial, strategic, or operational – carries inherent risks. It’s the art of managing risks and balancing them with rewards that distinguishes the good from the great.

6. Prioritising Quality and Preventing Defects

Throughout my years in software, I’ve been a staunch believer in the adage, “Prevention is better than cure.” Instead of fixing issues after the fact, emphasising  high-quality craftsmanship from the outset has always been my mantra. Similarly, in business, ensuring quality in products, services, and processes from the get-go can prevent a myriad of challenges down the road. It’s about being proactive, rather than reactive, ensuring that every endeavor is executed to the highest standard from the very beginning.

7. Self-Managing Teams and Auftragstaktik

One of the most profound lessons has been witnessing the magic of self-managing teams. Empowering teams, much like the principle of Auftragstaktik, gives individuals the freedom to determine the ‘how’ of achieving objectives, fostering creativity, and accountability.

8. A Visionary Horizon with Actionable Steps

While having a visionary goal is essential, I’ve found that breaking that down into actionable, short-term goals ensures not only progress but also regular checkpoints for reflection and course correction.

9. A Celebration of Change

In my journey, change has been a constant companion. Those who embraced it thrived, while those who resisted often struggled personally, and sabotaged the greater effort. In business, as in software, adaptability, continuous learning, and a curious mindset form the cornerstone of success.

10. Culture Change

Time and again, it’s been culture change that’s been essential in making major steps in improving the way the works works. And thus, in results. Outmoded shared assumptions and beliefs have always held thing back, mostly to the point of abject failure. And time and again, it’s been those with the most positional authority who have been the biggest blockers. Success depends on reaching these folks.

Conclusion

Reflecting on my journey, it’s evident that the principles that drive success in software development management are universal in their application. As the worlds of technology and business increasingly intertwingle, these lessons become not just relevant, but indispensable. Here’s to harnessing the wisdom of experience for the challenges and opportunities of the future. If you’d like to benefit from my decades of practical experience, please get in touch.

1. “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” ~ Confucius
2. “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
3. “A wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool from his friends.” ~ Baltasar Gracian
4. “Mistakes are a great educator when one is honest enough to admit them and willing to learn from them.” ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn
5. “The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.” ~ Henry Ford
6. “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” ~ Søren Kierkegaard
7. “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” ~ William Shakespeare
8. “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” ~ Plato
9. “The only source of knowledge is experience.” ~ Albert Einstein
10. “We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.” ~ George Bernard Shaw
11. (My favourite) “Is there anyone so wise as to learn from the experience of others?” ~ Voltaire

Do you have any to add? Please comment, below.

In the realm of agile approaches to software development, and more broadly, enterprise agility, practitioners – agilists – often favor innovating and crafting new solutions rather than understanding and learning from historical precedents. While the spirit of continuous improvement and adaptability is commendable, we might choose to avoid the pitfall of rewriting history instead of learning from it. A vivid example of this can be seen in the historical implementation of the Prussian military command method known as Auftragstaktik.

Lessons from Prussian Auftragstaktik

Auftragstaktik, or “mission command,” signifies a departure from hierarchical, top-down command systems to a more decentralised decision-making process. In many ways, this approach parallels the Agile philosophy, empowering teams with the intent and resources and entrusting them to make execution-related decisions. However, the Prussian implementation of Auftragstaktik faced significant challenges, ones that Agile teams can learn from today.

1. Cultural Shift: The Prussians had to move away from the traditional command-and-control structures to empower their lower-level officers, much like Agile teams today. This process is not merely a structural change; it’s a significant cultural shift requiring patience, dedication, and a consistent organisational vision.
2. Education and Training: The Prussians addressed the challenge of skills and competency by investing heavily in officer training at the War Academy. Similarly, Agile teams might choose to invest in continuous learning and professional development to equip their members with both the necessary skills and context to make informed decisions.
3. Trust and Discipline: For Auftragstaktik to work, there had to be high levels of trust and discipline within the ranks. Effective Agile teams also need to build trust, along with a culture that rewards initiative while expecting responsibility for outcomes.
4. Communication: Clear and concise communication was critical in implementing Auftragstaktik. Likewise, Agile teams might choose to foster transparent communication channels to ensure that all members are aligned and informed about the team’s strategic objectives.
5. Risk Management: The Prussian system accepted the risks involved with decentralised decision-making by devising contingency plans and extensive training. Agile teams might choose to also have solid risk management strategies in place to handle unexpected or undesirable outcomes.

Long Lineage

By studying historical examples like Auftragstaktik, companies seeking agility can gain valuable insights and avoid the unnecessary rewriting of history. We might choose to appreciate that Agile is not a novelty, but rather part of a long lineage of systems that leverage decentralisation , self-organisation, and empowerment to achieve objectives. Rather than disregard history, those seeking agility could do well to learn from it, using the lessons of the past to inform their practices and navigate their future.

Buiilding a Better Team

My most recent book “The Team Fruit Bowl” aims to provide a host of practical insights, and a road map for making your team better.

To help The Team Fruit Bowl‘s readers along that road, here’s a learning path for the book.

Learning Path

1. Introduction to the Concept: Begin by understanding the fundamental premise of the book – the idea of comparing different team dynamics to various fruits. Familiarize yourself with the overall structure of the book and the key themes it explores.
2. Deep Dive into Individual Chapters: Each chapter of the book focuses on a different fruit and the team dynamics it represents. Read each chapter carefully, taking notes on the key takeaways and practical applications. Remember, you don’t have to choose one fruit as a model for your team. Instead, consider the unique aspects of each fruit and how they might apply to your team’s context:
   • Team Apple
   • Team Banana
   • Team Orange
   • Team Grape
   • Team Pineapple
   • Team Watermelon
   • Team Strawberry
   • Team Blueberry
   • Team Peach
   • Team Lemon
   • Team Raspberry
   • Team Coconut
   • Team Kiwi
   • Team Mango
   • Team Kumquat
   • Team Pear
3. Reflection and Discussion: After each chapter, reflect on the lessons learned. How do they apply to your team? What elements resonate with your team’s current dynamics? If you’re reading this book as a team, this would be a good time to have a group discussion.
4. Practical Application: Start applying the lessons learned to your team. This could be in the form of new team-building activities, changes in communication, or adjustments to your team’s structure or culture. Remember, change takes time, so be patient and persistent. And most importantly, feel free to mix and match the elements that best suit your team’s context.
5. Continuous Learning: Once you’ve gone through all the chapters, don’t stop there. Revisit the book regularly, reflect on the changes you’ve made, and continue to learn and adapt. The journey to a high-performing team is ongoing, and there’s always more to learn.
6. Evaluation: After a few months of applying the lessons from the book, take some time to evaluate. What changes have been effective? What still needs work? Use this evaluation to guide your ongoing learning and development as a team.

Remember, the goal of this learning path is not just to read the book, but to truly understand and apply its insights to improve your team’s dynamics and performance. The beauty of “The Team Fruit Bowl” is that it allows you to pick and choose the elements that best suit your team, creating a unique blend that’s just right for your context.

W. Edwards Deming strongly emphasised the importance of the system – the way the work works – in determining the performance of individuals. According to Deming, 95% of an individual’s performance is dictated by the system they are working in, not their personal abilities. This statistic demonstrates Deming’s belief in the profound impact of the environment or system on individual and organisational outcomes.

This belief intersects strongly with both the philosophy of Hitozukuri and systems thinking. Hitozukuri is about nurturing employees, and Deming’s principles make it clear that a key part of nurturing employees is providing them with a supportive, well-structured system in which to work.

By understanding and improving the system, an organisation will greatly enhance the effectiveness of its Hitozukuri practices.

Systems thinking adds another layer to this perspective, emphasising the interconnections among various elements within the organisation, including people. Every part of the organisation, from the people to the way the work works, contributes to the overall result. So, improving the system means enhancing all its components and the relationships among them.

From this perspective, Hitozukuri can be seen as part of a broader, interconnected system within an organisation. It includes various processes such as recruitment, training, job design, performance management, and more. When these processes are well designed and coordinated, they create a system that effectively nurtures employees, thus enhancing their performance.

In such a system, well-developed employees lead to better products/services, which lead to higher customer satisfaction, which in turn brings business success and the resources to further invest in employee development.

However, it’s crucial to recognise that, as per Deming’s principles, the primary driver of this cycle is not the individual abilities of the employees, but the quality of the system in which they work.

Thus, organisations might choose to focus not only on developing individuals (as in Hitozukuri) but also on continually improving the system that dictates 95% of their performance. By doing so, they can create a virtuous cycle of human resource development and organisational success.

Further Reading

Ballé, M., Powell, D., & Yokozawa, K. (2019, January 8). Monozukuri, Hitozukuri, Kotozukuri. Planet Lean. https://planet-lean.com/monozukuri-hitozukuri-kotozukuri/“