&mdash; Think Different

General, Marshall Model, Organisational effectiveness, Rightshifting, Software development

Reflective Questions

At this time of year, it seems customary to take a moment to reflect on things. As an aid, please allow me to invite you to reflect on some or all of the following questions, either by yourself or in the company of others:

How relevant has joy (and flourishing) been in your life in the past year? Is that something for just yourself, for your loved ones, or for folks more widely?
What was the biggest source of joy in your life in the past year? Does that suggest any kind of change of focus from where you choose to focus you attentions presently?
Who matters to you (including yourself)? And how much are you in touch with these folks’ needs?
How often in the past year have you made some kind of (refusable) request of people around you in the pursuit of getting some of your needs met? Did you feel able to explain your needs in any detail?
What groups and/or communities have you felt an affinity for? How in touch are you with the collective needs of these groups or communities? Are you moved to attend to those needs?
Can you recall any specific instances where you were the victim or perpetrator of violence (in the broadest sense)? How did that make you feel? Did the violence achieve its intended result? Were there consequences?
Can you recall any occasions in the past year where you felt some special or peculiar empathy with other(s)? Did you have the opportunity to express or share that feeling with anyone?
In the past year, how often have you really talked (spoken openly and listened fiercely) with others?
Did you experience any epiphanies in the past year?
Do you feel you found some answers to questions that have long been nagging at you, in this past year?
What part has spirituality played in your life this past year? Do you imagine you’d be happier with more (or less) spirituality in your life in the future?
Do you recall occasions in the past year where you’ve acted from the heart, out of non-judgemental (and non-romantic) love? How did that go?

I wonder how you respond to these questions – I’d love to hear about those responses.

– Bob

The Aspiration Gap

April 18, 2019

Culture change, General, Organisational effectiveness, Software development

The Aspiration Gap

Some years ago I wrote a post entitled “Delivering Software is Easy“. As a postscript I included a chart illustrating where all the jobs are in the software / tech industries, compared to the organisations (and jobs) that folks would like to work in. It’s probably overdue to add a little more explanations to that chart.

Here’s the chart, repeated from that earlier post for ease of reference:

The blue curve is the standard Rightshifting curve, explained in several of my posts over the years – for example “Rightshifting in a Nutshell“.

The green curve is the topic of this post.

The Green Curve

The green curve illustrates the distribution of jobs that e.g. developers, testers, coaches, managers, etc. would like to have. In other words, jobs that are most likely to best meet their needs (different folks have different needs, of course).

Down around the horizontal zero index position (way over to the left), some folks might like to work in these (Adhoc) organisations, for the freedom (and autonomy) they offer (some Adhoc organisations can be very laissez-faire). These jobs are no so desirable, though, for the raft of dysfunctions present in Adhoc organisations generally (lack of things like structure, discipline, focus, competence, and so on).

The green curve moves to a minimum around the 1.0 index position. Jobs here are the least desirable, coinciding as they do with the maximum number of Analytic organisations (median peak of the blue curve). Very few indeed are the folks that enjoy working for these kinds of organisations, with their extrinsic (imposed) discipline, Theory-X approach to staff relations and motivations, strict management hierarchies, disconnected silos, poor sense of purpose, institutionalised violence, and all the other trappings of the Analytic mindset. Note that this is where almost all the jobs are today, though. No wonder there’s a raging epidemic of disengagement across the vast swathe of such organisations.

The green curve then begins to rise from its minimum, to reach a maximum (peak) coinciding with jobs in those organisations having a “Mature Synergistic” mindset (circa horizontal index of 2.8 to 3). These are great places to work for most folks, although due to the very limited number of such organisations (and thus jobs), few people will ever get to experience the joys of autonomy, support for mastery, strong shared common purpose, intrinsic motivation, a predominantly Theory-Y approach to staff relations, minimal hierarchy, and so on.

Finally (past horizontal index 3.0) the green curve begins to fall again, mainly because working in Chaordic organisations can be disconcerting, scary (although in a good way), and is so far from most folks’ common work experiences and mental image of a “job” that despite the attractions, it’s definitely not everyone’s cup off tea.

Summary

The (vertical) gap at any point along the horizontal axis signifies the aspiration gap: the gap between the number of jobs available (blue curve) and the level of demand for those jobs (green curve) – i.e. the kind of jobs folks aspire to.

If you’re running an organisation, where would you need it to be (on the horizontal axis) to best attract the talent you want?

– Bob

Footnote

For explanations of Adhoc, Analytic, Synergistic and Chaordic mindsets, see e.g. the Marshall Model.

Obduracy

April 17, 2019

Antimatter principle, General, Organisational effectiveness

Obduracy

I tweeted recently:

“The things organisations have to do to make software development successful are well known. And equally well known is the fact that organisations will absolutely not do these things.”

Here’s a table comparing some of the things we know are necessary for success, alongside the things organisations do instead.

Necessary for Success	What Organisations Do Instead
Teamwork	Heroic individualism
Primacy of people skills	Primacy of tech skills
Self-organisation, self-management	Managers managing the work and the workers
Systems view of the organisation	Partition the organisation into discrete silos
Focus on the organisation/system as an integral whole	Focus on each silo separately
Use systemic measures to steer by	Use silo-local measures to steer by
Relationships matter most (quality of the social dynamic)	The code’s the thing (e.g. velocity)
Effectiveness (do the right things)	Efficiency (do things right)
Zero defects (quality is free) (defect prevention)	Testing and inspections
The workers own the way the work works	Mandated processes and methods (management owns the way the work works)
Workers are generalists	Workers are specialists
Trust	Rules, policies
Theory Y	Theory X
Intrinsic motivation, discipline	Extrinsic (imposed) motivation, discipline
Everyone’s needs matter (everyone’s a customer and a supplier)	Only the bosses’ needs matter (your boss is your only customer)
Explicit requirements, negotiated and renegotiated with each customer, just in time	No explicit requirements, or Big Requirements Up Front
Incremental delivery against the needs of all the Folks That Matter™, short feedback loops	Big Bang delivery, some or all constituencies overlooked or ignored, long or no feedback loops
Kaikaku and kaizen, to serve business goals	Kaizen only, by rote
No estimates, flexible schedules	Estimates, fixed schedules
Smooth flow (a regular cadence of repeatably and predictably meeting folks’ needs)	“Lumpy” or constipated flow
Work is collaborative knowledge work	Work is work
People bring their whole selves to work	People limit themselves to their “work face”.

Do you have any more entries for this table? I’d love to hear from you.

– Bob

What is Expertise?

August 3, 2018

General, Product development, Software development

What is Expertise?

Hiring an expert is a pretty much everyday occurrence. There’s accountants and lawyers, bankers and insurers, butchers and burger flippers, gardeners and mechanics. Sometimes we hire people not for their expertise, but simply to save us time, for example dog walkers or housekeepers.

For those folks we hire for their expertise, what does that actually mean? In the Antimatter frame, we might choose to say that experts possess – and can apply – more effective strategies for getting (some of) our needs met than we possess ourselves.

We’d not often tell our accountant how to calculate our tax liabilities. Nor our lawyer how to prepare and present our legal case. That’s because, with their more effective strategies, they’re likely to achieve a more effective outcome than we, with our relatively ineffective strategies, could. So we’re more likely to see our needs (in the round) get met.

Where’s this Going, You Might be Asking

Well, let’s turn our attention to hiring people – be that employees, contractors or consultants. Sometimes we’ll hire people to save us time. We could do the job that we’re hiring them to do, but we have more valuable things we can be spending our time on, so we hire them to do the less valuable things.

But sometimes, we’ll hire folks for their expertise. There’s some needs for which we accept our own strategies for getting those needs met are relatively ineffective. Like, running a software team or department, for example. So we find someone who appears to possess – and can apply – relatively more effective strategies.

So far, so good. If we choose our experts well, we’ll see our needs met more effectively – sometimes very much more effectively – than if we chose to attempt to meet those needs ourselves.

However. What happens when the effective strategies employed by our experts seem inexplicable to us? When we just can’t understand how applying their preferred strategies can achieve getting our needs met? We rarely quiz our accountants and bankers on their strategies. But we do quiz our new hires. As if we’d understand.

The Credibility Barrier

We have crashed headlong into the “credibility barrier”. Where it’s our own incredulity that blocks us from hiring those very folks possessing the most effective strategies for getting our needs met. And the most likely outcome being, we’ll reject the expert and their expertise, rather than recalibrate our assumptions and beliefs about what’s credible.

– Bob

What is “Working Software”?

July 31, 2018

4 Comments

What is “Working Software”?

We have for decades now been informed by the Agile Manifesto, and its four guidelines. Guideline number two is “working software over comprehensive documentation”. I’m sure many folks skip over this with no more than a quick nod of agreement (and a implicit interpreting of “comprehensive documentation” as “reams of useless documentation”).

But what exactly do we mean by “working software”? A quick trawl through the Internet finds little in the way of a definition of this term, nor any explicit explanations of the why – the value – of “working software”.

For me, working software is simply any software that is actively being used by customers (a.k.a. users) in their real jobs. Until and unless it’s actually being used for the core purpose for which it was built, no one will be any the wiser as to its fitness for purpose.

Who Benefits from “Working Software”?

Developers

Developers get to understand how close they came to understanding the customers’ needs. Assuming, of course, that the feedback loop from customs to developers is a closed loop, rather than having no feedback from customers, or any feedback that is provided falling into a hole or getting hopeless garbled somewhere along the line from customers to developers. In the latter case working software is a pretty useless and ultimately frustrating concept.

Customers

Customers get to apply the software in the context it was intended. By which I mean their using it to help them be more successful (whatever that might mean in any individual case). They’re reassured that the developers are attending to their needs (although not necessarily fully meeting them). By applying the software in their work context, they get to see its true nature and fit. And they get to tell their story, or at least a part of it. Folks find telling their stories cathartic (assuming they’re being listened-to).

The Producers

The producers (the company supplying/building the software) get to exercise their channels to and from the market, and to and from active users. Shortfalls in the clear communication of needs (customers -> developers), smooth deployments (company -> customers) and clear communication of feedback (customers -> developers) can be identified and addressed. In principle, anyways.

Other Benefits

“Working software” as defined above, promises other benefits, above and beyond those already mentioned.These additional benefits include:

Provides a definitive and unambiguous definition of what has been shipped/deployed, in a way that written requirements or documentation (one of the forms of documentation mentioned in the aforementioned Agile Manifesto guideline) simply cannot.
Promotes interaction and collaboration. Not just via feedback on the final version, but all the way through the evolution of the product or service under development. (Assuming the product or service deployed is capable of supporting real users in real work).
Early & regular delivery of value:
Value to the customer / user (the growing utility of the product or service, as it evolves through numerous deployments and instances of real use).
Value to the producers (assuming the producers get paid for each deployment + live use).
Value to the developers (kudos and the joy inherent in materially attending to folks’ needs).
Flow (assuming iterative deployments + live use).
The Check phase of PDCA (hypothesise -> experiment -> compare proposed results with actual results -> draw conclusions )
A valuable measure of progress (“how well are we contributing to the success of our customers?”)

What “Working Software” is Not

It’s not:

“works on my machine”
“passes the test suite”
“runs in the test environment”
“runs in production”

None of these provide the acid test of real users doing real work with the thing.

Proviso

As with most things Agile, the label “working software” misleads as much as it helps. I’d propose renaming it to e.g. “deployed product or service” but that horse is already out of the stables and far over the hills. “Working” is ambiguous, and “software” omits mention of all the other elements of the deployed product or service necessary to put it to real use (user guides, release notes, other documentation, training, support, etc.).

– Bob

Stainless Steel Rats

June 28, 2018

General, Prognostication

Stainless Steel Rats

From time to time I step back from the frontline of better software, and write a post trying to put things in a broader context. This is one of those posts.

Managers Don’t Want Software

Managers in companies making and selling products and services don’t want software. It’s a PITA to manage, costly, and troublesome. If someone came along and showed them how to get along without software, most would jump at the chance without a moment’s hesitation. (This is but one of the many reasons for my support for #NoSoftware, btw). The perceived link from software to revenues is tenuous at best. And most managers don’t even give a hoot about revenues or profits. The way the world of work works encourages us all to satisfy our own personal egos, pockets, and other needs.

Companies Don’t Want Long Term

Senior managers and executives are under all kinds of pressure to deliver short terms results. Shareholders and the markets are largely aligned to short-term wins. And all have little incentive to take a longer-term view. Most KPIs and OKRs focus on the next quarter or year. Getting good at anything seems like a distraction from “making the numbers”. Getting good at tricky, complicated and complex things like software development holds even less appeal. Most senior folks don’t expect to be in post beyond a couple of years, and most expect their present companies to live short, frenetic lives. (The numbers on that largely reinforce that expectation).

Customers Don’t Want Software

They want their needs attended-to – and, preferably, met. The great majority couldn’t give a rat’s arse whether software is involved in that or not. And given the pain they perceive as arising from the software components of many commercial services they have to use, they’d like to see the back of software, too.

Our Bubble

We practitioners live in a software bubble, imagining that the world sees software like we do. Shiny, glitzy, awesome, useful, cool. This just ain’t so. And for the conscientious practitioners, there’s the need to master our trade / craft / profession / discipline. No one else needs us to do this. And few outside the bubble are interested in indulging us in seeing that need met.

The Bottom Line

It’s my considered opinion that software development, “broken” for the past fifty years, remains just as broken today – because almost no one needs it to be any better. What to do then? Is there no hope for us conscientious practitioners?

Little hope, I’d say, excepting doggedly pursuing our dreams of a better world. Finding joy where we can, like stainless steel rats in the wainscoting of business and society. Banding together for mutual support. Seizing each fleeting opportunity to see our needs for better ways of working attended-to, if not always met.

And talking with people outside the bubble. Listening to them. Trying to understand their needs. And seeing if there’s any chance of alignment between what they each need, and our own dreams.

– Bob

Not Obviously Wrong

May 26, 2018

Culture change, Doctrine, General, Product development, Rightshifting, Software development

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

World Class? Really?

May 2, 2018

Engineering, General, Leadership, Management, Marshall Model, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Rightshifting, Software development

World Class? Really?

Some six years ago now, I wrote a post describing what might characterise a world class software / product development / collaborative knowledge work business.

In the interim, I’ve had some opportunities to work on these ideas for various clients. My consequent experiences, whilst in no way invalidating that post, have thrown up different perspectives on the question of “world class”.

Firstly, do you want it? Moving towards becoming a world class business involves a shed load of work, over many years. Do you want to commit to that effort? Even though the goal sounds noble, ambitious, attractive, does your business have what it takes to even begin the journey in earnest, let alone stick at it.

Then, do you need it? Absent powerful drivers spurring you on towards the goal, will you have the grit necessary to keep at it? Or will the initiative flounder and drown in the minutiae of daily exigencies, such as the constant pressure to get product and features out the door, to keep investors satisfied with (short term) results, etc.? And is the ROI there, in your context? If you do keep on the sometimes joyful, oftentimes wearisome path, and attain “world class” status, will the effort pay back in terms of e.g. the bottom line?

If your answers to the preceding two questions are yes, then we can get down to considering the characteristics of a world class collaborative knowledge-work business.

What might it look like, that goal state? Here’s my current take:

Context

Just in case a little context might help, here’s a variant of the Rightshifting chart which illustrates world class in terms of relative effectiveness (i.e. how effective are world class organisations relative to their peers?) The yellow area highlights those organisations (those at least circa 2.5 times more effective than the median) we might consider world class:

Fields of Competency

Any world class collaborative knowledge-work business must have mastered a bunch of different fields of knowledge. That’s not to say everyone in the organisation needs to have reached mastery (Level 5 – see below) in every one of the follow fields. But there must be a widespread acquaintance with all these fields, and some level of individual competent in each.

I suggest the following Dreyfus-inspired model for characterising an individual’s (practitioner’s) level of competency (or action-oriented knowledge) in any given field:

Level One (Novice)

The Novice level in each Field invites practitioners to acquire the basic vocabulary and core concepts of the Field. Attainment criteria will specify the expected vocabulary and core concepts. The Novice level also invites practitioners to acquire and demonstrate the ability to read and understand materials (books, articles, papers, videos, podcasts, etc.) related to the vocabulary and core concepts of the Field.

Level Two (Advanced Beginner)

The Advanced Beginner level in each Field invites practitioners to acquire the ability to critique key artefacts commonly found in the given Field. The Advanced Beginner level also invites practitioners to read more widely, and understand different perspectives or more nuanced aspects of, and peripheral or advanced elements within the Field.

Level Three (Competent)

The Competent level in each Field invites practitioners to acquire and demonstrate a practical competency in the core concepts in the Field, for example through the ability to apply the concepts, or create key artefacts, unaided.
The Competent level also invites practitioners to acquire and demonstrate the ability to collaborate with others in exploring and applying the abilities acquired in the Novice and Advanced Beginner levels.

Level Four (Proficient)

The Proficient level in each Field invites practitioners to acquire and demonstrate the ability to prepare and present examples and other educational materials appropriate to the given Field. The Proficient level also invites practitioners to acquire and demonstrate the ability to coach or otherwise guide others in applying the abilities acquired in the Novice, Advanced Beginner and Competent levels.

Level Five (Master)

The Master level in each Field invites practitioners to acquire and demonstrate national or international thought leadership in the Field. This can include: making significant public contributions or extensions to the Field; becoming a publicly recognised expert in the Field; publishing books, papers and/or articles relevant to the Field; etc.

The Fields

Any business that aspires to world class status must attain effective competencies in a wide range of different fields. The following list suggests the fields I have found most relevant to collaborative knowledge-work business in general, and software / product tech businesses in particular:

Flow

Flow (product development) (n): the movement of the designs, etc., for a product or service through the steps of the design processes which create them.
Continuous Flow (n): The progressive movement of units of design through value-adding steps within a design process such that a product design or service design proceeds from conception into production without stoppages, delays, or back flows.
See also: Optimised Flow Demonstration (video)

Deming

* Many in Japan credit Bill Deming for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of 1950 to 1960.
William Edwards Deming (October 14, 1900 – December 20, 1993) was an American engineer, statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and management consultant. Deming is best known for his work in Japan after WWII, particularly his work with the leaders of Japanese industry.

Risk Management

Risk management is the discipline and practice of explicitly identifying and managing key risks.
“Risk Management is Project Management for grown-ups.”
~ DeMarco & Lister
Potential benefits include:
- makes aggressive risk-taking possible
- protects us from getting blindsided
- provides minimum-cost downside protection
- reveals invisible transfers of responsibility
- isolates the failure of a subproject
Note; Many Agile practices are, at their heart, about risk management.

Mindset

Mindset a.k.a. collective (organisational) memeplex (n): A set of memes (ideas, assumptions, beliefs, heuristics, etc.) which interact to reinforce each other.

“A memeplex is a set of memes which, while not necessarily being good survivors on their own, are good survivors in the presence of other members of the memeplex.”
~ Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion

The “organisational mindset” is a set of beliefs about the world and the world of work which act to reinforce each other.
These interlocking beliefs tightly bind organisations into a straight-jacket of thought patterns which many find inescapable. Without coordinated interventions at multiple points in the memeplex simultaneously, these interactions will prevail, as will the status quo.

Requirements a.k.a. Needs Management

A more or less formal approach to identifying and communicating needs
Any approach that ensures that everyone involved in attending to the identified needs shares a clear understanding of the required outcome(s): “doing the RIGHT thing”.

Fellowship

A system of organisational governance based on the precepts of Situational Leadership and with a primary focus on the quality of interpersonal relationships as a means to improved organisational health and effectiveness.
More generally, paying attend to the quality and effectiveness of the collaborative relationships across and through the business (and the extended value network of which it is a part).

Cognitive Function

Cognitive function (Neurology) (n): Any mental process that involves symbolic operations–e.g. perception, memory, creation of imagery, and thinking; Cognitive Function encompasses awareness and capacity for judgment.
Effectiveness of collaborative knowledge work is dictated by both e.g. quality of interpersonal relationships and degree of Cognitive Function.
See also: Cognitive Science

PDCA

PDCA (plan–do–check–act, or plan–do–check–adjust) is an iterative four-step method used for the control and continuous improvement of processes and products. It is also known as the Deming circle/cycle/wheel, Shewhart cycle, control circle/cycle, or plan–do–study–act (PDSA).
Based on the scientific method, (Cf. Francis Bacon) e.g. “hypothesis” – “experiment” – “evaluation”.

Statistical Process Control (SPC)

Statistical process control (SPC) is a method of quality control which uses statistical methods. SPC is applied in order to monitor and control a process.
Key tools used in SPC include control charts; a focus on continuous improvement; and the design of experiments.
See also: The Red Beads and the Red Bead Experiment with Dr. W. Edwards Deming (video)

Lean Product Development

Lean Product Development applies ideas from Lean Manufacturing to the design and development of new products (See e.g. books by Allen Ward and Michael Kennedy)
Aims to improve the flow of new ideas “from concept to cash”.
Can also help raise levels of innovation.
Exemplar: TPDS (Toyota Product Development System)

Don Reinertsen’s Work

Don Reinertsen is the author of three of the most definitive and best-selling books on product development.
His 1991 book, Developing Products in Half the Time is a product development classic.
His 1997 book, Managing the Design Factory: A Product Developer’s Toolkit, was the first book to describe how the principles of Just-in-Time manufacturing could be applied to product development. In the past 16 years this approach has become known as Lean Product Development.
His latest award-winning book, The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development, has been praised as, “… quite simply the most advanced product development book you can buy.”

Neuroscience

(Cognitive) neuroscience is concerned with the scientific study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition, with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes.
(Cognitive) neuroscience addresses the questions of how psychological/cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both psychology and neuroscience, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuropsychology.
See also: Cognitive Function

Theory of Constraints

The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a management paradigm originated by Eliyahu M. Goldratt.
TOC proposes a scientific approach to improvement. It hypothesises that every complex system, including manufacturing processes, consists of multiple linked activities, just one of which acts as a constraint upon the entire system (the “weakest link in the chain”).
TOC has a wide range of “thinking tools” which together form a coherent problem-solving and change management system.

Self-organisation

Self-organisation (n): Ability of a system to spontaneously arrange its components or elements in a purposeful (non-random) manner. It is as if the system knows how to ‘do its own thing.’ Many natural systems such as cells, chemical compounds, galaxies, organisms and planets show this property. Animal and human communities too display self-organization.
“An empowered organization is one in which individuals have the knowledge, skill, desire, and opportunity to personally succeed in a way that leads to collective organisational success.”
~ Stephen R. Covey

Quantification

In mathematics and empirical science, quantification is the act of counting and measuring that maps human sense observations and experiences into members of some set of numbers. Quantification in this sense is fundamental to the scientific method.
See also: Tom Gilb

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking provides a model of decision-making that helps organisations effectively deal with change and adapt.
It is a component of a learning organisation – one that facilitates learning throughout the organisation to transform itself and adapt.
See also: Peter Senge, Russell L. Ackoff, Donella Meadows, etc.

Psychology

Psychology (n): the study of behaviour and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups.

Argyris

An American business theorist, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, and known for his work on interpersonal communication, organisational effectiveness, double-loop learning and learning organisations.
See also: Action Science.

Psychotherapy

Psychotherapy (n): interventions which facilitate the shifting of perspectives and attitudes, and thus, human behaviours.
See also: Organisational Psychotherapy

To the above list of Fields, I invite you to add any which may have specific resonance or relevance to your own business.

And then there are the lists of technical capabilities you need to be present in your various business functions, too.

Aside – CMMI

As an aside, CMMI also provides an extensive list of “capability areas” ( circa 128 different areas, last time I looked) focussed on engineering capabilities. Note: I find the CMMI list useful, but only as a primer, not as a full-blown recipe for success.

Summary

All the above begs the question: how to get there? And, how close are you to world class, so far?

– Bob

No Hashtags

January 12, 2018

General, NoCV, NoTesting, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Software development

No Hashtags

[Tl;Dr: #No… hashtags are aspirational, not didactic.]

I seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that most folks in the Twitter software and product development communities have come to understand the mode of use of the various #No… hashtags we see regularly these days. Particularly with the widespread exposure of the mother of them all: #NoEstimates.

(Note: I use the #NoTesting hashtag in a couple of the examples, below, mainly because recent discussions thereon have suggested to me a need for this post.

Invitational

For me, #No… hashtags are a short invitation to interested folks to think again about what, often, are near-autonomic responses. For example, I regard each occurrence of the #NoEstimates hashtag as an invitation to ponder whether, in each case, estimates are giving us value and meeting folks’ needs (in a relatively effective way). An invitation to checkpoint ourselves, and to discuss whether we are just us going-through-the motions without thinking too much about the role of estimates – and estimating – in any particular situation.

Aspirational

Also, I see #No… hashtags as being intended as aspirational: Articulating or labelling a future state where things could be different. Aspiring to change.

For example, I use #NoTesting to advertise my aspirations for a world of development where testing is no longer the chosen path to quality, replaced by other means for more economically delivering products, etc., with agreed levels of quality. So, in that case, #NoTesting really does advertise my aspiration for an end to testing – which I see as hugely expensive and wasteful compared to other, less well-known means – but NOT at the expense of product quality. It also implies – easy to miss, I guess – a responsible, calm, controlled transition from todays’ approaches to that aspirational future state.

“Ask not ‘how are we going to test this?'”
“Ask rather ‘how are we going to ensure this goes out with the agreed levels of quality?'”
“And when you’ve got a handle on that, ask then ‘how are we going to ensure that everything we do henceforth goes out at the agreed levels of quality?'”

Confrontational

And yes, too, #No… hashtags are confrontational. They invite us to challenge ourselves and our entrenched beliefs. To consider change, and its implications. And that’s often uncomfortable, at the very least. Particularly when the topic challenges folks’ self-image, or seems to threaten their accumulated wisdom, reputation and experience, or their livelihoods. I hope we can all see these things in the spirit of mutual exploration, rather than as an opportunity for reiterating entrenched positions and protecting the status quo.

“[#No… Hashtags are] the social media equivalent of poking people with a stick.”

Metaphorical

When I use #No… hashtags, I’m being metaphorical rather than literal. Some folks may not understand this and get upset, by taking them literally. For my part, I believe that’s on them.

For example, with the #NoTesting hashtag, I have had some folks assume that I’m advocating abandoning any concern for the quality of e.g. a product under development. This is not my position. Although denying it seems only to inflame the situation once folks have got their teeth clamped on that particular bone. I guess their assumptions stem from not having knowledge of other means to quality.

In using the #NoTesting hashtag, I’m basically saying “under some circumstances, maybe there are other, more effective means to meet folks needs re: product quality than the default strategy most use today (i.e. testing)”. “How about we talk about those various circumstances, and means?” In this way, #No… hashtags are a metaphor for “would you be willing to think again, and maybe join the search for more effective means, and the contexts in which they might bring benefits?”

Summary

Would you be willing to join me in embracing the #No… hashtag modality, and take each occurrence as an opportunity for a productive and relationship-building mutual exploration of a topic?

– Bob

I Have Nothing Left To Say

November 2, 2015

9 Comments

I Have Nothing Left To Say

This being my 500th blog post here at Think Different, I’ve been looking for something profound, insightful, earth-shattering and above all useful to write about. In that search, I’ve come to feel that, actually, I have nothing left to say.

I’ve written many posts on my experiences, on my thoughts, and on the ideas I’ve come up with to make software development and the business of software development better. I’ve clarified many of my thoughts through writing them down. And folks tell me I’ve entertained and intrigued in maybe equal measure with my different, generally contrarian take on conventional wisdom. If you’re at all interested in any of that, the archive has 499 other posts to delve into.

And now I feel have nothing left to say.

It’s not like any of my ideas have gained any traction in the world. I see and hear of no FlowChain or flow-based initiatives out there. Nobody seems much interested in the effectiveness of their organisations or in improving (Rightshifting) that effectiveness. Nobody seems much interested doing much about the role of the collective psyche, or in treating it. In fact, very few seem to have any interest in improving things, be that in their workplaces or in their wider lives. Few again seem interested in applying emotioneering to the design of their products. And few see the need to act on the idea that attending to folks’ needs would bring more joy – not to mention progress – into the world.

In brief, I’m finding little joy in continuing to sow my ideas in rocky places, along the paths, or amongst thorns. Maybe there is good soil somewhere, but I have yet to find it. And I have yet to see any seeds even come up, let alone produce and multiply.

“Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”
~ The Bible, Mark 4:3-8

And yet, I persevere. Continuing to help one person at a time. I find joy in that, every time. It all seems so futile, and yet something keeps me going.

Except now I feel have nothing left to say.

I have over two hundred part-writtten and unpublished posts in various states of completion. And precious little enthusiasm for publishing any of them. After all, the emotional return on publishing even one seems so…minimal.

And so I accept that I have nothing new to share, and nothing left to say.

And even if I did have more things to say, I’ve come to believe that’s damn futile, too. Folks so rarely act on what they hear, or read, or see. Just one more reason I have nothing left to say.

For my friends and dedicated readers, fear not. I have no intention of stopping writing this blog. Just don’t expect future posts to have much to say.

– Bob

Wahnsinn ist das. Wahnsinn. Heller Wahnsinn!

September 11, 2015

General, Organisational effectiveness, Rightshifting

Wahnsinn ist das. Wahnsinn. Heller Wahnsinn!

This is madness. Madness. Sheer madness! That’s what we often think when other people do things we “know” make no sense or are bound to turn out badly.

Predicting the future can be a tricky thing. Particularly predicting the outcome of an action within a Complex Adaptive System such as a Company, or on a smaller scale, something like a software project.

We may “know” what’s going to happen. We may be certain of the future outcome. We may even be “right”, in the sense that we believe any well-informed person would make the same prediction.

It Matters So Much

The thing is, it matters so much to us. And yet not at all to those other people. The mad ones. They see the world differently. They see the issues differently. They choose different actions, different solutions. And they predict different outcomes – at least to the extent they’re conscious of making any predictions. From their perspective, they’re just as “right” as you. Righter, in fact – as their worldview makes so much more sense to them than does yours. So they don’t predict the same outcomes. In fact they generally predict blue skies, halcyon days and cute kittens.

It matters so much to us that we rant and rave about the madness of their actions. Or inactions. Or apparent assumptions and beliefs. I guess you know that feeling of utter frustration – having to stand by, powerless, while the train wreck proceeds unchecked. Of having to do things which you know will result in waste, or worse.

The Double Bind

This kind of situation is what Argyris refers to as a double bind. We feel like we can’t say anything because our perspectives are so far apart, and yet we feel we must say something lest the inevitable disaster proceeds unchecked. Yet we feel we can’t raise that difference of perspectives, either (it being undiscussable).

“What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Compounded by a failure to call out that failure to communicate. But, looking deeper, there are more profound causes, more fundamental issues at play. Like our consummate blindness to the futility of our trying to coerce others into see things our way. Like our frequent bias for task completion over relationship building.

“…Most important of all, we value task accomplishment over relationship building and either we are not aware of this cultural bias or, worse, don’t care and don’t want to be bothered with it..”
~ Edgar H. Schein

How often have you been in this situation? Did you find a way to resolve the double bind? Would you be willing to contribute to this topic?

Do Something

August 12, 2015

3 Comments

Do Something

People sometimes ask me why my blog is so negative. I don’t accept that criticism. I always take pains to offer a more effective alternative to whatever’s irking me. But I can see how some folks might take my posts that way.

If there is any doom or gloom it’s because I’d really like to see folks wasting rather less of their time, and potential, at work. Despite an internet full of advice on how to do things that little bit better, there’s one grossly unpalatable truth: Incremental improvement is essentially a huge waste of everyone’s time. My chagrin arises from knowing that, yet being seemingly unable to perceptibly move the needle through anything I write or do. Some call this the Cassandra Metaphor. I guess that frustration comes across from time to time.

Knowing What To Do

Tobias wrote a post today which I found both inspiring and depressing. Inspiring because I share his viewpoint that individuals can make a difference. That it’s down to us. And depressing because it said nothing about how.

“It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”
~ W Edwards Deming

Don’t JUST Do Something

So until you know what to do – and my Cassandra-spidey-senses are telling me you’re not going to be believing me on that – may I offer the same advice that some attribute to Taiichi Ohno on speaking to so many of his managers:

“Don’t just do something, stand there!”
~ Taiichi Ohno

Stand there (in Ohno’s case it was a chalked square on the factory floor), and mindfully observe what is happening. For as long as it takes to come to an understanding of what is happening and why, and what needs to change. Not an understanding of every single thing, of course. That could take a life time. Believe me on that, at least. I can vouch.

But at least for as long as it takes to come to some understanding of some piece, some fragment, of the big picture. Then do something. Although I’d call that mindful observing “doing something”, too. Inspect (and experiment) and adapt. Repeat.

What I Know

I know that significant change, change where all our lives will be more joyful and meaningfully spent, absolutely necessitates a shift in our collective beliefs. By all means start with yourself. Indeed, where else could we start?

But the task at hand is to shift – Rightshift – everyone’s belief system. Doing that locally, with a person or team or group, is only storing up problems. Organisational Cognitive Dissonance will do for us every time.

Even doing it for a whole organisation, cross-organisalonal value chain or industry is ultimately doomed. Reversion to the mean will do for us at the larger scale. Unless and until we shift that mean.

Mankind Is Our Real Work

Ultimately. the collective beliefs of Mankind is our real work. That may seem like boiling the ocean for a cup of tea. Especially if all you want is e.g. to have the chance to write some cooler code.

And how can we change the beliefs systems of others, anyhow? I choose to do so by example. And by sharing what I see, and how I feel about those things. This may not perceptibly move the needle. But I have faith it’s making some difference. How about you? Would you like to make some difference?

We want, need, a better life at work and I’m saying the only way is to understand what’s going on with the Universe and live a better life as an example to Mankind and hope it all works out? Sorry if you thought it was going to be easy. At least we’re in good company. The Buddha, not least.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
~ Margaret Mead

– Bob

Open

July 30, 2015

Community, General

Open

“Open to me, so that I may open. Provide me with your inspiration. So that I may see mine.”
~ Rumi

This quote spoke to me, so I thought I might write this post.

I often find inspiration in the words of Rumi, as I do in the lives and works of a significant number of my “Giants“.

More fundamentally, though, I’ve not really dwelt on what inspires me. Now taking the chance to reflect on that, since my youth I’ve always been curious about how things work. And that curiosity has inspired me to study, take things apart, find out how they tick.

That same curiosity, I guess, has driven me to make things. From Meccano, Lego, Airfix and Hornby, through analog and digital electronics, R/C aircraft, helicopters, tanks and boats, to real cars and motorcycles, carpentry, and food. And software, of course. Making things – and fixing things – helps me understand the fundamentals, and satisfy my curiosity.

Early in my career I made some small speciality out of fixing or upgrading software systems where all documentation – and often, source code – had been lost. And from time to time, taking research or prototype systems, again absent documentation or original authors, and turning them into commercial products. Even these days I find a certain self-indulgent catharsis in that kind of work.

And for the longest time, or so it seems, I’ve found inspiration in trying to understand social systems and how they work. Which in no small measure involves trying to understand people. At least, en masse.

And, I guess, I’ve sometime found much inspiration in exploring things together. With other folks who share my curiosity.

I’d love to hear about what inspires you. Would you be willing to share?

– Bob

Dead Wood

April 8, 2015

General, Leadership, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology

Dead Wood

Much of my work over the past twenty years or so has been informed by the grace and wisdom of Dr. W Edwards Deming, often known as Bill Deming. This post is inspired by the following quote:

“The only reason an organization has dead wood is that management either hired dead wood or it hired live wood and killed it.”
~ Bill Deming

Note: Very similar quotes have been attributed to Peter Scholtes, and indeed the above quote may well be Dr. Deming paraphrasing Peter Scholtes.

Definition

“Dead Wood” here refers to people in a group or organisation who are no longer actively useful – people still drawing salary, etc., but adding little or no value.

Deming’s 95/5

Bill Deming observed that “95% of the performance of an organization is attributable to the system (processes, technology, work design, regulations, etc.) and 5% are attributable to the individual”. If we accept this, then is there even such a thing as dead wood? Maybe there’s just folks trying to do a good job, but frustrated – defeated, even – by the system, the way the work works, and the situations in which they find themselves.

Dead – Or Just Dormant?

I have seen many folks, in various organisations, written-off as “dead wood”. I see this much like “flipping the bozo bit” – many managers seem to believe that “dead wood-edness” is an inherent attribute of individuals. And little or nothing to do with their circumstances or situation. Maybe they have not heard of the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Is dead wood really dead, or are those so labelled just in the wrong jobs, in the wrong teams, in circumstance where they’ve been all but forced to disengage, where they have learned to be helpless?

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
~ William Shakespeare

Maybe you know some “dead wood” in your team, group or organisation. What might it take to bring them back to life, to flourish, to see some green shoots of new growth? Is there anything you could do to help that along?

– Bob

Raising The Bar

February 14, 2015

Raising The Bar

Most days I have at least ten different ideas for blogs posts. Some I reject because they don’t fit the kind of posts I want to publish here on Think Different. That’s what marketers call “positioning”.

FWIW I’m considered the merits of having a number of different blogs to help with this. For example, my (presently) rather low-activity Humane Solutions blog, and now my latest, “Digital Business Transformation“.

But for the past couple of months, I’ve been applying a new filter to my ideas for posts: How likely is it that folks will ACT on the post? If I deem it unlikely to promote action, I’ll not write the post. For the moment this means I’m writing and posting much less. And that’s OK for me.

– Bob

A New Hope

January 16, 2015

General, Organisational effectiveness, Rightshifting

14 Comments

A New Hope

“Hope is the only thing stronger than fear.”

I have hopes, and I have fears. Most days my hopes win out over my fears. As far as this blog goes, I have long had hopes it might give others some hope, too. Hope that by finding new, more effective strategies for getting folks’ needs met, we can nurture workplaces where dignity and human endeavour flourish.

“Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself”
~ Tony Benn

I’m Not Happy

I’ve become ever more convinced that trying to change others is a poor strategy for bringing about such change. That we can’t solve other people’s problems – or meet their needs. That, fundamentally, only they can do that. Bitter pill.

I’ve now written a little over four hundred posts on this blog. I started posting to share stuff I had learned over the years as an imaginal cell in the caterpillar of work. Recently, I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the notion that telling people things has much effect excepting perhaps some marginal entertainment value. Put another way, I see no evidence that folks ever act upon the ideas that I share.

So, I’m persuaded that if we want to change the world, starting with ourself is a better place to start.

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see what others do.”
~ Mahatma Gandhi

Looking Forward

So, I’m resolved to stop blogging to change others, and start blogging about how my own perspective, assumptions, beliefs have changed, and continue to change, over time. In other words, how I have, intentionally and unintentionally, changed myself.

I’m fearful this might make my posts seem more egocentric and less helpful, but I’m hopeful that with your feedback, this new direction might, eventually, prove useful.

– Bob

A Bit About Organisational Effectiveness

December 7, 2014

4 Comments

A Bit About Organisational Effectiveness

In Rightshifting, we define organisational effectiveness as “the relative ability of a whole organisation to achieve it’s goals”. “Relative” meaning relative to some baseline, over time, or relative to other organisations, such as competitors. And “goals” intending to evoke the ideas of Eliyahu M Goldratt in his book “The Goal”.

I’m pretty sure that many folks see little or no connection between the effectiveness of the organisations within which they work, and their day-to-day experiences, hopes, and fears.

Human Potential

As I’m happy to regularly repeat, I’m driven – to write, to speak, to help – by the egregious waste of human potential I see in knowledge-work organisations almost everywhere. It just bugs me to see so many smart people lacking the opportunities and climates in which to express themselves. It seems that the folks in question are generally much less bothered by this than am I.

“If you want people to do a good job, give them a good job to do.”
~ Frederick Hertzberg

Maybe it would be better, for me and for my peace of mind, to let it all go, emotionally, and just help those (few) folks that actually want some help.

Stuck

But until I’m evolved enough to have that happen, I’m kind of stuck. Stuck with a focus on organisational effectiveness as the means to improve the lot of knowledge-work folks everywhere. It’s my hypothesis, you see, that a hallmark of a more effective organisation is it’s one in which more people get to use more of their skills and talents, more often. And, incidentally, get to have more of their needs – for job satisfaction, a sense of achievement, feeling good about themselves and their contribution to the common purpose – met more often, too.

Nicer

Put another way, the more effective the organisation, the nicer it is as a place to work. For me, that’s all part and parcel of “effectiveness”.

Visible

So, for all those folks struggling to see any connection between Rightshifting and their daily lives, I wonder if this post has succeeded at all in helping make that connection a little more visible, more tangible, more relevant?

– Bob

Act Different

November 20, 2014

3 Comments

Act Different

“Action is the foundational key to all success.”
~ Pablo Picasso

Since its inception, some four years ago, the title for this blog has been “Think Different”. I chose it as a tribute to Steve Jobs, as a reminder of the fundamental role of mindset in creating effective organisations, and as a statement of intent.

For me, the ability to think different(ly) has always been the gateway to change, to improvement, to effectiveness, to reducing the egregious waste of human potential we see in so many of our organisations, and to acting differently.

Interplay

But the two interplay. Action influences thinking at least as much as thinking influences action. Research has shown that acting differently – “fake it ‘till you make it” etc. – can indeed help people into thinking differently.

The Shewhart Cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) shows the circular nature of improvement, and the interplay between thinking and doing.

And similar themes underpin Boyd’s OODA loop (Observe-Orient-Decicde-Act) and Allen Wards’s LAMDA loop (Look-Ask-Model-Discuss-Act). Not to mention the Scientific Method more generally.

And as a counterpoint, I like this quote originating with Martin Gabel:

“Don’t just do something, stand there.”
~ Martin Gabel

Incrementalism

We don’t have to effect a change in our actions all at once.

“You can make a 180° change in your life by making a 1° change in what you do.”
~ Raymond Aaron

Raymond Aaron suggests that If you have an idea for a new way to act, do it now. Yes, I know, that can sound daunting. But he points out that you don’t have to do it 100% now. Even 1% now is a start. And making a start is a key aspect of acting different. It’s what differentiates acting different from thinking different.

Positive Deviance

Another way to begin acting different is explained by the idea of positive deviance. Go look for positive deviants, and start practising what they’ve already been doing.

“It is easier to act your way into a new way of thinking than think your way into a new way of acting”.
~ Jerry Sternin

Think Different by all means, but look for action on acting different, too.

– Bob

A Digital Trail

September 20, 2014