Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Clarity’ Category

If you got what you wanted, what would you do?

Would you be happy or would you want something else?

Wanting doesn’t have a half-life.  Regardless of how much we have, wanting is always right there with us lurking in the background.

Getting what you want has a half-life. After you get what you want, your happiness decays until what you just got becomes what you always had.  I think they call that hedonistic adaptation.

When you have what you always had, you have two options.  You can want more or you can want what you have.  Which will you choose?

When you get what you want, you become afraid to lose what you got.  There’s no free lunch with getting what you want.

When you want more, I can manipulate you. I wouldn’t do that, but I could.

When you want more your mind lives in the future where it tries to get what you want.  And lives in the past where it mourns what you did not get or lost.

It’s easier to live in the present moment when you want what you have. There’s no need to craft a plan to get more and no need to lament what you didn’t have.

You can tell when a person wants what they have.  They are kind because there’s no need to be otherwise.  They are calm because things are good.  And they are themselves because they don’t need anything from anyone.

Wanting what you have is straightforward.  Whatever you have, you decide that’s what you want. It’s much different than having what you want.  Once you have what you want hedonistic adaptation makes you want more, and then it’s time to jump back on the hamster wheel.

Wanting what you have is freeing.  Why not choose to be free and choose to want what you have?

Image credit — Steven Guzzardi

You know the space is new when you don’t have the right words to describe the phenomenon.

When there are two opposite sequences of events and you think both are right, you know the space is new.

You know you’re thinking about new things when the harder you try to figure it out the less you know.

You know the space is outside your experience but within your knowledge when you know what to do but you don’t know why.

When you can see the concept in your head but can’t drag it to the whiteboard, you’re swimming in new soup.

When you come back from a walk with a solution to a problem you haven’t yet met, you’re circling new space.

And it’s the same when know what should be but it isn’t – circling new space.

When your old tricks are irrelevant, you’re digging in a new sandbox.

When you come up with a new trick but the audience doesn’t care – new space.

When you know how an experiment will turn out and it turns out you ran an irrational experiment – new space.

When everyone disagrees, the disagreement is a surrogate for the new space.

It’s vital to recognize when you’re swimming in a new space.  There is design freedom, new solutions to new problems, growth potential, learning, and excitement.  There’s acknowledgment that the old ways won’t cut it.  There’s permission to try.

And it’s vital to recognize when you’re squatting in an old space because there’s an acknowledgment that the old ways haven’t cut it.  And there’s permission to wander toward a new space.

Image credit — Tambaco The Jaguar

For right frustration to emerge, you need an accurate understanding of how things are, a desire for them to be different, and a recognition you can’t remedy the situation.

The emergence of your desire for things to be different starts with knowing how things are.  And to see things as they are, you’ve got to be in the right condition – well-rested, unstressed, and sitting in the present moment. When you’re tired, stressed, or sitting in the past or future you can’t pay attention.  And when you don’t pay attention, you miss details or context and see something that isn’t.  Or, if you’re tired or stressed you can have clear eyes and a muddy interpretation. Either way, you’re off to a bad start because your desire for things to be different is wrongly informed. Sure, your misunderstanding can lead to a desire for things to be different, but your desire is founded on the wrong understanding.  If you want your frustration to be right frustration, seeing things as they are is the foundational step.  But it’s not yet a desire for things to be different.

Your desire for things to be different is a subtraction of sorts – when how things are minus how you want them to be equals something other than zero. (See Eq. 1)  Your brain-body uses that delta to create a desire for things to be different.  If how things are is equal to how you want them to be, the difference is zero (no delta) and there is no forcing function for your desire.  In that way, if you always want things to be as they are, there can be no desire for difference and frustration cannot emerge.  But frustration can emerge if you know how you want things to be and you recognize they’re not that way.

Eq. 1   Forcing Function for Desire (FFD) = (how things are) – (how you want them to be)

There is a more complete variant of the above equation where FFD is non-zero (there’s a difference between how things are and how you want them) yet frustration cannot emerge.  It’s called the “I don’t care enough” variant. (See Eq. 2) With this variant, you recognize how things are, you know how you want them to be, but you don’t care enough to be frustrated.

Eq. 2  FFD = [(how things are) – (how you want them to be)] * (Care Factor)

When you don’t care, your Care Factor (CF) = 0.  And when the non-zero delta is multiplied by a CF of zero, FFD is zero.  This means there is no forcing function for desire and frustration cannot emerge.  But this is not a good place to be.  Sure, frustration cannot emerge, but when you don’t care there is no forcing function for change.  Yes, you see things aren’t as you want, but you go along for the ride and don’t do anything about it.  I think that’s sad.  And I think that’s bad for business.  I’d rather have frustration.

Eq. 2 can be used by Human Resources as an Occom’s Razor of sorts.  If someone is frustrated, their CF is non-zero and they care.

Now the third factor required for frustration to emerge – a recognition you can’t do anything about the mismatch between how things are and how you want them. If you don’t recognize you can’t do anything to equalize how things are and how you want them, there can be no frustration.  Think – ignorance is bliss.  If you think you can do something to make how things are the same as how you want them, there is no frustration.  Because it’s important to you (CF is non-zero), you will devote energy to bringing the two sides together and there will be no frustration.  But when there’s a mismatch between how things are and how you want them, you care about making that mismatch go away, and you recognize you can’t do anything to eliminate the mismatch, frustration emerges.

What does all this say about people who display frustration? Do you want people that know how to see things as they are?  Do you want people who can imagine how things can be different?  Do you want people who understand the difference between what they can change and what they cannot? Do you want people who care enough to be frustrated?

Image credit — Atilla Kefeli

If you try to change what you cannot, your trying will not bring about change. But it will bring about 100% frustration, 100% dissatisfaction, 100% missed expectations, 0% progress, and, maybe, 0% employment.

Here’s a rule: If success demands you must change what you cannot, you will be unsuccessful.

If you try to change something you cannot change but someone else can, you will be unsuccessful unless you ask them for help.  That part is clear.  But here’s the tricky part – unless you know you cannot change it and they can, you won’t know to ask them.

If you know enough to ask the higher power for help and they say no but you try to change it anyway, you will be unsuccessful.  I don’t think that needed to be said, but I thought it important to overcommunicate to keep you safe.

Here’s the money question – How do you know if you can change it?

Here’s another rule: If you want to know if you can change something, ask.

If the knowledgeable people on the project say they cannot change it, believe them.  Make a record of the assessment for future escalation, define the consequences, and rescope the project accordingly.  Next, search the organization (hint – look north) for someone with more authority and ask them if they can grant the authority to change it.  If they say no, document their decision and stick with the rescoped project plan.  If they say yes, document their decision and revert to the original project plan.

If you do one thing tomorrow, ask your project team if success demands they change something they cannot.  I surely hope their answer is no.

Image credit — zczillinger

In business, we have vision statements, mission statements, strategic plans, strategic initiatives, and operating plans. And every day there are there are countless decisions to make. But, in the end, it all comes down to one thing – how we allocate our resources.  Whether it’s hiring people, training them, buying capital, or funding projects, all strategic decisions come back to resource allocation.  Said more strongly, resource allocation is strategy.

Take a look back at last year.  Where did you allocate your capital dollars?  Which teams got it and which did not?  Your capital allocation defined your priorities.  The most important businesses got more capital.  More to the point – the allocated capital defined their importance. Which projects were fully staffed and fully budgeted? Those that were resourced more heavily were more important to your strategy, which is why they were resourced that way. Which businesses hired people and which did not?  The hiring occurred where it fulfilled the strategy. Which teams received most of the training budget?  Those teams were strategically important.  Prioritization in the form of resource allocation.

Repeat the process for this year’s operating plan.  Where is the capital allocated?  Where is the hiring allocated?  Where are the projects fully staffed and budgeted?  Regardless of the mission statements, this year’s strategy is defined by where the resources are allocated.  Full stop.

Repeat the process for your forward-looking strategic plans.  Where are the resources allocated?  Which teams get more?  Which get fewer?  Answer these questions and you’ll have an operational definition of your company’s forward-looking strategy.

To know if the new strategy is different from the old one, look at the budgets.  Do they show a change in resource allocation?  Will old projects stop so new ones can start? Do the new projects serve new customers and new value propositions?  Same old projects, same old customers, same old value propositions, same old strategy.

To determine if there’s a new strategy, look for changes in capital allocation.  If the same teams are allocated more of the same capital, it’s likely the strategy is also the same. Will one team get more capital while the others get less?  Well, it’s likely a new strategy is starting to take shape.

Look for a change in hiring.  Fewer hires like last year and more of a new flavor probably indicate a change in strategy.  And if people flow from one team to another, that’s the same as one team getting new hires and the other team losing them.  That type of change in resource allocation is an indicator of a strategic change.

If the resource allocation differs from the strategic plan, believe the resource allocation. And if the resource allocation is the same as last year, so is the strategy.  And if there is talk of changing resource allocation but no actual change, then there is no change in strategy.

Image credit – Scouse Smurf

If you didn’t get what you wanted, why not try wanting what you got?

If the timing isn’t right, what can you change so it is right?

If it could get you in trouble, might you be on to something?

If it’s impossible, don’t bother.

If it’s easy, let someone else do it.

If there’s no possibility of bad things, there’s no possibility of magic.

If you need trust but have not yet secured it, declare failure and do something else.

If there is no progress, don’t push.  Move the blocking agent out of the way.

If you don’t know where the cost is, you can’t design it out.

If the timing isn’t right, why didn’t you do it sooner?

If the project went flawlessly, you didn’t try to do anything meaningful.

If you know some people won’t like it, isn’t that reason enough to do it?

If it’s almost impossible, give it a go.

If it’s easy, teach someone else to do it.

If you don’t know where the waste is, you can’t get rid of it.

If you don’t need trust, it’s the perfect time to build it.

If you try the hardest thing first and it doesn’t work, at least you avoid wasting time on the easy stuff.

If you don’t know the number of parts in your product, you have too many.

If the product came out perfectly, you took too long.

If you don’t give it a go, how can you know it’s impossible?

If trust is in short supply, supply it.

If it’s easy, do something else.

If forgiveness is so much better than permission, why do we like to do things under the radar?

If bad things didn’t happen, try harder next time.

Image credit — Gabriel Caparó

Praise is powerful, but not when you don’t give it.

People learn from mistakes, but not when they don’t make them.

Wonderful solutions are wonderful, but not if there are no problems.

Novelty is good, but not if you do what you did last time.

Disagreement creates deeper understanding, but not if there’s 100% agreement.

Consensus is safe, but not when it’s time for original thought.

Progress is made through decisions, but not if you don’t make them.

It’s skillful to constrain the design space, but not if it doesn’t contain the solution.

Trust is powerful, but not before you build it.

A mantra: Praise people in public.

If you want people to learn, let them make mistakes.

Wonderful problems breed wonderful solutions.

If you want novelty, do new things.

There can be too little disagreement.

Consensus can be dangerous.

When it’s decision time, make one.

Make the design space as small as it can be, but no smaller.

Build trust before you need it.

Image credit – Ralf St.

How do you spend your time?

How much time do you spend on things you want to do?

How much time do you spend on things you don’t want to do?

How much time do you have left to change that?

If you’re spending time on things you don’t like, maybe it’s because you don’t have any better options.  Sometimes life is like that.

But maybe there’s another reason you’re spending time on things you don’t like.

If you’re afraid to work on things you like, create the smallest possible project and try it in private.

If that doesn’t work, try a smaller project.

If you don’t know the ins and outs of the thing you like, give it a try on a small scale.  Learn through trying.

If you don’t have a lot of money to do the thing you like, define the narrowest slice and give it a go.

If you could stop on one thing so you could start another, what are those two things?  Write them down.

And start small. And start now.

Image credit — Pablo Monteagudo

When “it’s impossible” it means it “cannot be done.”  But maybe “impossible” means “We don’t yet know how to do it.” Or “We don’t yet know if others have done it before.”

What does it take to transition from impossible to newly possible? What must change to move from the impossible to the newly possible?

Context-Specific Impossibility. When something works in one industry or application but doesn’t work in another, it’s impossible in that new context.  But usually, almost all the elements of the system are possible and there are one or two elements that don’t work due to the new context.  There’s an entire system that’s blocked from possibility due to the interaction between one or two system elements and an environmental element of the new context.  The path to the newly possible is found in those tightly-defined interactions.   Ask yourself these questions: Which system elements don’t work and what about the environment is preventing the migration to the newly possible?  And let the intersection focus your work.

History-Specific Impossibility.  When something didn’t work when you tried it a decade ago, it was impossible back then based on the constraints of the day.  And until those old constraints are revisited, it is still considered impossible today.  Even though there has been a lot of progress over the last decades, if we don’t revisit those constraints we hold onto that old declaration of impossibility.  The newly possible can be realized if we search for new developments that break the old constraints. Ask yourself: Why didn’t it work a decade ago? What are the new developments that could overcome those problems?  Focus your work on that overlap between the old problems and the new developments.

Emotionally-Specific Impossibility. When you believe something is impossible, it’s impossible.  When you believe it’s impossible, you don’t look for solutions that might birth the newly possible.  Here’s a rule: If you don’t look for solutions, you won’t find them. Ask yourself: What are the emotions that block me from believing it could be newly possible? What would I have to believe to pursue the newly possible?  I think the answer is fear, but not the fear of failure.  I think the fear of success is a far likelier suspect. Feel and acknowledge the emotions that block the right work and do the right work.  Feel the fear and do the work.

The newly possible is closer than you think. The constraints that block the newly possible are highly localized and highly context-specific. The history that blocks the newly possible is no longer applicable, and it’s time to unlearn it.  Discover the recent developments that will break the old constraints.  And the emotions that block the newly possible are just that – emotions.  Yes, it feels like the fear will kill you, but it only feels like that.  Bring your emotions with you as you do the right work and generate the newly possible.

image credit – gfpeck

Whatever business you’re in, you’re in the people business.

Scan your organization for single-point failure modes, where if one person leaves the wheels would fall off.  For the single-point failure mode, move a new person into the role and have the replaced person teach their replacement how to do the job.  Transfer the knowledge before the knowledge walks out the door.

Scan your organization for people who you think can grow into a role at least two levels above their existing level.  Move them up one level now, sooner than they and the organization think they’re ready.  And support them with a trio of senior leaders.  Error on the side of moving up too few people and providing too many supporting resources.

Scan your organization for people who exert tight control on their team and horde all the sizzle for themselves.  Help these people work for a different company. Don’t wait. Do it now or your best young talent will suffocate and leave the company.

Scan your organization for people who are in positions that don’t fit them and move them to a position that does.  They will blossom and others will see it, which will make it safer and easier for others to move to positions that fit them.  Soon enough, almost everyone will have something that fits them.  And remember, sometimes the position that fits them is with another company.

Scan your organization for the people who work in the background to make things happen. You know who I’m talking about.  They’re the people who create the conditions for the right decisions to emerge, who find the young talent and develop them through the normal course of work, who know how to move the right resources to the important projects without the formal authority to do so, who bring the bad news to the powerful so the worthy but struggling projects get additional attention and the unworthy projects get stopped in their tracks, who bring new practices to new situations but do it through others, who provide air cover so the most talented people can do the work everyone else is afraid to try, who overtly use their judgment so others can learn how to use theirs, and who do the right work the right way even when it comes at their own expense.  Leave these people alone.

When you take care of the people part of the business, all the other parts will take care of themselves.

Image credit – are you my rik?

What does your team do when you’re not there?  Do they make decisions or wait for you to come back so you can make them?

If your team makes an important decision while you’re out of the office, do you support or criticize them? Which response helps them stand taller? Which is most beneficial to the longevity of the company?

If other teams see your team make decisions while you are on vacation, doesn’t that make it easier for those other teams to use their good judgment when their leader is on vacation?

If a team waits for their leader to return before making a decision, doesn’t that slow progress?  Isn’t progress what companies are all about?

When you’re not in the office, does the organization reach out directly to your team directly? Or do they wait until they can ask your permission?  If they don’t reach out directly, isn’t that a reflection on you as the leader? Is your leadership helping or hindering progress?  How about the professional growth of your team members?

Does your team know you want them to make decisions and use their best judgment? If not, tell them.  Does the company know you want them to reach out directly to the subject matter experts on your team? If not, tell them.

If you want your company to make progress, create the causes and conditions for good decisions to be made without you.

Image credit – Conall