Archive for the ‘Seeing Things As They Are’ Category
The Causes and Conditions for Innovation
Everyone wants to do more innovation. But how? To figure out what’s going on with their innovation programs, companies spend a lot of time to put projects into buckets but this generates nothing but arguments about whether projects are disruptive, radical innovation, discontinuous, or not. Such a waste of energy and such a source of conflict. Truth is, labels don’t matter. The only thing that matters is if the projects, as a collection, meet corporate growth objectives. Sure, there should be a short-medium-long look at the projects, but, for the three time horizons the question is the same – Do the projects meet the company’s growth objectives?
To create the causes and conditions for innovation, start with a clear growth objective by geography. Innovation must be measured in dollars.
Good judgement is required to decide if a project is worthy of resources. The incremental sales estimates are easy to put together. The difficult parts are deciding if there’s enough sizzle to cause customers to buy and deciding if the company has the chops to do the work. The difficulty isn’t with the caliber of judgement, rather it’s insufficient information provided to the people that must use their good judgement. In shorth, there is poor clarity on what the projects are about. Any description of the projects blurry and done at a level of abstraction that’s too high. Good judgement can’t be used when the picture is snowy, nor can it be effective with a flyby made in the stratosphere.
To create the causes and conditions for innovation, demand clarity and bedrock-level understanding.
To guarantee clarity and depth, use the framework of novel, useful, successful. Give the teams a tight requirement for clarity and depth and demand they meet it. For each project, ask – What is the novelty? How is it useful? When the project is completed, how will everyone be successful?
A project must deliver novelty and the project leader must be able to define it on one page. The best way to do this is to create physical (functional) model of the state-of-the-art system and modify it with the newness created by the project (novelty called out in red). This model comes in the form of boxes that describe the system elements (simple nouns) and arrows that define the actions (simple verbs). Think hammer (box – simple noun) hits (arrow -simple verb) nail (box – simple noun) as the state-of-the-art system and the novelty in red – a thumb protector (box) that blocks (arrow) hammer (box). The project delivers a novel thumb protector that prevents a smashed thumb. The novelty delivered by the project is clear, but does it pass the usefulness test?
To create the causes and conditions for innovation, demand a one-page functional model that defines and distills down to bedrock level the novelty created by the project. And to help the project teams do it, hire a good teach teacher and give them the tools, time and training.
The novelty delivered by a project must be useful and the project leader must clearly define the usefulness on one page. The best way to do this is with a one page hand sketch showing the customer actively using the novelty. In a jobs-to-be-done way, the sketch must define where, when and how the customer will realize the usefulness. And to force distillation blinding, demand they use a fat, felt tip marker. With this clarity, leaders with good judgement can use their judgement effectively. Good questions flow freely. Does every user of a hammer need this? Can a left-handed customer use the thumb guard? How does it stay on? Doesn’t it get in the way? Where do they put it when they’re done? Do they wear it all the time? With this clarity, the questions are so good there is no escape. If there are holes they will be uncovered.
To create the causes and conditions for innovation, demand a one-page hand sketch of the customer demonstrating the useful novelty.
To be successful, the useful novelty must be sufficiently meaningful that customers pay money for it. The standard revenue projections are presented, but, because there is deep clarity on the novelty and usefulness, there is enough context for good judgement to be effective. What fraction of hammer users hit their thumbs? How often? Don’t they smash their fingers too? Why no finger protection? Because of the clarity, there is no escape.
To create the causes and conditions, use the deep clarity to push hard on buying decisions and revenue projections.
The novel, useful, successful framework is a straightforward way to decide if the project portfolio will meet growth objectives. It demands a clear understanding of the newness created by the project but, in return, provides context needed to use good judgement. In that way, because projects cannot start without passing the usefulness and successfulness tests, resources are not allocated to unworthy projects.
But while clarity and this level of depth is a good start, it’s not enough. It’s time for a deeper dive. The project must distill the novelty into a conflict diagram, another one-pager like the others, but deeper. Like problem definition on steroids, a conflict must be defined in space – between two things (thumb and face of hammer head) – and time (just as the hammer hits thumb). With that, leaders can ask before-during-after questions. Why not break the conflict before it happens by making a holding mechanism that keeps the thumb out of the strike zone? Are you sure you want to solve it during the conflict time (when the hammer hits thumb)? Why not solve it after the fact by selling ice packs for their swollen thumbs?
But, more on the conflict domain at another time.
For now, use novel, useful, successful to stop bad projects and start good ones.
Image credit – Natashi Jay
Understanding the trajectory of the competitive landscape
If you want to gain ground on your competition you’ve first got to know where things stand. Where are their advantages? Where are your advantages? Where is there parity? To quickly understand the situations there are three tricks: stay at a high level, represent the situation in a clear way and, where possible, use public information from their website.
A side-by-side comparison of the two companies’ products is the way to start. Create a common set of axes with price running south to north and performance (or output) running west to east. Make two copies and position them side-by-side on the page – yours on the left and theirs directly opposite on the right. Go to their website (and yours) and make a list of every product, its price and its output. (For prices of their products you may have to engage your sales team and your customers.) For each of your products place a symbol (the company logo) on your performance-price landscape and do the same for their products on their landscape. It’s now clear who has the most products, where their portfolio outflanks yours and where you outflank them. The clarity and simplicity will help everyone see things as they are – there may be angst but there will be no confusion and no disagreement. The picture is clear. But it’s static.
The areal differences define the gaps to close and the advantages to exploit. Now it’s time to define the momentum and trajectories of the portfolios to add a dynamic element. For your most recent product launch add a one next to its logo, for the second most recent add a two and for the third add three. These three regions of your portfolio are your most recent focus areas. This is your trajectory and this is where you have momentum. Extend and arrow in the direction of your trajectory. If you stay the course, this is where your portfolio will add mass. Do the same for your competitor and compare arrows. You know have a glimpse into the future. Are your arrows pointing in the same directions as theirs? Are they located in the same regions? How would feel if both companies continued on their trajectories? With this addition you have glimpse into the stay-the-course future. But will they stay the course? For that you need to look at the patent landscape.
Do a patent search on their patents and applications over the previous year and represent each with its most descriptive figure. Write a short thematic description for each, group like themes and draw a circle around them. Mark the circle with a one to denote last year’s patents. Repeat the process for two years ago and three years ago and mark each circle accordingly. Now you have objective evidence of the future. You know where they have been working and you know where they want to go. You have more than a glimpse into the future. You know their preferred trajectories. Reconcile their preferred trajectories with their price-performance landscapes and arrows 1, 2 and 3. If their preferred trajectories line up with their product momentum, it’s business as usual for them. If they contradict, they are playing a different game. And because it takes several years for patent applications to publish, they’ve been playing a new game for a while now.
Repeat the process for your patent landscape and flop it onto your performance-price landscape. I’m not sure what you’ll see, but you’ll know it when you see it. Then, compare yours with theirs and you’ll know what the competitive landscape will look like in three years. You may like what you see, or not. But, the picture will be clear. There may be discomfort, but there can be no arguments.
This process can also be used in the acquisition process to get a clear picture a company’s future state. In that way you can get a calibrated view three years into the future and use your crystal ball to adjust your offer price accordingly.
Image credit – Rob Ellis
Sometimes things need to get worse before they can get better.
All the scary words are grounded in change. Innovation, by definition, is about change. When something is innovative it’s novel, useful and successful. Novel is another word for different and different means change. That’s why innovation is scary. And that’s why radical innovation is scarier.
Continuous improvement, where everything old is buffed and polished into something new, is about change. When people have followed the same process for fifteen years and then it’s improved, people get scared. In their minds improved isn’t improved, improved is different. And different means change. Continuous improvement is especially scary because it makes processes more productive and frees up people to do other things, unless, of course, there are no other things to do. And when that happens their jobs go away. Every continuous improvement expert knows when the first person loses their job due to process improvement the program is dead in the saddle, yet it happens. And that’s scary on a number of fronts.
And then there’s disruption. While there’s disagreement on what it actually is, there is vicious agreement that after a disruption the campus will be unrecognizable. And unrecognizable things are unrecognizable because they are different from previous experience. And different means change. With mortal innovation there are some limits, but with disruption everything is fair game. With disruption everything can change, including the venerable, yet decrepit, business model. With self-disruption, the very thing responsible for success is made to go away by the people that that built it. And that’s scary. And when a company is disrupted from the outside it can die. And, thankfully, that’s scary.
But change isn’t scary. Thinking about change is scary.
There’s one condition where change is guaranteed – when the pain of the current situation is stronger than the fear of changing it. One source of pain could be from a realization the ship will run aground if a new course isn’t taken. When pain of the immanent shipwreck (caused by fear) overpowers the fear of uncharted waters, the captain readily pulls hard to starboard. And when the crew realizes it’s sink or swim, they swim.
Change doesn’t happen before it’s time. And before things get bad enough, it’s not time.
When the cruise ship is chugging along in fair seas, change won’t happen. Right before the fuel runs out and the generators quit, it’s all you can eat and margaritas for everyone. And right after, when the air conditioning kicks out and the ice cream melts, it’s bedlam. But bedlam is not the best way to go. No sense waiting until the fuel’s gone to make change. Maybe someone should keep an eye the fuel gauge and let the captain know when there’s only a quarter tank. That way there’s some time to point the ship toward the closest port.
There’s no reason to wait for a mutiny to turn the ship, but sometimes an almost mutiny is just the thing.
As a captain, it’s difficult to let things get worse so they can get better. But if there’s insufficient emotional energy to power change, things must get worse. The best captains run close to the reef and scrape the hull. The buffet tables shimmy, the smoked salmon fouls the deck and the liquor bottles rattle. And when done well, there’s a deep groan from the bowels of the ship that makes it clear this is no drill. And if there’s a loud call for all hands on deck and a cry for bilge pumps at the ready, all the better.
To pull hard in a new direction, sometimes the crew needs help to see things as they are, not as they were.
Image credit – Francis Bijl
Connection Before Numbers
Compound annual growth, profit margin, Key Business Indicators, capability indices, defects per million opportunity, confidence intervals, statistical significance, regression coefficients, temperature, pressure, force, stress, velocity, volume, inches, meters, decibels. The numbers are supposed to tell the story. But they don’t.
There’s never enough data to see the whole picture. But, even when the discussion is limited to topics covered by the data, people don’t see things the same way. And even if the numbers were 100% complete, there would be no common interpretation. And if there was a common interpretation there’d be a range of diverging opinions on how to move forward. Even with perfect numbers, there is divergence among people.
Numbers are numb. They don’t have meaning until we attach it. And, as entities that attach meaning, we think do it rationally. But we use past history and fear to assign meaning. We are not rational, we’re emotional. Even the most rigorous scientist has an obsessive nature, infatuation and deep fascination. Even when swimming in a sea of data, we’re emotional, and, therefor, irrational.
Excitement, happiness, joy, anxiety, sadness, fear, collaboration, cooperation, competition, respect, disrespect, kindness, love. We live and work in a collection of people systems where emotion carries the day. Emotion and irrationality are not bad, it’s the way it is. We’re human. And, I’m thankful for it.
But with emotion and irrationality comes connection as part of the matched set. If you want one, you have to buy all three. And I want connection. Connection brings out the best in people – their passion, energy and love. When magical things happen at work, connection is responsible. And when magic happens at home, it’s connection.
I’m thankful I have strong connections.
Image credit – Irudayam
Good teachers don’t always look like teachers.
When you’re laying in your camping tent dead tired and wanting for sleep the last thing you want is a rouge mosquito that dive-bombs you continuously throughout the night. With each sortie, it pushes on your expectations of how things should be. This little creature, so small and so powerless, becomes powerful enough to ruin a good night’s sleep. But, really, the mosquito itself doesn’t become powerful at all. You give the mosquito its power, power generated by a mismatch between what you want (sleep) and what is (a little bug flying around). This mismatch causes you assign intent to the mosquito which leads you to tell yourself a story of an insect on a singular mission to upset you. Truth is, the mosquito is on a mission, a mission to teach you the self destructive power of making little things into big things. The mosquito is your teacher.
When it’s time to learn, the best teachers show up as if on command. When things have been going well for a while and you’re getting a little stale, your supportive boss contracts yellow fever to make room for your teacher. Your teacher, in the form of your new boss, shows up the first day with all the wrong answers and the strong desire to standardize on them. Your teacher challenges you to look inside for the motivation to elevate your game and demands you bring creativity and clarity of unrivaled proportions. Your terrible boss doesn’t know enough to ask for the right things so you end up solving oblique problems that on the surface seem meaningless. But, because you had to solve a new problem in a new way you come up with a variant that ends up transforming your mainstream business. Your terrible boss is your teacher.
Due to an economic slowdown, the multinational you work for eliminates your division and you lose your job. As you search for a job and collect unemployment you have a little time so you start a crazy side project. It doesn’t matter if it works because it’s just a diversion from your miserable situation, so you try it. And, as it turns out the impossible is actually possible and you start a whole new business on your prototype. Your miserable situation is your teacher.
Instead of getting angry at your new situation and feeling terrible about yourself, embrace the newness and let it be your teacher. Be humble, watch it unfold and see where it takes you. Use it to see yourself differently. Use it to challenge your assumptions.
And, most importantly, as you take the wild ride, hold on to your hearts best intention.
Image credit – Andreas.
Business Models Are Finite
Like it or not, everything changes. The rock solid brand will erode and the venerable business model will wither and die. Though you will add immense energy to hold on to what you built, natural forces of competitive evolution will come up with something makes your best work extinct.
We see it in our everyday lives. Houses need new roofs, cars needs new tires and our kids grow out of their best clothes. Sure we do everything we can to make things last, but we know that ultimately the roof will collapse and the tires will blow out. It doesn’t matter if we don’t want it to happen. It will happen without our consent. And we can see it coming. The roof loses some shingles, some tar paper shows through in spots and we know the leaks will follow. The leaks are not wanted, but they’re not a surprise. And it’s the same with tires. They start to rumble at highway speed, they get you stuck in snow that wasn’t a problem last year and the hydroplaning is inevitable. It’s not if it’s when. You rotate them, you keep them inflated and you know they will give it up. If you’re surprised it’s because you didn’t pay attention.
But in business we deny our business models have a natural life span and we deny what worked last year will not always work next year. And like with tires the signs of wear are obvious, but we dismiss the bumpy ride and the loss of traction in the market. And when the tar paper is clearly showing through the business model and someone points it out they are ignored or even ostracized for calling attention to the deep problem. And that’s the thing – it’s too deep to acknowledge, too deep to talk about. It’s too uncertain and therefore too frightening. The fear of a dwindling reality is stronger than the fear of doing something new so we put plywood over the windows and try to ride out the storm that will only get stronger.
Plywood is good when the radar says the hurricane will last for three hours. But plywood isn’t going to cut it when the fifth hurricane in a month picks up the house and blows it into the next county. The decision to evacuate the business model and abandon what worked is a tough one. It’s emotionally charged. There are pictures on the wall of four generation of CEOs and there are memories of successful production launches and an unnamable feeling of comfort in everything, including the bad cafeteria food you grew up on.
To ignore the natural forces of change is unskillful. It’s not good for the stock price but more importantly it’s not good for your personal wellbeing. It’s emotionally draining to bury the truth from yourself and it’s an immense waste of resources to continually prop up something that should be evacuated.
It’s not safer to bury your head in the sand. Call attention to the leaky roof and point out that people aren’t supposed to need to add air to leaky tires every other day. And when they dismiss you, don’t accept it. No one can dismiss you without your consent. Don’t give it to them.
Image credit – Don McCullough
Dangerous Expectations
Expectations result from mental models and wants. When you have a mental model of a system and you want the system to behave in a way that fits your mental model, that’s an expectation. And when you want the system to behave differently than your mental model, that’s also an expectation. When the system matches your wants, the world is good. And when your wants are out of line with the system, the world is not so good.
Speculation is not expectation. Speculation happens when you propose, based on your mental model, how the system will behave. With speculation, there’s no attachment to the result, no wanting it to be one way or another. There’s just watching and learning. If the system confirms your mental model, the applicability of the model is reinforced (within this narrow context.) And when the system tramples your mental model, you change your mental model. No attachment, no stress, no whining, no self-judgement.
When doing work that’s new, system response is unknown. Whether the system will be exercised in a new way or it’s an altogether new system, metal models are young and untested. When it’s the first time, speculation is the way to go. Come up with your best mental model, run the experiment and record the results. After sitting in data, refine your mental model and repeat. If your mental model doesn’t fit the system, don’t judge yourself negatively, don’t hold yourself back, don’t shy away. Refine your mental model and build-test-learn as fast as you can. And if your mental model fits the system, don’t judge yourself in a positive way. This was your first test and you don’t understand the system fully. Refine your model and test for a deeper understanding. [Note – systems have been known to temporarily conform to mental models to obfuscate their true character.]
When doing work that’s new, expectation gets in the way. If you expect your models to be right and they’re not, you learning rate is slower than your expectations. That’s not such a big deal on its own, but the rippling self-judgement can be crippling. Your emotional state becomes fragile and it’s difficult to keep pushing through the work. You doubt yourself and your abilities; you won’t put yourself out there; and you won’t propose radical mental models for fear of looking like you don’t know what you’re doing. You won’t run the right experiments and you never the understand the fundamental character of the system. You block your own learning. If you expect your models won’t to fit the system, you block your learning from the start. Sometimes your lack of confidence blocks you from even trying. [Note – not trying is the only way to guarantee you won’t learn.]
Within the domain of experiments, mental models and generic systems, it’s relatively easy to see the wisdom of speculations and the perils of expectations, where wanting leads to judging and judging leads to self-blocking. But it’s not so easy to see in the domain of life where experiments are replaced with personal interactions and generic systems are replaced with everyday situations and mental models are ever-present. But in both domains the rules and consequences are the same.
Just as in the lab, in day-to-day life expectations are dangerous.
Image credit – Dermot O’Halloran
Make it work.
If you think something can’t be done, it won’t get done. And if you think it may be possible, or is possible, it may get done. Those are the rules.
If an expert says it will work, it will work. If they say it won’t work, it might. Experts can tell you will work, but can’t tell you what won’t.
If your boss tells you it won’t work, it might. Give it a try. It will be fun if it works.
If you can’t make it work, make it worse and then do the opposite.
If you can’t explain the problem to your young kids, you don’t understand the situation and you won’t make it work.
If something didn’t work ten years ago, it may work now. Technology is better and we’re smarter. More likely it would have worked ten years ago if they ran more than one crude experiment before they gave up.
If you can’t draw a one page sketch of the problem, it may never work.
If you can’t make it work, put it down for three days. Your brain may make it work while you’re sleeping.
If you don’t know the problem, you can’t make it work. Be sure you’re trying to solve the right problem.
If your boss tells you it will work, it might. If they tell you how to make it work, let them do it.
If none of your attempts have been fruitful and you’re out of tricks, purposely make one performance attribute worse to free up design space. That may work.
If you don’t know when the problem occurs, you don’t know much. Your solutions won’t work.
If you tried everything and nothing worked, ask someone for help whose specialty in an unrelated area. They may have made it work in a different domain.
If you think everyone in the group understands the problem the same way, they don’t. There’s no way they’ll agree on the best way to make it work. Don’t wait for consensus.
If you don’t try, that’s the only way to guarantee it won’t work.
Image credit – Simon Greig
Sort By Importance
Urgency is important, but it’s not everything. It creates focus, but washes out the radical fringe. It’s easy to measure, but easy to measure doesn’t mean it’s the best thing to work on.
In the heat of the moment urgency is king. Frantic project managers take shortcuts to meet a deadline defined fourteen months ago; Lean Startup-ers ready-fire-aim their way from pivot to pivot; And resources flow to projects that are scheduled to finish soonest.
Urgency is attractive because it’s so clear cut, so objective, so easy to measure.
Due Date – Today’s Date = Urgency.
There’s always consensus on today’s date, everyone knows the due date and subtraction come easily. There you go. No debate, no discussion. This project has more urgency than that one. Just do the math. But where did the due date come from? Did the work content define the due date? If so, projects with the least work content, with their immanent due date, are the most urgent and resources should flow to the shortest projects. Did the annual trade show set the due date? If so, projects with earliest trade shows should get priority. Did the CEO define the due date for reasons unknown to mere mortals? If so, projects that finish before the declared date should get priority and projects that finish after the due date should get put on the back burner.
Project scope defines work content and start date plus work content equals due date. For two projects with equal work content, the project that starts first has more urgency. Should projects start sooner to increase urgency? Should project plans pile on resources to pull in the completion date to increase urgency? Should project managers strip the sizzle out of projects so they finish sooner?
Urgency isn’t important. Importance is important.
The problem with importance is its subjective nature. Because there is no objective measure of importance, judgement is required. The cold scoring systems to rank projects don’t work. There are no scoring rubrics, no algorithms, no customized weighting factors that can objectively quantify importance. It’s either important or it isn’t. It’s important in the chest, or it’s not. It’s all about judgement.
The context defines what’s important. Market share has dropped five years in a row, some projects are more important than others. Market share has increased five years in a row, a different set of projects is important. Can’t make payroll, urgency-based project selection is best. Technology is long in the tooth, it’s important to fund projects that buy or build new technology. Which projects are most important? It depends.
The best way to sort projects by importance is to ask “Is this project important?” and have a discussion. Some projects will have more upside and others will have more certainty. Some could create new markets and other will proved two percent growth in a guaranteed way. Which are most important? It depends.
Importance is relative. Use the “Is this project important?” methodology to force rank your projects by importance. Once complete, take a step back and ask if the ranked list makes sense. Reshuffle if needed. Starting from the top, fully staff the most important project. For the next most important project, allocate the remaining resources and repeat the process project-by-project until the resources are gone. This process ensures the most important projects on the list get the resources. But there’s a hole in the methodology.
What if our innate urgency bias keeps the most important projects off the list?
Image credit – Stephen Depolo
Be done with the past.
The past has past, never to come again. But if you tell yourself old stories the past is still with you. If you hold onto your past it colors what you see, shapes what you think and silently governs what you do. Not skillful, not helpful. Old stories are old because things have changed. The old plays won’t work. The rules are different, the players are different, the situation is different. And you are different, unless you hold onto the past.
As a tactic we hold onto the past because of aversion to what’s going on around us. Like an ostrich we bury our head in the sands of the past to protect ourselves from unpleasant weather buffeting us in the now. But there’s no protection. Grasping tightly to the past does nothing more than stop us in our tracks.
If you grasp too tightly to tired technology it’s game over. And it’s the same with your tired business model – grasp too tightly and get run through by an upstart. But for someone who wants to make a meaningful difference, what are the two things that are sacred? The successful technology and successful business model.
It’s difficult for an organization to decide if the successful technology should be reused or replaced. The easy decision is to reuse it. New products come faster, fewer resources are needed because the hard engineering work has been done and the technical and execution risks are lower. The difficult decision is to scrap the old and develop the new. The smart decision is to do both. Launch products with the old technology while working feverishly to obsolete it. These days the half-life of technology is short. It’s always the right time to develop new technology.
The business model is even more difficult to scrap. It cuts across every team and every function. It’s how the company did its work. It’s how the company made its name. It’s how the company made its money. It’s how families paid their mortgages. It’s grasping to the past success of the business model that makes it almost impossible to obsolete.
People grasp onto the past for protection and companies are nothing more than a loosely connected network of people systems. And these people systems have a shared past and a good memory. It’s no wonder why old technologies and business models stick around longer than they should.
To let go of the past people must see things as they are. That’s a slow process that starts with a clear-eyed assessment today’s landscapes. Make maps of the worldwide competitive landscape, intellectual property, worldwide regulatory legislation, emergent technologies (search YouTube) and the sea of crazy business models enabled by the cloud.
The best time to start the landscape analyses was two years ago, but the next best time to start is right now. Don’t wait.
Image credit – John Fife
Moving Away from Best Practices
If the work is new, there is no best practice.
When you read the best books you’ll understand what worked in situations that are different than yours. When you read the case studies you’ll understand how one company succeeded in a way that won’t work in yours. The best practices in the literature worked in a different situation, in a different time and a under different cultural framework. They won’t work best for you.
Just because a practice worked last time doesn’t mean it’s a best practice this time. More strongly, just because it worked last time doesn’t mean it was best last time. There may have been a better way.
When a problem has high urgency it should be solved in a fast way, but if urgency is low, the problem should be solved in an efficient way. Which way is best? If the consequences of getting it wrong are severe, analyses and parallel solutions are skillful, but if it’s not terribly important to get it right, a lower cost way is better. But is either the best way?
The best practices found in books are usually described a high level of abstraction using action words, block diagrams and arrows. And when described at such a high level, they’re not actionable. You may know all the major steps, but you won’t know how each step should be done. And if the detail is provided, the context of your situation is different and the prescriptive steps don’t apply.
Instead of best practices, think effective practices. Effective because the people doing the work can do it effectively. Effective because it fits with the capability and capacity of the people doing the work. Effective because it meshes with existing processes and projects. Effective because it fits with your budget, timeline and risk profile. Effective because it fits with your company values.
Because all our systems are people systems, there are no best practices.