Shipulski On Design

The Idealized Future State (IFS) is all the rage these days.  The idea behind it is the team defines the IFS so it can then define the steps needed to achieve it.  The IFS is just what it says it is – a description of the perfect state of our future affairs.  It defines what things will look like and how things will go when the system evolves in the best imaginable way.  It describes a future perfection.  Some troubling questions should come to mind.  Here are some.

How is “best” defined? What if there is disagreement on multiple bests? Whose best becomes bestest? Once the best best is chosen, can’t it be bested by a better best?

If there were two IFSs at a social event, what would you ask them to figure out which one was an almost-IFS and which was the ideal-IFS?  And if both were imposter-IFSs, how could you tell?

Since the IFS is supposed to predict the future and we can’t predict the future, why do we think it’s a good idea to ask people to predict the future?

If it takes imagination to create an IFS and imagination is not bound by reality, isn’t it likely that an imagined idealized future is not possible to achieve?  And won’t a project that must achieve an impossible future likely to run long and miss its launch window?

Wouldn’t an Achievable Future State (AFS) be a little less bad?  But who gets to choose what is achievable and what is not?  And how could they know?

Instead of fixating on an IFS as the ultimate destination, why not agree on the situation as it is and locate yourself within that context?  Why not start the journey with a sense of direction?*

Why not understand the situation as it is and do the next right thing?*

Why not run small experiments in parallel and do more of what works and less of what doesn’t?*

*Thanks to Dave Snowden for this language.

Comments are closed.