Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Fundementals’ Category

If there’s a recurring problem, take the time to make sure the system hasn’t changed since last time and make sure the context and environment are still the same.  If everything is the same, and there are no people involved in the system, it’s a problem that resides in the clear domain.  Here’s a link from Dave Snowden who talks about the various domains.  In this video, Dave calls this domain the “simple” domain.  Solve it like you did last time.

If there’s a new problem, take the time to understand the elements of the system that surround the problem.  Define the elements and define how they interact, and define how they set the context and constraints for the problem.  And then, define the problem itself.  Define when it happens, what happens just before, and what happens after.  If there are no people involved, if the solution is not immediately evident, if it’s a purely mechanical, electromechanical, chemical, thermal, software, or hardware, it’s a problem in the complicated domain (see Dave’s video above) and you’ll be able to solve it with the right experts and enough time.

If you want to know the next evolution of the system, how it will develop and evolve, the situation is more speculative and there’s no singular answer. Still, the first step is the same – take the time to understand the elements of the system and how they interact.  Then, look back in time and learn the previous embodiments of the system and define its trajectory – how it evolved into its current state.  If there has been consistent improvement along a singular line of goodness, it’s likely the system will want to continue to evolve in that direction.  If the improvement has flattened, it’s likely the system will try to evolve along a different line of evolution.

I won’t go into the specifics of lines of evolution of technological systems, as it’s a big topic.  But if you want to know more, here’s a nice description of evolution along the line of adaptability by my teacher, Victor Fey – The best products know how to adapt.

If there are people involved with the system, it’s a complex system (see Dave’s video).  (There are complex systems that don’t involve people, but I find this a good way to talk about complex systems.) The first step is to define the system as it is, but because the interactions among the elements are not predictable, your only hope is to probe, sense, and respond by doing more of what works and less of what doesn’t.  Thanks to Dave Snowden for that language.

The first step is always to understand the system as it is.

“Space – Antennae Galaxies” by Trodel is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

When choosing projects there are two competing questions: Is it big enough? And, is it small enough? The project must be big enough to generate the profits required by the company’s growth objectives.  Larger growth objectives require larger projects.  Yet the project has to be small enough to be completed within the time constraints defined by the growth objectives.  Tighter time constraints require smaller projects.

When the projected revenue generated by the candidate project is less than what’s needed to meet the growth objectives, the project is deemed “not big enough.”  But what if the candidate project is the largest project that the project team can imagine? Does that say something about the project team’s imagination or the growth objectives?  Open question: How do tell the difference between a project that is too small to meet the growth objectives and growth objectives that demand projects larger than the project team’s imagination?

When the projected launch date of the candidate project is later than the date of first revenue defined in the growth plan, the project plan is deemed “too long.”  The team is then asked to sharpen their pencils and return with a launch date that meets the revenue timeline.  And when the revised schedule also violates the revenue timeline, the project is deemed “too big.” Open question: How do you tell the difference between a project that is too big to meet the revenue timeline and a revenue timeline that is too stringent to allow a project of sufficient size?

Theoretically, there are candidate projects that are big enough to meet the growth objectives and small enough that their launch dates meet revenue timelines.  But in practice, candidate projects are either too small to meet growth objectives or too large to meet revenue timelines.  And, yes, I have seen candidate projects that are both too small and too large.  But this says more about the growth objectives, revenue timelines, and the number of projects that run concurrently (too few resources spread over too many projects).

Growth objectives are good, and so are projects that fit with the team’s capabilities to deliver.  Incremental revenue that comes sooner rather than later is good.  And so are project timelines that are governed by the work content, resources applied to the projects, and good product development practices.

Truth is, we need it all – projects that deliver the sizzle that sells and projects that launch sooner rather than later.  And year-on-year, we need to get better at delivering on all of it.  And the best way I know to do all that is to ritualistically invest in the people that do the work and the tools they use.

“Horse Yin and Yang” by onecog2many is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

When a car’s battery is low and doesn’t have enough energy to start the car, you change your expectations about travel plans, hook up the battery to a charger and give it the time it needs to charge.  You don’t keep trying to start the car because the already tired battery gets more tired.  You know the signs – every time you turn the key, the engine turns more slowly and at some point, the slow whirring decays into a clicking of the solenoid.

People don’t run on batteries, but like batteries, we sometimes run low on cranking power.  But where we accept the reality that sometimes a car battery will not start the car, we don’t see the degradation of people’s performance the same way.  Sure, the signs are more subtle – reduced ability to concentrate, reduced productivity, variability in output, and the like – but the signs are there for all to see.  And where the car simply refuses to start, sometimes people blame themselves for their low battery and over-exert themselves to keep the projects moving, even when it’s not in their best interest.

It’s vacation season.  Take the time you need to charge your battery and don’t feel guilty about it.  Try to hold onto the fact that you’re not helping things in the long run by blocking yourself from the rest you need now.  And, sure, you’re good at your job, but the company can handle things while you’re on holiday.  Or, better yet, why not flip it on its head and declare your time away as a growth opportunity for someone on your team to fill in for you and test drive your job?

They will get the chance to interact with different people in the organization and likely get a broader picture of what’s going on at the company.  They will get a chance to share their thoughts and ideas, which will feel good, and other leaders will see them in action.  It’s a win for everyone.

And while you’re away, don’t check in.  That’s just like pulling the plug on the battery charger before it has a chance to do its work.

“Old Ray-O-Vac Batteries” by deanj is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

If when you write your monthly report no one responds with a question of clarification or constructive comment, this may be a sign your organization places little value on your report and the work it stands for.  If someone sends a thank you email and do not mention something specific in your report, this masked disinterest is a half-step above non-interest and is likely also a sign your organization places little value on your report and the work it stands for.

If you want to know for sure what people think of your work, stop writing your report.  If no one complains, your work is not valuable to the company. If one person complains, it’s likely still not valuable.  And if that single complaint comes from your boss, your report/work is likely not broadly valuable, but you’ll have to keep writing the report.

But don’t blame the organization because they don’t value your work.  Instead, ask yourself how your work must change so it’s broadly valuable.  And if you can’t figure a way to make your work valuable, stop the work so you can start work that is.

If when you receive someone else’s monthly report and you don’t reply with a question of clarification or constructive comment, it’s because you don’t think their work is all that important.  And if this is the case, tell them you want to stop receiving their report and ask them to stop sending them to you.  Hopefully, this will start a discussion about why you want to stop hearing about their work which, hopefully, will lead to a discussion about how their work could be modified to make it more interesting and important.  This dialog will go one of two ways – they will get angry and take you off the distribution list or they will think about your feedback and try to make their work more interesting and important.  In the first case, you’ll receive one fewer report and in the other, there’s a chance their work will blossom into something magical.  Either way, it’s a win.

While reports aren’t the work, they do stand for the work.  And while reports are sometimes considered overhead, they do perform an inform function – to inform the company of the work that’s being worked.  If the work is amazing, the reports will be amazing and you’ll get feedback that’s amazing.  And if the work is spectacular, the reports will be spectacular and you’ll get feedback that matches.

But this post isn’t about work or reports, it’s about the power of stopping.  When something stops, the stopping is undeniable and it forces a discussion about why the stopping started.  With stopping, there can be no illusion that progress is being made because stopping is binary – it’s either stopped or it isn’t.  And when everyone knows progress is stopped, everyone also knows the situation is about to get some much-needed attention from above, wanted or not.

Stopping makes a statement. Stopping gets attention. Stopping is serious business.

And here’s a little-known fact: Starting starts with stopping.

Image credit — joiseyshowaa

Since resources are expensive, it can be helpful to see the environment around your product as a source of inexpensive resources that can be modified to perform useful functions.  Here are some examples.

Gravity is a force you can use to do your bidding. Since gravity is always oriented toward the center of the earth, if you change the orientation of an object, you change the direction gravity exerts itself relative to the object. If you flip the object upside down, gravity will push instead of pull.

And it’s the same for buoyancy but in reverse.  If you submerge an object of interest in water and add air (bubbles) from below, the bubbles will rise and push in areas where the bubbles collect.  If you flip over the object, the bubbles will collect in different areas and push in the opposite direction relative to the object.

And if you have water and bubbles, you have a delivery system.  Add a special substance to the air which will collect at the interface between the water and air and the bubbles will deliver it northward.

If you have motion, you also have wind resistance or drag force (but not in deep space).  To create more force, increase speed or increase the area that interacts with the moving air. To change the direction of the force relative to the object, change the orientation of the object relative to the direction of motion.

If you have water, you can also have ice.  If you need a solid substance look to the water.  Flow water over the surface of interest and pull out heat (cool) where you want the ice to form. With this method, you can create a protective coating that can regrow as it gets worn off.

If you have water, you can make ice to create force.  Drill a blind hole in a piece of a brittle material (granite), fill the hole with water, and freeze the water by cooling the granite (or leave it outside in the winter).  When the water freezes it will expand, push on the granite and break it.

These are some contrived examples, but I hope they help you see a whole new set of free resources you can use to make your magic.

Thank you, VF.

Image credit – audi_insperation

When cars run out of gas, they can no longer get the job done until their tanks are filled up.  And it’s the same with people, except people are asked to keep on truckin’ even though their tanks are empty.

When machines are used for a certain number of hours, they are supposed to be given rest and routine maintenance.  If the maintenance isn’t completed as defined in the operator’s manual, the warranty is voided.  Maybe we could create a maintenance schedule for people. And if it’s not done, we could be okay with reduced performance, like with a machine.  And when the scheduled maintenance isn’t performed on time, maybe we could blame the person who prevented it from happening.

If your lawnmower could tell you when you were using it in a way that would cause it damage, would you listen and change your behavior?  How about if a person said a similar thing to you? To which one would you show more compassion?

When your car’s check engine light comes on, would you pretend you don’t see it or would you think that the car is being less than truthful?  What if a person tells you their body is throwing a warning light because of how you’re driving them? Would you believe them or stomp on the accelerator?

We expect our machines to wear out and need refurbishment. We expect our cars to run out of gas if we don’t add fuel. We expect our lawnmowers to stall if we try to mow grass that’s two feet tall.  We expect that their capacities and capabilities are finite.  Maybe we can keep all this in mind when we set expectations for our people.

Copy text

Our behavior is a result of causes and conditions. One thing paves the way for the next.  Elements of the first thing create a preferential path for the next thing. If someone gets praised for doing A, more people will do A, even when A is the wrong behavior.  If someone gets chastised for doing B, B won’t happen again, even when B is the right behavior.

The most troubling set of causes and conditions are those that block people from telling their truth. When everyone knows it’s a bad idea, but no one is willing to say it out loud, that’s a big problem.  In fact, it may be the biggest problem.

When people think they won’t be taken seriously, they keep their truth to themselves. When people know they will be dismissed, they keep quiet. When people feel the situation is hopeless because there’s no way they’ll be listened to, they say nothing.

When people see others not taken seriously, that creates conditions for future truths to be withheld.  When people see others being dismissed, that creates conditions for future truths to be kept quiet. When people see others in others from not being listened to, that creates conditions for future truths to remain unsaid.

And causes and conditions are self-strengthening.  The more causes and conditions are reinforced, the more the behaviors become ingrained.  The more people are stifled, the more they will keep quiet.  The more people are dismissed, the more they’ll shut up.  The more people’s truths are ignored, the more they’ll remain unsaid.

Here are three rules for truth-telling that will help you and your company move forward:

1. Without truth-telling, there can be no truth-telling.
2. The longer truth-telling is stifled, the harder it is for truth-telling to reemerge.
3. Truth-telling begets truth-telling.

Image credit — Jinterwas

Cigarette companies rebranded themselves because their products caused cancer and they wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their products.  Their name and logo (which stand for their brand) were mapped to bad things (cancer) so they changed their name and logo.  The bad things still happened, but the company was one step removed.  There was always the option to stop causing cancer and to leave the name and logo as-is, but that would have required a real change, difficult change, a fundamental change. Instead of stopping the harm, cigarette companies ran away from their heritage and rebranded.

Facebook rebranded itself because its offering caused cancer of a different sort.  And they, too, wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their offering.  The world mapped the Facebook brand to bullying, harming children, and misinformation that destroyed institutions. Sure, Facebook had the option to keep the name and logo and stop doing harm, but they chose to keep the harm and change the name and logo.  Like the cigarette companies, they chose to keep the unskillful behavior and change their brand to try to sidestep their damaging ways.  Yes, they could have changed their behavior and kept their logo, but they chose to change their logo and double down on their unhealthy heritage.

The cigarette companies and Facebook didn’t rebrand themselves to move toward something better, they rebranded to run away from the very thing they created, the very experience they delivered to their customers.  In that way, they tried to distance themselves from their offering because their offering was harmful. And in that way, rebranding is most often about moving away from the experience that customers experience.  And in that way, rebranding is hardly ever about moving toward something better.

One exception I can think of is a special type of rebranding that is a distillation of the brand, where the brand name gets shorter.  Several made-up examples: Nike Shoes to Nike; MacDonalds Hamburgers to MacDonalds; and Netflix Streaming Services to Netflix.  In all three cases, the offering hasn’t changed and customers still recognize the brand.  Everyone still knows it’s all about cool footwear, a repeatable fast-food experience, and top-notch entertainment content.  If anything, the connection with the heritage is concentrated and strengthened and the appeal is broader.  If your rebranding makes the name longer or the message more nuanced, you get some credit for confusing your customers, but you don’t qualify for this special exception.

If you want to move toward something better, it’s likely better to keep the name and logo and change the offering to something better.  Your brand has history and your customers have mapped the goodness you provide to your name and logo.  Why not use that to your advantage?  Why not build on what you’ve built and morph it slowly into something better?  Why not keep the brand and improve the offering?  Why not remap your good brand to an improved offering so that your brand improves slowly over time?  Isn’t it more effective to use your brand recognition as the mechanism to attract attention to your improved offering?

In almost all cases, rebranding is a sign that something’s wrong.  It’s expensive, it consumes a huge amount of company resources, and there’s little to no direct benefit to customers.  When you feel the urge to rebrand, I strongly urge you to keep the brand and improve your offering.  That way your customers will benefit and your brand will improve.

Image credit Quinn Dombrowski

When you don’t know what to do, what do you do?  This is a difficult question.

Here are some thoughts that may help you figure out what to do when you really don’t know.

Don’t confuse activity with progress.

Gather your two best friends, go off-site, and define the system as it is.

Don’t ask everyone what they think because the Collective’s thoughts will be diffuse, bland, and tired.

Get outside.

Draw a picture of how things work today.

Get a good meal.

Make a graph of goodness over time.  If it’s still increasing, do more of what you did last time.  If it’s flat, do something else.

Get some exercise.

Don’t judge yourself negatively.  This is difficult work.

Get some sleep.

Help someone with their problem.  The distraction will keep you out of the way as your mind works on it for you.

Spend time with friends.

Try a new idea at the smallest scale. It will likely lead to a better one. Repeat.

Use your best judgment.

Image credit – Andrew Gustar

When you want new thinking or rapid progress, create a small team.

When you have a small team, they manage the handoffs on their own and help each other.

Small teams hold themselves accountable.

With small teams, one member’s problem becomes everyone’s problem in record time.

Small teams can’t work on more than one project at a time because it’s a small team.

And when a small team works on a single project, progress is rapid.

Small teams use their judgment because they have to.

The judgment of small teams is good because they use it often.

On small teams, team members are loyal to each other and set clear expectations.

Small teams coordinate and phase the work as needed.

With small teams, waiting is reduced because the team members see it immediately.

When something breaks, small teams fix it quickly because the breakage is apparent to all.

The tight connections of a small team are magic.

Small teams are fun.

Small teams are effective.

And small teams are powered by trust.

“LEGO Octan pit crew celebrating High Five Day (held every third Thursday of April)” by Pest15 is marked with CC BY-SA 2.0.

Clean-sheet designs are fun, right up until they don’t launch.

When you feel the urge to do a clean-sheet design, go home early.

When you don’t know how to make it better, make it worse and do the opposite.

Without trying, there is no way to know if it will work.

Trying sometimes feels like dying.

But without trying, nothing changes.

Agreement is important, but only after the critical decision has been made.

When there’s 100% agreement, you waited too long to make the decision.

When it’s unclear who the customer is, ask “Whose problem will be solved?”

When the value proposition is unclear, ask ‘What problem will be solved?”

When your technology becomes mature, no one wants to believe it.

When everyone believes the technology is mature, you should have started working on the new technology four years ago.

If your projects are slow, blame your decision-making processes.

Two of the most important decisions: which projects to start and which to stop.

All the action happens at the interfaces, but that’s also where two spans of control come together and chafe.

If you want to understand your silos and why they don’t play nicely together, look at the organizational chart.

When a company starts up, the product sets the organizational structure.

Then, once a company is mature, the organizational structure constrains the product.

At the early stages of a project, there’s a lot of uncertainty.

And once the project is complete, there’s a lot of uncertainty.

“Toys Never Forget” by Alyssa L. Miller is marked with CC BY 2.0.