Archive

Actionable Insights

Organisations Don’t Need Software Developers (and Never Have)

Introduction

For years, the business world has been enamoured with technology, placing software developers at the forefront of innovation. But what if we’ve been looking at this all wrong? What if organisations—and their customers—need something entirely different?

The Misplaced Focus

Organisations have never truly needed software developers. What they’ve needed are solutions to problems, improvements in efficiency, and ways to better serve their customers. We’ve mistaken the tool for the goal, focusing on the creation of software rather than the delivery of value.

Enter the Attendant

What organisations and their customers truly need are attendants—individuals who know how to attend to the needs of the Folks That Matter™. These are the people who can bridge the gap between business needs and practical solutions, who can translate customer needs into actionable strategies.

Why Attendants Matter

Attendants bring a crucial skill set to the table:

  1. Customer-centric thinking
  2. Problem-solving abilities
  3. Communication skills
  4. Empathy and understanding

These qualities allow attendants to identify and address the real needs of an organisation and its customers, focusing on outcomes rather than outputs.

The Shift from Creation to Care

By prioritising attendants, organisations can:

  • Better align their efforts with business goals
  • Improve customer satisfaction
  • Reduce wasted resources on unnecessary initiatives
  • Foster a culture of service and attention to detail

Implementing the Attendant Model

To shift towards an attendant-focused approach, organisations might choose to:

  1. Reassess job roles and descriptions
  2. Prioritise soft skills in hiring processes
  3. Invest in training programmes that emphasise customer needs
  4. Create cross-functional teams that include diverse perspectives
  5. Place attending to folks’ needs at the centre of the way the work works, across the board

Proving the New Approach

Before even considering software development, organisations might choose to:

  1. Conduct thorough customer research
  2. Prototype and test new ways of working manually
  3. Gather and analyse data on the improved ways of working
  4. Demonstrate tangible benefits to stakeholders

Only after these steps have been taken and the new approach has been proven effective can we choose to consider resorting to software development (see also: Software Last cf. John Seddon).

The Role of Software

Once the improved ways of working and customer needs have been thoroughly established and validated, software can play a supporting and accelerating role.

Conclusion

Is it time for organisations to recognise that their success doesn’t hinge on having the best software developers or the latest technology. Instead, it’s about having people who can truly attend to the needs of those who matter most—the customers and end-users, and the organisation and its officers too. By embracing the concept of attendants and deferring software development until absolutely necessary, we can create a more human-centred and effective approach to business.

Scrum the Organisational Psychotherapy Way

As the inventor of “European” Scrum (a.k.a. Jerid, now Javelin) way back in 1994, I feel qualified to comment on the shortcomings of this approach that has since taken the software world by storm.

The Trap of Collective Assumptions

What started as a novel approach to introduce more flexibility into software processes has now become riddled with collective and relatively ineffective assumptions. Scrum promises boosted productivity, better teamwork, and a steady flow of deliverables. However, this narrow focus on process optimisation often stems from collective assumptions that blind organisations and practitioners to the deeper, systemic issues underlying their challenges.

The Pitfalls of Local Optimisation

Scrum represents a classic case of local optimisation – a well-intentioned attempt to enhance efficiency within the specific domain of software development. Yet organisations are complex, living systems shaped by intricate webs of interdependencies, culture, and psychological factors. True transformation demands a holistic approach that questions the collective beliefs driving organisational behaviour.

Treating Symptoms, Not Causes

Implementing Scrum without addressing the root causes plaguing an organisation is akin to treating symptoms without ever identifying the underlying disease. It may provide palliative relief, but the fundamental issues – generally rooted in the organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs – remain unresolved, only to resurface later.

The Organisational Psychotherapy Lens

Systemic Perspective on Collective Mindsets

Organisational Psychotherapy offers a radically different vantage point. It recognises that organisational challenges often manifest from deeper, systemic issues requiring a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between individuals, teams, collective mindsets, and the broader organisational context.

Unearthing Root Causes in Collective Beliefs

Through careful exploration and dialogue, Organisational Psychotherapy aims to unearth the root causes – i.e. collective assumptions and beliefs – driving organisational dysfunction. It delves into webs of power dynamics, communication patterns, and cultural norms shaping collective behaviour, decision-making, and organisational outcomes.

Holistic Transformation of Collective Mindsets

Rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions, Organisational Psychotherapy provides bespoke interventions tailored to each organisation’s unique needs and collective mindsets. This holistic approach tackles issues at multiple levels, from individual and team psychologies to organisational structures, systems, and collective beliefs.

Embracing Complexity Over Quick Fixes

In a world craving quick fixes, Organisational Psychotherapy offers a more nuanced, challenging path. It invites the embracing of complexity, the confronting of uncomfortable collective truths, and the embarking on journeys of self-reflection to transform organisational and collective mindsets.

Long-Term Cultural Evolution

While arduous, the rewards are profound. Organisations undertaking this journey become stronger, more resilient, and better equipped to navigate ever-changing business landscapes. They come to embrace cultures of continuous learning, adaptation, and growth by evolving collective beliefs and mindsets – key to long-term success amid complexity.

Conclusion

True organisational transformation requires deeper understanding of systemic challenges often rooted in collective assumptions and beliefs. As the originator of “European” Scrum, I now see its local optimisation fails to address these root causes.

Organisational Psychotherapy provides a holistic, nuanced approach to unearth underlying collective mindsets, and craft customised interventions fostering sustainable cultural change. Embrace complexity, confront collective discomforts, and evolve organisational beliefs – the path is tough, but the rewards are enduring cultural resilience and the joys of success.

As for Scrum, don’t do it. It’s a blind alley. A cul-de-sac that you’ll only have to reverse out of eventually.

The #NoSoftware Perspective

The Digital Delusion

For too long, we’ve been sold the lie that software makes our lives easier and more productive. The truth is, this so-called “technological progress” has shackled us to unreliable, glitchy programs and software-driven services that cause way more headaches than they solve (from the poor put-upon users’ perspective). Is it time to break free from the digital delusion and embrace a #NoSoftware (a.k.a. software last) existence?

Constant Frustration

Using software is an exercise in frustration. Buggy code, crashing apps, and infuriating user interfaces have become the norm rather than the exception. Why do we accept this as an inevitable part of modern life? The constant compatibility issues, updates that break more than they fix – it’s a vicious cycle of aggravation.

Productivity Paradox

Proponents claim software boosts our productivity, but how productive can we truly be when we’re constantly battling technical hiccups? The time wasted on debugging, troubleshooting, and fighting with clunky programs eats away at any potential productivity gains. It’s a paradox that has us spinning our wheels.

Reclaiming Simplicity

Before software invaded our lives, things were simpler. We did calculations on paper, wrote letters by hand, talked to real people to get things done, and kept organised with physical calendars and files. While perhaps less flashy, these analogue methods were straightforward and reliable. By ditching software wherever possible, and putting it last when it’s not, we can reclaim that simplicity and avoid the headaches of the software hegemony.

#NoSoftware for Freedom

The #NoSoftware movement isn’t about being a Luddite; it’s about prioritising folks’ wellbeing over the vapid promises of the tech industry. By unplugging from this flawed software-driven reality, we free ourselves from the shackles of constant frustration. Who’s ready to join us in promoting this perspective and declare “enough is enough”?

See also: #NoSoftware + Attendants

Living Change Management

Conventional wisdom dictates that change should be “managed” – a carefully orchestrated process executed with military precision. However, the real key to successful transformation lies in a profound paradigm shift. But you know I have little time for conventions. Change can’t be managed; it has to be lived.

Embracing the Unpredictable

The very notion of “managing” change implies control over a dynamic, unpredictable force. In reality, change is a living, breathing entity that defies rigid boundaries and predetermined roadmaps. Like a raging river, it flows uninhibited, carving its own path. Attempting to constrain or dictate its course is futile and often counterproductive.

Cultivating a Culture of Adaptability

Rather than striving to manage change, organisations might choose to cultivate a culture of adaptability – an environment where change is not merely tolerated but welcomed as a catalyst for growth and innovation. This mindset requires a fundamental shift in perspective, one that embraces uncertainty as an opportunity rather than a threat.

The Psychology of Change

At its core, change is deeply intertwined with human behaviour and psychology. Individuals often exhibit resistance or fear when faced with the unknown, a natural response rooted in our innate desire for stability and familiarity. To navigate change successfully, organisations might choose to acknowledge and address these psychological barriers, fostering an environment that prioritises open communication, empathy, and support.

Encouraging Experimentation and Learning

In a world where change is ever present, the ability to experiment and learn becomes invaluable. Organisations might choose to foster an environment that celebrates failure as a stepping stone to success, encouraging people to take calculated risks and embrace the lessons that emerge from both triumphs and setbacks. By creating a safe space for exploration, organisations unlock the potential for innovation and growth.

Building Resilient Teams

Resilience is the cornerstone of thriving in a world of perpetual change. Organisations might choose to invest in developing resilient teams – people and systems with the mental fortitude, emotional intelligence, and adaptability to weather storms and bounce back stronger. Through training, support, and fostering a supportive culture, resilience can be cultivated, enabling teams to navigate and progress change with grace and tenacity.

Embracing the Journey

Ultimately, successful change management is not about reaching a destination but about embracing the journey itself. It’s about cultivating a mindset that celebrates change as an opportunity for growth, learning, and reinvention. By letting go of the illusion of control and embracing the unpredictable nature of change, organisations can thrive in an ever-changing world, leaving a lasting legacy of adaptability and resilience.

Building Positive Relationships Through Sharing Needs

When forging deeper connections with others, open and honest communication about our fundamental human needs can make a significant difference. Needs reflect the core of our psychological and physical wellbeing – things like feeling loved, respected, and secure. By courageously sharing our needs with others, we create space for greater understanding, empathy, and opportunities to meet those needs in healthy ways within our relationships.

The Power of Vulnerability

Laying our needs on the table takes vulnerability, as it exposes the tender parts of ourselves that can feel weak or needy. However, this openness displays strength and provides the pathway to having our needs met, and attending to the needs of others. When we stay silent about our needs, for fear of judgment or rejection, they most likely go unmet, leading to frustration, resentment, and emotional disconnection over time.

Attending to Needs Fosters Closeness

On the other hand, when we share our needs respectfully with others and they respond with compassion, it allows bonding experiences that function as the bread and butter of positive relationships. Perhaps your need involves quality time together, words of affirmation, or simply feeling heard and understood. By bringing your needs to light, you give your peers, partner, friend, or colleage the chance to step up and attend to them, which generates a lovely cycle of feeling cared for and appreciated.

The Dangers of Focusing Only on Wants

While needs find their basis in our core values and persist continuously, wants represent more fleeting and situational aspects. Wants act as temporary cravings, material desires, or cravings for novelty and spontaneity. Discussing wants in a relationship can lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment, not to mention a superficial connection that lacks warmth, meaning, depth and longevity.

Prioritising Wants Misses the Point

While sharing our passing desires and cravings with others may seem harmless on the surface, it can actually do our relationships a disservice. Wants, by their very nature, tend to be based more in impulsivity, superficiality, materialism, or chasing novelty for novelty’s sake. They represent the superficial fringes of our psyches rather than our deeper core selves.

When we prioritise discussing our more trivial, fleeting wants over candidly sharing our authentic needs, we miss out on opportunities for greater empathy and mutual understanding. Wants might include new experiences like luxury vacations, accumulating trendy possessions, or indulging our every whim and fancy. While providing jolts of temporary gratification, these cravings often lack the substance and staying power to create truly fulfilling relationships.

Needs, on the other hand, get to the heart of our fundamental human requisites for feeling loved, secure, understood, and able to grow in meaningful ways. Discussing our real needs with those closest to us – whether for quality time, words of affirmation, or feeling seen and valued – allows those people to show up for us on a deeper level. This vulnerable exchange forms the bedrock for trust, acceptance, empathy, and positive rapport to blossom.

By all means, it’s healthy to share some of our lighter wants and aspirations with those close to us, from time to time. But continually prioritising these fleeting cravings over exploring our core needs sells both parties short. It keeps the relationship dynamics surface-level and unstable, missing out on mining the realer intimacies that make connections sustainable long-term.

Confusing Wants With Needs

It’s easy for people to confuse wants with deeper needs. For example, someone may say they need the latest smartphone, when in reality what they need may nvolve feeling successful, stimulated, and part of the modern world. By focusing the conversation on the superficial want rather than the underlying need, we miss the opportunity to get to the heart of the issue and find more fulfilling solutions.

Nurturing Your Relationships

The path to healthier, longer-lasting relationships lies in getting skilled at teasing apart needs from wants, and prioritising the open-hearted sharing of our core needs with others. For in the vulnerable revealing of our fundamental human needs – not the insatiable pursuit of wants – the seeds of closeness, trust, and positive bonds find their sowing. NB. See also: the #AntimatterPrinciple.

Continuous Improvement Is The Enemy

The Obsolescence of Incremental Change

“Continuous improvement is obsolete,” boldly declared Philip Crosby, the influential quality management expert. Crosby argued that instead of incrementally improving flawed processes, the focus should be on developing things right the first time. His ZeeDee philosophy stood in stark contrast to the widespread mantra of “kaizen” – the relentless pursuit of small, incremental optimisations.

Kaizen’s Unintended Consequences

In the business world today, the kaizen mindset of continuous improvement is deeply embedded in organisational culture. While well-intentioned, taken to the extreme, an obsession with kaizen can potentially inhibit truly transformative progress from occurring.

Getting Stuck in a Rut

When teams concentrate solely on incremental kaizen, they can get trapped making small, incremental improvements without ever questioning shared assumptions and beliefs, nor the fundamental process, product, or business model itself. Their efforts stay narrowly confined within the existing paradigm.

Descending into Bureaucracy

Over time, layer upon layer of new policies, checks, and overhead accumulate through kaizen-based refinements. Once streamlined systems slowly devolve into bureaucratic tangles choking on their own complexity – optimising themselves into inflexibility.

Missed Opportunities

Another subtle byproduct is the opportunity cost incurred by devoting resources exclusively to tiny enhancements rather than exploring bold new assumptions, and new new innovations. While teams tinker with diminishing marginal gains, disruptive competitors can leapfrog ahead.

Balancing with Kaikaku

To Crosby’s point, organisations have the option to balance kaizen’s continuous improvement with intense periods of “kaikaku” – the complete reexamination and reinvention of core assumptions, beliefs, processes, technologies, and paradigms – from a clean slate perspective. Kaikaku catalyses the breakthroughs while kaizen optimises within the new model.

An iterative cycle alternating between kaikaku-driven transformation and kaizen-driven refinement allows enterprises to realise their fullest potential. Reinvention precedes meaningful optimisation, just as Crosby advocated getting things right before perpetually enhancing them.

Limiting Kaizen’s Scope

Front-line process experts can still identify real-time improvements, but the scope is limited to enhancing defined workflows rather than redesigning entire operating models through kaizen.

Achieving Ambidexterity

A limitation of kaizen purists is embracing continuous improvement as a sequential, single-threaded process. Breakthrough companies are ambidextrous – simultaneously driving kaizen-based operational discipline on current offerings while proactively investing in kaikaku innovation streams to reimagine the future (See also: Prod•gnosis) .

Organisational success demands the ability to concurrently optimise for today’s profits while exploring transformative opportunities for tomorrow’s growth  An imbalanced focus on kaizen alone can breed complacency and blindness to disruptive innovations on the horizon.

Crosby’s Lasting Wisdom

As Crosby suggested decades ago, getting it truly right up front through kaikaku is a vital prerequisite before the incremental refinement of kaizen. Continuous improvement is indeed a potential pitfall when it becomes an excuse for continually enhancing flawed models rather than reimagining entirely new ones.

The Crucial Role of Trialability in Organisational Change

An Odd Word with Profound Implications ‘Trialability’ is certainly an unusual term, but it holds the key to successful adoption of new ideas and practices within organisations. Simply put, trialability refers to how easily a proposed innovation can be tested or experimented with on a limited basis before full implementation. If an idea or product cannot be trialled, it is unlikely to gain traction and organisational buy-in.

The Trialability Challenge in Organisational Psychotherapy

Organisational psychotherapy – the application of psychological and group dynamics principles to improve workplace culture, processes and performance – faces a unique trialability hurdle. Unlike a new software platform that can be piloted in one department, psychotherapeutic interventions invite collective engagement across the organisation. Piecemeal trials are seldom representative of the full impact. This is of course true for many Systems Thinking approaches.

Enhancing Trialability Through Simulation

To enhance trialability, psychotherapists working with organisations can leverage simulations and role-playing scenarios. These provide a relatively low-risk environment to model proposed changes and gauge employee reactions before wider rollout. Well-designed simulations allow stakeholders to experience potential outcomes and make adjustments proactively.

The 87% Imperative Research indicates that a staggering 87% of the variance in successful innovation adoption stems from trialability. This statistic underscores just how critical it is for organisational psychotherapists to creatively overcome the trialability challenge. Failing to do so means even the most brilliant ideas are likely to be ignored or resisted.

Bite-Sized Trials

In addition to simulations, psychotherapists may choose to boost trialability by designing interventions as a series of bite-sized, iterative steps. Rather than attempting wholesale transformational change, this approach allows employees to experience upgrades incrementally, providing feedback and adjusting as needed. Each iteration serves as a mini-trial before progressing further.

Fostering an Experimental Mindset

Ultimately, ensuring adequate trialability requires fostering an organisational culture that embraces experimentation and empiricism over rigid traditions. Psychotherapists may choose to invite leaders to encourage every level to regularly pilot new methods, measure outcomes rigorously, and maintain a willingness to adapt based on real-world results. This experimental mindset is vital for staying focussed and innovative.

That odd little word ‘trialability’ packs a powerful punch when it comes to driving effective organisational change. By creatively maximising trialability, organisational psychotherapists can overcome a major barrier and vastly improve the odds of their therapeutic insights taking root and blossoming into sustained benefits.

Unleashing the Power of the Antimatter Principle

The Benefits

When it comes to collaborative knowledge work endeavours like software development and product development, the “Antimatter Principle” offers a revolutionary approach that promises to unlock unprecedented levels of engagement, value and effectiveness. By focussing on the psychology of human behaviour and treating people’s needs as the most precious and potent resource, this principle has the potential to transform the way we approach and manage such work.

Fostering a Culture of Mutual Respect and Empathy

At its core, the Antimatter Principle advocates for a deep understanding and prioritisation of the human needs of all stakeholders involved – developers, customers, partners, and anyone else impacted by or contributing to the project. By genuinely listening to uncover everyone’s underlying needs, it fosters an environment of mutual respect, empathy, and a shared desire to contribute one’s best efforts. This nurturing atmosphere empowers individuals to tap into their deepest motivations, unlocking a wellspring of creativity, innovation, and dedication.

Aligning Efforts with What Truly Matters

Traditionally, collaborative work often prioritise metrics like productivity, deadlines, or profits, relegating human needs to a secondary concern. The Antimatter Principle flips this paradigm on its head, advocating for a psychologically aware approach that places people’s core needs at the forefront. By aligning all efforts with what truly matters to those involved, it increases the likelihood of achieving outcomes that resonate deeply and create lasting value.

Maximising Value and Effectiveness

While challenging to implement, the payoff of the Antimatter Principle is immense. By tapping into people’s core needs and motivations, it has the potential to unlock exponentially more value and effectiveness than process optimisation or profit-driven methods. This approach recognises that true success lies not in mere efficiency, but in harnessing the collective power of human potential.

Implementing the Antimatter Principle

Identifying “The Folks That Matter™”

Central to the Antimatter Principle is the concept of “The Folks That Matter™” – a term encompassing all stakeholders with needs inviting attention. This includes developers, team members, customers, users, sponsors, regulators, society at large, and anyone else impacted by or contributing to the project. The first step is to establish a well-reasoned process for determining who falls within this crucial group. It’s this dialogue that brings much of the power to the Antimatter Principle.

Engaging in Deep Listening

Once “The Folks That Matter™” have been identified, and more importantly the policy driving such identification and prioritisation, the next step is to engage in deep, active listening to uncover their underlying needs. This invites an organisation to create safe spaces for open dialogue, fostering trust, and demonstrating genuine empathy and curiosity. By understanding the human factors driving each group’s motivations and expectations, teams can align their efforts to deliver outcomes that resonate profoundly.

Prioritising and Focusing Efforts

With a comprehensive understanding of stakeholder needs, teams can then prioritise and focus their efforts on addressing the most critical and impactful requirements. One complimentary approach involves evaluating the “Cost of Focus” – the impact on desired outcomes from including or excluding certain needs – and making strategic trade-offs when necessary. By aligning resources with the needs that truly matter, teams can maximise their potential for creating transformative value.

Embracing the Antimatter Principle

While the Antimatter Principle may seem counterintuitive or even idealistic at first glance, its potential rewards are profound. By treating people’s needs as the rarest and most potent resource, it offers a path to unlocking unprecedented levels of collaboration, innovation, and success in collaborative knowledge work endeavours. Embracing this mindset requires a paradigm shift – a willingness to prioritise human factors over traditional metrics and to invest in deep listening and empathy. However, those who embark on this journey may discover that the true “antimatter” lies not in some elusive substance but in the limitless potential of human connection and understanding.

See also: Quintessence.

Appendix: The Folks That Matter™

The concept of “The Folks That Matter™” is a central tenet of the Antimatter Principle, referring to all the various stakeholders, team members, customers, users, and anyone else impacted by or contributing to a collaborative project or endeavour. These are the people with needs to be prioritised and attended to.

The “interesting angle” of The Folks That Matter™ is examining how this set of stakeholders gets determined – through consensus, autocracy, cost/impact analysis, or other means. And what consequences result from that examination and emergent dialogue.

With finite resources, difficult trade-offs must be made about whose needs to prioritise versus discount as “Folks Who Don’t Matter™” for a given scope. Note the concept of “Cost of Focus” – communicating the impact on desired outcomes from including or excluding certain stakeholders’ needs. Similar to Cost of Delay for prioritising product features.

The core premise is that until you have a well-reasoned way to determine whose needs to “focus” on (whose needs matter most), other prioritisation efforts like Cost of Delay are moot.

In essence, “The Folks That Matter™” framing reinforces and provides more operational details for implementing the “Antimatter Principle” of truly prioritising understanding and delivering on people’s core needs in collaborative efforts.

Stripping the Antimatter Principle for Useful Parts

I’ve long believed in the Zen-like principle that there is profound wisdom in simplicity. The Antimatter Principle, a mere four words long, encapsulates a powerful paradigm that has the potential to transform our relationships, our communities, our organisations, and ultimately, our world. As we explore this elegant concept, let’s unpack its depth, adaptability, and profound implications.

The Antimatter Principle In Four Words

At its essence, the Antimatter Principle states: “attend to folks’ needs”. Just four straightforward words, yet they encapsulate a powerful paradigm with far-reaching implications. As Hillel Wayne so eloquently and recently put it, “useful paradigms are those we can strip for parts” – and this principle is open to that notion exquisitely.

Unpacking The Profundity

While the wording may be simple, the underlying philosophy is profound. By actively attending to the needs of others, we cultivate an outward-looking perspective that transcends selfish impulses. It demands that we develop empathy, emotional intelligence, and a genuine concern for the well-being of those around us.

This principle extends far beyond mere pleasantries or superficial gestures. It challenges us to truly understand the unique circumstances, desires, and struggles of our fellow human beings – and to respond with compassion, support, and tangible assistance wherever possible.

Stripping The Paradigm For Parts

The beauty of the antimatter principle lies in its versatility and adaptability. It can be applied to virtually every facet of life, from personal relationships to professional endeavours, from local communities to global initiatives.

In our personal lives, attending to the needs of loved ones can deepen bonds, foster understanding, and create a nurturing environment for growth and fulfillment.

In the workplace, this principle can enhance collaboration, boost morale, and ultimately drive success by ensuring that the needs of colleagues, customers, and stakeholders are consistently met.

On a broader scale, attending to the needs of marginalized or underprivileged communities can help address systemic inequalities, promote social justice, and work towards a more equitable and humane society.

The Ripple Effect

Ultimately, the Antimatter Principle has the potential to catalyse a ripple effect of positive change. When we attend to the needs of others, we inspire them to pay that kindness forward, creating a virtuous cycle of empathy, compassion, and collective progress.

In a world often consumed by self-interest and divisiveness, this simple paradigm serves as a powerful reminder of our shared humanity and the profound impact we can have by prioritising the well-being of those around us.

To Debate or Prototype? That is the Question

We’ve all been there – I certainly have – the team meetings that seemingly go on forever, dissecting every tiny detail of a proposed approach. Every potential issue is discussed ad nauseam. Opposing viewpoints are vigorously debated until faces are red and tensions are high. And at the end of it all, a week has gone by without a single line of code written.

These are the perils of analysis paralysis – the tendency to over-analyse a situation and get bogged down in discussions rather than actually making progress. It often stems from a fear of making the wrong choice, but paradoxically, it can lead to inertia that is far worse than any individual misstep.

For teams, a conundrum arises again and again: Is it better to spend a week rigorously debating and analysing the optimal approach for tackling a piece of work? Or is it more useful to rapidly build an exploratory prototype during that same week to validate ideas, hands-on?

The Endless Analysis Trap

There’s no denying the allure of the former approach. By thoroughly discussing every potential issue and considering all perspectives, surely the team can devise a near-perfect strategy, right? Wrong. Too often, this road leads to analysis paralysis – a state of inertia caused by bikeshedding hypothetical scenarios.

The Prototype-Driven Path

In stark contrast is the alternative of rapid prototyping. Instead of prolonged theoretical debate, a barebones working version of the software or a trial of the approach is built from the outset. This exploratory prototype serves as a proof of concept to validate the underlying ideas and assumptions through real implementations.

The virtues of this hands-on approach are numerous:

  • It forces ambiguous debates into concrete ways of working
  • Design and technical flaws are exposed early
  • Stakeholders can review actual working software, not just abstract plans
  • Time is not wasted overthinking issues that may never materialise

Striking the Right Balance

Of course, both extremes have their pitfalls. Some thoughtful upfront planning can sometimes help chart a general direction. But the most elite software teams recognise the limits of bikeshedding and paralysis by analysis. They favour iterative cycles – short bursts of planning, followed by prototyping, reviewing, refining, and repeating. A.k.a. PDCA (the Shewhart Cycle, popularised by Bill Deming)

By building tangible working software from the outset, even if rudimentary, teams avoid getting bogged down in theoretical tar pits. This practical feedback loop between talking and doing ultimately leads to better outcomes.

So for your next piece of work, might you choose to resist the urge to spend weeks analysing in the abstract? Roll up your sleeves, get building, and let the prototype guide your path forward.

What Does Your Team Prefer?

Every team has their own style. Some teams like to talk things through a lot before building anything. Others prefer to start building right away, maybe planning as they go.

Which approach does your team take more often? Do you find yourselves getting stuck in discussions without moving forward? Or does your team start building prototypes from the get-go?

There’s no one right answer for every situation. But it’s important to know your team’s natural habits. If you tend to over-discuss, consider setting time limits and forcing yourselves to start building. If you build prototypes yet find soem of that build time is wasted through e.g. misalignment or lack of clarity, consider spending some time getting aligned, upfront.

Being aware of these tendencies will help a team strike the right balance between discussing ideas and putting them into practice through prototyping. Finding this balance will lead to smoother execution.

Think about what your team typically does. This self-awareness can help you adjust to use the right mix of debating and prototype building.

Dissent: A Catalyst for Innovation

The Path Least Questioned

Businesses and software teams often find themselves entrenched in established practices and ideologies. Processes become routines, and routines turn into unquestioned norms over time. In such environments, conformity reigns supreme, and innovation is stifled. However, true progress lies in the disruption of these norms – the willingness to challenge the status quo through calm yet forceful dissent.

The Importance of Differing Perspectives

One key ingredient that is frequently overlooked when striving for innovation is the role of dissent – offering alternative viewpoints that diverge from the dominant narrative. When differing perspectives are encouraged and thoughtfully considered, businesses and teams can reap substantial benefits.

The Benefits of Constructive Disagreement

While dissent may initially seem disruptive or uncomfortable, it is essential for driving progress. When differing viewpoints are encouraged and respectfully considered, it can lead to:

  1. Rigorous Evaluation of Ideas: Contrary opinions invite teams to thoroughly examine their assumptions and beliefs, and critically assess the merits and drawbacks of their proposals, resulting in more robust and well-rounded solutions.
  2. Identification of Blind Spots: Individuals or groups often become entrenched in their own biases and perspectives, making it challenging to recognise potential pitfalls or oversights. Dissenting voices can help uncover these blind spots and mitigate risks.
  3. Increased Creativity: By challenging the status quo, dissent can spark new lines of thinking and encourage teams to explore alternative approaches, fostering an environment of creativity and innovation.

Creating a Culture of Open Discourse

Fostering an environment where dissent can thrive requires a concerted effort from everyone. Here are some strategies to consider:

  1. Lead by Example: Teams can choose to demonstrate a willingness to listen to and consider differing viewpoints, even when they contradict their own beliefs. This sets the tone for the entire organisation.
  2. Establish Safe Spaces: Create designated forums or channels where folks can freely express their opinions without fear of repercussions. This could include regular brainstorming sessions, anonymous feedback mechanisms, or open discussions during meetings.
  3. Promote Cognitive Diversity: Actively seek out individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives to contribute to projects and decision-making processes. This diversity of thought can be a catalyst for both dissent and innovation.
  4. Provide Constructive Feedback: When dissenting views are expressed, respond with supportive and constructive feedback. Invite folks to address the substance of the dissent, rather than dismissing or belittling the dissenting individual.

Embracing Dissent as a Competitive Advantage

In competitive business situations, the ability to adapt and innovate is a crucial differentiator. By cultivating an environment where dissent is not just tolerated but actively encouraged, businesses and software development teams can tap into a wealth of diverse perspectives and ideas, ultimately driving progress and gaining a competitive edge.

While embracing dissent often feels uncomfortable or disruptive, it’s a necessary catalyst for challenging complacency and fostering a culture of innovation. By fostering open discourse and constructive disagreement, organisations can unlock the full potential of their people and stay ahead of the curve.

The Path to Optimal Solutions Lies in Applying Systems Thinking Conjointly with the Antimatter Principle

This post outlines two key components required to reach truly optimal solutions in e.g. product development, software development, operational processes, etc.:

  1. Applying Systems Thinking
    This refers to taking a holistic, interconnected view of the entire system or challenge. It means analyzing all the interrelated parts, perspectives, and dependencies rather than looking at any piece in isolation. Systems thinking allows you to understand how different elements influence and are constrained by each other within the larger environment.
  2. Attending to All Relevant Needs
    In conjunction with the systems approach, the title emphasises the critical importance of comprehensively accounting for the needs of all the Folks That Matter™. It’s about diligently mapping, understanding, and addressing the priorities, constraints, and requirements across every impacted group – not just taking a narrow view.

The Fusion of Holistic Thinking and Stakeholder Attention

Here I suggest that optimal solutions cannot be reached solely by systems thinking alone nor by piecemeal consideration of some folks and some needs. Rather, it requires the combined application of:

  1. Holistic systems thinking to understand interdependencies and potential trade-offs
  2. Meticulous attention to the needs of all the Folks That Matter™ and perspectives involved

Only through applying these two principles conjointly and harmonising both the systems view and the full scope of relevant needs can we align on an overarching solution that proves genuinely optimal. It’s not, however , a binary choice. The more we take a holistic view, and the more we atten to folks’ needs, the closer we can approach an optimal solution.

In essence, it captures the balanced mindset of both broad systemic comprehension and depth of stakeholder-centricity required to find answers that are comprehensively optimized.

While simply attempting to attend to every single need does not automatically yield an optimal solution, adjusting partial solutions for each group’s needs in harmony with others is what gets us there. It’s a nuanced process of systems thinking.

The Art of Balancing Needs

How do we balance needs when seeking solutions?

Consider the development of a public park, which involves various stakeholder groups such as families with children, teenagers, seniors, environmental advocates, local government, public safety, and surrounding neighbourhoods. An optimal park plan doesn’t simply cater to each group’s demands in isolation.

It requires intelligently integrating common elements to meet multiple groups’ core needs simultaneously while making thoughtful adjustments to reconcile competing needs. For instance, increasing lighting can create safe evening spaces for families while addressing public safety concerns. Repositioning the park entrance can improve neighbourhood flow without compromising desired landscapes.

It requires intelligently integrating common elements that achieve several groups’ core needs simultaneously, while making thoughtful adjustments to reconcile competing needs in a balanced way. Perhaps increasing lighting implements both creating safe evening spaces for families while assuaging public safety concerns. Repositioning the park entrance eases neighborhood flow while allowing desired landscapes.

The strongest solutions emerge through this iterative systems approach of understanding how pieces interrelate, continuously harmonising and refining to appropriately serve all key stakeholder needs within realistic constraints. It’s an ongoing process of holistic refinement and balance.

Upholding the Systems Mindset

As we tackle multi-stakeholder challenges, we can choose to embrace this nuanced systems mindset. Simply checking boxes leads to conflicted or discordant solutions. The optimal path forward arises from diligently mapping then interconnecting and harmonising the intricate web of needs and priorities across all impacted groups and individuals.

The more thoroughly we consider and blend various factors into a unified solution, the better it can achieve lasting success amid complex challenges.

The “Good Enough” Sweet Spot

[Tl;Dr: “Good enough” means optimising for best meeting all the needs of the Folks That Matter™]

The Perils of Over-Engineering

In our quest for excellence, it’s tempting to over-engineer solutions, pouring needless resources into perfecting every tiny detail. However, this pursuit of flawlessness often comes at a steep price. Over-engineering can lead to diminishing returns, where the marginal benefits of additional effort become negligible. It can also result in unnecessary complexity, making systems harder to maintain and adapt.

The Pitfalls of Under-Engineering

On the flip side, under-engineering can be equally detrimental. Cutting corners or settling for subpar solutions may seem like a shortcut to efficiency, but it often leads to technical debt, compromised quality, and long-term sustainability issues. Under-engineered products or processes are more prone to failure, necessitating costly reworks or replacements down the line.

Striking the “Good Enough” Balance

Between these two extremes lies the “good enough” sweet spot – a delicate balance that maximises value while minimising waste. Embracing the “good enough” mindset means understanding when to invest resources and when to call it a day. It’s about recognising that perfection is an asymptote that can never be reached, and that diminishing returns inevitably set in.

The “Good Enough” Approach

Adopting a “good enough” approach involves setting realistic goals and prioritising the most critical aspects of a project or product. It means focusing on core functionality and user needs, rather than getting bogged down in superfluous features or tiny optimisations. By identifying the minimum viable product (MVP) and iterating from there, teams can meet folks’ needs faster and adapt more readily to changing requirements.

Quantifying the “Good Enough” Threshold

Of course, to deliver just what’s good enough, we have to know what’s good enough. Choosing to quantify the qualitative aspects of deliverables can help (Cf. Gilb).

Quantifying the Qualitative

Defining “good enough” can be challenging, especially when dealing with qualitative aspects such as user experience, design aesthetics, or customer satisfaction. However, by quantifying these qualitative elements, teams can establish more objective criteria and benchmarks for what constitutes “good enough.”

Leveraging Data and Metrics

One approach is to leverage data and metrics to measure and track qualitative aspects. For example, user testing and feedback can provide numerical scores for usability, intuitiveness, and overall satisfaction. Analytics data can reveal user behavior patterns, highlighting areas of friction or success. Even design aesthetics can be quantified through techniques like preference testing or eye-tracking studies. (See also: Gilb: Competitive Engineering).

Defining Acceptance Criteria

Another powerful tool is setting clear acceptance criteria upfront. By collaborating with stakeholders and subject matter experts, teams can define specific, measurable criteria that must be met for a deliverable to be considered “good enough.” These criteria can encompass functional requirements, performance benchmarks, accessibility standards, and qualitative thresholds based on user feedback or industry best practices.

Prioritising and Iterating

Once acceptance criteria are established, teams can prioritize the most critical aspects and focus their efforts on meeting those thresholds. By adopting an iterative approach, they can continuously refine and enhance the deliverables, incorporating feedback and adapting to evolving needs while maintaining a “good enough” baseline.

Embracing a Quantification-Driven Approach

Quantifying qualitative aspects requires a data-driven mindset within the organisation. Teams must be equipped with the tools, skills, and processes to collect, analyse, and act upon relevant data. Additionally, fostering a culture of continuous learning and experimentation can help, allowing for ongoing refinement and optimisation based on empirical evidence.

By quantifying qualitative aspects and establishing objective criteria, teams can more effectively arrive at the “good enough” sweet spot. This approach ensures that resources are allocated judiciously, core needs are met, and a solid foundation is established for ongoing iteration and improvement.

Embracing Iteration and Continuous Improvement

The beauty of the “good enough” philosophy is that it doesn’t preclude ongoing improvement. In fact, it embraces iteration and continuous refinement. By shipping a “good enough” initial version and gathering real-world feedback, teams can identify areas for enhancement and prioritise future efforts accordingly. This approach allows for more efficient resource allocation and greater responsiveness to the evolving needs of all the Folks That Matter™.

Fostering a “Good Enough” Culture

Cultivating a “good enough” culture requires a shift in mindset – one that values pragmatism, efficiency, and attending to folks’ needs over perfection. It means fostering an environment where team members feel empowered to make trade-offs and prioritise based on business impact. Teams play a crucial role in setting the tone, celebrating progress, and encouraging a bias towards action over analysis paralysis. Good enough applies to not only the product(s) but to the way the work to produce and support them works, too.

In essence, the “good enough” sweet spot is about striking the right balance – investing enough effort to deliver quality solutions that meet core needs, while avoiding the pitfalls of over- or under-engineering. By embracing this mindset, teams can optimise their resources, better address folks’ needs (but no better than good enough!) and foster a culture of (good enough) continuous improvement and adaptation.

Note to self: Mention the Kano Model, the Taguchi Loss function, and e.g. muri, mura and muda.

How Group Minds Change

While we often think of the mind as belonging to an individual, groups and organisations can develop their own collective mindset – a.k.a. collective psyche – that transcends the viewpoints of any single member. This “group mind” emerges from the shared beliefs, assumptions, and ways of thinking that become entrenched within a organisation over time.

The group mind is an entity distinct from the individual minds that comprise it, yet it is also shaped by the psychological tendencies and biases of those individuals. As people within an organisation interact, reinforce each other’s viewpoints, and establish shared narratives, a collective psyche emerges. This psyche influences how information is interpreted, how decisions are made, and how the organisation responds to change and new ideas.

While the group mind can provide a sense of unity and cohesion, it often also acts as a barrier to growth and adaptation. Outdated assumptions, confirmation biases, and a resistance to changing the status quo can become deeply ingrained, making it difficult for the organisation to evolve. Understanding the forces that shape and maintain the group mindset is crucial for leaders seeking to facilitate meaningful change within their organisations.

Shifting the Group Mindset: How Organisations Can Evolve

When it comes to organisations, whether they are corporations, non-profits, or government agencies, change is often resisted. Entrenched beliefs, established processes, and a fear of the unknown can make it challenging for groups to adapt and evolve their collective mindset. However, understanding the psychological factors at play can help leaders facilitate meaningful change within their organisations.

While leaders can play a role, truly meaningful updates to an organisation’s ingrained “group mind” often arise from the grassroots. Teams have the power to self-organise and proactively evolve the collective psyche. This shared mindset influences how people interpret information, make decisions, and embrace (or resist) change. To become an adaptable, future-ready team, try:

Combating Confirmation Bias

The tendency to seek out information confirming existing beliefs presents a major obstacle. Break through by having everone actively encourage diverse perspectives during meetings and decisions. Invite team members to argue the various sides of issues. Bring in outside experts – including organisational psychotherapists – to help challenge assumptions.

Overcoming the Status Quo Bias

Closely related to confirmation bias is the status quo bias, which is the preference for maintaining the current state of affairs, even when change could be beneficial. This bias stems from a combination of fear of uncertainty, perceived effort required for change, and a false sense of security in the familiar. The status quo feels comfortable, which makes change difficult. But fresh thinking is crucial. Clearly communicate the reasons for change and the benefits of evolving. Provide coaching for indiciduals and organisational psychotherapy for groups to help people navigate ambiguity. Celebrate small wins to build momentum. Provide support and resources to ease the transition.

The Influence of Social Proof

Humans are heavily influenced by the actions and beliefs of those around them – a phenomenon known as social proof. In organisations, this oten leads to the perpetuation of outdated or ineffective practices simply because “that’s the way it’s always been done”. Breaking this cycle requires leaders to invite everyone to model desired behaviors and create an environment where innovation and new ideas are celebrated.

Cultivating a Growth Mindset

At the core of organisational change is the ability to adopt a growth mindset – the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through effort and learning. Leaders can foster a growth mindset by encouraging continuous learning, providing opportunities and resources for skills development, and celebrating failures as learning experiences rather than sources of shame.

Increasing Group Emotional Intelligence

Navigating change within organisations is not just an intellectual exercise; it also requires a high degree of emotional intelligence. Folks can choose to empathise with the concerns and fears of their peers and co-workers, communicate effectively, and manage their own emotions during times of stress and uncertainty. Building emotional intelligence within the organisation can help create a more resilient and adaptable culture. By increasing emotional intelligence, people can process these emotions constructively as e.g. a team. Expressly invite an environment of empathy where needs can be heard and concerns can be voiced. Learn to self-manage team emotions and dynamics.

Embracing Change as a Constant

Ultimately, organisations that are able to successfully retune their group psyche will be those that embrace change as a constant. Rather than viewing change as a temporary disruption, these organisations see it as an integral part of their growth and evolution. By fostering an environment that values learning, diversity of thought, and emotional intelligence, organisations that are truly adaptive and future-ready emerge. The most adaptable (Agile!) organisations make evolving shared assumptions and beliefs feel like a source of strength, not pain. Foster this by developing a culture where change is treated as integral to growth and development. Institutionalise mindset updates as a regular team and organisation-wide practice. Lean on communications experts within the organisation to regularly share these updates.

Conclusion

Shifting an organisation’s entrenched “group mind” is an ongoing process, not a one-time event. As the world continues evolving at a rapid pace, the ability to proactively update collective beliefs and assumptions becomes critical for survival.

In her famous essay on leverage points for changing systems, Donella Meadows identified “The Power to Transcend Paradigms” as the highest and most effective point of intervention. A paradigm refers to the shared mental model or set of beliefs that shapes how we understand reality.

For organisations, the “group mind” acts as the overarching constraint that governs how information is perceived, decisions are made, and change is approached. Failing to evolve this ingrained collective psyche essentially renders an organisation unable to see and understand the world with fresh eyes.

Those organisations that can transcend their group mind by continually questioning shared assumptions and beliefs, and entertaining new perspectives, will be the ones poised to thrive amidst volatility. They make evolving their shared beliefs an integral part of operations rather than a periodic disruption.

By developing emotional intelligence, cultivating growth mindsets, and harnessing the creative friction of diverse viewpoints, these innovative entities ensure their collective thinking remains agile and future-focused. Their “group mind” becomes a flexible asset for reinvention rather than a restraint on change.

In our era of constant upheaval across industries, the greatest competitive advantage will belong to those organisations that fully embrace the perpetual journey of transcending their in-the-moment paradigm. They understand that clinging to ingrained collective mindsets inevitably becomes a source of blindness and stagnation. Their identity centers around the reality that questioning “the group mind” itself must remain an eternally iterative process of growth.

Why Corporate Software Developments Fail

The Graveyard of Good Intentions

I’ve seen wayyy more than my fair share of corporate software development efforts, up close and personal, over the years. From bright-eyed startups to lumbering enterprise behemoths, they all had one thing in common – they failed. And shockingly, they all failed for essentially the same reason – the collective assumptions and beliefs held by the management in charge of the efforts.

An Epidemic of Misguided Thinking

Time and again, I’ve witnessed management fall victim to a set of deeply flawed assumptions and beliefs that doom their initiatives from the start. These misguided beliefs act like a virus, infecting decision-making at every level and leading teams inexorably down the road to ruin.

Some of the most pernicious offenders:

  • The assumption that more money and resources will accelerate progress linearly
  • The belief that their bespoke requirements are genuinely unique
  • Insisting that their internal talent is superior to readily available outside expertise
  • Naively trusting that adopted methodologies like Agile or Lean will be a panacea

(You can find a full collection of some 70+ of these collective assumptions and beliefs set out in my books Memeology and Quintessence.)

Cycles of Failure and Denial

The saddest part is watching this cycle of failure and denial play out over and over. At first, there is optimism and confidence that this time will be different. Budgets are generously allocated, grand plans are hatched. But as delays mount and budgets are inevitably exceeded, the blame game kicks into high gear.

It starts with shooting the messenger – dismissing or discrediting any Cassandras who warn of impending disaster. When that doesn’t stem the bleeding, people turn on each other – management backstabbing, scapegoating external suppliers, and eternal damnation for any entreprenurial independent software vendor (ISV) unlucky enough to get caught in the crossfire.

An Ounce of Prevention

If I’ve learned anything from these myriad spectacles of self-immolation, it’s that taking proactive preventative measures is far more valuable than trying to fight an uphill battle after problems have already arisen. Before embarking on an ambitious development programme, management might choose to first confront their own biases and assumptions head-on:

  • Accept that their requirements are not special; proven off-the-shelf solutions likely exist
  • Look for and bring in highly skilled outside workers (and listen to them!) rather than sticking only to hiring people you already know.
  • Adopt a mindset of humility, transparency and accountability from the top down

The path to success begins with honestly assessing one’s own limitations and tendencies for self-delusion. Those unwilling to engage in such introspection are doomed to keep repeated the same ruinous mistakes again and again.Mistakes for which we all pay.

The Misunderstood World of Quality Assurance

What is Quality Assurance?

Quality Assurance (QA) is a term that gets tossed around quite frequently in the business world, particularly in the realms of product development and software development. However, despite its widespread usage, QA remains one of the most misunderstood and misused terms out there. Many conflate it with quality control, when in reality, QA is a separate and far more comprehensive approach that we might choose to see permeate every aspect of a business’s operations.

Separating QA from Quality Control

A fundamental misconception is viewing QA and quality control as one and the same. This could not be further from the truth. Quality control refers to the specific processes and techniques used to identify defects or non-conformances in products or services. It is a reactive measure, taken after a product or service has been created.

Quality Assurance, on the other hand, is a proactive and all-encompassing mindset, focused on implementing principles, processes, and activities designed to achieve the goal of “ZeeDee” – Zero Defects. When effective QA practices are in place, the need for extensive quality control measures – a.k.a. inspections, testing – becomes largely unnecessary.

The Holistic QA Approach

In the context of product development, we might choose to see QA integrated into every phase, from conceptualisation to final delivery and beyond. This involves establishing clear quality objectives, defining measurable criteria, implementing robust preventive measures, and continuously monitoring and improving based on feedback and data.

Similarly, in software development, we may choose to regard QA as crucial throughout the entire lifecycle, ensuring functionality, reliability, and an optimal user experience – not through testing, but through activities like risk management, all geared towards the Zero Defects goal.

Prevention over Correction

The true power of Quality Assurance lies in its ability to prevent issues before they arise, rather than correcting them after the fact. By implementing comprehensive QA strategies with e.g. ZeeDee as the guiding star, organisations can significantly reduce or eliminate the need for resource-intensive quality control processes (inspections and the like), resulting in increased efficiency, cost savings, and a superior end product or service.

An Organisational Culture

Ultimately, Quality Assurance is not merely a set of tools and techniques; it is a mindset and a culture that must be embraced by every member of an organisation. From top management to front-line employees, everyone must understand the importance of quality and take ownership of their role in ensuring that products and services consistently meet the needs of all the Folks That Matter™, with Zero Defects as the guiding principle.

Conclusion

In a world where businesses strive for excellence and customer satisfaction is paramount, Quality Assurance as defined here is not a luxury; it is a necessity. By recognising the true scope and significance of QA, its distinction from quality control, and its pursuit of ZeeDee (Zero Defects), organisations can unlock the full potential of their products and services, foster a culture of quality, and ultimately, achieve sustainable success in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Embracing Irrelevance

The Harsh Reality

There I was again, sitting in yet another meeting, trying to share perspectives honed over decades of leading software teams and driving development efforts. I knew the challenges they were facing, and had wrestled with similar issues countless times before. I metaphorically raised my hand and began outlining a potential path forward, drawing upon hard-won knowledge and experience.

But I could see the glazed looks from the fresh-faced engineers before me. The furtive glances at phones and laptops. I was bombarded by the deafening silence of irrelevance.

It’s a harsh reality that many experienced technology professionals eventually need to confront. The industry moves at a blistering pace, with new languages, frameworks, and methodologies materialising every few years. Management fads come and go in eerily predictable cycles. The young zealots who embrace each new trend inevitably become the cranky stick-in-the-muds insisting, “We’ve always done it this way, and it works just fine.”

A Joyful Choice

It can be incredibly disheartening to find your deep institutional knowledge rapidly becoming irrelevant, proverbially screaming wisdom into an unheeding void. You watch in dismay as the same mistakes you learned from get repeated over and over. You furiously take notes during meetings, composing verbose emails that seemingly disappear into purgatory.

At some point, you’re left with two choices – endlessly rage against the machine of disruption and alienate those around you, or embrace your newfound irrelevance. I’ve joyfully chosen the latter.

The Therapeutic Stance

Trying to force your experiences on those unwilling or unable to receive them is incredibly unfulfilling, not to mention pointless. It simply results in frustration for all involved. Instead, I’ve learned to share my perspectives selectively with those who actively seek my counsel. I’ve let go of the need to be heard. And it’s a major reason for my current “therapeutic” stance – eschewing advice in favour of empathetic listening, non-judgement, and facilitating others’ self-discovery.

A Tremendous Liberation

In many ways, it’s a tremendous and joyful liberation. Any pressure to have all the answers dissipates. You’re free to sit back, listen, and learn from those with fresh ideas and energy. You can empathise and support when asked without putting your entire self-worth on the line.

Most importantly, you gain the ability to focus on what truly matters – making life more wonderful rather than feeding your own ego. Finding relevance in being helpful to others, not in forcing them to accept your specific brand of help. Semper mirabilis!

Unshackling Yourself

So I embrace irrelevance. I recognise that skills atrophy over time. I accept that the march of technology will inevitably leave us behind in some areas.

Might I suggest using the precious time you have left to unshackle yourself from the burden of universal relevance. Pour your efforts into making an impact where you still can. You may find more fulfilment in your later years than you ever did being the irreplaceable expert.

 

The Agile Paradox: When Founders Fail Their Own Manifesto

The Incongruous Origins

The Agile Manifesto threw the software world into disarray when introduced in 2001. With its emphasis on individuals over processes, it promoted radical values like customer collaboration, embracing change, and empowering motivated teams.

However, over 20 years on, there is a glaring disconnect between the values espoused and how some of the founders themselves behave, according to the thought-provoking critique by @davenicolette. It’s a harsh charge – that the very people birthing the Agile revolution violate its core tenets through arrogant, domineering attitudes antithetical to the spirit of empathy and humility they advocated.

A Cultural Blind Spot

This paradox may stem from the homogeneity of the Manifesto authors as middle-class white males from individualistic Western cultures. @davenicolette posits that the teamwork and self-organisation urged by Agile were unnatural in such environments, hence the need for a “grand statement of the obvious.”

In more collectivist societies, these human-centric principles were ingrained, making much of the “Agile industry” of training and certifications more or less irrelevant. The coaching, tools and jargon were unnecessary “grabs for attention” in individualistic contexts.

Heroes to Humans

A core Agile principle was rejecting the old “hero-god” mentality of software development, instead fostering self-organising teams of empowered peers. Tragically though, @davenicolette finds some founders exhibiting that very domineering behaviour they aimed to dismantle.

In a striking role reversal, these “hero-gods of Agile” reportedly collaborate poorly, fixating on their own perceived wisdom over cultivating curiosity about others’ perspectives. A far cry from the humble facilitation prescribed by their own teachings.

The Agile Evolution: Organisational Psychotherapy

As Agile principles continue being applied beyond software, the future increasingly points toward an organisation-wide psychotherapeutic approach to workplace development and improvement.

Organisational Psychotherapy (OP) seamlessly blends the human-centric principles at Agile’s core with a holistic focus on group dynamics, emotional intelligence and cultivating synergistic team cultures. It’s a natural progression from the Manifesto’s original emphasis on prioritising individuals and interactions over processes.

In this sense, organisational psychotherapy represents the next evolutionary wave – taking the ideals of empathetic, self-aware collaboration and expanding them into a comprehensive intentional approach for nurturing the human elements that allow organisations to truly flourish.

As @davenicolette expresses, the fundamental “agile thing” boils down to simply allowing and enabling people to work in a manner innate to our species. Organisational psychotherapy provides a framework for manifesting that ideal across all kinds of organisations, while helping address cultural hang-ups and institutional obstacles.

By fusing the original humanist values with a strategic organisational focus, this approach can help transcend the personal contradictions of the founders and realise their full transformative potential across all industries. It’s the embodiment of “individuals and interactions” writ large.

The Multicultural Counter-Example

Contrasting this, @davenicolette shares an uplifting tale of coaching a diverse, multicultural team comprising six nationalities. Despite no native culture in common, they smoothly embodied teamwork and continually improved their approach – all with minimal resistance or guidance required.

This team’s seamless discovery and embracing of the ideas the Manifesto fought so hard to establish perhaps reveals the broader cross-cultural resonance when people transcend societal biases around individualism.

Simple Wisdom Lost

As Agile pervaded the corporate sphere, the original straightforward vision of “working naturally as humans” became increasingly obscured. Corporatisation, commodification of training, and standardisation into rigid processes corrupted and diluted the elegant simplicity at its core.

Organisational Therapy: The Next Level

Organisational Psychotherapy takes the Manifesto’s people-first philosophy to the next level. It blends prioritising individuals with cultivating healthy group dynamics, emotional intelligence, and vibrant team environments. It further evolves the idea of valuing interactions over processes.

The holistic approach helps us grow as individuals while optimising how we work collectively to achieve more together than we could alone. By applying psychological insights through an organisational lens, it charts an expansive path for making the Manifesto’s ideals a reality across organisations.

The Fruitful Future

From this perspective, the future feels absolutely brimming with creative potential. We can combine our skills, remove limits holding us back, and build supportive environments that increase what we’re able to do while appreciating our human nature.

It’s a wide-open opportunity awaiting trailblazers willing to forge an inclusive, self-aware path like Agile’s founders did. We stand poised to discover new ways to collaborate and unleash our collective genius to everyone’s benefit.

The Human Revolution Continues

With OP illuminating the way, we can realise more of our ambitions. This human-honouring revolution can now reshape the very core of how organisations operate – tapping into our need for continual growth and flourishing teams to build a perpetually evolving, thriving future together.

Ultimately, @davenicolette posits, the Manifesto’s powerful ideas may be best appreciated by disassociating them from the personal shortcomings of their originators. While honouring their revolutionary contribution, separating the philosophy from its founders’ “peculiar incongruities” allows its value to shine through – untarnished by human contradictions.

In its essence, Organisational Psychotherapy is a call to harness our truest, most collaborative selves through self-awareness, teamwork, continual introspection, and shunning of dogmas. A clarion call to humanise the workplace that likely resonates most purely when its ideas transcend the limitations of the Manifesto’s origins. How about we use the Manifesto as a stepping stone to better things?

Deliver Value by Addressing the Customers’ Crucial Needs

[Tl;Dr: Optimal value to customers means helping them address their active constraint]

The Paradox of Customer Needs

In the context of organisations which develop software, understanding customer needs is paradoxically both straightforward and complex. On the surface, the goal seems clear – create software that meets the expressed requirements and desires of the customer. However, these articulated wants often fail to accurately capture the customer’s genuine, underlying need.

The Theory of Constraints Insight

Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints offers a powerful lens through which to view and resolve this paradox. According to Goldratt, at any given time, an organisation faces a single constraint – a bottleneck – that limits its progress toward its goal(s). This constraint represents the pivotal need that, if addressed, would unlock new levels of progress and value for the organisation.

Needs Manifest as Constraints

Through this framework, we can redefine the concept of customer needs in software development: the customer’s crucial need is to identify their current organisational constraint and see it addressed. While customers may articulate a multitude of wants, their fundamental need remains anchored in alleviating the bottleneck that is holding them back from achieving their broader goals.

Continuous Adaptation to Evolving Needs

However, just as individual human needs evolve over time, so too do an organisation’s constraints. As one bottleneck is addressed, a new constraint inevitably emerges, creating a cycle of perpetually evolving needs. This necessitates an iterative, adaptive approach to software development, where efforts are continuously re-aligned to tackle the customer’s current constraint as it shifts.

Fostering Deep Organisational Understanding

To effectively identify and address these pivotal customer needs, a deep understanding of the customer’s organisation is essential. This requires going beyond surface-level requirements gathering and actively engaging with all the Folks That Matter™, observing processes, and immersing oneself in the organisational culture (a.k.a. shared assumptions and beliefs). Only through such immersion can one gain the insights necessary to pinpoint the root constraint and develop targeted solutions.

Delivering Continuous Value

By embracing this perspective – that customer needs manifest as organisational constraints – software development becomes an ongoing journey of value delivery. Each cycle of identifying and addressing the current constraint provides tangible value to the customer, propelling their organisation forward. And as new constraints emerge, the cycle repeats, ensuring that solutions remain relevant, impactful, and aligned with the customer’s evolving needs.

Conclusion

True value in delivering solutions to customers lies in addressing customers’ crucial needs, which are inextricably tied to their in-the-now operational constraints. By adopting a constraint-focused, iterative approach and fostering deep understanding of customers’ needs vis their constraint, solutions can continuously meet customers’ fundamental needs, unlocking new levels of service, customer satisfaction, and mutual success.

Exploring Shared Assumptions and Beliefs with the Help of an AI Chatbot

Introduction

As businesses strive for innovation and growth, they often find themselves running up against unseen barriers – ingrained ways of thinking and behaving that can severely limit their ambitions and ability to adapt. In many cases, these constraining (shared) beliefs and assumptions live under the surface, making them extremely difficult to identify and uproot.

This sample dialogue (below) aims to illustrate how engaging with an AI chatbot like Claude can provide a fresher, more impartial perspective to help bring those unconscious blockers into the light. By asking probing questions and suggesting reframes, an AI can serve as a cooperative thinking partner to explore the root causes behind an organisation’s collective blind spots.

Let’s take a look at how this conversational process might unfold:
(Note: this is an actual dialogue generated by ClaudeAI)

Overcoming Organisational Blind Spots: A Candid Dialogue

Are Collective Mindsets Holding Us Back?

Business Team: We’re really struggling as a team at work. Our growth and innovation have hit a plateau, and we can’t seem to get over this hump. We feel like there are some underlying assumptions or beliefs that we all unconsciously share that are limiting our thinking, but we can’t quite put our finger on what they are. Any thoughts?

Claude: That’s an insightful observation. Could you elaborate on the areas where your team has faced repeated roadblocks or struggled to adapt? Have you noticed any patterns in how new ideas get instantly dismissed or shut down?

The Perils of Risk-Aversion

Business Team: You know, now that you mention it, we do tend to instinctively shut down ideas that seem too ambitious or radically different from our current model. There’s an assumption that taking big swings is too risky and that we’re better off sticking to incremental innovations.

Claude: I see, so there seems to be an excessive aversion to risk-taking that could be crippling your team’s ability to innovate more boldly. Where might this belief originate from? Perhaps past failures that bred excessive caution within the team?

Overconfidence from Past Successes

Business Team: And you’re right, we may be overly reliant on past glories and successes rather than pushing for true disruption these days.

Claude: Overconfidence and complacency from previous successes is a common pitfall for teams. Have you explored where those constraining beliefs originated within your group? Sometimes they start from overcorrecting after a past failure. Or they take root from excessive short-term focus and risk-aversion in decision making over time.

Business Team: You’ve hit the nail on the head. We can trace the risk-aversion back to a few high-profile product launches that failed a few years ago. And the reverence for our old products stems from the founders still being closely involved, constantly reminiscing about how we initially disrupted the market.

Shattering Ingrained Narratives

Claude: Those do seem like major sources of the limiting beliefs constraining your team’s thinking. But how can you start dismantling and changing those ingrained narratives collectively? Here are some suggestions:

  1. Make the limiting beliefs explicit and discuss them openly together as a team. Bringing these unconscious biases into the light is key.
  2. Have you analyzed instances where those beliefs caused you to miss opportunities and calculated the cost of leaving innovation on the table as a group?
  3. Could you find examples of competitors or companies in other industries who have succeeded by doing the opposite – embracing risks, continuously reinventing themselves? Study how they cultivated a different organizational mindset.
  4. Implement structural changes to counteract the limiting beliefs. For instance, explicitly weighing the cost of inaction, having an “innovation ombudsman” role, or celebrating failed experiments more than static successes.
  5. Bring in fresh perspectives through new hires, industry experts, or even customers who can challenge the status quo assumptions.

The ultimate ambition might be to make curiosity, experimentation, and an appetite for disruption core cultural values for your team and organisation.

Business Team: This is immensely helpful. We have a much clearer picture now of how to diagnose and deliberately shift our unhelpful collective beliefs as a team. Change starts by bringing those unconscious biases into the light through open discussion. We really appreciate you laying out such a detailed framework – we’re energized to start implementing these ideas right away.


Bringing in an Organisational Psychotherapist

Sometimes, even with the best intentions, it can be extremely difficult for a team to identify and overcome their own deep-seated collective assumptions and beliefs on their own. This is where bringing in an outside organisational psychotherapist can be invaluable…

By prompting deeper reflection, offering new perspectives, and designing tailored interventions, an experienced organisational psychotherapist or AI assistant can catalyse the crucial process of surfacing and reflecting upon an organisation’s dysfunctional beliefs and narratives.

While working with a human expert may ultimately be advisable for any complex organisational transformation, this dialogue demonstrates how an AI like Claude can provide a potential first step. Through probing inquiries and analytical detachment, an AI chatbot can shed light on the obscured mental models that might be unwittingly obstructing an organisation’s path to greater innovation and growth.