Leadership’s Labour Arbitrage Addiction

Introduction

Labour arbitrage refers to the practice of hiring workers who will accept lower wages, fewer benefits, and less favourable employment terms compared to others doing similar work. The goal is ruthlessly simple – reduce overall labour costs to inflate profits. But behind this seemingly rational business tactic often lurks a more insidious agenda – catering to the psychological needs of managers rather than the organisation’s long-term interests.

A Losing Game

On paper, labour arbitrage might seem an easy win. Replace highly compensated staff with lower-cost alternatives through outsourcing, offshoring, or hiring marginalised demographics. In the short run, it trims expenses and pads the bottom line.

But this myopic focus on cost-cutting comes at a steep price. Organisations pursuing such strategies to an extreme risk losing their technological edge, innovative capabilities, and ability to attract top talent. They become trapped in a race to the bottom, deskilling their workforce and deinvesting in the advanced tools that drive productivity gains.

Enshitification Paradox

The paradox, of course, is that labour arbitrage aimed at inflating profits inevitably leads to enshitification – the gradual degradation of product and service quality over time. As underinvestment in human capital compounds, outputs become commensurate with the low-skilled labour producing them – shoddy, unreliable, and unable to evolve with changing markets.

The annals of business are littered with former giants, such as Nokia and now Boeing, hobbled by this self-destructive spiral. From iconic tech brands to venerable manufacturers, their relentless pursuit of lower labour costs proved a Faustian bargain that hollowed them from within.

Maslow’s Folly

So why this obsessive focus on labour arbitrage when its pitfalls are so apparent? The answer lies in Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. For managers, slashing headcount satisfies cravings for credibility, control and esteem. Hunting efficiencies through payroll reductions, offshoring or automation provides a deceptive dopamine hit of achievement.

These ego-driven impulses, coupled with the lure of short-term personal gain like padded compensation, cloud better judgement. Long-term organisational impacts get handwaved in favour of catering to individual psychological needs in the here and now.

Sustainable Practices

The true failing in labour arbitrage as a strategy lies in allowing it to become an end in itself, an obsessive panacea for cost control that cannibalises an organisation’s future.

Real leaders approach such a strategy with sober pragmatism. Is this move prudent for enduring competitiveness and growth? Or merely gratifying managerial egos while eroding the bedrock of skilled labour and innovation?

Cultivating this self-awareness, while emphasising investments in skills, tools, and R&D on par with responsible cost management, is the path toward sustainable labour practices. It insulates organisations from enshitification’s inevitable decline and keeps them sailing confidently toward future horizons.

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.

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.

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.

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.

From Spiritual Gurus to Billionaire Buffoons

[A post for Easter]

The Counterculture of Yesteryear

Fifty years ago, the world was gripped by a counterculture movement that rejected traditional societal norms and values. Disillusioned with the rampant materialism and consumerism of the time, many turned to spiritual gurus for guidance and enlightenment. These charismatic figures, often hailing from the East, preached messages of inner peace, mindfulness, and living a simple, fulfilling life.

The likes of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Baba Ram Dass, and Osho captivated the minds of millions, their teachings resonating with a generation seeking deeper meaning beyond the pursuit of wealth and status. Their ashrams and communes became havens for those yearning for a spiritual awakening, a respite from the rat race of modern life. Baba Ram Dass’ wisdom remains a constant guide for me, personally.

The Cult of Wealth and Celebrity

Fast forward to the present day, and the landscape has shifted dramatically. The once-revered spiritual gurus have been supplanted by a new breed of idols: billionaires and celebrities, whose every utterance is treated as gospel by the masses. From Elon Musk’s musings on colonising Mars to Mark Zuckerberg’s visions of a metaverse-dominated future, these modern-day titans wield an influence that transcends their respective industries.

What was once dismissed as the incoherent ramblings of the rich and famous is now hailed as visionary wisdom, with legions of devoted followers hanging on their every word. Wealth and fame have become the new markers of enlightenment, as the world seems to have traded its quest for inner peace for an insatiable appetite for material success and digital fame.

The Cult of Personality

This shift in cultural zeitgeist begs the question: what happened to us? How did we go from seeking solace in the teachings of spiritual leaders to worshipping at the altar of billionaire buffoons? Perhaps the answer lies in the allure of the cult of personality, a phenomenon that has long captivated the human psyche.

Just as the spiritual gurus of old commanded unwavering devotion from their followers, today’s billionaires have cultivated a cult-like following by presenting themselves as visionaries and disruptors, promising to reshape the world in their image. Their wealth and influence lend an air of credibility to their grandiose claims, no matter how outlandish or improbable they may seem.

The Illusion of Enlightenment

Yet, beneath the veneer of enlightenment, there often lies a hollow core of self-interest and hubris. While the spiritual gurus of yesteryear sought to uplift humanity and promote inner growth, many of today’s billionaires seem primarily driven by a desire for power, fame, and ever-increasing wealth.

Their “teachings” often amount to little more than thinly veiled self-promotion, couched in the language of disruption and innovation. And yet, we continue to lap it up, desperate for a sense of meaning and purpose in a world that seems increasingly complex and uncertain.

Reclaiming Our Collective Sanity

Perhaps it is time for us to take a step back and re-evaluate our priorities. While the pursuit of wealth and success is undoubtedly alluring to many, we do have the choise as to whether it comes at the expense of our personal and collective well-being and spiritual growth. Would we do well to remember the wisdom of those spiritual gurus who urged us to seek inner peace and contentment, rather than chase after fleeting material gains?

Only by reclaiming our collective sanity – or at least some small portion thereof – and rejecting the cult of billionaire buffoons can we hope to rediscover our path to enlightenment – a path that leads not to the accumulation of wealth and fame, but to a deeper understanding of ourselves, each other, and our place in the world.

Code for the Machines: The Rise of AI-Readable Programming

The Future of Coding: Embracing AI Readability

In the domain of software development, the concept of writing code primarily for artificial intelligence (AI) readability and maintainability is an intriguing prospect that will influence the future of coding practices. While human-readable code remains the standard approach as of August 2023, the rapid advances in AI technology suggest that a paradigm shift may be on the horizon.

The Rise of AI-Centric Coding Styles

As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated and integrated into software development workflows, the need for code that caters to the strengths of these systems may become more pressing. This could lead to the emergence of coding styles specifically tailored for AI readability and maintainability over (sic) human readability and maintainability, encompassing the following characteristics:

Increased Abstraction and Modularisation

AI systems may thrive on highly modularised and abstracted code, where individual components are clearly separated and encapsulated. This could result in a coding style that emphasises smaller, more self-contained units of code with well-defined interfaces, promoting better organisation and encapsulation.

Formalised and Explicit Syntax

While human programmers often rely on conventions and implicit understandings, AI systems may benefit from a more formalised and explicit syntax. This could involve additional annotations or metadata that make the semantics of the code more explicit, catering to the needs of AI systems for unambiguous interpretation.

Pattern Recognition Optimisation

AI systems excel at recognising patterns, so the coding style could be optimised for this strength. Consistent naming conventions, structural similarities, and other patterns that can be easily recognised by AI systems may become more prevalent.

Reduced Redundancy (DRY)

AI systems may be better equipped to handle and maintain code with minimal redundancy, leading to a coding style that emphasises code reuse, shared libraries, and other techniques to reduce duplication.Such techniques will likely make the code more or less illegible to humans, at least to unaided humans.

Documentation Tailored for AI Comprehension

In an AI-centric coding paradigm, the traditional concept of human-readable documentation and comments may become obsolete. Instead, the emphasis would shift towards creating self-documenting code that can be seamlessly interpreted and maintained by AI systems. This could involve incorporating structured annotations, metadata, and other machine-readable elements directly into the codebase.

The documentation process itself could be automated, with AI algorithms capable of parsing the code structure, analyzing the annotations, and generating comprehensive documentation tailored specifically for AI comprehension. This documentation would be optimized for pattern recognition, logical inference, and other capabilities that AI systems excel at, rather than catering to human readability.

Moreover, the maintenance of this documentation could be handled by AI systems, ensuring that it remains up-to-date and consistent with the evolving codebase. As changes are made to the code, the AI-driven documentation would automatically reflect these modifications, eliminating the need for manual updates and reducing the risk of documentation becoming outdated or inconsistent with the actual implementation.

This approach could potentially revolutionize the way documentation is created, maintained, and consumed, shifting the focus from human readability to machine interpretability, and leveraging the strengths of AI systems to streamline the documentation process.

The Hybrid Approach

While the prospect of AI-centric coding styles is intriguing, it’s important to note that a hybrid approach may emerge as a stop-gap or transitionary approach, where code is written to be readable and maintainable by both humans and AI systems. This approach could leverage the strengths of both parties, ensuring that the code remains accessible to human developers while also catering to the needs of AI systems. I suggest this duplication of effert will soon rankle.

Conclusion

As AI technology continues to evolve, the way we approach coding will undergo significant transformations. While the shift towards AI readability and maintainability is still a hypothetical scenario, it is an exciting prospect that could revolutionise the software development industry. Regardless of the direction this trend takes, one thing is certain: the future of coding will be shaped by the interplay between human ingenuity and the capabilities of AI systems. And we can finally discard the shackles of so-called agility, too – in favour of doing what humans do best: attending to folks’ needs.

Here’s a postscript illuminating the use of AI to write code in a style where readability and maintainability by humans is not the main focus:

Postscript: AI-Generated Code for Machine Consumption

In addition to the prospect of writing code specifically tailored for AI readability and maintainability, the advancement of AI technology also raises the intriguing possibility of AI systems themselves generating code in a style optimised for machine consumption, rather than human readability.

As AI systems become more sophisticated in their ability to understand and translate natural language into code, they could potentially generate programs that prioritise efficiency, conciseness, and optimisations over human-friendly constructs. This AI-generated code might forgo traditional conventions and practices aimed at enhancing readability for human developers, instead favoring structures and patterns that are more readily interpretable and maintainable by themselves and/or other AI systems.

Such AI-generated code could be highly compact, with minimal redundancy and a heavy reliance on abstraction and modularisation. It might incorporate complex mathematical models, advanced algorithms, and unconventional coding techniques that leverage the strengths of AI systems while potentially sacrificing human comprehensibility.

While this concept may seem counterintuitive to traditional software development practices, it could open up new avenues for highly optimised and efficient code generation, particularly in domains where performance and scalability are paramount, such as high-performance computing, big data processing, or cutting-edge scientific simulations.

Moreover, as AI systems become increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle, they could potentially maintain and evolve this AI-generated code autonomously(?), with minimal human intervention. This could lead to a paradigm shift where the primary consumers and maintainers of code are AI systems themselves, rather than human developers.

However, it’s important to note that this scenario is still largely hypothetical and dependent on further advancements in AI technology and its practical applications in software development. Nonetheless, it highlights the potential for AI to reshape not only how we write and maintain code but also how code itself is generated and optimised for machine consumption.

The Personal Upside of Business Improvement

[Or – what’s all this business improvement malarkey, and what’s in it for me?]

Waning Interest Post-Pandemic

As we’ve learned to live with COVID, much has changed in how businesses operate. Remote work is now the norm rather than the exception. Supply chains have been disrupted. Customer behaviours have shifted significantly. In the midst of this turbulence, it feels like interest in business improvement initiatives has waned and taken a backseat.

Survival Mode

The sluggish economy and persistent inflation have put many companies in survival mode, just trying to keep the lights on. Ambitious programmes to reengineer the way the work works, implement new systems, or drive improved effectiveness now feel like costly distractions. After all the chaos of the last few years, who has the bandwidth for that right now?

The Personal Upside

While the economic arguments for deprioritising business improvement are understandable, I think we’re missing something important – the personal upside. Streamlining operations, updating shared assumptions and beliefs, developing better practices, and finding ways to work smarter don’t just benefit the business. They allow each of us to be more successful and fulfilled as individuals.

The Costs of Inefficiency

Think about it – what does bloated, inefficient business activity translate to on a personal level? Wasted time on tedious manual tasks. Constant firefighting and rework thanks to poor ways of working. Headaches and frustrations navigating clunky systems and workarounds. At its worst, organisational dysfunction mentally drains and demotivates employees to the point they burn out or quit.

The Benefits for Individuals

On the flip side, smart business improvements that simplify and optimise how we execute allow us to flow through high-value work with less friction. We spend more time on the energising aspects of our roles utilising our skills and making an impact. Our days feel more productive and purposeful rather than mired in busywork and cleanup. More gets done, with less expended effort.And we learn.

From streamlined reporting that saves hours a week, to improved workflows that reduce costly errors, to delighting customers through superior service – the personal benefits of working at a well-oiled operation are massive in terms of satisfaction, growth, and work-life balance.

The Workplace Attraction Issue

Given the intensely competitive landscape for people, any organisation looking to attract and retain commited and engaged people might choose to prioritise continuous improvement as part of their employee value proposition. When people can channel their energies into engaging, rewarding work day after day, that’s when we build exceptional teams delivering exceptional results.

Don’t Brush It Aside

So don’t just brush business improvement aside as a nice-to-have these days. See it as key driver of personal success and engagement, helping your teams flourish while fuelling joy and delight in the (distributed) workplace.

The End of Improvement – The Managers’ Perspective

[A follow-on to my previous post: The End of Improvement]

For years, organisations have pretended to be on a relentless pursuit of “continuous improvement.” Executives and managers at all levels have been pressured to implement “new initiatives”, “reengineer” processes, and hit ambitious targets—all part of an elaborate act putting improvement at centre stage. But has this endless improvement malarkey actually improved anything?

The uncomfortable truth is that for many managers, these improvement crusades have merely increased their stress, eroded their autonomy, and undermined their professional standing. Rather than enabling organisations to genuinely work smarter, the improvement police have subjected managers to a demoralising regime of resource constraints, changing metrics, and suffocating controls.

Leading Players Forced to Perform

At the top, senior executives have been both star-crossed thespians and unwitting victims of the improvement theatre. On one hand, they are expected to deliver rousing soliloquies as inspirational champions of transformation, rationalising headcount reductions as “rightsizing” and selling disruption as “rejuvenation.” Yet at the same time, they face relentless pressure from analysts and investors to cut costs and boost short-term metrics like earnings per share.

Their status and influence within their organisations has increasingly hinged not on strategic vision or operational expertise, but on delivering an award-worthy performance complete with unsustainable year-over-year budget cuts and headcount reductions. Is it any wonder top leaders become burned out, jaded husks after just a few years treading the boards of the improvement theatre?

The Overloaded Managerial Understudy

Moving down the hierarchy, middle managers have been conscripted as overloaded understudies to the improvement theatre. Caught between lofty edicts and challenging targets from the leading players above, and implementation pressures from the ensemble below, this critical but underappreciated class has been tasked with doing more-and-more with less-and-less.

From lean six sigma programmes to ERP system rollouts, managers have been bombarded with new tools, KPIs and time-consuming compliance rituals—all while their discretionary budgets and spans of control wither. Their expertise and commitment are repeatedly second-guessed through recurring rounds of process “optimisation” between each act of the improvement theatre.

Is it any surprise that managers increasingly suffer burnout, demotivated by the cognitive dissonance of being improvement enforcers one day, only to find themselves targets of the latest performance drive the next? With each new production, their authority and influence diminish further as indispensable institutional knowledge is upstaged by the latest bestseller, ibusiness class n-flight magazine, consultant’s script or other fad.

The Final Performance

Enough is enough. The idea that organisations can infinitely cut, reduce and optimise their way to success through improvement theatre has been definitively debunked by decades of ineffective and morale-sapping performances. Rather than doubling down with yet another encore, we need to rediscover fundamentals that have been tragically ignored.

Perhaps it’s finally time to rehumanise the workplace by recognising the intrinsic motivation, expertise and institutional memories that managers bring to the table. By realigning the way the work works based on pragmatism and mutual respect rather than dogmatically pursuing an arbitrary definition of “better,” we can foster genuine and sustainable progress over the long run.

After all, if an “improvement” worsens the wellbeing and standing of those charged with implementing it, can it really be considered improvement at all? And are we fools to expect these turkeys to vote for their Christmas? Organisations might choose to pause, escape the pressures, recriminations, frustrations and despair, and simply strive to optimise for the needs of all the Folks That Matter™  – including the managers – before mindlessly leaping into the next faddish improvement drama.

 

The End of Improvement

The Ambitious Noughties

There was a time, not long ago, when the desire for improving our ways of working seemed insatiable in the software development field. Around the first decade of this new century, our industry seemed filled with ambitious visionaries – determined to overhaul outdated practices, streamline inefficient workflows, and move beyond cumbersome legacy ways of working.

New approaches were the hot topics on everyone’s minds, promising to free teams from the constraints of bloated, joy-sucking development. Concepts like daily standups, timeboxed cycles, kanbans, and retrospectives became standard practice, with teams attacking projects in short, focused bursts. Iterative processes with continuous feedback loops were all the rage. We took inspiration from the Giants such as:

• Ackoff
• Schein
• Deming
• Goldratt
• Buckminster Fuller
• Marshall Rosenberg
• Stafford Beer (VSM, etc.)
• Gregory Bateson
• Margaret Mead
• Taiichi Ohno
• John Seddon
• Don “The Don” Reinertsen

We dissected and studied the principles of:

• Lean
• Training Within Industry (TWI)
• Socio-technical Systems
• The Toyota Product Development System (TPDS)
• Morning Star
• WL Gore
• Haier
• Semco
• Menlo Innovations

and a host of others.

The Rallying Cry

The goal? Cut bureaucracy, promote face-to-face communication, prioritise the delivery of high-quality “working software” and above all else bring more joy into the workplace. No more excessive documentation or tedious planning sessions. We’d fail fast, learn from customers, use the best knowledge available to Man, and constantly adapt our approach.

You could feel the palpable relief when developers traded in their cube farms for open office layouts intended to inspire collaboration. There was a grassroots momentum to work smarter.

The Gradual Demise

But somewhere along the line, that collective drive seemed to fizzle out into resigned acceptance. Was COVID a factor, I wonder. And the consequent remote working?

Today, walking through any tech workplace reveals teams in an unfortunate state of extremes. On one side, those many still operating using antiquated processes that should have been retired years ago. Rigid hierarchies. Stifling red tape. Mindless box-ticking rather than meaningful progress.

On the other, there were those who adopted “modern” ways of working…only to slowly backslide into new dysfunctional habits. Unmotivated workers mindlessly performing pro forma rituals, succumbing to collective apathy. The processes changed, but the hunger for actual improvement has left the building.

The Lost Ideals

What happened to that passion for customer-centric, iterative craftsmanship? Viewing colleagues as peers, not corporate zombies? Taking pride in elegant products, over simply checking boxes?

Perhaps the new approaches were flawed from the start. Or the ideals were too lofty for reality at scale. Most likely, disillusionment gradually set in as the same organisational failures persisted – miscommunication, mission creep, mounting technical debt, management metacluelessness, and of course, burnout.

The Harsh Reality

Regardless of the root causes, one truth is inescapable: That widespread eagerness to find smarter, more fulfilling ways of working has dwindled. Fatigued developers have retreated, finding comfort in self-protection rather than striving for better.

A Faint Flicker of Hope

We did rally together toward a vibrant vision of leaner workplace cultures. For a few bright years, we dared dream the next big breakthrough would be nurturing more joyful ways of working and relating.

That glimmer still flickers under the rubble of abandoned buzzwords and dismantled visions. But rekindling it invites rededication to a progress that few seem able to muster lately. Complacency has become the new normal. And the need for pride in work just an echo from history.

Semper Mirabilis.

A World Where the Greater Good Predominates Over Profits

The Visionary Notion

What if the primary driving force behind commercial and economic endeavors wasn’t the pursuit of profits, but rather benefiting society, the species, Gaia, and the planet? A visionary notion, to be sure, that seems to defy conventional capitalist wisdom. Nevertheless, if we allow our imaginations to roam freely and look back at periods in history where ethical business practices held sway, we can depict a world truly transformed by this paradigm shift.

Profit Motives vs. Ethics and Humanity

Throughout most of human history, the profit motive has reigned supreme in the business realm. However, there have been notable exceptions driven by religious teachings, philosophical movements, and social ideals that prioritised ethical conduct over mere grubby accumulation of more and more wealth. The Quakers, for instance, were renowned for their commitment to honest dealings and consideration of employee welfare, exemplified by the socially-conscious British chocolate makers like Cadbury. The 19th century cooperative movement aimed to create enterprises that equitably shared profits with worker-owners and the local community.

The Beauty of Ethical Business

Would we call businesses truly putting the greater good before profits “beautiful”? At first, such a description may seem like an odd coupling of aesthetics with commerce. But perhaps there is an inherent beauty to enterprises that create sustainable value for society while exhibiting ethical conduct.

Just as we find natural wonders, artistic works, or selfless acts emotionally moving due to their harmony with higher ideals of truth, goodness, and transcendence of ego, so could businesses centered on benefiting all stakeholders embody a different kind of beauty. One not necessarily based on physical appearance, but on being skillfully crafted exemplars of how our economic activities can align with ethical, aesthetic, environmental and humanitarian principles.

This beauty manifests through their products, services, and operations, harmonising with the world rather than undermining it through greed, despoilment, or exploitation. Beautiful businesses are sustainable and circular by design, creating goods to be celebrated and cherished rather than cynically designed for disposability.They invest in creating opportunity and dignity for workers and communities rather than grinding them underfoot for profit margins.

Where today’s shareholder-driven corporations often exemplify grotesque machineries of extraction, ethical enterprises putting people and planet over money could be sublime new exemplars of applied aesthetics – aspiring toward perfection not through profit metrics, but through positively impacting all they engage with. Their beauty would shine through in becoming tightly interwoven threads in an interdependent tapestry, creating joyful, resilient and regenerative systems that elevate our shared potential.

While the traditional business vernacular focuses on the uglyness of lucrative processes, revenue growth, and reputational brand value, a world where ethical enterprises reign would celebrate hallmarks of perfected form: generative models that produce societal good, environmental integrity, attending to folks’ needs, and uplifting the human spirit. Perhaps then, we could appreciate the highest “good companies” not just pragmatically, but aesthetically – as living artworks of conscious, ethical organisation.

A World Oriented Toward the Greater Good

In such a world oriented toward the greater good, companies measure success not just by financial returns, but by positive impacts. Ethical practices like those espoused by certain faith traditions and thinkers are the norm across these industries. Sustainability is prized over short-term gain, with environmental stewardship prioritised over resource exploitation. We’ve seen glimpses of this in recent decades through the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR), socially conscious investing, and the emergence of benefit corporations legally bound to creating public benefit, not just profits. But such examples have remained the exception rather than the rule in a profit-driven system.

The Global Ethos of the Greater Good

Imagine if this ethos becomes the core operating principle globally. Rather than lobbying for narrow interests, these businesses advocate for the common good. Tax avoidance schemes would be abandoned in a system where contributing one’s fair share is the ethical baseline. Worker rights and equity are vigorously protected, not eroded in pursuit of higher margins. On an individual level, cutthroat workplace could gives way to healthier cooperation, and integration with our personal and community values and family lives. Ethical conduct is rewarded over pure profit-generation at any cost. Kudos is not derived from endless growth metrics, but to positive impacts created for all the Folks That Matter™.

A Sustainable Economic Model

Of course, enterprises still need to generate income to remain viable and reinvest in their social missions. But growth is pursued by creating genuine value for society rather than extracting it. Sustainable, circular economic models replace those premised on endless consumption and planned obsolescence.

A Radical Yet Possible Vision

Such a world may seem naively idealistic to modern sensibilities, conditioned to accept profit as the prime directive. But is it any more far-fetched than an entrenched global system that relentlessly exploits people and finite resources in pursuit of perpetual economic expansion on a finite planet? By orienting business toward the greater good, as past ethical movements have done, we might create an economy that better serves humanity. This may read as a utopian ideal today, but it has been a reality at various points throughout our history. A world where businesses prioritise society over self-interest may not be inevitable, but it is possible if we dare to imagine and build it together.

Do you have even the briefest five minutes to contemplate how things might be different?

Further Reading

Ackoff, R. L. (2011). The aesthetics of work. In Skip Walter’s blog post retrieved from https://skipwalter.net/2011/12/25/russ-ackoff-the-aesthetics-of-work/

Women and the Antimatter Principle

“A man enjoys the happiness he feels, a woman the happiness she gives.”

~ Madame de Rosemonde
from Letter One Hundred and Thirty, Les Liaisons Dangereuse

This insightful quote from Madame de Rosemonde in the classic French novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses highlights a profound truth about the nature of love and human relationships. At its core, love is not about taking or receiving, but about giving. The deepest fulfillment comes not from demanding love and affection from others, but from actively nurturing those around us through empathy, compassion and attending to their needs. And this principle of prioritising others’ needs over narrow self-interest is exemplified in the way many women approach love and relationships.

The Antimatter Principle is the fundamental idea of attending to folks’ needs – putting others’ wellbeing and happiness first through compassion, generosity and nurturing care.

The Feminine Tradition

While both genders are capable of selflessness, tradition has often positioned women as the prime upholders of this radical principle of prioritising others’ needs over our own. From the maternal instinct to subsuming personal ambitions for family, from creating loving homes to knitting together the social fabric, women have long exemplified the art of attending to folks’ needs. It’s the generous aunt welcoming nieces and nephews, the intuitive wife anticipating her husband’s stress, the mother ensuring everyone’s plate is full at the dinner table.

The Source of Joy

In an era of self-absorption, the Antimatter Principle can seem a countercultural relic. An in business, eventhe mention of love can raise hacklesa and foster unease.Yet it is this total devotion to others’ contentment that unlocks true joy and fulfillment, as Madame de Rosemonde suggested. For many women, the deepest wellspring of bliss lies not in being served, but in humble service itself.

The Risks and Rewards

This feminine ethic of radical other-focus can be unstable if unchecked – attending to folks’ needs to the point of self-negation risks dependency and being consumed by the act of giving. But properly balanced, it is a precious fuel source.

The Impact

In our fractured times, reviving the lost feminine way of the Antimatter Principle could be the solution for reweaving tattered social bonds. By recovering the ethic of joyful, unconditional care for others’ needs and happiness, we restore the very matter of love, mutuality and human communion itself.

How “Constant State of Ship” Drives Transformative Practices

Introduction

In the relentless pursuit of delivering value to customers, with unparalleled speed and reliability, the software development world has yet to widely embrace a revolutionary principle – the “Constant State of Ship”. This state, where software artefacts and products are perpetually poised for release into production environments within just 15 minutes’ notice, has emerged as a driving force behind best practices that enable true continuous deployment. Remarkably, this groundbreaking concept formed the foundation of the pioneering “Javelin” software development approach, a visionary approach conceived by FlowChainSensei (Bob Marshall) at Familiar circa 1996 and onwards, foreshadowing the industry’s even-now-yet-to-be-realised embrace of these practices.

The Power of “Constant State of Ship”

The “Constant State of Ship” serves us as an unyielding forcing function, inviting teams to adopt and adhere to a comprehensive set of best practices that catalyse the seamless flow of software into production. Let us explore how this principle reinforces each of thirteen fundamentals of Continuous Delivery (hat tip to Dave Farley):

The 13 Fundamentals Enabled

1. A Repeatable, Reliable ProcessWith the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams may choose to establish a well-defined, automated pipeline for building, testing, and deploying their software. This process needs to be repeatable and reliable, minimising the risk of human error and ensuring consistency across releases.

   The “Constant State of Ship” mindset suggests that teams have a streamlined, automated release pipeline that can be triggered at any moment. Manual steps and ad-hoc and emergency exception procedures become liabilities, as they introduce variability and increase the chances of mistakes during deployment.

   To achieve this repeatability and reliability, teams are supported to invest in build automation tools, automated testing frameworks, and deployment automation pipelines. Every step of the release pipeline can be codified, documented, and thoroughly tested to ensure predictable outcomes each time.

   Moreover, the “Constant State of Ship” principle fosters an environment of continuous learning and improvement. Any failures or issues encountered during a release are promptly analysed, and the release process is refined to prevent future occurrences. This cycle of continuous feedback and optimisation ensures that the release pipeline remains reliable and efficient, even as the codebase and systems evolve over time.

   By operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode, teams are invited to treat the release pipeline as a critical component of their software development lifecycle, investing the necessary resources and effort to make it repeatable, reliable, and capable of delivering changes to production environments at a moment’s notice.

2. Automate All the ThingsIn a “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, manual interventions become significant bottlenecks and risks, hindering the required velocity and reliability. Automation becomes imperative, spanning every aspect of the delivery pipeline, from code compilation to infrastructure provisioning. The threat of an imminent release leaves no room for error-prone manual processes that could delay or derail a deployment. Teams must automate build processes, test execution, environment provisioning, deployment steps, and release orchestration to ensure consistency and minimise the risk of human error.
3. Maintain a Releasable StateThe core tenet of “Constant State of Ship” requires that the codebase and associated artifacts remain in a perpetually releasable state. This principle invites teams to address issues promptly, maintain a high level of code quality, and vigilantly consider the accumulation of technical debt. Any defects, bugs, or instabilities in the codebase could potentially disrupt an imminent release, leading to costly delays or failures. Teams must adopt practices like continuous integration, automated testing, and ensemble programming to ensure that the codebase remains in a stable, deployable state at all times.
4. Focus on Robust (Real) Quality Assurance

   In the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, where the possibility of demand for an immediate release is ever-present, quality assurance cannot be treated as an afterthought. “Constant State of Ship” invites the integration of quality practices throughout the entire development lifecycle, ensuring that quality is baked into the software from inception to deployment.

   While testing plays a role, it is merely one facet of a comprehensive quality assurance strategy. Teams may choose to adopt a holistic approach that emphasises quality as a continuous, pervasive practice woven into every aspect of the development approach.

   This begins with cultivating a culture of quality-driven development, where every team member participates in collective ownership and responsibility for the quality of their work. Practices such as clarity of (quantified a la Gilb) requirements, ensemble programming, peer code reviews, adherence to coding standards, and continuous static code analysis can help identify and mitigate potential issues early in the development cycle.

   Furthermore, “Constant State of Ship” invites teams to embrace principles of iterative and incremental development. By breaking down complex features into smaller, manageable, well-bounded increments, teams can more effectively manage quality risks and ensure that each increment and subsystem meets the required quality criteria before progressing to the next.

   Continuous integration and deployment pipelines play a pivotal role in this quality assurance strategy, enabling teams to continuously validate and verify the software’s functionality, performance, and stability with each incremental change. These pipelines automate the execution of various quality checks, including unit tests, integration tests, and performance tests, providing real-time feedback and enabling teams to address issues promptly.

   However, quality assurance extends beyond mere testing alone. Teams have the opportunity to adopt a holistic approach that encompasses design practices, architectural decisions, and operational readiness. By considering quality implications at every stage of the software development lifecycle, teams can proactively identify and mitigate potential risks, ensuring that the software remains in a releasable state at all times.

   “Constant State of Ship” elevates quality assurance to a core discipline that permeates every aspect of the software development effort. By fostering a culture of quality-driven development and adopting continuous quality practices, teams can attend to the needs of all the Folks That Matter™, with confidence, knowing that their software meets the highest standards of reliability, stability, and performance.

5. Implement Robust Deployment PipelinesAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” necessitates the implementation of robust deployment pipelines. These pipelines automate the entire process of building, testing, and deploying software changes, ensuring consistency and minimizing the risk of errors. With the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams cannot afford manual, error-prone deployment processes. Automated deployment pipelines provide a standardised, repeatable path to production, reducing the likelihood of failed or inconsistent deployments.
6. Monitor the PipelineRegular smoke testing of the deployment pipeline is crucial in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. This practice helps catch issues early, before they can impact production environments, ensuring the pipeline’s reliability and preventing costly downtime. The possibility of an imminent release amplifies the importance of having a thoroughly validated deployment pipeline. Smoke tests act as a safety net, verifying the integrity of the pipeline and identifying any potential issues that could disrupt a deployment.
7. Integrate ConstantlyThe “Constant State of Ship” mindset encourages teams to integrate their changes frequently, often multiple times per day. This practice surfaces issues early, reduces merge conflicts, and ensures that the codebase remains in a releasable state, ready for deployment at any given moment. Infrequent integration can lead to divergent codebases, making it harder to identify and resolve conflicts, which could potentially disrupt an imminent release. By integrating frequently, teams can maintain a stable, unified codebase that is always primed for deployment.
8. Evolve the ArchitectureMaintaining a “Constant State of Ship” over time invites the continuous evolution of the system’s architecture (see also: Reverse Conway). Are teams prepared to refactor and adapt their architectures to accommodate new requirements, technologies, and scaling needs, without compromising the ability to release rapidly and reliably? As products grow and evolve, architectural decisions made early on may become hindrances to continuous deployment. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites teams to proactively evaluate and evolve their architectures, ensuring that they remain flexible, scalable, and conducive to rapid releases.
9. Leverage Data EnvironmentsWith the constant possibility of an imminent release, the ability to provision and manage data environments becomes critical. Teams may choose to adopt practices like database versioning, data seeding, and data masking to ensure consistent and reliable testing and deployment across environments, minimising the risk of data-related issues in production. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a robust data management strategy that enables seamless and repeatable deployments, regardless of the data complexities involved.
10. Mirror Production EnvironmentsTo minimise the risk of issues arising from environmental differences, teams operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode may choose to ensure that their development, testing, and staging environments closely mirror production environments in terms of configuration, data, and infrastructure. This practice helps identify and address potential issues before they impact the live production system. The possibility of an imminent release heightens the importance of having production-like environments, as any discrepancies could lead to unexpected behavior or failures during deployment.
11. Codify InfrastructureManually provisioning and configuring infrastructure for each release becomes a significant bottleneck when operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. Adopting Infrastructure as Code (IaC) practices, where infrastructure is defined and managed through code, enables teams to provision and tear down environments rapidly and consistently, minimising delays and reducing the risk of configuration drift. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites a high degree of automation and repeatability in infrastructure management, making IaC a beneficial practice for ensuring rapid, reliable deployments.
12. Foster Collaborative OwnershipAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” invites a high degree of collaboration and shared ownership among team members. Siloed responsibilities and knowledge become obstacles to rapid delivery. Teams may choose to adopt practices that promote collective code ownership, cross-functional collaboration, and shared understanding of the codebase and delivery processes. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a culture of collective responsibility, where all team members are empowered to contribute to and understand the entire delivery process, enabling seamless and efficient releases.
13. Continuous ImprovementOperating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode exposes inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the delivery pipeline and processes with uncompromising clarity. Teams may choose to embrace a culture of continuous improvement, regularly reviewing their practices, identifying areas for optimisation, and implementing changes to enhance their ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably. The constant presence of imminent releases acts as a driving force for continuous improvement, encouraging teams to continuously refine their processes, tools, and practices to achieve higher levels of velocity and quality. FlowChain was designed to systematise this very purpose.

The Visionary “Javelin” Approach

The “Javelin” approach (initally named “Jerid”) pioneered by me and my teams at Familiar from 1996 onward, was truly ahead of its time, recognising the transformative power of the “Constant State of Ship” mindset. By enshrining this principle as a cornerstone from its inception, “Javelin” has paved the way for the modern continuous deployment practices that have since become poised to gain industry standard status. This pioneering approach, along with FlowChain and e.g. Prod•gnosis, Flow•gnosis, Product Aikido, etc. exemplifies the spirit of continuous improvement intrinsic to the “Constant State of Ship” principle, ensuring its enduring relevance and impact.

Deep Cultural Implications

Reshaping the Culture and Mindset

Adopting the “Constant State of Ship” principle suggests a profound transformation that extends way beyond technical practices and processes – it hints at a seismic shift in the culture and mindset of software development teams and their parent organisations. This metamorphosis permeates every aspect of the organisation, reshaping shared assumptions, beliefs, and ways of working. However, navigating such a profound cultural shift can be a daunting challenge, often met with resistance and inertia.

This is where the discipline of organisational psychotherapy plays a pivotal role. By applying principles from psychotherapy, sociology, and group dynamics, organisational psychotherapy facilitates teams’ cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm smoothly and effectively.

A Culture of Ownership and Accountability through Empowerment

The “Constant State of Ship” mindset fosters a culture of collective ownership and accountability. Organisational psychotherapy techniques, such as participative decision-making and fellowship, empower team members to take responsibility for the quality, stability, and deployability of the codebase and overall product. This sense of empowerment cultivates a culture of shared ownership, where individuals proactively address issues, collaborate across boundaries, and collectively strive for continuous improvement.

Embracing Transparency and Trust

Maintaining a “Constant State of Ship” requires a high degree of transparency and trust among team members. Organisational psychotherapy practices, such as surfacing shared assumptions and beliefs, encourage open communication and facilitate the identification of problems and risks early. By fostering an atmosphere where team members feel comfortable expressing concerns, sharing mistakes, and seeking help, a culture of transparency and trust emerges, enabling teams to collectively address challenges and ensure the software remains in a releasable state.

Prioritising Continuous Learning

The “Constant State of Ship” principle instills a mindset of continuous learning and improvement. With each release, teams gain valuable insights into their processes, tools, and practices. Embracing new shared assumptions becomes essential, as teams must continuously refine and adapt their approaches based on feedback and lessons learned. This culture of continuous learning fosters an environment of experimentation, where failures are embraced as opportunities for growth, and success is measured by the ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably.

Aligning Towards a Common Goal

Ultimately, the “Constant State of Ship” principle unifies teams around a common goal: meeting the needs of all the Folks That Matter™ with unparalleled speed and reliability. This shared mission transcends individual roles, responsibilities, and technical disciplines. It creates a sense of collective purpose, where every team member’s contribution, regardless of their specific function, is valued and recognised as essential to achieving this overarching objective.

By leveraging organisational psychotherapy techniques, organisations can accelerate and streamline the cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm. This discipline not only makes the transition quicker and easier but also more cost-effective, as it addresses the root causes of resistance and inertia, facilitating a smoother and more sustainable transformation.

By reshaping the culture and mindset of software development teams, the “Constant State of Ship” principle cultivates an environment conducive to continuous deployment success. It fosters a sense of collective ownership, transparency, continuous learning, and shared purpose – traits that are indispensable in today’s rapidly evolving software landscape.

Embracing the Future

When the ability to swiftly adapt and innovate is paramount, the “Constant State of Ship” principle emerges as a beacon, guiding software development teams towards a future of quiet competence and competitiveness. By embracing this mindset, as exemplified by the visionary “Javelin” approach, teams can unlock the power to attend to folks’ needs with unprecedented speed, reliability, and quality – solidifying their organisation’s position as industry leaders in the software development arena.

The Sobering Rarity of Truly Beautiful Organisations

In my prrevious post, I discussed how true beauty in software comes from serving human needs and improving lives. This sparked reflections on what defines a truly beautiful organisation. However, a sobering observation is that few organisations even give a passing thought to aspiring to beauty.

Core Purpose

At its core, a beautiful organisation exists to create value for society – actively making the world better through its purpose, products, services, principles and practices. Yet for most companies, this seems an afterthought at best compared to conventional metrics like profits, market share, shareholder returns, and executive wellbeing.

A beautiful organisation has a clearly defined higher purpose to positively impact humanity, not just make money. But how many companies today can succinctly articulate such a purpose that authentically guides all actions and decisions?

The solutions pioneered by a beautiful organisation work to solve real-world problems faced by people, communities and the planet. Sadly, too many organisations avoid grappling with society’s biggest challenges, focused principally on insulating themselves.

Attending to the Needs of All the Folks That Matter™

These rare organisations serve all the Folks That Matter™ – employees, customers, suppliers, owners, and communities – with close attention to their needs, such as respect, equity and dignity. They cultivate diverse cultures of psychological safety where people thrive. Yet most organisations still struggle to move beyond lip service on values like inclusion and general wellness.

Continuous Innovation

A beautiful organisation innovates responsibly in a virtuous cycle of identifying human needs, creating ethical solutions that reveal new needs to address. Compare this to the narrow innovation priorities of most companies centered on products no one needs.

Unlike most firms optimising solely for profits, a beautiful organisation balances success holistically across societal impact, environmental sustainability, stakeholder value creation and financial returns. But how many corporations truly hold themselves accountable to anything beyond the bottom line (in itself a fiction of the first order)?

Comprehensive Transparency

With comprehensive transparency, a beautiful organisation even owns its harmful side effects, those arising despite best intentions. Such radical transparency is unheard of when you consider how most companies obfuscate or greenwash.

Summary

Ultimately, a beautiful organisation is both an exemplary force for good and a successful, profitable business – values and value creation in harmony. Yet this ideal seems an esoteric aspiration most companies comfortably ignore in favor of business-as-usual.

While no organisation is perfect, we might draw inspiration and hope from those rare few striving to improve lives, society and environment through their core purpose and actions The species would benefit from having a greater number of beautiful companies with the vision and courage to embrace this model of making the world better, not just making money.

The True Beauty of Software: Serving Human Needs

“Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone.”

~ Thomas Overbury

When pondering what constitutes beautiful software, we might choose to look beyond the mere lines of code on the screen. For genuine beauty in software arises not from technical excellence, but from the extent to which it genuinely serves and aligns with the needs of human beings.

A Deeper Beauty

On the surface, we may admire software having clean, elegant code structure, adhering to best practices and exhibiting visual appeal. But the ancient philosophers taught that true beauty must run deeper than superficial appearances. For software, this deeper beauty emanates from how effectively it enhances human capabilities and experiences in the real world.

Power to Elevate

Well-designed software represents the harmonious weaving of digital capabilities with human need. Just as great art inspires by achieving a personal expression of universal themes, so does beautiful software illuminate core human needs through its delivery of cohesive, purposeful functionality. It allows us to appreciate software’s power to elevate and augment our existence.

Like the Romantic poets extolled, beautiful software can facilitate a transcendent union with something greater than ourselves. When developing with insight into human needs, programmers experience a state of flow, bridging the worlds of bits and people until there is no division between the created software and those it benefits. We become co-creators, using our skills to help bring into being solutions which empower.

Resonant

At the same time, beautiful software must resonate with the depth of human experience. As Buddhist wisdom teaches, true beauty arises through mindfulness, ethical conduct, and pacification of the ego. In beautiful software, we find the development team’s consciousness – their thoughtfulness in attending to folks’ needs, their restraint in avoiding the unneeded, their core values embodied in the system’s behaviours.

Inner Light

Moreover, beautiful software exhibits an inner light not of technical correctness, but of purpose – solving real human needs with clarity and compassion. Its beauty transcends being well-crafted to also being virtuous, ethical and generous in spirit. For its core purpose is selfless service to humanity.

Conclusion

So while we may appreciate the external trappings of high-quality software, true beauty runs deeper – into how well it elevates human potential and adapts seamlessly into the real needs of peoples’ lives. For therein lies the highest achievement, to create not just products, but solutions that illuminate, attend to, and empower the human condition.

That Weird Feeling When Someone Attends to Your Needs

There is often subtle unease or vulnerability when another person identifies and attends to your emotional or practical needs before you ask. Even as they are attending to you, why might you feel strangely rattled or intruded upon by having your underlying feelings anticipated and met in this way?

Expectations

Part of the strangeness seems to be linked to our expectations around emotional autonomy in relationships. It might be because we assume we must self-manage feelings, not burden others unprompted, and disguise any weakness. So when someone sees through our façades and reaches out with support, it can feel jarringly unfamiliar. There is awkwardness adjusting to a new way of relating where masking distress is no longer accepted or expected.

Self-Image

Additionally, admitting needs may endanger our own resourcefulness or positive self-image. To remain strong and unaffected is easier than acknowledging where we genuinely need empathy or assistance. Conceding our emotional gaps confronts us with difficult realities about ourselves. Having someone respond caringly can dredge up shame before that nurturing registers as comfort. It takes time to overcome our reflexive impulse to deny needs that contradict the identities we aspire to.

Psychological Safety

Beneath the discomfort may also lurk trust issues around vulnerability. Emotions expose our innermost selves. Letting someone in to perceive and attend to that sensitive dimension means lowering barriers and giving up some degree of control. Psychologically, it signals dependence on their benevolence versus total self-sufficiency. With support inevitably comes some loss of authority over how we might want to be perceived. Even caring assistance can seem invasive before safety takes root.

While emotional caretaking intends to heal and bond, the path to welcoming nurture over isolation is not always smooth or instant. The vulnerability of relinquishing façades, acknowledging needs, and opening up to help all disrupt our status quo. By naming these sources of weirdness, perhaps the tensions around receiving compassionate support become less of a bewildering hurdle. Gradually, we learn to receive grace and attend to one another’s emotions without threatening inner resolve or identity. The discomfort slowly fades as emotional interdependence replaces sole self-reliance.

Summary

In essence, the discomfort we may feel when someone attends to our emotional needs often stems from unfamiliarity with true interdependence, unwillingness to show vulnerability, and a cultural overemphasis on extreme self-reliance. We expect to conceal any weakness, deny needing support, and handle distress alone without imposing on others. So when another person perceptively senses unvoiced feelings and reaches out to care for our inner experiences, it can feel weirdly intrusive. Even compassionate emotional caretaking jars notions of autonomy and challenges our reflexes to hide perceived flaws or shortcomings behind façade of capability. Yet suppressing needs creates isolation, and makes it so much more likely our needs will go unmet. Perhaps by better understanding the common strangeness behind receiving others’ attention, we can grow into truer communities where attending to one another’s unspoken needs and hopes is simply what love requires.

You May Find This Disconcerting

Organisational psychotherapists have an unusual approach to helping people that some might find quite disconcerting. When advising on jobs, relationships, or life decisions, we don’t just take requests at face value. Instead, we dig deeper using the Antimatter Principle.

The goal is to aid people in surfacing the hidden motivations underlying what people say they need. We often ask “Why?” to expose emotional needs and deeper values driving behaviour. And admittedly this persistent probing makes many uncomfortable, at least initially.

We find ourselves constantly asking “Why?” Not just once, but repetitively, until our clients get to the heart of the matter. We’re looking for folks to understand their underlying motivations – the fundamental emotional, psychological or values-based drivers behind their stated wants and requests.

For example, say someone asks for advice on finding a new job with better pay. We could just look at open positions and salaries, making recommendations based on those factors.

But instead, we might ask “Why?” in an attempt to surface their assumptyions and beliefs, and to help them uncover their motivations.

Perhaps they want higher pay because they feel unappreciated in their work. Maybe it’s about financing kids’ education. Or it could be dreaming of a new house. There may even be a desire to boost self-esteem or a sense of self-worth tied to income level.

These motivations are powerful drivers of the stated need. Ttruly helping people requires understanding those underlying emotional needs and values behind the surface-level request.

So we might continue asking “Why?” until their motivation reveals itself to them. With that understanding, we’re able to reflect on jobs or other solutions that may work far better than just chasing higher pay. We uncover approaches that align with their deepest needs, not just the transactional request.

Clearly, repetitively asking “Why?” in attempts to unearth hidden motivations is an unusual approach. And yes, some may understandably find this probing style uncomfortable or disconcerting at first. (Clean Language can help)

But time and again I’ve seen the aha moments this approach delivers as people’s motivations come to the surface. And it’s helped friends, family and clients find outcomes better tailored to their previously unstated and unconcious needs.

That ability to uncover and serve people’s underlying emotional drivers we call the Antimatter Principle. These hidden motivations power much of human behavior. Bringing them to the surface releases energy capable of transforming outcomes in positive ways.

So if in working with an organisational psychotherapist you ever feel we’re responding oddly or asking too many follow-up “Why’s,” this principle likely explains it. We simply believe that to truly help people, we must do the work of supporting the discovery of their deeper motivations and needs.

The Needs of Employees: What’s at Stake for Businesses

Employees are the backbone of any successful business. Their performance and satisfaction directly impacts a company’s bottom line. This means businesses have a vested interest in attending to the needs of their workforce. However, doing so requires commitment and resources. What exactly is at stake when it comes to meeting employee needs? Let’s explore the potential risks and rewards underpinning the Antimatter Principle.

What Businesses Stand to Lose

Ignoring employee needs can be costly for companies in many ways:

• Reduced productivity and performance: Employees who feel their needs aren’t being met are less motivated, engaged, and productive at work. This negatively impacts the quality and efficiency of their output.
• Higher turnover: Dissatisfied workers are more likely to leave their jobs in search of better opportunities. High turnover disrupts operations and incurs substantial replacement costs.
• Damaged employer brand: News of poor working conditions and unmet needs spreads quickly. This damages a company’s reputation as an employer, making it harder to attract and retain top talent.
• Litigation risks: Disgruntled employees may take legal action over issues like discrimination, harassment, unsafe working conditions, privacy, or wage violations. Lawsuits are both expensive and damaging PR-wise.
• Toxic culture: Ignoring needs can breed negativity, resentment, and low morale among staff. This creates a stressful, unmotivated culture that further reduces productivity.

What Businesses Stand to Gain

On the flip side, making employee needs a priority and attending to them a intrinsic part of BAU can pay off tremendously:

• Improved recruitment and retention: Employees are drawn to supportive companies with great benefits, culture, and working conditions. Catering to needs helps attract and retain top talent.
• Higher productivity: Employees who feel their needs are met work more effectively and deliver better results. A happy, healthy workforce is a productive workforce.
• Enhanced loyalty and engagement: When companies show they care, employees respond with greater commitment, passion, and loyalty. This directly fuels performance.
• Better customer service: Needs like training and empowerment equip staff to deliver exceptional service that keeps customers happy and loyal.
• Reduced risks: Addressing needs like safety and wellness protects staff while minimising potential injuries, lawsuits, and PR crises.
• Employer brand building: Exceptional benefits, culture, and practices earn rave reviews from staff. This builds a company’s reputation as a premier employer.

The Takeaway

While it requires investment, making employee needs a priority provides significant upside for businesses. On the other hand, ignoring needs exposes companies to major risks and hidden costs. The message is clear: by taking care of the needs of employees, businesses also take care of their own interests. The potential rewards of meeting needs make it a win-win proposition.

Management Shortchanges Employees At Every Turn

In many companies, management imposes policies and practices that end up costing employees in major ways. Despite no clear business benefits, executives and middle management, both, make decisions and pursue approaches that hurt workers’ wallets, productivity and well-being.

Can we ever expect a healty, productive and mutually beneficial community of relationships to emerge from a foundation of naked exploitation?

Example: RTO

One example is Return to Office mandates after COVID, but this is just a symptom of a broader issue – management making decisions without considering employees’ needs and blythe ignorance of the consequences. (Or is it mendacity? For example, Wage Theft – estimates suggest wage theft costs U.S. workers $15-50 billion per year, more than is lost to robbery and theft combined.).

Shall We Count the Ways?

“How do I love thee?
Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.”

~ Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Other common ways managers financially and personally cost staff include:

• Stagnant wages and lack of raises, even despite rising costs of living
• Minimal spending on employee training and career development
• Avoiding the costs of effective health and safety and wellness programmes
• Mandating outdated tools, working practices, organisational structures, and systems, that hinder productivity vs new approaches
• All talk, no action on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives – “DEI Theatre”
• Ever rising C-suite salaries, bonuses and perks while rank and file see ever-shrinking benefits
• Lack of flexibility for work-life balance, leading to workers’ lives and earnings being disrupted by having to change jobs

Many companies view workers as nothing more than a cost to be minimised. Executives are disconnected from the employee experience. They pursue shareholder value at the expense of the workforce.

But organisations suffer when employees are not valued. Disengagement, burnout and high turnover follow. Customer satisfaction dips as unhappy employees deliver poor service. Innovation and performance decline.

Conclusion

The poor treatment of employees by management seems deeply ingrained in corporate structures and business school teachings. But are there solutions, or is management simply an irredeemable concept?

Some argue that these problems can be addressed through better laws and regulations, such as higher minimum wages, stronger health and safety protections, limits on executive compensation, and empowering workers’ rights to organise. Management training programs could also be reformed to prioritise employee wellbeing over short-term profits.

However, others contend that management by its very nature is exploitative. The hierarchical structure gives disproportionate power to executives and shareholders beholden to capitalism’s pursuit of power-holders’ wellbeing, efficiency, and profit maximization. Workers will always be squeezed under the management yoke

Radical solutions propose democratising the workplace through cooperatives, employee representation and ownership, worker representation on boards, and decentralised decision-making. But can these ideas scale successfully?

Perhaps the answer lies in a mixed approach. Pragmatic reforms to improve life for workers within current corporate models, paired with incubating alternative organisational structures that give workers an equal voice, or even the whip hand (Cf. servant leadership).

There are no easy solutions, but can we continue to accept the status quo of management blatantly and egregiously exploiting employees? Can we find a system that upholds dignity, justice and shared prosperity? Workers are assets to invest in, not costs to cut. Might we have faith that through insight, integrity and innovation, business can empower rather than extract from the workforce? The path will not be quick or easy, but progress remains possible through partnership across sectors and persistence despite setbacks.

For a model of how such an oganisation might look like – and feel like from both the workers’, managers’, and customers’ perspectives – you might like to read my latest book “Quintessence“.

Afterword

What practices have you seen, good or bad, that reveal how a company truly views its employees? Share your thoughts on when management’s decisions cost or benefit workers.