Shipulski On Design

If you have nothing to say, be the person that doesn’t say it.

If you’re not the right person to do it, you’re also the right person not to do it.  Why is it so difficult for to stop doing what no longer makes sense?

If it made sense to do it last time, it’s not necessarily the right thing to do this time, even if it was successful last time.  But if it was successful last time, it will be difficult to do something different this time.

If we always standardize on what we did last time, mustn’t this time always be the same as last time? And musn’t next time always be the same as this time?

If it’s new, it’s scary.  And if it’s scary, it’s bad.  And we don’t like to get in trouble for doing bad things. And that’s why it’s difficult to do new things.

Deming said to “Drive out fear.” But that’s scary.  What are the attributes of the people willing to face the fear and demonstrate that fear can be overcome?  At your company are they promoted? Do they stay? Do they leave?

Without someone overcoming their internal fear, there can be no change.

If a new thing is blocked from commercialization because it wasn’t invented here, why not reinvent it just as it is, declare ownership, and commercialize it?

If prevention is worth a pound of cure, why do people that put out forest fires get the credit while those that prevent them go unnoticed? Does that mean your career will benefit it you start small fires in private and put them out quickly for all to see?

If you always do what’s best for your career, that’s not good for your career.

When you do something that’s good for someone’s career but comes at the expense of yours, that’s good for your career.

Why not say nothing when nothing is the right thing to say?

Why not say no when no is the right thing to say?

Why not do something new even though it’s different than what was successful last time?

Why not demonstrate fearlessness and break the trail for others?

Why not be afraid and do it anyway?

Why not build on something developed by another team and give them credit?

Why not do what’s right instead of doing what’s right for your career?

Why not do something for others?  As it turns out, that’s the best thing to do for yourself.

Image credit — Steve Hammond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Thanks to Dave Snowden for this language.

Here are the top blog posts (in descending order) from the previous twelve months.  The short descriptions give some context for the posts and my intentions for writing them.

Thanks for reading.

Mike

When You Have Enough… The post describes behaviors that demonstrate you have enough and the benefits of having enough.  And it calls out some problematic consequences when you don’t think you have enough. The main point of the post can be summarized in one sentence – When you have enough, it’s because you’ve decided you have enough. Enough of what, you ask?  Well, I left that up to you.

Overcoming Not Invented Here (NIH), The Most Powerful Blocker of Innovation.  With innovation, sometimes the novelty threatens which causes the Establishment to reject new ideas.  The post described what NIH looks like so you could spot it at twenty paces.  Here’s a summary of the post in three sentences.  If you can’t understand why a novel idea never made it out of the lab, investigate the crime scene and you may find NIH’s fingerprints.  If customers liked the new idea yet it went nowhere, it could be NIH was behind the crime. If it makes sense, but it doesn’t make progress, NIH is the prime suspect.

Is The Timing Right? I was surprised that this post was popular.  The idea behind the post was to give examples of being too late and being too early so you could dial in the timing of your work.  I thought the bias toward accelerating everything, pulling in projects, and doing everything in parallel would contradict the idea of a right time to do the work.  But, people liked this one.

Stop, Start, Continue Gone Bad.  This post was intended to poke fun the fundamental problem that we start far too many projects and finish too few or finish too slowly.  I introduced the dangerous variant of Stop, Start, Continue called Start, Start, Continue and described its consequences.  To battle that variant, I introduced the powerful antidote called Stop, Stop, Stop.

When you say yes to one thing, you say no to another.  In the heat of battle, we want to make progress but we forget that our and our company’s capacity is limited.  With this post I wanted to describe “opportunity cost” with straightforward yes-no language to help us remember to say no when yes is not the right answer. And I proposed a system to help do just that.  Here’s the first step — Open your work calendar and move one month into the future.  Create a one-hour recurring meeting with yourself.  You just created a timeslot where you said no in the future to unimportant things and said yes in the future to important things.

How To Grow Talent. The objective of this sparse post was to give examples of how to use the work itself to help people grow and to show what a natural progression of growth can look like.

Image credit — Mike Beales

Credibility built – when the situation is not good, you say “the situation is not good.”  And when things went poorly you say “things went poorly.”

Trust built – when things go well you give away the credit.

Credibility built – when you provide a controversial perspective and three years later it turns out you were right.

Trust built – when you share your frustrations in confidence.

Credibility built – when you ground your argument in facts, especially inconvenient ones.

Trust built – when you say “I will keep that in confidence” and you do.

Credibility built – when you don’t know, you say “I don’t know.”

Trust built – when you do something that benefits others but comes at your own expense.

Credibility destroyed – when you tell people things are one way when they know it’s the other.

Trust destroyed – when you respond from a hardened heart.

Credibility destroyed – when you tell partial truths.

Trust destroyed – when you avoid doing the right thing.

Credibility and trust are a powerful one-two punch, but only if you build them.

Image credit — _Veit_

Strivers do what’s best for them.

Thrivers do what’s right.

Strivers want more.

Thrivers want what they have.

Strivers can’t push back on people that are higher on the org chart or disagree with them.

Thrivers push back and disagree regardless of the org chart.

Strivers trade promotions for family.

Thrivers put family first – no exceptions.

Strivers are less than forthcoming to avoid conflict.

Thrivers put it straight over the plate to create the right conflict.

Strivers get led around by the nose.

Thrivers will punch you in the nose when you deserve it.

Strivers don’t have time for trust.

Thrivers put trust ahead of all things.

Strivers do the wrong things that come at your expense.

Thrivers do the right things that come at their expense.

Strivers step on your head.

Thrivers put you on their shoulders.

Strivers create headwinds to slow their peers.

Thrivers create tailwinds for all.

Strivers are afraid of thrivers because they cannot manipulate thrivers.

Thrivers don’t like strivers because they manipulate.

Strivers use the formal organizational structure to exert power.

Thrivers use their informal networks to make the right things happen.

Strivers blame.

Thrivers make it right.

Strivers are forgotten.

Thrivers are remembered.

Will you be forgotten or remembered?

In business, we have vision statements, mission statements, strategic plans, strategic initiatives, and operating plans. And every day there are there are countless decisions to make. But, in the end, it all comes down to one thing – how we allocate our resources.  Whether it’s hiring people, training them, buying capital, or funding projects, all strategic decisions come back to resource allocation.  Said more strongly, resource allocation is strategy.

Take a look back at last year.  Where did you allocate your capital dollars?  Which teams got it and which did not?  Your capital allocation defined your priorities.  The most important businesses got more capital.  More to the point – the allocated capital defined their importance. Which projects were fully staffed and fully budgeted? Those that were resourced more heavily were more important to your strategy, which is why they were resourced that way. Which businesses hired people and which did not?  The hiring occurred where it fulfilled the strategy. Which teams received most of the training budget?  Those teams were strategically important.  Prioritization in the form of resource allocation.

Repeat the process for this year’s operating plan.  Where is the capital allocated?  Where is the hiring allocated?  Where are the projects fully staffed and budgeted?  Regardless of the mission statements, this year’s strategy is defined by where the resources are allocated.  Full stop.

Repeat the process for your forward-looking strategic plans.  Where are the resources allocated?  Which teams get more?  Which get fewer?  Answer these questions and you’ll have an operational definition of your company’s forward-looking strategy.

To know if the new strategy is different from the old one, look at the budgets.  Do they show a change in resource allocation?  Will old projects stop so new ones can start? Do the new projects serve new customers and new value propositions?  Same old projects, same old customers, same old value propositions, same old strategy.

To determine if there’s a new strategy, look for changes in capital allocation.  If the same teams are allocated more of the same capital, it’s likely the strategy is also the same. Will one team get more capital while the others get less?  Well, it’s likely a new strategy is starting to take shape.

Look for a change in hiring.  Fewer hires like last year and more of a new flavor probably indicate a change in strategy.  And if people flow from one team to another, that’s the same as one team getting new hires and the other team losing them.  That type of change in resource allocation is an indicator of a strategic change.

If the resource allocation differs from the strategic plan, believe the resource allocation. And if the resource allocation is the same as last year, so is the strategy.  And if there is talk of changing resource allocation but no actual change, then there is no change in strategy.

Image credit – Scouse Smurf

If you didn’t get what you wanted, why not try wanting what you got?

If the timing isn’t right, what can you change so it is right?

If it could get you in trouble, might you be on to something?

If it’s impossible, don’t bother.

If it’s easy, let someone else do it.

If there’s no possibility of bad things, there’s no possibility of magic.

If you need trust but have not yet secured it, declare failure and do something else.

If there is no progress, don’t push.  Move the blocking agent out of the way.

If you don’t know where the cost is, you can’t design it out.

If the timing isn’t right, why didn’t you do it sooner?

If the project went flawlessly, you didn’t try to do anything meaningful.

If you know some people won’t like it, isn’t that reason enough to do it?

If it’s almost impossible, give it a go.

If it’s easy, teach someone else to do it.

If you don’t know where the waste is, you can’t get rid of it.

If you don’t need trust, it’s the perfect time to build it.

If you try the hardest thing first and it doesn’t work, at least you avoid wasting time on the easy stuff.

If you don’t know the number of parts in your product, you have too many.

If the product came out perfectly, you took too long.

If you don’t give it a go, how can you know it’s impossible?

If trust is in short supply, supply it.

If it’s easy, do something else.

If forgiveness is so much better than permission, why do we like to do things under the radar?

If bad things didn’t happen, try harder next time.

Image credit — Gabriel Caparó

In that familiar situation, how did you respond in an unfamiliar way?

Instead of your usual yes, did you say no?

With your regular chair available in the conference room, why not sit in a different one?

Instead of using your right hand to brush your teeth, why not try your left? How would it feel?

When someone misbehaved in a meeting, how did you respond? Or did you?

If no one recognized your different behavior, was it different enough? Why not rerun the experiment?

With the same choices on the menu, what’s in the way of asking for a special order?

Instead of going to the meeting, did you ask someone to go in your place as a growth opportunity?

When you pay attention, you notice more opportunities to demonstrate novelty. Do you pay attention?

If it didn’t create a sensation in your body, did you do anything novel?

When you saw someone respond differently, did they like it when you praised their behavior?

When you have a chance to help someone be successful, why not help them?

When you have the chance to make a different choice, why not make it?

When you have a chance to respond differently, why not do it?

When you have a chance to feel uncomfortable, why not feel it?

One more question for you — What novelty did you demonstrate today?

Image credit — Mike Beales

What would happen if the factory had to support demand that increased one percent per week? Without incremental investment, how many weeks could they meet the ever-increasing demand?  That number is a measure of the system’s flexibility.  More weeks, more flexibility.  And the element of the manufacturing system that gives out first is the constraint.  So, now you know how much demand you can support before there’s a problem and you know what the problem will be.  And if you know the lead time to implement the improvement needed to support the increased demand, in a reverse-scheduling way, you know when to implement the improvement so it comes online when you need it.

What would happen if the factory had to support demand that increased one percent in a week?  How about two percent in a week, five percent, or ten percent?  Without incremental investment, what percentage increase could they support in a single week?  More percent increase, more flexibility.  And the element of the manufacturing system that gives out first is the constraint.  So, now you know how much increased demand you can support in a single week and you know the gating item that will block further increases.  You know now where to clip the increased demand and push the extra demand into the next week.  And you know the investment it would take to support a larger increase in a single week.

These two scenarios can be used to assess and quantify a process of any type.  For example, to understand the flexibility of the new product development process, load it (virtually) with more projects to see where it breaks.  Make a note of what it would take to increase the system’s flexibility and ask yourself if that’s a good investment.  If it is, make that investment.  If it isn’t, don’t.

This simple testing method is especially useful when the investment needed to increase flexibility has a long lead time or is expensive.  If your testing says the system can support five percent more demand before it breaks and you know that demand will hit the system in ten weeks, I hope the lead time to implement the needed improvement is less than ten weeks.  If not, you won’t be able to meet the increased demand.  And I hope the money to make the improvement is already budgeted because a budgeting cycle is certainly longer than ten weeks and you can’t buy what you need if the money isn’t in the budget.

The first question to ask yourself is what is the minimum flexibility of the system that will trigger the next investment to improve throughput and increase flexibility? And the follow-on question: What is needed to improve throughput? What is the lead time for that solution? How much will it cost? Is the money budgeted? And do we have the resources (people) that can implement the improvement when it’s time?

When the cost of not meeting demand is high, the value of this testing process is high. When the lead times for the improvements are long, this testing process has a lot of value because it gives you time to put the improvements in place.

Continuous improvement of process utilization is also a continuous reduction of process flexibility.  This simple testing approach can help identify when process flexibility is becoming dangerously low and give you the much-needed time to put improvements in place before it’s too late.

Image credit — Tambako The Jaguar

Praise is powerful, but not when you don’t give it.

People learn from mistakes, but not when they don’t make them.

Wonderful solutions are wonderful, but not if there are no problems.

Novelty is good, but not if you do what you did last time.

Disagreement creates deeper understanding, but not if there’s 100% agreement.

Consensus is safe, but not when it’s time for original thought.

Progress is made through decisions, but not if you don’t make them.

It’s skillful to constrain the design space, but not if it doesn’t contain the solution.

Trust is powerful, but not before you build it.

A mantra: Praise people in public.

If you want people to learn, let them make mistakes.

Wonderful problems breed wonderful solutions.

If you want novelty, do new things.

There can be too little disagreement.

Consensus can be dangerous.

When it’s decision time, make one.

Make the design space as small as it can be, but no smaller.

Build trust before you need it.

Image credit – Ralf St.

With projects, there is no partial credit.  They’re done or they’re not.

Solve the toughest problems first.  When do you want to learn the problem is not solvable?

Sometimes slower is faster.

Problems aren’t problems until you realize you have them.  Before that, they’re problematic.

If you can’t put it on one page, you don’t understand it. Or, it’s complex.

Take small bites.  And if that doesn’t work, take smaller bites.

To get more projects done, do fewer of them.

Say no.

Stop starting and start finishing.

Effectiveness over efficiency. It’s no good to do the wrong thing efficiently.

Function first, no exceptions. It doesn’t matter if it’s cheaper to build if it doesn’t work.

No sizzle, no sale.

And customers are the ones who decide if the sizzle is sufficient.

Solve a customer’s problem before solving your own.

Design it, break it, and fix it until you run out of time.  Then launch it.

Make the old one better than the new one.

Test the old one to set the goal. Test the new one the same way to make sure it’s better.

Obsolete your best work before someone else does.

People grow when you create the conditions for their growth.

If you tell people what to do and how to do it, you’ll get to eat your lunch by yourself every day.

Give people the tools, time, training, and a teacher.  And get out of the way.

If you’ve done it before, teach someone else to do it.

Done right, mentoring is good for the mentor, the mentee, and the bottom line.

When in doubt, help people.

Trust is all-powerful.

Whatever business you’re in, you’re in the people business.

Image credit — Hartwig HKD