Shipulski On Design

Archive for May, 2026

This is the second in a series of blog posts on transformation (changes that make a difference).  In the first post, I described the power and benefit of focusing on the current state at the expense of the future state.  The main idea is to define where you are and choose a direction of travel, which is almost the opposite of defining the idealized future state, defining the gaps, and putting together a plan to get there.  The topic of this post is moving from dilution to distillation.

Here’s the situation: Growth expectations were just increased. Competition is more severe. The pace of change is faster than ever. AI has made it easier for startups to start.  The cost of being late is insolvency, so project timelines are pulled in.  And because the project portfolio does not support the increased growth objectives, more projects are added. The next round of layoffs is on the agenda, so there will be fewer people to pull off the impossible.

Adding projects means more projects are spread over fixed resources.  This dilutes resources, and everything slows down. And that’s the opposite of what we want.  Fewer projects spread over fixed resources distill efforts, and progress accelerates.  With projects, there is no partial credit.  Until the project is 100% done, we get 0% credit. A project that’s 98% complete generates zero revenue.  Adding projects pushes out completion dates, but that’s often what we do, even though we know we want otherwise.

Here’s a distillation mantra: Work on fewer projects to get more done.

There are tools, methods, and practices to protect ourselves from creating dilution, but that’s for another time. I will end the post here to reinforce that distillation is more effective than dilution.

Image credit – Alexander Grandholm

This is the first in a series of blog posts on changes that make a difference.   And the first change I will discuss is elevating the importance of the current state and deprioritizing the future state, especially the idealized future state.

Future State To Current State

I bet you are asking to see an idealized future state and the work needed to get there.  Truth is, by definition, you cannot achieve the idealized future state.  You can use it as a navigation aid, but you’ll never get there (H/T Dave Snowden).  At best, it’s aspirational; at worst, the team knows you think it’s achievable (you asked them for a plan to get there).  This makes for a despondent team.  Do you really want that?

And there are other problems with the idealized future state.  Firstly, there is no universal ideal.  Your ideal is not my ideal.  Whose ideal is right? Who decides?  And how do you know it’s ideal?  The team knows there’s no universal ideal. They know the ideal is arbitrary.  And they know you’re asking them to go after this “ideal” state as if it’s truly ideal.  Outwardly, they behave like it’s ideal, and inside, they know it isn’t.  Why do you want to do this to the team that you need to create your next products?

Secondly, the idealized future state is defined in the present moment.  And since your journey is long, things will change along the way.  And these changes make it impossible to predict the idealized future state. The technology will change, the market will change, the laws will change, the regulatory requirements will change, the people will change, and geopolitics will change.  The team knows the future cannot be predicted, and they know the prediction you made is wrong.  They won’t tell you that, but they know.  Why do you want to create the conditions for the team to withhold their thoughts and feelings?

Everyone knows the future cannot be predicted. Why not behave that way?

I think it’s more effective to create a shared understanding of the current state.  To do that, you and the team must agree on your location (current state) at the expense of agreeing on your destination (future state).  All my journeys started from where I was, and all my future journeys will start from where I will be.  Everything starts from where you are. And I think it’s the same with companies.  And when the team agrees on the current state, they are comfortable and confident.  I think it’s in your and your company’s best interest to put the team in that headspace.  It’s good for the team and good for business.

And all journeys start from where you are.  Why not figure out where you are?

If you are curious about mapping in this domain, here are three posts about mapping:

• If you want to make progress, make a map. (2023)
• The Half-Life of Our Maps (2014)
• Situational Awareness (Winter Is Coming) (2018)

Next week, I’ll discuss how to move from Dilution to Focus.

Image credit – Peter Addor – Tree and Birds go in the same direction

The need to grow revenue and profit is ever-present.  And as the pace of change accelerates and competitors elevate their game, it’s getting more difficult.

Growth must be built on top of your best work.  To grow, you must develop new products and services that make your customers swap out the old offering they just bought from you for the new one you just launched.  And you must develop the new product with the team that developed the old one.  This is difficult.  You need to create the conditions for the team to see their best work as crap and prevent them from seeing themselves as crap.

For customers to replace an existing product with a new one, the new product must help customers make more progress than the old one.  In a word, the new one must be better, or customers won’t buy it.  And if they don’t buy the new one, there can be no growth.  But here’s the difficult part – when the team built the old one, they designed in as much goodness as possible, yet your task is to help the team design a better one.  Hey Team, congratulations on the wonderful success of the existing product.  You did new work in new ways; you stretched; you hustled; you sprinted.  Now, you must outdo yourselves, even though you just did that.  This is quite the balancing act for the engineering leader.

Growth comes when the team designs a product that works better than the one they designed last time.

Designing a new product that works better is only half of the profitability recipe.  It must also cost less.  Yes, it must work better AND cost less.  Yes, I said AND.  Most teams don’t believe they can design a new product that costs less, and they think you’re crazy when you tell them the new one must work better and cost less.  But this type of double-barreled profitability improvement is possible and proven.  But only if the engineering leader believes it.  And most don’t.

Growth is realized when the team designs a new product that works better AND costs less.

You can radically improve profitability with this double-barreled approach.  I’ve used it to more than double the profit per square foot of the assembly area.  And that makes the CFO smile and gets you lunch with the CEO.  It’s good for profitability and better for your career.

Radical growth comes from obsoleting your best work, but only if you think it’s possible.

Image credit — Don Miller – double rainbow