Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Assumptions’ Category

Slow down to go fast.

Progress over activity.

Effectiveness before efficiency.

Finish at the expense of starting.

Location is more important than destination.

See the system as it could be, not how it should be.

Brown field designs are real; green field designs are not.

What could go right is more important than what could go wrong.

Uncertainty is flexible, certainty is dangerous.

Learning before scaling.

People first.

Image credit — mhobl

When you know the answer, do you ask the question to test others?

When you know the answer, do you ask the question to help others think differently?

When you know the answer, do you keep quiet because it’s not the right time for a question?

When you know the answer, do you ask the question even though it’s not the right time for a question?

What does that say about you?

When you think you know the answer, do you ask the question to seek the right answer?

When you think you know the answer, do you ask the question and risk looking like you don’t know?

When you think you know the answer, do you keep quiet for reasons you don’t understand?

What does that say about you?

When you don’t know the answer, do you ask in public to solicit diverse perspectives?

When you don’t know the answer, do you ask someone you trust in private?

When you don’t know the answer, do you throw away the question?

What does that say about you?

When you’re asked a question that doesn’t need to be answered yet, do you ask, “Do we need to know that yet?”

When you’re asked a question that cannot be answered yet, do you ask, “Can we know that yet?”

When you’re asked a question that is too costly to answer, do you ask, “Do we have enough time and money to know that?”

Do you have the courage to ask those three questions?

What does that say about you?

Image credit – Tambako The Jaguar

More isn’t better, it’s just more. What makes it better is how it compares to the expectations we set.

Less isn’t worse, it’s just less.  What makes it work is how we compare it to what we want.

Enough isn’t enough until we decide it is.

We forget what we have until we don’t have it.

Our health isn’t bad until we can’t do what we want to do.  But don’t we decide what we want to do?

Activities aren’t fun unless the experiences exceed our minimum level of enjoyment.  But aren’t we the ones who define that threshold?

When we look back at last year, we will have more of some things and less of others.  None of the situations are good or bad, but we will make them that way by comparing what happened with what we wanted, what we expected, or the thresholds society sets for us.  We will decide what’s good and what’s bad. We will define our level of happiness.

When we look forward to next year, we will set expectations or goals to have more of some things and less of others.  We will define those thresholds and establish the criteria for good/bad.  And at the end of the year, we will compare what happened against our self-defined thresholds.  We will be responsible for our happiness.

Things happened last year.  They were not good or bad.  They just were.  We can’t change what happened, but we can change how we feel about what happened.  At the end of the year, may we be aware that we set our good/bad thresholds for the year.  And may we remember that we defined our thresholds somewhat arbitrarily, and we can reset them along the way.

Things will happen next year.  They will not be good or bad.  They will just be.  We won’t have infinite control over what happens, but we can control our good/bad thresholds.  At the start of next year, may we set our good/bad thresholds skillfully.

Image credit — Ajay Goel

What is this all about?

What is the reason you do what you do? What’s your WHY behind the WHAT?

When you don’t do what you said you’d do, what’s the reason? And what does that say about you?

If the reason is right, I think it can be okay NOT to do something you said you’d do.  But I try to set a high bar on this one.

When things get tough, what gets you to push through?  For me, it’s about doing something for the people I care about.

When things go well, what causes you to give credit to others?  For me, it’s about building momentum and helping people understand the special things they did to make it happen.

Why do you show up?  When you ask yourself, do you have an answer?

How do you show up for? And the more difficult question – WHY?

When is it okay to be compliant in a minimum energy way?  And how do you decide that’s okay?

When do you decide to apply your whole self to something that others think is misaligned with the charter?  I think this says a lot about a person.

What are you willing to do even though you know you’ll be judged negatively for doing it?  I’m often unsure why to do it, but I’m sure it’s the right thing to do.  I don’t know what that says about me, but I’m okay with it.

To me, the WHY is far more important than the WHAT.  The WHY explains things.  The WHY tells the story.  The WHY gives guidance on what will happen next time.

When you do something happen that’s out of the ordinary (a WHAT), I suggest you try to figure out the WHY.  I have found that some seemingly nonsensical WHATs make a lot of sense when you understand the WHY underpinning the WHAT.

And during this holiday season, may you give people the benefit of the doubt on their WHATs, and take the time to understand their highly personal WHYs.  That can make for a happier holiday season for all.

Image credit — Christopher Henry

If a decision can be unmade, it’s okay to make it quickly.

Delaying a decision is a decision.

When a decision remains unmade, there’s a reason. However, that reason is often unspoken.

The effort to make the right decision is proportional to the consequences of getting it wrong.

Decisions are sometimes made without the non-deciders realizing that they were made.

Trouble arises when the decision maker is not the customer of the consequences.

Decisions are made slowly when people are afraid to make them.

When you don’t know a decision was made, you’ll continue to behave as if it wasn’t.

If five people are responsible for the decision, who is responsible for the decision?

Even if you are unaware that a decision was made, you’ll likely be expected to behave as if you knew it was.

If no decisions will be made at the meeting, don’t go.  Just read the minutes.

Documenting decisions is not standard work, but I think it should be.

Decisions can be made, not made, unmade, re-made, and re-unmade.

Decisions aren’t decisions until behavior aligns with them.

When a decision is yet to be made, you can influence the decision by behaving as if it was made in your favor.

If you wait long enough, the decision will make itself.

Image credit — yawning hunter

X: We need a strategic plan.

Me:  Why do you need one of those?

X: Everybody needs a strategic plan.

Me: Okay.  That didn’t work. Let me try it another way.  What makes a plan strategic?

X: You start with a strategy and you create a plan to make it happen over the next three years.

Me: So, you plan out the next three years?

X: Yes. Or four.

Me: Doesn’t the plan assume you know how the Universe will behave over the next three years?

X: We know our market, we know our customers, we know our technology, and we make a three-year plan.

Me: And what if something changes, like COVID, tariffs, or a new competitor brings to market something that obsoletes your best product?

X: You can’t plan for that.

Me: Exactly.

X: You’re talking in circles! What do you mean?

Me: If your three-year plan can’t plan for unplanned things, what kind of plan is that?

X: I told you.  It’s a strategic plan.

Me: Hmm.  Let me try that again.  What happens when something unexpected arises and your plan needs to change?

X: It’s a strategic plan.  Those don’t change.

Me: Arrg.  Do you mean the plan should change, but you don’t make the change? Or strategic plans never change?

X: Strategic plans don’t change because they’re strategic.  We put a lot of time into creating them.

Me: They don’t change because they take a lot of time and effort to create?

X: Well, yes.  We have long planning meetings, and our best people spend a lot of time creating it.

Me: Do you think the Universe cares how long it took you to create your plan?

X:  There you go again with the Universe thing.

Me: What I mean by that is there are many factors outside your control.  It’s a big world out there. And you can’t plan for everything.

X: What do you mean? We put everything in the strategic plan.

Me: That’s not the type of everything I’m talking about.  I’m talking about things outside your control that you cannot possibly know.

X: Are you saying we don’t know what we’re doing?

Me: No, I’m saying you know everything you’re going to do over the next three years.  And that’s the problem.

X: You are frustrating.  First you tell me it’s impossible to plan for everything, then you tell me we have a problem because we plan for everything.  What’s wrong with you?

Me: That’s the right question.  There’s a lot wrong with me. I have a good idea that turns out to be wrong, so I change my plan. I think I understand what’s going on, but I learn that I’m wrong, so I change my plan. I have a plan, but something unexpected happens and turns my plan from good to wrong, so I change it, even if the plan is strategic, whatever that means.

Image credit — Geoff Henson

Plans are good, until they’re not.  The key is knowing when to stay the course and when to adjust the plan.

The time horizons for strategic plans or corporate initiatives can range from two to five years.  To ensure we create the best plans, we assign the work to our best people, we provide them with the best information, and we ask them to use their best judgment.  As input, we assess market fundamentals, technology trends, customer segments, our internal talent, our partners, our infrastructure, and our processes.  We then set revenue targets and create project plans and resource allocation plans to realize the revenue goals.  And then it’s go time.

We initiate the projects, work the plans, and report regularly on the progress.  If the progress meets the monthly goal, we keep going.  And if the progress doesn’t meet the monthly goal, we keep going.  We invested significant time and effort into the plan, and it can be politically difficult, if not bad for your career, to change the plan.  It takes confidence and courage to call for a change to a strategic plan or a corporate initiative.  But two to five years is a long time, and things can (and do) change over the life of a plan.

A plan is created with the best knowledge available at the time.  We assess the environment and use the knowledge to set the financial requirements for the plan.  When the environment and requirements change, the plan should change.

Before considering any changes, if we learn that the assumptions used to create the plan are invalid, the plan should change.  For example, if the resource allocation is insufficient, the timelines should be extended, resources should be added, or the scope of the work should be reduced. I think changing the plan is responsible management, and I think it’s irresponsible management to stay the course.

The environment can change in many ways.  Here are five categories of change: tariffs, competition, internal talent (key people move on), new customer learning, and new technical learning (e.g., more technical risk than anticipated).  Significant changes in any of these categories should trigger an assessment of the plan’s viability.  This is not a sign of weakness.  This is responsible management.  And if the change in the environment invalidates the plan’s assumptions, the plan should change.

The specification (revenue targets) for the plans can change.  There are at least two flavors of change: an increase in revenue goals or a shorter timeline to achieve revenue goals, which are usually caused by changes to the environment.  And when there’s a need for more revenue or to deliver it sooner, the plans should be assessed and changed.  Again, I think this is good management practice and not a sign of failure or weakness.  When we realize the plan won’t meet the new specification, we should modify the plan.

When we learn the assumptions are wrong, we should change the plan.  When the environment changes, we should change the plan.  And when the specification changes, we should change the plan.

Image credit — Charlie Day 

You know the space is new when you don’t have the right words to describe the phenomenon.

When there are two opposite sequences of events and you think both are right, you know the space is new.

You know you’re thinking about new things when the harder you try to figure it out the less you know.

You know the space is outside your experience but within your knowledge when you know what to do but you don’t know why.

When you can see the concept in your head but can’t drag it to the whiteboard, you’re swimming in new soup.

When you come back from a walk with a solution to a problem you haven’t yet met, you’re circling new space.

And it’s the same when know what should be but it isn’t – circling new space.

When your old tricks are irrelevant, you’re digging in a new sandbox.

When you come up with a new trick but the audience doesn’t care – new space.

When you know how an experiment will turn out and it turns out you ran an irrational experiment – new space.

When everyone disagrees, the disagreement is a surrogate for the new space.

It’s vital to recognize when you’re swimming in a new space.  There is design freedom, new solutions to new problems, growth potential, learning, and excitement.  There’s acknowledgment that the old ways won’t cut it.  There’s permission to try.

And it’s vital to recognize when you’re squatting in an old space because there’s an acknowledgment that the old ways haven’t cut it.  And there’s permission to wander toward a new space.

Image credit — Tambaco The Jaguar

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

When “it’s impossible” it means it “cannot be done.”  But maybe “impossible” means “We don’t yet know how to do it.” Or “We don’t yet know if others have done it before.”

What does it take to transition from impossible to newly possible? What must change to move from the impossible to the newly possible?

Context-Specific Impossibility. When something works in one industry or application but doesn’t work in another, it’s impossible in that new context.  But usually, almost all the elements of the system are possible and there are one or two elements that don’t work due to the new context.  There’s an entire system that’s blocked from possibility due to the interaction between one or two system elements and an environmental element of the new context.  The path to the newly possible is found in those tightly-defined interactions.   Ask yourself these questions: Which system elements don’t work and what about the environment is preventing the migration to the newly possible?  And let the intersection focus your work.

History-Specific Impossibility.  When something didn’t work when you tried it a decade ago, it was impossible back then based on the constraints of the day.  And until those old constraints are revisited, it is still considered impossible today.  Even though there has been a lot of progress over the last decades, if we don’t revisit those constraints we hold onto that old declaration of impossibility.  The newly possible can be realized if we search for new developments that break the old constraints. Ask yourself: Why didn’t it work a decade ago? What are the new developments that could overcome those problems?  Focus your work on that overlap between the old problems and the new developments.

Emotionally-Specific Impossibility. When you believe something is impossible, it’s impossible.  When you believe it’s impossible, you don’t look for solutions that might birth the newly possible.  Here’s a rule: If you don’t look for solutions, you won’t find them. Ask yourself: What are the emotions that block me from believing it could be newly possible? What would I have to believe to pursue the newly possible?  I think the answer is fear, but not the fear of failure.  I think the fear of success is a far likelier suspect. Feel and acknowledge the emotions that block the right work and do the right work.  Feel the fear and do the work.

The newly possible is closer than you think. The constraints that block the newly possible are highly localized and highly context-specific. The history that blocks the newly possible is no longer applicable, and it’s time to unlearn it.  Discover the recent developments that will break the old constraints.  And the emotions that block the newly possible are just that – emotions.  Yes, it feels like the fear will kill you, but it only feels like that.  Bring your emotions with you as you do the right work and generate the newly possible.

image credit – gfpeck

What does your team do when you’re not there?  Do they make decisions or wait for you to come back so you can make them?

If your team makes an important decision while you’re out of the office, do you support or criticize them? Which response helps them stand taller? Which is most beneficial to the longevity of the company?

If other teams see your team make decisions while you are on vacation, doesn’t that make it easier for those other teams to use their good judgment when their leader is on vacation?

If a team waits for their leader to return before making a decision, doesn’t that slow progress?  Isn’t progress what companies are all about?

When you’re not in the office, does the organization reach out directly to your team directly? Or do they wait until they can ask your permission?  If they don’t reach out directly, isn’t that a reflection on you as the leader? Is your leadership helping or hindering progress?  How about the professional growth of your team members?

Does your team know you want them to make decisions and use their best judgment? If not, tell them.  Does the company know you want them to reach out directly to the subject matter experts on your team? If not, tell them.

If you want your company to make progress, create the causes and conditions for good decisions to be made without you.

Image credit – Conall