Think Big, Work Small

How does your team work?

Some companies only work big. Large, prescriptive projects with no incremental value delivery, no experimentation, and infrequent integration. Efforts advance at a glacial pace. Scope expands to fill the available time, and then some. And the work “on the roadmap”? That work gets bigger and bigger as well through a cycle of disappointment, fear, and planning overcompensation. 

Some companies only work small. They sprint in circles. The work lacks coherence and feels scattershot. There’s a perception of progress, but looking back the team sees a lot of disjointed, reactive work. The resulting experience is incomplete and imbalanced. But management applauds the team(s) for being responsive, and the cycle continues. Plus… more features to sell! 

Some companies define big, and work small. Large, prescriptive projects get broken into many small pieces. Think of this as a combination of #1 and #2. The team works small and integrates frequently, which reduces risk and accentuates progress. But there is little room to respond to learning and feedback. Design work is more set-in-stone, and less strategic. Like a big lego set, it is placing tiny pieces according to the plan. What if the finished lego set is the wrong lego set? What if 20% of the work represented 80% of the value? Then again, the team is applauded for finishing “big things”.

Finally, we have thinking big, and working small. The team rallies behind a compelling mission linked to a coherent strategy. The mission is outcome/impact oriented. The team contemplates a vision for the holistic experience but works with broad strokes. They sequence work with the riskiest assumptions first — experimenting, testing, and learning. This is not a ship-and-forget or a ship-and-maybe-in-a-year-we-come-back operation.

For items 1-3, note how incentives can hold these ways of working in place. Big prescriptive projects look bold and compelling. High velocity is intoxicating. Rapid progress on big prescriptive projects …exciting!

Thinking big, and working small is more nuanced. There’s more acceptance of uncertainty. There’s less set in stone. There’s an art to framing a mission to leave space for creativity, while also capturing the opportunity. 

Start by figuring out where your company tends to work right now. If you only work big, then start working small. If you are only working small, maybe start by defining the bigger thing. If you’re working small and defining big things prescriptively, then start easing off that level of prescriptiveness focus on missions and strategies.

From The Beautiful Mess – Think Big, Work Small

Better Experiments/Pilots

Scoping a pilot or experiment is often ignored and before you know it you have a production solution masquerading as a pilot. This article from John Cutler helps.

  1. Set aside ~90 minutes.
  2. Pick a problem or observation. 
  3. Read and discuss the dimensions described below. For each dimension, brainstorm example experiments representing the “extremes”. These don’t need to be real. Have fun.
  4. Optionally (as demonstrated with L+ and R+), chat about how the extremes could be considered positive.
  5. Return to the problem or observation. Ask individuals to brainstorm 1-3 candidate experiments to address that problem or observation. 
  6. Ask team members to individually describe each candidate experiment using the ranges below.
  7. As a group, discuss each experiment, and where each team member placed each experiment.
  8. Finally, ask team members to dot vote on the best-fit experiment (for the given context). Discuss ranking. Ideally, pick an experiment to try.

Local | Global

How containable (or localized) is the experiment?

L+: Localized impact, fewer dependencies, less visibility/oversight/meddling.

R+: Broader impact, more support, more visibility.

Flexible | Rigid

Will it be possible to pivot the experiment on the fly?

L+: May be easier to sustain. More adaptable to changing environments and new information.

R+:May be easier to understand, teach, support, and promote.

Short Duration | Long Duration

How long must the experiment last to provide meaningful information?

L+: Less disruptive. Easier to pitch. Faster feedback.

R+: More time to “simmer” and pick up steam. Commitment.

Invitation | Imposition

Will the participants be invited to take part in the experiment, or will the experiment be imposed?

L+: More intrinsic motivation. More vested in outcome. “Advocates for life!”

R+: Speed. Less need to “sell” change. 

Small Shift | Large Shift

Will the experiment represent a small change from how things currently work, or will it feel foreign and new? Perhaps different participants will experience different degrees of change.

L+: Easier. Less disruptive. More potential to “pick up momentum”.

R+: “Get it over with”. Less chance of getting stuck in local maximum.

Self-powering | Requires “fuel” & external support

Can the experiment sustain itself without outside support and resources, or will it require external support?

L+: Independent. Easier. Can be sustained indefinitely.

R+: Involves and “vests” broader group in the effort. 

Value in 2nd/3rd order effects | Risk in 2nd/3rd order effects

Second and third order effects are common when running an experiment. Is the experiment expected to “throw off” potentially valuable 2nd/3rd order effects? 

L+: Discover valuable things!

R+: Risk may be necessary to explore new areas of uncertainty.

Fewer dependencies, lower blast radius | 
More dependencies, higher blast radius

How independent/dependent is the experiment on other things (people, projects, systems, processes, etc.) in the org?

L+: Independent. More degrees of freedom. Less constrained.

R+: Potentially more impactful. Potentially more involvement and support.

Shorter feedback loops | Longer feedback loops

How easily and quickly can we get feedback?

L+: Can respond more quickly. Can pivot experiment more quickly.

R+: May be less noisy. May provide “deeper” or more cohesive information.

Low threat to formal structures/incentives | Challenges formal structures/incentives

Does the experiment represent a threat to formal power/incentive structures?

L+: Can fly under radar. Consider “safe” and non-threatening.

R+: May be less likely to test (and change) formal power/incentive structures.

From The Beautiful Mess – Better Experiments

WWDC 2021

Tomorrow see’s the start of the Apple year – WWDC. I always look forward to the event as it sets out the direction for all of Apple’s platforms and hints at future hardware. We are 9 months into the transition to Apple silicon so lots of hardware rumours, iOS is mature so what will be new this year and will we see anything hardware related with AR/VR?

What I expect to see:

  • New MacBook Pro’s with faster Apple chips.
  • iPadOS will surely see some improvements. The new IPad’s have so much power and the platform is let down by the software. Question is what? Hopefully a widget system that matches iOS as last year it was strangely hampered compared to the new powerful widgets you could use on the iPhone. Productivity improvements? Windowing? Better external display support? Some more borrowing/sharing features between MacOS? Not sure but if there’s not a focus on iPadOS that will be a major disappointment.
  • iOS – improved customisation after last years widget hit. So widgets improved, more flexibility across the whole of iOS as well. Expect to see improvements to Messages and FaceTime as well as they’ve been used so heavily through the pandemic.
  • watchOS – improved customisation perhaps? More around complications rather than full custom watch faces. That feels like a dream that will never land. Also expect to see more on health although that may need new hardware later in the year.
  • macOS – the first WWDC with Apple Silicon in the wild so what improvements will we see here? I’m hoping Control Centre will see further work including letting third parties use it. Maybe Shortcuts will make an appearance to further blur iOS and macOS?
  • Music – still think there’s more to come around audio. Apple made their lossless announcement but listen back options are limited. So surely there’s a part 2?

What I want to see:

  • New Mac Mini and the larger iMac. I’m plotting to upgrade to Apple Silicon this year from Intel so I’d like to see my options rather than plump for a device and then have regrets. However with iMac’s only recently being released I can’t see the bigger one launching.
  • Apple Monitor – one that isn’t > £5k
  • Let me customise Apple One and pick the services in the low to middle tier
  • iCloud – backup my Mac and also increase the storage limits without increasing cost – feels very tight when Apple is the richest company in the world
  • Apple Card in the UK
  • Apple address developer discontent and drop App Store charges…and throws them a bone around payment services
  • homeOS – lots of rumours around this and it’s something Apple could really do with improving. But what’s it for? HomePod’s? Apple TV? New devices?
  • A glimpse at the AR/VR hardware

24 hours from now we’ll have all the answers. Can’t wait.

Covid Jag

I’ve been jagged. On Friday I drove out to Milngavie and got my first dose of the Covid vaccine. No waiting, slick process and didn’t even feel the needle. I got the Pfizer vaccine although I’d have no problem getting any version. Science is getting us out of this covid mess and I couldn’t wait to get my jag. Big thanks to the NHS staff and all the helpers – what a difference they are making.

So far the only side effect is I’ve been slightly more tired than normal but I’ve not needed to head to bed or anything. I also had a slight sore head on the afternoon of the jag but a walk and some fresh air soon cleared that…and I get sore heads at the best of time so I’ve no idea if it’s related.

Role on May 21st when my body will have built up more immunity and mid August when I’ll have had the second jag and be as immune as I can be without actually getting covid.

The biggest question though…jag or jab? I’m in the jag camp.

Six Thinking Hats

Six Thinking Hats was written by Dr. Edward de Bono. “Six Thinking Hats” and the associated idea parallel thinking provide a means for groups to plan thinking processes in a detailed and cohesive way, and in doing so to think together more effectively.

Although this can be used in groups to aid thinking assigning each person a role has felt restrictive for me. Better example – group assumes all roles at the same time so you move through the different hats together. Also find it useful if going through thinking on my own and avoids falling into favouring your own idea and focussing on yellow and blue hats while missing the others.