In a second it struck me that there is something dreadfully wrong in this statement. I just could not nail it down.

Some years ago around the same time. Enter podium discussion at a tiny conference close to Detroit. Some agile “what-ever”. I was on stage with two big names. No idea why I was asked to participate on stage. The topic was agile scaling or rather how to run big projects in agile. At the time, I was very much into micro services and reversing Conway’s law and architecture centricity and topics around it. We were discussing the standards like big room planning, program boards, minimum viable products, walking skeletons, whatever… At one point I had an idea. “We need to manage the work such that there are as few as possible dependencies on the board. Best case scenario is NO dependencies.” That one touched a nerve and I was disqualified as not understanding systems at all. Easy bait. Lesson learned: Do not be creative on stage. Does not work.

But: Still, the idea was attractive to me. It leads to simple solutions with very little dependencies and dependencies is where I get a headache.

Fast forward to some project management conference. Quite a few system engineers were presenting. I have seen a few people proudly showing off their skills in management of complex dependencies.

My mantra became a lot clearer: “Keep it simple, stupid.” There are many variants to the idea and it dates back a couple of hundred years. Just search the web for some trivia. Anyhow, the recommendation to the executives by the consulting company should have been:

“You need to reduce complexity.”

How to reduce complexity? Make it complicated for few and simple for many. This involves

• Unterstanding that architects are in a leadership role. They shape business and products. Cannot be separated. Both go hand in hand.
• Understanding that organizations that develop systems are systems themselves and that these are social systems of people, developing for people. (In the end there most of the time there is still a human interacting with your product. The product should be there to serve a purpose.)
• Understanding that the world is changing at a certain pace. To manage solutions, you need to be faster than the changing environment. Elements of self-management might be a good idea to maintain speed.
• Understanding that “divide and conquer” does not necessarily mean micro-management.

Why should we reduce complexity at all?

• Simple solutions are easy to build.
• Simple solutions are easy to adapt and to modify.
• Simple solutions are cheap.
• Simple solution can be delivered very fast.

Complexity kills speed. I want to move

The post Dealing With Complexity appeared first on Grado.

Reading through the HBR article, one of the great successes presented is the Shimano Coasting idea. Ever heard of it? Me not and I am a lot into bikes. It is about opening a new market to the biking industry. It failed. Is it due to design thinking? No, I do not think so. There is some 2010 analysis of the failure of the marketing campaign by Yanni Groth.

What caused Shimano’s Coasting-program to fail ? Interesting reading as well. Marketing…

As a small side joke: After describing the Shimano Coasting idea, the sub-headline is “Taking a Systems View”. Well, yes. That systems thing might have lead to a different solution.

This might be a bit what they were after. Not sure how successful it is commercially, but: Impressive to me and it lasts for some time, survived the COVID pandemic, so it probably is robust: Swapfiets based in the Netherlands (expanding). Get people on the bike. No. The people have a strong need for local transportation. A hassle-free bike is an answer top the need. You simply pay a small “transportation fee”, a.k.a. you rent the bike full service and you are all set. Bikes come in different flavors. There where I have seen them (the city of Groningen), the main options were color. Multiple things go together here:

• user need – simply forget your car in Groningen. Makes no sense.
• marketing see below…
• simplicity of the process to get a bike – use internet, generate an account, make an appointment, take the bike and ride away.
• low risk – it comes with two locks. If stolen, there is limited liability.
• corporate identity – they come with a blue front tire and are low-tech.
• infrastructure – there apparently a lot of infrastructure in the background to keep the city clean of abandoned and stolen bikes, get the bikes returned. The main feature is that you always have a ride. It never breaks. Well, it does occasionally, but you can swap it.
• maybe some secrets I did not discover first glance.

The success boils down to focus on customer experience. Bikes as a service.

More competent analysis on the marketing side by Jeroen Coelen: The hidden reason of Swapfiets’​ success. Marketing is one thing. Here another “random” marketing analysis Discover Swapfiets’ Inbound Marketing Success | Topkee.

You ask me: Marketing is one thing. I would bet that proven service and dedication is what keeps the business going.

Hey guys at Swapfiets, would be cool if you would correct, comment, extend, whatever! Thanks.

One last thing: When I was in one of the joints, I overheard a conversation: “Oh, when you are new to biking, you should take this one. It only has the rear brake. More simple to ride. The one with two brakes is more advanced.” And: This is not Shimano bashing or anything. Just something to learn from.

The post Coasting Bikes — Ever Heard of Them? appeared first on Grado.

• The Game or setting goals.
• Observe or observing the situation
• Orient or determining options for action
• Decide or deciding what to implement.

The GOOD cycle, or sense-making cycle, draws heavily on Simon Wardley’s strategic gameplay:

• Step 1 – Establishing the cycle
• Step 2 – Learning the landscape
• Step 3 – Learning and Using Climates
• Step 4 – Learning and Using Doctrine
• Step 5 – Learning and Using Stratagems

The post The GOOD Cycle appeared first on Grado.

• The Game – Understanding and formulating the general situation – situational awareness.
• Landscape – Observe the climatic patterns, i.e. the elements of the situation which you cannot (easily) change.
• Actions – Select the action patterns (doctrines, heuristics) to apply.
• Decide – select the right direction

The Leadership cycle

• Focus – Communication about the framework conditions and specifications. Provide direction.
• Align – Ensure that there is agreement on the objectives – when I delegate, does what I expect happen?
• Enable – Ensure that all the necessary skills and information are available to the individuals and the capabilities are available to the team.
• Empower – Delegating and handing over responsibility is the mirror image of autonomy.

Connect the two circles

• Act – Transfer into the FAEE Cycle
• Learn – Transfer learnings back from the FAEE Cycle

The post Evolution appeared first on Grado.

Organizational ambidexterity is one of the most important characteristics of high-performing companies and helps them to survive in dynamic markets.

Companies that work in organizational ambidexterity seek a balance between value creation and the exploration of new potential. There are two variants in the concrete implementation in everyday life.

1. Contextual ambidexterity: different organizational factors (e.g. leadership, values, norms, etc.) are applied dynamically, i.e. depending on the task at hand. An example of contextual ambidexterity was Google’s 80/20 rule, which stated that Google employees should spend 20% of their working time on innovative topics that have nothing to do with day-to-day business.
2. Structural ambidexterity: exploitation and exploration are implemented in the company with the help of dual structures. To this end, differentiated organizational units are created, each dealing with replication (exploitation) and innovation (exploration). This is the ideal application model for the three horizons concept.

Many agile and new work practices provide an important approach and contribute to the promotion of ambidextrous structures. They help to avoid the challenges of a classic organizational structure.

The post Embrace Ambidextry appeared first on Grado.