On many ancient maps the words "here be dragons" were printed to indicate dangerous and/or unexplored areas. Or?
But. Maybe there is only one known historical example. http://www.maphist.nl/extra/herebedragons.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenox_Globe
And it was not even "Here be dragons" - but the latin HC SVNT DRACONES ("hic sunt dracones").
And still we belive that it was a common phrase on maps. How many more historical facts are just myths?
Should we trust history? Who writes history? Where does our common knowledge come from?
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Complexify!
We came up with a very simple, understandable and working solution to a difficult problem. We looked at it from different perspectives and it was really simple - yet doing the job - i.e. solving the problem.
Then one in the group said: "We cannot present this. We need to complexify it. You know. Add a lot of powerpoint pictures, some charts, maybe some process models and workflows. And possibly describing all the roles. This is too simple. We need to add details. A simple thing like this will not gain acceptance. We need to complexify."
He was a bit cynical of course. But he was not far away from what showed to be reality. The simple solution was later accepted. But only after some complexifying activities.And quite a number of detailed descriptions.
Complexify. Maybe not a proper word. But scary.
Have we come so far that we sometimes cannot accept and use the simple solutions without adding details and making it look more complex?
Do all details and complex descriptions make the solution better?
Is an agreement with 100.000 words better than a handshake?
Me wonder.
Then one in the group said: "We cannot present this. We need to complexify it. You know. Add a lot of powerpoint pictures, some charts, maybe some process models and workflows. And possibly describing all the roles. This is too simple. We need to add details. A simple thing like this will not gain acceptance. We need to complexify."
He was a bit cynical of course. But he was not far away from what showed to be reality. The simple solution was later accepted. But only after some complexifying activities.And quite a number of detailed descriptions.
Complexify. Maybe not a proper word. But scary.
Have we come so far that we sometimes cannot accept and use the simple solutions without adding details and making it look more complex?
Do all details and complex descriptions make the solution better?
Is an agreement with 100.000 words better than a handshake?
Me wonder.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Every problem can be solved
Impossible is nothing. True?
To me yes. When I was younger I thought there were problems that could not be solved. Impossible problems. But now I believe - or know - that any problem can be solved.
There might be reasons why we chose not to implement the solution of course. But the solution is there - if we want it. It is not a matter of if we can solve the problem. We can. But we might decide that we do not want to push forward.
Why do I believe that any problem can be solved? I think it is due to all the methods and problem solving approaches that exists. No matter how large or complex the problem is there are always (many!) ways to attack it. And we have lots of subject matter expertise out there. In all areas. And experience. And skills....
So, there are many methods out there. And lots of knowledge and skills. And that makes me very certain that every problem can be solved.
We need the knowledge and a systematic approach. Or even approaches.
This feeling that every problem can be solved is to me very comforting. Nothing is impossible.
To me yes. When I was younger I thought there were problems that could not be solved. Impossible problems. But now I believe - or know - that any problem can be solved.
There might be reasons why we chose not to implement the solution of course. But the solution is there - if we want it. It is not a matter of if we can solve the problem. We can. But we might decide that we do not want to push forward.
Why do I believe that any problem can be solved? I think it is due to all the methods and problem solving approaches that exists. No matter how large or complex the problem is there are always (many!) ways to attack it. And we have lots of subject matter expertise out there. In all areas. And experience. And skills....
So, there are many methods out there. And lots of knowledge and skills. And that makes me very certain that every problem can be solved.
We need the knowledge and a systematic approach. Or even approaches.
This feeling that every problem can be solved is to me very comforting. Nothing is impossible.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Need speed? Add another reviewing group!
A long time ago I was asked to lead a requirement reviewing process. The requirements defined an IT-solution. Well, at least that was the plan.
There were many requirements (1000+) from very detailed to very general. It was not a well defined set of requirements. Any attempt to change the requirements ended up as failure. The client had decided that THIS was THE set of requirements to be used. Period.
We started off with a reviewing group to work through the set. Every requirement was discussed in detail. Information lacking. And the group really could not do its job efficiently. It was hard to see what requirement to focus on - and where more information was needed.
We kept going for a few weeks. And managed to just confuse ourselves with more questions and more details. No real progress.
I then suggested to add another group to help us. And with that setup we suddenly started to move. We now had two reviewing groups running. Slightly different focus. And it seemed that the groups now could focus better, since there also was another group supporting the process.
I was not sure why though at this point.
A week later we introduced two more groups. Now having four groups - more or less running in parallel reviewing the whole set. All groups reviewed all requirements. But of course with different perspectives.
Now the real magic kicked in. The process ran faster and faster. Seemed that four groups reviewing all requirements was a more efficient setup than having one.
And what happened seemed to be that each reviewing group now focused on what was really important. And creating TWO models of what was going on. Something like:
1. This group, i.e. my group, is the first group reviewing. So, we only need to focus on whats important for us. And if we make a mistake someone at a later stage will correct it.
but at the same time they also seemed to think:
2. This group is the last in the chain. So, we only need to focus on whats really important. All the other stuff has already been dealt with. And if all the other groups are done and happy we should also be.
When we started using four groups I told everyone that we did work in parallel. But it seems that they anyhow all saw the process as a chain of reviewing groups.
Having these two perspectives in mind all groups relaxed and focused on their perspective. And they were confident that all other groups also did. This group thinking worked miracles with the process. All groups only focused on the really important requirements. Endless discussions about spelling for example were gone.
So, if the process is slow. Maybe you need to add another reviewing group? Creating some focus.
How about the quality of the work? Well, considering the quality of requirements we had to start with we did ok.
There were many requirements (1000+) from very detailed to very general. It was not a well defined set of requirements. Any attempt to change the requirements ended up as failure. The client had decided that THIS was THE set of requirements to be used. Period.
We started off with a reviewing group to work through the set. Every requirement was discussed in detail. Information lacking. And the group really could not do its job efficiently. It was hard to see what requirement to focus on - and where more information was needed.
We kept going for a few weeks. And managed to just confuse ourselves with more questions and more details. No real progress.
I then suggested to add another group to help us. And with that setup we suddenly started to move. We now had two reviewing groups running. Slightly different focus. And it seemed that the groups now could focus better, since there also was another group supporting the process.
I was not sure why though at this point.
A week later we introduced two more groups. Now having four groups - more or less running in parallel reviewing the whole set. All groups reviewed all requirements. But of course with different perspectives.
Now the real magic kicked in. The process ran faster and faster. Seemed that four groups reviewing all requirements was a more efficient setup than having one.
And what happened seemed to be that each reviewing group now focused on what was really important. And creating TWO models of what was going on. Something like:
1. This group, i.e. my group, is the first group reviewing. So, we only need to focus on whats important for us. And if we make a mistake someone at a later stage will correct it.
but at the same time they also seemed to think:
2. This group is the last in the chain. So, we only need to focus on whats really important. All the other stuff has already been dealt with. And if all the other groups are done and happy we should also be.
When we started using four groups I told everyone that we did work in parallel. But it seems that they anyhow all saw the process as a chain of reviewing groups.
Having these two perspectives in mind all groups relaxed and focused on their perspective. And they were confident that all other groups also did. This group thinking worked miracles with the process. All groups only focused on the really important requirements. Endless discussions about spelling for example were gone.
So, if the process is slow. Maybe you need to add another reviewing group? Creating some focus.
How about the quality of the work? Well, considering the quality of requirements we had to start with we did ok.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Yak shaving
Can happen to anyone. Suddenly you realize you have to shave a yak in order to get your work done. Well, at least it seems to. And of course, you should try to get work done without shaving that yak.
Definitions found at http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/Y/yak-shaving.html and at http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/03/dont_shave_that.html
Thanks taoofit (http://twitter.com/taoofit - Nigel Green) for the yak shaving pointers.
Definitions found at http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/Y/yak-shaving.html and at http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/03/dont_shave_that.html
Thanks taoofit (http://twitter.com/taoofit - Nigel Green) for the yak shaving pointers.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Innovation is like a dishwasher
This is what happens when you decide to make your own cartoon :-)
It was made when Joyce Wycoff, http://thinksmart.typepad.com/, asked for picture and cartoons describing innovation in different ways. I misunderstood the request and made this cartoon.
Quite some time ago now, but still the only cartoon I've drawn that has been published in real, i.e. paper-based, magazine. It was used by Professional Fundraisings article "Innovate or die", June 2007.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Underdogs are stronger
Is it better to have "something" than to have "nothing"?
Have you ever seen a team coming to the game trying to defend their title? They have that title. And they also have to waste energy to defend it. A portion of their energy will be drained by fear of loosing what they have.
And since they are not only trying to win - but also trying to protect and defend what they have - they are less likely to succeed.
The opposite is also true. Having nothing can make you stronger. You have nothing to loose. And can use all focus and energy forward - to win.
(Beware. If you in the game suddenly think you have won already, you will spend time defending something you think you have...)
This is why the underdog is stronger. He has less to defend. And can only win.
So, what we normally think is good - "having something" - can be a bad thing. And what we normally think is bad "having nothing" can be good.
Have you ever seen a team coming to the game trying to defend their title? They have that title. And they also have to waste energy to defend it. A portion of their energy will be drained by fear of loosing what they have.
And since they are not only trying to win - but also trying to protect and defend what they have - they are less likely to succeed.
The opposite is also true. Having nothing can make you stronger. You have nothing to loose. And can use all focus and energy forward - to win.
(Beware. If you in the game suddenly think you have won already, you will spend time defending something you think you have...)
This is why the underdog is stronger. He has less to defend. And can only win.
So, what we normally think is good - "having something" - can be a bad thing. And what we normally think is bad "having nothing" can be good.
Oversimplified of course. But the patterns are there. In sports and in business. And in love!
If you have a lot of defend it will be harder to be offensive.
Me thinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
