2. DISTRIBUTED AND INDIRECT LEARNING
3. DISTRIBUTION OF PROVISION (not power but provision)
4. ACCEPTANCE OF STANDARDS (identification and adoption of)
5. INCENTIVES & FUNDING MODELS (worth based / outcome based models)
X : Are you interested in container technology?
Me : No. I'm interested in the practices that emerge from industrialiation of technology. It's the practice that actually define the future, not the technology.
X : So, what are you interesting in?
Me : ... long list ...
2. DISTRIBUTED AND INDIRECT LEARNING
3. DISTRIBUTION OF PROVISION (not power but provision)
4. ACCEPTANCE OF STANDARDS (identification and adoption of)
5. INCENTIVES & FUNDING MODELS (worth based / outcome based models)
7. MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRAINTS (including enabling constraints)
8. FOCUS ON PRINCIPLES (over beliefs)
9. SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
10. IMMERSION
12. SUSTAINABILITY (not just tickboxes in a CSR)
13. REUSABILITY (of components including exaptation)
14. MANAGING INERTIA (models for identifying and managing)
15. RESILIENCE (both engineering and ecological)
17. MANIPULATION (of perceptions and defense against)
18. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
19. AUGMENTED INTELLIGENCE (not replacement of human capital but addition to)
20. REDUCTION OF WASTE
22. PROTECTIONISM (including conservation)
23. CORPORATE SHARING (including models for using open source)
24. ADAPTATION (anticipation of change and reacting to)
25. PERCEPTION OF TRUST (creation and maintenance)
27. SECURITY (in a virtual world including defense against deep fakes)
28. SOFT POWER (application to a corporate setting)
29. AUTONOMOUS (people and machines, structures and systems for)
30. SIMULATION (including digital twins)
32. AUTOMATION (of processes, identification of such)
33. LOCATION
34. DIVERSITY (creating sustainable and resilient systems)
35. SAFETY (including psychological)
37. LOGISTICS
38. EXPERIENTIAL MODELS (mechanisms of learning)
39. ASSET OPTIMISED BUSINESS MODELS
40. FORECASTING (and scenario planning)
41. AMORPHOUS BOUNDARIES (fluidity between systems)
Me : They are irrelevant to me. They do not define the future. They are a discrete technology looking for a set of practices to support it. What I concern myself with is what the future corporation looks like.
Me : Yes. Driven by underlying technology changes. How widespread and how relevant these practices are is another question that I'm exploring. Hidden within them are potential principles.
Me : Universally useful patterns, the sum of which I call doctrine. Take a company like Amazon, hand all its technology to a competitor like IBM, within 15 years Amazon will still come out on top ... why? ... better principles. Technology is not what matters.
Me : They are specifically the practices that are universally useful i.e. regardless of context. They are things you should do i.e. focus on user needs, understand what is being considered etc.
X : Aren't they values?
Me : Values are our beliefs.
Me : In some collectives you might value "integrity" or "honesty" or "God". Those are not a universal principles, it is a belief specific to that collective that may not hold up in some other collective.
Me : That is a practice which is context specific i.e. it holds up in some cases depending upon how evolved the thing is. It is not universal, it is not a principle. Depending upon context, six sigma might be better.
Values are things we believe in. They are beliefs of our collective.
Practices are the way we should do stuff. They are not beliefs, most are context specific.
Some practices are universal. They are principles.
Doctrine is the collection of principles.
People over process is a belief. A counter belief of process over people exists and can co-exist.
Use appropriate methods is the principle.
In mapping terms ...
Me : Seriously? I'm sure they are important to you. If they matter to you then they matter to you. I care about principles.
X : It seems very academic.
Me : Lol. Born in the fire of competition. It's anything but.
More from Simon Wardley
More from Tech
A common misunderstanding about Agile and “Big Design Up Front”:
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
I\u2019d recommend that the devs participate directly in the research.
— Jared Spool (@jmspool) November 18, 2018
If the devs go into the first sprint with a thorough understanding of the user\u2019s problems, they are far more likely to solve it well.
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
So we had to develop technologies like this to barely manage control over limited areas in Iraq's few urban centers. Only ~8 in 100 Iraqi adults owns a personal vehicle. That rate is > 1 car/adult in America yet I have never seen any doctrine paper or work of fiction address this
We've seen and struggled in civil conflicts with instant, local, universal, distributed communications (cell phone era, basically every conflict since 2000). We've seen and struggled in conflicts with instant, global, universal distributed communications (everything since 2011).
The world's most overfunded military and glow in the dark agencies struggle and largely fail to contain conflicts where fhe vast, vast majority of people are locked into a ~5mi radius of their home.
How can they possibly contain a conflict in a nation with universal car ownership and the most developed road network in the world? The average car can travel over 400 miles on one tank of gas, how can you contain the potential of that kind of mobility?
I think that's partially why the system was so freaked out by 1/6. Yes, most of it is histrionics but you don't decide to indefinitely turn your capital into the Baghdad Green Zone with fortifications and 25k troops over histrionics alone.
Hey guys, just a friendly reminder. We're watching you. pic.twitter.com/bGwi1uJBwT
— CIA Metadata Analyst with 8 kids (@CiaKids) September 23, 2019
We've seen and struggled in civil conflicts with instant, local, universal, distributed communications (cell phone era, basically every conflict since 2000). We've seen and struggled in conflicts with instant, global, universal distributed communications (everything since 2011).
The world's most overfunded military and glow in the dark agencies struggle and largely fail to contain conflicts where fhe vast, vast majority of people are locked into a ~5mi radius of their home.
How can they possibly contain a conflict in a nation with universal car ownership and the most developed road network in the world? The average car can travel over 400 miles on one tank of gas, how can you contain the potential of that kind of mobility?
I think that's partially why the system was so freaked out by 1/6. Yes, most of it is histrionics but you don't decide to indefinitely turn your capital into the Baghdad Green Zone with fortifications and 25k troops over histrionics alone.
You May Also Like
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party