I always hated the term "BAU" because it makes it look like the work that keeps the lights on, brings in predictable revenue etc, is neglected or looked down upon for the sake of flashy "strategic" work. When "strategic" work is sometimes a risky bet, unproven motion, and is really valuable mostly in a founder's head. Not to say some initiatives shouldn't be left alone to mature to prove their value. But BAU is more valuable than given credit for.
I love your dense takes! Keep them coming. Truly insightful! It really resonated with me. The idea that a lot of things happens as "fractals" in reality was pretty clear to me. But you brought up some new insights that I am taking along... Not necessarily totally new to me, but articulated in a much more actionable way (for me at least).
I made it all the way down to "Getting Actionable" and ironically that was where you lost me, John. But like others, I found this incredibly useful - specifically the side stories and the four lenses, which feels like exactly what I need to help some of my current clients claw their way out of the quagmire they've sunk themselves into.
I should say I'm always grateful for how clearly you articulate these things - it's a real skill and these newsletters often feel like a gift. Thanks for the effort you put into them.
I've always wanted to drop dive into org dressing and EDGY has been on my radar for a while. They seem to have tried and used simplified naming of things and simplified model of things. Especially around "elements" in org and their relationships https://enterprise.design/wiki/EDGY:About
Love this nudge to concreteness as a good thing. As an OKR shepherd I always wanted the teams to have beautiful outcome metrics as KRs and they always wanted to produce milestones. And I didn’t like it because it was not by the book. The books only work from far away, I guess.
Also recommend this read to governance practitioners in HR, Finance etc.
I recognise naive Tom in your description of naive John, and now use a combo of the manoeuvres you suggest.
One more: inside of an “initiative” that you can decompose into more concrete events or behaviours, you can also identify the least and most uncertain sets of behaviours, and communicate clearly while applying a barbell strategy: “we’re certain of A, B, C, so we’ve made concrete progress; the biggest risks we see are P, Q, R, so we’re trying x, y, z and will think again if we see something like x’, y’, or z’.”
I always hated the term "BAU" because it makes it look like the work that keeps the lights on, brings in predictable revenue etc, is neglected or looked down upon for the sake of flashy "strategic" work. When "strategic" work is sometimes a risky bet, unproven motion, and is really valuable mostly in a founder's head. Not to say some initiatives shouldn't be left alone to mature to prove their value. But BAU is more valuable than given credit for.
I love your dense takes! Keep them coming. Truly insightful! It really resonated with me. The idea that a lot of things happens as "fractals" in reality was pretty clear to me. But you brought up some new insights that I am taking along... Not necessarily totally new to me, but articulated in a much more actionable way (for me at least).
I made it all the way down to "Getting Actionable" and ironically that was where you lost me, John. But like others, I found this incredibly useful - specifically the side stories and the four lenses, which feels like exactly what I need to help some of my current clients claw their way out of the quagmire they've sunk themselves into.
I should say I'm always grateful for how clearly you articulate these things - it's a real skill and these newsletters often feel like a gift. Thanks for the effort you put into them.
I've always wanted to drop dive into org dressing and EDGY has been on my radar for a while. They seem to have tried and used simplified naming of things and simplified model of things. Especially around "elements" in org and their relationships https://enterprise.design/wiki/EDGY:About
Hi John, what literature would you recommend to expand/get deeper into these topics?
hey,
the prioritizer doesnt work for me, i get in developer console:
Uncaught SyntaxError: The requested module 'https://johnpcutler.github.io/prioritizer/analytics/analytics.js' doesn't provide an export named: 'analytics'
It may be caused by me using Firefox
Try again!
It works now, thanks!
Thanks! Will check
When your articles open with a warning, I know it’s gonna be a good time 🙂
Nodding aggressively in recognition throughout this piece. Great stuff, John.
Love this nudge to concreteness as a good thing. As an OKR shepherd I always wanted the teams to have beautiful outcome metrics as KRs and they always wanted to produce milestones. And I didn’t like it because it was not by the book. The books only work from far away, I guess.
Also recommend this read to governance practitioners in HR, Finance etc.
Yikes, almost no OKRs should be output milestones. Cagan calls those exceptions High Integrity Commitments.
https://www.svpg.com/managing-commitments-in-an-agile-team/
LinkyHighlights http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/2012-12-15-CaganHighintegrityCommitments
of course, the team may have concerns with outcome-OKRs for good reason, if the preconditions aren't in place.
More Cagan:
https://svpg.com/team-objectives-empowerment/
https://svpg.com/team-objectives-overview/
I recognise naive Tom in your description of naive John, and now use a combo of the manoeuvres you suggest.
One more: inside of an “initiative” that you can decompose into more concrete events or behaviours, you can also identify the least and most uncertain sets of behaviours, and communicate clearly while applying a barbell strategy: “we’re certain of A, B, C, so we’ve made concrete progress; the biggest risks we see are P, Q, R, so we’re trying x, y, z and will think again if we see something like x’, y’, or z’.”
“At the risk of getting slightly nerdy”
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣