What you are describing looks like the work an inexperienced consultant, or a "wholesale" one. A more experienced (and/or independent) consultant would know that rolling out a framework before having re-framed the problem together with the client is a risk.
And since companies have the tendency to buy frameworks, the "framework delivery" consultants come with it. There are also consultants like myself who come after many waves of other consultants and frameworks: you find what you find, and never have the luxury of starting from scratch.
Sometime you really have to go through the "crawl, walk, run" metaphor because someone tried to make the company run on a framework that was unfit for the context: so you have to "un-framework" the situation and go along a reverse, "run, walk, crawl" path.
That's not infantilizing: it's called assessing the situation (something that somebody conveniently forgot to do earlier...) and choosing the correct course of action for the situation — and that sometimes means stopping all the nonsensical framework-y stuff and doing something more practical like, for example, an extensive dependency mapping activity amongst the teams.
Shu-ha-ri. Shu can just be following a framework for a bit until you gain confidence to Ha it. As long as that is clear amongst all parties, nothing wrong with frameworks. If you follow them mechanically and treat them as an end-state, bad things will happen.
Now put Shu-ha-ri into the consultancy mindset...and constraints.
It is easy to go down the wrong road and persuade yourself something exists that doesn't.
Compared to a healthy team that might use similar techniques.
I'm just not sure of applicability of something meant for individual martial artist practice. I understand the idea, but it has been very abused in our space.
I know where you are coming from (I am a consultant). It is tempting to just go with the easy short-term "solution", call it a success and win your next contract. You could make a career out of it really.
I look at frameworks in three main ways:
1. The target: obviously not good as you're blindly following a template
2. The starting point: better, gives people confidence to start and idea behind my original comment
3. A model to create your own way of working: I know Kanban isn't a framework, but it's a good example of how people look at the ideas in Kanban and create their own setup.
I'm sure I'm missing other ways of looking at it. If people are clear on how we agree to use a framework, there's better chance of success.
This even applies to technical frameworks. For example CSS stuff seem to lie somewhere on this spectrum. For example, #1 (Material UI) to #2 (Bootstrap) to #3 (Bulma).
What you are describing looks like the work an inexperienced consultant, or a "wholesale" one. A more experienced (and/or independent) consultant would know that rolling out a framework before having re-framed the problem together with the client is a risk.
And since companies have the tendency to buy frameworks, the "framework delivery" consultants come with it. There are also consultants like myself who come after many waves of other consultants and frameworks: you find what you find, and never have the luxury of starting from scratch.
Sometime you really have to go through the "crawl, walk, run" metaphor because someone tried to make the company run on a framework that was unfit for the context: so you have to "un-framework" the situation and go along a reverse, "run, walk, crawl" path.
That's not infantilizing: it's called assessing the situation (something that somebody conveniently forgot to do earlier...) and choosing the correct course of action for the situation — and that sometimes means stopping all the nonsensical framework-y stuff and doing something more practical like, for example, an extensive dependency mapping activity amongst the teams.
Shu-ha-ri. Shu can just be following a framework for a bit until you gain confidence to Ha it. As long as that is clear amongst all parties, nothing wrong with frameworks. If you follow them mechanically and treat them as an end-state, bad things will happen.
Now put Shu-ha-ri into the consultancy mindset...and constraints.
It is easy to go down the wrong road and persuade yourself something exists that doesn't.
Compared to a healthy team that might use similar techniques.
I'm just not sure of applicability of something meant for individual martial artist practice. I understand the idea, but it has been very abused in our space.
I know where you are coming from (I am a consultant). It is tempting to just go with the easy short-term "solution", call it a success and win your next contract. You could make a career out of it really.
I look at frameworks in three main ways:
1. The target: obviously not good as you're blindly following a template
2. The starting point: better, gives people confidence to start and idea behind my original comment
3. A model to create your own way of working: I know Kanban isn't a framework, but it's a good example of how people look at the ideas in Kanban and create their own setup.
I'm sure I'm missing other ways of looking at it. If people are clear on how we agree to use a framework, there's better chance of success.
This even applies to technical frameworks. For example CSS stuff seem to lie somewhere on this spectrum. For example, #1 (Material UI) to #2 (Bootstrap) to #3 (Bulma).
I wonder how you would build and scale an environment for agile given your observations here?
Frameworks should connect and contextualise but often they do not.
Love it!
You’ll also enjoy this piece about how ski school teaches you to “crawl” and there are better ways to learn to ski: https://pullnews.medium.com/ski-better-faster-b871acdc5b13