That was a great read Maarten. I'm in the same ballpark, though I have to admit to using Cynefin as a crutch. I really like how you linked complex and chaos to goal driven. I often link simple-complicated to plan driven, but for complex and chaos I usually talk about experiments, probes, validating, creating a pocket of stability (that first step on the unbeaten path). Goal driven is much more concise there, I'll be adding that to my toolkit.
As the manifesto goes, I feel the 12 principles are undervalued. A few have become stale, but the bulk of them are solid. Basic stuff, but it's still rare to see companies truly *do* it. The manifesto is old, basic and outdated (according to some), and at the same time few are managing to truly pull that basic stuff off. Don't get me started on people saying "agile is dead" and proceeding to run through the values and principles in slightly different words for "what you instead should do" SMH. No denying Agile as a term does feel very yucky and I try to avoid it or own up to the yuckyness and usually judo that into 'what it's about'.
Final and most important thing: am I alone in seeing an uncanny resemblance between Vom Kriege and Christiaan Verwijs? ; )
There was a blog post* that said that doing is a normal distribution and learning is log-normal. They dive into a similar idea: There are factors that we didn't anticipate. This means we have to effectivly take time to learn. If any type of learning is needed, friction is present in the processes. Knowledge Gaps themselves are already big enough to need a more adaptive, goal-driven approach that focus more on outcomes than outputs.
Your view ties all of this together by adding the Alignment Gap and the Action Gap to the Knowledge Gap. Thanks for sharing! I usually pointed to where we want to go with Agility and didn't think deep enough on first principles to derive the need for them.
That was a great read Maarten. I'm in the same ballpark, though I have to admit to using Cynefin as a crutch. I really like how you linked complex and chaos to goal driven. I often link simple-complicated to plan driven, but for complex and chaos I usually talk about experiments, probes, validating, creating a pocket of stability (that first step on the unbeaten path). Goal driven is much more concise there, I'll be adding that to my toolkit.
As the manifesto goes, I feel the 12 principles are undervalued. A few have become stale, but the bulk of them are solid. Basic stuff, but it's still rare to see companies truly *do* it. The manifesto is old, basic and outdated (according to some), and at the same time few are managing to truly pull that basic stuff off. Don't get me started on people saying "agile is dead" and proceeding to run through the values and principles in slightly different words for "what you instead should do" SMH. No denying Agile as a term does feel very yucky and I try to avoid it or own up to the yuckyness and usually judo that into 'what it's about'.
Final and most important thing: am I alone in seeing an uncanny resemblance between Vom Kriege and Christiaan Verwijs? ; )
There was a blog post* that said that doing is a normal distribution and learning is log-normal. They dive into a similar idea: There are factors that we didn't anticipate. This means we have to effectivly take time to learn. If any type of learning is needed, friction is present in the processes. Knowledge Gaps themselves are already big enough to need a more adaptive, goal-driven approach that focus more on outcomes than outputs.
Your view ties all of this together by adding the Alignment Gap and the Action Gap to the Knowledge Gap. Thanks for sharing! I usually pointed to where we want to go with Agility and didn't think deep enough on first principles to derive the need for them.
* https://hiandrewquinn.github.io/til-site/posts/doing-is-normally-distributed-learning-is-log-normal/