Simplification has a rule: 1) Make the thing unnecessary 2) Then get rid of it.
Don't throw away the crutch while you're leaning on it.
This has relevance to every #No<thing> hashtag. If you reduce or eliminate a need, you can reduce or eliminate a practice or role.
Maintaining unneeded practices and roles is waste.
Anytime you recognize that you're not leaning on the crutch, it might be time for step 2
MIGHT be. It isn't certain.
Some behaviors are only necessary sometimes.
Is the "sometime" coming, and what if you don't have the "something"?
Safety gear....
It's better to have and not need it than to need and not have it.
:)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I can estimate how long it will take me to drive to Des Moines, and be "close enough." There are lights, stops, traffic, weather to consider, but mostly it's me choosing route and rate.
Route has speed limits, traffic features, raw distance. Those are not up to me, really. I have limits, but the limits make the trip predictable.
The fewer items are under my control, the less likely the estimation.
Can I get to des moines in 3 hours? Probably, if you provide me a fast plane or fast helicopter and clear weather. Otherwise, no.
Often businesses run fast, in the unsafe fast quadrant of the graph. They end up so hampered by low quality that they are dragged into unsafe slow.
We refer to the unsafe-slow quadrant as "hell" - no matter how fast you try to go, things go wrong and you end up fixing and reacting to crises. And of course you get there through good intentions.
Sadly there is no easy trip from unsafe-slow or unsafe-fast to safe-fast.
"If one of us is remote, we all work as if remote" is questionable. While it creates empathy/sympathy and urge to fix remoting problems, if one of us broke her wrist we wouldn't all type with non-dominant hand for 6 weeks.
Not reducing the value of empathy, but when I'm remote I accept that it is not as good a group experience and don't want everyone to give up their advantages. My choice to work as a remote shouldn't hobble everyone else.
If one of us is unfamiliar with the coding language, should we all write amateur-level code? If I become hard of hearing should you all wear earplugs to work?
In the early 90s, a coworker named Dan conscientiously told us that he would be happy to help us with "our" work, but only after he finished "his work" because he won't put his reputation at risk for us.
At the time, I was working with almost everyone else on the team on "their" work while trying to finish "my" work. It was before we understood teaming, when everyone thought in "individual contributor" terms, but I had already been on two excellent real teams.
Dan wasn't *wrong*, and I wasn't *right*. We were operating from different systems and mindsets. Dan had a reason to work hard to prove his competence due to a diversity issue in the org, and he was playing the hand he was dealt masterfully.
there is this idea floating about inverting business, to wit:
* There are people in your org who materially participate in delivery of goods/services/etc
* Then there are supportive functions provided as a service to material participants
* Then there is dead wood
It's interesting. It suggests that the people building, designing, and selling your cars are "the real business," managers and purchasing and HR and finance are supporting the primary functions, and anyone not supporting design/build/deliver are basically waste.
Likewise you would have software development, testing, delivery, operation, sales, and service in a software house as primary functions. Those who "give them the environment and support they need" are supportive, anything else may be waste.