3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@marianamoscosa9747 7 ай бұрын
Thank you ! It is pure gold ❤
@RobJonesnuClusiv 7 ай бұрын
The same thing happened to Maslow as has happened to Boyd's OODA. The hierarchical simplification of the "Pyramid" wasn't Maslow's idea, but that single errant visual imposition on the underlying motivation theory conscripted its application and resulted in decades of misunderstanding and misdirection. It's never been sorted out, and it's probably too late to salvage that original concept. That's what this discussion reminded me of. No matter its origin, the "Loop" graphic was a strategic error, and 22 person-hours of top-notch intellect couldn't sort it out.
@devinmcmanus 8 ай бұрын
Bullshit Jobs should be required reading for anyone in management.
@PhantomRaspberryBlower 8 ай бұрын
I've seen this many times. Further more the good people get frustrated and leave and the harmless plodders who dont upset anyone stick it out. This is how organisations die. Bullshit jobs change into bullshit organisations
@cristinaredondomenendez 8 ай бұрын
Love this video Nigel, so meaningful
@chriscooper3384 8 ай бұрын
When I was taught by Kawasaki before the Japanese car makers arrived in the UK, we were walked through our plant and our Sensei then created what today would be called a more detailed Value Stream Map. Start at the end and work backwards was because most complex value streams converge and if you go left to right you often end up in dead-ends and confusion. When it comes to 'carpet kaizen' I have been practicing in this field for more than three decades and here I have found that most complexity is waste. BUT and its a big BUT there is a key difference in the carpet kaizen world between simpler recurring processes such as paying the payroll and invoicing customers to what I call the non-recurring processes like developing a new class of product. Think Kawasaki's Jet Ski a whole new world of products that didn't exist prior to it being imagineered. In that arena I have been pioneering for decades and had to develop unique methods to create one-time-flow
@NigelThurlow 7 ай бұрын
100% Linear Contextualization - start at the customer. Great reply 🙏
@62Bojangles 8 ай бұрын
only 10... nice I have one :)
@user-ff2dj2fb2f 8 ай бұрын
Nigel how refreshing your views are exactly on point, behaviour and knowing your business to make the required change is the key focus required to enable change with CQI great video bravo
@BugTheRoot 8 ай бұрын
Let me get this straight. All of the agile jobs are "bullshit" because leaders dont provide leadership...?! And the solution for leadership problems is a 700 page book, lectures that demean scrum masters and coaches, and obscenity-laced, reductionist jingoism?
@NigelThurlow 8 ай бұрын
I am not sure my reply will placate you in anyway as your comment was a bit of a rant, but let me try. Firstly the book. It is not a solution to the problem at all. It is a book. I do not get paid to speak at this conference, and paid my own travel and expenses to attend. I attend annually as a supporter of the event. I have written a previous book on this topic, and I was letting the audience who pay to hear me speak, and others, about the new book, which is actually pretty good. To the topic in particular. It is relevant to all those in the Agile world, and beyond. We create roles/jobs that are ineffective, not due to those in this roles, but due to those who manage those in those roles and prevent them from fulfilling the outcomes they are designed to achieve. Scrum Masters are being denigrated into delivery managers or worse. There are many other examples, and based on there 100s of comments I have gotten after this talk, I think I hit a few salient points. The reality is, as I said in the talk, that we do not have a methodology problem, we have a behavior problem. Call that attitudes, or the mindset (collective mindset is a pseudoscience), or whatever term you prefer. We do not need more frameworks or methods, and most are derivations of other’s earlier works anyway. What we need is a change of behavior of those in charge to actively participate in the change desired, and to change themselves. The “Bullshit Jobs” title is taken from very well known and respect works of Prof. Dave Graeber. I suspect I will receive ore vitriol to this reply, but I would at least respectively ask you actually review my work beyond this 20 min talk, and realize my focus is on improving the lives of those in these roles, and not berating them.
@RalphJocham 8 ай бұрын
Nigel at his best!
@manishm9478 8 ай бұрын
This video points out a few problems but doesn't appear to offer solutions. Maybe those are in the book being advertised? Here are my $0.02 for tackling these issues: - Begin with the end in mind. Aka define your desired outcome (eg happy customers). Then align metrics, incentives and improvement programs around these outcomes, not the specific practices you think might achieve them. This allows teams and individuals to innovate and find solutions that work best for them. - Foster creativity. Teams may initially struggle to be innovative, because they have had little experience with thinking divergently and creatively. Encourage this so people feel safe and confident to come up with and explore new ideas. - Lead with empathy. Recognise change is deeply uncomfortable, and support people through this with understanding and kindness.
@NigelThurlow 8 ай бұрын
Firstly the book. It is not a solution to the problem at all. It is a book. I do not get paid to speak at this conference, and paid my own travel and expenses to attend. I attend annually as a supporter of the event. I have written a previous book on this topic, and I was letting the audience who pay to hear me speak, and others, about the new book, which is actually pretty good. I agree with your comments. The thrust of my talk was the fact that many in control (leaders or manages) stifle the things you describe. This is why I refer to it as a behavior problem, and not a methodology problem. Most of what you advocate is indeed behavioral in nature.
@TimDickey 8 ай бұрын
Wonderful 20-minute summary of over 700 pages of hard work!
@szeredaiakos 8 ай бұрын
That's extremely nice, especially for hardware engineering. Unfortunately on software it breaks a bit. Like for example, a proper machinist can tell you with a very high degree of accuracy how many cuts a particular part will need as well as the tools needed. That is usually offset by accidents (endmill breaking, tool breakdowns, etc). But low level operations are generally nailed down every step of the way. A piece may take 30 low level ops to complete and maybe 1-2 disruptions/month on the project level. In software, you are looking at several thousand low level ops for a daily task. Properly naming a variable, restructuring code, even an if statement, they all are meaningful. While a workpiece on certain faces may have a couple of thou tolerance, in software engineering at the functional level, the idea of tolerance does not exist. Further, disruptors, at the project level come just about twice a week. At the developer level can be as high as several times a day on the more complicated bodies of work. The initial cone of error for any software project is 180 degrees. Worsened by the fact that nobody knows anything about the actual details of a project. It's impossible. You can't know anything about something which has not been created ever. On the other hand, there are ways to bring in some certainty. For starters, it is far easier than hardware to learn more about the details of the most important aspects. And yes, projections do also increase in accuracy over time... Provided someone from sales does not sell your product to the wrong customer with a bundle of unrealistic promises (Ask me how i know.). So, in software engineering you get budget for exploring a project rather than committing. If trends appear, you either pull the plug or start selling.
@NigelThurlow 8 ай бұрын
It's about levels of degree and relative sizing to other work. It is not about accurate tasks estimating. This was born in software, not hardware, and several years of use in Toyota and other companies has proven its utility. It is not perfect, but nothing is. It does rely on people with the knowledge of the work and experience doing it. Thanks for the great reply.
@laulysholtbertelsen8705 9 ай бұрын
Just ordered learning to see the other day after reading about it in Jeffrey likers book about Toyota. Hope I can learn something useful. Thanks for the video too😊
@joapen 10 ай бұрын
I love the use of the slinky to explain how you can have simultaneous OODA loops at the same time
@BhuvanMisra 10 ай бұрын
The collaboration with Essence kernel is very interesting
@JTXRP 10 ай бұрын
I can’t wait to get my book! I want to play more with the Hexi and super excited about essence, please post a link here as access becomes available 🎉
@TimDickey 10 ай бұрын
Thank you for the summary of the Playbook and supporting approaches!
@l_combo 10 ай бұрын
Congrats Nigel, can't wait to read!
@mtin79 10 ай бұрын
Great! Will this be available as an audiobook or video tutorial too?
@NigelThurlow 10 ай бұрын
Unlikely as an audiobook without creating a specific version as this is designed as a study guide and reference book and less as a reading book. There will be extensive training materials and new video material in the new year.
@borisaditya 10 ай бұрын
Wow this is priceless, thank you. Please create more of this.
@abadongutierrez 11 ай бұрын
What if you dont know the velocityh of the team because there is no team yet for this new project?
@NigelThurlow 10 ай бұрын
Then you need to do some work. This technique requires familiarity with the context and subject. It’s the same in any case if you have no knowledge or experience or expertise then you’re just taking wild guesses. My own experience is that once you have a team then can size. Velocity can be measured after 2-3 sprints to gain a moving average to help you predict. Any technique requires some historical data to be able to predict.
@texstylestudios5302 11 ай бұрын
❤
@shalinivaz1473 Жыл бұрын
well explained
@62Bojangles Жыл бұрын
I have been building something very very similar and this video helped me to complete my project and fill some gaps. Thank you.
@NigelThurlow Жыл бұрын
Glad it helped!
@Nant-y-Coy-Mill Жыл бұрын
I would be interested in hearing thoughts on a dual operating model / OD which retains the hierarchy model for certain decisions / functions retaining the benefits associated with the hierarchical model, but the OD combines this with a more ‘network’ model which supports innovation, complex change and distributed decision making with leaders more akin to the agile model. 24:25
@fernandoeijo Жыл бұрын
Amazing!
@aberturaOpalo Жыл бұрын
Que un privilegio. It is a privilege to be in her boundless, explosive, dynamic harmonic presence. Thank you for capturing it. I ask if you would consider changing your video title because it is incorrect title to describe the genres they are playing. She is not performing reggaetón nor is she a reggaetón artist. She is an avant-garde jazz musician, composer, vocalist -in this segment blending hip hop, cumbia, r&b, and freestyle rapping. If you want to know what reggaetón is and its history as a Boricua folkloric tradition, you might investigate its origins.
@NigelThurlow Жыл бұрын
I was told she was a reggae-ton artist but I appreciate your comment 🙏 I’ll update the title and add the information you provided to the video description. I wish she’d release more videos. She is very special indeed.
@franklillehagen9331 Жыл бұрын
Dave, Nigel, Kates and team thank you for sharing your knowledge and innovations! The Cynefin Framework is good for Organizational Design, but Organizational design in most industry sectors has to be completed with Project Design and Product, Process and Digital Platform Design. We call it Holistic Design. Cynefin and Archimate should maybe be adated Effective Holistic Design is dependent on structures and components developed by teams including product designers and practitioners, and knowledge modelling experts. The AKM Group is working on concepts, methods and workspaces for holistic design in the energy industries, including oil and gas.
@essamelbahr8838 Жыл бұрын
Very good video, one question though, how can I do this calculation upfront so I can prepare a fixed bid price to present to the customer ?
@foroparapente 2 жыл бұрын
32:00 you can see Dave's blood pressure go up and about to blow a gasked due to a minimal misuse of a scientific paper for actually not a bad output.
@NigelThurlow Жыл бұрын
The illusion of knowledge is a real problem.
@davesnowden4553 2 жыл бұрын
Nigel. My apologies I directed Jim here after he dumped a slightly longer set of comments on several of my blog posts. He seems to have a lot of free time to tell people he disagrees with they are wrong, certainly more time than I have to respond. His absolute rejection of post Cartesian ideas of consciousness being one illustration of his form of argument. It’s something where he has been given enough to check the science but chooses not to. He also seems to think that OODA is some form of absolute truth and rejection is heresy. I told him on my blog I had massive respect for Boyd and still used OODA in some contexts but the basic science around decision making has moved on and Boyd himself would have been the first to do that. I do admire Jim’s energy however. He started to post additional comments on my blog when he was only ten minutes or so in and that has taken him an hour or so as he was playing and replaying the tape. His ad hominem & error count has gone up a little in his comments here however. On the latter point the pretty basic arrow of assuming that because I talked about energy and time in the context of Estuarine mapping that I was saying Boyd didn’t talk about them. So unless there is something new (and I can’t see it so far) I’ll make no further response. Hey he thinks your right :-)
@aidanmcknight3111 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the effort put into this video
@NigelThurlow 2 жыл бұрын
Appreciate the reply 🙏
@jimallen8186 2 жыл бұрын
About an hour in, lots of trash, seems Ben, Nigel, and Andrew generally get it while the others are a bunch of yes-monkeys. Snowden goes at Intent highlighting one of his sells of needing Metaphor Based Intent. Metaphor Based Intent may have value to impart, I’m waiting to hear more on it. Yet Dave’s points regarding Intent miss the point of Intent. In it he says Intent is to provide that for which we can’t give Orders as we can’t clarify it in a manner to give Orders else we’d give Orders. This is wrong. Intent tells what the organization as a whole will do. Intent also gives us our Common Understanding while Orders only give subordinates pieces. Intent is inclusive of the commander as what the commander wants to accomplish hence there’s no Orders as the commander isn’t directing a subordinate toward this. Self direction requires no Orders. Orders are for subordinates and direct pieces of actions while Intent is holistic. Yet even so, Tasks have Purposes which are like mini-Intents. These also serve as an out for subordinates. If they see the Task won’t achieve the Purpose or there’s better way to achieve the Purpose, they’re not only free to do so in (Boyd’s) Mission Command, they’re encouraged to do such. Intent is holistic while both Intent and Purposes give the Why of things. Orders only give the who, where, what, and sometimes unfortunately how. Tasks are whats. Purposes are Whys as Intent is Why.
@jimallen8186 2 жыл бұрын
I like his point that you have to get through filters before you can get buy-in for change and that these filters include cultural traditions, previous experience, and genetic heritage. He’s also right that there are elements that resonate with what Dave has said, like Destruction and Creation sounds a lot like Estuaries and both sound like Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu. Question for Charlie as he sees these filters, any comparison with Haidt and The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives?
@jimallen8186 2 жыл бұрын
Dave, you just said it was simultaneous but then you said it is pattern recognition with sense (or Observe) then first pattern we recognize (that’s Orient in sequence) drives Decision and Action. So, it’s simultaneous yet now it is sequential? It’s linear and it is not? Nigel is correct in this from his original positions.
@jimallen8186 2 жыл бұрын
So, according to Dave, we’re supposed to be able to pass on symbolic language capabilities through RNA not DNA? If we’re supposed to throw out old disproven science, why are we now bringing back Lemarck? As for RNA, isn’t it not survivable hence why it is favored now for vaccines? As it is not survivable, how can it be used as a vehicle to store and pass heritable data? Sounds like more contortions to try to sell decisions not being made in the brain (in this case being made “by the tribe”). A tribe can make a decision but in reality that is some sort of combination of several individual decisions be it a sort of democracy, a sort of acceptance, subservience, and compliance, and/or a sort of comity and go-along group cohesion choice - these are all individual decisions. Accepting the input of or the will of others is an individual decision.
@jimallen8186 2 жыл бұрын
It seems to me that a lot of effort is being made here to diminish John Boyd’s work and it seems to me that these mental contortions are being done to discredit his work so as to sell newer work, some of which may be rehashing stuff Boyd has done, kind of like Estuaries versus Destruction and Creation. While we’re dismissing recent old as old, we’ve completely ignored old old like Daoist Yin-Yang or the Hindu Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu (which is Destruction and Creation with attempt to pause and capitalize on the created). It is a shame as the contortions wreck not only credibility but actual value of ideas like Cynefin in terms of how they can fit in a complimentary manner with OODA (really OODA would fit with Cynefin as several OODA would fit within each domain with occasional feedbacks crossing to other domains; Cynefin only fits in OODA in that Orientation if you’re deliberately doing an OODA aware that you’re seeking to Orient your decision methodology by determining domain). Yet we’re talking perpendicular nonsense. Kind of like the nonsense that decisions happen outside the brain.
@jimallen8186 2 жыл бұрын
“Any time anyone brings up double loop, I ask why not triple or quadruple? To me it’s infinite looping and it’s yeah…” Well, Boyd did see it as infinite looping. And, as each person has at least one loop running in of themselves, yes, there’s multiple. Consider the Tactical, Operational, Strategic model often depicted as a cyclone, many Tactical loop iterations feed up to Operational which in turn iterates several times while feeding to Strategic - that’s three loops properly modeled - yet it misses that multiple Tactical actors feed the Operational and multiple Operational actors feed the Strategic. So now you have infinite looping in parallel at any moment and infinite looping over time. And that is how Boyd saw it. As such, it is impossible to be linear.
@jeevd0007 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much @Nigel for such educative video on VSM.
@NigelThurlow 2 жыл бұрын
Glad it was heplful.
@JTXRP 2 жыл бұрын
1:18 😂🤣😁
@jimallen8186 2 жыл бұрын
Again, Nigel, agree with you, OODAs have multiple timescales. It is a serious error to think they're rapid things. It is also an error to think faster is always better. Sometimes you have to wait for feedback and for effects to propagate.
@hamandvaid 2 жыл бұрын
I am unsure what heresy I have just witnessed, but I frickin' love it.
@anlisaalmeida7836 2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video, very well explained. One area I need more clarification on is how can the team exactly determine how they will implement their work and how much effort is needed in the initial phase as a lot of things are unknown and can only be learned once the actual work starts?
@NigelThurlow 2 жыл бұрын
This approach is meant for teams that have worked together for a while and have a good understanding of the work context and the skills and knowledge necessary. If this is a new team and/or a very new area of work, then they will have to run some experiments (do some Scrum) to refine their knowledge to be able to use this approach effectively. What I normally do is have them execute the first few backlog items which then gives them their base understanding to use this approach. Remember, in project management all they do is wild guess and hope it was right.
@dracalves 2 жыл бұрын
Amazing case! So glad to have watched that live!! Thanks for sharing this video Nigel!!
@mikaelhellden1781 2 жыл бұрын
This series of talks is fantastic, but I’m not surprised Matthew left after this episode… ☺️
@NigelThurlow 2 жыл бұрын
He would have continued but his book and other commitments constrained him and Manuel. I look forward to inviting them back for future conversations.
@mikaelhellden1781 2 жыл бұрын
@@NigelThurlow So no hard feelings then? Sounds great! Looking forward to hear more of this stuff. 👍😃
@gregoryobi-godwin5056 2 жыл бұрын
Completely blown away Nigel, great content and look forward to more of your videos .
@terryortynsky9622 2 жыл бұрын
thank you for producing this video, it was very helpful in understanding VSM
@djduarte7315 2 жыл бұрын
My job is very clear...create flow by simplifying complexity (value). As I work across industries, I view things in their purity and it's been made evident that most systems are man made and the complexity was created by ourselves. Therefore, we can simplify them by making things visual and by understanding mudatori (stagnation, transportation & motion). Cheers...great video! 🙂