Process, In Context
Is all this Success Actually Failure? Ron Jeffries observes (or rather, concurs with the observation) that “75% of those organizations using Scrum will not succeed in getting the benefits that they hope for from it.” This is the Eighty-Twenty Solution, where we (in the “royal We” sense) live and die by the Pareto Principle, so I’ll offer the observation that whatever it is you’re doing, chances are that you’re failing at it. It’s just the nature of things.
What’s apparent is that succeeding isn’t nearly so important as learning how to succeed. Success is a function of at least three variables: a good idea, good execution, and a considerable amount of luck. It’s unclear and will likely always be unclear how to optimize this function. We create processes as an attempt to formulate a function for success, but I can easily identify several companies that no doubt use excellent processes yet produce products that are positively awful; and conversely, I can identify companies that should be worst case stories in terms of process, yet are stupefyingly successful.
The conclusion of this is that, in terms of success, rules are worthless without goals. Nobody sets out to create a terrible product, yet it happens all too frequently. The problem is that we want to formalize the process of creation while ignoring the greater precondition of inspiration. It reminds me of a lesson from a guitar teacher a long time ago. To paraphrase: “technique is like manure… it helps to spread it around, as opposed to putting it on display”.
— Gordon Weakliem
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.