Simon Wardley #EEA
@swardley 2 years, 1 month ago 1619 views

X : Our executive team is concerned that we need to up our game in order to out innovate Amazon.
Me : Do you map?
X : Yes
Me : Like this?
X : No. What's that?
Me : A map of a tea shop.

X : Why is that a map?
Me : Long story, all to do with how space has meaning. To keep it short, maps help people to focus on user needs, the components involved, to communicate missing components and scenario play ideas like staff becoming robots.
Me : They’re also good for measuring and managing capital flow, making investment decisions, removing bias and getting rid of duplication.
X : I don’t see how that helps with innovation?
Me : Well, innovation is a tricky word because we use it to describe many things. If you’re talking about differentiation with the adjacent unexplored then you’re experimenting in the “uncharted” space e.g. immortality with magic provided by the special custom built kettle.
X : That sounds like nonsense.
Me : A lot of what people think will be the next great innovation is nonsense. Actually, most of it is. That’s the nature of the uncharted space, it’s experimental, high risk and generally results in failure.
X : We need more reliable innovation.
Me : Ah, so you’re talking more product innovation or shifting product to utilities (business model innovation). They’re all different things and different methods are required.
X : We need a consistent method.
Me : You can’t have one ...
… even taking something simple such as project management, there is no magic one size fits all method. You need to use multiple across the landscape. Hence any large system will require multiple methods at the same time which is why we break things into components.
X : That seems complex.
Me : It can be both complex and complicated. At some points also simple, but we’re wandering. This is just the start, wait until you get into team organisation, culture, purchasing methods etc.
X : I don’t have time for this, I need something now.
Me : Ok, well we can start with doctrine.
X : What’s that?
Me : Do you know the strategy cycle?
X : No
Me : Ok, let us start there ….
… the strategy cycle is simply a representation of change and how we need to react to it. It starts with your purpose, understanding the landscape, climatic patterns useful for anticipation, universal principles (or doctrine) useful for organisation, gameplay and action.
Doctrine contains the universally useful patterns, so you can just do those without having to map. Except of course, the implementation is context specific and maps are essential to fixing some of it. But we can start here.
X : How do I use it?
Me : Measure yourself against doctrine. Ask people. You’ll soon discover whether you look more like the bank or the web company.
X : And why does this matter?
Me : Adaptability. The more green, the better.
X : That says Insurance giant.
Me : My bad, this is a banking giant.
X : How do they survive?
Me : Most of their competitors look the same. Well, they used to anyway. Survive is more past tense for some.
X : So I can just fix doctrine?
Me : It’s a start. You won’t be anyway near anticipation or gameplay yet but you won’t make daft errors.
X : How long does it take.
Me : You mean which order should I fix things in? I’ve given a best guess implementation in phases.
X : How long will that take?
Me : Depends upon your size and focus. Give yourself a good few years.
X : We need to move faster. How about gameplay.
Me : There’s a lot to gameplay. Problem is, you know 'nuffin about strategy Jon Snow, so don’t go there.
X : I’ve done strategy for 30 years!
Me : Yes and you’re only just now learning about maps and principles.
X : Are you going to help or not?
Me : Well, you seem unwilling to learn but there is one thing …
X : Yes?
Me : Fire staff, cut costs, buy equivalent companies to replace revenue and repeat the squeeze. Hand out dividends and kick off a share buyback scheme.
X : How is that going to help us become more successful?
Me : It’ll buy you time and keep the stock price up.
X : We should use that time to create something new?
Me : Hell no. If your company is going to have any future then you should use that time for yourself and your exec team to retire.
X : Why would that help?
Me : Look, you run the company with no maps which means you probably don't understand user needs, components involved, duplication and you'll be riddled with misalignment, lack of communication & learning and magic solutions - Let's AI, Spotify, Agile ...
... without an effective means of learning and communication (i.e. maps) then you'll never get a handle on anticipation or strategy. You'll have next to zero situational awareness bar any mental models. It'll all be run with gut feel, magic thinking and outcome bias.
... without an effective means for communication of assumptions (i.e. maps) then you won't have a means of challenge. Any structure you create is also gut feel, you're not even organising around your landscape. Basically, everything will be a mess.
X : So how do we survive?
Me : Because almost everyone else is a mess as well. A few aren't and I'm afraid your competitors of the future won't be as trivial and simple to fight against as the the competitors of the past. Either adapt or get out of the way. Your choice.
X : Are you always this grumpy?
Me : This is my friendly mood. I've always saved the really grumpy face for those who work for me and don't think about context. Situational awareness is not a nice to have in my book.
X : But this is more management than leadership.
Me : If you don't understand the landscape, if you can't anticipate or communicate or learn or challenge effectively, if you can't organise or work out where to attack or what type of people you need then leadership is irrelevant.

More from Simon Wardley #EEA

"Fifty-nine percent of those polled said they believed China will become more powerful than the U.S. within 10 years" - https://t.co/3vN4I1TjwP ... I hate to break it to you but it already is in many areas.

When I published this work (originally from 2015) -
https://t.co/GYOItA3StZ - I did tend to get a lot of pushback from US folk when presenting it.

Six years later, less so.


I expect China to start to tackle inequality this year. It's the Achilles heel of the West. We have no response, nor Governments with the required skill, strategy or practice to respond.

We will ultimately face a more advanced, more wealthy and more equal society ...

... as that example of what "is possible" / "good looks like" shift to the East, we will face a painful shift as we question our own values including our kind of democracy. But in reality, the problem is not with our values but our shockingly poor standards of leadership.

X : Is this because of Trump?
Me : No, this has been going on since the 1990s. There has been no effective counterplay to the long game that Deng Xiaoping started. Just hubris, arrogance and exceptionalism with annual Economist articles on "How China will fall".

More from Tech

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.