Glad it resonated Roger! Yes, when I was drafting that list, I could have kept going. I should have because I stopped before getting to most of the juicy incentive-based reasons - I will pick it up in the next edit of this post! Good point about the context of the goal at that point in time - a point I should have made more explicit. Tha…
Glad it resonated Roger! Yes, when I was drafting that list, I could have kept going. I should have because I stopped before getting to most of the juicy incentive-based reasons - I will pick it up in the next edit of this post! Good point about the context of the goal at that point in time - a point I should have made more explicit. That's the connection where this post fits within my overall thesis.
Maybe another way to put it - there's a difference between a set of options to consider which happen to be the most concrete / certain and a set of options to consider that are more certain because there's a learning mechanism which is systematically helping opportunities be broken down into viable things to test.
Most organisations are in the former state which naturally leads to pools of options which will be considered and pools which never will. There's an equal or higher probability that your best options sit within the pool that will never be available for consideration if 'quick wins' culture is pervasive.
To be in the latter state requires discipline, design, research, cross-functional cooperation and a systematic approach across both the problem and solution spaces and beyond. But progress starts with a single step and acknowleding the limitations of 'quick wins' thinking and putting that aside and considering a broader set of opportunities is a great start.
Glad it resonated Roger! Yes, when I was drafting that list, I could have kept going. I should have because I stopped before getting to most of the juicy incentive-based reasons - I will pick it up in the next edit of this post! Good point about the context of the goal at that point in time - a point I should have made more explicit. That's the connection where this post fits within my overall thesis.
Maybe another way to put it - there's a difference between a set of options to consider which happen to be the most concrete / certain and a set of options to consider that are more certain because there's a learning mechanism which is systematically helping opportunities be broken down into viable things to test.
Most organisations are in the former state which naturally leads to pools of options which will be considered and pools which never will. There's an equal or higher probability that your best options sit within the pool that will never be available for consideration if 'quick wins' culture is pervasive.
To be in the latter state requires discipline, design, research, cross-functional cooperation and a systematic approach across both the problem and solution spaces and beyond. But progress starts with a single step and acknowleding the limitations of 'quick wins' thinking and putting that aside and considering a broader set of opportunities is a great start.