Select the search type
 
  • Site
  • Web
Search

Golden Circle

Start with Why : How Great Leaders Inspire Action

  • 1 September 2009
  • Author: Simon_Sinek
  • Number of views: 0
  • 0 Comments
Golden Circle
Do you know your Why?

Imagine a world where people wake up every day inspired to go to work, feel safe while they are there, and return home at the end of the day feeling fulfilled by the work they do, feeling that they have contributed to something greater than themselves.

Ratio and Proportion Analyses

Accounting for the Totality of the Problem Universe, Reduce Complexity, and Provide for Better Outcomes

Ratio and Proportion Analyses

Yes, Ratios what you learned in 6th grade and used in preliterate cultures.  Listed here as a business-centric rational concept as a reminder. Ratios and proportions tend to normalize to the problem universe and allow for problem reduction to provide additional helpful perspectives, solve problems and make for better decisions.  

Knowing how to work with ratios and proportions is critical to business analysis. Ratio analysis is a useful management tool that will improve your understanding of results and trends over time, and provide key indicators of performance. Ratio Analysis allows for pinpointing strengths and weaknesses from which strategies and initiatives can be formed. Proportion Analysis allows for comparative measure of those results to baselines to make judgments concerning management effectiveness and mission impact. In short, ratio analysis is a useful tool for benchmarking the efficiency and how well the project is controlling resources compared with other projects.  

Ratio: The relative size of two quantities; amount of one thing, how much there is of another thing.

Proportion: two ratios are equal.

So what are the odds that your project will come in on time and in budget?  Will the project produce the best value?  

Conway's Law

Outcomes reflect the Organizational Structure That Produced It

Conway's Law

Conway's Law is sociological observation based on the reasoning that in order for two separate software modules to interface correctly, the designers and implementers of each module must communicate with each other. Therefore, the interface structure of a software system will reflect the social structure of the organization(s) that produced it.

“Organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations”     

                                                                                                                                 - M. Conway

 

From a business-centric viewpoint be mindful of James O. Coplien and Neil B. Harrison 2004 recommendation to make sure the organization is compatible with the line of business architecture.  Their counsel, "If the parts of an organization (e.g. teams, departments, or subdivisions) do not closely reflect the essential parts of the product, or if the relationship between organizations do not reflect the relationships between product parts, then the project will be in trouble” should be considered carefully.


The excellent article, 'Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis' by Alan D. MacCormack, John Rusnak, and Carliss Y. Baldwin expand's on Conway's law... Products are often said to "mirror" the architectures of the organization from which they come. Is there really a link between a product's architecture and the characteristics of the organization behind it? The coauthors of this working paper chose to analyze software products because of a unique opportunity to examine two different organizational modes for development, comparing open-source with proprietary "closed-source" software.&

Good Enough Solutions

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good

Good Enough Solutions

People need to address ending criteria in tasks and systems, making trade-offs and choices with their resources and dollars, among the questions people need to ask themselves is, " Is it good enough? "

To caricature good enough, the only measure of success in design is "How many people are using the software?" This means thatgood enough for most people today is better than perfect tomorrow. In fact, that is the genesis of the name.

Given that, the characteristics of the good enough philosophy are:

 
  • Simplicity - the design must be simple, as speed of implementation is paramount. Simplicity is the most important characteristic, and all others may be sacrificed for simplicity.
  • Correctness - the design should be correct in most aspects observed by most users.
  • Consistency - The design must be as consistent as possible. Consistency is more important than correctness.
  • Completeness - the design should cover most situations encountered by most users. Completeness is more important than consistency.

This is an intentional caricature, to show that this design philosophy is clearly not as good as either alternative. The primary goal of designers of this philosophy is to get something into the hands of as many users as possible, without regard to quality.  Using the 80/20 rule in achieving your goal, how do the results (80% of requirements met) of 20% of the resources expended compare to the ‘perfect’ solution requirements, is simply “Will it work?”   Keeping in mind two critical points, (1) a majority of the time you will be smarter at 20% about understanding your task, and all constraints, and closer  20% point in the journey, and (1) getting to 100% might actually mean a s<

RSS