On Talent I observed something fairly early on at Apple, which I didn’t know how to explain then, but I’ve thought a lot about it since. Most things in life have a dynamic range in which [the ratio of] “average” to “best” is at most 2:1. For example, if you go to New York City and get an average taxi cab driver, versus the best taxi cab driver, you’ll probably get to your destination with the best taxi driver 30% faster. And an automobile; what’s the difference between the average car and the best? Maybe 20%? The best CD player versus the average CD player? Maybe 20%? So 2:1 is a big dynamic range for most things in life. Now, in software, and it used to be the case in hardware, the difference between the average software developer and the best is 50:1; maybe even 100:1. Very few things in life are like this, but what I was lucky enough to spend my life doing, which is software, is like this. So I’ve built a lot of my success on finding these truly gifted people, and not settling for “B” and “C” players, but really going for the “A” players. And I found something… I found that when you get enough “A” players together, when you go through the incredible work to find these “A” players, they really like working with each other. Because most have never had the chance to do that before. And they don’t work with “B” and “C” players, so it’s self-policing. They only want to hire “A” players. So you build these pockets of “A” players and it just propagates. Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview Waste as little effort as possible on low competenceA small team of committed coworkersBuild projects around motivated individualsIndividuals matter talent
Waste as little effort as possible on low competence One should waste as little effort as possible on improving areas of low competence. It takes far more energy and work to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence. Peter F. Drucker, Managing Oneself 95%-ile isn't that goodOn Talent talent
95%-ile isn't that good An Article by Dan Luu danluu.com Reaching 95Mistakes at the top Waste as little effort as possible on low competence talent
Pair Design: Better Together A Book by Gretchen Anderson & Christopher Noessel mmbolg.files.wordpress.com Pair design is the counterintuitive practice of getting more and better UX design done by putting two designers together as thought partners to solve design problems. It’s counterintuitive because you might expect that you could split them up to work in parallel to get double the design done, but for many situations, you’d be wrong. This document will help explain what pair design is, how it works, and tour through the practicalities of implementing it in your practice. It involves two brainsA distinct and complementary stanceGens and synthsWe come as a teamStarting off with pair design+1 More designcollaboration
It involves two brains It involves two brains on a project at the same time. This doesn’t mean part time, checking in with each other on work that’s been accomplished separately. Pair design really means being in the same room, working on the same problem, with both brains focused on the problem simultaneously for the duration of the project.
A distinct and complementary stance Each person in the pair takes a distinct and complementary stance toward the design problem as they work together. One generates solutions. That is, one individual materializes solutions to the problem at hand for discussion and iteration. The other synthesizes the proposed solutions. ideascritique
Gens and synths Gens are generally comfortable drawing and drawing in front of their partner. Additionally, the generator needs to have “fearless generativity,” to be able to come up with a dozen pretty good solutions to a problem even with incomplete information. Designers in the synthesizer role need to be skilled at describing designs and explaining rationale in writing. The role requires the designer to be detail oriented and have a strong memory, to keep the big picture of the system, stakeholders, and users in mind as a reference for designs on the table.
We come as a team There is a legend at Cooper of one team who found pairing with each other so powerful and fruitful that when they left that company, they sought out opportunities and even interviewed at other organizations as a pair. teamwork
Starting off with pair design It’s better to start small. Find the “genniest” designer you can and pair her with the “synthiest,” have them work through a few projects as a pair to see how it goes, evolve a process that works for your organization, smooth out the wrinkles, and become resident experts. Then, split them up, assign them with new pairs, and begin to spread.
What are the benefits of pair design? It Makes for Better Design Pairing forces constant iteration: idea testing and course-correction. It brings to bear two brains and two stances. It Makes for Better Designers and Better Design Organizations They are happier. Pair design makes it easier to focus on core aptitudes. They cross-pollinate: a mechanism for a learning organization. Pair Design Makes for a More Effective Process Pairing avoids the problem of dueling whiteboards. It encourages designers to materialize ideas early. It encourages designers to vocalize their rationale. It encourages constant course-correction.