Rapport "Bob's rapport with the workers is extraordinary. Reminds me of something Noguchi once pointed out about Bernini during the days he was building St. Peter's in Rome: how what made him so special, aside from his own obvious gifts, was his ability to extend himself through the work of others, to get them on his side and working in his direction." Lawrence Wechler & Robert Irwin, Seeing Is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees leadershipteamwork
Design Leadership Truisms An Article by Peter Merholz www.petermerholz.com PEOPLE ARE NOT THEIR JOB TITLES. TEAM MEMBERS ARE NOT “RESOURCES”. PEOPLE WORK BEST WHEN THEY CAN BE THEIR FULL SELVES. YOU CANNOT CALCULATE AN ROI FOR DESIGN. FRAMING THE PROBLEM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SOLVING THE PROBLEM. (DESIGN) LEADERSHIP IS MORE TALKING THAN DOING. YOU’LL DO A BETTER JOB IF YOU LIGHTEN UP IF YOU HAVEN’T PISSED SOMEONE OFF, YOU’RE NOT DOING YOUR JOB RIGHT. NO ONE OUTSIDE YOUR TEAM UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT TAKES TO DO GOOD WORK. THE OUTCOMES ARE BETTER WHEN EVERYONE IS A DESIGNER. AGILE TRANSFORMATIONS ARE HOSTILE TO GOOD DESIGN. WHAT A DESIGN TEAM NEEDS MOST IS A CLEAR SENSE OF PURPOSE. YOU ARE ON THE FRONT LINE OF A GLOBAL WAR FOR TALENT. EVERYONE APPLYING FOR A ROLE HAS AN INFLATED TITLE. INTERVIEWS ARE A POOR WAY OF ASSESSING CANDIDATES. DESIGN EXERCISES ARE A BAD INTERVIEWING PRACTICE. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE ENOUGH DESIGNERS. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE ENOUGH TIME. THE SKILLS THAT GOT YOU HERE ARE NOT THE SKILLS THAT WILL CARRY YOU FORWARD. Truisms designleadershipteamwork
Silicon Valley Product Group A Website by Marty Cagan svpg.com The best companies go about building great products differently. Silicon Valley Product Group (SVPG) was created to share lessons learned and best practices about how to build innovative products customers love softwareleadership
Feature parity An Article martinfowler.com Whilst Feature Parity often sounds like a reasonable proposition, we have learnt the hard way that people greatly underestimate the effort required, and thus misjudge the choice between this and the other alternatives. For example even just defining the 'as is' scope can be a huge effort, especially for legacy systems that have become core to the business. Most legacy systems have 'bloated' over time, with many features unused by users (50% according to a 2014 Standish Group report) as new features have been added without the old ones being removed. Workarounds for past bugs and limitations have become 'must have' requirements for current business processes, with the way users work defined as much by the limitations of legacy as anything else. Rebuilding these features is not only waste it also represents a missed opportunity to build what is actually needed today. These systems were often defined 10 or 20 years ago within the constraints of previous generations of technology, it very rarely makes sense to replicate them 'as is'. softwarefeaturesrepair