How to Arrive at the Perfect Solution to Any Problem

If your solution does not fix the problem, you have two options: 

1. Revise the solution so it fits the problem. 
2. Revise the problem so it fits the solution. 

 Option 2 is more cost-effective from a solution perspective.

No Stupid Questions, Stupid

 Playing with the order of the words:

No stupid questions.

No questions, stupid.

Stupid! No questions!

Stupid questions,  no.

Questions, stupid? No?

Questions? No? Stupid.

Voicemail for Doors

Busy working on a new product: Voicemail for doors.  

If someone knocks on your door (or rings the doorbell), it prompts: "Hi, I can't come to the door right now. Tell me who you are and why you're here, and I'll open the door as soon as I can. <beep>"

Needs Versus Wants Versus Needs

Requirements professionals, who help shape the products are trained to: "Focus on needs, not on wants."

Sales professionals, who sell the products, are trained to: "Sell on wants, not on needs."

There seems to be a disconnect here somewhere.

***

When (Not If) Robots Take Over

We'll know the robots are taking over when CAPTCHAs begin to look like this.

***

I Have A Joke, But...

Inspired by, "I have a statistics joke, but it's not significant" (floating on the internet)...

I have a project management joke, but it's still in the concept phase.

I have a risk management joke, but there's no appetite for it.

I have a requirements analysis joke, but it's not functional.

I have a logistics management joke, but I can't deliver it properly.

I have a Scrum joke, but it's not empirical enough.

I have a Scrum joke, but we'll have to do a retrospective afterwards.

I have a Lean joke, but I never remember it just in time.

I have a Kanban joke, leave your card here and I'll tell it to you.

As an Agile proponent, I want to say I have a joke, so that people can get amused.

I have a systems thinking joke, but I have to say it with 30 others jokes before you'l get it.

I have an andon joke, but you have to stop me if I'm telling it the wrong way.

Not So SMART Objectives

In a VUCA world, objectives must be SMART:

S – Subjective

M – Machiavellian

A – Adjustable

R – Reactionary

T - Tentative

The Real FR vs NFR Requirements

Any professional working with requirements is familiar with the abbreviations FR (Functional Requirements) and NFR (Non-Functional Requirements). This categorisation attempts to distinguish one type of requirement from the other. It's an unfortunate exercise to separate them so distinctly because FRs often need to be described with their accompanying NFRs, while NFRs are often met by implementing a set of FRs.

However, we can reuse the FR vs NFR distinction in some other ways. Proposed below is a list of the more important ones:

Fictional vs Non-Fictional Requirements – Fictional requirements are not really requirements. They are designs, solutions, or wishes masquerading as requirements.  Non-fictional requirements are real requirements.

Factional vs Non-Factional Requirements – Factional requirements are those pushed for by only a certain set of stakeholders. Other stakeholders couldn’t care less about these. Non-factional requirements are required by the system and transcend individual factions.

Frictional vs Non-Frictional Requirements – Frictional requirements are contentious, either to some stakeholders or to other requirements. They also cause friction in the system development by causing the majority of the delays. 

Fallacious vs Non-Fallacious – Fallacious requirements are requirements that are properly written (they are Non-Fictional), but aren’t what is needed. Non-Fallacious requirements are requirements that are needed.

Fundamental vs Non-Fundamental – closely related are Fundamental requirements, which are essential to meeting the objectives. Non-Fundamental requirements are 'nice to haves'. Ironically, building only Non-Fundamental requirements does not result in a nice system.

Function vs Non-Function – Function requirements are about what the system needs the user to be able to do (‘The user must be able to cancel a transaction’). The user is replaced if they cannot perform the function. Non-function refers to user attributes and capabilities (‘The user must have the ability to view the most recent transactions' -- perhaps by possessing SQL skills?)

Familiar vs Non-Familiar – requirements that are common to many systems. These include management reports, etc. Non-familiar requirements are those that haven't appeared before in the project's collective experience.

Favourite vs Non-Favourite – Favourite requirements are flashy requirements sponsored by someone. They tend to be given attention. Non-Favourites languish or are implemented and tested perfunctorily. No one notices if they run away.

Falsifiable vs Non-Falsifiable – Falsifiable requirements are those that can be shown to not exist. Non-Falsifiable requirements cannot be proven to have been met. A quintessential example being ‘The system must be user friendly’. 

Fat vs Non-Fat – Fat requirements are a clump of requirements stated as one single requirement, often with multiple adjectives.  They tend to clog the process. Too many can result in a project heart attack. Non-Fat requirements are singular, and are processed through without harmful effect.

Fiscal vs Non-Fiscal – Fiscal requirements relate to cost ( ‘The solution shall not cost more than $X per transaction’)

Filial vs Non-Filial – Filial requirements are those that can be traced to a parent requirement. They show respect, and obedience, and conform to their parents wishes. Non-Filial requirements are either orphans or contradict their parent requirements. They cause family infighting and should be made to either conform, or else be cut off from family tree.

Fecund vs Non-Fecund Requirements - Fecund requirements are prone to keep popping out new requirements -- annoying, smelly, little new requirements that need lots of care and feeding.

Anything Worth Doing Is Worth Doing

Philosopher: Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Pragmatist: Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.

Academic: Anything worth doing is worth publishing. 

Businessman: Anything worth doing must be worth doing.

Entrepreneur: Anything worth doing I already did last week.

Accountant: Anything worth doing is worth recording the worth.

Procurement: Anything worth doing must be done at the lowest cost.

Frederick Taylor: Anything worth doing can be done more efficiently.

Lean Consultant: Anything worth doing must be done with the least waste.

Venture Capitalist: Anything worth doing? Call me.

Procrastinator: Anything worth doing is worth doing tomorrow.

Agilist: Anything worth doing should be prioritised in a backlog.

Manager: Anything worth doing can be delegated

Economist: Anything worth doing, surely someone has already done it.

Project Manager: Anything worth need to be delivered on time, to budget, to scope.

Risk Manager: Anything worth doing must be worth doing on a risk-adjusted basis.

Pessimist: Nothing is worth doing

Optimist: Everything is worth doing. With a smile.

Cynic: Anything worth doing is always done for the wrong reason.

The New 5W and 1H

The popular version of 5W and 1H is a reminder to ask: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?

The new, or older, if Machiavellian roots are traced, is practiced as:

WHO should we blame?

WHAT is in it for me?

WHEN will they find out the truth?

WHERE can we cut quality?

WHY me?

HOW can we hide the problem?

***

Hammers and Nails

When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

When you don't have a hammer, there's nails everywhere.

***

Recommended New User Story Format, Because New

There's a playful way of explaining the reason why one does something. The argument ends with the rationale "because <noun or adjective>."

We can recommended this as new format for user stories, because it's aligned with how people speak these days.

AS A phone user, I WANT TO upload photos in one click, BECAUSE one-click!

AS A bank customer, I WANT TO see my balance on my phone, BECAUSE money!

***

PROJUCT MANAGEMENT

With a slip of the tongue, I came up with a wonderful, terrible portmanteau:

"Projuct". Defined as the product of a project.

*** 

6 Simple Rules of Motivation

Motivating people is really simple. Just base your actions on these 6 simple rules:

The 6 Simple Rules of Motivation:

The motivated can make the impossible achievable.

The unmotivated can make the achievable impossible.

HOWEVER...

The impossible to achieve can make the motivated unmotivated.

The easy to achieve can make the unmotivated motivated

BUT THEN...

The "impossible to achieve" can make the unmotivated motivated

The easy to achieve can make the motivated unmotivated.

It's really that simple.

***

Agile Diversity Manifesto

To accommodate the (irrational) demands for diversity that is proportional to the wider population, should the Agile Manifesto be rewritten by a new group more diverse than the original set of: 

1. White 
2. Middle-aged
3. Men
4. Software Developers

Old Thinking vs New Thinking (Old Thinking Redefined)

The diagram below (from the internet) makes “Old Thinking” sound evil. What if we redefine “Old Thinking” so it doesn’t sound so bad?

Redefinition:

• Employees are biggest risk - we have the best employees; competitors might attract them; let's take care of ours
• Top Down Communication - Ensure everyone is informed of the CEO's thinking and company's plans; no one is unimportant
• Skill Over Behavior - our customers prefer reliable products and services over our friendly apologies
• Manage Time - efficiency and productivity are key competitive competencies
• Rigid Working Schedule - don't work over time, make time for your personal life
• At Your Desk - we provide you with all you need and your own space
• Work for the weekend - work hard, play hard. Complete your work for the week so you can enjoy your weekend
• Corporate Jargon - precise terminology is clear and efficient; be scared when surgeons have the same vocabulary as litigation lawyers
• Double standard - demand more from the experienced; be more tolerant of those learning the ropes
• Fear of Failure - think things through; use risk management
  Enrich shareholders - they are the moms and pops who have invested their lifesaving with us for their retirement
  

Einstein–We Cannot Solve Problems With The Same Thinking…

When Einstein said “We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”, almost nobody takes this to mean that we need someone else to solve the problems created by another.

Two Lions (Humour)

Two aging, hungry lions spot a zebra.  One of them starts putting on his Nikes.  The other asked, “What are you doing?  Even with running shoes on, you can’t outrun that zebra!”  The other replied, “I don’t have to outrun the zebra, I just have to outrun you!”

Q: What’s the difference between a sceptic and a cynic?

A: I doubt there's any difference. Even if there is, I'm not gonna tell you what I think; you'll just make fun of me.

The World's (Mis)Leading Expert

Experts are often introduced as ‘the world’s leading expert on …’. Given that experts are often wrong, some of them should be introduced as ‘the world’s misleading expert…’