Відео

Thank you ! It is pure gold ❤

The same thing happened to Maslow as has happened to Boyd's OODA. The hierarchical simplification of the "Pyramid" wasn't Maslow's idea, but that single errant visual imposition on the underlying motivation theory conscripted its application and resulted in decades of misunderstanding and misdirection. It's never been sorted out, and it's probably too late to salvage that original concept. That's what this discussion reminded me of. No matter its origin, the "Loop" graphic was a strategic error, and 22 person-hours of top-notch intellect couldn't sort it out.

Bullshit Jobs should be required reading for anyone in management.

I've seen this many times. Further more the good people get frustrated and leave and the harmless plodders who dont upset anyone stick it out. This is how organisations die. Bullshit jobs change into bullshit organisations

Love this video Nigel, so meaningful

When I was taught by Kawasaki before the Japanese car makers arrived in the UK, we were walked through our plant and our Sensei then created what today would be called a more detailed Value Stream Map. Start at the end and work backwards was because most complex value streams converge and if you go left to right you often end up in dead-ends and confusion. When it comes to 'carpet kaizen' I have been practicing in this field for more than three decades and here I have found that most complexity is waste. BUT and its a big BUT there is a key difference in the carpet kaizen world between simpler recurring processes such as paying the payroll and invoicing customers to what I call the non-recurring processes like developing a new class of product. Think Kawasaki's Jet Ski a whole new world of products that didn't exist prior to it being imagineered. In that arena I have been pioneering for decades and had to develop unique methods to create one-time-flow

only 10... nice I have one :)

Nigel how refreshing your views are exactly on point, behaviour and knowing your business to make the required change is the key focus required to enable change with CQI great video bravo

Let me get this straight. All of the agile jobs are "bullshit" because leaders dont provide leadership...?! And the solution for leadership problems is a 700 page book, lectures that demean scrum masters and coaches, and obscenity-laced, reductionist jingoism?

Nigel at his best!

This video points out a few problems but doesn't appear to offer solutions. Maybe those are in the book being advertised? Here are my $0.02 for tackling these issues: - Begin with the end in mind. Aka define your desired outcome (eg happy customers). Then align metrics, incentives and improvement programs around these outcomes, not the specific practices you think might achieve them. This allows teams and individuals to innovate and find solutions that work best for them. - Foster creativity. Teams may initially struggle to be innovative, because they have had little experience with thinking divergently and creatively. Encourage this so people feel safe and confident to come up with and explore new ideas. - Lead with empathy. Recognise change is deeply uncomfortable, and support people through this with understanding and kindness.

Wonderful 20-minute summary of over 700 pages of hard work!

That's extremely nice, especially for hardware engineering. Unfortunately on software it breaks a bit. Like for example, a proper machinist can tell you with a very high degree of accuracy how many cuts a particular part will need as well as the tools needed. That is usually offset by accidents (endmill breaking, tool breakdowns, etc). But low level operations are generally nailed down every step of the way. A piece may take 30 low level ops to complete and maybe 1-2 disruptions/month on the project level. In software, you are looking at several thousand low level ops for a daily task. Properly naming a variable, restructuring code, even an if statement, they all are meaningful. While a workpiece on certain faces may have a couple of thou tolerance, in software engineering at the functional level, the idea of tolerance does not exist. Further, disruptors, at the project level come just about twice a week. At the developer level can be as high as several times a day on the more complicated bodies of work. The initial cone of error for any software project is 180 degrees. Worsened by the fact that nobody knows anything about the actual details of a project. It's impossible. You can't know anything about something which has not been created ever. On the other hand, there are ways to bring in some certainty. For starters, it is far easier than hardware to learn more about the details of the most important aspects. And yes, projections do also increase in accuracy over time... Provided someone from sales does not sell your product to the wrong customer with a bundle of unrealistic promises (Ask me how i know.). So, in software engineering you get budget for exploring a project rather than committing. If trends appear, you either pull the plug or start selling.

Just ordered learning to see the other day after reading about it in Jeffrey likers book about Toyota. Hope I can learn something useful. Thanks for the video too😊

I love the use of the slinky to explain how you can have simultaneous OODA loops at the same time

The collaboration with Essence kernel is very interesting

I can’t wait to get my book! I want to play more with the Hexi and super excited about essence, please post a link here as access becomes available 🎉

Thank you for the summary of the Playbook and supporting approaches!

Congrats Nigel, can't wait to read!

Great! Will this be available as an audiobook or video tutorial too?

Wow this is priceless, thank you. Please create more of this.

What if you dont know the velocityh of the team because there is no team yet for this new project?

❤

well explained

I have been building something very very similar and this video helped me to complete my project and fill some gaps. Thank you.

I would be interested in hearing thoughts on a dual operating model / OD which retains the hierarchy model for certain decisions / functions retaining the benefits associated with the hierarchical model, but the OD combines this with a more ‘network’ model which supports innovation, complex change and distributed decision making with leaders more akin to the agile model. 24:25

Amazing!

Que un privilegio. It is a privilege to be in her boundless, explosive, dynamic harmonic presence. Thank you for capturing it. I ask if you would consider changing your video title because it is incorrect title to describe the genres they are playing. She is not performing reggaetón nor is she a reggaetón artist. She is an avant-garde jazz musician, composer, vocalist -in this segment blending hip hop, cumbia, r&b, and freestyle rapping. If you want to know what reggaetón is and its history as a Boricua folkloric tradition, you might investigate its origins.

Dave, Nigel, Kates and team thank you for sharing your knowledge and innovations! The Cynefin Framework is good for Organizational Design, but Organizational design in most industry sectors has to be completed with Project Design and Product, Process and Digital Platform Design. We call it Holistic Design. Cynefin and Archimate should maybe be adated Effective Holistic Design is dependent on structures and components developed by teams including product designers and practitioners, and knowledge modelling experts. The AKM Group is working on concepts, methods and workspaces for holistic design in the energy industries, including oil and gas.

Very good video, one question though, how can I do this calculation upfront so I can prepare a fixed bid price to present to the customer ?

32:00 you can see Dave's blood pressure go up and about to blow a gasked due to a minimal misuse of a scientific paper for actually not a bad output.

Nigel. My apologies I directed Jim here after he dumped a slightly longer set of comments on several of my blog posts. He seems to have a lot of free time to tell people he disagrees with they are wrong, certainly more time than I have to respond. His absolute rejection of post Cartesian ideas of consciousness being one illustration of his form of argument. It’s something where he has been given enough to check the science but chooses not to. He also seems to think that OODA is some form of absolute truth and rejection is heresy. I told him on my blog I had massive respect for Boyd and still used OODA in some contexts but the basic science around decision making has moved on and Boyd himself would have been the first to do that. I do admire Jim’s energy however. He started to post additional comments on my blog when he was only ten minutes or so in and that has taken him an hour or so as he was playing and replaying the tape. His ad hominem & error count has gone up a little in his comments here however. On the latter point the pretty basic arrow of assuming that because I talked about energy and time in the context of Estuarine mapping that I was saying Boyd didn’t talk about them. So unless there is something new (and I can’t see it so far) I’ll make no further response. Hey he thinks your right :-)

Thank you for the effort put into this video

About an hour in, lots of trash, seems Ben, Nigel, and Andrew generally get it while the others are a bunch of yes-monkeys. Snowden goes at Intent highlighting one of his sells of needing Metaphor Based Intent. Metaphor Based Intent may have value to impart, I’m waiting to hear more on it. Yet Dave’s points regarding Intent miss the point of Intent. In it he says Intent is to provide that for which we can’t give Orders as we can’t clarify it in a manner to give Orders else we’d give Orders. This is wrong. Intent tells what the organization as a whole will do. Intent also gives us our Common Understanding while Orders only give subordinates pieces. Intent is inclusive of the commander as what the commander wants to accomplish hence there’s no Orders as the commander isn’t directing a subordinate toward this. Self direction requires no Orders. Orders are for subordinates and direct pieces of actions while Intent is holistic. Yet even so, Tasks have Purposes which are like mini-Intents. These also serve as an out for subordinates. If they see the Task won’t achieve the Purpose or there’s better way to achieve the Purpose, they’re not only free to do so in (Boyd’s) Mission Command, they’re encouraged to do such. Intent is holistic while both Intent and Purposes give the Why of things. Orders only give the who, where, what, and sometimes unfortunately how. Tasks are whats. Purposes are Whys as Intent is Why.

Dave, you just said it was simultaneous but then you said it is pattern recognition with sense (or Observe) then first pattern we recognize (that’s Orient in sequence) drives Decision and Action. So, it’s simultaneous yet now it is sequential? It’s linear and it is not? Nigel is correct in this from his original positions.

So, according to Dave, we’re supposed to be able to pass on symbolic language capabilities through RNA not DNA? If we’re supposed to throw out old disproven science, why are we now bringing back Lemarck? As for RNA, isn’t it not survivable hence why it is favored now for vaccines? As it is not survivable, how can it be used as a vehicle to store and pass heritable data? Sounds like more contortions to try to sell decisions not being made in the brain (in this case being made “by the tribe”). A tribe can make a decision but in reality that is some sort of combination of several individual decisions be it a sort of democracy, a sort of acceptance, subservience, and compliance, and/or a sort of comity and go-along group cohesion choice - these are all individual decisions. Accepting the input of or the will of others is an individual decision.

It seems to me that a lot of effort is being made here to diminish John Boyd’s work and it seems to me that these mental contortions are being done to discredit his work so as to sell newer work, some of which may be rehashing stuff Boyd has done, kind of like Estuaries versus Destruction and Creation. While we’re dismissing recent old as old, we’ve completely ignored old old like Daoist Yin-Yang or the Hindu Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu (which is Destruction and Creation with attempt to pause and capitalize on the created). It is a shame as the contortions wreck not only credibility but actual value of ideas like Cynefin in terms of how they can fit in a complimentary manner with OODA (really OODA would fit with Cynefin as several OODA would fit within each domain with occasional feedbacks crossing to other domains; Cynefin only fits in OODA in that Orientation if you’re deliberately doing an OODA aware that you’re seeking to Orient your decision methodology by determining domain). Yet we’re talking perpendicular nonsense. Kind of like the nonsense that decisions happen outside the brain.

“Any time anyone brings up double loop, I ask why not triple or quadruple? To me it’s infinite looping and it’s yeah…” Well, Boyd did see it as infinite looping. And, as each person has at least one loop running in of themselves, yes, there’s multiple. Consider the Tactical, Operational, Strategic model often depicted as a cyclone, many Tactical loop iterations feed up to Operational which in turn iterates several times while feeding to Strategic - that’s three loops properly modeled - yet it misses that multiple Tactical actors feed the Operational and multiple Operational actors feed the Strategic. So now you have infinite looping in parallel at any moment and infinite looping over time. And that is how Boyd saw it. As such, it is impossible to be linear.

Thank you so much @Nigel for such educative video on VSM.

1:18 😂🤣😁

Again, Nigel, agree with you, OODAs have multiple timescales. It is a serious error to think they're rapid things. It is also an error to think faster is always better. Sometimes you have to wait for feedback and for effects to propagate.

I am unsure what heresy I have just witnessed, but I frickin' love it.

Excellent video, very well explained. One area I need more clarification on is how can the team exactly determine how they will implement their work and how much effort is needed in the initial phase as a lot of things are unknown and can only be learned once the actual work starts?

Amazing case! So glad to have watched that live!! Thanks for sharing this video Nigel!!

This series of talks is fantastic, but I’m not surprised Matthew left after this episode… ☺️

Completely blown away Nigel, great content and look forward to more of your videos .

thank you for producing this video, it was very helpful in understanding VSM

My job is very clear...create flow by simplifying complexity (value). As I work across industries, I view things in their purity and it's been made evident that most systems are man made and the complexity was created by ourselves. Therefore, we can simplify them by making things visual and by understanding mudatori (stagnation, transportation & motion). Cheers...great video! 🙂

"When we eventually conclude this in the next half hour" ... checks time ... there's an hour still to go :D