An often-quoted adage goes: Doing business without marketing is like winking at a girl in the dark. You know what you're doing, but no one else does.

As someone with a background in product development and engineering, I've always cared more about the product than about letting people know that the product exists. But it's an uncomfortable truth that there's no point in having a better product if no one knows about it. More ventures have likely died from not reaching others than from having a lousy solution. This is also why great businesses are built by multi-disciplinary teams—it takes many complementary skills to make a great product succeed. I think the phrase "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door" is rarely true.

Along these lines, if you can think of others who'd find Sketchplanations helpful or who might like my book Big Ideas Little Pictures, please consider sending on a link or your favourite sketch. After all, business without marketing... ;o)

The quote is usually attributed with "advertising" instead of "marketing" to Steuart Henderson Britt, a marketing professor and psychologist at Northwestern University. But I couldn't find any verifiable source of the quote to him on the internet, and I prefer it with the more generally applicable marketing, so I went with that. If you know of a trustworthy source for the quote, please let me know!

Also see: The rule of 7, the business flywheel

Winking in the dark

Sell painkillers, not vitamins, the classic business advice goes.

The vitamin seller aims to help you stay healthy in the long run— to help you avoid future pain and trial by keeping you clear of sickness.

However, the painkiller seller has some advantages. If you're experiencing pain right now, a painkiller offers immediate relief. The benefit is instant and tangible. Unlike the vague and uncertain nature of future illnesses, pain is immediate and unmistakable.

Knowing if a painkiller worked is easy, as the pain will disappear. It's hard to tell if a vitamin worked. If I don't get sick, was it the vitamins, my sleep, exercise, or, well, anything else that did it?

This dynamic can lead to unfortunate consequences. We may prioritise our current needs over future well-being, such as fixing a broken car when it breaks rather than maintaining it. We need help saving money for the future. We tackle the "urgent" and neglect the "important-not urgent."  We might overestimate the likelihood of making good choices in the future. In essence, it's easy to downplay future challenges compared to our current predicament.

implementing security measures vs. fixing bugs

looking after your car vs. fixing your car when it breaks down

doing daily exercises vs. going to the doctor when you're sick

shopping and preparing food vs. ordering takeaway now

making a product easier to use vs. making the product compliant

preparing fruit to eat later vs. grabbing a cookie now

insulating your house vs. putting the heating on now

Some see business as selling candy, vitamins, and painkillers. Candy is a treat, but it's easy to live without. Vitamins promise to make life better, but you can do without them. Painkillers are must-haves as they solve an immediate, tangible need.

Also see: present bias, tragedy of the commons, the dilution effect, the Shirky principle.

Painkillers and vitamins

The Wheel of Death is a handy and simple tool to help prioritise issues and where to spend time fixing things.

I learned it from the domain of customer service. It's used something like this:

Keep track of customer issues that you encounter each week by tagging them.

At the end of the week, tally up the responses and produce the Wheel of Death to see the highest volume of questions or issues taking up the team's time.

Use the Wheel as part of a conversation about where the company should focus to improve the experience and save time for the team and customers.

The proportion of issues is only part of the story, and other factors like how critical the issue is, how much time it takes to resolve it, and how much work it is to make it go away will all be part of the decision.

I learned it from working with a talented head of customer experience as we worked on fixing support issues, though don't confine its use to that. I find "the Wheel of Death" a name that sticks with me, but it could also be called the Wheel of Fortune. If you focus on the Wheel for a spell, it's hard for things not to improve.

Worth bearing in mind that in its form as a pie chart, you'll need to combine it with volume or time metrics, or it can look like you're not making progress.

I revised this sketch slightly from the original

The Wheel of Death

The XY Problem (or X-Y Problem) often comes up in software development or customer support, where someone asks for help to achieve a solution (X) that they have chosen as a way to solve a different problem (Y). Helping with their solution may not help them solve their actual problem if it's not a good approach in the first place.

An example from software development is a person asking how to extract the last three characters of a filename (solution X), because they want to know the file type (problem Y). After helping them do solution X, it still wouldn't solve problem Y as some files have extensions of more than three characters.

Another example is a customer asking for help accessing their online account without realising that what they really want to do has to be done over the phone anyway.

There's art and skill in respectfully answering questions and helping with what's asked while seeking to understand the real goal. And if you're asking questions, providing more context may help others provide better answers.

In development, it saves time and effort. In customer support, it leads to happy customers. In design, it may be uncovering unmet needs.

The name is indirectly from Eric Raymond in How to Ask Questions the Smart Way:

A: If what you want is to do Y, you should ask that question without pre-supposing the use of a method that may not be appropriate. Questions of this form often indicate a person who is not merely ignorant about X, but confused about what problem Y they are solving and too fixated on the details of their particular situation."

Also see a better hierarchy of needs, the metrics onion, challenge and clarification questions, prefer open-ended questions, ask the question at talks, don't fill the silence.

The XY Problem

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone is fond of saying:

"Timing, perseverance and ten years of trying will eventually make you seem like an overnight success."

Rarely have I heard someone so clearly articulate what it usually takes to do well at something and how commonly we misrepresent the path to success.

Sketching an iceberg in which about 90% of the iceberg is unseen under the surface seemed like an appropriate approach.

Biz Stone explains his story in Things a Little Bird Told Me. 

Also see: the long nose of innovation, survivorship bias, optimism bias, Hofstadter's law, Kitty Hawk moment, starting a company, altruism and ambition

Overnight success

Saying "no" isn't easy. But there are different ways to say "no" to someone's requests without feeling like you've let them down while being realistic and constructive and ensuring the requester feels heard.

I really like this framework of three types of "no" from Judd Antin:

With the Yes No, you say "yes" to the need and "no" to the specific ask. 

So, a child asking for an ice cream may indeed need something to eat even though they might not get an ice cream. Or the request to make the sign-up button larger might well indicate that it's easy to miss, though a better solution may be to change its colour or the layout of the page.

With the Material No, you are saying yes to the request if you have the time/budget/people/tools to do it.

So, you would love to get the kite out of the tree if you had the tools to reach it. Or the request to make an additional change might be possible on the basis that you can push back the launch date or add another person to the team.

With the Priority No, you are saying yes, we can do it as long as we're happy to drop something less important.

So, you can take the extra cuddly bear in the car if we can choose a different one to leave behind. Or that you can do that project on the basis that we postpone another we had planned.

In each type of "no", the intent is to support and meet the needs of the person requesting while clearly explaining the reasoning for what you'd need to get it done. In each case, the "no" leads to valuable discussions of larger issues of what the real need is, what's required to get a job done, and what's really important.

Read Judd Antin's article, How to Say No, in his series One Big Thought.

Here's a version with all three types of "no" in one image and individually The Yes No, The Material No, The Priority No.

Three Types of "No"

So does the willingness to seek out data. If none of us has data to share then we can't help but bring our own personal biases, preferences, and opinions to the table — anyone might be right, but who's to say (often the HiPPO: the Highest Paid Person's Opinion)? It's why I love this quote from W. Edwards Deming:

"Without data you're just another person with an opinion."

Perhaps you've been in a car with several backseat drivers who all seem to know better than the driver. Or maybe you've been part of a review for a new initiative where everyone has their own views of what will make it succeed. Or a discussion on what's driving some unexpected behaviour. We can't know who's right until we bring some data. It's amazing how even a little data can avoid an "I'm right, you're wrong" situation.

And where there isn't data, framing a discussion on how to quickly gather data or experiment to find out which approach may be best so often focuses a team, removing ego and opinions.

After all, as Jim Barksdale, former Netscape CEO said:

"If we have data, let's look at data. If all we have are opinions, let's go with mine."

Without data you're just another person with an opinion

The bus factor is how exposed you are if key people, perhaps with critical knowledge or skills, were hit by a bus.

Examples might include the only people able to keep a company running, restore a server from a backup, or someone who held the only key to unlock crypto assets of its customers. As a result, many places are set up with, or required to have by investors or insurers, some redundancy — say two experienced developers with knowledge of how a service works — to minimise the risk of a tragic accident also being a severe problem for a company or its customers.

As a metaphor, the bus factor may be helpful to consider without the need for people to actually be hit by a bus. It may be worth thinking through how you might operate if someone was late, missed their flight, was ill on the day, or simply quit. In operational roles, this will often lead to a minimum of two people for each key position if nothing else to allow one to take a break from time to time.

An alternative framing, with fewer fatalities, is 'what if we all won the lottery?' and so decided to go do something else.

Bus factor

Groupthink arises from the desire of a group to maintain harmony and consensus. Groupthink can reduce the diversity of ideas and opinions — people can seek to avoid conflict, or avoid expressing unpopular views, and end up thinking down the same path. When psychological safety is low and people feel they may experience disapproval, particularly from people with higher ranking or status within the group, groupthink can get worse.

It can be uncomfortable to express opinions different from a group. Perhaps you remember that feeling when a teacher asked a question in class and if everyone raised their hand to one answer it wasn't always easy to be the only hand up for a different one.

Fortunately, there are some solid ways to minimise the tendency to groupthink. These include:

Generating ideas separately before coming together — can be effective remotely too

Increasing psychological safety so everyone feels comfortable expressing contrarian views

Establishing the norm of a shared work product rather than individual credit/blame

Groupthink

Extrinsic motivation is the carrot or the stick — when the motivation for doing something is an IF/THEN reward or punishment. We use extrinsic motivation all the time like paying people to come into work, or issuing speeding fines to make people slow down. It can work well for simple problems, basic compliance, and short-term results.

However, when you need long-term behaviour change, when creativity is needed, or you're tackling complex problems, external rewards and the threat of punishments can even decrease performance and productivity. Rewards only go so far if you want to inspire a hit album, create the next Oscar-winning film, or create a breakthrough product. That is, for most of the important work we do in our lives, including I believe parenting, using extrinsic motivators of rewards or punishments is likely to be far less effective than tapping into intrinsic motivation — motivation that comes from inside ourselves.

I like Dan Pink's Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose framework for intrinsic motivation. His TED talk on the Puzzle of Motivation is also a fun and interesting watch.

Extrinsic motivation

A hybrid meeting is when some participants are in-person, using shared equipment, and some are remote using their own. Generally speaking, hybrid meetings have a number of disadvantages you may have experienced and are best avoided if possible. Perhaps you've been on a call where everyone's laughing about something except the people joining remotely who have no idea what's going on. It can be pretty rubbish.

For the in-person participants, it's easy to chat with the people in the room, but with just one person controlling the screen it can be hard to see details of any docs that are shared, and it's difficult to see the remote participants as clearly as those in the room. Those not driving also can't scan through docs at their own pace, or share a screen, or collaborate on a document. It's like having just one person with access to the whiteboard.

The remote participants have it worse. Because the camera is likely not as good for the in-person participants the people are smaller and it's hard to see expressions or track who's talking. Some may be off-picture. Without seeing expressions, and with a delay even a tiny bit longer than being in-person it's much harder to find when to join in a conversation. The sound quality ƒrom the room will often also make it harder to hear some of the participants and because the shared mic won't be on mute there'll be background noise.

Taken together these disadvantages make hybrid meetings best avoided where possible.

Where possible, for the in-person meeting have everyone use their own equipment, joining the call on their own laptop so their video is clear and if not using headsets buy a high-quality speaker.

Thanks to GitLab whose list — hybrid calls are annoying — made the disadvantages much clearer to me and led to better meetings at work.

Hybrid meetings

Chesterton's fence put simply is: Don't take a fence down unless you know why it was put up.

It is tempting, in a spirit of progress, to want to do away with old designs, laws, policies, or institutions that no longer help. To think, perhaps, that the people that made them weren't maybe as smart as we are, or seeing things in the right way. Yet institutions, policies, or fences, weren't usually made by accident — they require effort and action, even putting up a fence. Chesterton's fence, after GK Chesterton, is a reminder that before we remove the old and perhaps replace it with the new we would do well to at least understand why the original was put in place.

Once we understand why the fence was there in the first place if we still think it's of no use, then by all means pull it down.

Read more on Chesterton's fence, including its origins.

Chesterton's fence

When adding features to a software product it's easy to underestimate the overall time and cost they may take up. To keep the full impact in mind it can be helpful to think of Features As Pets.

When I think of Features As Pets it helps me look past the initial cost of designing and developing a feature and consider its full lifecycle. For example:

you're going to want to tell your users about it

you'll want to check it's being used as intended

you'll need to support it and check that it works in all different places and fix it when it breaks

you may need to work hard to make sure it's compatible with new features you add

you may have to return to the code and refactor it to improve performance

you may need to upgrade libraries and maintain security patches

finally you'll have to decommission it gracefully when it's no longer needed including dealing with data you may have stored

New features are probably one of the key differentiators of your offering compared to others, but it bears a little consideration before adding something — a feature is not just for Christmas.

Features Are Like Pets is from the excellent Intercom on Product Management podcast (Apple, Spotify, ebook).

Features are like pets

Lagging metrics are usually the ones we care about most. In business, they're things like revenue, sales, or profit. The trouble is, we can't act always act on those directly. By the time we assess our revenue everything we did to get there has already happened, so if we don't like it, it's too late.

Leading metrics are what we need to focus on to drive the lagging metrics. If we want to lose weight we might be better off focusing on eating less and eating healthier, working out more, and sticking to our workout schedule. To increase our revenue we may want to look at deal size, ease of sign-up, or our referral rate.

Paying attention to and improving the leading metrics gives us leverage over the lagging metrics we may really care about.

Leading and lagging metrics

The twin engines of altruism and ambition are a powerful force for positive change in the world.

They need to be balanced. Ambition without altruism and change may not be positive and altruism without ambition may be nice without impact. But put the two together, for example with a mission-driven business like B-corps, and it can be a recipe for wonderful, positive, and meaningful change — and probably what we need to deal with the challenges of our times.

This lovely concept is from Richard Reed, co-founder of Innocent Drinks, and I learned it from Holly Tucker's Conversations of Inspiration podcast.

Also see: overnight success, building a plane on the way down

Altruism and ambition

There's an all you can eat buffet with all the flavours of the world, you can have whatever you want. This is going to be amazing! You love lasagna, but look at those fajitas. You go for the fajitas, but then your friend arrives with sushi which looks even better. Why didn't you get that?? You always screw up...

Barry Schwartz studied how more choice not only doesn't always help us choose better, but can also make us feel worse about what we got even if it was great. Reduced satisfaction arises from:

The opportunity cost of what we could have had and what was good about other options

Regret and anticipated regret of the choice we made

Self-blame when we think we are responsible for not doing as well as we could have

For an entertaining and educational 20 mins watch Barry Schwartz' TED talk on the paradox of choice.

The paradox of choice

Manager Time and Maker Time explain how managers or makers need to manage time differently.

In Manager Time, a day is neatly sliced up into hourly chunks according to the calendar. Meeting someone is as easy as finding a free slot that coincides. You don’t have to worry too much about what you’ll be doing next as your calendar will tell you.

In Maker Time, a day is an open book to get something hard and meaningful done. Even thinking when a meeting might be and remembering to go can distract from getting on with making.

Long, uninterrupted chunks of time, not sliced and diced by meetings on the hour, are ideal for making progress on hard problems and tackling something new. Even a single meeting in the middle of an afternoon can disrupt that long, meaningful chunk into two, making it harder to tackle something big as you have to context switch and pick up where you left off.

Most modern offices operate on Manager Time. It’s great for meetings but comes at the cost of getting meaningful work done. If you’re a maker, you may associate with the feeling that to get some real work done, you need to do it on the weekend or an evening after everyone’s gone home, when you’ll be free of interruptions.

If you’re a manager, consider your makers when you schedule your next meeting.

This observation is from Paul Graham's excellent article Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule.

Umbrella management and funnel management

Manager time, maker time

This acronym acts as a handy checklist to consider and clarify roles and responsibilities for projects. You could even build a table — a Responsibility Assignment Matrix —  with what needs to happen and the people who are involved identifying what relationship each person has for each task. In particular, sometimes making it clear who doesn’t have a say can be the most helpful thing to do. It breaks down somewhat like this:

Responsible
Who will actually be responsible for doing the task.

Accountable
Who is accountable for it being completed and achieving its goals.

Consulted
Whose opinion will be sought for the task, though they won’t be doing it themselves.

Informed
Who doesn’t get a say in the task, but will be kept informed of how it’s going.

RACI

Sexy Value is what you get when someone can launch something that is not only cheaper but also better. It’s a near irresistible proposition.

Most new things that are better don’t tend to also be cheaper—increased quality usually has a corresponding increase in cost. So Sexy Value is often made possible through a new technology or approach. It’s like when the first taxi apps started appearing. To me, the first experience was just so much better than what I was used to—no trying to catch a taxi in the rain, seeing when the cab would arrive and simple, non-awkward, no swinging by the ATM payments—and yet at the same time, it was also cheaper.

Sexy Value is not the only way to compete. If you make something better, people will pay for the value it provides them. But you’re on to a winner if you can also do it cheaper.

Sexy Value is a name, I believe, from Ogilvy and Mather.

You might also like another model of theirs: The Big Ideal

Sexy value

There are lots of questions you can ask of data. I like this model as it gives a framework for the different types of questions you might ask. It was introduced to me as the data science pyramid with descriptive analytics — measuring what’s happening — being the foundation on which others are built. You don’t have to go in order, but it’s a nice approach to consider how the questions you’re asking of your data might evolve.

To take our school Summer fête as an example, for a long time takings were all in cash and put into one bucket at the end for counting. You end up with one number for how much you raised. But you might move to collecting more descriptive data on the takings for each stall — whether the bar earns more than the tombola, for example. You then might be able to ask diagnostic questions like figuring out why one fête earned more than another with a different mix of stalls. If you know how many people came you might be able to make some predictions on the takings of a future fête based on number of people and stall types. And if you get fancy you might start to use your data to figure out how you could raise more money for the school in future.

There are many ways to slice and dice data and the questions you ask, but I like the clarifying simplicity of this one.

As far as I know, the framework is the Analytics Ascendancy model, or Analytics Value Escalator, or other such business sounding name from Gartner.

Analytics maturity

Pitched as the one number you need to grow your business, the Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a way to find out from your customers how many love what you’re doing enough to tell their friends vs how many are ambivalent or negative about your business. The resulting number, your NPS, ranging from +100 to -100 has been shown to be an indicator of companies’ future success.

To calculate your NPS ask your customers how likely they would be to recommend your business to a friend—or variations thereof—and give them a scale of 0 (not likely) to 10 (very likely) to answer with. Those who answer 9 or 10 are your biggest fans or Promoters. Those who answer 7 or 8 are passively satisfied—they like your business but are unlikely to shout about it. And those answering 6 or below are your Detractors. If they talk about your business it could well be negative. Your NPS is your % of Promoters minus the % of your Detractors. For example, if you received 100 responses, 35 as 9s or 10s, 37 as 7s and 8s, and 28 as 0–6s then your NPS would be 35 minus 28 = 7.

Keep track of your NPS over time and you’ll get a sense of how your business is doing. Follow up with qualitative feedback, for instance, “Why did you give this rating?”, and get a recipe for improving your business. Simple.

Learn more in the original Harvard Business Review article, “The One Number You Need to Grow” by Frederick F. Reichheld.

Net Promoter Score

The more transparent your workplace the less transparent your employees. In an age of trackers, wearables, online monitoring, workplace chat and always-on devices it turns out that not only does a more transparent workplace actually drive people to more secretive behaviours, but that adding a little more privacy actually may improve productivity also.

Very simply, the transparency paradox is the idea that increasingly transparent, open, observable workplaces can create less transparent employees.

See Harvard prof Ethan Bernstein’s The Transparency Paradox study (pdf) or I learned about it from the Freakonomics podcast: Yes, the Open Office Is Terrible — But It Doesn’t Have to Be.

The transparency paradox

The Peter Principle is that “every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”

The logic of the Peter Principle of management

Someone good at their job is likely to get promoted. However, the promoted position will likely require different skills. If they’re good, they may get promoted again, but if not, they will stay. At some point, each employee in an organisation will be incompetent in their position.

The Peter Principle was an observation originally meant as satire. Laurence Peter later wrote a book called The Peter Principle: Why things always go wrong.

I like this short take on the Peter Principle by Tim Harford.

We discussed the Peter Principle in the Sketchplanations podcast. During the podcast, I learned about a counterpoint to the Peter Principle called the Paula Principle.

In his book, The Paula Principle: why women lose out at work ― and what needs to be done about it, Tom Shuller explains that the Paula Principle is "most women work below their level of competence."

Tom explains that the Paula Principle is caused by at least five factors: Discrimination, Caring responsibilities, Self-confidence, Lack of vertical networks, and what Tom calls Positive choice. Read more about the Gender, competence and the Paula Principle in the workplace.

The Peter Principle is a specific case, the case of people, of the Generalised Peter Principle which states that "Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging situations until it fails." See rule number 1 of indoor games.

Keeping the Peter Principle in mind might help be more tolerant of mistakes from higher-ups—they may be out of their depth.

The Peter Principle is different from the Peter Parker Principle, which is: "With great power comes great responsibility." Though Spider-Man popularized this wise proverb, many precursors of the sentiment exist.

The Peter Principle

It’s easy to think “it’s just a few minutes.” But as the number of people that you hold up increases, the true cost of being late scales rapidly. Being 10 mins late to a meeting with 10 others is 100 minutes. Holding the door for 20s on a train of 600 people is over 3 hours of time collectively. Unless your time is worth a lot more than everyone else’s it’s worth thinking twice before holding the door to a train or not taking the start of a meeting seriously. I think, at the end of the day, it’s really about respect.

The cost of being late

The law of diminishing returns: at some point, doing more of the same stops paying off like it used to.

You might think that adding more of a good thing would make things better. And, yes, that’s often true, up to a point. However, the law of diminishing returns suggests that as you add more of a single factor, you are likely to yield progressively lower benefits.

It’s like the old adage, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” Another cook or two might help, but beyond that, they’ll probably start getting in each other’s way. Aside from cooking broth, you might see the law play out in spending on advertisements, quality improvements in production or your wealth.

And we should also never forget that more is different.

The sketchplanation is an homage to perhaps my favourite comedy sketch with an early-career Simon Pegg in the series Big Train: The Cake Factory (video). Well worth two and a half minutes.

I updated this sketch for the release of Big Ideas Little Pictures. Here's the original

Law of diminishing returns

Named after the brilliant Clay Shirky his principle broadly states that:

Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.

Sometimes this may manifest itself as blindness towards new or different ways of doing things, other times it’s the challenge of and innate resistance to making oneself obsolete. Examples include there being more money in life-long illnesses than cures, traditional newspapers’ resistance to alternative online news forms, planned obsolescence of products, committees requiring the presence of committees, or resistance to self-checkouts at a supermarket.

Some exceptions include Vitality health insurance in the UK that  rewards a healthy lifestyle, and the lightbulb industry, in its move towards ultra long-lasting and efficient LED lights, boldly eliminating the need to replace most of its products for a lifetime. I’m still waiting for a breakdown service to reward people for taking care of their cars rather than focusing on fixing the breakdowns.

The Shirky Principle

Perhaps, like me, you’re used to thinking about bringing customers onboard as a funnel. It’s a very natural metaphor for thinking about customer acquisition. For example, you market to 10,000 people, 500 people visit your website, 50 of them put something in the basket and 10 of them buy. If you draw it out it looks like a funnel. And the next time you market you start fresh with a new 10,000. But the real world isn’t like that. Delivering a good service to your customers helps the next customers come in. Hence the flywheel model.

A flywheel is typically a big heavy wheel that stores and releases energy from an engine or vehicle. The flywheel metaphor is about happy customers driving your growth. And when you think about your business this way it can cause you to make different decisions. Having more customers is like a bigger, heavier flywheel containing more energy. Happy customers speed you up, unhappy customers slow you down. Making it easier for customers to try your product reduces friction, as does making it easier for for customers to talk about and share your product. Get your flywheel big, heavy and spinning like crazy and your business is doing well.

The flywheel model is from Brian Halligan at Hubspot. I’ve thought about customer funnels for literally years and I wish I’d known about the flywheel long ago. Check out Hubspot’s flywheel intro for more.

The business flywheel

In Dan Pink’s book Drive, he looks at scientific studies showing that the all too common approach to motivating people involving rewards and punishments, or the carrot and stick approach, ultimately doesn’t help motivate people for the tasks and work we have to do today.

Instead, we do our best work when driven by intrinsic motivation — motivation from inside us rather than imposed externally like rewards or punishments. And the 3 facets he highlights that help intrinsic motivation are:

Autonomy: being in control and able to guide both what we do and how we do it

Mastery: our desire to continually be improving and learning and bettering ourselves

Purpose: working towards something we think is worthwhile. Having a North Star to aim for and a reason it’s worth doing what we’re doing.

I find it a useful framework to think through whenever I’m not feeling motivated or when I want to help make sure the people I’m working with are motivated.

Also see: flow at work, Goldilocks tasks, the zone of proximal development, on parenting

What drives us: autonomy, mastery, purpose

Conway's law is, paraphrased, that the structure of software will mirror the structure of the organisation that built it.

Conway was mostly observing software development, but I would think it has some application to any large project: cruise ship design, car design, space shuttle design, and maybe even governments and law.

Law is kind of a strong word for an observation, but in any case, here are some other "laws":

Conway’s Law

Networks effects can lead to massive, rapid growth especially if you manage to get a virtuous cycle turning.

Amazon leveraged this model by Jeff Bezos in 2001 for mega growth. Amazon calls it a virtuous cycle (and some call it a virtuous circle). And, more recently, the Uber variation, by David Sacks explains much of Uber’s wild ride. The virtuous cycle is a form of flywheel where once it gets going it keeps on spinning.

Business sketches