The Value Proposition Interface Canvas makes it explicit how you are creating value with your API for your customers and how you are providing value. It is a tool that helps you to systematically understand the customer needs and to design API products your customer want
Again, you might think ‘So what? I guess things are complicated but I can just notice the details as I run into them; no need to think specifically about this’. And if you are doing things that are relatively simple, things that humanity has been doing for a long time, this is often true. But if you’re trying to do difficult things, things which are not known to be possible, it is not true.
The more difficult your mission, the more details there will be that are critical to understand for success…
Before you’ve noticed important details they are, of course, basically invisible. It’s hard to put your attention on them because you don’t even know what you’re looking for. …This means it’s really easy to get stuck.
Stuck in your current way of seeing and thinking about things. Frames are made out of the details that seem important to you. The important details you haven’t noticed are invisible to you, and the details you have noticed seem completely obvious and you see right through them. This all makes makes it difficult to imagine how you could be missing something important.
Complex systems have a number of characteristics that fly in the face of leadership control. They are nonlinear, meaning that there isn’t direct causation between our leadership actions and the effects that result. Such systems are also subject to emergence: novel outcomes that are difficult to predict or regulate.
There are two other key characterises of complex systems that render our ability to control them questionable. That is they are adaptive and they are interdependent.
When leaders assume they can control a situation, it’s based on an assumption of cause and effect being uni-directional. That is that the leader can create a cause that has a predictable effect. Yet what we know about any system that involves people who have opinions and are in any way able to govern their own actions, is that they will have a view about any intervention from a leader and they in turn will act back on that decision.
Never lose sight of the fact that your success is not measured by number of meetings or speed of answer to slack and email, it’s measured by impact on your goal
- Delete meetings.
- Do NOT accept a lack of preparation.
- Go Deep for 2 hours every day.
- Turn off notifications.
- Your time is yours, defend it like it was your child.
The barbell approach is based on a principle called asymmetric risk. It breaks down to an investment strategy that embraces 20% aggressive risk with a 80% conservative approach. This is a useful way to think about innovation work within large organisations where 80% represents business as usual, the core business. The risky 20% represents innovation work, but within the 20% we need to be running many experiments at once.
The reality of these 250 bets, most will fail, some may be relatively successful, but the one that works out will represent a huge win, big enough to cover all the losses and save your organisation from disruption.
And Paul Graham,
who has written many though provoking pieces over the years, highlights how in the moment you often don’t know if something is revolutionary or bonkers — The risk of discovery — Paul Graham
But maybe there is a simpler explanation. Maybe the smartness and the craziness were not as separate as we think. Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time. But that’s because we know how things turned out. In Newton’s day the three problems seemed roughly equally promising. No one knew yet what the payoff would be for inventing what we now call physics; if they had, more people would have been working on it. And alchemy and theology were still then in the category Marc Andreessen would describe as “huge, if true.” Newton made three bets. One of them worked. But they were all risky
The Boeing 737Max crisis
The present 737 Max disaster can be traced back two decades — to the moment Boeing’s leadership decided to divorce itself from the firm’s own culture.
Boeing’s “reverse takeover” of McDonnell Douglas — so-called because it was McDonnell executives who perversely ended up in charge of the combined entity, and it was McDonnell’s culture that became ascendant. “McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money,” went the joke around Seattle.
You had this weird combination of a distant building with a few hundred people in it and a non-engineer with no technical skills whatsoever at the helm.” Even that might have worked — had the commercial-jet business stayed in the hands of an experienced engineer steeped in STEM disciplines. Instead McNerney installed an M.B.A. with a varied background in sales, marketing, and supply-chain management.