Hmmm… the intrinsic problem with approaching this from the very beginning are these psychological nuances:
- We (as humans) will invariably move towards that which is most familiar (safe, even though painful or sub-optimal)
- We will inherit the natural dysfunctions that have plagued us previously (e.g. using mostly waterfall methods)
- We try our best within our own localized space, however, the overarching system at play still uses methods and frameworks that do not jive well with the newer idea (e.g. agile)
- We will fail at a larger scale than failing incrementally with lower cost associated with the learning curve
- We will politically play to the old-guard while trying to inject the new, only to have the new be merged into half-assed processes that really don’t improve anything.
- More… but my brain hurts.
I have seen this time and time again. This email is fresh… about 3 hours ago. Rational consideration must be had, hearts must be changed. Never have I seen a substance abuser change their ways by going from “Only drinking 10 times a day to 5 times a day.”
When the chips are down… and really down… the environment and behaviors haven’t changed… he will go back to his vomit once again.
We have to dynamically change NOT just the behaviors of our system (people), but the system (environment) itself. Beyond that we must look at the capabilities for change… and the mission/vision of the system…
In summary. The VISION of a corporate enterprise must change, thereby affecting the capabilities, environment, and behaviors.