A friend of mine told me the following story:
In the strategic plan for a branch of a business, one of the goals was to set up a staff recognition scheme for the branch. About a month before the end of the financial year one of the managers in the branch decided to do something about achieving this goal. Their motivations for doing this weren't particularly laudable: basically they wanted to be able to dot the i's and cross the t's in the plan and to stick it to the other managers who had done nothing. In other words, it was more about self-promotion than genuinely wanting to recognise staff.
So the manager emailed the staff within their unit seeking nominations for awards and asking for volunteers for a committee. So far so good....
But then, as they say in The Bill [UK Police show] it all went 'pear-shaped'.
The committee got together to decide on who should get what awards but for one category they reached an impasse because they couldn't decide between two of the nominees for one category. Now, in that situation, I would simply have said 'Give them both awards', but the committee made the mistake of asking the manager for her opinion. Once the manager got involved it all fell to pieces.
Firstly, she questioned all of the other decisions they had made, and when she noticed that certain people she favored had not been nominated she told the committee 'I haven't made my nominations yet', even though the closing date for nominations had passed and even though her nominations carried no more weight than that of anyone else in the unit.
Secondly, she told the committee that they weren't making the decision; they were only making recommendations - she and the team leaders would be making the final decision.
Needless to say, by changing the rules she totally alienated the committee members and within minutes of the meeting ending, most of the staff in the unit were aware of what had happened. And as a result she undermined the integrity and credibility of the awards.
In the greater scheme of things, the awards weren't that big a deal. If she had stayed out of it, then whatever the outcome of the awards, she could have said "The nominations were made by staff and the decisions were made by a staff committee, neither I nor the team leaders had any influence or involvement". But once she became involved, she could no longer say that and the perception became that no matter who they nominated the winners would be the manager's favorites.
But there was also a further consequence. This manager was already not particularly trusted by staff and there was already a perception that they played favorites in making promotion decisions and also that some of the people that the manager thought were great were absolutely terrible. So by intervening, even though the final decisions were almost the same, she simply reinforced the existing negative perceptions of staff. And she also sent the message that she didn't trust staff to exercise good judgement. As a result, those who volunteered for the committee won't be volunteering again any time soon: it is one thing to be given responsibility for something and quite another to just be the manager's hand-puppet.
And remember, for the manager the point of the whole exercise wasn't even to recognise staff: it was purely self-promotion. But in the end she shot herself in the foot because not only did staff now have an even lower opinion of her but the same staff had friends in other units and so word spread beyond the unit about what had happened.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Recognition schemes that work...
Staff recognition schemes are fraught with perils and some of those perils and pitfalls will be discussed in my next post. However, a staff recognition scheme can work in an environment where there is genuine trust and caring in the organisation and where staff are in control of the process, so that it doesn't become Big Brother manager patting the good little workers on the head.
But here is an example of a scheme that did work and as you read it perhaps you can guess why.
This scheme was implemented when I was working at a local University a few years back. At the time, I was employed at probably the second lowest pay level of administrative staff, a job which I basically took to support myself while I was working on my PhD research.
The University Registrar decided to implement a recognition scheme and asked for volunteers from our Division to be on the selection committee. I was one of the volunteers along with a half dozen other people from all levels of the division (but no managers) and I volunteered to chair the committee and this was accepted even though I was pretty low on the totem pole and ad only been working at the University for a few months. We were given a fairly small working budget (about $1000 as I recall) and then we asked all of the staff in our division to nominate individuals and teams who had displayed excellence in a number of categories. The decision of the Committee was final (i.e. it didn't require management signoff)
As a Committee, we decided that after reading all of the nominations and their supporting statements, we could have argued forever about who should be ranked where, so we decided that each person on the Committee would get 10 points for each category which they could distribute to nominees however they wanted - for example, they could give 10 points to one nominee or 6 points to one, three to another and one point to a third. The idea of this system was that each person on the Committee could show the strength of their preference but no person on the Committee would have any more influence than anyone else.
We also decided that with the individual awards, we would award a small trophy, a small monetary payment plus a further small monetary payment to their team to pay for a morning tea to celebrate the award. The point of this was to indicate that no individual can achieve much without the support of the people around them.
Finally, on the day of the awards, we organised it so that it was like the Academy Awards, so that we announced the nominees and then opened an envelope and announced "And the winner is...". This was done in conjunction with a barbecue.
Staff we amused, those who won were pleased, and we sent a clear message about teamwork. And because there was no management interference, the awards had credibility with the workers.
Formal recognition is good, but in managing staff my preference is to tell staff that they are doing a good job when they are doing it, not once a year. And even better is to tell a third party about the good job they have done and for it to get back to them. Recognition shouldn't be about reward but about appreciation, something that is sometimes overlooked by the sticks-and-carrots school of management - this is one reason by an awards should be small - they are a token of appreciation, not compensation for doing a good job.
But here is an example of a scheme that did work and as you read it perhaps you can guess why.
This scheme was implemented when I was working at a local University a few years back. At the time, I was employed at probably the second lowest pay level of administrative staff, a job which I basically took to support myself while I was working on my PhD research.
The University Registrar decided to implement a recognition scheme and asked for volunteers from our Division to be on the selection committee. I was one of the volunteers along with a half dozen other people from all levels of the division (but no managers) and I volunteered to chair the committee and this was accepted even though I was pretty low on the totem pole and ad only been working at the University for a few months. We were given a fairly small working budget (about $1000 as I recall) and then we asked all of the staff in our division to nominate individuals and teams who had displayed excellence in a number of categories. The decision of the Committee was final (i.e. it didn't require management signoff)
As a Committee, we decided that after reading all of the nominations and their supporting statements, we could have argued forever about who should be ranked where, so we decided that each person on the Committee would get 10 points for each category which they could distribute to nominees however they wanted - for example, they could give 10 points to one nominee or 6 points to one, three to another and one point to a third. The idea of this system was that each person on the Committee could show the strength of their preference but no person on the Committee would have any more influence than anyone else.
We also decided that with the individual awards, we would award a small trophy, a small monetary payment plus a further small monetary payment to their team to pay for a morning tea to celebrate the award. The point of this was to indicate that no individual can achieve much without the support of the people around them.
Finally, on the day of the awards, we organised it so that it was like the Academy Awards, so that we announced the nominees and then opened an envelope and announced "And the winner is...". This was done in conjunction with a barbecue.
Staff we amused, those who won were pleased, and we sent a clear message about teamwork. And because there was no management interference, the awards had credibility with the workers.
Formal recognition is good, but in managing staff my preference is to tell staff that they are doing a good job when they are doing it, not once a year. And even better is to tell a third party about the good job they have done and for it to get back to them. Recognition shouldn't be about reward but about appreciation, something that is sometimes overlooked by the sticks-and-carrots school of management - this is one reason by an awards should be small - they are a token of appreciation, not compensation for doing a good job.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
How managers can derail continuous improvement
When a continuous improvement program is introduced into any organisation, it is introduced into a particular historically determined set of circumstances, the existing status quo. Even where current managers are trained in continuous improvement, they are likely to view it through the lens of their pre-existing biases and a day or so of training is unlikely to change this.
Problems with managers
Bureaucratizing the process
One threat that continuous improvement represents is loss of control.
If improvements are driven by grassroots recognition of problems by workers on the ground, the risk for some managers is that they will lose control of the process. So there may be a temptation to impose a whole set of rules which slow the process, a structure that subjects it to excessive approvals and controls so that it becomes bogged down. And in the process, the workers on whom the success of the process depends become disenchanted with trying to do anything.
Some managers may look on continuous improvement as a way to build their own profile by putting it into plans and trying to act as a clearinghouse for any ideas of the staff reporting to them and in the process act as a bottleneck (as well as bringing in the problems discussed above). I think most of us have known a manager who always manages to complicate things as soon as they get involved.
So what do you do?
The solution (which may not be possible for all organisations) is simple and brutal: replace or rotate managers, particularly ones who have been entrenched in the same workunit for an extended period of time.
By doing this, each workunit would gain a fresh perspective to look at their processes, plus they would be able to benefit from any improvement ideas that the new manager might have implemented in their previous unit, so that there is transfer of organisational learning.
The new manager would have no particular attachment to or investment in the status quo and would be more willing to consider ideas that the previous manager might have dismissed out of hand. Working in an unfamiliar area, they would have no choice but to become familiar with the existing processes and in doing so start to question things that don't make sense, but which have been taken for granted by the existing staff of the unit or which under the previous manager they had given up trying to change.
For continuous improvement there needs to be an openness to new ideas and new managers would lead to such an openness as well as a fresh rather than a stale eye being cast over any improvement ideas suggested by staff.
It may seem radical but sometimes a management reshuffle is the only way Continuous Improvement will work. Otherwise, you end up with the same old tired and ineffective ideas for improvement and a few months down the track it is looked back on as just another 'flavor of the month'.
Problems with managers
Where a manager has managed the same organisational unit a number of years it is almost certain that:
- they have exhausted any ideas for continuous improvement that they may have been prepared to implement
- they are now acting as a barrier to further improvement because they have fixed ideas about how things should be done (as well as blindspots and pet ideas) and are not open to any CI ideas that are inconsistent with their fixed ideas
- they are blocking those ideas and as a result staff are discouraged from making further suggestions
- they have a vested interest in the status quo as representing any improvements they may have made in the past, even if those improvements are now outdated or dysfunctional.
- they have entrenched non-valuing adding activities that they may be unwilling to even discuss giving up.
Bureaucratizing the process
One threat that continuous improvement represents is loss of control.
If improvements are driven by grassroots recognition of problems by workers on the ground, the risk for some managers is that they will lose control of the process. So there may be a temptation to impose a whole set of rules which slow the process, a structure that subjects it to excessive approvals and controls so that it becomes bogged down. And in the process, the workers on whom the success of the process depends become disenchanted with trying to do anything.
Some managers may look on continuous improvement as a way to build their own profile by putting it into plans and trying to act as a clearinghouse for any ideas of the staff reporting to them and in the process act as a bottleneck (as well as bringing in the problems discussed above). I think most of us have known a manager who always manages to complicate things as soon as they get involved.
So what do you do?
The solution (which may not be possible for all organisations) is simple and brutal: replace or rotate managers, particularly ones who have been entrenched in the same workunit for an extended period of time.
By doing this, each workunit would gain a fresh perspective to look at their processes, plus they would be able to benefit from any improvement ideas that the new manager might have implemented in their previous unit, so that there is transfer of organisational learning.
The new manager would have no particular attachment to or investment in the status quo and would be more willing to consider ideas that the previous manager might have dismissed out of hand. Working in an unfamiliar area, they would have no choice but to become familiar with the existing processes and in doing so start to question things that don't make sense, but which have been taken for granted by the existing staff of the unit or which under the previous manager they had given up trying to change.
For continuous improvement there needs to be an openness to new ideas and new managers would lead to such an openness as well as a fresh rather than a stale eye being cast over any improvement ideas suggested by staff.
It may seem radical but sometimes a management reshuffle is the only way Continuous Improvement will work. Otherwise, you end up with the same old tired and ineffective ideas for improvement and a few months down the track it is looked back on as just another 'flavor of the month'.
Planning with Intent - the Mindful, Reflective Approach
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong
~ H.L. Mencken
Sometimes when managers do strategic plans, what they end up with is a list of planned actions, categorised into areas such as Customer Services, Systems etc. However, very rarely to they state explicitly and in detail what is the Intent of the planned action - what is it expected to achieve. Unless we know why we are doing something we cannot tell whether or not it has achieved the desired objective since there isn't one. All we can say is that it was we intended to do X and we did X. But whether this was a good thing to do remains open to question. We need first to identify what it is we are trying to change.
For example, we may want to change some metric of staff satisfaction. We may want the average score to increase. However, this isn't really what we want. A metric is simply a measurement. What we want to change is what the measurement purports to measure. So let's suppose that we actually want to change staff satisfaction. Then we need to be sure what we understand by 'staff satisfaction' - are we looking for fewer complaints? greater engagement? less turnover? Are we trying to engender an emotional state that will see positive changes in such areas?
Whatever it is we are looking for, we may first need to understand what it is that causes the behavior we want to either increase or diminish. We need to have a 'theory of causality': that these causes result in these outcomes. Based on our 'theory of causality' we can then develop strategies that we think will cause the outcomes we want.
This is important for two reasons.
Firstly, by identifying the desired outcome rather than just an activity, we have a better chance of seeing whether or not that activity achieved anything of value.
And secondly, if the desired outcome isn't achieved but we did the planned activity then it may lead to us having to revise our theory-of-causality. Note that I say 'may'. It may be that the planned activity was implemented poorly, that it was transparently manipulative, that other factors intervened to derail it. But if none of these occurred and the planned activity went off, well, went off as planned, but the desired outcome wasn't achieved then we need seriously to look at whether we have truly understood the causal mechanisms involved.
Maybe our understanding of human nature doesn't match the reality of how people really behave, what they want and how they respond to various changes in the work environment. Maybe there is a delayed reaction: maybe the change that has been put in place will take longer to have an effect than we anticipated and we haven't failed so much as haven't succeeded as quickly as we thought we would.
The point of all this is that we can take a simple mindless approach:
- Let's do X.
- We did X.
- Good job!
versus a mindful, reflective approach:
- What do we want to achieve?
- Based on what we believe to be true (theory-of-causality) what would we have to do to achieve that?
- Did the desired outcome occur?
- If not, why not? Did we implement poorly? Was our time frame too optimistic? Was our theory-of-causality wrong?
- What do we do now?
The mindless approach may give us a false sense of achievement: "we did it!". But with the mindful, reflective approach we gain a more nuanced understanding of the situation, we gain a clearer understanding of what works and what doesn't and we make genuine changes that matter, rather than cosmetic changes that don't.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Cautionary Tales and War Stories - How stories impact organizational life
One of the most common tools used (and misused) by organizations is staff surveys, sometimes known as climate surveys.
The management sends out a survey for staff to complete, generally anonymously, with questions carefully tailored to ensure that no nasty surprises emerge. And the results of such surveys are almost always the same: hardly anyone has much confidence in management and the biggest problem is almost always 'communication' (which is almost always defined differently by management and staff).
( A friend of mine told me about a manager who carried out a non-anonymous survey and were then unhappy about the answers from one of their team leaders. When they aired their concerns, another manager said to them "If you didn't want to know the response, why did you ask the question?")
The problem with such surveys is that by narrowly constricting the range of questions and responses, they pretty much guarantee that no new learning will emerge from the data gathered. ( And if staff even remotely suspect that their answers aren't ruly anonymous then their responses are unlikely to be candid either.) I have never yet seen a survey where staff were asked to rate their managers competence, people skills, integrity or the extent to which the managers presence does more harm that good.
So maybe one alternative to such surveys might be to survey staff to find out what questions they would like to see asked in a staff survey. I don't see that this is ever likely to happen since management would lose control of the outcomes and whatever survey they came up with, certain questions would be conspicuous by their absence. And it is THESE questions that staff would know the management was afraid of hearing the answers to. (See my previous post on the subversive power of questions.)
There is another approach however that could also be taken involving collecting stories. But before I discuss this I first want to talk about what impact stories have.
Firstly, stories are part and parcel of organisational culture. Part of becoming integrated into any organisation is hearing the stories of what different people in the organisation have done in the past and the consequences:
Secondly, these stories continue to be passed on for years as a kind of oral tradition, long after the managers concerned have completely forgotten the triggeering events. In many cases, the managers involved may not be aware of the stories even circulating. All they may be aware of is a drop in productivity, or commitment or engagement of their staff without really knowing why it is happening. So they may implement solutions to this morale problem without ever knowing what their role was in causing it.
Thridly, they are stories and such stories are a form of gossip, they tend to be more vivid and believable than any amount of facts or figures or reassurances from senior managers. When we know the people involved, it is easier for us to put ourselves and, since they are just like us, to see ourselves suffering the same fate.
So surveys are useless while the stories circulating in the business may do a lot of harm to it.
So what can be done?
Simple. Surface the stories! Rather than carrying out a survey, ask staff to tell a story of something that has happened in the last year and what lesson they learned from it. Collecting scores of such stories would say a lot more about what is right and what is wrong with the organisation and quite possibly point to areas that seriously need to be improved. And management can plan how to counteract the perceptions and behavior that result from the story by dealing with the kinds of events which triggered such perceptions and behavior.
Would they do it? Somehow I doubt it!
Like questions, stories are powerful challenges to the status quo. While they will circulate regardless of what management may say, if they are surfaced then they might require action since they may well indicate areas of managerial incompetence, dishonesty, ignorance or stupidity. And since they wouldn't know what stories would emerge until they asked, they would lose control of the outcomes.
By not asking, they remain ignorant, and ignorance is a splendid excuse for inaction.
The management sends out a survey for staff to complete, generally anonymously, with questions carefully tailored to ensure that no nasty surprises emerge. And the results of such surveys are almost always the same: hardly anyone has much confidence in management and the biggest problem is almost always 'communication' (which is almost always defined differently by management and staff).
( A friend of mine told me about a manager who carried out a non-anonymous survey and were then unhappy about the answers from one of their team leaders. When they aired their concerns, another manager said to them "If you didn't want to know the response, why did you ask the question?")
The problem with such surveys is that by narrowly constricting the range of questions and responses, they pretty much guarantee that no new learning will emerge from the data gathered. ( And if staff even remotely suspect that their answers aren't ruly anonymous then their responses are unlikely to be candid either.) I have never yet seen a survey where staff were asked to rate their managers competence, people skills, integrity or the extent to which the managers presence does more harm that good.
So maybe one alternative to such surveys might be to survey staff to find out what questions they would like to see asked in a staff survey. I don't see that this is ever likely to happen since management would lose control of the outcomes and whatever survey they came up with, certain questions would be conspicuous by their absence. And it is THESE questions that staff would know the management was afraid of hearing the answers to. (See my previous post on the subversive power of questions.)
There is another approach however that could also be taken involving collecting stories. But before I discuss this I first want to talk about what impact stories have.
Firstly, stories are part and parcel of organisational culture. Part of becoming integrated into any organisation is hearing the stories of what different people in the organisation have done in the past and the consequences:
- Remember the last time we had to implement a change and how manager X bungled it?
- Remember when Y made a suggestion to improve process Z and what happened to her?
- Remember how the last time someone suggested that they were shot down in flames?
- Remember when W happened and management covered it up?
- < Add your own >
Secondly, these stories continue to be passed on for years as a kind of oral tradition, long after the managers concerned have completely forgotten the triggeering events. In many cases, the managers involved may not be aware of the stories even circulating. All they may be aware of is a drop in productivity, or commitment or engagement of their staff without really knowing why it is happening. So they may implement solutions to this morale problem without ever knowing what their role was in causing it.
Thridly, they are stories and such stories are a form of gossip, they tend to be more vivid and believable than any amount of facts or figures or reassurances from senior managers. When we know the people involved, it is easier for us to put ourselves and, since they are just like us, to see ourselves suffering the same fate.
So surveys are useless while the stories circulating in the business may do a lot of harm to it.
So what can be done?
Simple. Surface the stories! Rather than carrying out a survey, ask staff to tell a story of something that has happened in the last year and what lesson they learned from it. Collecting scores of such stories would say a lot more about what is right and what is wrong with the organisation and quite possibly point to areas that seriously need to be improved. And management can plan how to counteract the perceptions and behavior that result from the story by dealing with the kinds of events which triggered such perceptions and behavior.
Would they do it? Somehow I doubt it!
Like questions, stories are powerful challenges to the status quo. While they will circulate regardless of what management may say, if they are surfaced then they might require action since they may well indicate areas of managerial incompetence, dishonesty, ignorance or stupidity. And since they wouldn't know what stories would emerge until they asked, they would lose control of the outcomes.
By not asking, they remain ignorant, and ignorance is a splendid excuse for inaction.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The Subversive Power of Questions
Since questions point to answers, we must learn to ask the right questions - that is, the ones that point to helpful answers.
~ Roger Schank The Creative Attitude: Learning to Ask and Answer the Right Questions
~ Fran Peavey "Strategic QuestioningManual" (see resources below)
There is no doubt that questions are dangerous.
The higher a person rises in an organisation, the more they have invested in the status quo. The organisation as it is (and as it has been in the past) values (and valued) that person enough to promote them.
However, to question the status quo may appear to the senior manager to question their contribution to the organisation or to raise doubts about the wisdom of their previous decisions.
The best questions open:
Questions reduce certainty - to question is to doubt the existing answer, to say "what if this isn't the case? What if there is a better answer?"
The best questions open up possibility rather than shut it down. They show how things can change for the better rather than staying the same, that maybe things don't have to stay the way they are.
And this is one of the reasons they are subversive and why the better the question is the more dangerous it is for those who hold positions in the status quo. Because a good question also raises further questions such as "Why didn't so-and-so think of that?" or "Why have we been doing this so inefficiently for so long under so-and-so as manager?" or "Why did so-and-so put that barrier to progress in place or maintain it when clearly it was unnecessary?"
And questions are more dangerous than answers. An answer can be attacked logically or factually or in any number of other ways.
But to attack a question is to reveal insecurity about what the question concerns and effectively to justify the asking of the question in the first place.
Resources
Strategic Questioning Manual (Fran Peavey)
at The Change Agency website
~ Roger Schank The Creative Attitude: Learning to Ask and Answer the Right Questions
Questioning is a basic tool for rebellion. It breaks open the stagnant hardened shells of the present,
revealing ambiguity and opening up fresh options to be explored.~ Fran Peavey "Strategic QuestioningManual" (see resources below)
There is no doubt that questions are dangerous.
The higher a person rises in an organisation, the more they have invested in the status quo. The organisation as it is (and as it has been in the past) values (and valued) that person enough to promote them.
However, to question the status quo may appear to the senior manager to question their contribution to the organisation or to raise doubts about the wisdom of their previous decisions.
The best questions open:
- closed doors or
- doors that no-one even knew existed or
- doors that people didn't know were doors or
- doors that people have ceased to see as doors or
- doors that people don't want to talk about (or some people anyway)
Questions reduce certainty - to question is to doubt the existing answer, to say "what if this isn't the case? What if there is a better answer?"
The best questions open up possibility rather than shut it down. They show how things can change for the better rather than staying the same, that maybe things don't have to stay the way they are.
And this is one of the reasons they are subversive and why the better the question is the more dangerous it is for those who hold positions in the status quo. Because a good question also raises further questions such as "Why didn't so-and-so think of that?" or "Why have we been doing this so inefficiently for so long under so-and-so as manager?" or "Why did so-and-so put that barrier to progress in place or maintain it when clearly it was unnecessary?"
And questions are more dangerous than answers. An answer can be attacked logically or factually or in any number of other ways.
But to attack a question is to reveal insecurity about what the question concerns and effectively to justify the asking of the question in the first place.
Resources
Strategic Questioning Manual (Fran Peavey)
at The Change Agency website
Monday, June 13, 2011
Schlimmbesserung - an all too useful word!
Schlimmbesserung is a handy word which means "An intended improvement that instead makes things worse". And it amazing how often the kinds of situations arise to which this word can be applied. Some that I have seen include:
Ultimately, if you don't understand what is causing a problem, it is hard to find a solution and sometimes the obvious (usually simplistic) solution makes things worse. Even worse is when a reinforcing cycle results where as the situation worsens, more of the same solution is applied, so the situation worsens further, so more of the same solution is applied and so on.
If what you are doing isn't working, maybe it's time to try something different. If an expected solution just increases the problem, maybe it is time to roll back the solution instead of putting more effort or resources into it.
And just maybe, we should find out why the solution made things worse:
- Someone comes up with an idea to save money, however it is implemented in such a complicated way that it ends up costing money - that's schlimmbesserung!
- A strategy is put in place to reduce sick leave or compensation claims, but instead leads to an increase - that's schlimmbesserung!
- Processes for selecting staff which in the interests of 'fairness' ignore information germane to an applicant's performance, and end up selecting someone who is less than optimal - that's schlimmbesserung!
- Holding a general meeting with staff to discuss increasing productivity, which comes up with no actual strategies, but the loss of time from the meeting itself reduces productivity - that's schlimmbesserung!
- Strategies for increasing staff morale are implemented but result in a further slide in morale - that's schlimmbesserung!
Ultimately, if you don't understand what is causing a problem, it is hard to find a solution and sometimes the obvious (usually simplistic) solution makes things worse. Even worse is when a reinforcing cycle results where as the situation worsens, more of the same solution is applied, so the situation worsens further, so more of the same solution is applied and so on.
If what you are doing isn't working, maybe it's time to try something different. If an expected solution just increases the problem, maybe it is time to roll back the solution instead of putting more effort or resources into it.
And just maybe, we should find out why the solution made things worse:
- what assumptions did we make about the problem,
- which of them were wrong,
- what assumptions did we make about our solution,
- which of them were wrong.
- what do we do now that we understand the situation better
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)