Loading...
A team that loses speed while trying to reduce risk. This is not to abandon perfectionism, but it is a way to ‘stage’ perfection so that the team can safely become faster.
They keep requesting additional data and the conclusions are pushed back.
When gathering information feels ‘safe’, decisions are put off forever.
Declaration of Sufficient Conditions: **“With the information I have now, I decide to experiment for two weeks”**
If you express a dissenting opinion, you will be branded as ‘ankle’.
When opposition becomes dangerous, the team agrees to silence (more risk).
Rule to encourage opposition: **“One opposition is the team’s insurance”**
I feel like once I decide on something, I can’t change it again.
When a decision becomes as hard as a stone, everyone gets scared.
Decision=Version: **V1 (2 weeks) → V2 (1 month)**
This is the moment when further investigation becomes an end in itself.
It becomes a game of punishment avoidance rather than a decision.
Speed breaks down from the structure.
Don't demand perfection from the start.
Example: “You can change V1 after using it for two weeks.”
Avoid listing risks indefinitely.
Example: “How much damage will there be in the worst case?”
Opposition becomes productive.
Example: “I am against it, but I agree with this condition.”
Reduce the fear of decisions.
Example: “Review meeting confirmed in two weeks.”
Try saying: “Okay. Then, with the current information, we will only decide on V1 (2-week experiment), and any additional information will be reflected in V2.”
Try saying: “The opposite is insurance for the team. Instead, please also provide alternatives/conditions.”
A. That’s why we first set the ‘risk limit’. Controlling the cost of failure makes experiments safer.
I have a meeting, but when it's over, it feels like there's nothing left. We have organized a structure where decisions cannot be made and words/rules for reaching conclusions without breaking the team spirit.
A team where only the talkative people keep talking, and the quiet people speak separately after the meeting. How to reduce the variation in speaking volume through ‘rules’ rather than ‘people problems’.
A team that is quiet in meetings, but whose complaints only leak out behind the scenes. We have organized devices that change feedback from being a battle between people to a ‘fight for results.’
The intention is to deal with the situation quickly, but the opponent feels it is an attack. We have compiled sentences/rules to reduce misunderstandings in asynchronous communication.