A strategy is:
a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim
I disagree. I think that’s an outdated view of what a strategy is.
In the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous modern world, strategy should serve more as a decision-making tool for facing situations that weren’t predictable when the strategy was created. Any strategy that serves only as a plan of action, a to do list, is limited to what was known at the time.
We could say that they are broadly two ways organisations create value: pipelines and platforms.
Pipelines are the traditional business model of every organisation prior to the invention of the internet and of many to this day. They takes resources in one end, process them in some way that makes them more valuable, and push them out the other end for customers to buy. The same process applies whether the organisation is processing buried coal into power station fuel, silicon into microchips, or as a charity does, someone who needs help into someone who doesn’t.
Platforms are modern business models. They require data and the ability to match uniqueness, e.g., Ebay matching unique second-hand items with a buyer or AirBnB matching unique places to stay with people wanting to book a room. They rely on the network effects enabled by the internet to be self-reinforcing. The famous Uber napkin sketch (below) shows how as one part of the business increases it drives increases elsewhere. This is the power of platform business models.
The challenge, in creating a platform business model for a charity, is the inherent self-reinforcing aspect. A truly self-reinforcing platform charity would be increasing the number of people that need it’s help, but the purpose of a charity is to decrease the number of people that need help.
The diagram above is by no means a perfect representation of how a platform charity would operate, but shows the issue of by growing to provide more services/help people, the charity lessens the need, which reduces awareness of the problem, which in turn would reduce funding, etc. To fully make use of a platform model, the charity should be trying to increase the need for it’s services, but that isn’t a morally acceptable position for a charity.
So, this is the charity-as-a-platform conundrum. More thinking required to figure out if a charity could operate as a platform.
I’ve been thinking for a while now about a) the limitations of most product development models and b) how product management could/should play a role in systems change.
Most new product development models are essentially linear (although some of the issues with that are down to how the model is drawn rather than how it is put into practice) as they describe a manufacturing approach to product development that is increasingly unfit for an uncertain modern digital world.
Most product management practice is informed by the history and narrative of user-centred design, which is increasingly recognised as problematic in how it places the needs of individuals ahead of the needs of society and planet. It fails to recognise the interconnected complexities of the modern world, especially unintended consequences and externalities.
So, I’m interested in thinking about how a new product development process could be based on complex adaptive systems thinking, rather than a manufacturing mindset, and aim to create things that leverage change in systems rather affect individual user behaviour. My thinking is informed by the systems-shifting design report, the systemic design toolkit, and the mobius outcome delivery, with a bit of Theory of Change too.
This is my first attempt at describing what a system-shifting new product development process might look like. It’s a long way from from being well-refined, but it’s useful for exploring some ideas. The key mindset shift is away from building software to shifting systems (with building software as one mechanisms that might cause the shift).
Actors can be individuals, communities, organisations, even objects.
What problems do these actors face?
Centres those with lived experience, but is consciously not user-centred.
Understand the problems the actors face and cause.
Create a theory of change for the system.
What might it look like if our interventions are successful?
Might be software products that create a change of behaviour among actors, or incentives and process changes.
Designed holistically, with an eye on unintended consequences.
Creating the things that will cause change.
The mechanisms of change interact with the system.
Measuring the effects on the system, looking out for unintended consequences.
Feedback into the mechanisms of change to improve them.
Feedback into the system intervention.
Feedback into design on the future system.
The changed system now informs future change.
Next: Thinking about the tools and activities for each section.
The lesson for this month; two ways of working complement each other, scheduled with a clear definition of done and vague with uncertain output.
Started working with a coach to try to help me understand what success looks like for me as a manager and how I can support the team better. It’s given me a lot to think about.
One-to-ones with the team were less effective than I’d like but I’m getting back on track.
Began thinking about a technology strategy and talked a bit about improving testing.
Didn’t do much this month on improving the environment.
Worked on quite a few projects, and thought about how too much work in progress affects time to value.
Didn’t do anything on this goal.
Still haven’t done anything on my BSL course or the Gitlab Remote Working course.
Didn’t work on any of my side-projects.
Irregular Ideas has 61 subscribers and 73 posts. I’ve haven’t finished adding images to old editions on Substack or added the domain name.
Wrote a few Twitter threads from my weekly reading list. Carried on with my digital/product/charity twitter thread experiment. No results yet.
I wrote weeknotes on schedule every week and daynotes some days.
Did a bit writing by hand to help me think through some strategy problems.
Nomadic coastline life was good. Spent a few weeks inland but with good reason.
Walked most days, but didn’t go running.
Runaway good.
I wonder if we’ll ever have ‘technology charities’ like we have technology companies?
Well, there doesn’t seem to be an agreed definition for tech companies to use as a basis for a definition of a tech charity so I’ll have to do a bit of creative thinking.
To give myself a frame to work within, I’ll start with three criteria, and I’ll make each criteria on a four point scale. So, a charity that is
The criteria are:
| Low-tech charity | Tech-enabled charity | Tech-first charity | Technology charity | |
| Software | Uses COTS platforms in isolation and doesn’t collect data from them. | Uses multiple COTS platforms to deliver value and connects some of them to allow data exchange. | Develops software on top of COTS platforms to deliver some core value and collects and uses some data to add value. | Creates proprietary software to deliver the core value of the organisation and collects and uses data as part of the value. |
| Interaction | Interacts with beneficiaries over separate channels with no single view of the interactions. | Interacts with beneficiaries via multiple channels and records interactions in separate platforms. | Interacts with beneficiaries via multiple channels and has an incomplete view of the interactions in a single platform. | Uses proprietary software as the primary means of interacting with beneficiaries and creates a single view of all interactions. |
| Capabilities | No internal or outsourced capabilities. | Very limited internal or some outsourced capabilities. | Internal capabilities across general skill sets. | Full internal capabilities for managing proprietary software, data, etc. |
Next step is going to be to test these definitions against some real charities.
Broadly speaking, we can ask questions for two reasons:
This post will focus on how to ask better questions for gathering information.
In 1956, Bloom created a taxonomy of educational objectives that educators have used ever since to specify learning outcomes. The taxonomy has six layers: remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate, create. We’ll use the first three layers as the outcomes of information gathering questions.
So, asking better questions helps us remember, understand and/or apply the information we want to gather.
Interrogatives, also sometimes called the 5W1H (even though in the table below there are 6W’s because what and which about the same thing), specify what kind of subject the question is about
By choosing the right way of phrasing a question, which starts by understanding what we’re asking about, we can be more specific and provide greater clarity about the answer we’re expecting.
This gives us better questions that are more likely to provide the answer we need to help us remember, understand and/or apply the information we want to gather.
Better questions have certain characteristics that separate them from poor questions.
Better questions are:
There are likely to be more characteristics that will come out of comparing the guiding thinking questions.
Putting all of this together, we can ask better questions that are clear, concise, single-dimensional and answerable, and which are more likely to provide the answer we need to help us remember, understand and/or apply the information we want to gather.
Next – Asking better question part 2: Questions for guiding thinking (and then maybe some kind of framework and context for asking better questions)
This version includes quite a lot more than iteration 4.
Show how this opportunity fits with the organisations strategy. If it isn’t clear to everyone how this opportunity contributes to those goals then it should prompt the question of whether to continue to explore the opportunity.
So everyone knows which project this canvas is about.
Those working on the project should be the ones using the canvas.
Is this a new opportunity for the charity or are we replacing/improving on an existing one? Is it about income generation or service delivery or something else?
This might be a bit specific, but if you have different delivery methods (and you should) then it’s useful for reminding the team how they are approaching this project.
When the canvas was last updated.
Put the people you are trying to help in the centre. Be as specific as you can. “Everyone” is not the user.
What problems are those people facing that you are going to try to solve?
What barriers prevent people from solving this problem, or from accessing other solutions? There could be a bit of market analysis here to understand other solutions.
How will you solve the problems people are facing?
What will people be able to do if they are using your solution that they can’t do without it? How will life be improved for them?
How are people going to find your solution?
How are you going to keep people using the solution?
How are you going to solve the problem in a way that means your solution becomes redundant?
Why should this organisation be tackling this problem? Should be thought about from legitimacy and marketing point-of-view rather then philosophically. If your organisation doesn’t already have a natural fit to the opportunity or problem then it’ll be much harder to get traction for your solution.
Simple logistics question. Will the solution be in-person, over the phone, on a website, etc.
How are you going to get feedback from users on your solution and iterate to keep meeting their needs.
How much is the solution going to cost? Helps with planning budgets and knowing if the solution is viable.
What things need to be in place to make the solution feasible? Does it need a CRM or email service provider, or buildings, etc., etc.
How will you measure whether the solution is achieving the outcomes you defined?
Start in the middle with the users.
Fill the canvas organically, not as a linear sequence. Add to each of the boxes, and as that makes you think of other things in other boxes, add them to.
Think about how you might show which things on the canvas are proven and which are assumptions (which shows you where you need to work on validating things).
Little tip – if you can’t fit everything in the boxes then you’re probably trying to tackle too big a problem. Focus.
The lesson for this month; urgent always beats important.
A couple of things I intended to do this month fell by the wayside as more urgent project work took over. That’s not a situation I want to happen regularly.
Did some thinking about governance and testing, and know I have some work to do to justify taking a structured, goal-oriented approach to product improvement coming up.
Introduced an opportunity canvas for showing the current state of knowledge about a problem we’re trying to solve. The aim is for it to help everyone on a project team be more aligned.
Some thinking about how development and testing work fits in project timelines, and how well defined things need to be at different stages. We’re between not being about to run our own tech stack but wanting to build complex systems. The only solution seems to be to build simpler things.
Ongoing issue that I haven’t resolved. Can’t figure out how to contribute to a community and be remote, async, introvert. I keep circling around ideas about improving product management in charities but can’t quite find the way.
Didn’t do anything on my BSL course, on the Gitlab Remote Working course.
Didn’t work on any of my side-projects.
Irregular Ideas has 49 subscribers. I’ve been working back through old editions on Substack to add images, hopefully to improve engagement a bit when posting on social media. I still need to shut down the old Irregular Ideas website and move the domain name over to Substack.
Wrote a few Twitter threads from my weekly reading list. Carried on with my digital/product/charity twitter thread experiment. No results yet.
I wrote weeknotes on schedule every week and daynotes most days.
Didn’t do any journaling or free-form writing by hand. Didn’t have time to get into the right headspace.
Thought reflectively about projects at work. The challenge is how to turn thought into practice and take learning from one project and apply it more generally.
Nomadic coastline life continued to be as amazing as ever.
Started doing a bit of thinking about a roadmap for becoming good compost.
Walked most days, but not running enough (only once this month).
Expenses back on target. Runaway good.
Building on from an earlier iteration, this version of the canvas is getting more practical and usable.
It uses the same basic logic of any (well-designed) canvas in trying to balance the two sides, so problems on one side are balanced by solutions on the other, and barriers on one side are balanced by outcomes on the other, meaning that it provides a visual sense check that what the solution you are creating matches the problems you’re trying to solve.
If the canvas shows a big complex problem, but the solution is a small simple one, then it might be clear that it isn’t going to solve the problem, overcome the barriers and achieve the outcomes. Then, you can either reduce the problem you’re trying to solve or increase the solution.
I have some feedback to incorporate and will be trying it out with a complex problem over the next few weeks, so we’ll see what future iterations look like. I’d also like to think of a way of showing how certain/uncertain things that have been added are, to be clearer about assumptions and the available evidence.
The lesson for this month, when it comes to achieving stuff, structure really helps with the how but knowing why matters most.
I’ve set myself four goals:
Within each goal there are activities, some regular some one-off, some I’m comfortable with some that stretch me, that will contribute to achieving those goals. Having these goals as a way to frame where I focus my time should help me be a bit structured in my work.
This continues to be the goal that I can’t figure out. How do you contribute to a community and be remote, async, introvert. I keep circling around ideas about improving product management in charities but can’t quite find the way.
Didn’t do anything on my BSL course, on the Gitlab Remote Working course. I say this every month, but really need to go give them some time next month.
I didn’t do much on any of my side-projects. This is because I’m just not sure they are helping to achieve the community contribution goal.
Irregular Ideas has 48 subscribers and I’ve written 66 editions. I think I’ve settled continuing to use Substack so I need to shut down the old Irregular Ideas website and move the domain name over to Substack.
I wrote a few Twitter threads from my weekly reading list. And I’ve started writing a few digital charity related threads which I’ll experiment with for a few weeks.
I wrote weeknotes on schedule every week and daynotes most days. I’ve been trying to do a bit of journaling and free-form writing by hand, which feels easier to actually write but harder to do, especially as the evenings get darker.
Nomadic coastline life continues. Been thinking a bit about the goal of becoming good compost.
Walked every day, swam in sea on some days, but still not getting enough exercise.
Runaway good.