,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The tendency to view incidents as having neat boundaries between "phases" of them is problematic at best. A good deal of traditional thinking about learning from incidents depend on this construction... 
But this isn't what we find when we look closely at *real* incidents in the wild. They tend to be much "messier" than the above picture purports.
What we find more often are multiple and parallel lines of activity taken by multiple people who can sometimes have contrasting views on not only a) what's happening, but also b) what that potentially means for it getting worse or better, and c) what options are available to do
Even these more complicated diagrams don't paint a picture of the dynamic and messy nature of incidents and how multi-dimensional they can be!
To be sure, most incidents do not unfold in a linear this➝then that➝then other thing fashion.
To be sure, most incidents do not unfold in a linear this➝then that➝then other thing fashion.
These events can have an incredible potential to reveal not only what gaps exist in the cognitive work your teams engage in, but what strengths exist as well. If you can't identify strengths, you can't amplify/support them.
"But doing this sort of analysis sounds like a lot of work!" execs sometimes tell us.
Yes. Yes it is.
Yes. Yes it is.
