Thread by @johncutlefish

In a workshop I’ve been doing recently, we talk about “thinking big AND working small”. Why is this important?

Some companies are reasonably good at strategy and figuring out where the opportunities are...but they’re not great at working small. Result? ... (1/n)

..they learn slowly, respond slowly, and lack “cadence” around the sense/respond loop.

Other companies are reasonably good at working small, but can’t think beyond two week increments (or quarters even). Result? ... (2/n)

..To quote someone from a famous XP “shop” ... “we’re often chasing local optimums, and I’m worried about our strategy. We’ve relied on one muscle and need to build the other.”

People often equate “thinking big” to grandiose, “innovative”, moonshots. That’s not it... (3/n)

..thinking big is more about evolving a coherent sense of the climate/landscape (see @swardley, etc.) across multiple time-spans, frames, etc.

It isn’t (necessarily) about BIG PROJECTS, though I guess given the right context that might be the best plan of action (4/n)

..many #agile folk seem to believe that the “work small” muscle must be built regardless, so you might as well focus there.

That’s true-ish, but without the “think big”, you become a well-oiled feature factory (5/n)

..similarly, many strategy folks, arch, and #design folks who want to think more holistically argue that w/o “thinking big” it is all for naught and you’re wasting your time...

That’s true-ish, but it belittles/marginalizes the work and practice required to “work small” (6/n)

The real “woah, OK” moment in the workshops is when people stop hanging their identity on one or the other and start seeing it in a more organic, integrated way. Not one, or the other. But a constant dance across frames (7/end)