Vision, Mission, Principles, And the Human Brain

If you are a regular follower of this blog, you may have noticed that Tempo!, my business strategy book, hasn't been published yet. I do have a publisher interested in the Swedish version, but I am still looking for a publisher interested in publishing the English version of the book.

More than a year ago, it dawned on me that Tempo! was growing to about twice the length I had originally planned (400 pages instead of 200 pages), and that I would have to cut a lot of material. Some of this material I am saving for another book, but some of it I decided to publish as free supplements.

The vision and mission paper below does not contain material written specifically for the book, but it does contain material that is closely related. Tempo! describes in detail a procedure for developing a combined vision and mission statement in diagram format, an Intermediate Objective Map. The paper provides background, perspective, and shows mission and vision statements for several organizations, including an Intermediate Objective Map for Primus Vicus. There is also an account of a brutal battle between Primus Vicus and a business organization with a lot of power, but less vision.

The Scribd file conversion process caused some letters to disappear from diagrams in the paper. If there are missing characters in a file downloaded from Scribd, please let me know. I will send you a high quality PDF version.

Vision, Mission, Principles, and the Human Brain

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waterfall vs. Agile: Battle of the Dunces or A Race to the Bottom?

Image
The major software methodology wars since the mid 1950’s. Someone was wrong on the Internet, so here we go… In a recent HBR article, It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile , the author sets up a false premise: There is a war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. The war must end. And finally, you can combine the approaches to get the best of both worlds. This sounds good, but the article is based on a misunderstanding of both Waterfall and Agile. Also, there is no war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. There can’t be, because Waterfall methodology does not exist! Waterfall is a name for large projects that failed in the 1960’s. Waterfall was never a methodology, but a failure to apply the methodologies that existed back then. As I will show towards the end of this article, at least one of the “successful” Waterfall projects mentioned in the HBR article was neither successful, nor a Waterfall project. I got invaluable help from Alistair Cockburn. He fact che...
Read more

Performance Evaluations, Business Strategy, and Agile Methodologies

Image
It is performance evaluation time in many companies. This can be stressful, both to the people being evaluated, and the people doing the evaluation. In companies adopting agile software development methods, the tension can be extraordinary. Individual performance evaluations run counter to agile philosophy, which emphasizes team performance over individual performance. However, managers and corporate leaders need to take a few steps back, and consider the impact performance evaluations have on the organization as a whole. Especially now, in the midst of a recession, it is important to look at a companies current policies to see if they can be improved, or if they are actually holding the company back. So, how can a manager evaluate policy? Performance evaluation policies can serve as an excellent example. I'll confine myself to discussing the so-called ‘rank and yank’ methods. These are performance reviews were employees are ranked using a forced ranking system. It usually looks so...
Read more

Agile Requirements Structures, Part 1

Image
If you have worked in large Agile projects or programs, you may have noticed that there is often quite a bit of confusion about requirements, what the requirement types are, their purpose, how to write them, how to use them, and above all, what not to do with them. There are many causes for this confusion. Here are some of the more common I have seen: Nobody in the organization has read up on the requirements model it is using, so everyone makes their own interpretation. The organization deviates from a standard requirements model, but nobody knows which standard model the organization is deviating from, and/or there is no agreement about how they deviate from it. The organization has not documented its own requirements model very well. The organization mixes two or more different requirements models, often without realizing it. The organization has documented its requirements model, but finding the documentation is an epic project in itself, on par with when Henry Sta...
Read more