Dinosaur Thinking



The videocast embedded above is about how the current management paradigm, Scientific Management, makes it very difficult for companies to adapt to the world we live in today.

Originally, I intended this to be the kick-off episode for a new series, but then it developed into something a bit different. I hope you like it.

Comments

Rudiger Wolf said…
Brilliant! Can't wait for the next installment.

Rudi Wolf
January 19, 2009 9:00 PM
mtnygard said…
Henrik,

This is a very good summary of modern thinking about management and how we got here. I'm looking forward to the new series.

The video presentation was quite creative without seeming too "cheesy" or "gimmicky". I shudder to think how much effort it required to create!

Well done.

Cheers,
-Michael Nygard
January 19, 2009 11:25 PM
Kallokain said…
Thanks!

I am very glad you liked the video.

You are right. It took some effort. Part of the fun was learning to use matte and keying techniques.

I didn't realize quite how much fun there would be until I was half-way through. I blew my deadline so many times I finally quit setting deadlines. (A valuable lesson about estimating the level of effort of doing something new.)

I have a whole new appreciation for how much effort it takes to create a movie.

It will be interesting to see if the special effects will draw more viewers. I analyze the download count with process control charts, so if there is a difference, it will show up. (Yes, there will be a videocast about process control charts, eventually.)

Kind Regards,

Henrik
January 20, 2009 2:31 PM
TOCJonah said…
Henrik,

Incredible video!
Michael
February 16, 2009 4:11 PM
Rafael Leite said…
Congratulations Henrik, very good content!

The effects are very interesting to keep the audience's attention and give a nice touch of humor to the video.

Look forward to the next one. Cheers,

Rafael
February 26, 2009 6:19 PM
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