I've stopped being impressed by idea generation. Almost every organization I meet has more ideas than it can use. What they lack is a surface an idea can land on without becoming someone's extra evening work.
When a team asks how to move faster, the more useful question is usually what they are moving away from. Answers inherit the quality of the question that produced them.
Frameworks, benchmarks and best practice let us feel sure about things we haven't tested. Useful for a while. Expensive when the context quietly changes underneath.
The interesting shift isn't that machines can produce answers. It's what happens to organizations that were already bad at deciding which answers mattered.
The founders who last are not the most certain ones. They are the ones who can hold doubt without letting it stop them, and tell the difference between the two.
We invest in tools, processes and platforms. Permission is rarely on the budget, and it's often the binding constraint.
A note on how I run experiments on myself and with teams: cheap enough to be wrong, specific enough to learn something.
Meadows keeps rewarding a second reading. This time what stayed with me was the idea that the place with the most leverage is usually the one nobody is arguing about.
From a conversation with a hospital innovation lead: the teams that decided slowest implemented fastest. We spent an hour on why that might be true.
Every change has a stretch where the old way no longer works and the new way isn't working yet. Most initiatives are abandoned exactly there, and called a failure of strategy.
Ideas
I write about innovation, entrepreneurship and creating meaningful change. Not on a schedule—only when I have something worth sharing.
No spam. Unsubscribe at any time.