Download to read offline
Uploaded byJohn Willis
Why Executives Can't Change
The document discusses why executives have difficulty changing strategies and processes, even when presented with compelling data showing alternatives would be better. It explains that organizations often fall into "bad equilibriums" where individually rational strategies combine to produce poor collective outcomes. This happens because organizations converge on processes that are faster, cheaper and better for each individual player, but do not optimize the desired outcomes of reliability, collaboration, risk management etc. for the organization as a whole. The document advocates using tools from "game theory" and "Lean" like value stream mapping to help executives understand these dynamics and make changes through techniques like establishing a "Dojo" for hands-on learning and coaching.
More Related Content
Similar to Why Executives Can't Change
Why Executives Can't Change
- 1. Why Executives Can’tChange (Breaking Bad Equilibrium) John Willis @botchagalupe
- 3. Why Executives Can’tChange
- 5. • Faster • Cheaper •Better Everyone’s Doing It!
- 6. • Technical Debt •Risk Compliance • Long Lead Times • Reliability • Collaboration Why Can’t They Change?
- 8. It’s a strategythat all the players in the game can adopt and converge on, but it won’t produce a desirable outcome for anyone. Bad Equilibrium
- 9.
- 10.
- 11. Is a stateof allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off. Pareto Efficiency
- 12. A situation isinefficient if someone can be made better off even after compensating those made worse off. Pareto Inefficiency
- 14. A concept ofgame theory where the optimal outcome of a game is one where no player has an incentive to deviate from his chosen strategy after considering an opponent's choice. Nash Equilibrium
- 17. Sarah Steven Split Steal Split Steal 100%50% 50% 100% 0% 0%0% 0% Nash Equilibrium X X X X
- 18. Pareto Inefficient NashEquilibrium A Bad Equilibrium
- 22.
- 23.
- 24. Breaking a BadEquilibrium
- 25. 30x 200x more frequent deployments fasterlead times 60x 168x the change success rate faster mean time to recover (MTTR) 2x 50% more likely to exceed profitability, market share & productivity goals higher market capitalization growth over 3 years* High performers compared to their peers… Data from 2014/2015 State of DevOps Report - https://puppetlabs.com/2015-devops-report Recent IT Performance Data is Compelling
- 26.
- 27. Generative Behavior ResilienceSpeed “Must HaveAll Three!” New Triangle
- 28. 28 Devops Results Enterprise Organizations •Ticketmaster - 98% reduction in MTTR • Nordstrom - 20% shorter Lead Time • Target - Full Stack Deploy 3 months to minutes • USAA - Release from 28 days to 7 days • ING - 500 applications teams doing devops • CSG - From 200 incidents per release to 18
- 29.
- 30. •Performance Assessment • Cultureand Technology (Scorecard) •Value Stream Assessment • Current Sate • Coaching and Improvement Kata • Future State •Dojo Experience • Continious Learning Devops - Executives Can Change!
- 31. DevOps Retrospectives followsa repeatable process Map end-to-end process1 Identify wastes, inefficiencies, bottlenecks 2 Identify countermeasures3
- 32. We are doingGraphical Storytelling with VSM notation
- 33. Apply Lean WasteAnalysis Structured Waste Identification Free-form waste identification
- 34. Start with StructuredWaste Classification Inspired by Mary Poppendieck (original) and Jeff Anderson (adaptation)
- 35. Countermeasures Countermeasures should be: ● Actionable ●Preferably backlog ready ● Preferably small batches of work
- 36. Common Countermeasure Patterns ShiftLeft Small Batches Ops Involved Early Verification Driven Handoffs Standard Catalogs *As a Service (pull-based self-service) “Prod-Like” in all environments Everything through an SDLC
- 37. Use the VSMto design Kanban Board. Use Kanban to track/manage daily work.
- 38. Devops Retrospective Flow 1.KeyOutcomes 2.Countermeasures 3.Storyboard 4.Kanban Board 5.Post Retrospective 1 2 3 4 5
- 39.
- 40. Devops Automated DeploymentPipeline 40 Source: Wikipedia - Continuous Delivery
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44. The Third Way ▪Toyota Kata ▪ Improvement ▪ Coaching 3 Source: Mike Rother - Toyota Kata
- 45. The Third Way ▪Toyota Kata ▪ Improvement ▪ Coaching 3 Source: Mike Rother - Toyota Kata
- 46.
- 47. •Experiential learning aboutDevOps tools and techniques. •Team transform their projects to use the recommended DevOps principles and tools. •Adaptive training to empower teams to be DevOps successes. •It is also a vector by which best practices are communicated and new behaviors are role- modeled and practiced. •The training evolves over time as the organization’s needs and maturity changes. Transformation Immersion Center
- 48. •Share: I provideopportunities to share knowledge and make success visible. •Communicate: I create common communication channels. •Standardize: I increase standardization and consistency of processes and tools. •Empower: I develop leadership capacity Dojo Strategies and Tactics
- 49. •One Day Workshops •MultipleDay Bootcamps •Five Day Flashbuilds •30 Day Challenges Dojo
- 50. •Colocated Teams • VersusCubes or Offices •Understand Flow • Backlog,WIP, Blockers and Bottlenecks •Hyper Sprints • BML, MVP, Vanity Metrics •Embedded Coaching • Technical,Agile and Devops Coaches Dojo