Experience becomes real when consolidated. I think this mainly stems from knowing how to ask the right questions that are expressly intended to cause a perception shift and require the consolidation of experience. Things such as: “What’s the most frequent anti-pattern that you see in our team’s work?” or “What types of work do we do that have the highest outcome leverage, and why, and how can we do it better?”

Of course the past experience of our team members is invaluable. But we need to be actively researching what effective teams are doing nowadays.

This is because feedback loops which are too short for the overall system makes people focus on inappropriate intermediate goals. It’s the main cause of catastrophic long term strategic mistakes. This is also why people tend to flit around from field to field. As soon as they exhaust the easy gains, they look for a learner’s high elsewhere. This feeds their addiction, but doesn’t lead to learning any useful skills. The more accurate and more rapid the loop, the more quickly you’ll arrive at the top of the hill — and the less chance you have of leaving it to climb the mountains of mastery. Process improvement happens by creating many parallel processes and discarding the ones that are unfit, not by iteratively improving a single process.

Hallo, this is Lucas. Because I love to tinker with projects of any kind in my spare time, lucas.love is a place for projects that I work on besides my working hours. I would also like to use this page to thank all the people who help me with the projects and spread some love.

Our daily work might be filled with tasks but we should understand and remind our teams of the purpose and long term goals of our work. You don't need to save every feature request or piece of feedback. Important ones will resurface and low priority ones will never get fixed. get to know your users and ask them to explain why they want a specific feature so you find out their needs. Solve the problem – don’t just build the feature.

Fear of deploys is the ultimate technical debt. ​ Deploys are the heartbeat of your company. ​ as pedestrian as the day of the week. ​ Deploy on every commit. Smaller, coherent changesets transform into debuggable, understandable deploys. ​ If you do not block merges on Fridays, and only block deploys, you are queueing up a bunch of changes to all get shipped days later, long after the engineers wrote the code and have forgotten half of the context. Any problems you encounter will be MUCH harder to debug on Monday in a muddled blob of changes than they would have been just shipping crisply, one at a time on Friday. Is it worth sacrificing your entire Monday? Monday-Tuesday? Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday? ​ have all happened after holiday code freezes. Every. Single. One. ​ The “safety” of nodeploy Friday is realized immediately, while the costs are felt later later. ​ Finally, I heard from a alarming number of people who admitted that Friday deploy bans were useless or counterproductive, but they supported them anyway as a purely symbolic gesture to show that they supported work/life balance. This makes me really sad. I’m … glad they want to support work/life balance, but surely we can come up with some other gestures that don’t work directly counter to their goals of life/work balance. That's it. Because if you make it a virtue signal, it will NEVER GET FIXED. Blocking Friday deploy is not a mark of moral virtue; it is a physical bash script patching over technical rot. And technical rot is bad because it HURTS PEOPLE. It is in your interest to fix it.

This normalization of deviance means that people within an organization stop seeing problems as problems, making it impossible to learn from them. Stagnation kills resilience. ​ A change-resistant culture, however, risks burning out those new people, as they find that they are unable to make any meaningful changes. ​ Knowing what decisions were made and why can help prevent “we’ve always done it this way” as a fall-back reason for doing something. If you understand the constraints and trade-offs around why a past decision was made, you’ll be better equipped to understand if they are still relevant in your current context. ​ push authority for decision-making down closest to where the work gets done ​ If different members of an interview panel have very different views of how the organization works, that can be a sign of deeper issues. This often indicates implicit power structures or lack of clarity around process that can be frustrating to deal with and difficult to change.

The core observations from Fred Brook’s The Mythical Man Month is that assigning more folks to work on a project often slows down delivery. Part of that is the predictability tax.

“The problem with teeth is that the larger they are, the more likely they are to break the skin.”