Sign up for the #CX Briefing with no more than 2019 characters, zero images, and all in plain-text.
As a small courtesy the 2019 #DesignInTech Report PDF link and the 2018 #DesignInTech Report PDF link will be sent to you soon after you sign up! —@johnmaeda
I’ve had this baggage tag on my backpack for a year now — which I used as an impromptu surface for an important “not to self” that I haven’t had an opportunity to transcribe. But now I must do it because I’m certain to lose my paper tag!
What does it say? Well, there’s two sides being defined here. Let’s see what they are by first using a little digital enhancement:
|Until it’s ready||It’s never fully ready|
|Infinite time||Finite time|
|Infinite money||Finite money|
|Productivity low and slow||Productivity high and fast|
|Master continuously learning through failure and applying it to perfecting their work.||New Master knows to learn through from how folks respond to their unfinished work.|
I think my key takeaway is that both kinds of masters iterate — except one iterates privately versus publicly. There’s upsides and downsides to the difference with this approach.
|Classical Perfection||Agile Imperfection|
|Highest fidelity and deepest approach can at times completely alter and refigure reality.||Lowest fidelity and iterative approach can at times pander to an “average” set of POVs.|
|This approach is expensive and high risk.||This approach is inexpensive and low risk.|
So what this says to me is that you think of your portfolio of activities as needing to include a percentage of “classical perfection” versus “agile imperfection” — and you wouldn’t want to go all-in with just one direction. —JM