dajinism

애자일 컨설팅을 하시는 김창준님께서 개인이 조직을 바꾸는 방법에 대해 Agile Korean 2012(애자일 코리아 2012)에서 강연하는 동영상입니다. 이 동영상을 보면서 필기한 내용과 이를 바탕으로 검색하면서 찾은 내용들을 정리해보았습니다. 개인이 조직을 바꾸기 위해서는 성공한 창업자들로부터 배울 필요가 있다. 성공한 창업자들은 MBA를 갓 졸업한 사람들, 대기업의 매니저들과는 다른 방식으로 행동했다. 그것들을 아래와 같이 5가지로 정리할 수 있었다. 1. Bird in Hand Principle - Start with what you have and know and whom you know - 손 안의 새가 손 밖의 새보다 더 낫다 - 방법 중심인가, 목표 중심인가를 말하는데(Means based strategy냐? Goal based strategy냐) - MBA 출신은 Goal을 먼저정하고, 방법들이 있으면 그 방법들 중에서 어떤게 좋은지 선택한다. - 창업가들은 Goal을 생각하지 않고, 자신이 알고 있는 방법들을 먼저 생각하고 그것들로 무엇을 이룰지 생각한다. - 조직의 변화를 도입하는걸 예로 들면, TDD 도입을 생각하면 실패할 확률이 높다. Goal 중심이기 때문에. - 방법 중심이면 What I know, Whom I know, Who I am 요거 3가지를 가지고 출발을 한다. - 내가 가지고 있는 걸로 뭘할 수 있는지를 생각하는게 좋은 방법 - create something with existing means rather than discovering new ways to achieve goals (“What do I have?” vs “What do I need?”) 2. Crazy-Quilt Principle - Devise strategic partnerships - 조각들을 붙여서 stake holder를 늘여가는게 유리 - 반대는 경쟁사를 분석하는 것 - 상황이 불리할 수록 사람들을 내편으로 끌어들이는 것이 필요. - TDD 도입에 성공하는 사람들은 스터디를 같이 시작한다. 만약에 혼자서 먼저 스터디를 한 두달하고 시작하겠다고 하면, 나혼자만 더 알기 때문에 도입이 불리해진다. 내가 적극적이게 되고 다른 사람들은 수동적이게 될 수 있다. - 내가 충분히 뭘알고 확신이 들고난 후 뭘 하겠다는 건 실패하게 된다. - Negotiate with all stakeholders willing to commit to a project without worrying about the opportunity costs. The venture (or “quilt”) evolves over time based on interactions of all stakeholders (investors, customers, employees, suppliers…). 3. Affordable Loss Principle - Decide on what you are willing to lose - MBA를 졸업한 사람들은 ROI를 먼저 생각한다. - 실제 성공하는 창업가들은 맨처음에 자기가 잃어도 되는 돈의 양을 정하고, 그 다음에 일에 착수하고 뭔가 만드는 방법을 찾는다. - 랜덤하게 일이 벌어지는 상황에서는 오래 살아남아야 기회가 오는 법이다. - 감당할 수 있을만큼의 로스로 진행할 때 다른 Stake holder들을 끌어들이기 좋다. - 불확실성이 높을수록 더 다양한 것들을 탐색할 수 있기 때문에 좋은 전략. - Committing what you’re willing to lose rather than investing based on expected returns 4. Pilot in the Plane Principle - Focus on what you yourself can control - not predictable control - 예상 안하지만 조정할 수 있는 거. - 콘트롤 할 수 있는 범위안에서는 예상을 안해도 된다. - 예상이 필요없는 범위안에서만 하는 거. - Rely on human agency as prime driver of opportunity rather than technical/economic trends. (Comes from SpaceShipOne putting a pilot in charge of the spaceship instead of a computer. The pilot can think on his feet, while a computer would need every possible contingency pre-programmed.) 5. Lemonade Principle - Leverage challenges into opportunities - 삶이 너에게 레몬을 주면은 레모네이드를 만들어라. - 생각못할 상황이 펼쳐질 때 그것을 이용할 것인가? 그것을 피할 것인가? 그것을 이용해야 한다. - Leverage surprises rather than avoiding them 이 5가지를 잘 활용한 사람들이 성공한 창업가들이더라. (from http://www.billerickson.net/review-of-effectuation/)

I just finished reading Effectuation by Saras Sarasvathy. It’s a great look at the non-causal (therefore “effectual”) logic used by entrepreneurs (and everyone else) in the face of an unpredictable future.

• Causal logic is based on the premise: “To the extent we can predict the future, we can control it.”
• Effectual logic is based on the premise: “To the extent we can control the future, we do not need to predict it.”
• Causal problems are problems of decision; effectual problems are problems of design. Causal logic helps us choose; effectual logic helps us construct. Causal strategies are useful when the future is predictable, goals are clear, and the environment is independent of our actions; effectual strategies are useful when the future is unpredictable, goals are unclear, and the environment is driven by human action.
• Causal question: What should I do to achieve this effect?
• Effectual question: What can I do with these means?
• Surprises are usually relegated to error terms in formal models. Effectual logic sees them as source of opportunities for value creation.
• Contractual claims are causal claims on the predictable future; equity provides effectual claims on the unpredictable future.
• The paths to entrepreneurial success expand in the future rather than converge (one-to-many, in contrast to causation’s many-to-one approach towards ‘the goal’)

• Expert entrepreneurs distrust market research; distrust attempt at predicting the future
• “In commercializing new technologies, entrepreneurs often find that formal market research and expert forecasts, however sophisticated in methods and impeccable in their analyses, fail to predict where the markets will turn out to be or what new markets will come into existence.” Christensen (1997) and Mintzberg (1994)
• Expert entrepreneurs start with three categories of means: their identity, their knowledge base, and their social network.
• Theme of converting initial customers to partners
• Entrepreneurs perceive the world around them as human-made
• “Serial entrepreneurship is a temporal portfolio” – diversified over time rather than concurrently like a traditional investment portfolio

• Pragmatism does not assert a singular truth and declare all else false; rather, it compares truths and tests for differences. If no difference in the consequences of the two truths, they are the same pragmatically.
• What does this truth tell us that we don’t already know?
• Risk involves known distribution of options (1 in 5 chance of winning). Uncertainty involves unknown distribution of options
• “Rational choice involves two guesses, a guess about uncertain future consequences, and a guess about uncertain future preferences.” March (1978) in RAND Journal of Economics
• Human rationality is bounded by cognitive limitations such as physiological constraints on computational capacity, and psychological limitations like biases & fallacies

• Bird-in-hand principle: create something with existing means rather than discovering new ways to achieve goals (“What do I have?” vs “What do I need?”)
• Affordable loss principle: Committing what you’re willing to lose rather than investing based on expected returns
• Crazy quilt principle: Negotiate with all stakeholders willing to commit to a project without worrying about the opportunity costs. The venture (or “quilt”) evolves over time based on interactions of all stakeholders (investors, customers, employees, suppliers…).
• Lemonade principle: Leverage surprises rather than avoiding them
• Pilot in the plane principle: Rely on human agency as prime driver of opportunity rather than technical/economic trends. (Comes from SpaceShipOne putting a pilot in charge of the spaceship instead of a computer. The pilot can think on his feet, while a computer would need every possible contingency pre-programmed.)