𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞?

⚙️ Re-engineering static-dynamic design practices to 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 your organization.

Every large-scale strategy, plan, framework, and architecture experiences unforeseen changes.

This is clearly observable in leadership development, program planning, and widespread AI adoption.

Like it or not, designing for structure often fails when it meets operational reality. Design only has a fighting chance when it accounts for both behavioral and structural changes.

Easier said than done.

Two camps need to work in tandem to make this happen. One focuses on developing something static, while the other focuses on making it actually work within operational reality.

These camps don’t always play nice.

And for good reason.

Static is easy to train for, easy to comply with, and easy to hire for. They develop strategies, training, and plans. They believe they’re providing the right answers.

Dynamic is lived, not standardized, and very difficult to assess. They are the driving force that results in overhauling strategies, training, and plans. They focus on finding the right answer for the operational reality.

And that answer is often different from the static camp’s answer.

It becomes even more complicated when each camp believes the other isn’t needed.

The reality is that every design, whether a strategy, plan, or framework, needs both a static and dynamic perspective. The challenge is that people naturally gravitate toward one camp instead of learning to straddle both.

Don’t let one camp dominate.

💡 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 in a form that can be easily automated.

⚠️ 𝐃𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩 over the other through job titles, perks, and bonuses. Incentivize people to straddle both camps.

❗ 𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐬. Use them to establish shared mental models and explore what needs to be designed for operational reality.