TesterHQ - The Evil Tester Blog Aggregator

Jul 13, 2017 - 4 minute read - Instagram

Strategy Requires Execution - Instagram Post

Original Instagram Post

Strategy is nothing without execution.

As you develop your strategy you will identify obvious tactics and changes.

In parallel to strategy development you can start execution.

Some people will not execute without a fully formed strategy.

This could be viewed a an overly risk averse approach.

Implementing ‘obvious’ tactics and changes can be treated as conducting an experiment to learn from.

With larger strategy development and changes more risk aversion might be viewed as the ‘safe’ option : team, programme, department and company.

But developing a strategy without execution and without having experimented with identified tactics and changes prior to strategy roll out might:

  • delay experimentation and learning
  • fail anyway because of a top down imposition
  • create a lot of ‘options’ all without any basis for evaluation
  • misidentify or ignore dependencies between the tactics and changes

Experimentation during strategy development can:

  • quickly inform
  • create groundswell enthusiasm for practices that work and start a natural adoption
  • unexpected information
  • provide information on other dependencies required for implementation: e.g training, regulation changes, reporting changes, etc.

We might see a danger of:

  • early disillusionment due to experimental failure
  • organic tactic adoption incompatible with a finished strategy

View failure as a means of identifying what was missing for success, assuming the tactic has been demonstrated successful in other environments. This then feeds in to new tactics for adoption in parallel with strategy development or added into the strategy.

Incompatibility might mean that the strategy is flawed, or that evolutionary steps are necessary for gradual adoption of the strategy. This might be a ‘good’ thing as it stops big bang top down strategy implementation.

I’ve seen most big bang strategy implementations that required a lot of changes proceed with difficulty, stall, fail, ‘succeed’ because of creative evaluation of ‘success’.

  • execute and learn as you build a strategy
  • develop the experiments and strategy in parallel so they feed and support each other

Strategy is nothing without execution.⠀ ⠀ As you develop your strategy you will identify obvious tactics and changes.⠀ ⠀ In parallel to strategy development you can start execution.⠀ ⠀ Some people will not execute without a fully formed strategy.⠀ ⠀ This could be viewed a an overly risk averse approach.⠀ ⠀ Implementing 'obvious' tactics and changes can be treated as conducting an experiment to learn from.⠀ ⠀ With larger strategy development and changes more risk aversion might be viewed as the 'safe' option : team, programme, department and company.⠀ ⠀ But developing a strategy without execution and without having experimented with identified tactics and changes prior to strategy roll out might:⠀ ⠀ - delay experimentation and learning⠀ - fail anyway because of a top down imposition⠀ - create a lot of 'options' all without any basis for evaluation⠀ - misidentify or ignore dependencies between the tactics and changes⠀ ⠀ Experimentation during strategy development can:⠀ ⠀ - quickly inform⠀ - create groundswell enthusiasm for practices that work and start a natural adoption⠀ - unexpected information⠀ - provide information on other dependencies required for implementation: e.g training, regulation changes, reporting changes, etc.⠀ ⠀ We might see a danger of:⠀ ⠀ - early disillusionment due to experimental failure⠀ - organic tactic adoption incompatible with a finished strategy⠀ ⠀ View failure as a means of identifying what was missing for success, assuming the tactic has been demonstrated successful in other environments. This then feeds in to new tactics for adoption in parallel with strategy development or added into the strategy.⠀ ⠀ Incompatibility might mean that the strategy is flawed, or that evolutionary steps are necessary for gradual adoption of the strategy. This might be a 'good' thing as it stops big bang top down strategy implementation.⠀ ⠀ I've seen most big bang strategy implementations that required a lot of changes proceed with difficulty, stall, fail, 'succeed' because of creative evaluation of 'success'.⠀ ⠀ - execute and learn as you build a strategy⠀ - develop the experiments and strategy in parallel so they feed and support each other⠀

A post shared by Software Testing Tips & Videos (@eviltester) on