Values intent and outcome over method and precedent.
The original was a two-minute video filmed against a whiteboard in a borrowed meeting room. The substance is short enough to write down.
Every team inherits a set of processes from a previous version of itself. Some were carefully designed; some accumulated; some were imposed by an external constraint that has long since gone away. The most expensive thing about an inherited process is that nobody on the current team can quite remember why it exists, which makes it hard to argue for changing.
One question.
Does this process still produce what it was designed to produce? If yes, keep it. If no, change it.
That's the entire question. The answer requires you to know what the process was designed to produce, which the team often doesn't. Finding out is part of the work.
A small practice.
Once a quarter, pick one process and ask:
- What is this process designed to produce? (Not what it does — what it's for.)
- Is the situation today close enough to the situation it was designed for?
- Is the output of the process still being used by someone who needs it?
If all three answers are clear and yes, the process is fine. If any answer is uncertain, the process needs a conversation. If all three are no, the process is theatre, and theatre costs more than people realise.
For the longer position behind this small practice, see Introducing the Process Pragmatist.