4 ms·

Can you articulate why this is "completely disingenuous", why it is "link-bait" and why it is a "bit of shallow drivel" in addition to describing it as such? T

by 10ren 18y ago

Can you articulate why this is "completely disingenuous", why it is "link-bait" and why it is a "bit of shallow drivel" in addition to describing it as such? The title is absolute, but the text qualifies it: "1) conventional approaches and planning don’t work when you’re trying to get into new spaces" They also say Stop presuming you can be right in a world of massive uncertainty. I doubt you disagree with that. I can see how you could interpret the title as implying that "planning is a waste of time"; but that's not what the text says. 37Signals have said they deliberately choose provocative positions for their titles. I can understand you not liking it, but why judge the whole by the title? Personally, I automatically qualify it with "plans are useless but planning is indispensable" (because it makes you look at the issues.) Incidentally, the link is to a book by MacMillan and McGrath that's being launched this year (not an article): Discovery-Driven Growth: A Breakthrough Process to Reduce Risk and Seize Opportunity. Maybe you're thinking of their 1995 paper of similar name "discovery driven planning". When I read that paper a few years ago (via "The Innovator's Dilemma") I found the details in the paper not very helpful; but the basic idea of an experimental approach was brilliant: (1) work out what you don't know, and (2) make a plan for finding out (instead of a plan for achieving something, that presumes you already know.) Such a plan is "a plan to improve". And this gives a different interpretation to the title (quoted from Macmillan and McGrath BTW): "the only plan is to learn as you go." Anyway, your flag has succeeded, so someone agrees with you. I'm disappointed, as it's throwing the text out with the title.

ryanwaggoner 18y ago
37Signals have said they deliberately choose provocative positions for their titles. That's why it's link-bait. It's disingenuous because it distorts the point of the article they link to. It's shallow drivel because it adds no value to the conversation it links to. And 37signals definitely did distort the message of the interview to push the idea that planning isn't useful at all. Here's the final sentence: "The only plan you should make is to plan on improvising." That's not a plan, that's just a vapid statement. Oh, and it does link to an article, in the form of an interview with Knowledge@Wharton, not to a book.
- 10ren 18y ago
  By this definition of "shallow drivel", any summary is useless. They are providing an introduction - which is easier to read than the article. I think that's valuable. (BTW: I didn't realize you meant the online article - I thought you meant the actual research paper - my mistake). The title is potentially misleading when taken out of context - but the text of the article doesn't distort the original article. It fact, it quotes heavily from it. So, possibly the title is disingenuous - but to say the entire article that 37Signals wrote is completely disingenuous is not accurate. At any rate, their title is substring of the linked article's title. Judging an article by its headline and final line is similar to judging a book by its cover. It's possible to interpret the last line as you have - but only by ignoring the rest of the text. The line is a play on words "plan on improving" as an expression usually means just to decide to improve; but in the context of the article, it also means to have some strategy for improving. It's true that 37Signals advocates just moving in a direction; whereas the linked to article talks about written plans for gathering information. So I can sympathize with your point of view. There is still a lot of common ground between them, and both parties acknowledge the same reality, and the same kind of approach to a solution - but the details of the solutions differ. For reference, here's the 37Signal article: http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1707-the-only-plan-is-to-learn-as-you-go http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1707-the-only-plan-is-to-... EDIT reading the linked to article (I was relying on their academic paper before), I see what you mean in that they gloss over the details, which I'd summarise with this quote: I document all the assumptions that I'm making. And then I test these assumptions. I plan to test these assumptions at checkpoints. 37Signals is ignoring the details, but keeping the philosophy, which is If I'm likely to be wrong, then how do I plan in such a way that the cost of being wrong is as low as possible? Being extremely agile is a way to do that. 37Signals is not so much distorting the article, as summarizing its basic idea. The full article is linked to for further reading (as you have done). BTW: I actually disagree with MacMillan's reverse income statement, for startups. Although it's sensible, it would have prevented Xerox from starting (IBM's consultants measured the price and potential market share, and concluded - accurately - that it wasn't worth pursuing given reality as it existed at that time). Of course, IBM was huge corporation even then, and had a different attitude to risk than startups do - and should have. Anyway, thanks for explaining your point of view, it makes it possible to have an interesting discussion, especially with someone who disagrees with you - often the most fruitful kind.

by 10ren 18y ago

ryanwaggoner 18y ago

37Signals have said they deliberately choose provocative positions for their titles. That's why it's link-bait. It's disingenuous because it distorts the point of the article they link to. It's shallow drivel because it adds no value to the conversation it links to. And 37signals definitely did distort the message of the interview to push the idea that planning isn't useful at all. Here's the final sentence: "The only plan you should make is to plan on improvising." That's not a plan, that's just a vapid statement. Oh, and it does link to an article, in the form of an interview with Knowledge@Wharton, not to a book.

10ren 18y ago
By this definition of "shallow drivel", any summary is useless. They are providing an introduction - which is easier to read than the article. I think that's valuable. (BTW: I didn't realize you meant the online article - I thought you meant the actual research paper - my mistake). The title is potentially misleading when taken out of context - but the text of the article doesn't distort the original article. It fact, it quotes heavily from it. So, possibly the title is disingenuous - but to say the entire article that 37Signals wrote is completely disingenuous is not accurate. At any rate, their title is substring of the linked article's title. Judging an article by its headline and final line is similar to judging a book by its cover. It's possible to interpret the last line as you have - but only by ignoring the rest of the text. The line is a play on words "plan on improving" as an expression usually means just to decide to improve; but in the context of the article, it also means to have some strategy for improving. It's true that 37Signals advocates just moving in a direction; whereas the linked to article talks about written plans for gathering information. So I can sympathize with your point of view. There is still a lot of common ground between them, and both parties acknowledge the same reality, and the same kind of approach to a solution - but the details of the solutions differ. For reference, here's the 37Signal article: http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1707-the-only-plan-is-to-learn-as-you-go http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1707-the-only-plan-is-to-... EDIT reading the linked to article (I was relying on their academic paper before), I see what you mean in that they gloss over the details, which I'd summarise with this quote: I document all the assumptions that I'm making. And then I test these assumptions. I plan to test these assumptions at checkpoints. 37Signals is ignoring the details, but keeping the philosophy, which is If I'm likely to be wrong, then how do I plan in such a way that the cost of being wrong is as low as possible? Being extremely agile is a way to do that. 37Signals is not so much distorting the article, as summarizing its basic idea. The full article is linked to for further reading (as you have done). BTW: I actually disagree with MacMillan's reverse income statement, for startups. Although it's sensible, it would have prevented Xerox from starting (IBM's consultants measured the price and potential market share, and concluded - accurately - that it wasn't worth pursuing given reality as it existed at that time). Of course, IBM was huge corporation even then, and had a different attitude to risk than startups do - and should have. Anyway, thanks for explaining your point of view, it makes it possible to have an interesting discussion, especially with someone who disagrees with you - often the most fruitful kind.