Day 701 - Ready shoot aim - https://golifelog.com/posts/ready-shoot-aim-1669946800465
Ready, shoot, aim.
That's how I'm going to do it from now on for my portfolio of small bets approach. Credits go to [@jasenf](https://twitter.com/jasenf/status/1598143751066914816) for the phrase!
In case you missed it:
Not "ready, aim, shoot", but "ready, shoot, aim."
Why shoot first, aim later?
This reminded me of the [Cynefin framework](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework):
Because for most new products, we're operating in the **chaotic** zone. Cause and effect are unclear and confusing. Responding based on prior knowledge has no guarantees. There's no way to truly validate a business or product idea until you actually launch it. [Validation is a mirage](https://world.hey.com/jason/validation-is-a-mirage-273c0969), as Jason Fried nicely put it:
> If you want to see if something works, make it. The whole thing. The simplest version of the whole thing – that’s what version 1.0 is supposed to be. But make that, put it out there, and learn. If you want answers, you have to ask the question, and the question is: Market, what do you think of this completed version 1.0 of our product?
>
> Don’t mistake an impression of a piece of your product as a proxy for the whole truth. When you give someone a slice of something that isn’t homogenous, you’re asking them to guess. You can’t base certainty on that.
That's why we use small bets in such chaotic situations. Because we want to act-sense-respond. Act first and fast by scoping something small, and make little steps to get to small wins. And from acting, we get data where we can make sense of the situation, and then respond to try to put more order in place and transform the situation from chaos to complex.
The problem is most people try to sense-categorize/analyze-respond. They assume launching a new business to be "known knowns" and "knowns unknowns", in the simple or complicated zone, where best practices are known to work, and cause and effect are straightforward. And when things go awry, they externalise and blame luck, the market, or their competitors. Most failures come from oversimplifying the problem into a domain that it is not.
So don't do ready, aim, shoot; sense, analyze, respond.
Ready, shoot, aim. Act, sense, respond.
That's how I'm going to do it from now on for my portfolio of small bets approach. Credits go to [@jasenf](https://twitter.com/jasenf/status/1598143751066914816) for the phrase!
In case you missed it:
Not "ready, aim, shoot", but "ready, shoot, aim."
Why shoot first, aim later?
This reminded me of the [Cynefin framework](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework):
Because for most new products, we're operating in the **chaotic** zone. Cause and effect are unclear and confusing. Responding based on prior knowledge has no guarantees. There's no way to truly validate a business or product idea until you actually launch it. [Validation is a mirage](https://world.hey.com/jason/validation-is-a-mirage-273c0969), as Jason Fried nicely put it:
> If you want to see if something works, make it. The whole thing. The simplest version of the whole thing – that’s what version 1.0 is supposed to be. But make that, put it out there, and learn. If you want answers, you have to ask the question, and the question is: Market, what do you think of this completed version 1.0 of our product?
>
> Don’t mistake an impression of a piece of your product as a proxy for the whole truth. When you give someone a slice of something that isn’t homogenous, you’re asking them to guess. You can’t base certainty on that.
That's why we use small bets in such chaotic situations. Because we want to act-sense-respond. Act first and fast by scoping something small, and make little steps to get to small wins. And from acting, we get data where we can make sense of the situation, and then respond to try to put more order in place and transform the situation from chaos to complex.
The problem is most people try to sense-categorize/analyze-respond. They assume launching a new business to be "known knowns" and "knowns unknowns", in the simple or complicated zone, where best practices are known to work, and cause and effect are straightforward. And when things go awry, they externalise and blame luck, the market, or their competitors. Most failures come from oversimplifying the problem into a domain that it is not.
So don't do ready, aim, shoot; sense, analyze, respond.
Ready, shoot, aim. Act, sense, respond.