In the 1980s, Ford sent Bob Moesta to Japan with a question: How do they develop products?
At Ford, the process was sacred. This is the way we do things. Linear actions. Known roles and budgets. Products worked first and were optimized later. Theoretical evidence ruled the day. Experiments confirmed knowledge.
In Japan process was a boundary. Do things within this range. Debates ensued. Activity was front-loaded. Limits were pushed. Empirical evidence ruled the day. Experiments are for learning.
Bob and Greg call this red-line and green-line product development.
But wait.
Don’t just run out there to your team. Don’t immediately copy that image and Slack slap everyone.
First, this is a continuum. One is not better. There are only trade-offs. We know what needs done and we’re going to do it is a red-line approach.
That works!
If I had an hour to solve a problem, Einstein supposedly said, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions. That’s green-line, but is that the best tool?
Second, the problem isn’t our problems. It’s us. Green-lining is difficult because it’s ad admission we don’t know. We feel like imposters when we’re the ‘experts’.
“Of course, you know,” our ego urges, “just keep going.”
But sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we have to let the situation tell us what the answer should be.
Homework 1: Think back to a project, should it have been more red or green?
Homework 2: How do you create an environment to ask these questions?1
The short answer is that it comes from the top. Reply if you want a longer answer.