It also assumes that “cost of failure” is not something that can be tweaked.
-
-
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I always find that a little odd. I can’t act without sensing and I can’t plan without learning.
-
I know the idea is to break it up into more constituent activities which makes sense from an educational perspective. I guess it may just be a philosophical disparity or just because I’ve been acting this way so long and constantly improving that I’ve forgotten where I came from.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
.
@TheTestingMuse came up with PEDDLE: P)lan > (E)stimate > (D)evelop > (D)eploy > (L)earn > (E)volveHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Can you illustrate with a flow chart? Four activities have a lot more possible relationships than two.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
So assume you are thinking : Low cost sequence Sense > Act > Learn High Cost sequence Sense (•) Plan (•) Act > Learn
-
removing "cost of failure" from the equation for a second (this is from Cynefin) ... I think the cost of failure thing is a bit of a red herring. It might just dictate how long/short we go through various loops before being OK with what we've done.pic.twitter.com/EsomyzaDpU
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.