Conversation

Replying to
yeah fair, and i don't doubt you have seen different conceptual entities (and attendant artifacts) called "roadmaps" made by actual c-suiters
1
Replying to
In general, IME good C-suiters have a talent for stripping workflow scaffolding to the barest minimum caveman-level cues you won’t forget even if you’re dead drunk at 3AM in Korea trying to close a deal.
2
1
Replying to and
I was very impressed with Dan Harmon’s reduction of the hero’s journey to 8 words in a circle. It’s simple enough even I wasn’t too lazy to memorize it: You Need Go Search Find Take Return Change No wonder he’s done 2 hit shows. Every other version I’ve seen is too complex.
1
2
Replying to
That graphic you QTed is well-intentioned but kinda silly. Nobody can keep anything more complex than a linear sequence of 4-5 steps in their head under fog-of-war. It’s not misleading, it’s practical. When it gets invalidated you make a new sequence. It’s strategy zoomed in.
1
Replying to and
The fanning out of contingencies is sort of an academic point everybody appreciates but is hard to operationalize unless you’re working a closed and bounded domain like a fault-tree to be programmed into a Mars rover. Or a chess program.
1
Replying to
Exactly, and you can’t actually draw more than a very cartoon version capturing the few branch points between fog clouds. That would actually be a better artifact — draw it like a literal tree, with green clumps where you can’t see branching structure, and brown bits in gaps.
1
1
Replying to
i think it's totally okay to map out known-adjacent-possibles even if they aren't anything close to exhaustive, as long as it's super cheap to do
1
1
Replying to and
That was 1998, damn... 23 years ago. Their newer one from 2014 is funny, but more satire of bad roadmaps than the essence of good ones Start up Sell out cash out Bro down
1