Skip to main content

Red pill vs Blue pill -Outcome not output

After more than 15 years in the IT industry, working on both small and large projects in multiple industries and companies, I  have to make the following (unfortunate) observation:

Although the raise of Agile and Product thinking, most organisations still operate in a project mindset not product mindset.

To explain the difference between the two, I have to talk about outputs vs outcomes.

What are outputs?

Outputs can be seen as deliverables, something like a feature or a new product release. The succes of a project oriented team  is measured in output(e.g. Velocity; how much story points did we deliver in this sprint?).

Did the team succeed in delivering features according specification and on time?

A consequence of this mindset is that the team is not focussed on whether a delivered features got used or if the feature really solved the business problem. We may assume that the delivered features will lead to specific outcomes. We may even share those assumptions with our teams. But, ultimately, when we ask our teams to deliver specific outputs, we are managing by outputs.

The clearest indicators that you are managing (or being managed) by outputs are roadmaps that list a fixed set of features or functionalities such as ‘new benefit type’, ‘SEPA payment’ with release dates.

What are outcomes?

Outcomes describes the expected change resulting from an output, such as an improvement of a process, increased productivity or revenue. The success of a product oriented team is measured in outcomes.

Did the team succeed in solving the users problem?

Another way to phrase it, is a product oriented team will measure success by the extent to which a feature solved users problems.

An indicator that you are managing (or being managed) by outcomes are roadmaps that list business objectives or customer pain-points such as, ‘Improve member onboarding’,  ‘Enhance user experience’ or ‘Decrease number of manual corrections’.

Why we still manage so much by outputs?

If you read my explanation above it would feel logical that we all should switch to a product mindset and manage by outcomes not outputs. So why are still so many organisations operating in a project mindset?

The answer is ‘Trust’, or better ‘The lack of Trust’.

Organisations don’t trust their IT teams and operate them in a contractor-control model. They don’t trust that those teams can reach outcomes on their own. Therefore, organisations focus on what they can control and  micromanage their teams’ outputs. As a result, teams put their main focus on the outputs and don’t communicate their progress toward their outcomes. Which leads to the organisation continuing to mistrust their teams’ ability to reach those outcomes. And we end up in a vicious circle.

The question is how do we get out of this endless loop? That is something I’ll try to answer in another blog post…

Outcomes vs outputs, which pill would you prefer to take?

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...