Collaboration and Change · Action & Getting Things Done
Action & Getting Things Done · Collaboration and Change
3 reflections
《Rework Begins Before Development》 Why are repeated revision costs often assigned to the last person doing the work?
When results miss expectations, we readily ask why the implementer failed. Looking earlier, expectations may never have been jointly confirmed. One person means this version, another still works on the previous one; previously required content is removed after completion. Rework often begins before hands-on work.
Reducing rework requires retaining key decisions. What is being done, deferred, unsettled, and who can confirm should be visible to those involved. When discussion changes, specify where and how completed work will be handled. A verbal “change it” hardly reveals downstream effects.
Design and execution should listen to each other. A complete-seeming plan may still face difficulty in actual tools and processes. Letting implementers identify likely duplicated labor early helps adjust order. Preparation’s value is reducing roads that must be traveled again, not adding a stack of documents beforehand.
Projects naturally change; everything cannot be anticipated initially. Leave room for adjustable parts and stable grounds for confirmed ones. Update decisions with new facts while acknowledging adjustment needs time and cooperation. This clarifies rework’s origins and helps jointly reduce its recurrence.
《Identify Responsibility Before Discussing Coordination》 Why does adding people to one chat group not automatically connect the work?
Adding relevant people to a group merely lets them see messages. Who understands which part, who confirms decisions, and who implements still need clarification. Without knowing these roles, questions circulate around the group, receiving many answers without resolution.
When collaboration begins, I prefer first knowing the people and tasks: each person’s area, information, and handovers. Connect current tasks to actual owners and mark links between teams. Coordination depends on those links working; lively chat cannot do it for them.
When two parties work on a project, first identify unresolved issues and mark each party’s share. Confirm overlaps jointly and assign gaps explicitly. Reporting progress against the same basis reduces conflicting accounts and reveals unattended areas earlier.
Owners need not personally do everything. They need to know how their part advances and when others’ support is required. Update roles and handovers promptly when tasks change. Clear roles ease cooperation; problems still require actual causal examination, not replacing the entire investigation with a name.
《If Work Cannot Continue, Report and Confirm the Next Step》 When obstacles arise during execution, when should I judge independently and when seek confirmation?
After receiving a task, insufficient time or an impossible step can occur. What is easily overlooked is that I have stopped while others still think work follows the original plan. At the end, the omitted part becomes a surprise result others must face.
When obstacles arise, I think we should return the situation and required decisions. Clarify current progress, the blockage, what continuation needs, and visible effects. If canceling requirements, changing order, or skipping agreed review is proposed, the authorized confirmer must know, rather than discover it afterward.
Matters within explicit authority can be decided promptly within scope. For matters beyond it, offer suggestions and ask relevant people to choose. This preserves implementers’ initiative while letting those bearing consequences join judgment, rather than being summoned only after results go wrong.
Explain difficulties early and clearly. Whoever receives the report should respond and say what happens next, rather than leave the issue unresolved. Tell those involved when circumstances change so they can adjust the plan and continue.