JetThoughts

Been noodling on this: What if we treated technical debt like a subscription service instead of a mortgage? Most teams think they're paying down debt, but really they're just refinancing it. Moving it around. Pushing it into different corners of the system. Maybe instead of grand refactoring projects, we need micro-cancelations. Small, constant decisions to stop paying the subscription on certain technical compromises. Just a thought experiment, but it's making me look at our backlog differently...

Most of our 'best practices' are really just organizational scar tissue. Every time something goes wrong, we add another process, another checkpoint, another required field in Jira. What if instead of accumulating these layers of protection, we treated them like scaffolding? Put them up when needed, tear them down when the learning is done. Just thinking out loud here...

The way we obsess over inbox zero but never talk about achieving "anxiety zero" — funny how we've optimized for digital cleanliness while our mental clutter keeps expanding.

Hot take: If you're proud of how much time your automation saves customers, you're probably thinking too small. The goal isn't to save them 30 seconds here or 2 minutes there—it's to eliminate entire chunks of cognitive load from their day. I suspect most product teams are optimizing for local maxima ("how do we make this process faster?") instead of global maxima ("why does this process need to exist?"). The real breakthroughs happen when you realize the best interface is no interface at all. But that requires being willing to kill your darlings—all those clever features you built that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Why do 68% of async implementations fail while others save $3.2M annually? What can you do to onboard successfully? Our guide reveals the exact playbook from GitLab, Doist & Shopify. https://lnkd.in/dnTr3SKq #AsyncWork #RemoteLeadership

Here's something wild I've been thinking about: Most companies are automating the wrong parts of customer journeys. They're obsessed with chatbots and IVRs that make customers jump through hoops, when the real opportunity is automating away entire sections of the experience that shouldn't exist at all. Example: Instead of building a fancy status-tracking system for support tickets, eliminate the need for status updates by fixing the thing that generates tickets in the first place. Wild idea: what if your product just worked? The best automation isn't the one that helps customers do something faster—it's the one that removes the need to do it at all. But companies get caught up in the theater of efficiency rather than actual efficiency.

📊 ANALYSIS: Research shows async communication saves $3.2M annually per 60 employees. 83% cost reduction + 40% lower turnover based on real company data. See the impact: https://lnkd.in/d7Qd769p #Leadership #DevOps #Communication

Just found a fascinating pattern in procurement automation. Most teams try to automate the whole purchase-to-pay flow, but there's gold in just automating the exceptions. The mundane "approved vendor" stuff works. It's the edge cases eating your team's energy.

Here's a thought that might sting: If you removed 80% of your vendor management processes tomorrow, would anything meaningful actually break? Or would you just lose the comforting illusion of control that comes from weekly status reports and quarterly business reviews that nobody reads? The best vendor relationships I've seen look more like partnerships where both sides are comfortable saying "this isn't working" without hiding behind process. Everything else is just expensive packaging.

We have a theory that 80% of what we call "best practices" are really just shared coping mechanisms that went viral. They're not optimal—they're just the least painful way we've found to deal with systemic problems we haven't solved yet. We mistake pain reduction for progress, and that's a dangerous conflation in system design.