Which methodology wins in the new work paradigm?
Commitment versus flexibility. Structure versus fluid. Quality versus quantity.
Take (historic) Apple. Meticulous planning, clear objectives, focus on the design. Don’t release until it’s perfect. Refine before anyone sees it.
Each new iPod, iPhone, or Mac fully developed before release. No ambiguity. No uncertainty. Just precision. The result? Device experiences that echo the Apple ethos – sleek, intuitive, impeccable.
Take Microsoft. More experiments, more releases with the bare minimum, focus on the functionality and the roadmap. Release it quicker. Cover up the chinks in the armor with the next release.
Each new version of Word or Windows more capable than the previous, and also full of little gotchas around the corners. No worries, release the fix next week. The teams quickly adapt, evolve, iterate. No long, drawn-out development stages. Just quick responses to ever-changing software needs. The result? A software suite that is constantly evolving, always at the cusp of innovation.
Apple and Microsoft, different approaches. Both successful.
So which methodology wins in the new paradigm?
It doesn’t matter. Both can win, and both can lose. Religion around it is futile. Because methodology is just an agreement among the team — this is how we agree to work.
And agreement is about leadership and followership. Can you enroll the team?
The new work paradigm requires new leadership.
