thank you for your well-considered comment.

It is always wise to agree with Donna - she has generally got a very good handle on things
I am a “do the best you can with what you have” kind of a guy - it is hard to imagine leaving anything until conditions are absolutely perfect (and while timing is important, nothing worthwhile was ever achieved by waiting until it was too late to do any good).

I agree - it really does take all types.

Best regards, Andrew

I agree with you that the idea/inspiration/vision needs to come from somewhere, and I think it often takes a certain kind of person to do this. The more risk-averse types are less likely to see potential and want to explore it; and this is where the ‘riskaholics’ come into the picture.

Think of all the inventions and ground-breaking projects that have been realised over the years. I would bet that many of them were conceived as very raw, exciting and wholesome visions which didn’t consider the risks, issues, logistics and processes involved to bring them to fruition. Whether this ignorance towards the bigger picture was deliberate on their part or not, those starters were the seed planters.

Of course, I agree with Donna about the problems this seemingly linear, phased process can bring; for example, it makes perfect sense for starters to work with growers and maintainers to brainstorm the idea and start things on the right footing - but what might the implications be? Would it dampen the starter’s energy and conceptual magic, to be hounded by the more practical and conservative approaches of the growers and maintainers? You’d have to say that the joint collaboration (from the ground up) would result in less mishaps and a smoother project overall…but how much has the fundamental idea suffered as a result (assuming the project/idea even got off the ground)?

As for me, I’d say I’m more of the grower/maintainer mould. While I do like the challenge of conceiving ideas, I also like to have a sense of control, grounding and measure in my work. I also like the metaphor of the ‘well-oiled machine’ which is functional due to a systematic, realistic and well-defined set of parameters. The machine may not be new, or the most ground-breaking piece of technology, but it performs its task very well due to good governance and process, and a low-risk environment.

I’m generalising a little, and of course there’s more to the equation than this; but you get the drift.

“Is it better to have never started something truly worthwhile than start it as best we can with what we have?”

I vote for the latter - let’s start it, albeit with limited concern for the subsequent risks/issues/impacts/processes, but leveraging off the BEST idea, nonetheless.

Then, get the growers and maintainers (let’s call them the G&Ms) into the picture as quickly as possible (once the idea has been supported for further devt), to help with the foresight and preparation. Sure, the sheer magnitude of some ideas may cause inherent heartache no matter when the G&Ms get involved (this is where Donna’s argument gains traction!) but let’s hope that their early intervention can at least limit the pain throughout the various phases of development and maintenance.

I definitely think there’s a place (and a clear need) for all three types of ‘operators’; and in many cases I think the most productive and effective outcome will be achieved when each works together, preferably from the ground up. The only question is whether this collaboration/overlap has a fundamental impact on how effective each operator is at their area of expertise - and whether this may actually be too costly in time and money, having this multi-layered approach rather than the linear notion of letting each “do their thing”?

Cheers,
Rob

thank you for your comment.

I think that the reality is that without Starters, there would be nothing for the Growers to grow and the Maintainers to maintain. It takes all types - and the downside is that Starters make a mess and often leave it for the Growers to clean up - no argument there. I think that there has to be a balance between starting something with all the ducks not quite lined up vs. never starting at all - and we all have the right to walk away from something that should never have been started in the first place.

I think that it all comes down to this - is it better to have never started something truly worthwhile than start it as best we can with what we have?

Yours, Andrew

I start things for myself because I know I can cope with growing them. I have never started something and then left it to others to grow. To me the whole idea of that is wrong, although I do know people are good at different things.

As a realist/grower, I’ve been in loads of situations where I just wish the starters had a bit less enthusiasm and some more foresight and preparation, or actually thought to involve some growers from the start so the ideas were built in a more sustainable way. It would be much nicer than recovering projects gone wrong because the starters lost energy before getting the ducks in a row.

So now I sound like just the person the starters hate - someone who ruins their big ideas with realities. And I don’t really want to be that person either.

David Weinberger wrote about this in a similar way recently: http://www.hyperorg.com/backissues/joho-feb04-08.html#different

thank you for your comment and your interest.

I’ve known Donna for years, but we didn’t start going out until after her marriage broke down and my relationship with Helen was well and truly over. Doubt will torture a person - sometimes acceptance is the only way forward.

Best regards, Andrew

thank you for your comment. It was a wonderful day.

New Year’s will not be quite so wonderful - it is the start of a busy time and I am not sure what I am doing for it yet.

Best regards, Andrew

I hope your New Year’s is just as lovely.