Skip to content

Journey Over Destination

November 21, 2014

Tom Sylvester (LinkedIn, @tsylvest, Blog) expressed how he was “deeply saddened” by an article within the agile community:

My sadness was not in the authors or the article itself, but in the fact that it has come to this. Instead of simply identifying, collecting and having the patterns available to use as needed, we as the agile community have felt the need to try and mix and match patterns in various ways, label them as frameworks, sell certifications for them and argue about which framework is the best. This has been ongoing and is being perpetrated as the focus is now on “scaling” agile instead of anchoring to the mindset if “being” agile. What this has caused is noise, confusion and many many less than stellar results then practitioners who try to lay these frameworks on top of organizations without first identifying what is needed.

Read Tom’s complete “I Must ASK (Agile Scaling Knowledge) — Has It Really Come to This?” blog post for more!

And while Tom acknowledges the importance of patterns and frameworks, he emphasizes the importance of “implementing” or “pulling in” those patterns that confront the dysfunctions (and offer efficiency and effectiveness) within an organization based on it’s needs — thus, birthing a framework (starting with a fresh “blank” canvas) based on the needs of the organization (Brad Barton, Mark Ferraro, and Si Alhir) — that is, Constructively (rather than Destructively) Adopting and Sustaining

All too often, we neglect the journey (adopting, sustaining, and scaling) and obsessively/compulsively focus on the destination. . .

Life is a journey, not a destination.
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)

The Goal in Life . . . Soul in the Game . . . To Create Yourself a Soul

November 21, 2014

Tom Sylvester (LinkedIn, @tsylvest, Blog) recently tweeted, referencing Nassim Nicholas Taleb‘s “Soul in the Game” (“Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder”):

@tsylvest:

To @SAlhir, someone with more soul than I have ever experienced –  Do you have ‘soul in the game’? http://t.co/ClwhP8Ts8W

To which I replied:

@SAlhir

.@tsylvest Deepest gratitude, my friend. Life is so very short, and without soul, it is that much more less meaningful.

Very grateful to Tom for his sentiments!

In reading Tom’s tweet, I was quickly reminded of Alejandro Jodorowsky . . .

“What is the goal in life? It’s to create yourself a soul.”

. . . and Viktor Frankl . . .

“What is to give light must endure burning.”

So many people simply forget their goal in life (in creating a soul) and no longer give light (and must endure burning).

I have been very fortunate to have may encounters with death (death-rebirth experiences) over the years so as to realize — To create yourself a soul, one must have soul in the game (and from this we experience such freedom) — and I am deeply grateful to those (like Tom) how have honored our shared experience in that creation (of a soul and our individual souls)!

To Dan, We are All Soul Mates, What will Your Verse Be?

November 8, 2014

Throughout life’s journey, we meet many people.

However, some people, compel us to

Or perhaps to resurrect what seemingly has died! Sometime we fail and sometimes we don’t! — And in this dynamics, we sometimes resurrect a part of ourselves that too has died; and sometimes, we become so alive, that we become seemingly mad!

Consider Hermann Hesse‘s expression:

Yet, what a real living human being is made of seems to be less understood today than at any time before . . . — each one of whom represents a unique and valuable experiment on the part of nature.

Each man’s life represents the road toward himself, and attempt at such a road, the intimation of a path. No man has ever been entirely and completely himself. Yet each one strives to become that — one in an awkward, the other in a more intelligent way, each as best he can.

. . . I wanted only to try to live in accord with the promptings which came from my true self. Why was that so very difficult?

Dan Horton (LinkedIn, About.Me@Dan_Horton, Blog) is one such compelling soul that I have recently encountered — we are all soul mates and experience natural affinity; circumstances cause this affinity to emerge and us to become aware!

It’s All About the People

Dan (LinkedIn, About.Me@Dan_Horton, Blog) shared a blog post that completely overwhelmed me:

It’s all about the people

| Hey, I Love You Man, and…! — Si Alhir

In Si’s blog post – Dynamics of Mechanics – he discusses where to focus between the two processes: Dynamics (language, behaviors, and relationships) and Mechanics (process, tools, and culture.) Corporations and people often get focused on fixing the mechanics and not the dynamics of a situation. For example, if you cannot get organized, do you buy a new tool that will fix it or do you analyze yourself and see if it’s just a bad habit? We need to focus on the people and not the tools.

Focusing on the people

Si and I have been working together for a couple of months now and I’ve seen his processes first hand. Our corporation began to focus on the process and not the people for our new technical implementation of agile. The was unsuccessful and all the teams were failing on the new process. Si’s first step when he joined us – to remove all the tools. This had an immediate effect that was seen in the increased productivity of the team. He focused on the people next. In three months my team, including myself, went from wanting to kill each other to now laughing and having fun on our project. I would not have believed it would be possible based on where the team was when we started.

“I Love you man”

Sometimes it’s all in a word. You see this when you say “I love you” to your significant other, but to my team members? Si however, has a different technique. When tensions were high in our meetings, Si would say “Hey, I love you Man, and ..” something to help that person relax and focus. This and other techniques helped my team to do exactly that – relax and focus on the work.

The statement makes me laugh each time I hear it and from me it makes everyone else laugh. It is the last thing you would every expect to hear from me. However, this week I started using it and in turn my entire team started saying it to one another to stop tensions. If anyone starts to get agitated the team shares in the responsibility to stop them and get refocused. Si nor I asked the team to start using it. We both started doing it ourself and the team followed.

The change is amazing.

Use it yourself

So how can you benefit from what I’ve learned here? Maybe just find a statement that will help you stop the frustrations with other people. I know I will use this statement to help calm tensions in conversations and I will also have a word for myself internally to stop myself when I am getting angry.

From the mechanics side of the equation I need to review what is frustrating me today. Are they really people or process issues and am I focusing on them in the wrong way? for example:

  • Feel someone is not spending enough time with you? Don’t complain or focus on just making more time (mechanics) focus on making the time you do have the highest quality you can (dynamics). If you have an hour together and only fight because your frustrated – well did it fix the problem? No
  • Frustrated that you are not focused? Are you trying to fix it with new processes or focusing internally? I have caught myself often focusing on getting a new tool or process to fix my focus, but the real problem is I’m procrastinating.

Take a good look and you may be surprised with what you find.

Thank you

I would also like to thank Si Alhir for his efforts with my team. He is an excellent coach and in a very short time has been able to transform a large part of our organization. I would personally recommend Si and team if you need a transformation coach for your company.

When I say Love, I mean a sense of:

That is, Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love!

Always in awe of how the small, subtle, seemingly insignificant things are not! And when we miss them, the depth and breadth of damage a “miss” does can be overwhelming — our decision making and behavior is indeed 70% emotional and 30% rational (@Gallop).

Fanning the Blaze . . . So You may Contribute a Verse

While relaxing the “gender” reference in Steve Maraboli‘s quote, we are all soul mates (or have a “deep or natural affinity”), and its an honor to “fan the blaze” (even if only for the short time we have together) . . .

. . . in the hopes that you, my dear friend, may contribute a verse (referencing O Me! O Life! by Walt Whitman) . . .

. . . so thus we must ask, dearest friend:

What will your verse be?

Dynamics over Mechanics

November 1, 2014

Some people get engrossed with focusing on the so-called “hard stuff” (People, Process/Practices/Techniques, and Tools) while others get engrossed with focusing on the so-called “soft stuff” (Language/Communication (and conversations), Relationships, and Behaviors (and cooperate, coordinate, collaborate, co-create)). However, all words have various connotations!

Brad BartonMark Ferraro, and I often emphasize the distinction between Dynamics and Mechanics, a distinction crucially accentuated by Brad over the many years we’ve worked together . . .

Fundamentally, while many people focus on the so-called “hard stuff” or “soft stuff,” the distinction and integration of Dynamics and Mechanics has served us well in practice — by first focusing on the human dynamics, the human mechanics (people) and non-human mechanics (process and tools) emerge more naturally and are what is needed for a more healthy and thriving organization or human enterprise.

Furthermore, this distinction is especially crucial as we are somewhat “amused” but more-so “saddened” by what we continue to encounter in “the wild” (or in practice) — what people inhumanly do to each other!

For example, given the recent popularity of the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), we continuously find more and more of the notion of a “descaled agile framework” (DAFe or dSAFe) or “SAFe for a Team” where rather than embrace scale and then de-scale (that is, going from “big” to “small” based on need), one can embrace an essentialism or minimalism then scale (that is, going from “smallest” to “bigger” based on need) — as they say:

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

Again, an example of mechanics over dynamics versus a more healthy dynamics over mechanics!

M&D-2014110100

To Tom Sylvester, A Fellow Practitioner

October 31, 2014

We wrote Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) to contribute our experience to the ever growing SAFe community.

To that end, we offer this note of gratitude to Tom Sylvester (LinkedIn, @tsylvest, BlogPaychex Case Study) based on his review of Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe):

The Missing Element in SAFe Adoption. A MUST Read
(October 31, 2014; 5 out of 5 stars)
By Tom Sylvester

I’ve recently had the pleasure of working with 2 of the 3 authors (Si & Mark) and must say it has been a truly amazing experience.

Agile (in the broad sense) has been a growing collection of knowledge, especially since 2001 when the Agile Manifesto was created. Prior to, and especially since then, a lot of great knowledge and experience has been contributed. At the same time, there has also been a lot of confusion within and outside of the community. Various frameworks have been created and supported by consultants and practitioners with mixed success (including SAFe). Often times the success/failure is not with a specific framework itself, but instead a direct result of the implementation. There are cases of organizational adoption of SAFe with great success, and others where it has been a failure and disregarded. If the framework is the same in both cases, then what is the difference? Implementation.

As mentioned above in the book description, “However, the SAFe readily acknowledges that ‘SAFe does not implement itself and indeed makes no attempt to describe the significant organizational change management, cultural impacts, implementation strategies, and training and services provisioning that are typically required for successful implementation’ and only offers brief ‘recommendations for implementation’.” This is the heart of this book.

Often times when an agile adoption fails, it does so because an organization is trying to simply transition from their current set of processes and tools to a new set, without addressing the underlying dysfunctions. Time and time again I’ve seen organizations that try to adopt Scrum, for example, and initially see success with a pilot team, but long term it fails and they regress. Why does this happen? A few of the reasons are because the organization doesn’t see the challenges that they face, they don’t address the organizational culture and they often don’t co-create the solution that will work for them. To address these items, we must go much deeper than attending few day training class or simply implementing a framework, we must understanding the underlying elements of dysfunction, address them and work together with an organization to co-create a solution. This approach is rooted in collaboration, facilitation and guidance, addressing dysfunction and bringing in the appropriate elements that are available within and outside of the agile community.

If you simply want to learn SAFe and lay it on top of an organization without addressing the “hard” items such as culture and long term sustainability, this book is not for you. It will not tell you how to run a PSI Planning session, for example. For that, read some of Dean’s books, check out the publicly available SAFe framework and attend the SPC certification class. But if you have an understanding of SAFe and want to go deeper to learn a pragmatic approach for implementing and adopting SAFe in an organization, then I recommend you spend a few dollars and a few hours to read (and re-read) this book.

Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) is organized into three parts. Part 1 summarizes or briefly explores the SAFe, Part 2 summarizes or briefly explores Conscious Agility, and Part 3 provides an empirically-derived and pragmatic approach for how organizations may embrace the SAFe using Conscious Agility.

Its always amazing to us as to what a practitioner (for example, see Tom’s Paychex Case Study) will recognize in a work from other practitioners — versus someone who merely offers a reactionary response and is toeing the “company” line or who is more indoctrinated within a community (for example, see Kim Bucksen’s thoughts).

As Tom emphasizes — to learn SAFe without addressing the “hard” items:

If you simply want to learn SAFe and lay it on top of an organization without addressing the “hard” items such as culture and long term sustainability, this book is not for you. It will not tell you how to run a PSI Planning session, for example. For that, read some of Dean’s books, check out the publicly available SAFe framework and attend the SPC certification class.

And as Tom emphasizes — if you want to go deeper with a “pragmatic approach”:

But if you have an understanding of SAFe and want to go deeper to learn a pragmatic approach for implementing and adopting SAFe in an organization, then I recommend you spend a few dollars and a few hours to read (and re-read) this book.

Looking forward towards the future and all its potential — Thanks again Tom.

To Kim Buchsen, A Response and Invitation

October 25, 2014

We wrote Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) to contribute our experience to the ever growing SAFe community.

To that end, we offer this response and invitation to Kim Buchsen (LinkedIn, @AgileKim, Scaled Agile Academy) based on her review of Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe):

Not Worth It
(October 23, 2014; 1 out of 5 stars)
By Kim Buchsen

Don’t waste your money. Written by someone who has just parroted the high level tenets of SAFe. If you’re looking for information to help you better understand the Scaled Agile Framework, this is not it.

I really wish that these self-published book authors would have someone edit their writing, particularly when it is so obvious that English is not their first language.

Response

Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) is organized into three parts. Part 1 summarizes or briefly explores the SAFe, Part 2 summarizes or briefly explores Conscious Agility, and Part 3 provides an empirically-derived and pragmatic approach for how organizations may embrace the SAFe using Conscious Agility.

While we acknowledge that this work offers a “summary” of the SAFe, we hardly believe it is “parroted”.

While we acknowledge that this work offers a “summary” of the SAFe, we did not indicate that it is “to help you better understand the Scaled Agile Framework.”

And while we acknowledge that our “English” skills are not perfect, it is our “first language” and unsure what is intended with “so obvious” (or what it really communicates about the author of the review)!

Thus, while we acknowledge Kim’s review, we believe it is not as authentic as it may appear to be but more so a reactionary response by Kim among others who are indoctrinated within the SAFe community — as the SAFe’s approach to adoption and sustainment is merely training when the “real world” and the “reality of business” requires something a bit different for success!

Invitation

Again, we wrote Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) to contribute our experience to the ever growing SAFe community.

And given that Kim cares enough likewise to read our work and offer a public review, we extend an invitation to Kim:

Kim (kim.buchsen@gmail.com),

Based on your review of Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), we would like to invite you to join us as a fourth author (with Brad, Mark, and Si) for Adopting and Sustaining the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) where we can work together to refine the book and “re-publish” it so that it contributes our experience and adds value to the community.

Given that you care enough to post a review, we can’t imagine you saying “No” to our invitation!

Please reach out via salhir@gmail.com to advance the conversation.

Regards,
Si, Brad, and Mark

PS — We are interested in working with those who have “soul in the game” but are only slightly amused and entertained by those who are “with skin in the game” and completely un-amused and un-entertained by those who are “without skin in the game”!

Again, Kim, please reach out via salhir@gmail.com and let’s collaborate!

Demystifying Antifragility: Beyond Agility Workshop

October 11, 2014

On October 3rd, 2014, the Center for Technology Innovation (CTI) generously hosted the Demystifying Antifragility: Beyond Agility workshop focusing on Antifragility for business and technology professionals based on Nassim Nicholas Taleb‘s “Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder”, which introduced the concept of Antifragility.

This post was intended to be published on October 4th, 2014, but I confronted my own “fragility” (and heart condition) on Oct-4th and demonstrated a degree of “antifragility” (returned from the incident/episode) soon thereafter — so apologies to the workshop participants (in particular)  for the delay in providing this blog, content, and presentation (below, at the end of the blog post).


Please see the following for background. . .
Antifragile, Flexibility, Robust, Resilience, Agility, and Fragile
The Emergence of the Antifragile Organization
The Triad: Fragile, Robust, and Antifragile
Antifragility: From Details to Nuances [LinkedIn]


Foundation

As a foundational introduction to the workshop, we explored being “prisoners of our paradigms,” our “mental handicap” of domain dependency, and the Six Diseases; and we emphasized the need for curiosity when approaching this topic (Jack Johnson‘s Curious George song and video “Upside Down”).

Why Curious George? I have often been compared to this “little monkey” given my (and his) curiosity, and those who I work with often joke regarding “who has the yellow hat” (as George is routinely with “the man [or woman or person] with the yellow hat”).

I want to turn the whole thing upside down
I’ll find the things they say just can’t be found
I’ll share this love I find with everyone
We’ll sing and dance to Mother Nature’s songs
I don’t want this feeling to go away

Introducing Antifragility: What is Antifragility?

First, we introduced the concept of Antifragility and explored Agility, Antifragility, Risk, Black Swans, the Antidote to Black Swans, and Mother Nature.

Business organizations live in a VUCA world (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity) (which arouses fear) and (implicitly, if not explicitly) use OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) loops/cycles — ultimately, we must confront fear with empathy, catalyze the human element, and become future ready!

The essence of agility is re-orientation within the OODA loop/cycle. The essence of antifragility is evolution. This is the business context for Taleb’s “non-predictive decision making under uncertainty” and antifragility.

Exploring Antifragility: Demystifying Antifragility

Next, we demystified the concept of Antifragility and explored the Triad (Fragile, Robust, and Antifragile categories) and the Map of the World (Triad against domains/subjects) to distill and organize the various aspects (and essence) of Antifragility around the notions of parts forming wholes, their dynamics, and how they respond to randomness and stress.

Operationalizing Antifragility

Next, we explored how the concept of Antifragility may be operationalized or put into practice by business organizations through a Foundation (pillars), Worldview, Modus Operandi, and Intent that organizes Antifragility around three core concepts (or concept clusters):

  • Stakeholders, Enterprises, and Ecosystems: Self-designing Individuals and Collectives
  • Dynamics: Teaming, Communities, and Focal/Schelling Points
  • Evolution: Adaptive Cycles, Panarchy, and the Cynefin Framework

Stakeholders, individuals and collectives, form an enterprise within an ecosystem. While all business organizations embrace this notion, what makes an enterprise antifragile includes the dynamics among stakeholders and the evolution of the enterprise within the ecosystem.

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) and the Scaled Antifragile Framework (SAfFe)

We spent significant time in the workshop exploring these three core concepts (or concept clusters) and how they are put into practice. We also spent significant time in the workshop exploring how the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) — given its popularity — can fragilize versus antifragile an enterprise (or how SAFe makes an enterprise more fragile versus more antifragile) — especially when adopted and sustained in an unhealthy manner.

Even with so-called SAFe success stories, SAFe fails to address “digital transformation issues beyond the enterprise’s software development challenges” and adopting and sustaining agility (in mixed environments or enterprises with a variation of approaches) let alone achieving antifragility!

The need for an Antifragile Framework was more than apparent from the conversation, and we explored how to make SAFe more Antifragile — that is, perhaps the Scaled Antifragile Framework (SAfFe) by applying an Antifragile Framework to SAFe. More to come!!!

Design for Antifragility

Finally, we offered an actionable roadmap for how business enterprises can achieve greater Antifragility and explored how fundamental change (or renewal) involves designing (defining, creating, and refining) an Antifragile enterprise using the concepts of stakeholders, enterprise, ecosystem, dynamics, and evolution.

Various Voices on Antifragility

The workshop’s most interesting conversations focused on the Various Voices on Antifragility — all contributions were deeply appreciated by the participants:

  • Agility Board (www.agility-board.com) emphasized sense and respond.
  • Jonathan Anthony (@ThisMuchWeKnow) emphasized making life or business antifragile.
  • Fred Aubin (@FM_Aubin) emphasized revolution and evolution.
  • Brad Barton (@Brad_Barton) emphasized intuition through awareness and deep understanding.
  • Tony Bendell (@AntiFragileUK) emphasized that “Anti-Fragility is the most important potential breakthrough in business thinking”. Tony’s book Building Anti-Fragile Organizations directly addresses antifragility and is definitely worth exploring!
  • Dr. Andrew K. Black (@AntifragileDoc) emphasized thriving under stress and blossoming when encountering adversity and volatility. Andrew’s book The Antifragile Doctor directly addresses antifragility and is definitely worth exploring!
  • Paul Cottrell (@paulcottrell) emphasized the need for smart institutions that reduce fragility.
  • David Cushman (@davidcushman) emphasized how antifragility is about networks (Facebook, Twitter, Internet, Hierarchical and Networked Organizations, and Families).
  • Steve Fastabend (@SteveFastabend) emphasized creativity and innovation.
  • Mark Ferraro (@mark4ro) emphasized how “chasing risk is like chasing ghosts” and antifragility is the root of flourishing.
  • Gary Gagliardi (@StrategyGary) emphasized how antifragility is a vital part of the science of strategy (slide 97 of the presentation). Gary is the only other individual who, in his quote and work, directly echoes the connection and synergy between The Art of War and antifragility.
  • Judith E. Glaser (@CreatingWE) emphasized how conversations are our “hardwired human design tools” around designing for antifragility.
  • Tom Graves (@tetradian) emphasized how “everything depends on everything else” is a “people-problem”.
  • David Griffiths (@KMskunkworks) emphasized seeking variety.
  • Stephan Haeckel (LinkedIn) emphasized a sense & respond model.
  • Daniel Horton (@Dan_Horton) emphasized stoic antifragile practices.
  • Faly Ranaivoson (@falyranaivoson) emphasized that antifragility is about thriving.
  • John Hagel (@jhagel) emphasized how nature is inherently antifragile.
  • Mike Henry Sr. (@mikehenrysr) emphasized how antifragility involves a consistent, default, outcome of growth and improvement from difficult circumstances.
  • Leandro Herrero (@LeandroEHerrero) emphasized remarkable organizations as organisms (rather than organizations).
  • Graham Hill (@GrahamHill) emphasized looking beyond mere agility.
  • Ken Homer (@ken_homer) emphasized questions and brittle systems.
  • Semira Soraya-Kandan (@SemiraSK) emphasized the distinction between advantage and disadvantage (slide 120 of the presentation). Semira is the only other individual who, in her quote, directly echoes the connection and synergy between The Art of War and antifragility.
  • Tim Kuppler (@TimKuppler) emphasized how high-performing cultures embrace antifragility.
  • Jack Martin Leith (@FuturegenLabs) emphasized how antifragility is a generative capability.
  • James Key Lim (@jameskeylim) emphasized how antifragility emerges from genuine conviction and dedication to helping others thrive.
  • Hayim Makabee (@hayim_makabee) emphasized that “Agile is Dead”.
  • Dan Martin (@Best_Thought) emphasized the study of chaos and chaordic systems.
  • Anne McCrossan (@Annemcx) emphasized the logic of connectivity inherent in chaos.
  • Kenneth Mikkelsen (@LeadershipABC) emphasized leadership.
  • Russell Miles (@russmiles) emphasized antifragility in architecture and design.
  • Lisa Nemeth / Cavanagh (LinkedIn) emphasized the power of choice and offered an evocative picture to emphasize her point (slide 144 of the presentation)! Lisa is the only other individual who, in our conversations, echoes the connection and synergy between The Art of War and antifragility.
  • Lucie Newcomb (@NewCommGlobal) emphasized leadership.
  • Todd Nilson (@toddnilson) emphasized the “blueprint for business agility” and creating a work life that reflects the core principle of antifragility.
  • Christine Ogozaly (LinkedIn) emphasized that antifragility is not merely a new concept in change management.
  • Dan Pontefract (@dpontefract) emphasized open leadership.
  • Wim Rampen (@wimrampen) emphasized the connection between the Singularity and antifragility.
  • Janessa Huber (LinkedIn) emphasized relentlessly experimenting, embracing disruption fearlessly, and deliberately failing forward.
  • Kenneth Rubin (@krubinagile) emphasized agile principles.
  • Jean Russell (@NurtureGirl) emphasized going beyond being agile and responsive with the distinction between Survival, Sustainable, Resilient, and Thrivable.
  • Jennifer Sertl (@JenniferSertl) emphasized Resilience, Responsiveness, and Reflection.
  • Elinor Slomba (@artsint) emphasized Creative Ecosystems.
  • John Spence (@AwesomelySimple) emphasized embracing chaos while still striving for simplicity.
  • Luc Taesch (@luctaesch) emphasized awareness of cognitive biases.
  • Barbara A. Trautlein (@btrautlein) emphasized change intelligence leaders and their role in fostering antifragility.
  • Wouter IJgosse (@WouterIJgosse) emphasized his outreach regarding antifragility.
  • Dave Zwieback (@mindweather) emphasized the asymmetry of pain versus gain.
  • Vincenzo De Florio (@EnzoDeFlorio) emphasized Antifragile 2015.

Again, all contributions were deeply appreciated by the participants — and personally, I am genuinely grateful for the privilege of intersecting some of these voices as the concept and application of Antifragility continues to emerge and evolve in the marketplace and world!

Welcome all feedback regarding the final presentation — and — please reach out if you’d like to share your thoughts or get more involved in advancing concept and application of Antifragility.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers