What are the characteristics of the lists you mention. For example, on the Users list, are you capturing an individual’s profile? Are you talking about different entities within business e.g. Customers or Business Units. Wardley has mentioned in media appearances when he asks people who are their users, he doesn’t get much of a response if any. Well, to be honest, it isn’t that clear of a question in my opinion, I am an idiot admittedly so that may be the reason why I don’t really understand that question.
Not an idiot. This stuff is harder than it needs to be. Every question like yours helps us build better ramps into this tool. Instead of saying Users, these days I just ask, "Who benefits? And what do they get?" I usually get answers like, "our clients" "our customers" "our business" "our employees" "the leadership team". Then we can talk about whose needs we ought to put first (we really ought to focus first on the people we serve, right?). As far as characteristics, there's also market evolution, which is a messier topic, but worth exploring if you want to make sense of what's happening outside the company. More on evolution here: LearnWardleyMapping.com/landscape
@@HiredThought Thank you, that makes a bit more sense to me. I guess, what is it we are meeting here today to discuss, what party seeks to benefit from this discussion? That makes sense to me. Really, this is a fascinating concept, it takes a while for the language to settle around a concept/model and takes people from all walks of life engaging with it to keep on chewing it and digesting it to boil it down to its roots.
just loving the first two-and-a-half minutes (I am still watching), as a UX Designer seeing users, their needs, capabilities and relations put into the center has always been essential. Right now, I juggle with three different approaches to product evolution / innovation: Wardley Mapping, Jobs-To-Be-Done and the Productfield Framework - and the common theme between all three is: without research based knowledge of your users and their needs, everything else that follows will be fruitless work. Or, as agile coaches keep on saying when they educate about the need for specificity when asking for information: Don't assume
hah, love this! thanks for watching! Yeah, gotta be careful with our assumptions, or we'll get into trouble when we build an amazing rube goldberg contraption only to find that either nobody wants it or it creates horrific outcomes. 😬
I invite you to demonstrate the concept you propose in this video by running a hypothetical scenario through it, I think in terms of views it would fly through the roof, because I believe there are many people like me that are fascinated by Wardley Mapping and would love a MVP framework version of it. Right now, I have no idea if an MVP framework exists of it, I would have to create one myself
I've got you! It's an old video, and I'd love to make more, but here's what I call Minimum Viable Mapping: ruclips.net/video/IJcLmoKR6v8/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Hey, First, I want to thank you for your amazing content. Your videos really get to the point of what wardley mapping and how to do it. Do you have any insights on how wardley mapping can be good for software engineers? I came across Wardley mapping trying to understand more about technical strategy (then business strategy) and I am trying to see if It can be useful for software engineers, maybe you've already been in this context and has any tips/resources I can read. Thanks again, and keep up your work! It's awesome.
Hi Guilherme! Thanks so much for taking the time to write these kind words. 🙏 Wardley Mapping can definitely be useful for software engineers, for instance with solution design on your own or with team members. You might make a map of a feature, what it's made of and how it works, or perhaps how it interconnects with other systems or software components. Software architects seem to really like it, and I bet you can find lots of interesting examples to explore by searching for Wardley Mapping and Software Architecture. This video with Tom Asel might be a nice place to start: ruclips.net/video/ttoAibdUOAU/видео.html. See if you can connect with the Domain Driven Design community, too. Here's another video on DDD and Wardley Mapping by Susanne Kaiser: ruclips.net/video/Ha0fLMVB1oI/видео.html. Hope this gives you some ideas! And feel free to email or DM me at any time: ben at hiredthought.com. 😄
Yup. This one uses some of the jargon language I've come to critique in recent years. Doctrine = Facts or rules that help you make fewer silly mistakes. I wrote more about plain language in Wardley Mapping here: www.linkedin.com/posts/benjaminmosior_wardleymaps-wardleymaps-activity-7232386060050120704-eJit?
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
This pragmatic approach makes Wardley Mapping feel so lean! Love it!
Thanks for saying that, Julio! I'm really happy to hear it!
What are the characteristics of the lists you mention. For example, on the Users list, are you capturing an individual’s profile? Are you talking about different entities within business e.g. Customers or Business Units. Wardley has mentioned in media appearances when he asks people who are their users, he doesn’t get much of a response if any. Well, to be honest, it isn’t that clear of a question in my opinion, I am an idiot admittedly so that may be the reason why I don’t really understand that question.
Not an idiot. This stuff is harder than it needs to be. Every question like yours helps us build better ramps into this tool. Instead of saying Users, these days I just ask, "Who benefits? And what do they get?" I usually get answers like, "our clients" "our customers" "our business" "our employees" "the leadership team". Then we can talk about whose needs we ought to put first (we really ought to focus first on the people we serve, right?).
As far as characteristics, there's also market evolution, which is a messier topic, but worth exploring if you want to make sense of what's happening outside the company. More on evolution here: LearnWardleyMapping.com/landscape
@@HiredThought Thank you, that makes a bit more sense to me. I guess, what is it we are meeting here today to discuss, what party seeks to benefit from this discussion? That makes sense to me. Really, this is a fascinating concept, it takes a while for the language to settle around a concept/model and takes people from all walks of life engaging with it to keep on chewing it and digesting it to boil it down to its roots.
Great way of putting it. Yes, exactly! 🙌
just loving the first two-and-a-half minutes (I am still watching), as a UX Designer seeing users, their needs, capabilities and relations put into the center has always been essential. Right now, I juggle with three different approaches to product evolution / innovation: Wardley Mapping, Jobs-To-Be-Done and the Productfield Framework - and the common theme between all three is: without research based knowledge of your users and their needs, everything else that follows will be fruitless work. Or, as agile coaches keep on saying when they educate about the need for specificity when asking for information: Don't assume
hah, love this! thanks for watching! Yeah, gotta be careful with our assumptions, or we'll get into trouble when we build an amazing rube goldberg contraption only to find that either nobody wants it or it creates horrific outcomes. 😬
I invite you to demonstrate the concept you propose in this video by running a hypothetical scenario through it, I think in terms of views it would fly through the roof, because I believe there are many people like me that are fascinated by Wardley Mapping and would love a MVP framework version of it. Right now, I have no idea if an MVP framework exists of it, I would have to create one myself
I've got you! It's an old video, and I'd love to make more, but here's what I call Minimum Viable Mapping: ruclips.net/video/IJcLmoKR6v8/видео.htmlfeature=shared
@@HiredThought Thank you, I will watch it! Great work by the way communicating Wardley Maps.
Thanks BEN, so helpful !!
Hey,
First, I want to thank you for your amazing content. Your videos really get to the point of what wardley mapping and how to do it.
Do you have any insights on how wardley mapping can be good for software engineers?
I came across Wardley mapping trying to understand more about technical strategy (then business strategy) and I am trying to see if It can be useful for software engineers, maybe you've already been in this context and has any tips/resources I can read.
Thanks again, and keep up your work! It's awesome.
Hi Guilherme! Thanks so much for taking the time to write these kind words. 🙏 Wardley Mapping can definitely be useful for software engineers, for instance with solution design on your own or with team members. You might make a map of a feature, what it's made of and how it works, or perhaps how it interconnects with other systems or software components. Software architects seem to really like it, and I bet you can find lots of interesting examples to explore by searching for Wardley Mapping and Software Architecture. This video with Tom Asel might be a nice place to start: ruclips.net/video/ttoAibdUOAU/видео.html. See if you can connect with the Domain Driven Design community, too. Here's another video on DDD and Wardley Mapping by Susanne Kaiser: ruclips.net/video/Ha0fLMVB1oI/видео.html. Hope this gives you some ideas! And feel free to email or DM me at any time: ben at hiredthought.com. 😄
What does doctrine mean? You will rarely ever hear that word in real life, I personally don’t have a strong definition for it.
Yup. This one uses some of the jargon language I've come to critique in recent years. Doctrine = Facts or rules that help you make fewer silly mistakes.
I wrote more about plain language in Wardley Mapping here: www.linkedin.com/posts/benjaminmosior_wardleymaps-wardleymaps-activity-7232386060050120704-eJit?
subbed
✨🎉