LM vs LJ

[RedRock]

15 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

Actually, the first response when told "we need to get across this river" should be "Why?" - always start with the core drivers. And don't assume solutions.

If you focus on the outcome, you may get the final product, but it may not be as well executed as it would be if you focused on the process - think of how Toyota (tragically obvious example, sorry) are constantly refining their processes, to achieve their outcomes - their outcomes are better because their process is better.

If they just focused on the outcome, they might make good cars, but would they be as reliable, profitable, etc.

Interesting one. Elon Musk is a total maverick, yet haven’t Tesla become the most successful global car company coming from nowhere to lead the market  in around 10 years. Astonishing.

I will also raise you PRINCE2, a project management ‘process’ the Government insisted that all projects comply with following their disastrous failures of IT and Defence projects in the 90’s. That’s gone well hasn’t it? Most Government projects since that time have been abysmal failures on all measures - costs, delivery, outputs et al.  

Edited November 9, 2023 by RedRock

[SecretSam]

16 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Interesting one. Elon Musk is a total maverick, yet haven’t Tesla become the most successful global car company coming from nowhere to lead the market  in around 10 years. Astonishing.

I will also raise you PRINCE2, a project management ‘process’ the Government insisted that all projects comply with following their disastrous failures of IT and Defence projects in the 90’s. That’s gone well hasn’t it? Most Government projects since that time have been abysmal failures on all measures - costs, delivery, outputs et al.  

Musk builds the cars on his own?

And PRINCE2 has been used to deliver countless successful projects. 

PS using "government projects" as a term indicates that you haven't worked on any. If you had, you would know that it is almost always external factors that are at fault, not the methodology.

And BTW, PRINCE2 is s methodology, a framework, not a process.

[RedRock]

1 hour ago, SecretSam said:

Musk builds the cars on his own?

And PRINCE2 has been used to deliver countless successful projects. 

PS using "government projects" as a term indicates that you haven't worked on any. If you had, you would know that it is almost always external factors that are at fault, not the methodology.

And BTW, PRINCE2 is s methodology, a framework, not a process.

No. Musk doesn’t build his own cars. He leads a company by following an intuitive approach and encourages his managers to use their intuition. 

Is there any real difference between a work ‘method’ and ‘process’? I probably had a micro-sleep during that part of the training. If there is a difference, the ‘method’ in PRINCE 2’s case applied ‘processes’. I’m pretty sure that’s why their achingly boring, over-complicated 386 page manual set out detailed process diagrams.

I can’t think of one big Government project that has been successfully delivered on-time, to budget and achieved its objectives without compromise in the past 20 years. Defence and NHS projects are managed as lamentably as they’ve always been and HS2 has made us the laughing stock of the World. 

Going back to what a previous poster said … ‘output’ should be the key focus. Yes, sub-consciously you have process, but the focus on delivery should be on output. An output that works, sells, is produced on-time and on-budget. The problem we have - and what led to LJs downfall - is that process to many managers has become the end, not an ‘assist’ to the end. Let’s hope we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. 

I suppose, on another level, the difference as kids is between those who cobbled their Airfix models together in minutes and had hours of enjoyment playing with them while their mates slavishly followed the instructions over days and lost interest before they were completed. 
 

Key issue, for me, is whether the new incumbents, in delivery of the ‘output’, are ‘process obsessed’ or ‘process aided’. If the former, I suspect an LJ failing is on the cards.

Edited November 9, 2023 by RedRock

[Barrs Court Red]

54 minutes ago, RedRock said:

No. Musk doesn’t build his own cars. He leads a company by following an intuitive approach and encourages his managers to use their intuition. 

Is there any real difference between a work ‘method’ and ‘process’? I probably had a micro-sleep during that part of the training. If there is a difference, the ‘method’ in PRINCE 2’s case applied ‘processes’. I’m pretty sure that’s why their achingly boring, over-complicated 386 page manual set out detailed process diagrams.

I can’t think of one big Government project that has been successfully delivered on-time, to budget and achieved its objectives without compromise in the past 20 years. Defence and NHS projects are managed as lamentably as they’ve always been and HS2 has made us the laughing stock of the World. 

Going back to what a previous poster said … ‘output’ should be the key focus. Yes, sub-consciously you have process, but the focus on delivery should be on output. An output that works, sells, is produced on-time and on-budget. The problem we have - and what led to LJs downfall - is that process to many managers has become the end, not an ‘assist’ to the end. Let’s hope we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. 

I suppose, on another level, the difference as kids is between those who cobbled their Airfix models together in minutes and had hours of enjoyment playing with them while their mates slavishly followed the instructions over days and lost interest before they were completed. 

Prince2 is a methodology containing a number of processes and underpinning principles. It’s not a process in itself. 
 

To translate into football terms, football management would be the methodology, and coaching would be a process - and there’s no one signing cowboys who don’t have evidence of coaching through their recognised coaching qualifications.

 

Theres only one company in the world who I can think of that seemingly have no formal internal process, and that’s Valve. They don’t need to, because the Steam platform makes them billions through its mere existence.  Even your mate Elons Tesla will have a tonne of processes and methodology that it follows.
 

 

[IAmNick]

  

10 hours ago, Harry said:

I agree. And this is the danger of modern football - there are fewer and fewer ‘mavericks’. 
Coaching has changed drastically in the last 10 years or so and players are drilled more and more to a rigid set of options.  We now see pretty much every team playing similar patterns. You can almost predict exactly where the next pass is going to be made when teams are playing from the back. 

That’s why we are then witnessing the counter to that. Instead of ‘maverick’ players who will do something out of the ordinary and get the masses off their seats, we now see ‘maverick’ managers, trying to find that little something different to surprise the opposition. 
High wing backs, inverted full backs, inverted wingers etc, the latest being Pep’s right back playing as a CM. 
 

The players are now so drilled into the processes that it’s the managers who have to find something unusual rather than a maverick player. 

Have you come across the concept of cognitive load before? It's basically an understanding of the "amount" of stuff people can hold in their working memory at any one time. My personal thought is that when coaching becomes too much, and an inordinate number of memorised processes exist, then the availability of mental processing time and power for inventive solutions is greatly reduced. It's not that simple of course, but I think there's something there. I'm not sure that maverick players are stopped being mavericks directly, but their minds are focussed on replicating memorised passages/processes rather than free to come up with their own solutions.

2 hours ago, SecretSam said:

Actually, the first response when told "we need to get across this river" should be "Why?" - always start with the core drivers. And don't assume solutions.

If you focus on the outcome, you may get the final product, but it may not be as well executed as it would be if you focused on the process - think of how Toyota (tragically obvious example, sorry) are constantly refining their processes, to achieve their outcomes - their outcomes are better because their process is better.

If they just focused on the outcome, they might make good cars, but would they be as reliable, profitable, etc.

Which one of us is going to mention The Phoenix Project first then?  

If you have a chain of 10 processes to produce an outcome, you have to be focussed on that end goal. Focussing on the individual processes and local optimisations will never efficiently address bottlenecks and overall improvement of your outcome.

When Toyota pull their andon cord, the entire production line stops and focusses on fixing that problem - all the processes are aware of the overarching outcome they want to achieve, and any issues which might prevent it. They're not just focussed on their own process. It helps find and eliminate non value-add activities.

I think we probably have roughly the same opinion, we're just looking at it from different angles. I guess I'm not saying don't continually improve processes, I'm more saying that can only be done when they have the context of the outcome they're trying to achieve.

Sometimes in football (to bring it back) I feel like players are too focussed on replicating their patterns and processes without taking into account if they're working - if they're achieving the outcome they need.  

1 minute ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Theres only one company in the world who I can think of that seemingly have no formal internal process, and that’s Valve. They don’t need to, because the Steam platform makes them billions through its mere existence.  Even your mate Elons Tesla will have a tonne of processes and methodology that it follows.

Valve always sound great, and if you're interested in that there's a good book called "A Radical Enterprise" about the same sort of set ups elsewhere - although most not as extensive.

There's a very interesting series of blog posts from an ex senior employee at Valve too explaining all the bizarre fifedoms and issues that are the reality. Of course, as you said if they didn't have a money printing machine in their basement it probably wouldn't work as they actually produce very little of value in reality!

Edited November 9, 2023 by IAmNick

[SecretSam]

1 hour ago, RedRock said:

No. Musk doesn’t build his own cars. He leads a company by following an intuitive approach and encourages his managers to use their intuition. 

Is there any real difference between a work ‘method’ and ‘process’? I probably had a micro-sleep during that part of the training. If there is a difference, the ‘method’ in PRINCE 2’s case applied ‘processes’. I’m pretty sure that’s why their achingly boring, over-complicated 386 page manual set out detailed process diagrams.

I can’t think of one big Government project that has been successfully delivered on-time, to budget and achieved its objectives without compromise in the past 20 years. Defence and NHS projects are managed as lamentably as they’ve always been and HS2 has made us the laughing stock of the World. 

Going back to what a previous poster said … ‘output’ should be the key focus. Yes, sub-consciously you have process, but the focus on delivery should be on output. An output that works, sells, is produced on-time and on-budget. The problem we have - and what led to LJs downfall - is that process to many managers has become the end, not an ‘assist’ to the end. Let’s hope we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. 

I suppose, on another level, the difference as kids is between those who cobbled their Airfix models together in minutes and had hours of enjoyment playing with them while their mates slavishly followed the instructions over days and lost interest before they were completed. 
 

Key issue, for me, is whether the new incumbents, in delivery of the ‘output’, are ‘process obsessed’ or ‘process aided’. If the former, I suspect an LJ failing is on the cards.

1. So Tesla make things up as they go along? Or they have clear, well defined processes, but with the flexibility to innovate as required (provided that the innovation has proven value). Rather like, errr, Toyota.
2. You've answered your own point about government projects: "without compromise". Government projects are subject to interference.
3. PRINCE2: see @Barrs Court Red's resonse
4. Interesting analogy about the Airfix model, perhaps surgeons should apply the same approach? I'm sure you'd be the first to volunteer...
5. So, Liam Manning is just LJ in a blonde wig. Okayyyy...

[SecretSam]

8 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

 I think we probably have roughly the same opinion, we're just looking at it from different angles. I guess I'm not saying don't continually improve processes, I'm more saying that can only be done when they have the context of the outcome they're trying to achieve.

I think there's a difference between 'outcome' and 'objective'. To over-use the Toyota analogy, 'outcome' specification would be "build me a Toyota Corolla in blue with black seats", whereas objective would be "build me a reliable, affordable, modern high-quality vehicle". 

You need to understand what you are aiming towards, but don't need to specify what that is - you need to investigate that as part of the process (eg options appraisal). 

[IAmNick]

17 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

I think there's a difference between 'outcome' and 'objective'. To over-use the Toyota analogy, 'outcome' specification would be "build me a Toyota Corolla in blue with black seats", whereas objective would be "build me a reliable, affordable, modern high-quality vehicle". 

You need to understand what you are aiming towards, but don't need to specify what that is - you need to investigate that as part of the process (eg options appraisal). 

Yep that's fair. This is why one of the first things I usually do when consulting is try and build a shared understanding of language with people!

[Barrs Court Red]

1 minute ago, IAmNick said:

Yep that's fair. This is why one of the first things I usually do when consulting is try and build a shared understanding of language with people!

Ha I’ve had my fingers burned by not doing exactly that! 

[Spud21]

11 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

I think there's a difference between 'outcome' and 'objective'. To over-use the Toyota analogy, 'outcome' specification would be "build me a Toyota Corolla in blue with black seats", whereas objective would be "build me a reliable, affordable, modern high-quality vehicle". 

You need to understand what you are aiming towards, but don't need to specify what that is - you need to investigate that as part of the process (eg options appraisal). 

Outcomes can be as Broad as like you say build a reliable affordable car, to something as specific as make me a 12mm bolt that is 4% lighter than the current one. 

And any framwork that is used in any industry, be it something like ITIL in parts of IT or whatever they all talk about in some way a holistic approach and continual improvement, so you are always checking outcomes and reviewing the process  to improve the outcomes and this can be tweaking a tiny process to making a change at a much higher level. 

Take Boro this season, they started terribly, to me if Carrick was a Outcome is the only thing that matters he will have gone into a spiral of changing systems, changing players to get results, but from the outside nothing really changed as he was happy that they were doing the right things (the process) but not getting the desired outcome, now internally I am sure he made slight tweaks and changes to process to mitigate what was costing them, but certainly didn't throw the baby out with the bath water because the poor results were the only thing that mattered. 

[Ian M]

13 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Wonderful, thanks all for taking the time. Some great perspectives @chinapig / @Spud21 / @Davefevs / @Harry / @Fordy62. I won't bother quoting you all fully as this would be ridiculously long.

I think in fact I was probably misunderstanding the language. It sounds like by processes, it's about equipping the players with the tools (processes) to identify and solve problems on the pitch themselves to achieve an outcome, rather than just focussing on the outcome itself. That makes a lot more sense.

My hesitancy as I said came from the tech world - I see a lot of companies who see some popular giant (Spotify were the classic one 5/6 years ago) and assume if they just do things they way they do things, they'll naturally be successful as well. That's where my "Good teams pass it around the back, so if we pass it around the back we'll be good too!" thinking came from. The key is to understand why the processes work for them - because those processes will have been created bespoke to fit that company... or players in this case I suppose, so they can't just be lifted into any old situation.

Yes - which is why the outcome should be the focus in my original understanding, rather than the process! Focus on the outcome, and find the processes that are most effective to make it happen which is driven by an understanding of the outcome, not following processes.

I agree, but I would respond by saying if you don't focus on the outcomes, how do you know if your processes are having a net positive or negative effect?

In your lever example, your desired outcome was to increase the calls answered. If you were focussed on the processes, giving overtime or whatever, you weren't to know if you were achieving that outcome. Do you train your staff to give overtime every time calls answered dips, or to have the tools to use achieve that outcome via your (or even their own!) methods?

Again, without focussing on the outcome, how do you know that process is right?

I agree with this - I suppose my framing of that was to think about the outcome you're trying to achieve, rather than the in the minute action you're taking. We want to... hit the byline and get a cross in, here are the processes I know to achieve that. Rather than focussing on a process... I know that in this position, I do X then Y, even if that process isn't producing the desired outcome.

Ok, the long chipped balls down the line to Bell aren't working this game - stop just trying them repeatedly (the process) and think about the outcome we're trying to achieve. How else could you do that?

I think we're arriving at the same conclusion just with mixed language (likely confused on my part)!

I'm an advocate of minimum viable process. Give intelligent people a clear understanding of the outcome you want, and give them the tools to discover problems and solutions to achieve it.

Explain why you want to get across a river, don't tell people to build a bridge or whatever that common naff metaphor is.

You need the processes in place, the fundamentals, but I think people should be outcome focussed, not process focussed personally.

 

Christ... I feel like I'm at work now.

Also worth noting that everything can be a process or an outcome depending on the framing.

Creating goalscoring chances can be an outcome of passing interplay but can also be a process to winning games.

Winning games can be an outcome of scoring goals (and defending well) but can be a process of achieving promotion.

Achieving promotion can be an outcome of winning games but can be a process of becoming by fat the greatest team, the world has ever seen

 

A lot will depend on Manning and Hogg selecting the right processes to achieve our desired outcomes. I am just as interested in his Principles.

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, Spud21 said:

Outcomes can be as Broad as like you say build a reliable affordable car, to something as specific as make me a 12mm bolt that is 4% lighter than the current one. 

And any framwork that is used in any industry, be it something like ITIL in parts of IT or whatever they all talk about in some way a holistic approach and continual improvement, so you are always checking outcomes and reviewing the process  to improve the outcomes and this can be tweaking a tiny process to making a change at a much higher level. 

Take Boro this season, they started terribly, to me if Carrick was a Outcome is the only thing that matters he will have gone into a spiral of changing systems, changing players to get results, but from the outside nothing really changed as he was happy that they were doing the right things (the process) but not getting the desired outcome, now internally I am sure he made slight tweaks and changes to process to mitigate what was costing them, but certainly didn't throw the baby out with the bath water because the poor results were the only thing that mattered. 

Carrick is a good example.  Their underlying data suggested they were in a false position.  Not just xG, but other metrics too.  So he probably knew results would start to match “performance”. Sometimes you need time, football often doesn’t afford it.

[bcfcnick]

Superficial comparisons aren't really helpful.

I think people lumped Nigel Pearson along with Mick McCarthy and a few disciplinarian 'old school' managers but one of the joys of having him as a manager was to realise that the superficial image was far removed from reality.  

Liam Manning comes across well and strikes me as someone who will have both superior coaching ability and certainly better man-management skills than LJ.  

[Spud21]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Carrick is a good example.  Their underlying data suggested they were in a false position.  Not just xG, but other metrics too.  So he probably knew results would start to match “performance”. Sometimes you need time, football often doesn’t afford it.

Indeed I think as well a lot of it comes down to your man management ability, it's easy for players to lose confidence in that sort of situation and also lose confidence in the "process" so a manager "loses" the dressing room and it is usually unrecoverable from that point. 

Think it is why Streaky Lee will always be streaky Lee as he's unable to either make or communicate why the process is actually working so when it's going well it works fine and his plan works (see the 6 months were we were genuinely exceptionally good under him) but if anything knocks the confidence, even things the really shouldn't like losing to man City and Wolves he can't get the players to continue to trust the plan and starts mindlessly chopping and changing until he gets something that works. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Carrick is a good example.  Their underlying data suggested they were in a false position.  Not just xG, but other metrics too.  So he probably knew results would start to match “performance”. Sometimes you need time, football often doesn’t afford it.

Carrick has come through it quite well.

Yeah he was underachieving early on to say the least, joint bottom with Sheffield Wednesday after 6, stopped the rot with a point at Hillsborough. It was his first big test as a manager and he has stabilised and improved it well..Gibson usually gives time, maybe that depends with him on whether the underlying signs are okay.

[Gert Mare]

You cannot compare LM with LJ. LM hasn’t started anything yet with this club.

It might take many months to get an understanding of LM and then there will be external factors (like injuries) which could easily skew the external perception of ‘success’.

Whilst stats have some relevance in football, following a defined process can be worked out and counter-acted.

The most important requirements are natural ability (skill, strength, speed, awareness) , speed of thought (decision making), character (psychology / self belief ) and empowerment.

You need to have certain attributes depending on where you are positioned in the team, but as a collective you only have 2 outcomes (score a goal / prevent the opposition fro scoring a goal). Football is a simple game and it doesn’t need to be blinded by science.

Coaching is great, but natural ability is instinctive. We can make average players better, but football geniuses are blessed (they also know it because they are adored which in turn fuels their ego and self belief and they are able to be even more expressive and confident on the field of play). This is why psychology (mindset) is one of the most important things in any sport. When they talk about ‘great man management’ they usually talk about managers whose players have total faith in their gaffer, feel valued and are encouraged to express their ability.

Great players understand their responsibility to still be part of a team and help other team members to score the goal (Goalscorers turned providers etc) Maverick’s tend to be more about doing something impressive for themselves as opposed to being impressive for the benefit of the ‘team’. Sometimes Maverick’s can turn a game on its head, or sometimes they can be seen as a ‘luxury’ and can go missing for parts of a game or a number of games if they’re not feeling the love.

Good players are confident, have ability, are aware not just of the tactics and a plan, but they are aware of opponents intentions and seem one step ahead. They have options, tease the opponent (Cat and Mouse - as LM said), wait for the opponent to show their hand and counteract it quickly.

If LM can do these things and can get the players he needs (not necessarily from the academy) then he’ll be successful. 

Better to be unpredictable in your approach. If you can do that it makes the opposing managers job almost impossible. The match could end up 4-3, but my god it’s edge of the seat entertainment!

LM states he wants to go high press and said that if the opposition goes high press then we’ll just play over it. So what if the opposition play over our high press? That’s what I am interested in understanding. What’s plan B and C LM?

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Gert Mare

[Cowshed]

17 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

Processes get you to your outcome. Football coaching constantly focusses on processes to achieve outcomes, Training is process, the preparation to achieve.

To achieve a goal, a target you will not make up how you get there. There is a linear process present. 

The here there. The passing it around the back, almost certainly is a sub principle of the process. The good teams, the great teams, lots of teams have a model of play they are working towards. This is how they will achieve their aims of success. That model of play will be based upon principles of play which govern attack, defend, transitions and set pieces. Principle one of attack can be the team will be possession based, and play positionally. That principle will have sub principles that define how possession is kept and used e.g the team will play through the thirds, the team will build from the back .. I have got to your passing it around the back quickly there...Passing the ball around the back, keeping possession to build attacks is part of the processes, working towards outcome in the model of play that achieves success.

Differing teams will use different language. The above is not exact to all sides.

17 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Has LM has got one of these?

He probably has one locked away .. As part of his coaching badge projects. Their not uncommon at all sorts of levels. Level two coaches for grass roots teams did similar as part of assessment.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Cowshed

[SecretSam]

2 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Yep that's fair. This is why one of the first things I usually do when consulting is try and build a shared understanding of language with people!

 

2 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Ha I’ve had my fingers burned by not doing exactly that! 

Sounds like all 3 of us have been there and done that!

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

18 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I can't see any comparisons between the two, so won't be judging them against each other. 

I expect LM is a lot taller…

Most people are.

[NickJ]

15 hours ago, Spud21 said:

@NickJ agree with mist of that, and you are correct you cannot ignore the outcome, and there should be some periods where you look back and reflect and where an outcome was not satisfactory you review the processes, it can be thst you tweak the process to impact the outcome or you find that an external or other factor influenced yhr outcome you may not change the process because you are happy thst the outcome will change if that external factor goes away, if it continues then you may have to adjust for that factor.

Both approaches have merit and pitfalls, probably fir me the two most extreme examples in football are Pep and Jose, both are incredibly successful in their own way, Jose is all about results, he will do everything to win, he will almost break his players in the petsuit of success, and it works, until it doesnt and it then it all falls apart to some degree. Whereas pep is more about the process and giving the players the tools to do it themselves to a degree and thus he can build long term success, not saying he's nit an absolutely ruthless bastard when he needs to be though. 

As a club we are a perfect example of the pitfalls you identified in your first post, "oohhhh, look how good Brentford are, if we just implement a small part of their process (data led recruitment) we will obviously suceed like them" and repeat picking different clubs. 

Think you meant to refer to a different Nick.

But with my attention drawn to this thread, the differences I'm expecting are:

No cliches, David Brentisms, measuring grass, or throwing players under the bus from LM, I'd imagine.

[Spud21]

2 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Think you meant to refer to a different Nick.

But with my attention drawn to this thread, the differences I'm expecting are:

No cliches, David Brentisms, measuring grass, or throwing players under the bus from LM, I'd imagine.

Nope just wanted to draw your attention to this thread, honest but yep sorry for the erroneous tag. 

Although agreed on the brentisms, not sure you aren't going to see Clichés think that is expecting a bit too much of almost everyone in football tbf. Should be a framed ruler in the managers office just incase. 

[REDOXO]

23 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Hearing a lot of similarities between Manning and Lee Johnson. Young up and coming coach, attention to detail, philosophy, forward thinking and ready to take us to the next level.

Is it a fair comparison or are they miles apart? How long before we hear Manning talking about the measurements of the grass or balls in the box?

What is the biggest difference that will give Manning the chance to succeed where Johnson failed?

A new tombola wheel and less balls!

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 hours ago, SecretSam said:

Actually, the first response when told "we need to get across this river" should be "Why?" - always start with the core drivers. And don't assume solutions.

If you focus on the outcome, you may get the final product, but it may not be as well executed as it would be if you focused on the process - think of how Toyota (tragically obvious example, sorry) are constantly refining their processes, to achieve their outcomes - their outcomes are better because their process is better.

If they just focused on the outcome, they might make good cars, but would they be as reliable, profitable, etc.

But surely if the outcome is to produce well made reliable cars that are profitable then you design the processes in a way to achieve the desired final outcome? 

For example I do plastering, P&D, tiling etc. 

For me, my brief starts from the final outcome. I then go backwards from there with all the processes to achieve the final outcome. The final outcome drives the process and that final outcome always has to be in mind when doing all the various processes. 

For me, the outcome always has to be a high quality outcome. If its not, I don't get paid, I don't get recommended etc.

If I didn't have the final outcome in my mind and instead focused on the processes, I could get the job done quicker, I could use cheaper tools and materials, but the final outcome will be poor. 

So for me you have to have both in mind.

Also what is missing from all this process talk is mentality. I don't wake up every morning feeling as if I'll be happy once I've done some prep. I wake up in the morning driven my the final outcome and being paid for it. That's why I get out of bed. 

[RedRock]

6 hours ago, SecretSam said:

1. So Tesla make things up as they go along? Or they have clear, well defined processes, but with the flexibility to innovate as required (provided that the innovation has proven value). Rather like, errr, Toyota.
2. You've answered your own point about government projects: "without compromise". Government projects are subject to interference.
3. PRINCE2: see @Barrs Court Red's resonse
4. Interesting analogy about the Airfix model, perhaps surgeons should apply the same approach? I'm sure you'd be the first to volunteer...
5. So, Liam Manning is just LJ in a blonde wig. Okayyyy...

1) Musk does. Tesla have got robots to do manufacturing processes. 
2) Our Private Sector, that was lorded as being the super-efficient delivery model by the Tories, is a massive fail. OK for them to say we followed processes and hide behind excuses of changing externalities, but a fail is a fail. Got to be SMART, adaptable and innovative today, not slavishly following ‘process’.  The problem is everything is subject to external forces that frustrate delivery, no more so that on a football pitch. Every situation is unique, it’s about being smart to achieve your outcomes in a way your competitors have yet to discover - probably because they’re slavishly following ‘processes’. That what Tesla has done.
3) PRINCE2 has demonstrably failed to deliver either a successful public or private sector in the UK. If you haven’t been gifted natural common sense to run successful projects, then perhaps project management ain’t for you and reading a 386 page manual - as this Country’s performance over the last couple of decades has more than demonstrated - ain’t going to help. 
4) Suspect that innovation and intuition had a lot more to do with improvements in medical science than the application of ‘processes’.

5) As with most things it’s a spectrum with extremes. In the realm of football you can treat it as a science and base the game on applied logic and ‘process’. The FA have driven us down that route .. whether it be VAR or encyclopaedic coaching manuals. LJ was an extreme example of ‘process’ driven football. Many would say, however, football is an art form and should be played as such. If LM is an extreme ‘process’ man then I fully anticipate we will go down the same route as LJ with ‘crab’ football and robotic players that may well nullify the opposition but in the process comatose’s the fans. I hope that our hierarchy have learnt lessons and the LM has a little more balance in his approach. Time will tell. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by RedRock

[Cowshed]

24 minutes ago, RedRock said:

1) Musk does. Tesla have got robots to do manufacturing processes. 
2) Our Private Sector, that was lorded as being the super-efficient delivery model by the Tories, is a massive fail. OK for them to say we followed processes and hide behind excuses of changing externalities, but a fail is a fail. Got to be adaptable and innovative today, not slavishly following ‘process’.  The problem is everything is subject to external forces that frustrate delivery, no more so that on a football pitch. 
3) PRINCE2 has demonstrably failed to deliver either a successful public or private sector in the UK. If you haven’t been gifted natural common sense to run successful projects, then perhaps project management ain’t for you and reading a 386 page manual - as this Country’s performance over the last couple of decades has more than demonstrated - ain’t going to help. 
4) Suspect that innovation and intuition had a lot more to do with improvements in medical science than the application of ‘processes’.

5) As with most things it’s a spectrum with extremes. In the realm of football you can treat it as a science and base the game on applied logic and ‘process’. The FA have driven us down that route .. whether it be VAR or encyclopaedic coaching manuals. LJ was an extreme example of ‘process’ driven football. Many would say, however, football is an art form and should be played as such. If LM is an extreme ‘process’ man then I fully anticipate we will go down the same route as LJ with ‘crab’ football and robotic players that may well nullify the opposition but in the process comatose’s the fans. I hope that our hierarchy have leant lessons and the LM has a little more balance in his approach. Time will tell. 

Do the FA drive from encyclopaedic coaching manuals? 

LJ was not a extreme example of process driven football. He jumped from idea to idea. Process is periodized not episodic. 

[cityfan1958]

22 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

The difference is football is a competitive sport. There is an opposition. You can’t control outcomes relating to the opposition, the goalkeeper who pulls off a worldly save, or a defender get a toe in as a shot is being made. What you can control is the processes, positions pass rates, movement off the ball etc that create passing opportunities which create goal scoring opportunities. The better the processes the more scoring opportunities, and therefore the more goals. The same also applies to defensive processes preventing scoring opportunities.

[RedRock]

40 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Do the FA drive from encyclopaedic coaching manuals? 

LJ was not an extreme example of process driven football. He jumped from idea to idea. Process is periodized not episodic. 

Well, having watched years of a side pass, backwards pass, side pass, side pass, lump it or pass it to the opposition, LJ may well have jumped from idea to idea, but it would seem he didn’t tell the players. The game play post Man City match was consistent, with ‘zero’ entertainment value.

Not sure I quite follow your FA driving reference, but it got me thinking of what sort of car the FA process would produce. I raise you a Fiat Multipla.

[RedRock]

32 minutes ago, cityfan1958 said:

The difference is football is a competitive sport. There is an opposition. You can’t control outcomes relating to the opposition, the goalkeeper who pulls off a worldly save, or a defender get a toe in as a shot is being made. What you can control is the processes, positions pass rates, movement off the ball etc that create passing opportunities which create goal scoring opportunities. The better the processes the more scoring opportunities, and therefore the more goals. The same also applies to defensive processes preventing scoring opportunities.

Surely things like ‘movement off the ball’ should be intuitive, not process driven. It’s the split-second in decision-making that makes a difference between winners and also-ranks at any decent level of football.

Yes, obviously make sure those players without any common sense know they have responsibility to find space and angles for passes from players on the ball, but then give them the responsibility to do that on the pitch. 

Surely you don’t need to be pre-programmed. Once you’ve got 1) players thinking where should I be placing myself in accordance with my process - losing a split second - and 2) the opposition studying your patterns pre and during the match so closing those spaces down, the application of ‘process’ becomes a hinderance not a help. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Well, having watched years of a side pass, backwards pass, side pass, side pass, lump it or pass it to the opposition, LJ may well have jumped from idea to idea, but it would seem he didn’t tell the players. The game play post Man City match was consistent, with ‘zero’ entertainment value.

Not sure I quite follow your FA driving reference, but it got me thinking of what sort of car the FA process would produce. I raise you a Fiat Multipla.

Was the worst of all worlds in a sense as our possession stats were not even that good for lots of sideways and backwards think his final season and if you do play that way you can utilise it to at least make yourself more solid defensively but LJ's final season.. 

Worst of all worlds in a lot of ways. Just checked we allowed 683 shots in 46 games which is pretty bad!

Edited November 9, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Cowshed]

32 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Well, having watched years of a side pass, backwards pass, side pass, side pass, lump it or pass it to the opposition, LJ may well have jumped from idea to idea, but it would seem he didn’t tell the players. The game play post Man City match was consistent, with ‘zero’ entertainment value.

Not sure I quite follow your FA driving reference, but it got me thinking of what sort of car the FA process would produce. I raise you a Fiat Multipla.

The game plan post Man City for Lee Johnson morphed from a short passing game to a long ball game and from a high press to a medium block. 

What sort of player have the FA helped produce. Looking at the current England XI and the FA's influence is there (future game) some highly highly skilled players. 

18 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Surely things like ‘movement off the ball’ should be intuitive, not process driven. It’s the split-second in decision-making that makes a difference between winners and also-ranks at any decent level of football.

Yes, obviously make sure those players without any common sense know they have responsibility to find space and angles for passes from players on the ball, but then give them the responsibility to do that on the pitch. 

Surely you don’t need to be pre-programmed. Once you’ve got 1) players thinking where should I be placing myself in accordance with my process - losing a split second - and 2) the opposition studying your patterns pre and during the match so closing those spaces down, the application of ‘process’ becomes a hinderance not a help. 

Movement is not intuitive. Players make split decisions based upon the internalisation of their training. The ball entering a zone is the trigger to move in relation to the players training. Players will take up positions in a split second displaying unconscious competence because they understand where the ball is, or most likely going because they recognise the patterns before them and the neuro process follows of pre frontal cortex, cerebellum coordinating instructions to the motor cortex to move muscles etc. That intuition is trained in during intense deliberate integrated practice, over years, and months. 

Now do a player who has not trained in responses, makes the game up? Will the player be more efficient? Will his reactions be split-second?