After the previous retrospective, the pace of new Practice Notes slowed down considerably.
At first glance, that might look as if the inquiry itself had slowed down. In reality, almost the opposite happened. I was simply spending less time adding new notes and more time working with what had already accumulated.
The Practice Notes started feeding temporary synthesis notes, more structured theory, standard assessment and development approaches, LinkedIn posts, and articles for my employer’s blog.
Retrospective #4 had already suggested that the notes might become the primary body of evidence, while papers, models and guidance became derived representations. What I had not yet understood was that the relationship would not be one-way.
Those derived representations started giving something back.
Trying to synthesize several notes exposed gaps and tensions between them. Turning theory into a standard approach forced abstract ideas to become usable. A LinkedIn post forced an argument to survive without all the context around it. And once those compressed ideas entered public conversations, people from other disciplines began challenging them, extending them, or asking questions I had not considered.
Some of those questions eventually returned as new Practice Notes.
The flow had changed. Experience still generated notes, but the notes now also generated synthesis, applications and conversations, and those in turn generated new experience and new questions. The Body of Knowledge was no longer merely accumulating. It had begun to behave like a learning system.
I think that also explains why it has become increasingly difficult to say what the Body of Knowledge is actually about.
The blog began in a reasonably recognizable territory. My original questions concerned software quality, assessment, evidence, organizational capabilities and the models we use to understand them. Even then, I described the scope as broader than testing alone, extending toward systems thinking and the conceptual models used to understand complex organizations.
But every cycle of inquiry seems to expose another relationship beyond the previous boundary.
Quality led into risk and evidence. Requirements led into intent. Product development led into operations and continuity. Documentation led into the preservation of understanding. Organizational capabilities led into stewardship. AI raised the possibility that future understanding may not need to be stored primarily in predefined documents at all.
Even an Exploration of Vivaldi’s Winter Largo followed a strangely familiar path. The interesting question was not merely which notes the bass voice played, but what function those notes performed within the music.
That recurring habit has become more visible to me lately. When I encounter a mechanism, practice or artifact, I tend to move upstream from it.
Why does this requirement exist? Why is this criterion in the Definition of Done? Why do we create this document? Why does this capability need to exist?
The question is not simply a search for root cause. It is an attempt to recover the relationship between mechanism, function, intent and outcome.
This also helps explain why several recent threads seem to converge around the idea of stewardship. A document, requirement, model or report may be useful, but it is still only a representation. Different artifacts may contain different claims about the same product, while different specialists each hold part of the relevant understanding.
The challenge then shifts. Instead of trying to preserve one perfect artifact, perhaps we need to preserve enough coherence around the subject itself that people can continue to understand, develop and assess it as circumstances change.
That idea led to one formulation I keep returning to:
Contribution follows expertise; stewardship preserves coherence.
Quality has not disappeared from the work as the scope widened. If anything, the latest notes show how strongly it still anchors the inquiry.
The recent note on Ready and Done began with a very ordinary Sprint-end problem: tests being negotiated away because work needs to become Done. But asking why those controls existed changed the meaning of the situation. Skipping a test was no longer merely a delivery shortcut. It could be understood as accepting additional risk without the evidence that the test was supposed to provide.
Following that line of thought into refinement produced another observation: refinement is not only about reducing uncertainty about what to build. It is also about reducing uncertainty about what could go wrong.
That is still recognizably quality thinking, but it no longer feels bounded by QA. It reaches into product management, risk, decision-making, operations and learning.
Perhaps that is why Quality Management feels closer to the territory I am moving through, while still not quite describing all of it.
Looking back across the Body of Knowledge, I increasingly see one part concerned with how we intervene in systems and another concerned with how we understand them. But even that distinction is becoming difficult to maintain. We need understanding in order to intervene responsibly. The intervention produces consequences. Those consequences give us new evidence. The evidence changes our understanding, which should then influence the next intervention.
The two strands keep folding back into each other.
And perhaps this is why the subject itself seems harder to define now than it did twenty or forty notes ago.
Not despite the Body of Knowledge becoming a learning system, but because of it.
Every cycle seems to reveal relationships that were not visible before. That does not necessarily mean that the subject itself is objectively expanding. It means that my understanding of its boundary keeps changing as the inquiry develops.
That distinction matters. Retrospective #4 already contained an important warning: as the theory became more ambitious, it became increasingly important to distinguish observation from interpretation and speculation, and not to make an experience prove more than it actually did.
So I am not ready to give the Body of Knowledge a new grand title.
Quality Assurance is clearly too narrow. Quality Management gets closer. Systems thinking, organizational capability, assessment, knowledge management, product management and organizational learning all seem to touch parts of it.
For now, one question seems to describe the territory better than any label:
How do we understand changing systems well enough to intervene responsibly, learn from the consequences, and preserve that understanding over time?
I do not know whether that is what the Body of Knowledge is ultimately about.
But I think it is now a fair question to ask.
When I started the blog, I wrote that writing was not merely a way to communicate conclusions. It was a way to discover what I think.
That still feels right.
The difference is that the mechanism has become larger than writing. The Practice Notes feed synthesis, theory, approaches and public discussion. Those representations encounter other contexts and other people. What comes back changes the Body of Knowledge again.
The previous retrospective ended with the observation that the theory had started talking back.
Now it seems to be asking a more difficult question:
What is it actually a theory of?
And perhaps, for now, it is better that I do not know.
Leave a Reply