I have now reached eighty posts.
At the end of the previous retrospective, I wrote that the subjects were changing while the method did not. At the time, that already felt important. The Practice Notes had moved well beyond software quality into watches, clothing, memory, writing, AI and organizational continuity, yet the same underlying questions kept returning. What I had not expected was what would happen next.
During the last twenty posts, the body of knowledge began to do more than connect existing observations. It started generating new ones.
The Body of Knowledge Became a Subject
The first part of this cycle was less about extending the theory and more about understanding what had already accumulated. As the number of Practice Notes increased, a new problem appeared. Writing had become cheap. Reviewing, synthesizing and maintaining all of the resulting representations had not.
That led to a shift in how I thought about the notes themselves. Perhaps the objective was not to keep producing more polished documents about the same underlying knowledge. Perhaps the notes could become the primary body of evidence, while papers, models, guidance and other publications became derived representations.
That idea changed the role of AI as well. Instead of using AI only to help write individual notes, it could help search across them, connect them, identify recurring patterns and synthesize different views of the same body of understanding.
The notes were no longer merely outputs. They had become material for further inquiry.
From Experience to Pattern
That made another change possible. Professional experience usually arrives as cases. A difficult assessment. A strange organizational behavior. A successful intervention. A failed transformation. A watch that reveals something unexpectedly useful about reference models.
Individual cases matter, but their greater value may lie in what becomes visible when several of them are compared. A practitioner who has seen the same underlying mechanism repeatedly may begin to recognize it in very different situations.
This does not mean that experience produces automatic answers. It produces better hypotheses.
That distinction became increasingly important during this cycle. The blog began moving from recording what happened toward asking what different experiences might have in common. Once that happened, the theory started becoming more active.
When the Theory Began to Extrapolate
Several recent notes were no longer straightforward abstractions from direct experience. They were consequences of ideas that had already developed elsewhere.
If organizational capabilities persist after improvement projects end, perhaps improvement is not enough. Perhaps they require continuing Capability Management.
If major transformations change several capabilities at the same time, perhaps transformation can be understood as the coordinated evolution of a capability portfolio rather than primarily as the implementation of a framework.
If individual subjects can all be strong while the collection as a whole is poorly composed, perhaps the portfolio itself is also a subject with its own reference, development and assessment.
And if Product Management and Capability Management appear to contain the same recurring architecture of reference, development, assessment, learning and stewardship, perhaps they are two specializations of something more general.
For now, I have called that possibility Subject Management. That last idea is deliberately speculative. In fact, several notes in this cycle received question marks for exactly that reason.
I have enough experience and theory to see why the idea might make sense. I do not have enough to claim that it does. That distinction has become more important as the theory has grown.
The Difference Between Observation and Extrapolation
One useful correction happened while writing Returning to the Same Organization.
The original draft tried to connect the experience directly to loss of organizational understanding. But that was not actually what I had observed.
What I had observed was simpler. I had returned to several very large organizations after roughly ten years and found that they had become remarkably different organizations. The company was still there. The organization I remembered largely was not.
That led to the idea of an organizational generation, and to a question about how continuity is preserved when organizational generations may be much shorter than human generations.
That was enough. The note became better when I stopped trying to make the observation prove more than it actually did. This may be one of the most important developments in this cycle.
As the theory becomes more ambitious, the need to distinguish between experience, interpretation and speculation becomes more important as well.
Knowing When to Stop
That same concern appeared more explicitly in Knowing When to Stop.
I have always been inclined to keep asking Why. One explanation usually leads to another question, and another, until the underlying principle starts becoming visible.
But there is a limit. Sometimes the evidence simply runs out. At that point, further reasoning may stop producing understanding and start producing speculation. There is an important difference between saying that there is no answer and saying that I cannot justify an answer. The second is often the more honest conclusion.
That idea later returned in a more professional form: assessment requires curiosity. But curiosity must be disciplined. The assessor should keep asking when something does not make sense, but should also stop when the evidence no longer supports another conclusion.
That led to one of the clearest propositions of this cycle:
Assessment is disciplined curiosity directed toward justified judgment.
A Method in the Madness
The biggest surprise, however, may not have been any one of the theoretical ideas. It was recognizing something about the way those ideas are being produced.
Across quality management, capability assessment, Product Continuity, watches, dress codes, organizational change and even a fictional Swiss engineer called Hans Hexagon, I seem to keep following the same pattern.
It begins with Why.
Then Why behind the Why.
And often another Why behind that.
The questioning continues until the visible practice, product, process or artifact starts giving way to the purpose beneath it. Once that purpose becomes clearer, inconsistencies become easier to see.
The process no longer performs the function it was intended to perform. The framework has become more important than the capability it was meant to create. The implementation has become the reference. The visible What has drifted away from the underlying Why. And once that inconsistency becomes visible, the direction of development often becomes clearer. A compact version of the pattern is:
Reveal the Why → Reveal the Inconsistencies → Reveal the Path
I have started calling this the Recursive Why. I do not yet know whether it is anything more than a description of how I personally tend to think. But that question itself is now interesting.
The Theory Is Beginning to Talk Back
Earlier Practice Notes mostly captured observations. Later notes connected those observations into recurring concepts. Those concepts gradually became a theory. During this cycle, something changed again.
The theory began suggesting what I should look at next. Capability Continuity suggested Capability Management. Capability Management suggested capability-portfolio thinking. Portfolio thinking changed how transformation could be interpreted. Product and Capability Management suggested the possibility of a common management architecture.
The theory was no longer only organizing the past. It was generating hypotheses about things I had not originally set out to investigate. That feels like an important threshold.
It is also dangerous. A theory that can generate new ideas can also generate very convincing nonsense. Which is why the other development in this cycle matters just as much. Keep asking. But do not claim more than the evidence allows.
Perhaps the Recursive Why and disciplined curiosity belong together. One keeps the inquiry moving. The other keeps it honest.
What Comes Next?
I am less certain than ever that I know. That is not necessarily a problem. The Practice Notes increasingly seem to work best when they preserve observations before I know exactly where those observations belong.
Some will become part of Reference Model Theory. Some may contribute to Capability Management or Product Management. Some may belong in a future theory of Assessment as a Professional Discipline. Some may disappear during later synthesis because they turn out to add very little. And some speculative ideas may simply be wrong. The important thing is that their status remains visible.
The notes are becoming a record not only of conclusions, but of how those conclusions emerged, changed and occasionally failed. That may become valuable in its own right.
Reflection
At sixty posts, I wrote that the subjects were changing while the method remained the same. At eighty, I think I am beginning to see part of that method. The progression so far looks something like this:
Observation → Pattern → Theory → Extrapolation → Method
The next question may be whether the method itself can be understood well enough to test. Is the Recursive Why simply one person’s habit of thought? Or is there something more general in it?
I do not know. Which, after the last twenty posts, feels like exactly the right answer. For now.
Leave a Reply