WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.279 Welcome to the deep dive. Our mission, as always, 00:00:03.399 --> 00:00:05.580 is to dive into your information stack, could 00:00:05.580 --> 00:00:08.300 be research, internal docs, anything really, 00:00:08.500 --> 00:00:10.900 and pull out that key signal from all the noise 00:00:10.900 --> 00:00:14.519 so you can get up to speed fast. Today, we're 00:00:14.519 --> 00:00:16.640 tackling something I think pretty much everyone 00:00:16.640 --> 00:00:18.600 bumps into, whether you're leading a project, 00:00:18.739 --> 00:00:21.100 managing a team, maybe even in your own personal 00:00:21.100 --> 00:00:23.179 projects. We're calling it the paradox of moving 00:00:23.179 --> 00:00:25.559 goals. You know the feeling. You set a target. 00:00:25.780 --> 00:00:28.120 You allocate resources. People get to work. And 00:00:28.120 --> 00:00:29.980 just as you're nearing the finish line. Boom, 00:00:30.199 --> 00:00:32.100 the goal post shift. Suddenly, what you thought 00:00:32.100 --> 00:00:33.960 was the goal. Well, that's not quite it anymore. 00:00:34.179 --> 00:00:35.719 Yeah, it's like organizational whiplash, right? 00:00:35.780 --> 00:00:37.859 Working hard towards point B. You finally get 00:00:37.859 --> 00:00:39.880 there, and the person who set the goal, maybe 00:00:39.880 --> 00:00:44.859 your client, a manager, whoever says, oh. Uh, 00:00:44.859 --> 00:00:47.179 that's actually not really what we need now. 00:00:47.280 --> 00:00:49.840 We need this other thing instead. The material 00:00:49.840 --> 00:00:51.359 we're digging into today, it's actually centered 00:00:51.359 --> 00:00:55.140 around educational technology, how teachers adopt 00:00:55.140 --> 00:00:57.960 new tools. But honestly, the problem it highlights, 00:00:58.039 --> 00:01:01.240 it applies everywhere. Leadership, design, resource 00:01:01.240 --> 00:01:03.939 allocation, it's universal. The real challenge 00:01:03.939 --> 00:01:06.560 for anyone in CHART is figuring out why the requirements 00:01:06.560 --> 00:01:08.780 keep ratcheting up. Is it, you know, genuine 00:01:08.780 --> 00:01:10.299 discovery? Like, oh, we learned something, now 00:01:10.299 --> 00:01:13.189 we need this. Or is it... something else, maybe 00:01:13.189 --> 00:01:16.290 avoidance. That difference, genuine need versus, 00:01:16.290 --> 00:01:19.049 let's say, excuse -making, that's huge. Because 00:01:19.049 --> 00:01:21.109 every time that goal shifts, money shifts, time 00:01:21.109 --> 00:01:23.670 shifts, effort shifts, limited resources are 00:01:23.670 --> 00:01:26.730 always in play. Okay. Okay. So let's get concrete. 00:01:27.250 --> 00:01:29.549 The source material gives us two really good 00:01:29.549 --> 00:01:31.310 contrasting case studies. Let's start with the 00:01:31.310 --> 00:01:33.250 first one, which we're calling the geometry teacher. 00:01:33.629 --> 00:01:36.390 She was supposedly keen on using tech in her 00:01:36.390 --> 00:01:39.450 classroom. So the school or the district stepped 00:01:39.450 --> 00:01:42.090 up. They gave her some initial resources, repurposed 00:01:42.090 --> 00:01:44.349 laptops, okay, maybe not brand new but functional, 00:01:44.709 --> 00:01:48.409 enough for students to work in pairs, and software 00:01:48.409 --> 00:01:50.750 licenses. Older versions, but they worked. The 00:01:50.750 --> 00:01:52.980 idea was just get started. Right. get your feet 00:01:52.980 --> 00:01:55.700 wet. But the goal posts, they started moving 00:01:55.700 --> 00:01:58.159 almost instantly. She apparently took one look 00:01:58.159 --> 00:02:01.739 and said, nope, not good enough. First big shift, 00:02:01.980 --> 00:02:03.780 needed enough computers so every single student 00:02:03.780 --> 00:02:06.019 had one, no sharing, and needed the latest software, 00:02:06.079 --> 00:02:08.259 not the older stuff. And well, the organization 00:02:08.259 --> 00:02:10.080 actually managed to find the budget. They met 00:02:10.080 --> 00:02:12.300 that demand. OK, so goal achieved, right? Individual 00:02:12.300 --> 00:02:15.259 workstations, new software, done. Not quite, 00:02:15.419 --> 00:02:18.280 because then the next request came pretty quickly. 00:02:18.699 --> 00:02:21.120 Now she decided they actually needed Chromebooks. 00:02:21.479 --> 00:02:24.110 Why? Not because the laptops weren't working 00:02:24.110 --> 00:02:27.449 for her lessons, but because, well, some neighboring 00:02:27.449 --> 00:02:29.110 schools were using Chromebooks for a specific 00:02:29.110 --> 00:02:32.050 web app. Ah. So the goal shifted based on what 00:02:32.050 --> 00:02:33.870 others were doing, not necessarily a teaching 00:02:33.870 --> 00:02:36.430 need she discovered herself. Seems like it. And 00:02:36.430 --> 00:02:38.770 OK, so they get her the Chromebooks, replacing 00:02:38.770 --> 00:02:41.469 the perfectly good new laptops they just bought, 00:02:41.650 --> 00:02:44.669 mind you. And then came the final move. She decided 00:02:44.669 --> 00:02:47.030 she really couldn't teach effectively with technology 00:02:47.030 --> 00:02:50.479 at all, unless... Unless she had a high -end 00:02:50.479 --> 00:02:52.539 smart board installed. Wow. Okay. That sounds 00:02:52.539 --> 00:02:55.080 exhausting from a resource perspective You go 00:02:55.080 --> 00:02:57.419 from shared old laptops to new individual laptops 00:02:57.419 --> 00:03:00.080 to Chromebooks and now a smart board That's a 00:03:00.080 --> 00:03:02.379 lot of churn and a lot of money. It looks like 00:03:02.379 --> 00:03:05.180 somebody just can't be satisfied Exactly. It 00:03:05.180 --> 00:03:07.639 looks like scope creep on overdrive. But here's 00:03:07.639 --> 00:03:09.860 where the analysis in this source gets really 00:03:09.860 --> 00:03:12.319 interesting. It focuses on a crucial observation 00:03:12.319 --> 00:03:15.360 about her behavior. The key finding was this. 00:03:15.919 --> 00:03:18.599 She decided each next level of technology was 00:03:18.599 --> 00:03:21.379 essential after only, and this is critical, a 00:03:21.379 --> 00:03:24.340 single attempt at using the previous one. Sometimes 00:03:24.340 --> 00:03:26.199 maybe not even a real attempt. It wasn't like 00:03:26.199 --> 00:03:28.719 she used the laptops for weeks and found a flaw. 00:03:29.259 --> 00:03:31.939 Hmm. Okay. Just one try. That is significant. 00:03:32.419 --> 00:03:34.840 But couldn't you argue maybe she was just perceptive? 00:03:35.180 --> 00:03:36.960 Maybe she could see immediately that the older 00:03:36.960 --> 00:03:39.460 tech wouldn't work for her ultimate vision? Isn't 00:03:39.460 --> 00:03:41.949 that efficient? in a way. That's a fair challenge. 00:03:42.150 --> 00:03:44.169 And that's why it's a paradox, right? On the 00:03:44.169 --> 00:03:46.409 surface, it could look like foresight. But the 00:03:46.409 --> 00:03:48.069 source material really pushes back on that idea 00:03:48.069 --> 00:03:51.009 because of one other really vital piece of evidence. 00:03:51.610 --> 00:03:54.069 Throughout this whole cycle, new laptops, new 00:03:54.069 --> 00:03:56.069 software, Chromebooks, demanding a smart board, 00:03:56.349 --> 00:03:58.509 she made basically zero changes to her actual 00:03:58.509 --> 00:04:00.830 teaching methods. She was teaching geometry the 00:04:00.830 --> 00:04:02.889 same way she always had. The tech wasn't being 00:04:02.889 --> 00:04:05.289 integrated. It was just there. Or rather, the 00:04:05.289 --> 00:04:07.069 next piece of tech was always about to be there. 00:04:07.259 --> 00:04:10.020 Ah, OK. So the teaching practice itself stayed 00:04:10.020 --> 00:04:12.580 static despite the constantly changing hardware 00:04:12.580 --> 00:04:14.939 requests. Exactly. And so the conclusion the 00:04:14.939 --> 00:04:17.480 researchers drew was pretty sharp. It seems like 00:04:17.480 --> 00:04:19.899 she was using the lack of the perfect technology 00:04:19.899 --> 00:04:23.519 as an ongoing excuse, an excuse to avoid the 00:04:23.519 --> 00:04:25.480 really hard work, which was changing how she 00:04:25.480 --> 00:04:28.420 actually taught. The goal wasn't really integrate 00:04:28.420 --> 00:04:31.319 tech effectively. It became get the next piece 00:04:31.319 --> 00:04:34.139 of equipment. The requests were a distraction. 00:04:35.379 --> 00:04:37.740 Delaying the real task, which was pedagogical 00:04:37.740 --> 00:04:40.540 change, by focusing on acquiring stuff. That 00:04:40.540 --> 00:04:42.759 definitely paints a clearer picture of avoidance. 00:04:42.980 --> 00:04:44.660 Okay, that sets up the contrast really well. 00:04:45.480 --> 00:04:48.420 Let's pivot now to the second case study, the 00:04:48.420 --> 00:04:50.759 statistics teacher. This one, according to the 00:04:50.759 --> 00:04:52.759 source, looks more like genuine discovery driving 00:04:52.759 --> 00:04:55.120 the goal changes. Yeah, the difference is noticeable 00:04:55.120 --> 00:04:57.500 right from the start. This teacher actively wanted 00:04:57.500 --> 00:05:00.160 to use tech to, you know, make statistics more 00:05:00.160 --> 00:05:02.540 relevant, more hands -on. She got the standard 00:05:02.540 --> 00:05:05.100 issue Chromebooks in this case. And unlike the 00:05:05.100 --> 00:05:06.879 first teacher, she didn't immediately critique 00:05:06.879 --> 00:05:09.500 the hardware. She just jumped in, started using 00:05:09.500 --> 00:05:11.300 them with her students right away, tried to make 00:05:11.300 --> 00:05:14.819 it work. OK, so usage from day one. But the goals 00:05:14.819 --> 00:05:17.600 did start moving here too, right? Yeah. So what 00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:20.430 drove those changes? It was driven by actually 00:05:20.430 --> 00:05:22.709 doing the work. She used the Chromebooks, used 00:05:22.709 --> 00:05:25.189 the standard spreadsheet software they had, and 00:05:25.189 --> 00:05:28.230 she hit a real wall, a functional gap. Turns 00:05:28.230 --> 00:05:31.089 out, the basic spreadsheet app just couldn't 00:05:31.089 --> 00:05:33.709 create some of the specific, more complex graphs 00:05:33.709 --> 00:05:36.029 needed for the level of statistical analysis 00:05:36.029 --> 00:05:39.250 she wanted her students to do. The tool itself 00:05:39.250 --> 00:05:42.470 was limiting the learning. OK, so a genuine limitation 00:05:42.470 --> 00:05:45.170 discovered through practice. Did she immediately 00:05:45.170 --> 00:05:47.829 ask for, like, a super expensive new system? 00:05:48.209 --> 00:05:50.189 No, that's the interesting part. First, she tried 00:05:50.189 --> 00:05:52.269 to find a workaround. She found an add -on for 00:05:52.269 --> 00:05:53.730 the spreadsheet program that was supposed to 00:05:53.730 --> 00:05:56.189 help with graphing. And importantly, the source 00:05:56.189 --> 00:05:58.529 notes, she really struggled with this add -on, 00:05:58.870 --> 00:06:01.209 used it over several lessons, found the interface 00:06:01.209 --> 00:06:03.350 clunky, difficult for students, didn't really 00:06:03.350 --> 00:06:05.310 match how professional stat software works. It 00:06:05.310 --> 00:06:07.769 wasn't a quick nope. It was a sustained effort 00:06:07.769 --> 00:06:09.730 that revealed the tool's shortcomings. Right, 00:06:09.730 --> 00:06:11.430 so you see the effort. You see the struggle. 00:06:11.579 --> 00:06:14.420 She invested time, found the limitations weren't 00:06:14.420 --> 00:06:16.699 just superficial. Then she defined the next need. 00:06:17.379 --> 00:06:20.019 Exactly. So then she requested propel statistical 00:06:20.019 --> 00:06:23.300 software, more powerful industry standard stuff. 00:06:23.740 --> 00:06:26.579 The school actually bought it. But that created 00:06:26.579 --> 00:06:30.040 a new problem. The plot thickens. What now? This 00:06:30.040 --> 00:06:33.029 new software needed more computing power. It 00:06:33.029 --> 00:06:36.009 had to be installed on specific PCs and not run 00:06:36.009 --> 00:06:39.050 on the Chromebooks. And those PCs were in a dedicated 00:06:39.050 --> 00:06:42.149 computer lab, one usually booked solid by graphic 00:06:42.149 --> 00:06:45.370 design and multimedia classes. Oh, classic resource 00:06:45.370 --> 00:06:48.209 bottleneck. Yeah. The tech exists, but access 00:06:48.209 --> 00:06:50.790 is the issue. Precisely. So the goal had moved 00:06:50.790 --> 00:06:53.370 from basic tools to specialized software, which 00:06:53.370 --> 00:06:56.250 was met. But then the problem shifted to logistics. 00:06:56.970 --> 00:06:59.370 Scheduling her classes into that lab was a nightmare. 00:07:00.089 --> 00:07:02.639 Inconsistent, difficult. It was hindering the 00:07:02.639 --> 00:07:04.480 very thing the software was meant to enable. 00:07:04.759 --> 00:07:07.379 OK, I see the chain reaction. So her final goal 00:07:07.379 --> 00:07:09.639 shift, the last moving of the goal post, wasn't 00:07:09.639 --> 00:07:11.519 really about the text capability anymore. It 00:07:11.519 --> 00:07:13.899 was about access and workflow. She requested 00:07:13.899 --> 00:07:16.120 dedicated laptops just for her stat students 00:07:16.120 --> 00:07:18.560 with that specific software pre -installed, laptops 00:07:18.560 --> 00:07:20.199 they could use in her classroom, eliminating 00:07:20.199 --> 00:07:22.959 the whole scheduling fiasco. OK, let's put these 00:07:22.959 --> 00:07:27.019 side by side then. Because if you're, say, the 00:07:27.019 --> 00:07:30.019 principal or the IT director just looking at 00:07:30.019 --> 00:07:33.910 the request, on paper. Yeah. Both teachers look 00:07:33.910 --> 00:07:35.850 kind of similar, don't they? Both kept asking 00:07:35.850 --> 00:07:38.470 for more, more expensive stuff. Both changed 00:07:38.470 --> 00:07:40.470 the requirements multiple times. New hardware, 00:07:40.569 --> 00:07:43.670 new software. So as the person holding the purse 00:07:43.670 --> 00:07:46.370 strings, dealing with limited budgets, how do 00:07:46.370 --> 00:07:48.230 you tell the difference? How do you know who 00:07:48.230 --> 00:07:50.589 to support? Are you backing a real innovator 00:07:50.589 --> 00:07:52.949 hitting real limits, or are you just funding 00:07:52.949 --> 00:07:55.050 someone who's never going to be satisfied, who's 00:07:55.050 --> 00:07:57.209 maybe just avoiding the real work? That's the 00:07:57.209 --> 00:07:59.550 core dilemma. It absolutely is. And this is where 00:07:59.550 --> 00:08:02.350 the source material offers, I think, its most 00:08:02.350 --> 00:08:05.029 practical and powerful insight. It says this 00:08:05.029 --> 00:08:08.089 whole paradox, this confusion, it actually gets 00:08:08.089 --> 00:08:10.550 a lot easier to resolve if you apply one simple 00:08:10.550 --> 00:08:12.870 filter. Forget just looking at the requests. 00:08:13.110 --> 00:08:15.529 Look at the actions. OK. The key diagnostic question 00:08:15.529 --> 00:08:17.910 isn't, what shiny new thing do they want next? 00:08:17.990 --> 00:08:19.949 It's, what are they doing with what they have 00:08:19.949 --> 00:08:22.670 right now? Or maybe even, what effort are they 00:08:22.670 --> 00:08:25.189 putting in to make the current system work? So 00:08:25.189 --> 00:08:31.550 observe the usage. The effort. But hang on. Couldn't 00:08:31.550 --> 00:08:33.850 that be tricky? What if someone is using the 00:08:33.850 --> 00:08:36.269 tech, but maybe quietly struggling? Or their 00:08:36.269 --> 00:08:38.429 manager just doesn't see the effort? How do you 00:08:38.429 --> 00:08:40.970 make sure observing usage is fair and accurate? 00:08:41.149 --> 00:08:43.549 That's a great point. It's not just about seeing 00:08:43.549 --> 00:08:45.470 someone clicking buttons. It's about looking 00:08:45.470 --> 00:08:48.070 for signs of genuine engagement and adaptation. 00:08:48.650 --> 00:08:51.789 Think about the statistics teacher. Her usage 00:08:51.789 --> 00:08:54.230 wasn't just opening the software. It was wrestling 00:08:54.230 --> 00:08:56.870 with the add -on over multiple lessons. It was 00:08:56.870 --> 00:08:59.389 the effort of trying to schedule that damn computer 00:08:59.389 --> 00:09:02.309 lab. Her requests came after documented struggles 00:09:02.309 --> 00:09:04.929 with real constraints, the graphing limits, the 00:09:04.929 --> 00:09:07.090 scheduling conflicts. Okay, so the struggle itself 00:09:07.090 --> 00:09:09.740 is the data. Yes. Her moving goal wasn't just, 00:09:09.860 --> 00:09:12.299 I want something newer, it was effectively, I've 00:09:12.299 --> 00:09:14.519 pushed this system to its limit, here's the proof, 00:09:14.779 --> 00:09:16.580 and here's the specific problem I need solved 00:09:16.580 --> 00:09:19.080 next to get past this roadblock I actually hit. 00:09:19.679 --> 00:09:21.940 Hmm. Compare that to the geometry teacher. Where 00:09:21.940 --> 00:09:23.919 was the struggle with the existing tools? Where 00:09:23.919 --> 00:09:26.299 was the adaptation of her teaching? The effort 00:09:26.299 --> 00:09:28.460 seemed focused outward on requesting the next 00:09:28.460 --> 00:09:30.860 thing, not inward, on changing her own practice 00:09:30.860 --> 00:09:33.549 with what she had. That distinction feels really 00:09:33.549 --> 00:09:36.909 important. The goal only moves legitimately when 00:09:36.909 --> 00:09:39.269 it's pushed by someone actively hitting the ceiling 00:09:39.269 --> 00:09:41.549 of the current setup. You haven't maxed out what 00:09:41.549 --> 00:09:44.330 you've got. Then asking for the next big thing 00:09:44.330 --> 00:09:47.590 might just be, well, delaying the hard part. 00:09:47.889 --> 00:09:50.509 Exactly. Delaying the workflow changes, the process 00:09:50.509 --> 00:09:52.610 improvements, the skill development that might 00:09:52.610 --> 00:09:55.009 actually be needed. So the advice for leaders, 00:09:55.210 --> 00:09:57.509 for managers, for anyone allocating resources 00:09:57.509 --> 00:10:01.210 is maybe counterintuitive. Don't just reward 00:10:01.210 --> 00:10:03.149 the person who claims they'll hit the target 00:10:03.149 --> 00:10:06.190 with the next new tool. Instead, you should actively 00:10:06.190 --> 00:10:09.389 support the person or the team who is visibly 00:10:09.389 --> 00:10:11.070 struggling with the current system. The ones 00:10:11.070 --> 00:10:13.049 who are trying to make it work, adapting, pushing 00:10:13.049 --> 00:10:15.450 its boundaries, and then identifying the specific 00:10:15.450 --> 00:10:17.769 next step based on that real -world friction. 00:10:18.029 --> 00:10:20.690 That's precisely it. Their struggle is your validation. 00:10:20.850 --> 00:10:22.450 They aren't asking for something new because 00:10:22.450 --> 00:10:25.370 the old thing is slightly inconvenient or not 00:10:25.370 --> 00:10:27.730 the latest model. They're asking because they 00:10:27.730 --> 00:10:31.080 have demonstrated. through effort exactly where 00:10:31.080 --> 00:10:33.480 and why the current system is failing them for 00:10:33.480 --> 00:10:35.940 the task at hand. That's the signal in the noise. 00:10:36.259 --> 00:10:38.399 It kind of reframes how we think about resource 00:10:38.399 --> 00:10:41.559 allocation. It's less about funding the promise 00:10:41.559 --> 00:10:44.139 of future perfection and more about investing 00:10:44.139 --> 00:10:46.100 in the people who are demonstrating productive 00:10:46.100 --> 00:10:49.480 struggle now. rewarding the effort to maximize 00:10:49.480 --> 00:10:51.840 the current imperfect reality. And it touches 00:10:51.840 --> 00:10:54.220 on the psychology too, doesn't it? Why is it 00:10:54.220 --> 00:10:56.799 often easier to ask for a new tool like that 00:10:56.799 --> 00:10:59.559 smart board than it is to fundamentally change 00:10:59.559 --> 00:11:01.659 how you do your work, like redesigning lesson 00:11:01.659 --> 00:11:04.899 plans? I suppose asking for a tool puts the onus 00:11:04.899 --> 00:11:07.620 on management, on the budget. Right. It shifts 00:11:07.620 --> 00:11:10.019 the effort and the risk, partly. Changing your 00:11:10.019 --> 00:11:12.559 own deep -seated practices, that requires personal 00:11:12.559 --> 00:11:14.779 effort, vulnerability, maybe admitting something 00:11:14.779 --> 00:11:17.639 wasn't working. It feels riskier personally, 00:11:17.899 --> 00:11:20.600 even if buying new tech is riskier financially 00:11:20.600 --> 00:11:23.120 for the organization. It's that lure of the perfect 00:11:23.120 --> 00:11:25.860 technology, the idea that some external thing, 00:11:25.879 --> 00:11:29.019 some silver bullet, will solve the core problem 00:11:29.019 --> 00:11:31.159 without requiring us to change our own behavior. 00:11:31.320 --> 00:11:33.740 The perfect tool becomes the perfect excuse. 00:11:34.240 --> 00:11:36.590 So for everyone listening, Whether you're managing 00:11:36.590 --> 00:11:39.149 a big project, leading a small team, or even 00:11:39.149 --> 00:11:41.629 just trying to get your own goals met, this framework 00:11:41.629 --> 00:11:44.250 seems incredibly useful. If your team keeps asking 00:11:44.250 --> 00:11:46.690 for the next big platform, the fancy new software, 00:11:47.590 --> 00:11:49.389 but you look around and see the current system 00:11:49.389 --> 00:11:51.549 isn't really being pushed to its limits, you 00:11:51.549 --> 00:11:54.909 might need to ask, Are we funding progress or 00:11:54.909 --> 00:11:57.509 are we funding a very sophisticated delay tactic? 00:11:57.929 --> 00:12:00.789 It's less about the goal on paper and way more 00:12:00.789 --> 00:12:03.269 about the visible effort going into making today's 00:12:03.269 --> 00:12:05.389 solution work. Absolutely. The core takeaway 00:12:05.389 --> 00:12:07.090 is really that simple. The difference between 00:12:07.090 --> 00:12:09.149 avoidance and adaptation isn't in the request 00:12:09.149 --> 00:12:12.070 itself. It's in the effort and the usage that 00:12:12.070 --> 00:12:15.470 precedes the request. Support the struggle because 00:12:15.470 --> 00:12:17.409 that's where the real needs are revealed. Which 00:12:17.409 --> 00:12:19.169 brings us to a final thought for you to consider. 00:12:19.889 --> 00:12:22.539 If this research holds true, If real progress 00:12:22.539 --> 00:12:25.279 and understanding what's truly needed next only 00:12:25.279 --> 00:12:28.320 comes from grappling with imperfect tools, what 00:12:28.320 --> 00:12:31.200 does that say about our constant quest for perfection 00:12:31.200 --> 00:12:33.539 before we start? Right. If you're waiting for 00:12:33.539 --> 00:12:36.480 the absolutely perfect software, the ideal team 00:12:36.480 --> 00:12:38.799 structure, the perfect market conditions, the 00:12:38.799 --> 00:12:41.879 perfect moment to launch, could it be that you're 00:12:41.879 --> 00:12:44.200 actually just building a really elegant mechanism 00:12:44.200 --> 00:12:46.490 for delay? So, maybe the question to ask yourself 00:12:46.490 --> 00:12:49.529 is, what small, maybe even insufficient tool 00:12:49.529 --> 00:12:51.809 or process could you start using today, right 00:12:51.809 --> 00:12:54.750 now, imperfectly, just to force the discovery, 00:12:54.990 --> 00:12:57.649 through doing, of what your real next requirement 00:12:57.649 --> 00:12:59.909 actually is? Maybe. Don't wait for perfect. Start 00:12:59.909 --> 00:13:01.509 with imperfect and see where the struggle leads 00:13:01.509 --> 00:13:01.710 you.