“It’s almost like a dark state going on in Tallahassee,” said Rep. Carlos Trujillo, a Miami Republican and critic of the “culture of Tallahassee that compromises the process” because “priorities are shaped not on policy, but on relationships. MiamiHerald.com, Nov 5, 2017, Code of silence is breaking on Tallahassee’s sex secrets.
I love a good rule or policy. A clear policy that captures what we want to be doing now. A precise rule that if most people follow it the project would be successful. However, I also like to argue that we need to be flexible regardless of what the law, regulation or policy seems to say.
So we have the classic balancing act between two ends of a spectrum. Some people need the assurance of an absolute rule, while others want general guidance on what to do most of the time, and final others who don’t want to be hindered by any rule of any kind.
For example see Your Project Needs Business Rules, Not Meetings
So when I see an argument that is centered on someone not following a policy, I’m initially always skeptical. If the consequences of not following the rules are not being discussed, only the fact the rule was not followed, then I have great doubts that the arguer had any real case behind their concern. If we don’t know the underlying reasons for a rule, the real reasons, then for me the rule is at best a suggestion. This predictably drives some people crazy.
So while I love a few good rules, rules in general I see as suggestions and candidates for being updated to become better rules. Having priorities for example, based upon something other than possibly outdated policies doesn’t strike me immediately as a huge issue.
Are you basing your project on rules you understand and that make sense or are you just following the rules as the safest path just in case anything goes wrong or to avoid criticism?