(Diary, Runcible)
No one has hired me or my companies for risk reduction – that’s the job of bureaucracies everywhere. I’ve been hired, and my company has been hired to use technology to achieve business transformation in order to increase opportunities and exploit them. It doesn’t matter if it’s branding, positioning, messaging, user interfaces, processes and procedures or output measurements.
Mostly, my companies solve complex value propositions, which is why most of what we did was tech, medical, government, or military related. And it’s why we didn’t do cars, fashion, or other pure-signaling (consumption) businesses many other agencies and consultancies long to.
So it’s odd for me to think about runcible as a governance layer that limits risk and its consequences, when I think of that limiting of error as providing quality results that provide a competitive advantage in obtaining and holding customers, creating reputation and brand value.
And so the emerging demand that we position runcible as a negativa (risk reduction) first, is just counter-intuitive to me. But it is in fact the way our first pitches have turned out.
So instead of pitching the positiva benefits, we pitch the negativa benefits, and then explain the upside as the consequences.
Which makes me feel kinda dumb since I mean, I’m supposed to be the smart guy in the room. But it just means old habits die hard. And just as I use runcible to warn companies and governments about the failings of proceduralism and doing what is ‘habit’ because of it, my work with Runcible has taught me the same thing: the problem with habits procedures and framings that need to be adjusted for a different context.
It’s all fascinating. 😉
-CD
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-24 01:28:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2003638817300054374