I came across an interesting article on car branding, but since cars are not really my thing, my brain meandered off to ponder branding generally and then the way we brand people.
Or, should I say I was pondering the understanding we share of the roles people perform, I am not certainly not pondering the idea of going around with a hot iron and branding people. Even the term “brand” can be misunderstood.
The dilution of the car brand
The article was about how the model numbers of cars have become more confusing and less useful over time.
They used to evoke a vivid and specific mage of the specific car and model you were talking about. And that I guess is a brand working really well.
So, for example, if I said I love the Model T Ford and wanted to buy one, you would assume I am into antiques and not performance vehicles. Or if I said I like modern performance vehicles and thought I might purchase a model T, then you would perhaps infer that I was wildly ill-informed about the latest vehicles on the market and that what I was buying did not match what I needed at all.
Similarly, if I said I was thinking of getting an RX-7, E type Jag or Torana then classic car fans would be able to picture what I am thinking of buying and join me in discussing what was either cool or overrated about the car I referred to.
But now, the article bemoans, the model numbers have lost their power. A model number like a “BMW i3” might be an old car, an electric flying car or maybe both or neither.
To be fair, I don’t really know what an i3 is. If you asked me what what my favourite model car was I would say “Airfix”, which makes sense to me but would probably confuse a car enthusiast since it is a model car brand and not a car model.
From Airfix to Agile and the brand of a BA
I have been talking about something I am not that excited by – model numbers of modern cars and their very tenuous link to using the word model in a different context. So perhaps I am drifting off target.
But the article got me wondering about my own brand when I tell people what I do and the brand of others I work with.
I used to manage business analysts and while most people respected them, there was also a very inconsistent view of what they did.
Some people thought they (the BAs) were a kind of generalists who helped you get things done, while others thought they were specifically there to take an idea and turn it into a business case that evolved into a set of functional and non functional requirements and constraints, which then got inserted into a delivery team as input into the delivery process.
I am not sure people used the term “inserted” for the requirements handover but the word does represent what some people thought happened.
The idea was that if a business analyst was good at their job then you could insert the output of their work into your delivery process and expect a good outcome.
This was almost the opposite of what good BA’s did, because in fact they co-created an understanding of needs, constraints, risks and requirements rather than just plugging them into a document register.
The danger came when the world went agile and people started assuming that agile project product delivery teams squads did not need BAs.
Agile teams certainly didn’t need someone to insert requirements into them, any more than they needed someone chasing them with a branding iron.
But since the misunderstood ‘brand’ of a Business Analyst had been reduced to just flinging documents over the fence, people genuinely couldn’t comprehend why a squad might still need one.
Some people started thinking a developer could understand what was needed without a BA, which was always true. Others assumed one person, called a PO or Product Owner could speak on behalf of the entire business and customer base, which was in fact sometimes true.
Then I heard that agile teams did not really think about customers because they did not have designers, which seemed off to me. Having great customer researchers, great design thinkers and great designs for a product or service is a good idea. But the benefit of great design is that it is great design regardless of whether a team is agile or fleeting or persistent or good.
The Lada Niva of Frameworks
Anyway, agile has now gone from fresh and innovative to old and sad, just as some car brands probably do. In fact the brand “agile” is now as confused as the model number of a BMW i3 flying Airfix SUV.
But I am not complaining about agile going out of fashion. I think some ideas are classics, like a 1967 Mustang, the image of which still resonates with me, much more than say a Bronco or horsey car.
An similar example of a classic idea in product and service development would be that you need high performing teams that respect diversity and have meaningful open conversations. That idea resonated when I heard it, proved itself when I took it for a drive myself and has continued to be true ever since.
Other ideas probably should fade away, like the Lada Niva car brand. Apparently it is now sold as a Lada Niva Legend, but I am not a fan and don’t associate it with legendary status.
When the Lada Niva came to Australia, I thought I would like to buy one. The idea of a simple, robust 4 wheel drive that would keep running was cool. I guess I thought it would be like a VW Beetle but new.
Then I heard that they were famous for breaking down and even leaving the factory incomplete. So the reality was very different to what the brand sounded like to me at first.
I guess a related idea in the work context might be that agile teams need to build user stories with the right wording and then stick them in Jira with story points and a priority based on MSCW, when MSCW even sounds like a word that left the factory without the expected vowels.
Any conclusion there at all Mr King?
I guess the overall conclusion is that I don’t really know much about cars and the value of good branding.
But I do think we can do better than using broad terms like model number, that have come to represent different things.
I think that when we start to expect a word to serve too many needs or represent too many vaguely connected things then it loses its value.
In the same way the words we use to help understand the brand of a job role can be really useful when it is understood. But as its meaning gets diluted so does its value.
I don’t care too much about diluting car brands, though it seems like a shame. I care more about when we dilute our understanding of what people do at work and of course if we dilute our understanding of each other and our shared ideas.
This is not a new thing, but it is something I was reminded of when reading the article.
So I guess the real conclusion would be that we should continue to ask clarifying questions, know when we are being generic or specific in our communication and try to communicate shared meaning rather than jargon.
Probably not a new idea – more of a classic.
