I came across an article on car branding and started pondering cars, but that is not a key focus for me so my brain meandered off to ponder branding generally and the branding of humans.
Or should I say the brand of humans, rather than being mistaken as using branding as a verb like when you brand cows. I am not pondering the idea of going around with a hot iron and branding people.
The dilution of the car brand
The article was about how the model numbers of cars have changed over time. They used to give clear guidance about the specific car and model your are talking about.
So 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 that I was wildly ill-informed about the latest vehicles on the market.
Similarly, back in the day, if I said I was thinking of getting an RX-7, E type Jag or a Torana then classic car fans would be able to picture what I am thinking of buying.
But now, the article bemoans, the model numbers have lost their power. I guess a BMW i3 might be an old car, an electric flying car or something very different to another i3. I don’t really know, because I am not much of a car guy, in spite of society’s expectations of male coolness.
In fact if you asked me what model cars I would say “Airfix”.
That might confuse cool car enthusiasts but I do actually like making model cars and especially model planes. I have not done so in a long time but if you bought me an Airfix model to make I would be very happy about it.
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.
But the article got me wondering about my brand and the brand of others.
I used to manage business analysts and while a lot of people respected them, there was also a very inconsistent view of what they did.
Some people thought they were 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 functional and non functional requirements and constraints and then got inserted into a delivery team as input into the delivery process.
I am not sure people used the term “inserted” for 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 a good BA did because 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 and great design thinkers and great design 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 cars probably do. But 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 classic, like a 1967 Mustang or Bronco or horsey car. An example would be that you need high performing teams that respect diversity and have meaningful open conversations.
Other ideas probably should fade, like the Lada Niva. Apparently it is now sold as a Lada Niva Legend, but I am not a fan.
When the Lada Niva came to Australia I thought I would like to buy one because 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.
I guess a related idea might be that agile teams need to build user stories with the right wording and 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.
