Eventually work must follow the entire cycle, but I don't agree that skipping straight to creation is always bad. For many builders and makers, it's hard to think about vision or story when there's nothing visual to react to. Creating something and then getting actual feedback on it is sometimes more helpful than starting with an imaginary audience. Sometimes, thinking about the theory or story or strategy facilitates creativity -- and sometimes it inhibits the flow of creative energy.
That's a great point, Kellie. I agree that what you're pointing out is a fairly common pattern. In fact, from the data points I have, it's usually what happens: jump into creation, and then fairly quickly realize oops, we have a bunch of gaps and need to double back. My hope is that it's helpful to have a sense of the overall cycle to (a) get unstuck when that happens, and (b) budget enough time for the work to happen instead of expecting the first thing we made to be right.
Given, I come from the perspective of being a visual person working in the trenches on software, or being around the builders of software, so my bias is from that. I'm trying to work on a project with a couple friends, and when I try to approach them about a vision for the project, it makes them feel overwhelmed and confused. To them, vision-building as the first thing is a blocker and waste of time. Builders who jump into creation first are usually okay with "doubling back" because they see it simply as part of their thinking process, rather than "the one thing" to make.
Of course, I can see your take being applicable when the risk to "get it right" is much more expensive and costly vs. momentum to have a thing exist in the world. Context is important! :)
Eventually work must follow the entire cycle, but I don't agree that skipping straight to creation is always bad. For many builders and makers, it's hard to think about vision or story when there's nothing visual to react to. Creating something and then getting actual feedback on it is sometimes more helpful than starting with an imaginary audience. Sometimes, thinking about the theory or story or strategy facilitates creativity -- and sometimes it inhibits the flow of creative energy.
That's a great point, Kellie. I agree that what you're pointing out is a fairly common pattern. In fact, from the data points I have, it's usually what happens: jump into creation, and then fairly quickly realize oops, we have a bunch of gaps and need to double back. My hope is that it's helpful to have a sense of the overall cycle to (a) get unstuck when that happens, and (b) budget enough time for the work to happen instead of expecting the first thing we made to be right.
Given, I come from the perspective of being a visual person working in the trenches on software, or being around the builders of software, so my bias is from that. I'm trying to work on a project with a couple friends, and when I try to approach them about a vision for the project, it makes them feel overwhelmed and confused. To them, vision-building as the first thing is a blocker and waste of time. Builders who jump into creation first are usually okay with "doubling back" because they see it simply as part of their thinking process, rather than "the one thing" to make.
Of course, I can see your take being applicable when the risk to "get it right" is much more expensive and costly vs. momentum to have a thing exist in the world. Context is important! :)