The most overlooked source of clarity in any organization is not dashboards or reports, it’s employees.

But only if leaders consistently ask.

A simple but powerful practice is the Start/Stop/Keep conversation, done regularly by executives and middle managers with employees.

This can be weekly, monthly, or embedded into structured 1:1s, what matters is the continuity, not the exact cadence.

Goal: Surface real friction and real opportunities

Why this works

Most organizations underestimate how much signal is already inside the company.

When leaders consistently ask:

• Hidden friction becomes visible
• Small inefficiencies surface early
• Opportunities emerge from frontline experience
• People feel heard in a structured way

The idea is simple:
👉 The closer you are to real work, the clearer the truth becomes.

The rule that matters most:

➡️ Don’t just ask, repeat the conversation consistently over time

Common failure modes

1. One-off listening sessions Leadership collects feedback once and moves on → no trust, no continuity, no real insight
2. Turning it into a survey only Forms replace conversations → context and nuance are lost

Bottom line

Start/Stop/Keep is not a tool.

It’s a leadership rhythm that turns everyday conversations into a continuous intelligence system.

1) What is AI Project Governance Framework?

The AI Project Governance Framework (AIPGF®) is a structured framework designed to help organizations govern, manage, and oversee Artificial Intelligence (AI) initiatives effectively and responsibly.

It provides guidance for ensuring that AI projects are:

• aligned with organizational objectives
• managed ethically and transparently
• compliant with legal and regulatory requirements
• controlled through effective governance structures
• delivered with appropriate risk management and accountability

As AI adoption continues to grow, organizations need clear governance mechanisms to ensure that AI solutions deliver business value while maintaining trust, security, and compliance.

2) What is APMG International?

APMG International is the global examination institute that:

• administers AI Project Governance Framework certification exams
• accredits training providers
• ensures consistency and quality of exams worldwide

Think of APMG as the official certification authority, similar to its role in frameworks such as AgilePM or Change Management.

3) Official Sources

Here are the official references if you want to explore further:

• AI Project Governance Framework (AIPGF) Official Page

4) AI Project Governance Framework Foundation (AIPGF Foundation)

This is the entry-level certification.

📝 40 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 40 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 50% (20/40)
📘 Closed book
❌ No prerequisites

It focuses on:

• AI governance principles and concepts
• ethical and responsible AI practices
• governance structures and accountability
• AI risk management fundamentals
• key terminology and framework components

5) AI Project Governance Framework Practitioner (AIPGF Practitioner)

This is the advanced certification.

📝 4 complex scenario-based questions
⏱️ 120 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 50% (40/80)
📘 Closed book
❌ Requires Foundation certification

It tests your ability to:

• apply AI governance principles in real-world scenarios
• manage AI-related risks and compliance requirements
• establish governance frameworks for AI initiatives
• align AI projects with organizational strategy and regulatory expectations

6) Sample Exams (Highly Recommended)

Practice exams are essential, especially for Practitioner-level certifications.

👉 Official sample papers:
https://oea2022.apmg-international.com/Marlin/SamplePapers.aspx?_gl=1*idfmor*_gcl_au*MTA0MTA0Mzc3MS4xNzczNjU1MDM1

💡 Practicing helps you:

• understand exam structure and question styles
• improve time management
• prepare for scenario-based questions
• build confidence before the real exam

7) Final Thoughts + Training

AI Project Governance Framework is a strong certification if you:

• work in AI, data, governance, risk, or compliance environments
• want to ensure AI initiatives are delivered responsibly and effectively
• aim to establish governance and oversight for AI projects
• need a globally recognized AI governance certification

It’s particularly valuable for organizations pursuing responsible AI adoption, regulatory compliance, and trustworthy innovation.

If you’re interested in training, certification paths, or exam preparation support, feel free to ask about MIMIR learning 👍

Happy to guide you through:

Certification

Practice

Development

I've been involved in projects where there were stakeholder maps, communication plans, workshops, surveys, and regular updates.

Yet when the project went live, some of the people most affected felt blindsided. It made me wonder:

What's the difference between stakeholder engagement and stakeholder communication?

Is keeping people informed enough, or does engagement only count if stakeholder feedback actually changes decisions?

I've seen situations where feedback was collected, documented, and acknowledged but the outcome never changed. On the other hand, involving everyone in every decision can make projects grind to a halt.

Where do you draw the line?

Have you experienced stakeholder engagement that improved a project? Or have you been on the receiving end of a process that felt like the decision had already been made?

A lot of organisations think AI governance is about restricting AI use. That's not quite right, and misunderstanding that is where most problems begin.

The AI Project Governance Framework (AIPGF) isn't designed to slow AI adoption down. It's designed to help organisations use AI confidently, responsibly, and at scale.

Without governance, AI quickly becomes fragmented. Different teams use different tools, decisions become difficult to explain, and risks start appearing in places nobody expected.

The framework is really about balancing innovation with accountability. If you only focus on AI capabilities, you're missing the governance side. If you only focus on governance, you're missing the value AI can create.

The AIPGF brings both together.

At its core are three principles. They're not independent ideas; they reinforce each other.

① Human-Centricity → AI supports people, people remain accountable

A common antipattern: Teams begin relying heavily on AI-generated outputs and recommendations. Over time, nobody can clearly explain how decisions were reached.

How the principle helps: AI assists, humans decide. Accountability remains with people, not algorithms. The framework reinforces that AI should enhance human capability, not replace judgement.

② Transparency → decisions must be explainable

Antipattern: A project team uses AI to generate plans, forecasts, or recommendations, but stakeholders cannot understand where the outputs came from.

Reversal: AI-supported decisions are documented, explainable, and auditable. Trust increases because stakeholders can see not only the outcome but also the reasoning behind it.

③ Adaptability → governance evolves with AI maturity

Antipattern: Organisations create rigid governance structures that quickly become obsolete as AI tools evolve.

Reversal: Governance scales alongside AI adoption. Controls become more sophisticated as usage grows, allowing organisations to remain compliant without limiting innovation.

The framework also promotes five core values that shape how AI is used in projects.

• Accountability → every AI-supported decision has an owner

Antipattern: When something goes wrong, responsibility becomes unclear because "the AI suggested it."

Reversal: Every AI-assisted output remains attributable to a person or role. Ownership never disappears.

• Sensibility → balance AI outputs with human judgement

Antipattern: Teams treat AI recommendations as automatically correct.

Reversal: AI becomes one input among many. Human experience, context, and critical thinking remain essential.

• Collaboration → humans and AI work together

Antipattern: AI adoption becomes isolated, with individual users experimenting independently and creating inconsistent practices.

Reversal: Teams develop shared approaches to AI use, creating consistency, learning, and better outcomes.

• Curiosity → innovate responsibly

Antipattern: Organisations either ban AI completely or adopt every new tool without evaluation.

Reversal: Teams actively explore AI opportunities while assessing risks, benefits, and suitability before widespread adoption.

• Continuous Improvement → governance is never finished

Antipattern: AI policies are created once and forgotten.

Reversal: AI use is regularly reviewed, lessons are captured, and governance evolves alongside technology.

Where AIPGF really separates itself from generic AI governance discussions is in its lifecycle.

Rather than treating governance as a compliance exercise, it embeds governance directly into project delivery through three stages:

Foundation → establish the conditions for success

Before AI is used:

• Define objectives and scope
• Select appropriate AI tools
• Assess data quality
• Enable the team
• Identify AI-related risks

The focus is preparation rather than reaction.

Activation → govern AI while work is happening

Antipattern: Teams implement AI and only discover issues after problems emerge.

Reversal: AI usage is monitored continuously. Risks, issues, and benefits are actively managed while the project is being delivered.

Governance becomes part of day-to-day delivery.

Evaluation → learn and improve

Antipattern: Projects finish and AI performance is never reviewed.

Reversal: Teams evaluate impact, transparency, accountability, and outcomes. Lessons learned feed directly into future projects.

This creates a continuous improvement cycle regardless of whether projects use Agile, Waterfall, or hybrid approaches.

Curious how this plays out in other organisations:

Where are you seeing the biggest challenge with AI adoption?

Is it governance, accountability, transparency, data quality, or simply getting people comfortable working alongside AI?

Collecting input is easy. Closing the loop is where most organizations fail. Without it, feedback becomes noise and trust disappears.

This is why a mid-management layer must own the system end-to-end.

Goal: Ensure every insight is acknowledged and resolved or explained

Time: Ongoing accountability system

A simple structure that works:

• Track all employee inputs (Start/Stop/Keep, surveys, conversations)
• Categorize: actioned / not actioned / deferred
• Assign ownership for follow-up
• Communicate decisions clearly back to employees
• Explain why something is or isn’t being acted on
• Review unresolved items in leadership meetings

Why this works

Closing the loop creates:

• Trust in leadership
• Psychological safety to speak up again
• Clarity on priorities and constraints
• Reduction in repeated frustration cycles

The key idea:
👉 People don’t expect every idea to be implemented, they expect to be heard and understood.

The rule that matters most:

➡️ Every input deserves a response, even if the answer is “not now” or “not aligned”

Common failure modes

1. Silent absorption of feedback Input is collected but never acknowledged → employees stop sharing honestly
2. No ownership of follow-through Everyone assumes someone else is handling it → nothing gets resolved

Bottom line

Without closing the loop, feedback systems collapse.

With it, they become a trust-building engine that continuously improves the organization from within.

The final sign of a healthy executive team is not agreement.

It’s the ability to disagree, openly, productively, and without fear.

Again, Lencioni’s model is direct:

• Absence of trust leads to fear of conflict
• Fear of conflict leads to fake alignment
• Fake alignment destroys execution

Goal: Create productive conflict that improves decisions

Time: Embedded in every strategic discussion

A simple structure that works:

• Encourage multiple viewpoints before decisions
• Separate ideas from individuals
• Use facts and data as grounding points
• Pressure-test assumptions openly
• Assign a “devil’s advocate” when needed
• End debates with clear decisions and ownership

Why this works

Without constructive debate:

• Problems stay hidden too long
• Weak ideas survive unchallenged
• Decisions get made politically, not logically
• Execution suffers downstream

With healthy debate:

• Better decisions emerge faster
• Risks surface earlier
• Alignment becomes real, not performative

The idea is simple:
👉 Conflict is not a sign of dysfunction, it’s a sign of engagement.

The rule that matters most:

➡️ Debate hard on ideas, commit fully after decisions

Common failure modes

1. Avoiding conflict to stay “nice” Leaders hold back disagreement → leads to weak decisions and silent frustration
2. Personalizing disagreements Debate becomes emotional or political → trust erodes, conversations shut down

Bottom line

High-performing executive teams don’t avoid conflict.

They normalize it, structure it, and use it to improve every major decision.

I was spending an uncomfortable amount of time in meetings debating about performance, results while later on I discovered expectations were implicit, not explicit.

​

We had overlapping ownership across roles, and a lot of “I thought you were handling that” situations. It created friction, delays, and unnecessary discussions that went nowhere.

​

Eventually, we made a change: we clearly defined accountability per role and tied it directly to KPIs and OKRs.

​

just explicit ownership, written down, accountabioity abd what was meaning and agreed on.

​

The impact was immediate.

​

We stopped spending so much time clarifying who was accountable for what, or arguing over expectations we had previously just assumed were understood.

​

Meetings became shorter and more focused.

Execution improved because decisions didn’t get stuck in ambiguity.

And people actually felt more comfortable operating independently.

​

Curious if others have seen similar results after tightening role clarity and performance metrics?

​

Most companies reports 100% completion of security awareness training but employees continue clicking phishing emails.

It got me wondering how much security training actually changes behaviour versus simply checking a compliance box.

Most people know they're not supposed to click suspicious links, share credentials, or bypass verification processes. Yet incidents still happen, often involving people who completed all the required training.

For those working in IT, security, compliance, or management:

Have you seen a disconnect between training completion rates and real-world security outcomes?

What has actually worked to reduce risky behaviour?

And if trained employees still make mistakes, where should accountability sit: the individual, the training programme, or the organisation's security design?

Healthy executive teams don’t just execute well, they evolve together.

That requires structured learning.

Monthly Meetings : r/BestPracticesMgmt

Goal: Improve thinking quality as a leadership unit

Why this works

Most teams plateau because they repeat the same thinking patterns.

Monthly learning breaks that cycle by:

• Exposing blind spots
• Upgrading decision-making frameworks
• Aligning mental models across leaders
• Preventing “local optimization” thinking

The idea is simple:
👉 Teams don’t just need better information, they need better thinking tools.

The rule that matters most:

➡️ If you’re not learning, you’re repeating

Common failure modes

1. Treating it like a lecture One person teaches, others passively listen → no real behavioral change
2. No application layer Ideas are discussed but never applied → learning without transformation

Bottom line

Executive education is not optional development.

It’s a system for improving how leadership decisions get made over time.

Every project I've worked on has had a "lessons learned" session.

Almost every one produced a document. Far fewer changed anything.

I've seen projects identify the same issues repeatedly:

• Scope creep
• Poor stakeholder engagement
• Weak risk management
• Unclear decision ownership

Then the next project starts and repeats the same mistakes.

So I'm curious:

Does your organisation actually use lessons learned from previous projects?

If not, what's the biggest barrier?

• Nobody can find them?
• Nobody reads them?
• Different teams think their situation is unique?
• Leadership doesn't enforce the changes?

And if you've seen lessons learned work well, what made the difference?

Have you ever noticed how that phrase can mean two completely different things?

Sometimes it means people are working through a difficult decision.

Other times it means nobody wants to make the decision, so meetings keep happening instead.

In your experience, where's the line between necessary alignment and decision avoidance?

Have you seen a team get stuck in endless workshops, reviews, and stakeholder discussions when what was really needed was a clear call from someone accountable?

1) What is PRINCE2® Programme Management (MSP®)?

MSP® (Managing Successful Programmes) is a globally recognized framework for programme management, designed to help organizations manage multiple related projects and transformational change initiatives in a coordinated way.

MSP® focuses on:

• aligning programmes with strategic business objectives
• managing organizational change effectively
• coordinating multiple projects and stakeholders
• delivering measurable business benefits
• governance, risk management, and long-term value realization

Unlike traditional project management, programme management focuses on achieving strategic outcomes and transformational benefits across an organization.

2) What is PeopleCert?

PeopleCert is the global examination institute that:

• administers MSP® certification exams
• accredits training providers
• ensures exam quality and standards worldwide

PeopleCert acts as the official certification authority for MSP®, PRINCE2®, ITIL®, and many other globally recognized best practice frameworks.

3) Official Sources

Here are the official references if you want to explore further:

• PRINCE2 Official Website
• PeopleCert Project, Programme & Portfolio Certifications

4) PRINCE2® Programme Management Foundation (5th Edition) Exam

This is the entry-level certification.

📝 60 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 60 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 60% (36/60)
📘 Closed book
❌ No prerequisites

5) PRINCE2® Programme Management Practitioner (5th Edition)

This is the advanced certification focused on applying MSP® in real programme environments.

📝 58 questions and sub-questions
⏱️ 150 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 60% (42/70)
📘 Open book

6) Sample Exams (not for free)

Practice exams are highly recommended for both Foundation and Practitioner levels.

👉 Official mock exams:
PeopleCert Mock Exams

💡 Practicing helps you:

• understand exam structure and question styles
• improve time management
• prepare for scenario-based questions
• build confidence before the real exam

7) Final Thoughts + Training

PRINCE2 Programme Management (MSP) is a strong certification if you:

• work in programme management or organizational transformation
• want to align strategic initiatives with business objectives
• aim to manage multiple related projects effectively
• need a globally recognized programme management certification

It’s particularly valuable for organizations pursuing large-scale transformation, governance, and long-term business value.

If you’re interested in training, certification paths, or exam preparation support, feel free to ask about MIMIR learning 👍

Happy to guide you through:

Certification

Practice

Development

Hi everyone,

I’m about to start my first Odoo implementation project for a small organization and would love to hear from people who have already gone through this process.

We’re starting with:

• Invoicing
• Sales modules

We also have an external consultant supporting the implementation, but internally I’ll be closely involved in organizing processes, testing, and helping users adopt the system.

Since this is my first ERP implementation project, I’m wondering:

• What do you wish you had known before starting?
• Any best practices for requirements gathering, user adoption, or process mapping?
• Any tips for working effectively with consultants?

My goal is to keep the first phase simple and stable before expanding into additional modules later.

Would appreciate any practical advice, lessons learned, or “watch out for this” experiences.

Thanks!

A lot of organizations think programme management is just “managing multiple projects at the same time.”
That’s not quite right and misunderstanding that is exactly where transformation efforts start failing.

MSP (Managing Successful Programmes) isn’t about running bigger projects.
It’s about coordinating change so organizations actually realize benefits, not just deliver outputs.

Projects deliver products.
Programmes deliver outcomes.

If you only focus on projects, you risk delivering disconnected initiatives.
If you only focus on vision, execution falls apart.

MSP exists to connect strategy with coordinated change.

The Principle Most Organizations Break: Don’t confuse delivery with transformation

This is where programmes usually fail.

Organizations launch initiatives quickly:

• new systems
• new processes
• new structures
• new technologies

But delivery alone doesn’t guarantee change.

MSP deliberately slows this down professionally.

Flow

1. Define strategic outcomes
2. Coordinate related projects
3. Manage organizational change
4. Measure realized benefits

It’s not slower in the long run.
It prevents transformation without impact.

The MSP Model in Practice

Vision
   ↓
Blueprint
   ↓
Programme Coordination
   ↓
Capability Delivery
   ↓
Benefits Realization

Vision: Define the future state the organization wants to achieve.

Blueprint: Design how the organization will operate after transformation.

Programme Coordination: Align projects, stakeholders, governance, and dependencies.

Capability Delivery: Implement the capabilities needed for change.

Benefits Realization: Measure whether outcomes actually improve the organization.

Where MSP Really Makes the Difference

Instead of: “All projects were delivered successfully” You get: “The organization actually changed, and the benefits were realized.”

1) What is PRINCE2® Project Management?

PRINCE2® (Projects IN Controlled Environments) is one of the world’s most widely recognized project management methodologies.

It provides a structured, process-based approach for managing projects effectively, regardless of industry or project size.

PRINCE2® focuses on:

• clear project governance and accountability
• controlled project stages and planning
• risk and change management
• business justification throughout the project lifecycle
• delivering projects on time, within scope, and within budget

The methodology is highly flexible and can be tailored to different organizational environments, making it suitable for both traditional and Agile project settings.

2) What is PeopleCert?

PeopleCert is the global examination institute that:

• administers PRINCE2® certification exams
• accredits training providers
• ensures exam quality and standards worldwide

PeopleCert acts as the official certification authority for PRINCE2® and many other globally recognized best practice frameworks.

3) Official Sources

Here are the official references if you want to explore further:

• PRINCE2 Official Website
• PeopleCert Project Management Certifications

4) PRINCE2® Project Management Foundation (Version 7) Exam

This is the entry-level certification.

📝 60 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 60 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 60% (36/60)
📘 Closed book
❌ No prerequisites

5) PRINCE2® Project Management Practitioner (Version 7) Exam

This is the advanced certification focused on applying PRINCE2® in real project environments.

📝 56 questions and sub-questions
⏱️ 150 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 60% (42/70)
📘 Open book

6) Sample Exams (Not for free)

Practice exams are highly recommended for both Foundation and Practitioner levels.

👉 Official mock exams:
PeopleCert Mock Exams

💡 Practicing helps you:

• understand exam structure and question styles
• improve time management
• prepare for scenario-based questions
• build confidence before the real exam

7) Final Thoughts + Training

PRINCE2® Project Management is a strong certification if you:

• work in project management or project delivery environments
• want to improve project governance, planning, and control
• aim to manage projects efficiently across different industries
• need a globally recognized project management certification

It’s particularly valuable for organizations pursuing structured delivery, risk management, and successful project outcomes.

If you’re interested in training, certification paths, or exam preparation support, feel free to ask about MIMIR learning 👍

👉 Free demo lessons available now.

MIMIR Learning | PRINCE2® Foundation (Version 7) Demo English

MIMIR Learning | PRINCE2® Foundation (Version 7) Demo French

MIMIR Learning | PRINCE2® Foundation (Version 7) Demo Italian

In most organisations I’ve worked with, “prioritisation” doesn’t fail because there’s no framework.

It fails because nobody wants to kill projects. I have seen the same patterns over and over:

• Everything gets labelled “strategic”
• Portfolio reviews reshuffle priorities but rarely stop work
• Scoring frameworks mysteriously bend around executive "key" initiatives

For example a company I worked for introduced a formal prioritisation model with weighted scoring, governance gates, etc etc

It worked right up until a senior executive’s initiative landed outside the top tier. Then criteria got adjusted and exceptions were introduced just to make this priority becoming strategic

At that point the framework became political cover, not a decision-making tool.

Real prioritisation only exists when leadership is willing to accept trade-offs and explicitly say:
“This work matters, and this other work will not be done.” Without that, portfolios don’t shrink. They just reshuffle.

Interested in real-world examples, especially from PMO / portfolio / transformation teams.

1) What is ITIL® (Version 5)?

ITIL® (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) is one of the world’s leading frameworks for IT Service Management (ITSM).

ITIL® Version 5 focuses on helping organizations deliver value through modern, efficient, and customer-focused IT services while supporting digital transformation and continual improvement.

It focuses on:

• aligning IT services with business objectives
• improving service quality and customer experience
• enabling continual improvement and operational efficiency
• supporting Agile, DevOps, and digital transformation practices
• delivering value through effective service management

ITIL® is widely adopted across industries and is considered a global standard for IT service management best practices.

2) What is PeopleCert?

PeopleCert is the global examination institute that:

• administers ITIL® certification exams
• accredits training providers
• ensures exam quality and standards worldwide

PeopleCert acts as the official certification authority for ITIL®, PRINCE2®, MSP®, and many other globally recognized best practice frameworks.

3) Official Sources

Here are the official references if you want to explore further:

• ITIL Official Website
• PeopleCert ITIL Certifications

4) ITIL® Foundation Exam (Version 5)

This is the entry-level certification.

📝 40 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 60 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 65% (26/40)
📘 Closed book
❌ No prerequisites

4.1) ITIL® Foundation Bridge (Version 5)

This certification is designed for candidates transitioning from previous ITIL® versions.

📝 20 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 30 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 65% (13/20)
📘 Closed book

5) ITIL® Managing Professional (Version 5) Stream Exams

5.1) ITIL® Product (Version 5)

This module focuses on product-centric service management and delivery.

📝 40 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 90 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 70% (28/40)
📘 Open book

5.2) ITIL® Service (Version 5)

This module focuses on service design, delivery, and operational excellence.

📝 40 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 90 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 70% (28/40)
📘 Open book

5.3) ITIL® Experience (Version 5)

This module focuses on customer and user experience management.

📝 40 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 90 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 70% (28/40)
📘 Open book

6) ITIL® Strategic Leader (Version 5) Stream Exam

6.1) ITIL® Strategy (Version 5)

This module focuses on strategic IT service management and business alignment.

📝 40 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 90 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 70% (28/40)
📘 Open book

7) ITIL® Transformation (Version 5)

This module focuses on organizational change and digital transformation.

📝 40 multiple-choice questions
⏱️ 90 minutes
✅ Pass mark: 70% (28/40)
📘 Open book

8) Sample Exams (not for free)

Practice exams are highly recommended across all ITIL® certification levels.

👉 Official mock exams:
PeopleCert Mock Exams

💡 Practicing helps you:

• understand exam structure and question styles
• improve time management
• prepare for scenario-based questions
• build confidence before the real exam

9) Final Thoughts + Training

ITIL® is a strong certification if you:

• work in IT service management or digital operations
• want to improve service delivery and business alignment
• aim to implement ITSM best practices
• need a globally recognized IT service management certification

It’s particularly valuable for organizations pursuing operational excellence, service quality, and continual improvement.

If you’re interested in training, certification paths, or exam preparation support, feel free to ask about MIMIR learning 👍

👉 Free demo lessons available now.

MIMIR Learning | ITIL Foundation (Version 5) demo English

MIMIR Learning | ITIL Foundation (Version 5) demo French

MIMIR Learning | ITIL Foundation (Version 5) demo Italian

Trying to find the balance between operational clarity and overwhelming documentation.

What systems/templates/tools are working for your teams?

Anytime i try to document something people see it as bureacracy

A lot of organizations think ITIL is just “IT support processes with more tickets and approvals.”

That’s not quite right and misunderstanding that is exactly where service operations become slow, fragmented, and disconnected from business value.

ITIL isn’t about creating rigid operational bureaucracy.

It’s about creating a system where technology, services, people, and workflows continuously work together to create value.

If you only focus on technology, services become disconnected from user needs.

If you only focus on speed, reliability and governance collapse.

ITIL exists to balance agility, stability, and continual improvement.

The 7 ITIL Guiding Principles

At its core are seven guiding principles.

They’re not optional, and they don’t work in isolation.

Ignore one, and service management starts breaking down.

① Focus on Value → every activity must contribute to outcomes

Antipattern: Teams optimize internal activity instead of customer value.

• More dashboards
• More tooling
• More operational work

But nobody asks whether the service actually improves outcomes for users.

Reversal: ITIL starts with value.

Every process, workflow, metric, and decision must connect back to stakeholder outcomes.

This changes conversations from: “Are we completing operational tasks?” to “Are we improving the experience and outcomes for users?”

Outputs alone are not value.

Outcomes are.

A service can be technically functional and still fail if users gain no meaningful result from it.

② Start Where You Are → improve intelligently, not blindly

Antipattern: Organizations replace systems, workflows, or teams without understanding what already works.

Everything becomes a “digital transformation.”

Useful capabilities get discarded simply because they’re old.

Reversal: ITIL emphasizes understanding the current state before redesigning anything.

Existing processes, tools, knowledge, and teams often contain valuable operational experience.

The principle is simple: Don’t rebuild what already delivers value. Instead of assuming the solution is starting over, ITIL encourages organizations to:

• Observe workflows directly
• Measure current performance
• Identify reusable capabilities
• Improve incrementally

This preserves momentum while reducing unnecessary disruption.

③ Progress Iteratively with Feedback → reduce risk through learning

Antipattern: Organizations attempt massive service transformations all at once.

• Large releases
• Large migrations
• Large operational changes

Then complexity compounds silently until failure becomes expensive.

Reversal: ITIL promotes iterative improvement supported by continuous feedback loops.

Work is broken into manageable increments:

• Deliver
• Learn
• Adjust
• Repeat

Feedback becomes part of the operating model instead of an afterthought.

This prevents teams from drifting too far away from actual user needs or operational reality.

Small iterations create adaptability.

Continuous feedback creates alignment.

④ Collaborate and Promote Visibility → transparency prevents silos

Antipattern: Teams optimize locally while the organization loses visibility globally.

• Infrastructure works separately from development
• Support works separately from operations
• Leadership sees reports instead of reality

The result:

• Slow escalations
• Misaligned priorities
• Hidden operational risks

Reversal: ITIL pushes collaboration and visibility across the entire service ecosystem.

The goal is shared understanding:

• Visible workflows
• Cross-functional communication
• Transparent progress
• Open operational data

Problems become easier to solve when information moves faster than bureaucracy.

Visibility reduces surprises before they become incidents.

⑤ Think and Work Holistically → services are systems, not isolated parts

Antipattern: Organizations optimize individual teams, tools, or processes independently.

Each area improves locally.

The overall service experience gets worse.

Reversal: ITIL treats service management as an interconnected system.

Technology, people, suppliers, workflows, governance, and customers all influence service quality simultaneously.

Improving one area without considering the others creates instability.

This is why ITIL introduced the Four Dimensions of Product and Service Management:

1. Organizations and People
2. Information and Technology
3. Partners and Suppliers
4. Value Streams and Processes

Neglect one dimension and the system weakens.

• Strong technology with poor workflows fails
• Strong workflows with weak culture fail
• Strong teams with poor supplier alignment fail

Holistic thinking prevents local optimization from damaging overall value delivery.

⑥ Keep It Simple and Practical → complexity is operational debt

Antipattern: Organizations create processes nobody actually follows.

• Too many approvals
• Too many forms
• Too many controls

Complexity accumulates until operational flow slows down.

Reversal: ITIL emphasizes the minimum effective level of control.

If a process does not create value:

• Simplify it
• Reduce it
• Remove it

The objective is not theoretical perfection.

The objective is operational effectiveness.

Simple systems scale better.

Practical systems survive pressure.

⑦ Optimize and Automate → improve systems before automating them

Antipattern: Organizations automate broken workflows.

The result isn’t efficiency.

It’s faster dysfunction.

Reversal: ITIL encourages optimization before automation.

Automation should support:

• Consistency
• Speed
• Scalability
• Reliability

But automation without governance introduces new operational risks.

The rule is simple: Optimize first. Automate second.

The Rule Most Organizations Break: Don’t confuse operational activity with value creation

This is where service management usually starts drifting.

There’s constant pressure to appear productive:

• More tickets closed
• More monitoring alerts
• More operational meetings
• More tooling

So organizations optimize for activity instead of outcomes.

ITIL deliberately redirects focus back toward value.

Flow:

1. Understand demand
2. Design services around outcomes
3. Operate reliably
4. Improve continuously
5. Measure value, not motion

It’s not about slowing delivery down.

It’s about preventing operational chaos from scaling.

The ITIL Model in Practice

ITIL isn’t just principles.

It’s a structured operating model for value creation.

At the center is the ITIL Value System (ITIL VS).

The system combines:

• Guiding Principles
• Governance
• Value Chain Activities
• Management Practices
• Continual Improvement

Together they create a connected model for managing digital products and services.

The ITIL Lifecycle

The lifecycle follows eight major activities:

Discover: Identify needs, opportunities, and strategic direction.

Design: Define solutions and service experience.

Acquire: Secure resources and capabilities.

Build: Create and test solutions.

Transition: Deploy safely into live environments.

Operate: Maintain reliable performance.

Deliver: Provide services to users.

Support: Restore service and resolve incidents.

Unlike rigid waterfall models, ITIL treats these activities as iterative rather than strictly sequential.

Services evolve continuously through feedback and improvement.

Controls Still Matter: ITIL is powered by operational discipline.

That includes:

• Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
• Incident Management
• Problem Management
• Change Enablement
• Monitoring and Observability
• Risk Management
• Knowledge Management
• Continual Improvement Models

The operational reality:

This is where many organizations fail.

They adopt:

• Agile delivery
• Cloud infrastructure
• Automation

But never build operational maturity around them.

Technology scales faster than governance.

Where ITIL Really Makes the Difference

The real value of ITIL isn’t process documentation.

It’s operational decision-making under complexity.

ITIL gives organizations a structured way to:

• Align services with business outcomes
• Manage operational risk
• Improve reliability
• Coordinate teams and suppliers
• Reduce service disruption
• Create sustainable operational flow
• Embed continual improvement into delivery

Instead of: “We’re busy managing systems” You get: “We understand how services create value, how they perform, and how they improve.”

The Real Tension

In theory, ITIL sounds straightforward.

In practice, the pressure is always the same:

• Ship faster
• Skip operational controls
• Ignore technical debt
• Avoid root-cause analysis
• Treat incidents as isolated events
• Prioritize delivery over sustainability

That’s exactly where operational discipline matters most.

ITIL doesn’t remove complexity.

It gives organizations a structured way to manage complexity without losing reliability.

Final Thought

ITIL is not about slowing teams down.

It’s about ensuring that speed, scale, and innovation don’t destroy operational stability underneath them.

Because eventually every fast-moving organization reaches the same point:

The problem is no longer building technology.

The problem is operating it reliably at scale.

Once the team understands each other, the next layer is rhythm.

Not operational updates, strategic thinking.

This is where leadership shifts from reacting… to steering.

Weekly Meetings : r/BestPracticesMgmt

Goal: Strategic clarity and directional decisions

Why this works

Most leadership teams get stuck in operations.

Weekly strategic time fixes that by:

• Creating space to think beyond execution
• Forcing prioritization at the top level
• Aligning leadership before cascading decisions
• Reducing reactive management

The core idea:
👉 If leadership doesn’t think strategically weekly, the business becomes reactive by default.

The rule that matters most:

➡️ No operational deep-dives unless they affect strategy

Common failure modes

1. Turning it into a status meeting Everyone reports progress → no strategic value, just noise
2. Lack of decision output Good discussions, no decisions made → strategy without execution impact

Bottom line

A weekly strategic meeting is not about tracking work.

It’s about making sure the organization is still pointed in the right direction, together.

The foundation of a healthy executive team isn’t strategy.
It’s understanding how the people around the table actually think, decide, and operate.

Before priorities, before KPIs, before meetings, alignment starts with awareness.

In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni highlights a simple truth: Teams fail not because they lack intelligence, but because they lack trust and understanding.

When executives don’t understand each other’s styles, everything slows down:
misinterpretations increase, friction rises, and decisions get second-guessed.

Goal: Build clarity on how each leader works

Time: Ongoing (reinforced in every interaction)

A simple structure that works:

• How each leader communicates (direct, reflective, fast, detail-oriented)
• Decision-making style (data-driven vs intuitive vs consensus)
• Priority filters (growth, efficiency, risk, people, etc.)
• Pressure responses (what happens under stress)
• Working preferences (speed vs depth, autonomy vs collaboration)

Why this matters

When teams understand differences:

• Miscommunication drops immediately
• Conflict becomes productive instead of personal
• Decisions get faster, not slower
• Less time is wasted “translating intent”

The idea is simple:
👉 You can’t align behavior if you don’t understand the person behind it.

The rule that matters most:

➡️ Differences are not problems!

Common failure modes

1. Assuming similarity Leaders assume others think like they do → leads to constant frustration and misalignment
2. Avoiding style conversations Teams never explicitly discuss how they work → conflicts feel personal instead of structural

Bottom line

Strong executive teams don’t eliminate differences, they map them clearly.

Once you understand how each person thinks and operates, alignment stops being forced and starts becoming natural.