All Posts

There's a concept from Buddhist psychology Peter Weiss uses with every client: the two arrows. The first arrow is anything that hits you — an email, a request, bad news. The reaction is automatic. You can't stop it. The second arrow is your choice. What you do with the reaction. Whether you fire back, say yes to something you shouldn't, or spiral — that's on you. Most people don't know there are two arrows. They just take both hits and move on.

There is no such thing as an idealized user. We're all distracted, temporarily disabled, with lots of things competing for our attention and if there's one thing we've learned through decades of building software, it's that we have to design around that reality, not in spite of it." — Jon Yablonski

The delta between expectations and reality is disappointment. That's the whole thing in parenting, in soccer, and in every process rollout you've ever watched underdeliver. We had the game tape. We had the odds. We rooted for the U.S. anyway. And then we ran our operations the exact same way: wanting something to be true instead of building the system that makes it true.

We spend a lot of time diagnosing organizational process debt — the rollout that went sideways, the dashboard nobody looks at, the workflow built around the tool instead of the work. But there's a quieter version running in the background, and most operations-minded people are too busy auditing everyone else's systems to notice it in their own. Your personal process has debt too. And like most process debt, you didn't decide to take it on. It accumulated.

The math was real. The fix was proven. The ROI was obvious to anyone standing close enough to see the pile of tickets. But from the C-suite, the labor was offshore, the pain wasn't radiating up, and if you weren't bringing a revenue number to the table, you weren't really bringing anything. It's not that the executives were indifferent it's that they were operating on a completely different set of signals.

Organizations do this constantly. A new platform gets purchased. A partnership gets announced. A restructure gets greenlit. Leadership calls it done. The people who have to actually implement it know better — because signing the thing is not finishing the thing. The gap between "we agreed to this" and "it's actually working" is where most of your process debt gets made.

The individuals closest to the technology are moving into increasingly speculative territory. What we have right now is a lot of individuals running faster — but not necessarily in the same direction, on the same track. AI is making individuals dramatically more productive. The question nobody has answered yet is: so what?

In a factory, waste is visible. You can weigh it, sweep it off the floor. Knowledge work doesn't give you that. In knowledge work, the waste is time and the insidious thing about time is that it disappears in ways that feel productive.

Most organizations don't promote great coaches. They promote fire starters — the ones who swoop in, take credit for putting out the fire, and never fix the thing that caused it. The best managers? You rarely hear about them. Their teams are stable, their people get promoted, and there are no disasters because there are no disasters to manage. But "no disasters" is invisible on a performance review. And so the org keeps rewarding the arsonists.

The best AI integrations do one small thing reliably and get out of your way. The worst find twelve new ways to interrupt you before you've had your morning coffee. But there's a third category worth paying attention to: AI that lets a well-meaning person — a team lead, a business analyst, even a CEO — execute plain-English commands directly against your live production data. No developer. No IT ticket. No sandbox. That's process debt in a new form. And it moves faster than t

There's a difference between a rollout and a seep. A rollout has a project plan, a go-live date, and a post-mortem where everyone agrees it went better than expected while privately knowing it didn't. AI didn't do any of that. It just showed up — in your search engine, in your SaaS platforms, in your teammates' emails — while you were handling something else. That's what makes this adoption moment genuinely strange. And why the usual change management playbook doesn't quite

When the news went 24 hours, it stopped being news and became entertainment — because you can't fill that much airtime with signal. Something similar has happened inside our organizations. We have more dashboards, more real-time data, and more reporting than ever. And somehow, fewer clear answers. This episode is about why.

James Patterson has written 285 books with a pen and a yellow legal pad. He's lived through every writing technology upgrade you can imagine and opted out of all of them. Five books a year, working. Which raises an uncomfortable question for the rest of us: are we actually moving toward an outcome, or just confusing activity for progress?

"In software, you test your code before it ships. In life, you're testing in production. And when there's a bug that was in prod. You can't roll it back." — Dr. Adam Link

Here's the thing about a process that's working well: you don't see it. Nobody walks up to you and says, "Hey, great email triage today." The outcome shows up — but the process itself is invisible. Which means it's also easy to mess with, because there's no obvious cost to changing something nobody's watching.

There's a joke that goes: how do you sell a deaf person chickens? You just ask really, really loudly. It's a bad joke. It's also, somehow, the default communication strategy in most workplaces. When we're not being understood, we repeat ourselves more emails, more meetings, more bold text. And still, everyone walks out of the room with a completely different idea of what just happened. More volume was never the answer.

Most SaaS tools present as the easiest solution to all your problems. For a single user, that might even be true. But get a team involved — without a clear process and the right people at the table — and you've just handed everyone a bucket of 300,000 Legos and walked away. In this episode, Toby and Chris break down the requirements trap, the hidden cost of anchoring to your old system, and why pushing people into the tool before defining the process is sometimes exactly the

Most clients walk into a consulting engagement expecting magic. What they get instead is a mirror. In this episode, Toby and Chris unpack why technology implementations so often disappoint not because the software is wrong, but because the process underneath it was never examined. From the "kitchen analogy" to the AI cuteness trap, they lay out what process debt actually costs and what to do before you ever call in outside help.

We’ve been conditioned to think 'boring' means stagnation, but in operations, boring is your ultimate competitive advantage. Just like sleep hygiene, a business without rhythm isn't an operation—it’s just noise. If you want to scale, you have to stop chasing complexity and start embracing the predictable. Because if a process isn't boring, it isn't ready to be automated.

In the physical world, a carpenter who wastes 70% of his wood gets fired. In the digital world, we call that same waste "Process Debt" and ignore it. Digital scrap is invisible, it’s the "zombie" systems, muted channels, and skipped foundations that erode your team's sanity. The truth? You don’t lose to bad technology; you lose to skipping the boring foundations that make good technology usable.