Thu 23 Dec 2010
“Tell Me Why” — or, Start with “Why” Before “How” or “What”

Question: what do Neil Young, Simon Sinek, Don Reinertsen, and Jean Tabaka have in common? We all want to know why.
Several weeks ago, we introduced a new blog series “N Levels of Planning”. Our goal in this series is to investigate how Agile planning can benefit from thinking of planning as a number of levels, or layers, or paths. In this series post, I’d like us to take a conceptual step back from what we mean by “N”. I’d like to instead think about the “Why” of Agile planning regardless of the number of levels.
The Neil Young Connection
Warning: minor non sequitur. In 1970, Neil Young released his “After the Gold Rush” album featuring as its first track the great tune “Tell Me Why”.
Love that song! I had this song buzzing through my head after a discussion with colleagues about “Why.” Lyrics like: “Still the searcher must ride the dark horse, racing alone in his fright,” and, “Tell me lies later.” What can it mean?! What is there that is so important about starting with “Why,” and to ask it repeatedly? What did the Neil Young of yore get about the searcher, the dark horse, and the race that I needed to revisit now? And what does it have to do with Agile planning?
The Reinertsen Principles
I had some suspicions after reading Don Reinertsen’s “The Principles of Product Development Flow” that the “Why” is indeed what should be driving our Agile product development. In his book, Reinertsen exhorts us to inform our decisions about product development by starting with value flow. You may call this stating the glaringly obvious. For me who had been handily sticking to the “How” and “What” in my computer science expertise for decades, this tumbled several of my false idols. Ugh.
Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle
Recently, several colleagues here at Rally pointed me to a great TED talk: Simon Sinek’s “The Golden Circle”. If you haven’t watched it, take a gander. Sinek’s very simple model consists of 3 concentric circles, the innermost being “Why”, the outermost being “What” (See the picture above of the turquoise post-it.). Sinek defines successful businesses as those that start, not with “What” or “How”; they start with the core “Why”. This articulation of the “Why” rallies the business around one compelling vision and creates a vital emotional connection with its customers. “How” the company delivers on the “Why” follows from and is directed by the “Why”. Then and only then does the business move out the circle to the “What”. What exactly will our product be? Well, we know why we are building it, and we know how to deliver on this. Now it is time to build it!
We missed the “Why” boat in our initial Agile scaling advice
I was thinking about Sinek’s Golden Circle with regard to how we plan in Agile teams and Agile organizations. Too often, we have a tendency to start with “What” as the core for our planning. If we are really maverick, we may start with “How”. Too often, I fear that our planning “Why” is conspicuous by its absence. I am fairly certain Ryan Martens and I fell into this “What” trap when we defined 5 steps for Agile scaling and maturing using Flow, Pull, and Innovate. Why were we defining how to scale and mature should have been the first question? And then How shall we do that? Okay, we did get the How: we turned to Lean Thinking principles about Flow, Pull, and Perfect (which we renamed Innovate) for guidance. And then we quickly jumped to What the practices are: 5 steps of what to do, what roadblocks to expect, what benefits to reap.
Agile planning levels need to start with “Why”
This is what I now believe to be true. Just as businesses must be driven by the “Why”, I believe we must consider the “Why” that drives any of our Agile planning. My hope is that we in the Agile product development world would come up with a fairly common answer for “Why”: smooth flow of value delivery. Period. Our “How” can be informed by the set of principles we believe would best address our “Why”. We can turn to Lean Principles as a great guide. Here, I’ll admit I favor Reinertsen’s principles of product development flow as the canon for “How”. We’ve got the “Why” and the “How” for our planning. Now we can declare our “What”: what will be our planning practices in our Agile organizations?
How Jean Tabaka fits in
With “Why”, “How” and “What” as our planning guide, there is one more beautiful gift of symmetry across Neil Young, Don Reinertsen, and Simon Sinek. Not only does this virtuous Golden Circle guide overall planning. I believe that within each of the “N levels of planning”, we can see that there is a “Why”, “How”, and “What”. Here is an example: “Why should we have a daily level of planning?” “How should we guide that planning, i.e. how would we know we were doing a good job of planning at this level?” And now, “What will our practices be around daily planning?” As we regard levels of planning as not just sufficient but necessary, we turn back to the “Why”, find guidance from the “How”, and then create the useful “What” practices.
Back to Neil Young’s “Tell Me Why”. I think we can avoid “riding the dark horse racing alone in fright” if we start our planning with a compelling “Why.” And, with thoughtful “Why”, “How” and “What” levels of Agile Planning, I believe that we can avoid the “lies later” as well.
This is what I believe. What do you believe?
Jean Tabaka is a crash skier, sometime poet, author and Agile Fellow at Rally Software Development. You can follow Jean on Twitter at @jeantabaka


[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ali Sohani, Rally Software. Rally Software said: New Agileblog post from @jeantabaka: “Tell Me Why” — or, Start with “Why” Before “How” or “What” http://bit.ly/dPOCkt #agile [...]
Excellent article – and thanks for the reminder of how good Neil Young is! Seriously though, as a UX consultant I agree that the “Why” is extremely important and so often forgotten or ignored, in the rush to get to “what” and “how”! The more people who champion the importance of ‘why’, the greater the adoption of this way of thinking and the better the solutions that customers’ will receive.
Thank you so much for your comment! I really had my socks blown off when viewing Simon Sinek’s “Golden Circle” video. And yes, for UX, it seems as though asking the Five Whys could be very helpful….far beyond just prioritizing user stories.
jean
A few years ago, I dipped into the cutting edge of requirements elicitation research. Surprise, the leading edge was back a decade or so, but even more shocking that the fact that no progress had been made since then, was a paper that claimed that requirements elicitator starts the elicitation process with a theory, or a why. This isn’t the same why that we are talking about here, the carried why, the why of the customer/user. The elicitor’s why is that of carrier, the why of the infrastucture/operations/development. It is the why of requirements elicitation and requirements being out in the weeds.
It’s not enough to ask why. You must know whose why is being explored.
An elicitor with a theory uses elicitation to prove/reinforce that theory. That theory obstructs listening and even asking. It’s hard to come to the table free of any theory, but this is a must for a software vendor pushing the adoption of some technology through productization. Hopefully, you gated the client up front. Now its time to capture the client’s visualization, not your CEO’s or developer’s product visualization. Success in the vertical depends on the client and the client’s visualization.
David,
WOW! Being careful about the elicitor’s WHY versus the carrier’s WHY. Striving continuously to filter our elicitor, subjective WHY is clearly important in how we ask WHY questions that can then guide far more useful HOW and WHAT.
When we were doing our work on scaling and maturing several years ago, I think Ryan and I were guilty of that. I have failed to mention that another, very wise voice was involved in our models and questions: my colleague Alex Pukinskis. Alex is a gift in his ability to sift out the proper WHY. He gave us a great deal of guidance when we were building our 5-step model, really kept asking us the real WHY. Had it not been for Alex’s constancy, I think our model would have been off in some ill-guided.
Since that time, we have been paying even more attention to the deep, core WHY. Alex continues to be a great mindful colleagues who continually urges us to challenge our WHYs before we move into our HOWs and then our WHATs
Jean
Thanks Jean for sharing this wonderfull inside out approach, starting with the why, with the belief.
And thank you for reminding me to re-focus on the inside, the true values, the beliefs first, and let the outside (how and what) be consequence of the inside (the why).
And thanks for questioning yourself in the light of this new idea.
Verne Harnisch has a model for the Rockefeller way that helps a business model a 3-5 year plan that then guides a year long plan that then guides a 90-day plan. Guess what informs the 3-5 year plan? The company’s stated CORE VALUES. Cool, huh!? If you go back and listen to Simon Sinek’s video, I think you can hear the tone of “value” in each of the examples he provides.
Thank you for drawing attention to how values drive what principles become our HOW. Within principled HOW, we then choose the WHAT of our practices. Values, values, values.
Thanks!
Jean
I love how you tied up all those threads!
Over the past 7 years of our company’s using agile development, we came to a similar conclusion. When our business folks come to us with a new project, they are often tempted to propose it as a technical implementation (“This is similar to X, so can you just change X in these ways to make it do Z?”) We’ve learned to push back and ask them, “What’s the purpose of this theme? What business problem are you solving? What value are you hoping to get? Why do you need this?” Then we can think about how we might implement it and give them a true idea of what it might cost, so they can determine their potential ROI.
We also found that when we made a strong effort to learn about all aspects of our business, not only the automated parts, we could help the business experts a lot more in finding good solutions and setting priorities.
Thanks for this additional food for thought!
Lisa, yes! I have seen this issue over and over again. Creating a strong bond with the business at the “Why” level is a win-win for everyone at the “How” and “What” level. Funny how so often we still feel so much more comfortable starting with “What”.
Thanks,
Jean
Thank you Jean. Beautifully done. I believe you are completely on-target.
Here’s another thread: Jim Collins and his research for books Built to Last and Good to Great. The notion of true foundational elements of purpose and core values were central.
And one more thread: Step 2 in our Team Orientation Process asks “What’s in it for you (to contribute to this project with us)? There’s that “why” again. Over the years it is what people most resist at first in my teamwork training, then come to value as one of the most valuable insights of the framework.
I wonder how many dots we are going to have to collectively connect (societally speaking) to truly believe that people who find meaning in their work are happier and more productive? A win/win/win for the business.
One of the things I love about the whole agile movement is the engineer-centric roots. All this passion for humanity from people whose HR persona is that they just want to be left alone at their screens.
Very cool.
Thanks again Jean. As usual, you rock.
Thank you SO much Christopher! Foundational elements and core values from Jim Collins appear in our strategic planning here at Rally. We use the “Gazelles” worksheet to figure out a great deal about the why (the left side of the sheet) before we move into the how (typically a strategic statement 3-5 years out) and then the what (our next year’s plan coupled with the plan for the next 90 days.) Gazelles is a great combination of Jim Collins and Verne Harnisch for helping to guide “Why”. It is great of you to remind me of this and to bring in your observations, as always.
Jean