Each and every day we face change.  Our autonomic response isn’t always logical, planned or successful.  Even when facing success outcomes one has to understand where its the result of fate or the result of experience.  In more pragmatic endeavors we cannot rely on these two elements completely and need to adopt a framework that guides these efforts.

Daily Life

In 2010 I made the decision to move to Asia.  My decision was driven by circumstances and opportunity.  Relying on my many years of work in the region, and supported by solid pragmatic skills I venture forward.   Was I confident… YES, was I committed and determined… YES, was I confident to address the unforseen… YES but did I really understand the full extent of the endeavor and all of the things would come my way?  I can honestly that I was to confident to see the barriers even after decades of living life.  This situation is akin to many projects and transitions facing business whether it be the disruption created by technologies or the advent of new leadership in the company.  The transition is seldom without issues and excesses that could have been avoided.  So why didn’t we avoid these repetitions?

Part of our challenge is to avoid looking at the end point (goal/objective) and then reverse engineering a plan to fit the commitment of scope-schedule-cost, also known as the triple constraint.  Instead we need to better understand and craft a consistent means of achieving sound transitioning.  Yes, we still need to have goals/objectives.  Yes, we still need to understand the triple constraint.  But we also need to have a means by which transitioning will occur in a lean, consistent, risk reduced fashion.


As with many things in life it moves on whether we like it or not.  We can hold onto the car with both hands or we can grasp the steering wheel to guide it to its objective with major concern for a calamity.   I have also had a fond love and adopted the principal of Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “for every action there is an opposing and equal reaction” (thus the formation of 3rdLAW).  The concept of Transitional Sciences is that for every transition it will create equal and opposing reactions in so far as achieving success points.  Out of concern of making the topic too complex let it suffice to say that these embarkations of transitioning produce outcomes that can have equal consequences.  There is no such thing as too small to address this concern since a wasted moment involves time-costs-diversion of focus-lost/gain in confidence.  I was recently challenge by a colleague as to the mere term “transitional sciences” and in response I chose to break it down into pieces.  “Transition” the means of movement from our present to our next state. “Science” a body of facts or truths supported by research and experience.  Thus it seems quite appropriate and proper to state that “Transitional Sciences” is properly titled.  Furthermore, while it involves change it commands the need for the sound management thus the concept of “Transitional” control.

While We Spin

We can’t stop the world from spinning nor should we even suggest that it should as we might fall off this planet.  The same can hold true as it relates to inhibiting advancement of technologies.  I’m sure that there are others who feel a bit like I do that overnight we have experts in a emerging topic that previously were sitting in some other area of expertise.  We see data scientists, big data managers, cloud professionals, artificial intelligent gurus (have you heard of LISP or ADA?), and so on.  Maybe its from an acquired educational foundation, as we see with statisticians owning analytics or artificial intelligence (AI) by those who had some experience with preemptive logic.  However with all due respect a point of reference does not make you an expert simply because you need to understand the broad context of cause-and-effect.

So why am I (and my team) qualified in the area of Transitional Sciences?  When I asked this question the response that I got was less than reassuring.  Upon closer examination I discovered that it wasn’t the topic but the question, so I re-framed it.  “What kinds of work engagements have you had that encountered challenges?” was my next question.  I got a loads of examples and upon closer examination two elements were revealed.  The first was that they all involved change, and nearly all of them had some sort of project plan to guide change.  So what went wrong?   It was then we discovered, in somewhat of a bolt of revelation,  was that the plans failed to address the transition from where we are to where we want to reach.  Further it overlooked the impact of interim events, the human factor and was too heavily oriented towards tasks.  It was that moment we realized that transitioning wasn’t being considered.

Our next step was to investigate whether others had been involved in transitioning.  A simple search revealed that it was really non-existent treatment in the worlds of business, technology, innovation, startups and even management disciplines?  We were particularly concerned not for simply this void but the plaguing question of why, had the issue already been addressed or had we stumbled upon the holy grail of needs?  Deeper examination showed that it wasn’t something overlooked, but it became buried in deeper programmatic processes of plans and goals.  In other words instead of removing the paint of past behavior the direction followed was one of a skim coat over the top of what had been taking place.

The final step was to question was to whether this approach was ok.  We relied heavily on an examination of the change in project management during the last four decades.  The range involved ad hoc process, craftsman paradigm, simplistic waterfall, permutations of waterfall to present day agility and all of its variations.  Resounding the evidence showed two things.

  • the transitioning from each and every project management paradigm was a significant problem (created allot of consulting opportunities to help with… “transitioning”, and
  • secondly that project management has shift from ‘the plan’ to ‘the means by which an outcome can be achieved’.

Therefore we have come to realize that to save time and money we have to be equipped to transition efficiently.  Whether you are the customer receiving new technology solutions, a company producing product, a company changing leadership or business direction transitioning plays an essential role.

Our Transition

Looking forward is exciting but it can also be, for some, with trepidation.  The key in transitioning new discoveries is market conversion or the ability to transition tradition thinking into productive gains.  Often this relates to importance of saving time and money while doing so with minimal disruption and risk.  Our confidence resides in the reality that these aspects are in fact ‘transitional’ and to prove the model to be sound we must be successful in doing what we are promoting (hope that makes sense… so read it slow again and maybe you will understand).

Transitioning is not only exciting for me, it is also essential in dealing with a successfully producing forward moving outcomes.  The transitional framework has to be lean, efficient, effective and can be understood without exhaustive workshops, skill development and customization.  Much of this will be illustrated by some upcoming papers, projects and presentations that will be taking place over the next several months.

If you have any interest in or got ideas and suggestions please forward them to me at TECTL@hotmail.com