A studio's long-term goal: how a BHAG shapes every decision
Most small studios I read about are busy reacting: to a publisher's deadline, to a platform change, to the next layoff headline. This week's installment of GamesIndustry.biz's series on running an indie studio, written by business coach Martijn van Zwieten, is about the opposite habit: deciding where you want the studio to be and letting that decide the rest.
The tool he borrows is Jim Collins' "Big Hairy Audacious Goal", or BHAG, from the 1994 book Built to Last. Whenever the team faces a big call, such as what the next game should be, whether to self-publish or how large the team should get, you check it against one question: does this get us closer to where we want to go, or not?
The exercise for finding it is simple and I like it. Pick a date in the future (Collins suggests 10 to 25 years, but van Zwieten finds 5 to 10 works better for studios). Then everyone on the team writes a short article that will be published on that date, with specifics such as where it appears and what milestone made it worth writing. Read them aloud, see where you agree, and pick the achievement that is ambitious, specific and resonant enough that everyone in the room feels it.
Two rules of thumb stood out to me. The goal should be measurable and, crucially, only 50 to 70 percent doable, so that it stretches you. And the yearly goals that carry you toward it should number five to seven: fewer and the bar is too low, more and your effort is spread too thin. As he puts it, you are not done until you have cut something that turned out to be a nice-to-have.
Purpose says why the studio exists, the BHAG says where it is going, and the yearly goals say what you finish this year. It is a modest framework, but for a small team it may be more useful than any new tool. Next week's part moves on to surfacing the problems that block progress, and I will be reading it.
Source: GamesIndustry.biz
The tool he borrows is Jim Collins' "Big Hairy Audacious Goal", or BHAG, from the 1994 book Built to Last. Whenever the team faces a big call, such as what the next game should be, whether to self-publish or how large the team should get, you check it against one question: does this get us closer to where we want to go, or not?
The exercise for finding it is simple and I like it. Pick a date in the future (Collins suggests 10 to 25 years, but van Zwieten finds 5 to 10 works better for studios). Then everyone on the team writes a short article that will be published on that date, with specifics such as where it appears and what milestone made it worth writing. Read them aloud, see where you agree, and pick the achievement that is ambitious, specific and resonant enough that everyone in the room feels it.
Two rules of thumb stood out to me. The goal should be measurable and, crucially, only 50 to 70 percent doable, so that it stretches you. And the yearly goals that carry you toward it should number five to seven: fewer and the bar is too low, more and your effort is spread too thin. As he puts it, you are not done until you have cut something that turned out to be a nice-to-have.
Purpose says why the studio exists, the BHAG says where it is going, and the yearly goals say what you finish this year. It is a modest framework, but for a small team it may be more useful than any new tool. Next week's part moves on to surfacing the problems that block progress, and I will be reading it.
Source: GamesIndustry.biz
Comments 0
Leave the first comment, in any language.
Log in to comment