wardley-maps.sgit.ai / Resources / Where the Doctrine Ends (critique)

Where the Doctrine Ends (critique)

Reference & derivative Live critique

No screenshot. Either this resource is not in the 30-target capture set, or the capture returned an interstitial rather than the page — which is recorded as a failure rather than published as a screenshot. What was and was not captured.

What it is

A qualified critique from inside the practice — Daniel calls it "a divergence, not a dismissal." His argument is that Wardley mapping excels at diagnosis and fails at driving action: "Most organisations can read their landscape well enough. What stops them is rarely a missing map." He identifies three problems. The action gap — doctrine diagnoses inertia but does not overcome it, and seeing a problem is categorically different from solving it. Incentive blindness — maps don't change budgets or how people vote, and organisations run two parallel strategies, the stated one and the one revealed by the budget. And incompleteness — doctrine "teaches you to spot inertia on the map and plan around it" but cannot "get a leadership team to vote against its own incentives." His proposal is not better mapping but attention to the machinery of inertia: how budgets are allocated and how decisions are actually made.

Limitations

One consultant's view, published on his own commercial site alongside his services. Newer and less tested than Edgar's critique. Offers a direction rather than a method.

The details