No One Size Fits All
In the pursuit of simplicity, organizations desperately seek that one magical approach - the silver bullet methodology that will solve all their problems. But here's the uncomfortable truth: no single approach can work across all components of a system, because those components exist at different stages of evolution. What works brilliantly for industrialised, commodity activities will utterly fail in uncharted territories requiring experimentation. The uncharted domain demands agility and exploration, the industrialised domain requires efficiency and operational excellence, and transitional components need yet another approach entirely. Companies that insist on forcing one methodology across all components are setting themselves up for spectacular failure.
Passage Details
No one size fits all.
This simple statement captures one of the most fundamental insights about managing complex systems. Every large system — whether a line of business, a nation state, or a specific IT project — contains multiple components at different stages of evolution. Each stage requires a different management approach, and trying to force a single methodology across all components is a recipe for failure.
The Evolution Challenge
Every system contains components that are evolving from one extreme to another — from the uncharted to the industrialised domain. To survive and compete, you must manage both extremes effectively:
- You cannot afford to build your own Thomas Thwaites toaster when a commodity form exists
- You cannot hope to compete against Uber by focusing on custom-built tyres for your taxis
The problem is that these extremes require completely different approaches:
The Industrialised Domain
- Requires coherence, coordination, efficiency, and stability
- Focus on reducing deviation and mass production of "good enough"
- Methods: Six Sigma, ITIL, formalised frameworks
The Uncharted Domain
- Requires exploration, experimentation, and discovery
- Change is the norm — any method must enable and reduce the cost of change
- Methods: Lightweight Agile, XP, SCRUM (cut back to core principles)
The Innovation Paradox
This creates what's known as the Innovation Paradox of Salaman & Storey (2002). Any structure — whether a company or team — needs to manage both polar opposites simultaneously. But the story is even more complex because you also have transitional components that are evolving between the extremes.
Transitional Components
- During the custom-built stage, focus shifts to creating a product
- Methods: Lean approaches, reducing waste, improving measurements
- Goal: Create the first minimal viable product
- Activity gains more permanence as it undergoes transition
The Methodology Map
Wardley identified that different project methodologies are suited to different stages of evolution:
Different project methodologies are suited to different stages of evolution. Agile works in the uncharted, Lean in transition, and Six Sigma in the industrialised domain.
Agile → Lean → Six Sigma
- Uncharted: Agile (lightweight XP/SCRUM)
- Transition: Lean (reducing waste, creating MVP)
- Industrialised: Six Sigma (reducing deviation, mass production)
The One-Size-Fits-All Trap
Unfortunately, most companies have no map of their environment. They're unaware of these climatic patterns and tend to fall for a one-size-fits-all method. The arguments are usually supported by outcome bias:
"This method worked well for this particular project, so it must work for every project."
This leads to endless arguments:
- Agile vs Lean
- Lean vs Six Sigma
- Agile vs Six Sigma
Each side points to failed examples of the "other approach" while defending against counter-accusations that their approach "wasn't used the right way."
The Endless Quest for Magic Methods
Invariably, there are endless attempts to create a new magic one-size-fits-all method by:
- Making a single approach all-encompassing
- Marrying together different stages (Lean Six Sigma, Agile Lean, Prince Agile)
This has been going on for a considerable time and will continue until people accept the simple truth: there's no one size fits all.
Beyond Project Management
This principle applies far beyond project methodology:
Purchasing
- Genesis: VC-based approach
- Transition: Outcome and COTS-based approach
- Industrialised: Unit-based approaches
Development Approach
- Genesis: More suited to in-house development
- Industrialised: Can be safely outsourced
Budgeting
- Genesis: Investment accounting
- Transition: Product P&Ls
- Industrialised: Activity-based cost control
Whether it's finance, IT, or marketing — there is no single magic method.
Strategic Implications
1. Map Your Components
Identify where each component sits in the evolution cycle. You cannot manage what you cannot see.
2. Apply Appropriate Methods
Use the right methodology for each stage:
- Uncharted → Agile experimentation
- Transition → Lean product development
- Industrialised → Six Sigma efficiency
3. Avoid Methodology Wars
Stop arguing about which single method is best. The question is: which method is appropriate for this specific component at this specific stage?
4. Embrace Complexity
Accept that managing a large system requires multiple approaches simultaneously. You will have to learn how to manage transitions.
The Key Insight
Any significant system will have components at different stages of evolution. At any one moment in time, there is no single method that will fit all.
The companies that succeed are those that resist the siren call of the magic method, the one-size-fits-all solution that promises to solve everything. Instead, they focus ruthlessly on context. They map their landscape, understand where each component sits in the cycle of evolution, and then — and only then — do they pick the right tool for the job. They accept the messy reality that managing a complex system requires multiple approaches, not the false comfort of a single methodology.
Conclusion
"No one size fits all" isn't just a catchy phrase — it's a fundamental principle of systems management. The sooner organizations accept this reality and start mapping their components to apply appropriate methodologies, the better they'll compete and survive in complex environments.
As Wardley discovered in 2005, the story is more complex than the simple Innovation Paradox suggests. You need to manage not just the extremes, but also the transitional components that are evolving between them. This requires three different management approaches, not two.
The companies that try to force a single methodology across all components are fighting against the fundamental nature of evolution itself. They're doomed to fail because they're trying to make reality fit their method instead of adapting their method to fit reality.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why can't I use one methodology for everything?
Every large system contains components at different stages of evolution. The uncharted domain needs experimentation, the industrialised domain needs efficiency, and transitional components need a third approach. A single methodology cannot effectively manage all three.
What's the Innovation Paradox?
The Innovation Paradox describes how organizations need to manage both extremes simultaneously: exploration and experimentation in the uncharted domain, and efficiency and stability in the industrialised domain. These require completely different approaches.
How do I know which methodology to use?
Map your components to understand where they sit in the evolution cycle. Use Agile for uncharted components, Lean for transitional components, and Six Sigma for industrialised components.
Why do companies keep trying one-size-fits-all solutions?
Most companies have no map of their environment and are unaware of evolutionary patterns. They fall for outcome bias, believing that because a method worked for one project, it must work for all projects.
Does this apply beyond project management?
Yes. The same principle applies to purchasing (VC-based → COTS-based → unit-based), development approach (in-house → outsourced), and budgeting (investment accounting → product P&Ls → activity-based cost control).