John Cutler · 7 min read · Product Teams
TBM 421: Minimally Viable Consistency (Part 3)
Read the original on cutlefish.substack.com →
Explores minimally viable consistency and introduces three strategies—sharp consistency, flexible consistency, and legible variety—to balance standardization with local autonomy. It argues that the right level of consistency reduces coordination costs and accelerates learning, but too much or too little standardization incurs costs, so the optimal level depends on context and how AI can enhance or undermine alignment.
Key Takeaways
- MVC aims for the least consistency needed to gain benefits while avoiding the costs of over-standardization.
- Three strategies exist: sharp consistency (strong, opinionated rules that shape behavior), flexible consistency (shared intent with local adaptation), and legible variety (intentional, describable differences across teams).
- The right choice depends on context (e.g., large enterprises vs autonomous scaleups) to maximize upside with minimal downside.
- AI can enable locally rich, aligned work if applied thoughtfully, but risks flattening variation or misalignment if misused.
Excerpt
Almost ten years ago, Arlo Belshee used a line that stuck with me: “Org design is basically about solving the puzzle of what must be consistent, and what you’re willing to lose to keep it consistent.” I've written about consistency, and minimally viable consistency, before ( Part 1 , Part 2 ). In this post I want to explore what I've been calling sharp consistency, flexible consistency , and legible variety . You work with all three in your quest to find minimally viable consistency. Understanding this is also a big unlock for where and how AI can be valuable…