You can’t script jazz, but you can teach the chord changes

I'm having trouble with something and wonder if this resonates with anyone else…

A big part of applying ICM is identifying processes/workflows that can be automated somehow, right? You need to make work visible to transform it.

I believe that, I tell people that. But I struggle to apply that to my own work and I'm wondering if it's because my work is largely emergent or if I'm full of shit.

I don't really have repeatable tasks. I design AI coaching systems, learning tools, games, decision-support bots—different domains, different outputs each time. I have a method… but not a process I feel like I can document in a useful way. I rely on judgment and taste that's informed by years of experience more than articulated principles and criteria I could bake into an ICM workspace. So when I hear "productionize your opinion" - I struggle to act on that.

I feel like my effectiveness comes from adaptive pattern-matching in real-time. That makes it hard to define and repeat. Maybe I’m being lazy though. You can't script jazz. But you can teach someone how to listen for the chord changes.

Turns out I'm not full of shit, the work IS harder to document. But that doesn't mean I get a pass. Still figuring out what 'teaching the chord changes' looks like for my work.

Anyone else struggling with this? How are you making emergent, judgment-heavy work visible enough to transform?

5 comments