OC 3 – Chapter 15: Project Release

«Writing a book is an adventure. To begin with it is a toy and an amusement. Then it becomes a mistress, then it becomes a master, then it becomes a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster and fling him to the public.»
Winston Churchill

When you create something, releasing it is usually the final step. The artifact leaves your direct control and your creative system, and confronts real conditions. Its long-term use under actual conditions is usually unknown. Release shows what the artifact actually does, not what you imagined it doing. That can be deeply rewarding if users find creative uses for it, or frustrating if it fails or is misused.

This makes release the final interface between the creative system and the world — and the last real evaluation setting. Only released work can generate consequences you did not design. These effects can then be assessed, for example for an improved version or for future work (see Timing of Evaluations on page 215).

Lack of knowledge can make a release difficult — platform mechanics, formatting, packaging, timing, permissions, or distribution channels all have to be navigated competently. But while Audience Compatibility (see page 235) can always be improved, the main barriers are often loss of control, finality (e.g., the Internet never forgets), exposure, tedious administrative steps, or insecurity about when the artifact is ready.

Many creative systems are very good at producing material, but very bad at releasing it. A project that is never released remains part of your internal workflow rather than your creative output. It accumulates like unprocessed inventory in a warehouse. It is psychologically heavy because the creative process remains open, it cannot generate feedback, use, or consequences, it provides no insight into how the work fares in real contexts, and it blocks attention for future work. In short, it can clog the system (see System Drag on page 30).

This raises the question of why systems stall at the export boundary and under what conditions the work actually leaves the system.

Willingness to Let Go

Release is the point at which the work stops being under your control and becomes an external object that is used independently of you. The final step is not declaring the work finished, but allowing it to leave your control and enter use.

And relinquishing that control over «your baby» can be very hard.

People usually invest a great deal of effort into a creative project, so they can become protective or even possessive of what they have created. Loss of control and the finality of release can become barriers. But only when exposed to reality outside your protection can the work actually be assessed — whether it is new and useful. Did this artifact actually do anything, and did it have real impact?

Release Criteria

The release criteria, which should be determined when deciding to realize a project, turn release into a structural step, a workflow transition (see Creative Commitment on page 177).

Without them, thoughts such as «Is the idea good enough?» or «Am I ready?» can delay release indefinitely, because any artifact can always be improved. And whether one is ready is something one sees in behavior when facing a situation, not beforehand. The result is that you may cheat yourself out of having an impact.

Because the release criteria were usually set long before realization, they are less biased by the fears that arise immediately before release. Adhering to them allows release when the criteria are met, regardless of attachment or last-minute concerns. No negotiation, just trusting your past self and fulfilling what you decided when fear was not yet on the horizon.

Thus, the release criteria answer the question: «What must be true for this to become valuable — new and useful — for someone else?» For example, it is understandable, accessible, and complete enough to function. Once that status has been reached, it has value for others and is released. This also allows for better work, because you can always create an improved version once you have seen how the artifact fares in real contexts. It also protects quality, because bad work does not fulfill the release criteria and thus is not released. Otherwise, your good work will drown in the noise of bad projects.

Audience Compatibility

When your artifact leaves your system and enters the outside world, the form of that transition matters. Domains and fields have expectations regarding how something is released, and a smooth transition makes it more likely that the work is judged correctly and accepted.

The crucial issue is whether the artifact is seen as valuable by the target audience — usually not directly in monetary terms, but in the sense that it fulfills a need they have and makes that value clearly recognizable. Since that was likely one of the main reasons the project was selected for realization in the first place (see Creative Commitment on page 177), the value should already be there. But it must also become visible to the right people.

This requires matching the work to the context in which it can function. That matching is something you can observe, test, and learn through repeated releases in order to find what works for you and for the audience.

Part of that knowledge develops once you learn a domain: Where are these people, how do they communicate, what do they find remarkable, and how do they determine value? The principles are the same whether the artifact is a scientific paper that has to meet publication standards or an invitation to your partner for a romantic evening. Much depends on the right place, the right people, the right time, and the right form.

This matching applies not only to the value of the artifact, but also to whether the audience can accept it. Thus it depends both on the quality of the work and on whether it fits the conceptual framework of the audience. For example, if it directly threatens identity or moral self-understanding, acceptance becomes less likely.

A simplified example of audience compatibility is the different reactions to, at the time, controversial scientific findings. In essence, both Ignaz Semmelweis and William Harvey challenged orthodoxy,1 and both were right. Semmelweis found a way to reduce childbed-fever mortality in mothers from about 10% to 1%. But he shamed colleagues and called them murderers for ignoring evidence. That he was right did not help his case. Harvey, in contrast, adapted his findings to the audience, kept his integrity and had impact. While the world should work on evidence and argument, that is not the world we live in. Neglecting this makes even potentially high-impact ideas inconsequential.

Some artifacts require spread within the target audience in order to have impact. That means you may need opinion leaders, promoters, and even interpreters. But the question remains the same: What do these people see as valuable? That may differ from the concrete value of the artifact itself. For example, they may be interested in maintaining or expanding their social position, and the artifact may be a means to that end.

In some cases, achieving audience compatibility requires translation. For example, you could tell the non-technical CEO of your company, in engineering terms, that you found a way to produce a central component with a new process involving methods x, y, and z, using the recent technical developments h, g, and even a touch of i, greatly reducing the waste of materials A, B, and C, conserving xyz watts per unit, and cutting production time per unit by 32%.

Or you could look at the issue from his perspective and say: «We’ve found a better way to produce a key component — less waste, lower energy consumption, and 32% faster production per unit. If approved for implementation, it could translate directly into lower costs, higher output, and stronger margins.»

The second version works as an elevator pitch. It is clear, simple, and obviously valuable to him.

Archiving Released Work

Archiving preserves access to created artifacts, their release history, and post-release signals, so future work can learn from them. It also reminds you of the work you have done, which can provide remembrance, motivation, inspiration, and a portfolio to show others. This even applies to a private archive of failed or aborted projects, because mistakes provide lessons that cannot be learned from successes.

Thus, archiving is long-term retrieval infrastructure. It is to released work what collecting is to ideas. So the same criteria as for collecting ideas apply, whether you use a ring binder, a digital tool, or something else. Given the amount of invested work and the long time frames involved, usability, backups, and future-proof access (e.g., no data island) are crucial. An easy overview, such as a project list, usually helps to see the big picture.

Almost any creative project can be archived in some form. You can photograph artifacts, turn presentation slides into a poster, or simply take a photo of yourself giving a presentation, doing stand-up, or performing improv. Even an ephemeral event that left no traces still leaves memories that can be written down in a short entry. See Preserving the Essence of the Ideas on page 118 for capturing the emotional quality of an event.

Include whatever helps your future self make sense of the project. For example, a copy of the artifact, meta-information (goal, date, reminders on procedure or materials, evaluations), idea history, release history, feedback and reviews, or personal comments. Operational feedback works to inform future work and avoids the identity contamination of interpretative feedback (see Tainted Identity on page 228).

It is also possible to create a private exhibition with copies of your work. Because creative output and quality fluctuate, this can help you keep perspective when the work dips. However, visible artifacts have affordances and can intrude on current work (see Environment on page 65), so such exhibitions usually work better outside the work area.

Common Failure Modes of Releasing

Common failure modes are Last Steps Mistakes, (Fear of) Public Criticism or Pushback, and Confusing Release with Marketing or Sales.

Last Steps Mistakes

The creative work is done, the artifact is ready to be released, and the final steps are often more administrative than craft-based. For example, uploading a book or article to a platform or filling out forms.

In that state of «the hard work is finished», mistakes become very likely. Even dedicated artists and authors can fail on the last steps, especially if they switch directly from deep creative work into release mode. Unless time is tight, taking a break or doing the release the next day restores enough concentration not to torpedo one’s own work.

(Fear of) Public Criticism or Pushback

Internal evaluation can point out flaws, which you can still correct in private. But once the work is public, it cannot be taken back. Even after prior evaluations, its use and the reactions to it may differ from what you expected. People may misuse it. It may trigger negative feedback if people are disappointed, envy if it succeeds («garage band effect»), or attacks by small but loud groups. Or perhaps worse, it may simply be ignored.

Because you usually control the time and form of release, there are ways to reduce this risk. For example, use evaluations to reduce uncertainty, release the work first among friends, family, or other supporters, release in stages or anonymously, or secure public support in advance (e.g., Darwin had Huxley as his «bulldog»).

In cases of strong pushback, identifying the source and the reason is crucial. In many visible cases, the pressure does not come from your target audience, but from a small, organized group.2 They usually have interests that differ from those of your target audience — e.g., social or political influence, identity preservation, or the need to appear moral. These groups can generate disproportionate apparent consensus, especially online. Some are skilled at reframing the situation so that the target feels at fault and becomes reactive or apologetic, especially because the need to be seen as good is strong in most people. And an apology is often blood in the water for such bullies.3 In many cases, standing by your actual target audience and rejecting that meddling leads to better outcomes for you and for those who are actually interested in your work.4

Confusing Release with Marketing, Advertising, or Sales

Release is making the project available («Here it is.»). Distribution is making sure the target group has access to it («This might be something of interest to you.»). Promotion is actively campaigning for it to be used (e.g., marketing, advertising, sales, «Use this.», often including «Buy this.»).

Some people sabotage the success of their own work by not releasing it or by downplaying it, because they confuse release, distribution, and promotion. They think that if they release something, they must also market it or network around it. That behavior is alien to them, and they may even see it as manipulation. As a result, they do not make the target group aware of what they created.

If the work is kept quiet, it will not pester the target audience — true. But it also will not help them. So the issue is not simply whether one is manipulative or pushy, but whether the artifact is available to the people for whom it was made in a form they can actually find and use.

For example, a Minimum Viable Release can be shared with a defined audience, published without being obnoxious, deposited in an accessible and used archive, or delivered directly to intended users. Less a launch with streamers and confetti, more an exit from the internal loop in order to allow external feedback — by putting the artifact out there where the target audience can actually find it.5

Marketing, advertising, or sales are additional activities that are often useful if a project is supposed to have greater impact. If that is desirable and social interaction is the issue, the conditions for dealing with it can be improved. For example, you can learn to be good with people or get promoters.

Underflow, Optimal Flow, and Overflow

Both over- and underflow can happen easily. See Table 21.

Aspect Underflow Optimal Flow Overflow
Willingness to Let Go not releasing artifacts, trying to keep them under direct control seeing release as the final step in finding out whether the work actually functions, and respecting that step releasing unfinished artifacts, bad work, «noise»
Release Criteria vague, insufficiently specified, never triggered, clogged system clearly defined when crossing the Rubicon and adhered to in practice too high, too complex, never triggered, clogged system
Audience Compatibility tone-deaf, not aligned with the expectations of domain and/or field adapting the release and/or the work so the target audience can understand and accept it without compromising the work focusing more on communication style than on actual value
Archiving Released
Work		 fire-and-forget, not learning from past projects keeping an archive that informs and improves future work being too strongly influenced by past projects
Last Steps Mistakes low standards once the actual work is done, e.g., sloppy administrative work keeping focus until the work is actually released, taking breaks if necessary overthinking every step, where concern about mistakes becomes the mistake
(Fear of)
Public Criticism or Pushback		 walking blindly into explosive or third-rail issues, letting others control the narrative knowing the issue and likely reactions, differentiating between honest and dishonest actors, getting support if needed avoiding important but loaded themes or issues out of fear of pushback
Confusing Release with Marketing or Sales not making sure the target audience can find the work, therefore little or no impact pointing out the work factually, without arrogance or false humility over-promoting the work in a tone-deaf way, spamming, sounding like a «broken record»

Table 21: Project Release — underflow, optimal flow, and overflow.

As in other phases of a creative project, improvement requires small behavioral trials — different kinds of releases, different audiences, writing down the presumed reaction and then comparing it with the actual one.

Release is largely a calibration issue.

Where it fits into your current creative process:

  1. Update your ▯ Creative System Map.
  2. How do things leave your system — publication, sharing, abandonment?
  3. Mark whether it constrains output, i.e., is a potential candidate for an ▯ Integration Worksheet trial.

Endnotes

  1. Greene (2012) «Mastery». ↩
  2. On social media, and on the internet in general, a few unstable or highly unhappy individuals can create the impression of broad consensus, especially when controversy-amplifying media pick up the issue to get clicks and views. And some people just do not recognize when content is not meant for them, see Bean soup theory. ↩
  3. One of the hardest things to learn here is that these are not honest or even rational actors with regard to the creative work itself. For them, the issue is often not the issue. They are usually interested in appearing moral. Supporting whatever currently functions as the main cultural issue gives them a way to feel moral, whether warranted or not. Usually not, as Ernest Hemingway’s «Being against evil doesn’t make you good» applies here. In some cases, individuals or organizations also gain status, influence, or money from escalating controversy. Institutions then try to buy temporary peace through symbolic concessions or paid appeasement, which often reinforces the pattern instead of ending it. Essentially, it is a 21st century «Danegeld». ↩
  4. For example, when a campaign for a product, aimed at a health-conscious and fit target audience, sparks outrage from people who would never use that product and do not share its underlying values. Reacting with humor and standing by one’s actual audience is usually a better strategy than trying to be seen as good by people whose incentives are social, symbolic, or positional rather than related to the product itself. The actual target audience usually appreciates it, even though they often are not vocal — they just like the product. ↩
  5. The internet has made this both harder and easier. Harder because of the noise — immense amounts of content are pushed at us every second — but also easier, because the target audience can now be dispersed across the whole planet and still be reached (cf. «The Long Tail» by Anderson). ↩

Supplemental Materials

 

 

 

OC3 Navi