npm ci task – ERR! string.prototype.trimend not accessible from es-abstract

This problem happens when you run `npm install` in your local with an npm version 7.x.x (changes format of package-lock or shrinkwrap) and your container in the your CI/CD pipeline has npm version 6.X.X.
The problem is that it doesn’t fail, it tries its best to read it and make it work.

Good-to-great – Key points – The flywheel and the doom loop

• Good-to-great transformations often look like dramatic, revolutionary events, to those observing from the outside, but they feel like organic, cumulative processes to people on the inside. The confusion of the end outcomes (dramatic results) with process (organic and cumulative skews our perception of what really works over the long haul.
• No matter how dramatic the end result, the good-to-great transformations never happened in one fell swoop. There was no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment.
• Sustainable transformations follow a predictable pattern of buildup and breakthrough. Like pushing on a giant, heavy flywheel, it takes a lot of effort to get the thing moving at all, but with persistent pushing in a consistent direction over a long period of time, the flywheel build momentum, eventually hitting a point of breakthrough.
• The comparison companies followed a different pattern, the doom loop. Rather than accumulating momentum – turn by turn of the flywheel – they tried to skip buildup and jump immediately to breakthrough. Then, with disappointing results, they would lurch back and forth, failing to maintain a consistent direction.
• The comparison companies frequently tried to create a breakthrough with large, missguided acquisitions. The good-to-great companies principally used large acquisitions after breakthrough, to accelerate momentum in an already fast spinning flywheel.
• Those inside the good-to-great companies were often unaware of the magnitude of their transformation at the time; only later, in retrospective, did it become clear. They had no name, tag line, launch event, or program to signify what they were doing at the time.
• The good-to-great leaders spent essentially no energy trying to create alignment, motivate the troops or manage change. Under the right conditions, the problems of commitment, alignment, motivation, and change largely take care of themselves. Alignment principally follow from results and momentum, not the other way around.
• The short-term pressures of Wall Street were not inconsistent with following this model. The flywheel effect is not in conflict with these pressures. Indeed, it is the key to managing them.

Good-to-great – Key points – Technology accelerators

• Good-to-great organizations think differently about technology and technological change than mediocre ones.
• Good-to-great organizations avoid technology fads and bandwagons, yet they become pioneers in the application of carefully selected technologies.
• The key question about any technology is, does the technology fit directly with your Hedgehog Concept? if yes, then you need to become a pioneer in the application of that technology. If no, then you can settle for parity or ignore it.
• The good-to-great companies used technology as an accelerator of momentum, not a creator of it. None of the good-to-great companies began their transformations with pioneering technology, yet they all became pioneers in the application of technology once they grasped how it fit with their three circles and after they hit breakthrough.
• You could have taken the exact same leading-edge technologies pioneered at the good-to-great companies and handed them to their direct comparisons for free, and the comparisons still would have failed to produce anywhere near the same results.
• How a company react to technological change is a good indicator of its inner drive for greatness versos mediocrity. Great companies respond with thoughtfulness and creativity, driven by a compulsion to turn unrealized potential into results; mediocre companies react and lurch about, motivated by fear of being left behind.
• The idea that technological change is the principal cause in the decline of once-great companies (or the perpetual mediocrity of others) is not supported by the evidence. Certainly, a company can’t remain a laggard and hope to be great, but technology by itself is never a primary root cause of either greatness or decline.
• Across eighty-four interviews with good-to-great executives, fully 80 percent didn’t even mention technology as one of the top five factors in the transformation. This is true even in companies famous for their pioneering application of technology, such Nucor.
• “Crawl, walk, run” can be very effective approach, even during times of rapid and radical technological change.

Good-to-great – Key points – A culture of discipline

• Sustained great results depend upon building a culture full of self-disciplined people who take disciplined action, fanatically consistent with the three circles.
• Bureaucratic cultures arise to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline, which arise from having the wrong people on the bus in the first place. If you get the right people on the bus, and the wrong people off, you don’t need stultifying bureaucracy.
• A culture of discipline involves a duality. On the one hand, tit requires people to adhere to a consistent system; yet, on the ohand, it gives people freedom and responsibility within the framework of that system.
• A culture of discipline is not just about action. It is about getting disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and who then take disciplined action.
• The good-to-great companies appear boring and pedestrian looking from the outside, but upon closer inspection, they are full of people who display extreme diligence and a stunning intensity.
• Do not confuse culture of discipline with a tyrant who disciplines – they are very different concepts, one highly functional, the other highly dysfunctional. Savior CEOs who personally discipline through sheer force of personality usually fail to produce sustained results.
• The single most important form of discipline for sustained results is fanatical adherence to the Hedgehog Concept and the willingness to shun opportunities that fall outside the three circles.
• The more an organization has discipline to stay within its three circles, with almost religious consistency, the more it will have opportunities for growth.
• The fact that something is a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” is irrelevant, unless it fits within the three circles. A great company will have many of such opportunities.
• The purpose of budgeting in a good-to-great company is not to decide how much each activity gets, but to decide which arenas best fit within the Hedgehog Concept and should be fully funded and which should not be funded at all.
• “Stop doing” lists are more important than “to do” lists.

Good-to-great – Key points – Hedgehog concept

• To go from good to great requires a deep understanding of the three intersecting circles translated into a simple, crystalline concept (the Hedgehog Concept)
• The three circles of the Hedgehog Concept:
  • What are you deeply passionate about.
  • What you can be the best in the world at.
  • What drives your economic engine.
• The key is to understand what your organization can be the best in the world at, and equally important what it cannot be the best at – not what it wants to be the best at. The Hedgehog Concept is not a goal, strategy, or intention; it is an understanding.
• If you cannot be the best in the world at your core business, then your core business cannot form of the basis of your Hedgehog Concept.
• The best in the world understanding is a much more severe standard than a core competence. You might have a competence but not necessarily have the capacity to be truly the best in the world at that competence. Conversely, there may be activities at which you could become the best  in the world, but at which you have no  current competence.
• To get insight into the drivers of your economic engine, search for the one denominator (profit per x or cash flow per x) that has the single greatest impact.
• Good-to-great companies set their goals and strategies based on understanding; comparison companies set their goals and strategies based on bravado.
• Getting the Hedgehog Concept is an iterative process.
• The good-to-great companies are more like hedgehogs – simple, dowdy creatures that know “one big thing” and stick to it.
• It took four years on average for the good-to-great companies to get a Hedgehog Concept.
• Strategy per se did not separate the good-to-great companies from the comparison companies. Both sets had strategies, and there is no evidence that the good-to-great companies spent more time on strategic planning than the comparison companies.
• You absolutely do not need to be in a great industry to produce sustained great results. No matter how bad the industry, every good-to-great company figured out how to produce truly superior economic returns.

Good-to-great – Key points – Confront the brutal facts

• All good-to-great companies began the process of finding a path to greatness by confronting the brutal facts of their current reality.
• When you start with a honest and diligent effort to determine the truth of your situation, the right decisions often become self-evident. It is impossible to make good decisions without infusing the entire process with an honest confrontation of the brutal facts.
• A primary task in taking a company from good to great is to create a culture wherein people have a tremendous opportunity to be heard and, ultimately, for the truth to be heard.
• Creating a climate where the truth is heard involves four basic practices:
  • Lead with questions, not answers.
  • Engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion.
  • Conduct autopsies, without blame.
  • Build red flag mechanisms that turn information into information that cannot be ignored.
• The good-to-great companies faced just as much adversity as the comparison, but responded to that adversity differently. They hit the realities of their situation head-on. As a result, they emerged from adversity even stronger.
• A key psychology for leading from good to great is the Stockdale Paradox: Retain absolute faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.
• Charisma can be as much as liability as an asset, as the strength of your leadership personality can deter people from bringing you the brutal facts.
• Leadership does not begin just with a vision. It begins with getting people confront the brutal facts and to the act on the implications
• Spending time and energy trying to motivate people is a waste of effort. The real question is not, “How do we motivate our people?” if you have the right people, they will be self-motivated. The key is to not de-motivate them. One of the primary ways to de-motivate people is to ignore the brutal facts of reality.