CircaSpecting: People, Tech, and Business

Breaking Mental Roadblocks

Enrico Fermi, the Nobel-winning physicist who directed the first controlled nuclear chain reaction at the University of Chicago in 1942, said this about early failed attempts:

"We did not have enough imagination to think that a different process of disintegration might occur in uranium than in any other element.  Moreover, we did not know enough chemistry to separate the products of uranium disintegration from one another, and we believed we had about four of them, while their number was closer to fifty."

We can learn a lot from this great innovator about finding creative solutions to hard problems:

Imagine.
"...we did not have enough imagination..."
The first step in innovation is not DESCRIBING; it is IMAGINING.  Close your eyes, because they often trick you into focusing on the status quo.

Get out more.
"...we did not know enough Chemistry..." 
Great breakthroughs almost always involve synthesis of knowledge from adjacent fields or disciplines.  We all need to read more broadly.

Add or remove a zero. 
"...we believed we had about four of them, ...closer to fifty..."
Changing your assumptions by an order of magnitude can unlock imaginative new possibilities.  They are just assumptions, so change them.

Manipulative, in a Good Way

Recently, a friend was describing how he is teaching his pre-schooler to perform addition.  The child did not respond to flash cards or verbal word problems.  So, my friend used blocks: "you are playing with 3 blocks; here are 2 more blocks; how many do you have now?"  Instantly, the child counted to five by pointing successively at each of the blocks.  Presto, math by direct interaction with the problem.

Symbology is hard.  That's probably why it's the exclusive domain of human beings.  We can deal with concepts and symbols which are representative abstractions of tangible reality -- but there's a lot of mental work, as the brain continually swaps back and forth between the symbology and the root reality.  This swapping back and forth is our way of validating that our representations are true analogies, because we're all just a little uncomfortable dealing purely in the abstract.

Direct manipulation depends upon simpler brain function.  Paradoxically, it requires less mental work/energy/activity despite involving more physical work/energy/activity. That's because there's less (or no) swapping-for-validation required.  Solving the problem IS solving the problem.

I've said before that the secret to great business analysis is remembering that all data are representations of underlying physical processes in the real world, and focusing tenaciously on making changes to/in that real world.  (more here)  Now, I'm pointing out that there is a strong relationship between the degree of abstraction in the description of the problem and the amount of brain power required to grasp the problem.

In addition to requiring less power, direct manipulation is also stickier.  Retailers have known for a long time that if you can get a prospect to handle your product, there is a much higher probability he will buy your product.  There is similar qualitative evidence in our research which suggests that direct manipulation increases the solver's patience with the problem -- keeps them on-task longer than if they work on the same problem purely in the abstract.

The power of direct manipulation is of vital importance for many people in many roles.  As software designers, we need to find ways to allow the users to reach more directly into the problem and manipulate the problem itself (data and linkages as simulacra) -- rather than manipulating levers and abstractions and buttons and scripts.  As analysts, we need to find ways to communicate our findings that are tied more closely to simulacra of the physical processes we intend to address.  I propose a tweak on Occam's Razor: all things being equal, use the least abstract model possible -- put eyes and hands as directly onto the problem as possible.

Importing the Future

When you borrow a lot of money to create a false prosperity, you import the future into the present.  It isn't the actual future so much as some grotesque silicon version of it.  Leverage buys you a glimpse of a prosperity you haven't really earned.  Michael Lewis, Vanity Fair magazine

Like most deep truths, this one is instructive across many areas of life.  For instance, I think many entrepreneurs (you could also substitute "corporate change agents") are so hungry for "prosperity" -- for the validation of seeing your idea adopted, of having people talk about your product, of winning deals, of a large staff -- that they are often tempted into thinking money can significantly accelerate the path to genuine success for the project.  But, we've seen more than a few raise money, blow it in a vain (interesting word choice) attempt to import the future into the present, and get ejected when the natural pace of the market did not immediately and permanently reshape itself to their desires. 

I love traveling to places where the frenetic pace of post-modern life has not crept in.  You don't have to go far to find them.  Two hours outside any big city in world -- Paris, London, Denver, San Fran, Boston, Seattle, Toronto -- you can find people who still see with perfect clarity that Life has a rhythm and Nature a cadence.  Go, watch, remember.  These places are not foreign; they are True.

In all our striving, we need to remember that we are working at the margins; there are very real limits to how fast we can change the world.  What makes the world-changers great people is NOT that they had a flash of brilliance and changed the world overnight.  That's an adolescent view of greatness.  What makes the world-changers great people is that they were able to influence and shape and move the massive collective of all-of-us over time, through persistence and charisma and patience and compromise and energy and tenacity and forgiveness and a hundred other virtues.

Shortcuts suck.

Wisdom in trippy children's books

"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.  "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.  Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

It is SO adult to ignore the impossible.

Try this experiment:  Meet 1:1 with the members of your team for 30 minutes, and force the conversation to stay on one subject: "what are we assuming is impossible?"  There will be lots of worthless observations -- that is, lots of things which are in fact impossible.  But, if you work at it, I bet you will uncover a few items that you should NOT be assuming impossible.  And, those are the kernels of transformation.  I tried it a couple of weeks ago, and we had some terrific breakthroughs. 

Jump down the rabbit hole!

Life is Complicated

The most creative people I know are also the most optimistic people I know.  It takes optimism to embrace a really new project -- whether that's a new painting or a new building or a new process or a new product.  The need for optimism probably stems from the fact that you are exposing yourself to criticism, since we all regard the creation as a manifestation of the creator.

I think that is why so many creative people have a tendency to overstuff their creations: they want everyone to see the full breadth and depth of their genius; they don't want to be judged on a stripped-down version of their vision.  Even when the first few elements of the project represent 70-80% of the potential value, we often insist that "75% is a C."

This is a mistake.

Life is full of the unforeseen, and there's plenty of the unforeseeable, too.  Whether you can see the challenges or not, they are still there -- licking their chops to get a shot at your project.  And, like a pack of coyotes, they grow exponentially more devastating as their numbers grow.  One coyote or problem is basically a lonely puppy.  Ten coyotes or problems is a buffet, and you are the entree.

The reality of creativity is that it faces 2 exponential functions, both of which are related to complexity.  Marginal utility is declining with complexity, while marginal risk is increasing.  Multiplying these two curves yields the green line in the chart below: expected value.

The creative brain does not want  to see the reality of the green line.  We must discipline ourselves to see it; and, we must discipline ourselves to act accordingly.  So, here is a good exercise.  Ask yourself the following question:

What is the simplest, most basic version of my project which anyone could possibly consider good?

This is probably the only version of your project that is worth your time.  And, before you start calling this a cop-out strategy, remember: Life is FAR more complicated than you think.

Spring Cleaning Your Brain

Repotting, that's how you get new bloom ... you should have a plan of  accomplishment and when that is achieved you should be willing to start off again. Ernie Arbuckle, former dean of Stanford business school

Repetitive existence dulls your mental edge.  Equilibrium kills creativity and vitality.  So, find ways periodically to give your mind an excuse to see things from a new perspective :

• Go see an arthouse film
• Change your computer (to a Mac!)
• Repaint your office or work from a cafe one afternoon per week
• Trade your day-timer for a smart phone, or vice versa
• Attend a university lecture -- on art history or architecture or anthropology
• Change your wardrobe completely
• Switch roles with a team-mate
• Change your commute -- new time, route, or mode
• Read a science fiction epic
• Take lessons on a sport you don't know
• etc, etc, etc

Baudrillard, The Matrix, and Business Intelligence

I've been rereading Baudrillard's Simulations, the book most people regard as the basis for the Matrix motion pictures.  Not coincidentally, it's the book that Neo pulls off the shelf in his apartment during the first episode.  It's an excellent (if difficult) book to read, because he has a valuable ability common to lunatics: the ability to see the way the world really is, with so much greater clarity than the rest of us who are "sane."  Anyway, it's a small book with big ideas -- big ideas with practical application.

My personal favorite concept in the book is this: representations can kill what they represent.  I call this Baudrillard's Paradox.  A couple of his more provocative examples include...

God dies with the birth of religion.

What is truly social dies with the advent of socialism.

So, what does this have to do with anything practical?  I'll give you two examples, starting with a personal one.

At Eyeris, we operate a Systrust/SAS-70 certified hosting operation.  There are lots of documented procedures and controls.  Lots.  Those procedures evolved over years of thoughtful work by Eyeris' founders.  Careful documentation then allowed the process to be delegated to others.  And, most of the time, everything runs great.  But, when things go haywire in the process, it's almost always for the same reason: a thoughtfully designed process document becomes a substitute for thoughtful work.  Now, clearly, I am not advocating seat-of-the-pants make-it-up-as-you-go processes; but, we have to remember that ALL good work is brain-turned-on, eyes open, creative, thoughtful work -- whether it's documented and routine, or not.

A more general example of Baudrillard's Paradox is this:

True business intelligence dies
where Business Intelligence thrives.

BI as we know it today is a representation or simulation, attempting to mimic the signs of business intelligence.  That is, if you observe some of the signs of true business intelligence, you will see reports going from thoughtful analysts to decision makers.  But, the presence of reports does NOT imply thoughtful analysis.  In fact, it can mean the opposite -- stunting the urge to analyze, by providing a (poor) substitute.  BI needs to get back to its thoughtful, messy, human, creative, experimental, investigative roots -- and away from the antiseptic, lifeless, thoughtless farms of frozen, pre-digested reports.

Break Out to Break Through

Creativity is a triumph of courage over familiarity.

Sometimes by inspiration, other times by persistent method, we try something new – some new perspective, some new combination, some new place or time, some new tool or technique – in full knowledge of the fact that the odds are stacked against success.  In fact, many people cannot bring themselves to let go of the apparent safety of the known, the routine – not for the longshot of successful originality. 

But, whether it’s an idea about changing a product line’s pricing structure or an idea about how to build a safer motorcycle or an idea about how to harness tidal flows for electricity production or an idea for how to motivate and shape your teenager to achieve her potential – it is a triumph that adds meaningfulness to life, both yours and others’. 

And, there are no deeper human needs than to understand the meaning of things and to make a meaningful difference for others.  Both of which are hard to do while hypnotized by routine.

Failure and creativity are the essence of human being. 
To let go of routine in exchange for either is a good trade.

Genius Ignored

Genius, in an unexpected context, is often overlooked.

I once sat with Desmond Tutu on a flight in the states.  The aircraft was huge, and he was sitting on the aisle.  I watched as everyone filed past us, and no one recognized him.  He exudes peacefulness and calm and caring -- I was uplifted greatly by our brief time.  But, so many others missed that chance.

If you have not already seen the Washington Post article about how DC subway commuters ignored one of the world's greatest violinists playing a multi-million-dollar Stradivari, you can check it out here.  Basically, 95% of passers-by did not even stop.  They did not recognize genius in this context.

The human mind is just weird -- tremendous ability to appreciate truth, art, wisdom and abstract representation, but equally tremendous ability to ignore the same.  That’s the power of bias.  Preconceived notions.  Prejudice.  Insecurity.  Self-justification.  Distraction.

Some of the coolest uses of information and technology are being cooked up in plain sight -- but outside the walls of "proper" IT.  If you can learn to control your bias, you might discover your organization’s equivalent of master performances in the subway station.