Designing a Business is Counter Intuitive

As a child I found great fun solving the maze problems published in the Sunday edition of daily newspapers like 'The Statesman'. The task was to rescue a boy or a rat trapped in the maze. I quickly learned that it was never a clever idea to start where the 'victim' was. Stating from the 'exit' was the easiest way to solve such problems. It was counter intuitive but effective. The great mathematician Euler when he was in class 3 or 4 astounded his teachers by the way he solved the problem of adding the numbers 1 to 100 in less than a few seconds. All he did was to mentally line up the numbers 1 to 100 as in a series. Below it he placed another series in the reverse order, i.e. 100 to 1. When he added up the numbers for each pair it was exactly 101. So it was 101 repeated 100 times, which gave him a total of 10100. This he divided by 2 to gave him 5050, which was the solution. Well that was also counter intuitive. Now suppose there are 100 male tennis players who want to win the Wimbeldon men's single title then how many games must be played in the tournament? We can find the answer by working from the beginning to the end, starting with 50 first round matches followed by 25 matches and so on. As it turns out the other way is to work backwards. Since there must be 99 losers for us to obtain one winner we must then have 99 matches. Now that is also counter intuitive. It is the same with designing buildings. We dont start by designing the kitchen and then the bedrooms working our way to designing the entire building. We do just the opposite. We begin with the overall concept to formulate the vision and then work our way down to the details of each space having specific functions. This is also counter intuitive. It is exactly by a similar counter intuitive method we design businesses. We can't start with what all we are going to sell and how much we are going to sell to exceed our break even point to start making decent profits and then analyze competitive intelligence to check how the market dynamics would change over time.

Surely that is not the way a business is designed. You must have guessed it by now. We design businesses in a counter intuitive fashion. We start with the 'vision' of how the business would look and be like. Once that vision is fixed we then work backwards to fill in the details. That too is strongly counter intuitive!

What may we learn from Oxford Interview Questions?

Oxford University, considered one of the toughest universities to get into, invariably challenges potential students with interview questions that push them to think on their feet, think independently and laterally and show an ability to apply theory thereby showing their real ability and potential.

Some of the questions are:

a) Is violence always political?

b) Does 'political' means something different in different contexts?

c) Why do lions have manes?

d) Why ladybirds and strawberries have red colors?

e) In a world where English is a global language why learn French?

f) If the punishment for parking on double yellow lines were death and therefore nobody did it, would that be just and effective law?

Compare this with the Indian education system that is geared towards rote learning rather than cognitive development and imagination.

Do we need to change?

How do we practice this style of learning?

Rapidinnovation -- A Room with a View

Observing Real Life Systems

To me, observing real life systems is something like this:

“A real life System comprises of a meaningful set of objects, diverse in form, state and function but inter-related through multiple network of interdependencies through mutual feedbacks enclosed by variable space, operating far from its equilibrium conditions not only exchanging energy and matter with its environment but also generating internal entropy to undergo discrete transformation triggered by the Arrow of Time forcing it to behave in a dissipative but self organizing manner to either self destruct itself in a wide variety of ways or create new possibilities in performance and/or behaviour owing to presence of ‘attractors’ and ‘bi-furcations’; thereby making it impossible to predict the future behaviour of the system in the long term or trace the previous states of the system with any high degree of accuracy other than express it in terms of probabilities since only the present state of the system might be observable to a certain extent and only a probabilistic understanding may be formulated as to how it has arrived at its present state and what would keep it going, thus triggering creative human responses to manage, maintain and enhance the system conditions, function and purpose and create superior systems of the future for the benefit of the society at large.”

Such a represenation of an observation looks quite involved. Perhaps it might be stated in a much simpler way. Most real life systems behave in a complex manner creating multitude of problems of performance and failures. But how do we get rid of complexity and uncertainty as exhibited by systems? We may do so by deeply observing the complex behaviour of the system to improve our perception to gain insights about the essence of the system; find out the underlying ‘imperfection’ that causes the apparent complexity and uncertainty and then find ways to improve the existing system or create new system and maintain them in the simplest possible manner. We do this by applying the principles of chaos, reliability and design. Surprisingly, the same process might be used to troubleshoot and solve problems we face on a daily basis. If done, we are no longer dominated or dictated by the ‘special whims’ of the system. 

The crux of the matter is how we observe reality and understand it so as to make meaningful choices as responses to life and living. 

Rapidinnovation - See & Touch Invisible - DesignKata #2

The previous post dealt with the first Design Kata of keeping a journal in which a problem solver, innovator or design thinker keeps a record of the decisions taken and how one arrived at those decisions.

However, as we know the most important task for a problem solver or design thinker is to find a ‘why’ for an event, phenomenon or failure that takes place.

Keeping that in view Design Kata #2 deals with the practice of seeing and touching the invisible.

Why is that?

This is because answers to the ‘why’ of an event, phenomenon or failure lies in the understanding of the nature and quality of the interactions and interdependence of the elements that happen in a given space.

It is also clear that a) interdependence between things, b) the edges of interactions of such interdependent things and c) the transitions of states and relationships that take place of over time are physically invisible to the human eye.

Hence effective problem solving and design thinking is all about seeing and touching the invisible, without which cognition of a problem can’t even start. Admittedly, this is a difficult thing to practice.

And why is that?

It might be best understood by the visual representation, presented below

Diagram 1

Most of the traditional problem solving methods, techniques and processes start with viewing the top events or failures that emerge and then somehow try to drill below this level to understand the patterns that cause them, which are then attacked to solve the problem. Some methods also try to drill down one step further to understand the systemic relationships at work and try to change the relationships in an effort to solve problems.

Rapidinnovation, so to say, is an inversion of the traditional processes of finding the ‘why’ to problems.

After understand

ing the 'form' of the emergence (events and failures) it straight away views the elements and the ‘empty’ spaces in between the elements that contain the ‘undesirable’ dynamics causing ‘system imperfections’. Such ‘system imperfections’ constantly give rise to a gamut of patterns causing various possible emergences to happen over a period of time.

So the journey starts at the bottom of the diagram by viewing the elements (form), assessing their interdependence (feelings), perceiving the interactions or dynamics (perception) that helps us to form context specific concepts of the existing and other inherent ‘imperfections’ in the system that create enabling ‘patterns’ for myriad events and transition states to emerge (context specific mental constructs). Such ‘mental constructs’ then help us ‘understand’ the observed emergences and transition states. This then enables us to act and design suitable ‘balancing relationships’ that help us to eliminate a range of undesirable emergences of events and transition states. In a future post we would discuss the monitoring of transition states, which in itself would be another DesignKata.

Clearly then, seeing and touching the ‘invisible’ is an inverted way of viewing emergent phenomenon, events, failures and transition states. We don’t try to find the ‘why’ by directly drilling down. We do so by ‘inverting’ our view point, which I call as having, the ‘right view’ of things.

So, to practice this DesignKata of seeing and touching the ‘invisible’ the practitioner is advised to apply the inverted right view of things to whatever one encounters in daily life that might be a matter of interest to the practitioner.

However, it depends on the ‘signals’ one is capable of perceiving. And surely there are many interesting emergences one comes across in daily life. It is the intention of the observer that would keep him/her alive in this practice.   

 That for me is the practice of 'enlightenment' in the 'here and now' 

 

Rapidinnovation -- The Journal - DesignKata #1

I believe that all problem solvers, innovators, design thinkers need to develop a suite of practices that enable them to perform better as time progress. "Design Kata" offers such a suite of practices that would help any problem solver to move towards better contextual understanding of any situation he/she faces if not attain greater wisdom and keener insights. 

As problem solvers and design thinkers we always take decisions. Our quality of decision making determines the quality of our performance in our field of work.

So, the first "design kata" that I recommend is to have a 'decision making journal'. Whenever, we take an important decision on some problem, it helps if we take care to write down in a journal what decision we took, how we arrived at those decisions and what is expected once the decisions are implemented.

We can also make note of how we felt physically and mentally while taking the decision.

Over time, a well kept journal, written in our own handwriting, would reveal patterns in our decision making style and process, which we can then modify and develop as desired for enhanced performance. And if need be we can then develop more patterns of thinking and practice them to see the outcomes they produce. In this manner both our repertoire of techniques and our confidence in our problem solving skill increase over time.

Such journals also help us keep a tab on the decisions we took for a specific problem. It would not only remind us to take a feedback of the effectiveness of implementing our proposed solutions but also record the benefits those solutions provided over a longer period of time. It helps us enhance our understanding of problems, improve our problem solving skills and increase the depth of our thinking.

Over the last 31 years my shelves are filled with more than 100 such journals that have kept track of my thinking process, styles, approaches I took to tackle thousands of problems in my field of application including my moods on specific days and how I felt during the process.

Looking back, I can clearly see at what point of time, my own signature style of solving problems emerged, which must be the goal of any problem solver or decision maker, i.e. to develop his/her own signature tune and learning over a period of time.

To my mind this is the number 1 Design kata a problem solver must initiate and practice.

How much do you agree on this?

 

Rapidinnovation - Understanding Complexity

As Problem Solvers we sometimes misunderstand complexity and the play of complex adaptive systems. We can become so obsessed with the solutions we come up with that we forget to take notice of the interactions and interdependence between things and how our proposed solutions might affect the existing web of interactions and interdependence, creating more difficult problems for us to tackle in the future.

For instance, in the late 1800s rangers at Yellowstone National Park saw that the population of elks was dwindling. They reasoned that the elks were not getting enough food to sustain and grow. Hence they came up with the bright solution that the elks must be 'forced feed' by human beings so that their population would substantially increase avoiding a possible 'risk' of extinction.

The solution seemed viable and nothing seemed to be missing. So the rangers of Yellowstone park brought in the U.S. cavalry to implement their solution to hand-feed the elks. And as expected the solution worked wonders. The elk population swelled. 

But that is not the end of the story. As the elk population swelled the elk started eating aspen trees. But aspen trees were what the beavers were using to build their dams that caught the runoff in the spring, which allowed trout to spawn.

Now with less and less aspen trees there were less and less dams and with less and less dams there were less and less trout to spawn. So more elks equaled less trout.

Why did this happen? It happened since we did not recognize that we were dealing with an 'adaptive system' which by nature, exhibit complex and often unexplained emergent behavior.

The seemingly 'good' solution of 'force feeding' elks led to a series of cascading events that were completely unanticipated.

We most often seek to improve complex adaptive systems, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

It doesn’t take a lot of stretching of our mental awareness to make comparative understanding of complex adaptive systems of the elk ecology to the ecology of organizations and economy. Even with our best intentions in place, there seems to be really no way we can anticipate the ultimate results with 'tinkering' with complex adaptive systems. .

The important question that we must ask ourselves is, "What conditions have to be in place to actually solve these kinds of challenging problems? It does not matter whether we are attempting to solve organizational problems, or machinery problems, ecological problems, economic problems or grappling with design problems.

For some strange reason they are all complex adaptive systems exhibiting their strange behavior through 'emergence'.

Rapidinnovation: Managers -- Change or Get Kicked Around!

Right from the start of my career I never wanted to report to a manager who would only be there to keep record of what I was doing and inform me when I slipped on a self imposed deadline or schedule.

I thought that this was really funny. Why should a highly paid person (obviously higher than what I earned) kept, only monitoring me as if I were a circus animal?

I wanted something better. I wanted a boss or a manager who can guide me out of my difficulties (even personal ones), teach me the tricks of the trade and cushion the shocks of my failed experiments in my efforts to change performance and innovate.

Was it something very peculiar to my psyche? To make sure, I asked some of my peer buddies. And surprisingly they all came up with the same need that I was looking for.

If this were so, why companies would waste their valuable money keep supervisors who were just modern day versions of ancient slave drivers? As soon as I thought that I was magically transported to the vivid scenes of Cecil b deMille’s “Ten Commandments” where the Egyptian slave drivers were merrily lashing their whips around controlling thousands of slaves building pyramids and other infrastructure of Egypt.

Things haven’t changed much from those ancient days. Perhaps the form changed. The physical whip has long been replaced through industrial revolution by the ‘verbal whip’ and pens that possibly stings more emotionally than physically, leaving people more unproductive, raw and vulnerable than before – smarting and humiliated.

This triggers another vital question – Who needs whom? Do the employees need the organization? Or does the organization need employees who can think for themselves? The answer is not easy. When viewed from the principle of interdependence (one of the guiding principle of Rapidinnovation) the answer is ‘both’. Employees do need organizations as platforms to use their talents and perform as much as Organizations need employees who are willing to put up a fine performance.

How can this be achieved?

This might only be achieved if we take a ‘Human Centered View’ based on reasoned thinking on emerging situations, spontaneous creativity aided and guided by the focused will of management and managers who would be more willing to act as coaches and mentors for employees rather than take up the sick role of glorified version of slave drivers and ‘kill-joys’.

Without wasting much time I started my humble experiments in this direction (1980) since even as a Graduate Engineer Trainee I was already the boss of the Maintenance department.

So, rather than enjoying the ‘strange’ powers and ethereal joys bestowed upon me by the Top Management to grant leaves, permissions of all sorts and motivating my subordinates through regular enticements of ‘overtime pay’, ‘special increments’, ‘office parties’ I started mentoring them in my own way. It was good in a way since there were no well laid out precedents to follow so as to be trapped by rigid standards of earlier performance.

The focus of all that mentoring was simple indeed. How do we make sense of what is happening in the ‘now’? No big theories to contend with. No vague and remote scientific truths to digest. There was nothing irrelevant to what is happening in the ‘now’. We were jointly trying to make sense with me in the ‘mentor’s’ seat.  

Though I was greeted by derisions from my well healed but old fashioned managers the ridicule and jibes soon turned into amazement, recognition and awe. The result was more than I ever expected. We could complete projects before time (not on time). We cut operating costs by half (not 10% as slated in the annual budget). We increased machinery productive uptime to more than 98% (from a measly figure of 50%)… and more.

Surely, I was then bitten by the bug of coaching and mentoring which I kept repeating with great success and joy in all my subsequent jobs and professional engagements.

Today, after so many years, it is amply clear to me that mentoring and coaching are things that employees respect and live for.

That of course is all bad news to mangers who try to manage their mundane affairs in old fashioned ways of stick, carrot, numbers and prediction models. It seems to me that their time is up and they now stand ‘naked’ and vulnerable in front of their subordinates who certainly expect more mastery from them in the true sense of the word. It is already late. People are now ready to disrespect the last vestiges of the quintessential ‘slave driver’ mentality in traditional managers. How do we know? We know when performance goes much below what is expected.  

Making a successful transition from Managers to “Mentors and Coaches” appears to be the respectable choice offered to present day managers.

Managers – change or get kicked around!