@jamestodhunter asks if anyone else sees the irony in the notion that the same old tired quotes keep getting trotted out in tweets on innovation?
It's not just on Twitter. Blogs and articles and books and workshops on innovation often recycle the same old ideas, the same old advice. And it's not just innovation-speak that is often dull. Creativity-speak can also be tediously predictable. People who are genuinely creative and innovative aren't necessarily very good at explaining how it's done, and may prefer to get on with being creative and innovative rather than talking about it.
In any bookshop, you can usually find several books on innovation and creativity in the "business" shelves, just as you can find several books on parenting skills and sexual technique in the "psychology" section. My own belief is that it's probably okay to read one or two of these, because they might contain some useful information as well as common sense; but if you read too many, there's a problem, because they're all basically saying the same thing. (Or so I imagine.) If you aren't able or willing to find the answer from the first book, then you are unlikely to get the answer from the tenth either.
If you want to get better at something, don't read books about it, go and practise it. If you must read books, choose books about something completely different: novels or fairy stories or ancient myth, biographies of explorers and scientists and mystics, and be inspired.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Demanding Simplicity
There is nothing wrong with the conventional wisdom "Keep it Simple, Stupid" apart from its apparently endless repetition. Try searching: there are countless books and websites preaching simplicity - from cooking to wildlife protection.
The repetition is what tells us that there is a problem. Clearly you don't make things simpler by simple fiat, although people often try to hide or suppress the real complexity.
What is missing from the conventional wisdom is an acknowledgement of what makes simplicity so hard. So let me try and assemble a few pointers.
Brad Bollenbach (Keeping It Simple, March 2008) identifies two primary reasons why we overcomplicate things. The first is a loss of focus, and the second is the imperial nature of the human ego. Leo Babauta (ZenHabits, February 2007) blames multitasking.
While these factors certainly explain some situations, others are caused by outright conflict between rival notions of simplicity. In engineering, we can see two rival camps - the agile/bricolage camp and the abstract/architecture camp - each of which believes that its approach leads to real simplicity while the other introduces unnecessary complication - the two rival camps only joining in their utter condemnation of a third camp - the baroque.
Scientists appeal to Occam's razor - the simpler the theory the better - and we are told that complicated theories such as Ptolemy's planetary models were replaced by the more straightforward theories of Copernicus and Galileo. The trouble with this version of events is that the new theories weren't actually more straightforward; they were considerably less accurate, at least until Newton worked out the mathematics.
Simplicity (and especially a fixed notion of what counts as simple) can easily become a fetish - something that generates its own complex.
The repetition is what tells us that there is a problem. Clearly you don't make things simpler by simple fiat, although people often try to hide or suppress the real complexity.
What is missing from the conventional wisdom is an acknowledgement of what makes simplicity so hard. So let me try and assemble a few pointers.
Brad Bollenbach (Keeping It Simple, March 2008) identifies two primary reasons why we overcomplicate things. The first is a loss of focus, and the second is the imperial nature of the human ego. Leo Babauta (ZenHabits, February 2007) blames multitasking.
While these factors certainly explain some situations, others are caused by outright conflict between rival notions of simplicity. In engineering, we can see two rival camps - the agile/bricolage camp and the abstract/architecture camp - each of which believes that its approach leads to real simplicity while the other introduces unnecessary complication - the two rival camps only joining in their utter condemnation of a third camp - the baroque.
Scientists appeal to Occam's razor - the simpler the theory the better - and we are told that complicated theories such as Ptolemy's planetary models were replaced by the more straightforward theories of Copernicus and Galileo. The trouble with this version of events is that the new theories weren't actually more straightforward; they were considerably less accurate, at least until Newton worked out the mathematics.
Simplicity (and especially a fixed notion of what counts as simple) can easily become a fetish - something that generates its own complex.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Page Three
@Buddhaman57 Last night I went to a talk on Buddhism and money, given by the writer Eddie Canfor Dumas.
Eddie is a follower of Nichirin Buddhism and believes in the efficacy of chanting (Nam Myoho Renge Kyo). He told the story of a young actor who was introduced to the practice of chanting and told it would get him anything he wanted. He decided that what he wanted more than anything else in the world was to sleep with a glamour model (Page Three girl), and he went into his trailer to chant.
Within two weeks, he had indeed met and started a relationship with a glamour model. But the relationship was imbued with trouble and ended in tears.
Further chanting led him to the realisation that the desire to sleep with a glamour model was superficial and unworthy, and he could move on to a more meaningful way of relating with women. Perhaps he needed to have a bad experience before he could learn this, before he could let go of this particular desire. Some people apparently need to experience bad things for themselves, if they are not to live their lives weighed down with bitterness and regret.
It doesn't matter how the chanting works. Maybe it just focuses the mind on what it desires, and then the mind does the rest of the work. But in this case, the chanting seems to have helped Eddie's friend realise two things in one, two kinds of desire: his short-term demand and his longer-term development.
As Bernard Shaw wrote in Man and Superman: "There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it."
Eddie is a follower of Nichirin Buddhism and believes in the efficacy of chanting (Nam Myoho Renge Kyo). He told the story of a young actor who was introduced to the practice of chanting and told it would get him anything he wanted. He decided that what he wanted more than anything else in the world was to sleep with a glamour model (Page Three girl), and he went into his trailer to chant.
Within two weeks, he had indeed met and started a relationship with a glamour model. But the relationship was imbued with trouble and ended in tears.
Further chanting led him to the realisation that the desire to sleep with a glamour model was superficial and unworthy, and he could move on to a more meaningful way of relating with women. Perhaps he needed to have a bad experience before he could learn this, before he could let go of this particular desire. Some people apparently need to experience bad things for themselves, if they are not to live their lives weighed down with bitterness and regret.
It doesn't matter how the chanting works. Maybe it just focuses the mind on what it desires, and then the mind does the rest of the work. But in this case, the chanting seems to have helped Eddie's friend realise two things in one, two kinds of desire: his short-term demand and his longer-term development.
As Bernard Shaw wrote in Man and Superman: "There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Fairy Tale Logic
Peter Evans-Greenwood makes some interesting points in response to my post on Three Wishes, but I don't agree with his interpretation of fairy tale logic as incomplete and inconsistent. As I see it, fairy tales follow a rigorous logic that produces an inevitable outcome. (From Freud to Lacan and Matte Blanco, psychoanalysts have explored the strange but inevitable logic of dreams and the unconscious.)
It is this logic that makes fairy tales so powerful, not merely as entertainment but as rich sources of metaphor. See Magic Fairy Tales as Source for Interface Metaphors
Magic follows strict rules. J.K. Rowling put a great deal of effort into creating an internally consistent magical world for Harry Potter and his friends to inhabit; although some minor logical anomalies do appear, these are trivial compared to the main elements of magic upon which the plot relies. And within the context of the Rapunzel story, climbing hair is consistent and makes perfect sense.
Now here's the relevance of this for consultants working with organizations. When we look at families or organizations from the outside we may say "that behaviour doesn't make sense", but for the people inside the family or organization the behaviour seems perfectly logical or inevitable or both.
In order to intervene usefully into such situations, the therapist or consultant needs to be in touch both with the external logic (this doesn't make sense) and with the internal logic (this is inevitable, this is how we do things).
(I read somewhere that in post-war Britain, American management consultants had some advantage over British management consultants. At that time, one of the biggest perceived issues was something called "Industrial Relations" - in other words, conflict and distrust between management and labour. Whereas British consultants were constrained by their perceived background, American consultants were outside the British class system, could pretend to know nothing about the role of the trade union in British politics, and could ask dumb but necessary questions.)
Dysfunctional organizations may sometimes be logically incomplete or inconsistent. But more often they are obsessively complete and consistent. (J.K. Rowling paints a disturbingly plausible satire of government in the Ministry of Magic - see Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy). We can learn a lot from the structure of magic.
It is this logic that makes fairy tales so powerful, not merely as entertainment but as rich sources of metaphor. See Magic Fairy Tales as Source for Interface Metaphors
Magic follows strict rules. J.K. Rowling put a great deal of effort into creating an internally consistent magical world for Harry Potter and his friends to inhabit; although some minor logical anomalies do appear, these are trivial compared to the main elements of magic upon which the plot relies. And within the context of the Rapunzel story, climbing hair is consistent and makes perfect sense.
Now here's the relevance of this for consultants working with organizations. When we look at families or organizations from the outside we may say "that behaviour doesn't make sense", but for the people inside the family or organization the behaviour seems perfectly logical or inevitable or both.
In order to intervene usefully into such situations, the therapist or consultant needs to be in touch both with the external logic (this doesn't make sense) and with the internal logic (this is inevitable, this is how we do things).
(I read somewhere that in post-war Britain, American management consultants had some advantage over British management consultants. At that time, one of the biggest perceived issues was something called "Industrial Relations" - in other words, conflict and distrust between management and labour. Whereas British consultants were constrained by their perceived background, American consultants were outside the British class system, could pretend to know nothing about the role of the trade union in British politics, and could ask dumb but necessary questions.)
Dysfunctional organizations may sometimes be logically incomplete or inconsistent. But more often they are obsessively complete and consistent. (J.K. Rowling paints a disturbingly plausible satire of government in the Ministry of Magic - see Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy). We can learn a lot from the structure of magic.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Three Wishes
RT @j4ngis "I wish I had more wishes" Not seen this in any of the classic fairy tales. Yet so obvious?
Another excellent and stimulating Tweet from Anders Jangbrand. When my sons were too small to appreciate the inflexible logic of fairy tales, they used to ask similar questions. Can't we have more wishes? Can't we have some kind of blanket security wish (nothing-bad-ever-happens)? In other words, can we trick the good fairy into granting more than the story intends? Can intelligence divert the inevitability of the story?
From the perspective of creativity and innovation, questions like these count as thinking "outside the box". The fairy tale describes a closed world (box) in which only certain kinds of wishes are valid: like desires, they need to be concrete and specific. In the context of a fairy story, general-purpose or open-ended wishes would be too vague and abstract, would lack the necessary psychological force and might suggest moral weakness as well (avarice or greed). In fairy stories, character always triumphs over intelligence, and the selfishly or cleverly deployed wish typically rebounds in unexpected ways.
Technology promises a similar escape from the limitations of the physical world. Mary Catherine Bateson, in her brilliant essay The Revenge of the Good Fairy (originally published in the Whole Earth Review), shows how simplistic technological projects are doomed to find failure, and puts in a plea for ambivalence.
The moral of the fairy story is be careful what you wish for, and do not try to be too clever. Innovation may entail thinking outside the box - but it also entails deep appreciation and respect for the logic of the box.
Another excellent and stimulating Tweet from Anders Jangbrand. When my sons were too small to appreciate the inflexible logic of fairy tales, they used to ask similar questions. Can't we have more wishes? Can't we have some kind of blanket security wish (nothing-bad-ever-happens)? In other words, can we trick the good fairy into granting more than the story intends? Can intelligence divert the inevitability of the story?
From the perspective of creativity and innovation, questions like these count as thinking "outside the box". The fairy tale describes a closed world (box) in which only certain kinds of wishes are valid: like desires, they need to be concrete and specific. In the context of a fairy story, general-purpose or open-ended wishes would be too vague and abstract, would lack the necessary psychological force and might suggest moral weakness as well (avarice or greed). In fairy stories, character always triumphs over intelligence, and the selfishly or cleverly deployed wish typically rebounds in unexpected ways.
Technology promises a similar escape from the limitations of the physical world. Mary Catherine Bateson, in her brilliant essay The Revenge of the Good Fairy (originally published in the Whole Earth Review), shows how simplistic technological projects are doomed to find failure, and puts in a plea for ambivalence.
"Ambivalence is the mirrorimage within the person of certain characteristics of hierarchically organized systems, where the individual is a subsystem in some larger system. When the individual wishes too efficiently, he may disrupt the larger system-- and his entire wish-mechanism may have evolved to push against environmental constraints, but not to succeed. When the individual who has matured under these circumstances finds himself suddenly able to make wishes come true, he may subvert that possibility. Phrasing it rather differently, we could say that ambivalence is not only a neurotic residue of childhood but a form of wisdom, a memory of what it is to be a part of a larger whole. Kierkegaard once said, "purity is to will one thing,' but it seems possible that a divided will is the beginning of wisdom."
The moral of the fairy story is be careful what you wish for, and do not try to be too clever. Innovation may entail thinking outside the box - but it also entails deep appreciation and respect for the logic of the box.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Redesigning Sex
#lenscraft ...
Following my piece Sex and Design on the complicated behaviour and evolutionary purpose of the human sex organs, Anders Jangbrand challenged me to a redesign project.
Interesting yes: the thought of redesigning sex raises a number of interesting and important questions about redesigning things generally.
Firstly what would drive such a project? Who or what would be the beneficiaries of this redesign? What altered outcomes would be relevant? Are the current arrangements problematic, and if so for whom?
Secondly scope. The system of interest is far more complex than the shape and function of a couple of body organs and their fluid interactions; it produces various biological and social and aesthetic and spiritual outcomes.
Thirdly worldview or weltanschauung. Do we (whoever "we" is) want sex to be more rational? Or does the magic of sex and the richness of its literature come from its complete lack of rationality? Is sex even necessary? Some ants have abandoned sex altogether (BBC News, 15 April 2009).
Fourthly variety. The biological variations of sexual practices among other species (see James Meek's piece in the London Review of Books, Sex is Best when you lose your head) must be more than matched by the social and psychological variation of human sexual behaviour. (Whether that variety is a good thing depends on your worldview - see above.)
Radical design. It may not be enough to design one part of the system, leaving the rest of the system unchanged. If you leave the female parts unchanged, your scope for improving the male parts are quite limited and unoriginal and (if you believe all those junk emails) pretty well catered for already.
Trust. The very absurdity and embarrassment and vulnerability of sex means that there is a trust gradient involved. One of the effects of sex is the release of oxytocin, which reinforces trust. So there is a trust subsystem, and this helps to explain a lot of the emotional issues associated with sex.
There's a number of issues there. Is there a lens that would enable us to focus on all these issues? Probably not.
Checkland's CATWOE covers a decent few (e.g. Selfish Gene as Customer, Sex Organ as Actor, Fertilization as Transformation, Rationality versus Passion as Worldview, Human Race as Owner, Society as Environment)
Green & Bate's VPEC-T covers a few more (e.g. Passion as Value, Sexual Etiquette as Policy, Pleasure as Event, Fertilization as Content, Sexual Relationship as Trust)
In each case, I've identified one possible way of applying the lens to the task. Each lens can be used to view the task in many different ways. And it would be interesting to explore how each lens, each alternative view through each lens, would lead to a different redesign strategy.
If sex were a problem, it would be a wicked problem. But sex isn't a wicked problem - it is a wicked solution. And I mean wicked.
and here's xkcd's take on the subject ...
Following my piece Sex and Design on the complicated behaviour and evolutionary purpose of the human sex organs, Anders Jangbrand challenged me to a redesign project.
Would be interesting to re-design that system. Not the organs-but the full "sex" system. How would re-design proc look like?
Interesting yes: the thought of redesigning sex raises a number of interesting and important questions about redesigning things generally.
Firstly what would drive such a project? Who or what would be the beneficiaries of this redesign? What altered outcomes would be relevant? Are the current arrangements problematic, and if so for whom?
Secondly scope. The system of interest is far more complex than the shape and function of a couple of body organs and their fluid interactions; it produces various biological and social and aesthetic and spiritual outcomes.
Thirdly worldview or weltanschauung. Do we (whoever "we" is) want sex to be more rational? Or does the magic of sex and the richness of its literature come from its complete lack of rationality? Is sex even necessary? Some ants have abandoned sex altogether (BBC News, 15 April 2009).
Fourthly variety. The biological variations of sexual practices among other species (see James Meek's piece in the London Review of Books, Sex is Best when you lose your head) must be more than matched by the social and psychological variation of human sexual behaviour. (Whether that variety is a good thing depends on your worldview - see above.)
Radical design. It may not be enough to design one part of the system, leaving the rest of the system unchanged. If you leave the female parts unchanged, your scope for improving the male parts are quite limited and unoriginal and (if you believe all those junk emails) pretty well catered for already.
Trust. The very absurdity and embarrassment and vulnerability of sex means that there is a trust gradient involved. One of the effects of sex is the release of oxytocin, which reinforces trust. So there is a trust subsystem, and this helps to explain a lot of the emotional issues associated with sex.
There's a number of issues there. Is there a lens that would enable us to focus on all these issues? Probably not.
Checkland's CATWOE covers a decent few (e.g. Selfish Gene as Customer, Sex Organ as Actor, Fertilization as Transformation, Rationality versus Passion as Worldview, Human Race as Owner, Society as Environment)
Green & Bate's VPEC-T covers a few more (e.g. Passion as Value, Sexual Etiquette as Policy, Pleasure as Event, Fertilization as Content, Sexual Relationship as Trust)
In each case, I've identified one possible way of applying the lens to the task. Each lens can be used to view the task in many different ways. And it would be interesting to explore how each lens, each alternative view through each lens, would lead to a different redesign strategy.
If sex were a problem, it would be a wicked problem. But sex isn't a wicked problem - it is a wicked solution. And I mean wicked.
and here's xkcd's take on the subject ...
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Does Intelligence Entail Objectivity?
#orgintelligence @snowded
While working up some new material around the pattern basis of human intelligence, Dave Snowden finds that we are not good at being objective. He lists some of the common effects that are know to prevent objectivity in humans.
Some of these effects are well-known as logical fallacies - for example confirmation bias - and we could perhaps train people and groups to be more aware of (and therefore more resistant to) these effects.
But there is a problem with intelligence that is too rarified and ungrounded, that fails to engage with the realities of a given position and perspective. Intelligence doesn't just have to be reasonably objective; active and engaged intelligence has to be subjective as well. Both/and.
Furthermore, some of these effects are inevitable consequences of operating in a social context. We have to be willing to agree with other people at least some of the time, and we have to have at least some confidence in our judgement. The intelligence here is judging just how much to agree/disagree, and how long to hesitate. It is critical points like these that differentiate effective groups and organizations from less effective ones. Not just intelligence but character.
While working up some new material around the pattern basis of human intelligence, Dave Snowden finds that we are not good at being objective. He lists some of the common effects that are know to prevent objectivity in humans.
- The contrast effect (sometimes known as the availability heuristic) ...
- The sunk cost effect ...
- Out group homogeneity ...
- Actor/observer contrasts ...
- Self confirmation and rationalization ...
- Confirmity (going with the flow) ...
- Overconfidence ...
Some of these effects are well-known as logical fallacies - for example confirmation bias - and we could perhaps train people and groups to be more aware of (and therefore more resistant to) these effects.
But there is a problem with intelligence that is too rarified and ungrounded, that fails to engage with the realities of a given position and perspective. Intelligence doesn't just have to be reasonably objective; active and engaged intelligence has to be subjective as well. Both/and.
Furthermore, some of these effects are inevitable consequences of operating in a social context. We have to be willing to agree with other people at least some of the time, and we have to have at least some confidence in our judgement. The intelligence here is judging just how much to agree/disagree, and how long to hesitate. It is critical points like these that differentiate effective groups and organizations from less effective ones. Not just intelligence but character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)