Diagnosis
What’s Luck Got To Do With It?
“Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
How much depends on the yearly business plan? For many, it triggers budgets, funding, capital approvals, sanctioned projects, operating targets, salaries, product launches, support activities, hiring, office renovations, perks, …, lots of movement and a myriad of decisions, hopes, dreams, and nightmares. It is often the summary of what we expect, maybe wish or hope, to happen, commit to do, and the outcomes that the world of business should see, translated into the language of finance. How we get to a business plan is often very complex and incorporates science, judgments, guessing, posturing, analysis, modeling, gaming, negotiating, positioning, negotiating, horse trading, quid pro quos, and most importantly, the uneasiness of uncertainty. For some, it starts with a number that becomes the hard operational constraint, or a number that becomes the aspiration goals, or a combination or permutation of both. After years of roles building, executing, and navigating through business plans, many of us have concluded that they are often great for initial direction and alignment, but getting much more challenging for decision making as the fiscal year ensues. Reality looks more like Von Clausewitz’s “fog of war” than the futures we describe in our plan.
One aspect of business planning that continues to surface is the frosting of optimism that flavors them. After all, the business plan underpins our budget request, and we have a lot of interest in its approval. Nobody would ever accuse a turkey of voting for Thanksgiving. Recently we’ve witnessed the BP catastrophic events in the Gulf of Mexico, Apple’s embarrassing iphone reception flaws, and other unanticipated and unplanned failures, perhaps first hand. How outside of the known laws of physics or economics were they? What could we have considered to make a better choice? Would we change our decision with the benefit of retrospect?
As we begin to refine and polish our business plans for the fall submittals, are we confident, hopeful, or fearful? Did we subject our thinking to a skeptic’s review? Do our tools for evaluation ask the right questions? Do our planning, review, and approval process incorporate more science or art? How much is sales and how much is substance in the presentation?
What’s luck got to do with it?
It’s Your Call
A blown call costs a pitcher a perfect game. This week, it really happened and everybody felt terrible, apologies ensued and the guilty umpire felt genuine remorse and accepted full responsibility for the failed measurement. A poor measurement did not change the perfection of the real performance, a better gage, instant replay validated that, but rather the record of what happened. Those that missed this story and are evaluating the statistics of pitching performance will only have the historic data to evaluate, data that is a false witness of events. Imagine the effects of all the poor measurements in one year of major sports events. Do they change important outcomes? Do they steer rewards or punishments? How about all the stuff that goes on with gamblers in or out of Las Vegas?
Bad measurement in sports evokes big emotions, outrage, indignation and a score of aftereffects that include bragging rights. Does bad measurement in our enterprises conjure similar reactions? What are the chances that we are making decisions as a result of poor measurement, the wrong lens, an obstacle in the way, poor technology, get the picture? If so, the issue is ubiquitous. In over two decades of helping organizations with performance gaps, poor measurements have always been at play, sometimes with disastrous consequences.
The issue is not a simple one. For example:
• Do we use the data that we have and try to conjure meaning from it? Or do we start with what we want to know and then measure accordingly?
• Are we sure that the movement in the data is representative of what is actually happening within the process?
• Do different individuals or functions measure differently? Would they come up with the same value when measuring the same process?
• Does the data just not make any sense?
• How about our “calls” on what we evaluate? Do two managers reach the same conclusion about someone’s performance? If not, who is right? What are the consequences to the individual?
• Do we introduce our own bias into the measurement and evaluation?
• Do we have folks who are easier graders and those that are more demanding? Do they evoke similar or different performance?
• How much of our decision process rely on a subjective call (an opinion) versus an objective measurement (an actual number)? Do we know how often our calls are wrong?
• Do compliance requirements change how we measure performance?
• What happens when lab results are wrong? What if wrong results bring really bad news or they mask the bad news and bring good news?
• Are we ever surprised by events that would have been very visible had we measured differently?
• Does a part of the organization hide or hoard data?
• Do our customers measure our deliverables and call about problems that we should have prevented them from experiencing? What did our data say?
• Do we have our vision checked from time to time? Why is that?
• Do we ever catch how some advertisers deceive with clever use of statistics? How about in our enterprises?
• Is it safer for ourselves to call someone “safe” rather than “out” when we’re not sure, just in case? Consequences are often more severe in one direction versus the other.
• Have we ever spent a lot of money and resources on a decision made with poor data?
So, how’s our data today?
When is the Exam?
Ever been caught in a situation for which you were not prepared? Ever dream where you forgot to attend a certain class at school, did not go for months, and then remembered, and the exam was to be in one hour, forgot the room, hadn’t studied, and then … panic? It can be unnerving. It evokes a very special anxiety, an unforgettable sensation. This type of anxiety is different than a surprise calamity that came from nowhere and it was something you could not have prepared for. The anxiety that comes from being unprepared is different because the consequences are typically very severe, sometimes disastrous, but very possibly preventable, had we prepared for it or to be surprised. It is but one dimension of the cost of unreadiness. That cost of unreadiness is terrible, nightmarish, fraught with self doubt and remorse, and becomes overwhelming when it is basking in the public eye. Sometimes, others suffer because of our unreadiness.
Unreadiness has different faces; the most distinguishable differences often exist between those that serve the interest of shareholders and those that serve the interests of the public. There are events of unreadiness that are shared among sectors. One that is hard to escape is capturing our attention because it painfully highlights a frightening level of apparently ubiquitous unreadiness. One indicator of the issue is the overwhelming amount of rhetoric and buzzing about from spectators to visible execution from those jumping into the fight as ready and agile gladiators.
The current crisis with the river of oil gushing upward in the Gulf of Mexico is a behemoth that resists constraints and carries dimensions of destruction that will change economies, lives, careers, communities, and perhaps the lens through which we view ourselves. It behaves much as Pandora’s Box, opened and releasing unbridled and irreversible calamities. There are overlays of causes, inclusive of a stated strategy to reduce dependence on foreign oil, one that may have created or perpetuated cozy questionable regulatory behaviors with the offshore drilling permitting and oversight process. There will be plenty of time for blame to be delivered. Right now, however, it is a distraction from the priority plugging the spewing hell.
Plenty of pundits are weighing in with “who is in charge, which is guilty, how much should we punish ….” Yet the still small voices of, “we can help, we have experts, I will lead, follow me lads” can’t be heard or remain silent. When no one is ready, everyone is guilty. It comes back to the eternal conflict between decision making systems, values, paradigms between the world and rules of economics and the world ruled by the rules of variability, uncertainty, the laws of physics, today’s engineering, and yesterdays science. It is very much about yesterday’s science and yesterday’s patterns applied to tomorrow’s problems. We create black swans from white ones, by the decisions we make (might want to read the book … “The Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb) and what we chose not to consider in those decisions.
David Brooks, the columnist, has articulated several times that extraction of energy resources (oil, gas and coal) continues to have costly risks, albeit acceptable by consumers so far. The laws of physics make that undeniable. The coal mine disaster, the current oil geyser, Somali pirates hijacking tankers, refinery fires; there are many. Yet, energy is essential to life as we want it to be and as we need it to become. Our current demand is not likely to drastically change anytime soon, but maybe our strategic objectives should. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is too big to avoid. What we are witnessing are the secondary effects of harvesting and extraction economies and technologies. All extraction and harvesting sources have to be converted and that process leaves scars. Whether lumber, pulp, agriculture, food, minerals, fuels, all leave scars.
So our gorilla wonders about our choices. Do we set the same standards across the choices? Do alternatives share the same decision hurdles? Do they share the same oversight and regulatory burdens? How does the consumption immediacy of today reconcile with tomorrow’s predictable constraints?
Consider one example. If oil and coal had to meet the yoke of regulation from cradle to grave that the nuclear generation alternative endures, we would have very different behaviors. Today, the cleanest and safest choice is treated like the red-headed stepchild, a behavior not shared by the rest of the technologically literate world. We unknowingly or passively take on the risks of oil spills and mining accidents, but howl at the thought of a geologically sound repository site for spent fuels and continue to foster an onerous permitting process for new generating facility construction. It’s a tough one to reconcile. Balancing the laws of economics with the laws of physics is tough enough, but when mixed with the laws of political electability, it can become next to impossible. This issue is more about tomorrow than about today.
But the nuclear debate did not get us Pandora’s Gusher, unreadiness did, cut corners did, questionable regulatory behavior and integrity did, poor situational awareness did, and maybe some hubris did. There seem to be some choices, and none are cheap, fewer easy. Raising the standards of readiness call for a different way to plan, manage, and reward. It means ensuring with preparedness and responsiveness rather than insuring with financial instruments and distributed risk coverage. The risks and consequences are radically different. Again, we can pick the laws of physics, build agility, and respond; or the laws of economics, acceptance of fragility, and react. There are differences between managing from fear or confidence.
The 800 pound gorilla wonders about how we will decide. When we have tough choices, do we seek affirmation or confrontation? What will be the costs of our unreadiness tomorrow?
“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.” Sun Tzu
Thoughts?
I Can’t Hear What You’re Seeing
For many years, the term Voice of the Customer has been a source of incalculable confusion and a hazardous source of misdirection. The reality of dealing with a cacophony of voices that can often come from the many interfaces and service points is daunting for some. Discerning the signal from the noise fosters subjective simplification and can and too often yield risky and sometimes shallow insights carried forward into our delivery of services. We make decisions about requirements without clearly understanding what creates value for our customer. The simplification can put much more focus on the past at the expense of consequences that await the future.
Some reasons may be:
- Understanding the processes, players and decision-making in the initial contracting process. The customer we see and hear often is not the customers we will serve. Tom procures and Mary operates. The functionality (and different points of view) is currently unavoidable in the public sector and lives well in the private.
- Asking the customer for requirements and then setting quality specifications for our outputs. The customer is limited by what they believe you do, could do, or can’t do. Lost opportunity results from the filtered data.
- Poor differentiation between transactional satisfaction and customer loyalty. There are often very different reasons for staying, renewing, or leaving.
- Equating meeting delivery requirements with delivering value. One comes from walking in our own shoes, not in the customer’s. Walking and hearing are very different.
- Limiting knowledge of service costs to the price the customer pays. The cost dealing with us can be too high as the relationship ensues past the start up.
There are many, far too many others. Over the years, I’ve concluded that the analysis yielding the better insights has come from seeing the world and what is truly required through the customer’s lens, looking forward, always forward. Many years ago in a conversation with Dr. Noriaki Kano, he shared the importance of “Customer In” versus “Product Out.” He’s been right all along. The levels of insight (le mot juste) delivered through lenses versus voices is paradigm shaking. In the movie Beyond the Sea, Sandra Dee says to Bobby Darin, “Bobby, people hear what they see!” She was right.
So,
- How do we decide what our customer wants or needs?
- Do we know if we’re right?
- Do we rely on surveys to look forward with our customer?
- Did we lose a customer by surprise?
- Did we add value?
- Do we rely on surveys and complaints for our lenses?
Thoughts?
Excuse Me, I’m Having a Eureka Moment
Years ago a colleague asked me to define what a successful consultant, coach, or mentor does to help their client. “Hmmm”, I thought about the question, “we work in a process of managing epiphanies! We help others discover what is, perhaps has always been, but not necessarily in focus”. It certainly was not original thought, but I believe that it is nonetheless true, and we owe much of that to Socrates. Socrates, a Greek philosopher, mentor of Plato, helped others to find truth, or fallacy in thought by asking great questions. Great answers pick the destination and great questions lead to discovery.
For many, asking great questions is a learned habit, one that may require overcoming other really strong habits. One of the strongest habits to break is our desire to have good answers. If we have great answers, then better. If you’re successful and you’ve grown in responsibilities over time, having great answers has been important. Having great answers is a way to demonstrate capability, competence, smarts, knowledge, foresight, preparation, diligence, initiative… lots and lots of favorable traits. In fact, people who work for you know that they can always count on you to have a great answer. Is that good? Does that increase or decrease the options, degrees of freedom, genius contribution, ownership, and fulfillment? How about the overall quality of answers? How do we know?
“We are usually convinced more easily by reasons we have found ourselves than by those which have occurred to others.” Blaise Pascal
Is it possible that the more others count on our answers, the less likely they will come up with good ones themselves. Is that a good thing? Let’s start with some data gathering (on ourselves, our leaders, and our team members.)
- What are our answers given versus questions asked ratios?
- Are we sounding boards or decision buttons?
- Do we welcome better answers or do we see them as competition?
- How often do folks wait on our answer before executing?
- How well prepared are our folks for great questions?
- How often do we hear “I understand or I got it” versus “Eureka”?
What is critical thinking? How do people gain critical thinking capability? How is that different than always knowing the answer? Which is inductive thinking and which is deductive thinking? If you could only pick one, which would you choose to have in changing times?
“Wisdom begins in wonder.” Socrates
Throwing the Flag
Those who follow sports know that the quality of officiating is receiving much needed and overdue attention. In fact, there is one officiating team in NCAA Football that is currently sitting on the bench for terrible calls in very important games. In fact, the poor officiating may have determined the winners and losers. Sports are a great place to talk about poor measurement because we’ve all seen it. With the advent of better technology and high definition instant replays some of the boo-boos are much more evident. Competent people in the business of evaluating performance of any type are very aware of the impacts of measurement and very skeptical of any decisions people make …. Measurement issues surround us …. I used the word competent intentionally because those that don’t pay serious attention to the quality of measurement and render opinions, advice, or recommendations on data or information are dangerous people to have on board.
Let’s stay with college football for a little longer. Bad calls lead to new conditions that redefine all of the subsequent plays. Some calls don’t end up having terrible consequences, but others do. (Apply these points to everything else … work, play, health, safety, purchases, promotions, politics, war ….) Let’s take the bad call that changed the outcome of the game.
- Rankings changed among the competing teams
- Who played at bowls changed along with the commensurate compensation and attention? Also, all of the people who went to bowls changed, … , the travel, vacations, and lots of other secondary and tertiary order effects.
- Coaches got fired, hired or moved. Lots of the press chimed in labeling winners and losers. Life changing events took place ….
- Different kids got recruited by different coaches….. And on and on and on….. the dominoes keep falling …
- This was due to just one bad call (measurement) that changed the game, just one game.
Apply that to any professional sport, the gambling industry, and the lives of the happy and despondent whose lives revolve around the sport … it continues. There is good and bad from all of this …but it is different. So the better team doesn’t always win, and it wasn’t from poor performance….
Now, how about business performance? Have we considered just how much is impacted by poor measurement? How many big and small decisions alike were made on the shoulders of a bad call? Was the bad call on the shoulders of bad information or data? How about performance appraisals, promotions, demotions and the like? Any capital spending decisions made on poor data? Did we ever spend bundles fixing something that wasn’t broken beacuse our data was crap?
Sports are changing and some for the better as our measurements improve.
How about what we do?
In the Dark?
There’s a pretty interesting debate going on between some really bright folks about whether information, or history, can be destroyed. It’s not among real historians, archaeologists, biographers, or anyone else most of us would imagine. It’s among very renowned physicists, luminaries including Stephen Hawking. Dr. Hawking was among the very early to write for the enlightenment of us outside the genius gene pool with “A Brief History of Time.” He is also credited with the conceptualizing and predicting of black holes.
Black holes are entities in the cosmos whose density is so large that they pull in, “suck up” everything around them including light. Nothing gets out, like some in-boxes we all know about. Black holes and their effects on information are what the big debates are about and where reputations are at stake. We know that the regular types of information and histories are destroyed all the time. Information or history is destroyed by cataclysms, wars, book burnings, oral accounts, my faulty memory, and a very long list of other means, including our scary hard disk crashes. It’s sad, but creates lots of opportunities for sleuths of all disciplines.
Here’s the fascinating part. The real physicists out there will rankle at my oversimplification, but I’m just not that smart. A big part of we actually “know” about what’s out there in the cosmos comes from bigger and better telescopes and other measurement technology. The stars, planets, galaxies and other cool stuff are visible because light has travelled big amounts of space-time. For now, let’s just say that it has covered very large distances across space in very long periods of time, light years in fact. We know by now that what we see all happened in the past, including everything near to us since light had to bounce off of or emanate from what we “see.” Light moves very fast, so we believe it’s happening in the “now” and that’s comforting to many.
Here we go. If nothing can escape the black hole’s pull, including light, then the information about a star or galaxy is lost on the way to us if it comes near a black hole. As far as our instruments can tell, the star never happened, the information is lost. This argument has been going for a long while and even Dr. Hawking has moved from his position on the subject. His new position involves perspectives that include more dimensions than we can understand and multiple universes, some without black holes. This stuff is not for everybody.
So it is all about light. We’ve known about it for a long time. We use terms like enlighten, bright, luminary, obscure, in the dark, and other descriptions that have to do with information, knowledge, and other types of history. If we don’t put light on something, or if does not give off light that reaches us, information is lost. It is as if it never happened. Worse, if our management and information systems take data in and it never gets out, information is lost. We have black holes of our own making.
Maybe it’s time to take the debate from the realm of physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists and bring it into the realm of operating an enterprise. Information is being lost, history of what happened no longer exists, and we will make some decisions in the dark. These black holes can be found everywhere. In fact, the post 9-11 investigation revealed that critical information was lost because of interagency black holes and individual biases.
Dr. Hawking has concluded that if we are in one of the parallel universes that does not have black holes, information is not lost. So you can’t have it both ways in any given universe.
But there is hope for our businesses. We can change what and how we execute and create a black-hole-free workplace. It’s good for our health.
Cool Beans!
Today I experienced something some really cool healthcare! It left me contemplating that maybe we really do have the capacity to sort out the hurdles we face with the healthcare issue. Today I needed to make an unplanned visit to my physician. With a fully booked schedule (this doctor is good…), one of his team understood that variability and timing creates opportunities, parked me in the waiting area and got me in within 20 minutes. That was great by itself, but the cool part followed.
One aspect of getting my medical guidance from this physician is his impressive use of data and technology. Whenever we meet, the discussion around the vitals is on point, virtual and current. I like that. Data is good. From what I gather, the preponderance of his data travels purely on the back of electrons, who I have found are less prone to hick-ups than those transferred with fingers. I like that. Electrons are good.
I often rant that electrons are far better at some tasks than people like me are. They make less mistakes, don’t complain, don’t have eyesight problems, are fast, don’t forget (I do…) and lots of other great attributes. We’re codependent with electrons, so we can make a good team now and in the foreseeable future. Today I saw electrons kick some serious butt. I needed a prescription for what ailed me.
My experiences with getting a prescription enjoy the benefit and difficulties of many years and some ailments. Getting the prescription generated and filled can be slow, require several hand-offs, prone to errors throughout, and have carried significant transactional costs and liability insurance burdens of the risks and importance they have. Lots of hands and lots of eyes aren’t free. Lots of compliance requirements and the fear of suffering consequences are also very costly. They also have a number of queues in the process of being filled. When we add to that the transactional costs created by insurance coverage, the non-valued costs added to my little pill are scary to contemplate. After all, we’re not electrons, so we have to check stuff to make sure. I don’t like that. Non-value adding costs are bad.
Today I watched Doc, key in my prescription into his electronic tablet, ask for and then input the local pharmacy information, hit the magic key and confirmed receipt at the destination. These friendly electrons did that is a few seconds. I left his office and by the time I drove up to the window at my pharmacy, the little pills were ready. Those living in Cyber-land may say, “So what? That’s easy…” My reply is, “This is cool beans!” I like that. Cool beans are good.
I see promise in this little experience. I see the endless possibilities to tackle this yoke and fear of health care around our collective necks. Solutions are possible. The promise of process improvement still has lots of legs! These hard times may yet precipitate the best of times. Actually, we’re reading this because of our friendly electrons!
I don’t want to minimize or oversimplify what is ahead. The challenges are huge. The players are difficult. The stakes are high. The tactics are ugly. The rhetoric is offensive. The suffering is real. But the opportunity is great. There is opportunity in every storm. I hope and pray we can get past all the storm coverage and move on to finding and harvesting these opportunities.
“When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and true maxim that ‘a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.’ So with men, if you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to his reason, and which, once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing him of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause is really a good one.” Abraham Lincoln
“Good, or Got Lucky?”
“To the victor belongs the spoils” is the famous quote by New York Senator William Learned Marcy (1786-1857), recited in the U. S. Senate, 25 January 1832. This one sure gets lots of traffic. It brings with it a lot of imagery of the uglier side of politics, graft and an all or nothing perspective. I can recall, as I read world history in high school, images of conquerors doing all the pillaging and other stuff. Certainly, the principle still has legs today, ugly legs at that.
An interesting cousin to that principle is the one, “To the survivor belongs the story.” We have to always apply it as a warning when reading accounts of witnesses, history, and especially pundits. We should reflect on whether the advice or point of view we’re getting is supportable beyond the sole attribute of survivorship, since survivorship can be due to chance, accident, or many other possibilities. Survivor bias provides a limited retrospective (backward looking view) image, one that does not include participants that did not survive. I can’t truthfully tell you about what I did not see, because I did not see it, so I may just fill in some of the gaps with what must have happened. How often might that be happening?
When we combine the victor-spoils and survivor-story couplings we end up with the perfect formula for revisionism (cooking the history books). This bias is not limited to a particular discipline and can affect our judgments and subsequent actions across our businesses, health, investments, purchases, sales, insurance coverage, and even misplaced confidence or fear. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and other indices continually replace the defunct companies with survivor companies, so it’s less industrial than it used to be.
Survivorship bias is, interestingly, pervasive, be it entertainment and entertainers, sports and commentary, fashion and trends, lots more, and often, management principles. It’s the last one, management principles that deserves more of our attention. Given the experience of the last year, particularly some of the devastation and shifts between winners and losers, survivors will be the ones telling the story about winning on the back end of this mess. Does the condition of survival extend to the validity of the stories? Are there more or fewer heroes that did not survive military battles than the ones that did?
It is important to study survival. It’s important because often there is critical knowledge to be gained and real learning and improvement to be harvested. Survival by accident or random chance is no crime as long as we don’t invent a cause, or create new rules, or lucky charms. Understanding why is the real gain and skepticism is an essential lens.
So, which is it better, to be good or to be lucky? The obvious answer is Yes!
This is not what I Expected!
Planning has lots of meanings. Often, planning is a bridge between intent and action. That means once we want to accomplish something, get somewhere, achieve a goal, make a number, change, transform, grow, shrink, acquire, dispose, win, or a myriad of end states, we spend time some effort wrestling with the how to (plan) achieve the aforementioned intent (vision). The vision is described with adjectives and nouns, but the plan needs verbs to have any useful meaning. If the vision is big and farther out than the budget, the plan is often called strategic. If the vision looks out as far as the budget, the plan is often called business. The vision creates the promise and the plan provides the confidence to achieve the promise. Planning is getting harder to do.
We measure the success of plans by the certainty of the results achieved by the execution described in the plan. Did we get what we expected? Yes is good and no is bad, usually. For the better part of the two decades leading up to a year ago, with the crash of Lehman Brothers, good planning was readily achievable and, when well executed, was well rewarded. It was achievable, because the economy and business “processes” were well behaved, that is, they followed the rules we learned from the past success.
There are many reasons why it is harder to plan and execute, but a clear one is the increased effect of different types of networks and the multiplied interdependencies we have. Our connected world is wonderful in more ways than I can imagine. We have global reach, instantaneous connectivity, email, teleconferencing, GPS, and ad infinitum. Everything around us happens faster and we can be better able to take advantage of business at the speed of light. We can as long as we are not in the dark. The resulting complexity of all our interconnectivity and data moving at the speed of light is that we have to pick ever more carefully what to look at and what not to look at.
Here is where the hard part comes. Planning what we do in the future is done with what we know about the past and what we guess about that future. What we guess about that future is heavily influenced by what we believe about what mattered (past tense). What we look at, measure, monitor, and interpret is limited by our technology and focus. If all the new connections and data moving at the speed of light change behaviors and our environment (new rules), then the execution we are doing may not work as we expect. If the networked interdependencies run into a big failure somewhere, the bad stuff can cascade toward and around us faster than we can react or respond. We can’t see coming what we’re not looking for. People that manage the electrical transmission lines, the grid, know this all too well. But there is lots of other behavior just like that; spread of disease, rumors, fashion, stock market swings, particularly when human panic and mob behavior are at play.
- How do we make decisions? What do we believe about tomorrow, next month, or next year? Why?
- When something important happens, how do we know it has? Are we good at making changes quickly?
- Are we “wired” personally and technologically for today’s environment? Do our behaviors and biases work at pushing what we see in the present into what fits our memory of the past? How does that affect our decisions about the future?
- Does uncertainty scare us, so that we play safe? How about the competition?
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
