paradigms
Whose Life Is It Anyway?
It’s absolutely fascinating how much leverage going green has gained. It’s hard to miss the marketing, packaging, and commitments that continue to grow and show. Many of us make green choices daily, some bigger, some smaller, and some to feel better, all with positive impacts. My observations are that, in consumer goods, the visible focus is on producing “from recycled” materials or from producing from benign components or processes. But what about all the really big stuff we build, produce, or operate?
The globe is dotted with far too many closed facilities, done with their productive lives, some nasty, awaiting a future that may never look green. Nobody likes them and they serve as reminders and warnings for decision makers. It is easy to presume sinister capitalists or overzealous weapons producers as the blame, but it is hard to escape that it’s a lot about economics and prosecution of the national will and multiple interests. Economics is a bit like physics in that processes will frequently follow the paths of least resistance. Similarly, extraction and harvesting economies have denuded the landscape, inviting regulation and in some sectors and countries, restoration efforts, but not yet without irreversible consequences. Getting to green may require multiple generations and someone to pony up on the costs. There is no Utopia, and the noble natives of the planet Pandora exist only in fantasies; and illusions that these harmonious societies ever existed are unsupported history. It’s challenging, because what got us here may eventually constrain us from getting there. What got us here was our capacity to solve problems and overcome obstacles, motivation notwithstanding. How we frame what are problems and opportunities drives important directional decisions.
After all, decisions are typically biased by the productive capability of what we make, build, or operate. What that means is that there is far more weight and attention given to the costs, effectiveness, and efficiencies of fabricating, constructing, and operating than to what happens at end-of-life. For lots of the big stuff, end-of-life is typically far into the future, messier to deal with, and makes the review and approval process more “difficult.” I’ve tested this hypothesis multiple times over many years, and the responses are consistent, end-of-life and decommissioning are not a big factor in the design discussions. Perhaps that is changing.
Over the last 50 years, some of the ugliness that we contend with as enterprises, governments, and consumers has to do with the direct costs and externalities ensuing from unplanned outcomes or effects at end-of-life. Granted, many plans and proposals have language addressing full life cycle costs, yet the evidence of subsequent actions have not aligned. A lens that I’ve found to be helpful is that what we get is precisely what our design, fabrication, and operation is supposed to give us. If it is not giving us that, then we have to investigate, the design fabrication and operation, where the errors or defects were generated that result in what we’re getting. It is as true for what we’re doing today as for what yet awaits us when we have stop or abandon the process. We’ve already designed, built, and operate with end-of life costs, to a good or poor degree.
The challenge ahead is not simple, simplistic, nor easy. Our economic systems create powerful forces and motivators. I really love the life that technology enables and don’t really want to give it up. I have many friends who build and operate some of the really big stuff and they are good, intelligent, highly principled, and ethical people. They care about the welfare of our world and their legacy as much as we do. The challenge is striking the balance between a more certain today and a sometimes very uncertain tomorrow. It gets really hard, when our positive economic rewards are about what we do in the present. They are immediate and positive, versus far into the future and negative. Which would you pick?
For visionaries, this creates an opportunity. The storms of growing public sentiment and distrust of some industries creates an awesome opportunity to design and differentiate with a smarter end-of-life offering. Smarter end-of-life creates value, reduces compliance burdens, fosters complementary lines of business, impacts investor perceptions, and can have a transformative effect on vision, values, and behaviors. For revisionists, a different family of motivators is often necessary. Carrots have longer lasting benefits than sticks.
Sometimes, the military does this well. The really good conquest and occupation strategies are done and executed against a well developed exit strategy. Forethought enables us to manage the present from the future.
“The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.” Sun Tzu
Reddy or Not, Here I Come!
We have an app for that,” so goes the ad for a smart phone. I am still amazed by how life is changing through technology. The accessibility and choices at our disposal have redefined nearly everything, and to a great part for the better. Several years I joked about the day when I could sit atop a mountain with a laptop connected to the world and able to conduct my business, only to see someone smile and say, “It’s not that far away.” So, here I am on a mountain, loving the view, with the world at my fingertips, conducting my business and knowing that our readers across the world can share in the output this experience, when, how, and where they chose. We’ve shared the transformation of our lives and our enterprises as a consequence of leaps in telecommunications and the myriad of choices and facilitated activities available to us, our customers, suppliers, competitors, and our world.
New enterprises have jumped on the electronic carpet ride, perhaps working in a “cloud”, and creating new value propositions in a connected world. Business models have literally crumbled, leaving relics, much like those of Ozymandias, because brick, mortar, and paper have been replaced by electrons. In his grave, my very old friend, Reddy Kilowatt, both rejoices, and perhaps weeps as well, as the role of his offspring continue to transform the world. Perhaps it’s a bias, a consequence of a prior professional life, but I believe that nothing has come close to transforming the quality of human life as the availability of reliable electric power. In fact, the arguments that it’s about water, food, education and health care cannot stand alone without the platform built on our friends the electrons. We depend on many energy sources, but in many ways, they are often diminished in value without the electrons at play. Our electrons are such important servants that we store them in forms that make them available 24-7; in fact they make the world available to us 24-7.
I do confess the ancient part of me still enjoys reading books, paper books, but news and virtually all other content comes to me electronically. The effectiveness and efficiencies from 24-7 accessibility to current information and content is perhaps the most un-constraining breakthrough since the steam engine. There is little doubt that many enterprises have made huge investments in technological capacity and many have reinvented their capacity to transform. I wonder how much investment has gone into transforming the way we use the electrons within, within our own neural networks … the brain.
Questions:
• What proportion of decision making content is produced for us in a “report”? Does that report contain real time or past time data? Do we decide from the past even when the present is available?
• Is our critical information serviced to us through human “filters” or functions who decide what to search and how to package the answers?
• How long does it take to get an answer? Do we get a version of a Google or a bunch of gaggle?
• Do we get our critical “news”, much like many of us by waiting until the 6:00 PM broadcast on the “tube”; or does the critical data from which to manage and decide stream to us into the right virtual form?
• Does the data wait for you or do you wait for the data?
• When something is happening across the world that could impact the enterprise, do we learn about it when the impact arrives, much like a tsunami?
• Does out data warn us about what is about to happen or is likely to happen:
o To our business?
o To our customers?
o To our resources?
o To our employees?
o To our constraints?
Have we truly transformed our human systems to unleash the genius within, the genius that can create value and innovation from the real time accessibility available?
Are we Reddy?
Oh, Can You See By the Dawn’s Early Light?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
So begins the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain signed by the United States Congress on July 4, 1776. We in the US, celebrate July 4th as Independence Day this weekend with festivities, fireworks, picnics and devotionals to those whose lives were dedicated and often taken to secure these unalienable rights. In fact, the words could serve as anthem to peoples all over the world as a never ending objective and pursuit.
The instrument declared states as the independent parties, and in doing so established, “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
The Declaration of Independence was a consequence of a people rebelling against abuses with no responsiveness to appeals or due recourse for resolution. It is interesting to recognize that the only activity specified that is specific to an individual is the right to establish commerce. The document enumerates abuses by the Crown and intolerable and unendurable behaviors and, not surprisingly, many can be traced to actions to serve commercial objectives, those of the Crown and to the detriment of the colonists. (It took a subsequent Constitution and Bill of Rights to establish governance.) But, to continue the thread, business strategies are in fact conquest strategies and occupation strategies, and governments align to these to different degrees. Political colonies have typically as occupation entities to be harvested.
The consequences of the boldness of the Declaration of Independence and subsequent execution have enabled many of us to pursue happiness, enjoy liberty, and create life with hope. Three important dimensions are forever present in my mind:
1. Declaration was followed by sacrifice and vigilance to earn the liberties and the responsibilities to sustain them. Declaring that we are or we will be better or great can warm the tummy for a bit, but it is execution and on-going management that makes it real. Projects exist to create processes and processes must manage to the objectives of the entities. This applies to governance of individuals, organizations, enterprises, societies, religious orders, groups, and nations.
2. As the world changes and our prosperities grow, our opportunities are a powerful magnet for others seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although many believe that these rights come as a consequence of national versus global birth, perhaps through education or lack thereof, it is the right to earn them that effectively determines what we do and whether life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is achieved.
3. The first two create obligations and responsibilities, societal and commercial. Recognizing the unalienable rights do not come as a geographical or political birthright … not because of where we were born, but rather, because you were born is important, particularly if we are to be civil in our behaviors among our global community. We must not act in a way that denies the right to the pursuit of opportunity to earn happiness, personal or commercial, simply because we can at this point in time.
I cherish the opportunities life in the United States brings every day, and am grateful that my loved ones can pursue their own dreams. I honor and respect those that live and die daily to protect these opportunities and am ashamed of those that deny them to others, here or abroad.
Today, independence is more complex, perhaps because prosperity has redefined for many what the pursuit of happiness is or ought to be. Somehow, I find it is easier to find clarity in challenging times, and rewarding to reflect on the earned independence we enjoy and the responsibility to continue to earn and never deny.
Happy 4th!
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?
We Trusted You!
Watching the US Senate Congressional hearings this week, I almost felt as if I were at the cinema watching a fictional drama. One of those movies where the villains were conspiring to wreak global havoc and the world was rescued by a heroic figure that brought it to light. I wish it were fiction, but alas, there were no heroes, and in fact, there may have been some villains indeed, and many of us can attest to the havoc wrought on the global economy. Sadly, the villains were people who had the trust of many and that trust was abused. While this issue seems to cut across multiple arenas of betrayed trust, be they elected, ordained, or contracted, they all manifest tribal behavior. This behavior has a broad range of nuances, but a common gene is present, the gene that creates hubris and disrespect for those they were supposed to serve and protect. This betrayal of trust will bring on anger and wrath that will swing the hammer of cynicism and regulation, and that is a shameful consequence. It is a saddening consequence for the overwhelming numbers of good, principled, decent, serving individuals, be they legislators, priests, automakers, or bankers.
But the hearings this week were with the top of the Goldman Sachs house, and the anger it has unleashed has only begun to unfold. What we witnessed was tribal behavior, one with its own language, heroes, culture, and their own paradigms of what is right or wrong. I won’t use the word values because that word is often aligned with positive and ethical behavior, and it does not seem to fit what we observed. Tribal behavior is fascinating, particularly, if you can be a spectator rather than a participant. It is almost inescapable in organizations where cultures that emerged are shaped by organizational or functional objectives, recognition, rewards, and a sense of entity that breeds an entitled behavior. These inescapable affinities are so powerful that they can create intellectual inbreeding, powerful paradigms, and degenerative “we versus them behaviors.” When really bad, winners display hubris and disrespect for others, and losers retreat into denial, protectiveness, or nostalgia. Scary, isn’t it?
Maybe we’re at the cusp of a new era. Historically, sea changes can start just like what we may be witnessing. Some are called revolutions because the rate of change accelerates from the gradual movement from one set of parameters and behaviors to another. The current economic parameters are undeniably multipolar and there is the juxtaposed coexistence of strength and fragility. A thread unraveling in Greece or Spain can tug hard at our pessimism and constrain our appetite for opportunities. Overlay that multi-polarity and interconnected fragility with contempt and mistrust of those who should be trusted to advise and guide our investments, a retreat into investment shrinkage is not hard to imagine.
Years ago, Warren Buffett warned us that the complex instruments that had no value, but derived their price from other instruments and risk analyses, would eventually bring catastrophe, even without disreputable actions. The Goldman Sachs hearings demonstrated legally scripted double-speak, tribal arrogance, and a belief that anything goes, as long as cleverness trumps all. What was not evident was any sense of social responsibility or remorse for undeniable harm done. History has not treated such behaviors with forgiveness.
As we look ahead, what about our organizations?
• Do our customers trust us?
• Do we earn that trust?
• How do we make decisions that have social or societal consequences?
• How do we strike a balance between principles and profits, growth and damage, today and tomorrow, or financial rewards and ethical responsibilities?
• Are our values clear to our employees, customers, and communities? Would an impartial observer conclude likewise?
• How much regulation have we earned? At what cost?
Thoughts?
The Roads to Nothing or Zero
Mayan Calendar
Zero is interesting since, strictly speaking, there is nothing that actually is nothing. Just because we can’t see it or have the means to measure or detect it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Zero seems like a simple concept, in retrospect, but we often don’t believe that it can exist. Over the years, I’ve encountered incredible walls to surmount in discussions about getting to zero. Stay with me just a little longer.
Zero is, in fact, achievable when we put some tangible qualifiers, like money, patent leather shoes, polio, or Betamax tapes. Those are easy … there are two types of zero that are often hard to conceive, believe, or achieve in the workplace. They are zero defects and zero harm. It’s not because they are impossible or improbable, but because we might be one of those who believe that people are just not good enough to be able to do it. Yet, we can immediately reach zero when conceiving whether or not we can be capable of zero defects or zero harm. In other words, “I have zero chance of achieving zero because, just because.” We can accept some degree, perhaps small, or level of the undesirable as “that’s the way it is,” or “it’s never been done before,” or “we tried that once and failed,” or “whenever you have people working, some things are just unavoidable.” We may have paradigms of acceptability that blind us to possibilities.
Yet, some do achieve zero. Can they sustain zero? Perhaps it is achievable with focus, discipline, and follow-through. Is it worth it? What are the consequences of defects and harm? What do our values say about what we can tolerate a little and what we consider intolerable?
So, where is zero in our paradigms? Is it achievable? I’ve heard from some wearing the yoke of unhealthy practices, be they smoking, alcoholism, or too many supersized heart stoppers with a side of fries, that they believe that the chances of getting to zero are so small, that trying is just a waste of time. What would we say to them if they are dear ones?
What if our processes were wearing the yoke of unhealthy practices? Is trying just a waste of time? If our product or service creates failure for our customer, would we say, “that’s the way it is,” or “it’s never been done before,” or “we tried that once and failed,” or “whenever you have people working, some things are just unavoidable?” Would we say the same to the family of someone who was hurt or destroyed in our workplace?
So, should we take the road to zero? Consider where the road to nothing goes.
Thoughts?
Is it Clean or Clear?
It is impossible to avoid shock and pain at the news of the recent disasters, currently the floods in Rio de Janeiro, claiming the lives of over 200 and the coal mine explosion in West Virginia, claiming the lives of upwards of 25 miners. The first catastrophe, greatly influenced by the forces of nature devastating ramshackle infrastructure much like the Haiti earthquake, and the second brought about completely by the choices and behaviors of men. While the first claimed a much larger number of lives, the second dominates airtime, and in one respect, justifiably so. I have learned from two of the global masters that Safety comes from choice, not chance. Claiming that something is inherently unsafe as a means to accept or tolerate risk borne by others in an economic venture challenges all levels of integrity and ethical choices.
Through good fortune I have observed the difference between safety by declaration, posters, slogans and damage control mouthpieces; and safety as a core value, a non-negotiable principle, and the manifestation in daily life through work, planning, preparation, constancy of purpose, and consequences. Two organizations, Bechtel and BHP-Billiton live and breathe what we could all emulate and perpetuate. They share many like practices, rules, gear, training, science… all important. What they share that is essential is that it starts at the top of the house, runs down and across the house, and returns to the top of the house.
These two, perhaps among many, treat safety as a probiotic, not an antibiotic. Bechtel and BHPB put the living organisms of safety into the daily diet for the workplace and into the feasts that ensue at the celebrations of lives extended. Should a death occur at a Bechtel site, be it employee, contractor, customer or visitor, the phone at the site leadership rings with none other than the Chairman, Riley Bechtel on the other end. There is nothing more important than the integrity with which human life is respected. There cannot be business success without human safety.
Contrast that behavior with the recent disaster in West Virginia, the one in Utah a few years back, and the frightening records of poor safety citations coming to light, followed by obfuscation strategies that delay responsiveness on the part of the alleged perpetrators. The absence of enforceable regulation is unfortunate, apparently essential in the face of the choices and behaviors by those who have the calling to choose, and those that have the power to legislate, but only watch.
For many of us, most of us, these mining disasters have little to do with our businesses, our communities, and our lives. They are in fact, not in our back yard. But, they do speak to our business principles and what we allow to be tolerable, acceptable, or sufficiently infrequent. Except when we turn on the light switch, for that sends a demand signal that rings a bell to pull more coal out of the ground. We do share a connection, every day. What should we do?
There cannot be clean coal without a clear conscience.
Thoughts?
Related Links
http://tridentleverage.com/blog/?p=106
http://tridentleverage.com/blog/?p=362
http://tridentleverage.com/blog/?p=92
It’s All Greek to Me
One of my postings last year, <“The Summer of 69″>, reflected on the incredible capacity we have to accomplish, particularly when we face tough challenges rather than each other. There is incalculable capability available when people endeavor to put the objective in front of them and view it from the same side of the table. By now, most of us have benefited from the negotiating strategy of focusing on issues versus positions and to be tough on issues, but softer on people. I’ve never been more disappointed or sadder than today, as I observe the reprehensible behavior of elected officials in facing the monumental challenges of our economy, health and welfare, the common good. We may not have complete control over the forces, dark ones at times, at play at the political playground, but we have almost infinite control over how we can face our own organizational challenges, challenges that may require fundamental changes in practices, behaviors, entitlements, and expectations. Today and yesterday are already gone, irretrievable forever, and a very poor place to try to live in, for they cannot create value.
There are few histories that can better illustrate the potential that we, as a society or organization, have to turn opportunity into destructive conflict, than looking to the Hellenic (Greek) city-states 2500 years ago. By now there have been countless stories, tales, legends, books, movies and plays that retell:
- The Greco-Persian Wars (the Persian Wars), two sets of conflicts between the Persian Empire and the Hellenic city-states from 499 BC until 449 BC. Athenians and Spartans facing the Persians with a bias to what they had in common.
- The Peloponnesian War, a series of conflicts between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) from 431 to 404 B.C. Athenians and Spartans facing each other with a bias to what made them different.
In the first series of wars, the Greek city-states, fierce competitors face a challenge that threatened to reshape life as they knew it, if conquered and integrated into the Persian Empire. In fact, much of what we consider western society, shaped by Greco-Roman thought, may have never existed at all. The wars are a rich area for study, insight and sheer dramatic entertainment. They demonstrate just how much competitors can find common ground, focus on interests, and come together to solve what appeared to be unsolvable challenges. Sadly, once success was reached, the darker side of their self interests, rather than the greater good, returned with a vengeance in less than 20 years, the Peloponnesian Wars.
During the Peloponnesian War, the competing parties nearly destroyed each other. Athens was so devastated that it never recovered. The levels of horror and barbarism each party perpetuated upon each other redefined how the city states would resolve differences in the future. Poverty and societal changes led to a poorer, more devastating and dark future. What had been competing parties unleashed levels of unproductive incivility, a harbinger of civil wars then and, subsequently, in the modern world.
The challenges we face will not perpetuate civil wars. Yet, big challenges can perpetuate incivility. When there is a lot a stake and change is on the table, win-lose can create polarization perpetuating sinister and unprincipled misrepresentation that demonizes opponents. It is that demonization that unraveled parts of ancient Greek society into a shredded tapestry, still threadbare today.
Among my favorite quotes (author unknown) is “When faced with two choices, always take the third one.” Walking away with our marbles, as a once noble patrician is urging others to do, can create Peloponnesian Polarity.
There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures. William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act 4
Thoughts?
No Way!
Sherlock Holmes
How quickly do we label something as “impossible” when evaluating risks, alternatives, or focus for investigation? Does our frame of reference filter out what we can’t imagine or refuse to believe? How much does the race to conclude cost us when we’re under the gun? How much does personal belief, level of ignorance, or cerebral capability affect our judgment? Sadly, even when all that stuff is working well, what makes us forget while under duress? After the recent earthquake, Why didn’t the Chilean navy issue a tsunami warning that cost so many lives, even when they had a plan and process to do so?
I don’t know for certain, but I am certain that there are lots that I don’t know. In fact, history seems to make the most assertive comments about what is impossible sound like idiocy. “Everything that can be invented has been invented,” said Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. A similar conclusion was uttered in 1843 by a predecessor at the Patent Office. A search on Google will unearth a myriad of similar comments including “640K ought to be enough for anybody” from Bill Gates.
Last year online sales surpassed in-store sales on Black Friday (the in-store sale make or break day). Does anybody recall all the chatter about online sales would never work because they were insecure? I’m glad that Jeff Bezos at Amazon and Pierre Omydar of eBay were steadfast in pushing forward. In-house IT departments have from time to time refused to support technologies that they did not sanction, a behavior that often lags the speed of business (Twenty years ago we ignored the scare tactic and pressed forward installing Word rather than continue to suffer with the less perfect WordPerfect). Some caution is warranted, careful evaluation is appropriate, but functional preferences are not. Technology seems to outpace most things we know and we can be easily scared by the clever. Anyone recall the go to market strategy of a very big blue mainframe computer maker focused on scaring customers away from moving to distributed computing (pc’s)?
Nothing in history, even the industrial revolution, comes close to the rate of change we currently experience, nor the way technology is changing everything we do, and much of what can be done for us or to us. For the most part, the world is better for it, Thoreau lovers notwithstanding. Technology is redefining how we will succeed or not and it does so faster than we can imagine. Maybe we need to get better at imagining? Or perhaps relax the jump to pull out the “that’s impossible” spray paint. A great habit to lose is reaching into the nostalgia bag and saying, “We tried that before and it won’t work here ….”Because it certainly won’t work as long as we believe that past failures define our current capability or possibilities.
Next time I hear No Way, I might imagine, Way!
Thoughts?
Simply Speaking with Albert Einstein
Years ago I was visiting a financial services regional office and conducting an informal “walk-through” prior to deciding on whether to pursue business development with them. This particular division serviced auto loans. As I went around the workstations I noticed a desk with a very large stack of mail, a very large stack. One individual was opening and sorting each envelope. I asked about it and was told that the individual was the accounting manager and they were the only person in the facility authorized to open incoming mail. I tried very hard to mask my reaction as I asked why that rule was in place. “Well, a few years ago we had an individual steal some money from a payment envelope, so we implemented this improved control so that never happens again.” Flashes of Humphrey Bogart and strawberries in the “Caine Mutiny” suddenly appeared.
I’m certain most of us have countless similar stories. I’ve long held that given enough time, today’s problems generate solutions that eventually become tomorrow’s problems. In fact, most controls have an inherent constraining dimension; they want to keep something from happening. When they are good controls, they attack the current causes and then adapt to changes in inputs or causes, but for many controls, not often enough. Controls become part of the paradigms of “how we do it around here.” Sadly, poor controls tend to punish the innocent in search of the guilty.
Albert Einstein is well known for his genius and insights into the nature of the cosmos. He cracked the nut around what gravity is, something Isaac Newton described as an attractive force, but could not explain. Genius notwithstanding, many of his enjoyable insights have survived in quotations that serve us well in life and business. Constraints that we encounter in our processes are often invisible to our eyes because they are consistent with the way we think or have been trained to see. We are empirical creatures who observe patterns and ascribe meaning to patterns. When we try something and it appears to work, we store that bit of information and draw upon it over and over. We call that knowledge and experience and it gives us and those around us comfort and confidence, even when that knowledge and experience is the cause of current calamities. Albert would say, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
There is unquestionable merit in reducing unnecessary complexity and inappropriate controls in or work and lives. In fact, Albert would say, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” Many have assumed that simplification is the way to go. I’ve noticed a disturbing trend to make simplification the objective of improvement, potentially at the expense of quality and consequences. Years ago a good friend explained that where they grew up, calling someone “simple” was very uncomplimentary …. I understand why. Simplification does not mean simple.
Our auto loan example likely dealt with dishonest behavior, but at a huge price to flow and bandwidth. It did not address the root causes that were likely to be more complex and likely to emerge in other behaviors.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
