Tag Archives: Validity

Algoristics – the mindset of the possible

22 Thursday Aug 2013

Posted by in design thinking, problem solving, society, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Image

“Everything you’ve learned in school as “obvious” becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.” – R. Buckminster Fuller

We live in a world where rules and regulations are multiplying every day. It’s as if the more complex the world becomes, the more rules we throw at it hoping that we’ll be able to make it function like a neat clockwork algorithm. And so it’s tempting when looking to start a new venture (personal, professional, or otherwise) to see the world, and particularly the developed world, as a rigid mesh of algorithms that cannot be bent. It is in part because of this belief for example that I quit my corporate job in the U.S. to start a business in an emerging economy seven years ago.

Continue reading →

Advertisements

Frameworks, trade-spaces, matrices: engineering thinking in management results in big, stagnant bureaucracies

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in complexity, consulting, human capital, management, Organizational Development, science, strategy, taxonomy, technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The most important function of management, particularly executive management, is setting future direction. That implies decisions and choices about the present and future.

Because engineering thinking or more broadly speaking analytic thinking predominates in many executive and consulting circles, it is believed that decisions require a degree of rigorousness similar to that of the scientific method in natural sciences. And so, it is firmly believed that analytic tools empower managers to make sound decisions. The result is a myriad of tools reminiscent of engineering speak – frameworks, trade-spaces, matrices – packaged in neat Power Point slides.

This all very good, but, as philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers remarks  “tools are demanding – they do not confer the power of judging, they ask for the choice of the right tool for the right situation; in other words they oblige us to think and wonder”. The danger that Stengers cautions against is the rigid interpretation of the power of tools. Tool power should never be situated above human judgement. And when it does, this results in the tools getting a life of their own, and embedding the human element which is helpless to escape their hold. This ultimately results in a bureaucratic construct as the purpose of humans becomes not the seeking of meaning and validity, but rather the maintenance and upgrading of the tools. This also results in a proliferation of enforcer types at the expense of creative types, reducing the number and quality of choices about the future.

A more progressive view of management tools is as “enlightening abstractions, precious new tools for thinking” rather than “ready made instruments”. Also, in Stenger’s view, the relationship between user and tool is not one-directional; rather, “tools modify the ones who use them; to learn how to use a tool is to enter a new relation with reality, both an aesthetic and practical new relation”. In my experience, this dual directionality can also unfortunately work backwards: rigid tools can have a limiting effect on thinking.

Source of Isabelle Stengers quotations is “The Challenge of complexity: Unfolding the ethics of science – In Memoriam Ilya Prigogine”

Also check out Dave Snowden’s related blog entry.

The gold standard in business communication and the link between design format and thinking

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in business, consulting, design thinking

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

simplicity

I ran across this talk by Roger Martin which is, in my opinion, the quintessential example for a superlative presentation. One of my key criteria for “superlative” is that the audience is inspired and more importantly, there is a good chance the message will be remembered, i.e. that the speaker will generate an impact.

Here are the elements that make this great in my view: a single visual, a comfortable speaking pace with pauses, a few terms which are well defined as they are introduced, and lots of examples.

Unfortunately this type of presentation is the opposite of what we’re used to in the business world. The presentation norm from the likes of top consulting firms, business schools and even TED events is mind numbing data and graphics and a speaking pace rivaling that of auctions as undeniable proof of intelligence.

In his talk, Roger Martin contrasts analytical and design thinking. With a wonderful resonance between form and function, Roger Martin not only talks the design talk but walks the design walk. The format of the presentation presents a minimalist design that reinforces in form the semantics of the message.  By contrast, the 50+ slide presentations with dizzying graphics that none of us seem to be able to escape could also be said to follow in form the predominantly analytical thinking of the business community with an obsession for numbers and statistical proof.

In closing, I believe our leaders should have simplicity of form for communications as a goal. This would help avert information overload and facilitate richer dialogue and more effective decisions. Design format is not just a nice to have, it can have very concrete repercussions. As Leonardo Da Vinci has said, “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” and we shouldn’t be afraid that a minimalist form takes away from the credibility of the message. The caveat is that simplicity can only be attained with a fundamental insight, and, in lack of a fundamental insight, many of our experts are forced to go for the volumes of data approach.

Do take 10 minutes to watch this video if you have a quiet moment, the message is as powerful as the format.

Additional pointers to the relationship between form and function:

Dr. John Gero presents a wonderful model for the relationship between function, structure and behavior in design processes.  

Dr. Elliott Jaques, inventor of the “midlife crisis” concept and the Requisite Organization Theory, developed a speech analysis method to probe mental potential.

The generalized fingerprints of profound value: simple terms, logical clarity and tacit mechanics

16 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by in business, Communication, Investment, knowledge, society

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I’ve often wondered whether there is a way to discern value in a piece of writing, without being a specialist in the particular domain. This is a pertinent issue as the proliferation of social media has exponentially increased not just the amount of specialized writing, but the preference for short and succinct writing. And as “more” is not necessarily “better”, it would be useful to have a way to gauge whether our highly technologized world is more value-full in terms of communicating meaning.

I propose that the generalized fingerprints of value can be detected by the non-specialist possessing the right lens.

Simplicity and clarity are two unmistakable signs of intelligence. No matter how complex the subject introduced, an intelligent specialist will reduce it to simple, generalized explanations. And the logical clarity of the message “architecture” will reinforce the simplicity of the content.

Still, simplicity and logical clarity are a necessary sign of intelligent writer but not sufficient to prove the value of the message itself. Another ingredient is needed, which I tentatively term “tacit mechanics”.

The best illustration of the tacit mechanics feature is a concrete example.

Stephen Kann’s “Microcap Investment Strategies” blog article is a brief overview in simple terms and clear logic of the microcap investment algorithm. I propose this article is a value-full piece of writing based on the simplicity-clarity-tacit mechanics logical construct.

In this particular case, simplicity and clarity alone demonstrate an astute writer. But there is more to this article than coherence; there are the fingerprints of fundamental value.

Stephen references in this blog two flavors of tacit mechanics associated with microcap investment that demonstrate a profound  and value-full understanding of the topic: “information arbitrage” and “inflection points”.

Information arbitrage for microcap investment can be related to a universal mechanics of commercial operations: success of any commercial operation is dependent on exploiting physical, or in this case informational market differentials.

Inflection points also are a proxy for an appreciation of the non-linear business growth process that is particular of smaller enterprises, and the dynamics of which cannot always be derived from historical performance and statistical trends. The dynamics implied in Stephen’s inflection points are in fact aligned with the latest management and business strategy thinking that embraces complexity science and system-theoretic principles, which go much beyond standard economic and financial modeling.

The reference to the article follows:

http://microcapminute.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/microcap-investment-strategies/