Everyone is where they are as a result of the things they did and didn’t do up to the point. Which also includes playing games. Some do it for fun, some because they think it’ll be getting them somewhere, and some have chosen not to start or to quit. But no matter what the choice, everyone has a certain level of experience or even mastery in games. Keep that in mind, always.
Strip out the middle
Principal problems tend to create situation where they themselves are dormant, thus not being adressed, instead the problems they create downstream are. This process is often repeated until the solution is “use more”, “use less” or “buy X”, a typical symptom of Yak shaving.
The constructive approach is to then ask “Why are we having this problem at all?” until you’ve worked the whole way back to the initial problem, and compare it to the solutions proposed or already in place, stripping out all the middle problems. And when “We have trouble acquiring qualified personnel” is being answered with “use more Gaffer tape” or “we need to buy a cart”, everybody should know there’s something wrong and start doing their work.
Business and people
Obviously some real estate agents think their business is not people.
Do you remember when it happened the last time that a website you visited was down, not because of technical issues, but because of a design overhaul? And all they could do is put up a ridiculous graphic (not the “under construction” road sign, thanks a lot), with their phone number and email (not clickable). No contact form, no replacement microsite, and in the end, no business, at least from my side.
There is no business that is not people.
Do vs. Get done
One of the best ways (if not the best way) to amp up your productivity is asking “What can I get done?”, replacing the misleading “What can I do?”. There’s a reason David Allen didnt’t call his book “Doing things”, y’know.
Treasure
On most occasions, your personal treasure won’t increase when you desperately try to pile more onto, but calmly let go of some of it.
On revolution
The earth does one each day. We can be happy to accomplish one in a lifetime.
Angry nerds
Today the German version of Jonathan Zittrain‘s essay “The PC is dead” has been published (which he closes by saying we need more angry nerds), tempting me to comment on it in a lengthy post. Instead I recommend you to read it yourself.
My two cents: For platform owners such as Apple, Amazon, Google or Microsoft, the ‘art’ is to close the door only so much that the input-providing participants don’t feel uncomfortable squeezing through it, and keep providing stuff (apps and content), because the consuming participants will only start switching once they realize the restrictions applied lead to a perceived lack thereof. Angry nerds won’t fix it. Unless they invent a different thing that restarts the cycle.
Solutions
Facing a problem, we choose one out of two options to restore harmony: Ignore the problem, hoping it’ll go away. Or jump on it and try to solve it as quick as we can.
Jumping on a problem happens when the solving process is one promising a bit of fun or distraction from other problems along the way. That’s why some people are very eager to help others solve their problems so they don’t have to mind their own. In this case, solving a problem implies ignoring another one. And the only reason we ignore problems is they make us uncomfortable.
So it turns out solving problems has two basic dimensions, effort and benefit. And there is of course a certain fallacy that comes with our expectations because so far we have left out one crucial step. The fallacy is that we expect a problem regardless of its level of complexity to be solved immediately and permanently, and it should be done effortless but the result be beneficial for all. Though these four goals are not contradictory, it’s the unlikelier they will be achieved the higher the complexity of the problem is.
Which is why we really need to think about the complexity of a problem before we start solving it. The point is that more often than not we think we know how to solve any problem because we merely know the first step(s) of the process. As a matter of course, this suffices for simple problems, but it’s already a pitfall for problems with a low level of complexity, because we tend to only consider the good-case scenario. In problems with high levels of complexity or even complicated ones, this will get you into serious trouble along the way.
The only thing we can do to avoid this is to outline the current situation, define when the problem is solved and work different solution scenarios by breaking the solution process down into single steps and extrapolate future efforts and benefits. I’ll tell you in a second why this matters. While we’re working down the list of steps we’ve chosen, we need to monitor the process and if necessary readjust the parameters which lead our decisions, and we can only do this on evidence. This is important. Your stomach is a bad advisor in this case. If it has any relevance, it should lead you to sift through all your accumulated data so far and try to find evidence for your assumptions. If there is none, it’s only because you feel now that you have a negative effort/benefit ratio.
At the beginning all of this is not fun, especially when it seems to complicate problems you thought to be solved easily. In this case, the process helps you not to walk into a dead end, saving you from both frustration and the impression of incompetence. Not too bad a deal. In case of very complex problems, it takes away your petrification in face of an impregnable challenge.
It’s all in your head. Now get to it!
Problems
Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about problems and solutions. Not specific ones, more in general, and the shortcomings that go with them in particular. And it seems to depend on the kind of problem how effective a solution can be. To make my point, I’ll start with an outline of problem degrees.
First, there are simple problems. Hanging a picture on the wall.
Abstract solution requires: Knowing how to make some protrusion.
Practical solutions: Drive in a nail./Bore a hole, insert a plug./Bore a hole, insert a plug, insert a screw./Glue a plug or hook to the wall./Chisel out an alcove./Build a pedestal.
These are “whatever works” problems, and they are characterized by a low level of complexity, their solution rarely requires more than 2 or 3 steps (though Yak shaving is possible), and there is little at stake, both financially and emotionally. You don’t need a plan, and it’s easy to sell someone on the solution you prefer.
Next, there’s complex single-subject problems like Measuring the efficiency of your production process.
This requires you to break the problem down to simple problems/questions. What are the single processes the whole thing is made up of? Who’s involved at what stage? This doesn’t mean you have to analyse each and every single process itself, since this is about the overall thing.
These problems are characterized by an intermediate level of complexity and their solution requires several steps, often over a certain period of time. In that sense they don’t have to be actual problems, but questions to determine if you have a problem, and where. With this kind of problems, there is not necessarily something at stake financially (though it might be), yet they’re easily being perceived as a threat with a lot of downside (e.g. feeling scrutinised) and little upside (not seeing one’s own personal benefit from the solution proposed). Hence the (pragmatic) solution is facing opposition very easily, combined with the escape question whether the present system should better be replaced with an entirely different one (the one you switched from last time). And the solution might need to be readjusted itself because, for instance, you realize you’re focusing on the wrong issues. Yak shaving is a welcome distraction to avoid cutting to the core.
Next, there are complex multi-subject problems such as running a project, for example building a website. This requires a set of different skills and the ability to tackle the seemingly big lump from various sides, then drilling down each approach to find out how much substance there is. For a website this might be design (which again can be split up into colour scheme, typography, imagery), legal issues (possible copyright infringements), technical issues (programming) and providing content.
Whatever the solution is, when you’re trying to sell someone on it, the standard reply is often whether your approach was the right one to choose at all. Depending on the project, there can be a high financial risk. On the emotional side, it’s more likely to be dealing with primal behaviour, determining who is the strongest. Also here the solution might need to be readjusted because after a certain amount of time it’s been shown not to fulfil its purpose as it should have. Yak shaving is common.
And finally, there are complicated problems: Having a business. Causes. Political campaigning and lobbying.
The complication results from various factors: Solutions will need to be constantly readjusted because decision parameters change. Decision criteria themselves change. People involved in the process change their minds. High financial risk. Circumstances assumed and results expected are permanently subject to change. It’s like a theme park on a raft, somewhat chaotic. The main skill required for this kind of problem is knowing when to stick to a decision and when to quit. There’s an upside too: At any given point in time, the problem is only a complex multi-subject one. It’s only in the long perspective that it’s complicated. Yak shaving is compulsory.
Special case: Vanity problems. This is Yak shaving. These are solutions for one of the four previous degrees, but there’s no problem.
This ranges from believing you need a new hairstyle (simple) to building an underground railway station when you have one on the ground (complicated).
So what’s the point? Am I shaving the Yak? No, it’s just the setup for the next post: Solutions. That’s what I really want to talk about.
“One day, the Web will be friggin’ empty”
That’s what the CEO of the German VPRT, the lobby of commercial broadcasters and tele-media, said on his keynote during the Munich Media Days last week. No, wait for the punchline! It’s also his organisation who’s commissioning the study which concludes that the web is full of illegal content (in this study, everything that was availbale for free was counted as illegal — yes, they were and still are on a mission).
What he meant to say with the headline quote was of course that the world needs his peers to enjoy the richness of online media, and he argued that the government needs to push for stricter copyright laws. Like what? Sanctioning free content because it’s harming his peers’ business? I’m sure he’d love that. It’s just that way of 19th century thinking that once you’ve set up your factory, it’s going to run forever and all the boss has to do is maximize profits. In addition, new industries would pop up and the one with more money would buy the other and so forth. And it all keeps growing and growing.
But as the post-industrial age has kicked in long ago, it should have become obvious that it doesn’t work like that any more. And it won’t help that your industry is not producing material goods but collecting and repacking information (or rather data, I can’t help but come back to my axiom again), because it’s still run like the old-fashioned factory. We don’t need factories any more, we’ve had them long enough.
What’s not working anymore is people who used to buy an issue of a magazine with at least 50% advertising in the real world, won’t do this online. They have the choice of getting their desired information one article at a time from the source they like best. With ads or without. Paid or for free. Yet publishers had a hard time adapting their question “How can I get as many people as possible to buy / subscribe to my magazine?” to “How can I offer the best content for an acceptable price?” (of course there’s also the industrial “How can I lower the quality without losing too much of the readership?”), but the new question is a different one.
This new question is “How does my stuff fit into the big picture?”. There are millions of outlets on the Web offering articles on the same topics as pay-for magazines, but for free. Not as consistent in terms of output volume and regularity, but often in terms of quality. This leads to my idea where commercial publishers seek the cooperation with authors who publish for free. The commercial publishers will then support the free authors by publishing their (commercial) articles on their (free authors’) website or blog, like guest articles (of course these article have to be paid for when someone wants to read them, and the free author whose site the thing is published on gets a small share), thus improving the experience for the audience.
Instead of trying to persuade the world to come to their place, publishers of every kind of media must start serving all the outlets out there (this is what Seth Godin refers to as curatorship). What publishers understood is they need to be on the shelf in as many stores as possible. Now, moving beyond physicality, the number and variety of stores is infinite. And infinity has always been a good prerequisite to make money for a long time to come. If you embrace it.
