Mix of toilets

In tweets today toilets and women were discussed. And that women in general need more toilets. Taking more time due to more complicated procedure? Spending more time washing hands? Adjusting make-up?

I do not know - but here is one clever thing to improve the situation.

In the picture below you can see a configuration with toilets and washing-hands/mirrors equipment. At the top the small red "circles" are where you spend time adjusting make-up, wash hands etc. And at the bottom you see cubicles with toilets. Each with door and lock.

Gentlemen will enter this facility from left and ladies from right. In the gentlemen area there is also a red box - representing a urinal.

The clever thing is that there is a wall separating women from men. Creating the illusion of two facilities. The wall can be moved if the population contains more women. Or just to let women have more toilets and mirrors.

In the set-up above men have six toilets and the urinal while women have six toilets.

If the event is a ladies-only event you could slide the wall and create:

Now men only have one toilet and the women have eleven! And if it is a football game you could consider to place the wall elsewhere.

To be able to adjust the mix of toilets seems like a simple way of making the situation better. And still there is illusion of totally separated women and men toilets. Which seems to be desired in many cultures/communities. Note also that number of mirrors also changes...

Not sure how common this solution is, but I have seen it in at least one hockey/event arena.

"reply all"

In mail-systems where there are distribution lists there is always a risk (or chance?) that someone uses one of the larger lists by mistake. And sometimes that leads to persons on list responding to that mail - using "reply to all" function.

If more people do the same it will trigger mails with the message "do not use reply to all" - possibly also sent to all. Of course.

Here are some real data from such "incident" today. Already after 17 minutes the apology was out "Sorry. Did not mean to send to all. Please ignore".

In the diagram you can see what kind of mails was sent using "reply to all" in the next few hours:

On the x-axis you have 30-minutes periods from first email sent. And y-axis is frequence.

As you can see there are lots of email just saying "You probably got the wrong guy."

On second place comes the "Do not reply to all" messages (sent using "reply to all").

And then there are some people that would like to be removed from the list, some trying to explain how to send emails correctly - and also someone that was just a bit upset about.

Remember. The chart shows only the mails I could see and that was sent using "reply to all". I assume that the person sending the mail to distribution list in the first place also received some direct mail.

Anyone else having more data and patterns describing this?

No cow on the ice

"There is no cow on the ice"

This is a very well known Swedish proverb. Well, in Sweden at least.

It means "There's nothing to worry about ... yet." No need to panic yet, we still have (some) time.

The proverb above is actually just a short version of:
"There is no cow on the ice as long as its behind is still ashore"
which maybe makes more sense. No need to panic, yet, the whole cow is not on the ice yet. We still have time.

Having a cow on ice can be a rather interesting adventure I guess. So, as long as the cow is only halfway on the ice there is no need to panic. But as soon as all of the cow is on ice you need to worry... Cows are not well designed to walk on ice.

Why should there be cows on the ice anyway? Well, Sweden have lots of lakes and large archipelagos. And there is also ice on these lakes and water in the winter of course. So, relocating cows using iced lakes and waters was not uncommon. Might be a lot easier as well than using small ferries to transport cows in summer.

"There is no cow on the ice."

One of the best Swedish proverb around. And when using it you should never ever use the long version.

(In Swedish: "Det är ingen ko på isen" - and a long version: "Det är ingen ko på isen så länge rompan är på land.")

Reflection

This is me. Back in 2001. Well, it was my avatar in the online game Anarchy Online. This is a Sci-Fi based game with people from all over the playing, eh, interacting. Not as popular now as back then. (Game developed by Norwegian company Funcom)

To better understand gaming and game industry I back then volounteered as game reviewer for a couple of web-sites. I received a few games every week, played and wrote. And for some game - like Anarchy Online - I received a free game account. And being part of an online game was a very interesting experience. Not so much for the technical details or gameplay - but for the social interactions with all sorts of people. Some playing in-game roles - some just reflecting themselves into the game.

I was a role player. My solder was brave and loyal. And not focusing on being the strongest - but the kindest. Playing a female role was a great advantage back then. Even though I suspect that all people knew I was "man" - they still acted as if I was a girl. Well, I was a girl -ingame - but the boundaries netween real and in-game are very fast blurred.

I married a brute enforcer that took care of me. And I even had a sweet little sister. It was all a huge experiment. Fun, rewarding and great for learning how to meet different people. Most people were kind - and some were the opposite. Since I decided to be the kindest I never had any enemies. I befriended even the most awkward and rude.

Well, it was all fun and play.

Until September 11 , 2001. It was amazing how that event not only changed the world. But also the interaction in-game. The discussions were intense. Lots of people afraid and looking for support and comfort ingame.

Every chat-channel in-game were filled with the lively discussions about "why, what, how, whats next why, WHY?"

Having the ingame chat we were all brought together. People from New York reported ingame, sharing with people from Russia, Norway and anywhere. We spent a lot of time trying to support each other. But also working together in the game. The tool - the game - brought us together, made the world smaller and less scary.

What we saw in-game back then was probably pretty much what we today would see in Facebook, Twitter and similar if happened today.

Hopefully these tools are bringing us closer together today. Day by day. Tweet by tweet. Bringing common understanding. And understanding and acknowledging each other perspectives.

The tools should not support us after the disaster. The tools should help us prevent it.

I am hopeful.

Ebberods Bank = "Financial success"

There is an old movie and play called Ebberöds Bank with an interesting business concept.

In the small town of Ebberod a bank is started. This is the first bank in town. With some clever PR and marketing the first customers are attracted. And the business is excellent - they lend out money at 4 percent interest rate but gives 8 percent on the savings accounts.

How is this possible? "It is all about volume", says management.

The bank gets very popular and everyone wants to loan money and immediately put them back into a saving account. And since the bank is attracting so many new deposits and everyone continues to put money into saving accounts the bank has plenty of money...(Like a pyramid game, of course, a bubble that will burst one day....)

Everyone is happy! Business is excellent!

Everyone is happy except for a larger bank in the big city nearby. All their customers are leaving to put their money into Ebberods bank. Eventually the big bank is forecd to buy Ebberods Bank. Which means that the owner of Ebberdos Bank gets money for the bank and gets rid of the problem of a faulty business model. And a lot of soon-to-be unhappy customers...

Stupid? Well, the larger bank got into panic mode. Seeing all customers run away. And seeing a new bank with a business model they could not understand. Maybe thinking "They cannot be giving away money - so they have someting that work".

Ethical? Sustainable? No. But it is interesting that a business concept that do not work still can be a financial success for the "creative" person.

And I bet there are real Ebberod Banks out there. Business models and operations that seems to work in the short run. But are doomed to collapse. We need to figure those out, instead of getting into panic mode. Think twice when you see something very "succesful" that you do not understand. Questions to ask: "Is that sustainable? Sound? Ethical?".

I like that movie!

Doing the same thing creates change.,

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

I disagree. Or rather, there are situations where doing the same thing over and over again is the key to create different results.

So, if you do the same thing over and over again you should very often expect different results. Doing the same thing will trigger change.

If you every morning ignore your wife your marriage will change. If you take a hammer and hit the wall the wall will change, and one day there will be a hole. If you treat people in a fair and consistent way the respect for you will change - grow.
If you kick your dog over and over again it will die. And with the last kick the result will be different.

There are plenty of situations that are less drastic of course.

Every sound qoute makes sense only in specific contexts.

Solving same problem multiple times...

When you decide to solve a problem the method, tool and approach you select will take you on a journey towards the solution.

In the picture below the upper path (marked with "1") is the first time you solve the problem. When solving the problem you will learn things and get insights (e.g. Insight A in picture).

If you decide to use another method or tool or approach you might get the middle path (marekd with "2"). Another journey that could possibly lead to the same solution. But in the process you made new insights (Insight B).

Yet another go would be the lower path ("3"). And in that path you will again make new insights. But also possibly solve some other problem. And you might end up with another solution to the original problem. An alternative solution. A solution that might be better than the first you found (using path 1).





Problem solving is a journey. And the methods and tools you select will form the path. Each path could give you unique solutions, new insights and solutions to other problems.

The first solution and problem solving process will of course influence the following attempts. But the new method and tool selected will make the path different anyway. The methods and tools will force you onto a new path. Just like different transportatoin methods will change your real life journey - although destination might be the same.

Another good thing with using mutiple methods is that you gain experience. You learn what methods works best and how to use them. And you can compare and build a toolbox for when to use what...

And you can describe the solutions achieved using different perspectives. Maybe the audience prefer to learn that solution was gained using path 2. Even though you first solved the problem using path 1.

Solving the same problem multiple times can be very rewarding.

För eller mot?

För några år sedan samlades hela byn för att demonstrera mot rasism och främlingsfientlighet. Många föräldrar och barn stod uppställda i mörkret. Facklor delades ut och leden formade sig.

När jag stod där i mörkret blev frestelsen för stor. Jag knackade damen framför på axeln och frågade:

"Jo, ursäkta, men vet ni om det här är fackeltåget FÖR eller MOT rasism?"

Damen snäste - precis som de gjorde i gamla pilsnerfilmer och flyttade sig snabbt några platser framåt i kön. Hon tyckte inte det var ett dugg kul. Jag däremot fnittrade hela vägen där vi gick med våra facklor i mörkret.

Life is a verb

And Life is not only a verb. Life is full of verbs. Actually, it's just verbs all the way down.

Thanks, @pattidigh , for these insights.

(You can learn more about Life is a verb and meet Patti at 37DAYS)

Project myths

Project management is not always easy.

But there are many things we complicate quite on our own. Based on project myths, methods, stereotypical thinking about projects etc.

Sad.

Because there are principles and basic thinking that makes project work more successful. Very fast! But, we really need to get back to basic thinking. Re-think a lot. Not complicated thinking - quite the opposite really.
And it is not snake oil, or fairy dust solving it all - but very basic thinking and insight what a project is - and how it can be successfully executed...

How to share this "wisdom"? How to get it out in the open to be shared, discussed, used and ignored. Blog about it? Write a book?

Hmmmm.... thinking.

Use a map to find'em all!

Lets say we have two parties, X and Y, with two different solutions to a problem. The solutions also have negative side effects.

Here is a picture of the situation: (follow the link to left to a Southbeach Quickguide for more information about Southbeach modeller and how to interprete the model/images)




If we now consider how party Y might argue to gain followers or voters. They have lots of possibilities and can act on almost any of the items in the previous picture:



The blue boxes contains what the Party Y might say to win. And with Party Y perspective the various effects (arrows) now are of different "strengths".

It can be very beneficial to illustrate a situation with a map. And then consider what might happen to or how to act upon each item in the map. With the knowledge gained you can build a strategy and plan to execute. Or solve the problem you have.

And as you can see there are plenty of blue boxes that Party Y could use to form their strategy!

Use a map to find'em all!

Learn, Children, Learn.

I feel so lucky having two children that after many years in school still are motivated to learn and grow. And I am proud that they still let me part of that process. I am also proud that they challenge their own knowledge - and mine! As long as we learn we grow. And to learn we often need to challenge ourselves and our "teachers".

Get out there, kids. Learn, Challenge, Grow! And make sure that your children also learn.

I cannot say "Non, je ne regrette rien"

"No, I regret nothing".

I wish I could say that too. I regret almost nothing in my life. (So far). But there is one thing I regret. One chance I had that I did not take. And this has haunted me since.

In 1998 I was in Austin and visited a toy-store. And there I found a singing flower. Very silly. yet irresistible. It sang "You are my sunshine" and danced a simple dance (just tilting sideways). I hesitated. Checked the price tag, checked whether I could fit it into one of the bags.

And then it happened. Some stupid rational voice inside me said "You don't need that singing flower. And it is a very silly thing."

So, I turned around and walked away. The flower still singing.

And since that day I have regretted that I listened to that rational inner voice. I know that my life would have been better if that flower had been part of it. Singing to me every day, singing to my wife, dancing in front of my kids.

So, do not listen too much to rational inner voices telling you what is "silly" or "best for you". You know better! And you might miss good things in life, like "You are my sunshine"-singing flowers!

By the way. Here is the flower --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88DIh9vgyr8

(Not mine though. I still do not have a singing flower...And I think I never will have. )

Adult storytelling

In a workshop for leaders we told stories. I had prepared a couple of pages with simple drawings. There were circles and boxes and lines on A4 sheets. Or just a line. Or a dot. Not pictures of anything, just a few lines on a each paper.

We sat very close. Just like you would imagine a storyteller sitting close to the children.

I showed the first page and started "Once upon a time there was a ...." and then I pointed to the symbol and looked at one of the participants. Who immediately responded with "a snowman". And then I continued with "that one day" - and now looking at next person that quickly added "went shopping". And we continued. I connected the sentences - and the group added context.

We flipped page. I pointed to the symbol and said something that would connect to previous sentence. And by looking at a person she or he would add to the story. My part became smaller and smaller. I was just a 'page flipper' showing silly symbols on A4 sheets. And the group was co-creating the most wonderful small stories.

There were laughters and giggling. But also excitement. The group was exciting telling the stories. And all were curious what would happen next. What would the circle on the paper turn into? A moon? A cheese? A football kicked by a vampire?

We created magic! They created stories. And they all listened to each other. They build upon each others contributions. We played. Seriously.

And it was fun. With a couple of A4 sheets with simple symbols we managed to create stories, excitement and engaging stories. And for a moment we managed to bring forward our inner child.

I love storytelling.

And this small exercise showed that not only children can create stories and fairy tales. Adults can too!

"could be"-thinking

What is this? It is something of course. But lets instead consider what it could be.

Well, it could be the letter "B". As in:

or it could be the number "13" as in:

When we replace "is" with "could be" we get several options. And we get new perspectives. We might even consider different context. And we don't get any conflict. All alternatives are valid!

We also tend to become future oriented. The "could be" indicates a transformation, a journey, into the future.

Try it. Replace all "is" (and "am" and "are") with "could be" and you will most likely get more alternatives, see things from a new perspective, more easily accept new ideas since they could be developed into something. And you will almost automatically consider the future and how to reach it.

What "is" you company? What "could" your company "be"?

What are you? What could you be?

And even"this blog entry is crap" can be re-thought. Think "This blog entry could be deleted" or possibly "This blog entry could be inspiration for me".

"You man, be human"

Well said by Tage Danielsson.

Packages...re-thinking needed (?)

Would it not be nice of we could get rid of all packages? Imagine if we could get all what we need without all these boxes, plastic bags, and (many times) unneccesary packaging material.

"Packages" are used for many reasons - and there are many useful functions to consider. But there are also many harmful functions.

In this picturee you find some of the useful (green boxes) and some of the harmful (red boxes). (Not complete of course!). So, now we just need to find ways of removing the harmful functions and keep the useful.


Starting today to change how we use "packagin" would not be too soon...

Part of my DNA - an inventor

The cool guy sitting is my mothers grandfather. He was born in Sweden, but suddenly had to leave the country. He moved to USA (1910) - leaving his pregnant girlfriend in Sweden. The child (Arvid) became my grandfather.




After a few years in US David Oscar got married to Matilda and they had two sons. The families in US have very many memories and stories kept of this "Swede". When he lived in Sweden his name was David Oscar Svensson - but changed Svensson to Seaburg in the US.

David Oscar invented things and came up with new ways of doing things. My grandfather Arvid (David Oscars son) was also a sort of inventor and new-thinker. Not like Edison or Nobel of course. Not very famous. But they did come up with new ways of doing their job. Always improving things. Simplifying. Always having another way of dealing with problems.

They were supported by their wifes of course! Getting and having support is important for inventors. As well as for all of us.

Anyway, I like the picture of David Oscar and his smile and cigar. Trying to impress the viewers of the photograph? Thinking about what?

And I like the idea that I have some of his DNA in me....

Really relaxing...

In order to really relax I need to get distracted. I need to get all my senses occupied. Let myself be immersed.
Then I can start to relax. See new patterns. See new people. Learn about myself.
Yesterday I spent watching car race. Noisy, smelly, exciting and lots of people. And as you can imagine, VERY relaxing.

One error gets attention...

2+3=5
5+6=11
3+4=7
5+2=7
1+1=2
3+5=9
8+4=12
1+3=4

Many persons find it very easy to spot the "error" and wonder if it is intentional. Or just an error.

Focus is drawn to the single error.

But, in the list there are seven "rights" as well. And still we let our focus be the one error.

And yet we often think to "reward whats right" to foster and teach. Seems that this is harder than we think; to focus on the "rights" instead of the "wrongs".

Are we looking for perfection? There should be no error at all? Maybe, but then we have to remember we are always learning and growing. And making "errors" and mistakes should be allowed.

To be able to really focus on the "rights" we need to focus! Do not let the single error take away all the good things!

Test yourself: Imagine your child coming home with a test-score 9 right of 10. What is your first thought? Would you like to know what the error was? Or would you be happy for the 9 correct ones?

(Can't remember in what book I first saw this "trick".)

Small thought.

Nano technology means very little to me.

Fuel

'Lack of fuel' is fuel for the innovation engine.

1+1 is not 2

We often view "1+1=2" as a fact. But...

Many times 1 + 1 is not 2. On the light side you can add one rabbit to one rabbit and end up with a whole rabbit family.

You can also add a piece of string to another piece of string - and just get a longer piece of string. And adding one chaos to another chaos will most likely only get you bigger chaos. Not two chaoses. (Thanks, @seabird20)

If you read two newspapers you don't get twice as much news. Sometimes the information cancels out altogether (Thanks, @richardveryard)

And one hull plus one hull are not always two hulls. Sometimes it is a catamaran.

Back to the "serious math"...

1+1=10 if we do it in binary number system.

And if we have a clock-system with the "hours" 0 and 1 only the "1+1" will become "0". (Just like 08:00 plus 9 hours will become 5...)

And we also need to pay attention to what "+" means. How we use "+" to add number is a rule in the number system we have agreed upon.

And what number system are we using? Is the "1" belonging to the set of N or Z? Or real numbers? Are the first "1" the same as the second "1".
When using computers and Float numbers 1 + 1 do not always add upp to 2, due to representation of floating numbers.

So, very seldom is 1+1 = 2

And by the way. If you have one hungry lion and add three rabbits you will not get four live animals. You will get ONE less hungry lion.

To see that 1+1 is anything but 2 can be very advantageous. If you only find "2" as the right answer you miss a lot of opportunities....

Forever thinking

Many times we are thinking "short term". And when we try to think "long term" we just expand time horizon a bit. If short term is six months - the long term can be five years. If short term was two years, long term could be 50 years. And so on. But...

We need to start considering what will happen when we extend beyond short and long term.

Here are some questions to consider when solving problems and creating solutions:

- Will this solution X work forever?
- What will happen to environment and the planet if X (what we start/create now) goes on forever?
- Would it be good if X continued forever?
- What side effects (good/bad) might there be if X continued forever?
- If X continues forever, would the overall situation improve?

We should only create and implement things that should and could go on forever.

Very few things continues forever, but we need to extend our thinking and see beyond. Whatever long term solutions we might come up with, can really be short term. And what we create now can "blow up" for the next generation.

Solutions might or might not evolve over time and take care of the problems we create today. But we cannot rely on that. We need to create truly sustainable solutions. That works in the "forever" perspective.

We have the tools and many different ways of thinking to deal with this. Lets do it!

Walls creates speed and innovation.

Long time ago in a galaxy far away I wrote a small piece of boundaries, speed and innovation. Cannot find it now....But some of thinking was like:

Imagine a pinball machine. Imagine what would happen if you removed all the walls, small obstacles, rubber things, springs, targets. Just a steel ball slowly rolling down...*donk*. An easy game to play.

It is the obstacles and boundaries that makes the machine interesting. It is those obstacles and boundaries that creates the speed and excitement. *pling* *katchong* *swosch* *plang-pling*. It is the walls that creates the speed. It is the walls that forces the steel ball to take another route.

Without the boundaries and obstacles the game would turn into a slow, non-exciting game. No need to be alert. No need to actually do anything.

Same with innovation. We need boundaries and problems to innovate and keep us moving forward. Give us unlimited resources and the game gets uninteresting. Give us problems, limited resources and problems - and we will get speed, excitement AND innovation. We need the *pling* and *katshong* and all the walls!

The most exciting and rewarding pinball machine is the one with most problems, eh, walls and springs!

(Thanks, @catuslee, for reminder about the importance of "limited resources")

"Meeting in Gothenburg"

Long time ago me and a collegue defined a new organization. We also defined the governance structure and setup. We included all meetings, boards, decision & escalation paths, authorities & levels... All!

We presented the setup to the group of managers affected. They applauded. We asked if this covered everything they needed. "Yes". We asked again - Have we covered all and every meeting needed? And they all responded with "YES".

The managers decided that this was what they needed. Not more - not less. And we spent a few minutes discussing how to get "the show on the road", i.e. implement the governance structure.
It was in that discussion one of the managers suddenly suggested:

-"Well, I have made reservation for a group meeting in Gothenburg next week. Maybe we can detail this then? And actually I am thinking that we can have these group meetings, say, every second month."
-"Yes. Good suggestion", all responded.

This group meeting in Gothenburg was not in our governance structure. Neither was any bimonthly group meetings of that kind. And yet they all stated 15 minutes earlier that the governance setup was all they ever needed.

So where did this extra meeting come from? Seems we actually did a lousy job explaining the setup - since it only took a few minutes until the group had added new elements to the governance structure.

Since then my collegue and I use "meeting in Gothenburg" for situations where a group seems to understand and share knowledge. And yet do something in a complete different direction... Indicating that they did not understand. Or just ignored what they just acknowledged...

Star Wars day!

@darthvader twittered:

I hesitate to wish anyone a "happy" anything, but... Happy Star Wars Day.
May the 4th be with you. Huzzah.

Brave small creature

Today, in a forrest far far away I stopped to study an ants nest. Lots of activity and movement. I was hypnotized.

Suddenly I felt pain on my arm. A small sting. When I looked down I found a lonely ant standing on my arm. I looked closer and the ant seemed to raise his body and was probably trying to tell me something.

I stepped back from the ants nest - still carrying the ant on my arm. I inspected myself but could not find any more ants on skin or clothings.

The ant on my arm was running around - as if he was searching for something. A brief moment I thought of killing the ant. Getting even. But then I re-considered.

I could not kill someone that brave. A lonely ant trying to handle me - the large beast. And I was also puzzled what his intentions really were.

Did he consider me to be food? So he was trying to kill me and drag me home to the nest? A real fiest coming up.

Did he consider me as a threat to the nest Trying to kill me or scare me off?

Was he trying to impress a female ant? "I can take that huge ugly beast. Blind-folded even."

Was he trying to teach the small padawan ants how to handle a beast like me. Maybe the small ants were hiding in the grass while my heroic ant tried to find out how to deal with me. "Stay back and watch!"

Whatever he did he did it alone. But most likely to serve the good of the whole nest. Risking his own life he took an initiative. He did not wait for an order.

I decided to return the ant safely to the nest. He ran off. Maybe trying to bring more ants. "I did my best. But he was *huge*. Come and help - and we have food for the whole year!"

I hope that he got a promotion for bravery and for taking initiative. And I am sure he will be a good role model for the younger ants.



Life and nature are magic!

Here be dragons

On many ancient maps the words "here be dragons" were printed to indicate dangerous and/or unexplored areas. Or?

But. Maybe there is only one known historical example. http://www.maphist.nl/extra/herebedragons.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenox_Globe

And it was not even "Here be dragons" - but the latin HC SVNT DRACONES ("hic sunt dracones").

And still we belive that it was a common phrase on maps. How many more historical facts are just myths?

Should we trust history? Who writes history? Where does our common knowledge come from?

Complexify!

We came up with a very simple, understandable and working solution to a difficult problem. We looked at it from different perspectives and it was really simple - yet doing the job - i.e. solving the problem.

Then one in the group said: "We cannot present this. We need to complexify it. You know. Add a lot of powerpoint pictures, some charts, maybe some process models and workflows. And possibly describing all the roles. This is too simple. We need to add details. A simple thing like this will not gain acceptance. We need to complexify."

He was a bit cynical of course. But he was not far away from what showed to be reality. The simple solution was later accepted. But only after some complexifying activities.And quite a number of detailed descriptions.

Complexify. Maybe not a proper word. But scary.

Have we come so far that we sometimes cannot accept and use the simple solutions without adding details and making it look more complex?
Do all details and complex descriptions make the solution better?

Is an agreement with 100.000 words better than a handshake?

Me wonder.

Every problem can be solved

Impossible is nothing. True?

To me yes. When I was younger I thought there were problems that could not be solved. Impossible problems. But now I believe - or know - that any problem can be solved.

There might be reasons why we chose not to implement the solution of course. But the solution is there - if we want it. It is not a matter of if we can solve the problem. We can. But we might decide that we do not want to push forward.

Why do I believe that any problem can be solved? I think it is due to all the methods and problem solving approaches that exists. No matter how large or complex the problem is there are always (many!) ways to attack it. And we have lots of subject matter expertise out there. In all areas. And experience. And skills....

So, there are many methods out there. And lots of knowledge and skills. And that makes me very certain that every problem can be solved.

We need the knowledge and a systematic approach. Or even approaches.

This feeling that every problem can be solved is to me very comforting. Nothing is impossible.

Need speed? Add another reviewing group!

A long time ago I was asked to lead a requirement reviewing process. The requirements defined an IT-solution. Well, at least that was the plan.

There were many requirements (1000+) from very detailed to very general. It was not a well defined set of requirements. Any attempt to change the requirements ended up as failure. The client had decided that THIS was THE set of requirements to be used. Period.

We started off with a reviewing group to work through the set. Every requirement was discussed in detail. Information lacking. And the group really could not do its job efficiently. It was hard to see what requirement to focus on - and where more information was needed.
We kept going for a few weeks. And managed to just confuse ourselves with more questions and more details. No real progress.

I then suggested to add another group to help us. And with that setup we suddenly started to move. We now had two reviewing groups running. Slightly different focus. And it seemed that the groups now could focus better, since there also was another group supporting the process.
I was not sure why though at this point.

A week later we introduced two more groups. Now having four groups - more or less running in parallel reviewing the whole set. All groups reviewed all requirements. But of course with different perspectives.

Now the real magic kicked in. The process ran faster and faster. Seemed that four groups reviewing all requirements was a more efficient setup than having one.
And what happened seemed to be that each reviewing group now focused on what was really important. And creating TWO models of what was going on. Something like:

1. This group, i.e. my group, is the first group reviewing. So, we only need to focus on whats important for us. And if we make a mistake someone at a later stage will correct it.

but at the same time they also seemed to think:

2. This group is the last in the chain. So, we only need to focus on whats really important. All the other stuff has already been dealt with. And if all the other groups are done and happy we should also be.

When we started using four groups I told everyone that we did work in parallel. But it seems that they anyhow all saw the process as a chain of reviewing groups.

Having these two perspectives in mind all groups relaxed and focused on their perspective. And they were confident that all other groups also did. This group thinking worked miracles with the process. All groups only focused on the really important requirements. Endless discussions about spelling for example were gone.

So, if the process is slow. Maybe you need to add another reviewing group? Creating some focus.





How about the quality of the work? Well, considering the quality of requirements we had to start with we did ok.

Yak shaving

Can happen to anyone. Suddenly you realize you have to shave a yak in order to get your work done. Well, at least it seems to. And of course, you should try to get work done without shaving that yak.

Definitions found at http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/Y/yak-shaving.html and at http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/03/dont_shave_that.html

Thanks taoofit (http://twitter.com/taoofit - Nigel Green) for the yak shaving pointers.

Innovation is like a dishwasher

This is what happens when you decide to make your own cartoon :-)

It was made when Joyce Wycoff, http://thinksmart.typepad.com/, asked for picture and cartoons describing innovation in different ways. I misunderstood the request and made this cartoon.

Quite some time ago now, but still the only cartoon I've drawn that has been published in real, i.e. paper-based, magazine. It was used by Professional Fundraisings article "Innovate or die", June 2007.

Underdogs are stronger

Is it better to have "something" than to have "nothing"?

Have you ever seen a team coming to the game trying to defend their title? They have that title. And they also have to waste energy to defend it. A portion of their energy will be drained by fear of loosing what they have.
And since they are not only trying to win - but also trying to protect and defend what they have - they are less likely to succeed.

The opposite is also true. Having nothing can make you stronger. You have nothing to loose. And can use all focus and energy forward - to win.
(Beware. If you in the game suddenly think you have won already, you will spend time defending something you think you have...)

This is why the underdog is stronger. He has less to defend. And can only win.

So, what we normally think is good - "having something" - can be a bad thing. And what we normally think is bad "having nothing" can be good.

Oversimplified of course. But the patterns are there. In sports and in business. And in love!

If you have a lot of defend it will be harder to be offensive.

Me thinks.

"Avoid loss" or "go for win". Same thing?

A couple of times I have been engaged in discussions where close friends are having personal problems. To me it sometimes seems as they, i.e. my friends, are trying to avoid to loose more than they try to win. A very simplified view of course!

Trying to play safe avoiding to loose and in that process hoping that it will automatically lead to winning. But that is not necessarily what will happen.

When you focus on "avoid loss" you have included a negative component in your process - "loss".

A more direct approach would be to develop a "go for win" strategy. And not include any negative component that has to be avoided.

How about a boxer . Consider the Champ entering the ring. If he chose the strategy "avoid to be knocked out". Will he become a winner? How will he box? Will he be an offensive boxer? Will he be a worried boxer afrid to be knocked out? Will he feel like a winner when boxing? Will he be willing to take a risk, lowering the guard, and hit the other guy?

And the other way around. If we "go for win" instead. Will he fight like a winner from start? Will he take risks?

Simplified again of course. But still valid I think. For the boxer above. But also for all of us dealing with our personal problems and situation. And of course in all business situations.

When discussing with my friends I have used the simple model belows to illustrate the differences between the two strategies.

In the first small model we focus (yellow border) on "avoid loss". And we hope that that will counteract (arrow with a line crossing) the negative loss (red). And in that process we hope that it produces a win. The win is the goal (filled green) but it is only a potential win (dashed border). And as you can see the arrow producing the win is dashed, meaning insufficient.

In the second model we focus on "go for win" and hope that it creates the goal - "win". The win is only potential here too- But in this model we have no negative effects.

And if you like boxing I think you would prefer two boxer selecting the second strategy below...

A quickguide for this notation can be found at http://www.southbeachinc.com/quickguide.html

Butterfly effect

Amazing how things, events, causes and outcomes are connected. Even the smallest beings and smallest action can influence and be part of creating something big.

Even a butterfly in Beijing!

Definition of pessimist?

"I'm not pessimistic. I just don't see any solutions. And I don't think we will find any." (Financial Expert)

The expert was commenting on SAABs future.

Coordinating stealth submarines

Hmm. If we have two stealth submarins on secret missions out there, there is a risk they collide. The reason for having a stealth sub on secret mission is to gain surprise capability and potential.

Unfortuately we need some sort of co-ordination of the missions to avoid the collision. And that co-ordination reduces the surprise potential, since more people know about the missions.

So. What went wrong when a french and english submarine collided? (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/16/british.french.submarine.incident/index.html

Dont push products - "fetch" problems

How come that some "sales people" try to push "products"?

The product is not what the customer need. The customer need to make value - or money. And he needs to deal with the things that is stopping him from doing so.

If we can get the customer to explain his problems, i.e. what is stopping him from making money, we can use our knowledge and skills in a "solutioning process". Hopefully we can create a solution that will remove the problem. So that the customer makes more money. In the solution we can use our products and services.

Do not sell products to the customer. Sell him more money. And to be able to do that you need to make him reveal and expose his problems. And that is maybe the most important task for the "sales people"; make the customer state his problems.

How can we get the customer to reveal the problems? Here is where you have to start to really think! Focus on the "??" in the model below. Instead of your products and services....

Problems are great (and necessary!) fuel!

Definition of creativity

The word creativity can be defined in many ways. One interesting
definition I have seen is:
"creativity; an excuse for sloppiness and lack of organizational discipline"

modelling an octopus

This model created with a tool called Southbeach. Read more at http://www.southbeachinc.com/ Lots of examples, idioms and helpful material available.
Download your own copy and start modelling your problems and opportunities!

This model shows a harmful (red) octopus that uses his (or hers?) eight arms of destruction (reversed creation) on the useful or good (green) fish.