Tue 17 Feb 2009
After reading Jeremy’s blog on the book Don’t Make Me Think I started thinking. That’s part of my job – to think about a subset of problems that plague a subset of individuals so they don’t have to. I haven’t read the book yet but I plan to pick it up at some point. My conjecture is mostly in addressing the “boring makes people comfortable” part of Jeremy’s though I am in no way debating any of his conclusions. I’ve often argued that boring can be a good thing because “thing’s don’t become useful until they are no longer exciting”. Not being someone who views the world in black and white I have also argued the opposite (all be it pretty sarcastically). Both view points are valid as you really need to strike a balance between familiar and new in order to have a successful project. So as I was thinking about all of this I wanted to come up with some talking points for thinking about where that balance is.
What if everything was possible what would the world look like?
Here we define any possibility as being a world with no rules, no systems, no constraints. I know, it is pretty much a kōan because it “contains aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding”. If rules, systems and constraints are not possible in a world where everything is possible how can everything be possible? But if rules, systems and constraints do exist in this hypothetical world, don’t they work to restrict possibilities to a predictable path thereby deliberately making some things impossible?
Thankfully we do live in a world governed by rules we call natural laws, which actually brought about the possibility of life as we know it. Technology is pretty much built on top of these rules and constraints. We harness these systems of rules to obtain predictable results within some threshold of error. That is exactly what projects are, putting together rules in new combinations to obtain a desired result. We can choose to use the same rules people have found in the past to obtain the desired results or we can test new combinations in an attempt to find a more efficient path. Both have their advantages and disadvantages so the choice must be made per project based on cost/benefit and risk analysis.
Scoping Constraints as a Creative Catalyst
I keep coming back to this PBS special on a New Hampshire photo artist who’s life’s work consisted of black and white photos of body parts sticking out of still water. The pictures of a hand and forearm, breaking the surface of a pond with the mirror reflection almost an exact duplicate were both simple and breathtaking. I can’t quite remember the guy’s name but the essence of something he said I can’t forget. What he basically said was by restricting his medium he was able to challenge himself to be creative. Not any black and white photo of water and a hand would be art worthy – he had to really figure out what path would work within the rules he had set for himself. He may have never found it if his rule set was too complex because in the expanded set of possibilities that comes with a more complex rule set comes more combinations that just won’t work. (BTW If anyone knows who I am referring to, let me know. I feel bad referring to him but I can’t remember his name)
Mutation as a Cure to Stagnation
That is not to say your rule set can’t be large, just that having constraints helps move a project along and helps focus on the final goal by having ready to find answers to those little roadblocks that projects run into. Also if the constraints are shared among projects it means those projects can easily share ideas and complement each other. However too ridged constraints can lead to stagnation. Sure users may feel comfortable with them now but will they find the constraints limiting a year from now. Will something that uses new constraints or slightly tweaks the current constraints be perceived as so much better that the cost of a brief period of unease is worth the switch? Will a new batch of users be available with no preconceived notions of how an outcome should be accomplished?
Progress can be defined as “gradual betterment”. In the natural world that often happens via mutations. The ones that don’t work out die out pretty quickly but the ones that can survive and flourish stick around. Mutations are a risky venture but without them there is no progress. For projects, gradual mutation, or in Jeremy’s words, iteration is a must. This doesn’t mean that innovation has to move at a snails pace. In fact projects can often jump start the iteration process by iterating over other projects, even bringing in the ideas of multiple projects under one umbrella. The threat comes when the goal itself is innovation and not solving an actual need; where the rules and constraints of a project are defined and redefined at every step.
Where’s the Balance?
The glib answer is, where it would make a project the most successful. Each project needs to figure out where that point is for them. Stick to the well worn path and risk obsolescence or blaze your own path and risk uselessness. Most projects stick to somewhere in between where the rewards are much more balanced with the risk.
