Managing the tricky transition from “idea?” to “idea!”

When Steve Jobs shortlisted the idea of portable music player during an offsite in 2001, the idea had many unknowns. These included questions such as, Who is the customer? Which technology do we use? What business model shall we adopt? Etc. Let’s denote such an idea with the notation “idea?” The question mark at the end indicates that the idea has uncertainty associated with it. Fast forward 3 years and Jobs was in Madison, New York City and he saw people wearing white headphones on every block. That is when he realized that the idea has taken off – it has become “idea!” – an idea without much uncertainty. Every successful innovation goes through this transition from “idea?” to “idea!”. However, many fumble during the transition. Let’s see how in this article.

Tata Nano stands out for the unusual pre-launch publicity it got as an innovation. As it was being launched several success stories were being written. However, the car has done far below expectations so far. In FY 2012-13, 23K Nanos were sold, in the first half of FY 2013-14 10K Nanos were sold as against the nominal factory output of 250K cars per anum (source: Wikipedia). As Nano was being designed and developed, I am sure it was being treated as an “idea?”. However, as it was being launched, was Team Nano  already treating the idea as “Nano!” – sort of “done deal!”. This part is not very clear. At this stage, the business model (Who, What, How) was still untested and hence it should have been treated as “Nano?” and subjected to rigorous testing. Based on the publicly available information, it looks as if that didn’t happen (I could be wrong here).

No matter how successful an idea is, it doesn’t last forever. Hugely successful iPod is no exception. Around a year ago  (Jan 2014), Tim Cook CEO of Apple announced, “All of us have known for some time that iPod is a declining business.” In fact, in 2009, Peter Oppenheimer, then CFO of Apple, mentioned, “We expect our traditional MP3 players to decline over time as we cannibalize ourselves with iPod Touch and the iPhone” So when did the iPod go back from “idea!” (success guaranteed) to “idea?” (future uncertain) state again? Well, it was in the same year in which Steve Jobs had seen iPod on every block in Madison, New York City – 2004. It was in this year that Jobs expressed his concern in an Apple Board meeting, “The device that can eat our lunch is cell phone.” The project that got started eventually led to the creation of iPhone.

That brings us back to the question – Is there anything like “idea!”? Can there ever be a state in the journey of a product where success is guaranteed? I don’t think so. In fact, the euphoria around the market success can be a sure shot sign of some untested assumption being overlooked. The only time an idea enters “idea!” state is while it enters the sunset zone – and the certainty is that of death! Of course, in the case of iPod, even that is uncertain in the near future.

In short, no matter how fantastic your idea is, don't be in a hurry to treat it as an "idea!". Treat it as an "idea?"  and be clear about the key untested assumptions at every stage of its evolution.

source: Steve Jobs comment on the future of iPod that he presented to the board is mentioned in his biography "Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, page 465.

Realizing my biggest addiction – Thinking

I rarely drink or smoke. The last time I had a drink was more than six months ago. Don’t even remember the last smoke. Addiction has not been a problem for me. Or so I believed. Until I heard Eckhart Tolle point out my biggest addiction – Thinking. That was a rude shock. Not only was I not aware of the incessant, involuntary and repetitive thought patterns going rounds in my mind, I considered thinking to be my greatest asset. How did I get convinced about this addiction? And, what have I done about it? Let’s see in brief.

What’s wrong with thinking? Well, thinking per se is not bad. Thinking enables me to help my clients and improve the process of innovation in their organization. Thinking helps me plan and solve problems – individually and collaboratively. However, this useful thinking forms only a portion of the overall thinking that is going on. What is an example of thinking that is not serving a useful purpose? 

Here are a few samples:

• Will my workshop go smoothly tomorrow? (anxiety)
• Will I continue to get new projects this year? (worry)
• Why did I have to say it that way? (guilt)
• Wow, I managed to stay afloat for eight years as an independent consultant (pride)
• I should get the contract (expectation)
• If he had been more involved in the project, we would have done better (blame)

Again, there is nothing wrong with each of these thoughts. In fact, a thought like “Will my workshop go smoothly tomorrow?” may lead to an action that improves the design of the workshop. However, the problem starts when these thoughts start repeating themselves and create a snowball effect. The story in the head becomes a full-fledged movie being played in the repeat mode without any commercial break.

What percentage of my thinking is useful? Well, I don’t have a scientific answer to this question. But Eckhart claims it to be a tiny percentage, say less than 10-20%. However, the fact that I am dissipating a large portion of my energy for non-useful activity is not the main reason I started looking at it closely. The repetitive negative thinking causes psychic pollution. It affects everybody around me. When I bring anxiety home, I am affecting everybody at home. And then it affects the people I send Whatsapp and Facebook messages to. It has a huge multiplier effect.

Which one causes more pollution, my car or negative thinking? Again, I don’t know. But knowing the power of network effect, I won’t be surprised that the psychic pollution beats the car pollution hands down.

OK. So what do I do about it? Well, I am still experimenting. Last year I wrote about the practice of Attention-Alertness-Acceptance, the Vipassana (mindfulness) meditation and catch-me-if-you-can experiment. I hope to continue with this experimentation and see where it leads. No matter what happens, I am enjoying the experimentation.

Sources:

Eckhart talks about thinking as the worst addiction in the popular video: How do we break the habit of excessive thinking?

10-20%: Eckhart says, “Mind is a torture instrument 80% of life” – in the interview “Conversations on compassion” at Stanford by Dr. James Doty (The quote is at: 12:10).

Infinite vision and the questions that shaped Aravind Eye Care system

India is a land of paradoxes. On the one hand, we have sixty people losing sight in an eye camp and thirteen women losing life in a sterilization camp in the last two months. On the other hand, we have Aravind Eye Care system – overlooking 1000+ sight-restoring surgeries every day with world class quality standards, serving poor and rich with compassion, and in a financially self-sustainable way.

The canvass that Aravind covers is so vast that any narrative that tries to present Aravind story will be incomplete. But some are less incomplete than others. “Infinite Vision: How Aravind became the wold’s greatest business case for compassion” by Pavithra Mehta and Suchitra Shenoy is perhaps the least incomplete and lucidly written tale of Aravind, its founder Dr. Venkataswamy and many others who shaped the infinite vision. Here are two things that I found most interesting in the book.

1.      Questions behind the answers: If Aravind is the extraordinary answer, what were Dr. V’s questions? This is the core riddle the book aims to address. Through the personal journal Dr. V kept over the decades, the authors get a peek into the questions. “How to organize and build more hospitals like McDonald’s”. Reads a journal entry from 1980s. Notice that there is no question mark (?) at the end of the sentence, a peculiar characteristic of Dr. V’s writing. It is as though each question contains a seed of the answer. Another entry reads - “How was Buddha able to organize in those days a religion that millions follow. Who were the leaders. How were they shaped.” At Frankfort airport Dr. V watched a plane land and the process that followed and said to his friend, “This is how we should run our operating theatre.” In 1978, Dr. V visited 40,000 square-foot training facility at University of Michigan School of Medicine. After seeing the training centre, he mentioned to Dr. Suzanne Gilbert, “One day, I would like to have a centre like this one.” She was baffled by this remark of the Indian doctor who at that time ran an 11-bed eye clinic.

2.      Light behind the spirit: Dr. V was deeply influenced by the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. The spiritual quest got translated into questions like – How do I become a perfect instrument? (1980 journal entry). The book beautifully weaves the thread of Dr. V’s spiritual journey towards becoming a perfect instrument in the narrative. However, a question arises - What did it mean on a day-to-day basis to Dr. V? Following excerpt from a journal entry gives a glimpse:

You feel drawn to a patient because he’s from your village, known to you, and then you try to do your best for him. But at times, a patient is aggressive and demands some privileges. He says, “Could you see me first?” This upsets you, and with that feeling of annoyance you treat him. You are not able to disassociate him from his mental or emotional aggressiveness. … To do this [treat him well] you must bring into your own being silence, calmness, and quietude. It needs enormous practice to realize the experience of silence in you.

“This man’s spirituality wasn’t incidental to the story. It was what everything else hinged on,” says Prof. V. Kasturi Rangan of Harvard Business School who wrote the case on Aravind that became popular world over.

Personally, “Can spirituality be integrated in organizations?” is a question I have carried with me for some time now. The book gives a ray of hope. Kudos to Pavithra and Suchitra for bringing out such a wonderful story. Hope it reaches out to more people.

I would like to thank Mr. Thulsi for giving a copy of the book to me. He is playing a key role at Aravind in shaping the “Infinite vision” and inspiring many.

Book image source: flipkart.com. 

How to build curiosity stamina?

Stefan Hawking, the famous Physicist, in his first Facebook update in October said, “Be curious. I know I will always be.” That’s not very different from what Einstein said, “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.” Most of us may not be passionately curious about anything. Is there a way one can build curiosity stamina systematically? Let’s explore it in this article.

Many times we confuse curiosity stamina with what kids demonstrate. They keep asking “Why?” questions one after the other. That is a useful start. However, that is not an indicator of curiosity stamina. Jamsetji Tata took a soil sample near Nagpur for testing in 1882. He wanted to check if the soil is right for steel production. The result was negative. He continued to perform such tests whenever a soil showed promise and kept a journal to keep track of the results. For how long? 17 years! That’s curiosity stamina. It is remaining curious around a single question or a topic for sufficiently long time. Not jumping from one question to another question from moment-to-moment. Ask yourself – how long do I remain curious around one topic? For most of us, the topic is over once a quick-fix is given.

Here are a few more examples of people demonstrating curiosity stamina:

·        Andrew Wiles: Remained curious about Fermat’s Last Theorem for more than two decades before committing to the problem for another decade. (See the story).

·        Rahul Bhatia: Remained curious about starting an airline in India for more than two decades before starting Indigo. He and his friend Rakesh Gangwal first discussed the possibility in 1985.

Is it possible to build curiosity stamina systematically? Here are a few tips:

Start a curiosity diary: One way to get started is to maintain a curiosity diary. That is what I do. It contains links to articles or newspaper cuttings which have aroused my curiosity. For example, see the clipping of the Rahul Bhatia article and highlighting of the part that made me curious. Most of the themes will be forgotten over time. Some themes will recur mostly because they resonate deeply within. They are good candidates to pursue further.

Identify the core challenge: Frame the challenge differently. For example, see “5 ways of framing a challenge”. Ask, “Why is the problem not solved yet?” See how others have tackled the challenge. Ask, “Can I make progress here?” Andrew Wiles was suggested not to work on the Fermat’s Last Theorem for his PhD because he was told, “You could spend years getting nowhere”. It is only after a new mathematical result was published in 1986 which suddenly created new hope for proving Fermat’s Last Theorem. The new result had created a linkage between Fermat’s Last Theorem and an area in which Andrew was already a known expert (called elliptical curves). It meant chances of progress were now higher.

Perform low-cost experiments: Prototyping is a great way to get to know an area. It tells you whether some aspect of an idea works and it also demonstrates whether you have the skills to make progress. It allows you to get quick feedback. You may want to try what others have already tried, just to make sure it doesn't work. Don’t forget to re-frame the challenge as you learn new things.

Look for collaborators: Many times things don’t work out the way we would have imagined. Pressure from your day-job mounts and you really feel drained. Where do you get your energy from? In such situations, it helps to have a buddy who shares your passion. It is not easy to find one. However, you increase your chances of finding one if you socialize your idea. Write a blog / paper, join a community / forum and share your thoughts / challenge / ideas. You never know from where your collaborator may come from.

These are a few things I do to keep my curiosity alive. Perhaps you may have your own ways. Please feel free to share your thoughts.

4 reasons why innovation programs in India flounder

Over the past five years, I have been fortunate to have witnessed several dozen innovation programs. I have seen the journey of some innovation programs over 3 to 5 years. In this article, I would like to present 4 reasons why I believe innovation programs in India flounder.

Before I present the reasons, let me share the point in the journey where the programs struggle. Here is a simple and useful 5-level maturity framework that I have used to map various programs.

Most of the programs struggle around level-3. The parameters where the difficulty starts are typically: participation (difficult to sustain at 30%), review process (maintain the rigor and rhythm), prototyping (ideas don’t move) etc.

The four reasons why the programs struggle are: (1) Poor program management (2) Lack of emphasis on experimentation (3) Lack of rigor and rhythm in innovation reviews and (4) No champions. Let’s look at each one briefly.

1.      Poor program management: Any serious program needs a person or at least a function that holds the roadmap. Innovation program is not a one quarter project. It runs over multiple years. You need people who are constantly watching what is working and what is not working, trying to remove the hurdles which are holding things back, deciding quarterly targets, publishing a dashboard, holding events, running campaigns etc. If you tell someone that management of innovation program is 5% of his KRA, chances are high things will not move. Most innovation programs need a full-time or at least a half-time program manager.

2.      Lack of emphasis on experimentation: Ideas by themselves are of little use. You need people to build prototypes and validate some of the assumptions behind the ideas. Many organizations don’t acknowledge experimentation as a legitimate activity. Hence ideas don’t move forward.  Some organizations (e.g. Ericsson) offer sponsorship in the form an experiment week to good ideas. In some places, it is considered acceptable to spend part of your work time (say 15-20%) in experimentation (e.g. Google, 3M). Some places organize events such as hackathon or prototyping workshops where ideas take shape.

3.      Lack of rigor and rhythm in innovation review: Small ideas can get implemented at team level. However, big ideas need attention, review and investment from business leaders. Moreover, funded ideas need to be reviewed regularly to see if they are stuck somewhere or need to be dropped etc. Many times innovation reviews are not given a priority. They get postponed due to priority scheduling of other meetings. Many times the reviews are too lenient. No criterion is used to kill unviable projects. Sooner or later they run out of oxygen. That creates a lot of bitterness. It is much better to systematically kill non-working ideas so that more fresh ideas can be funded.

4.      No champions: I strongly believe in the saying - An idea either finds a champion or dies. A champion commits to a challenge long term and puts his weight behind it. An idea may get stuck due to lack of resources, lack of connections to right people or a narrow vision. A champion pitches in any or all of these areas. This is what George Fernandez did for Konkan railway, what Einstein did for Satyendranath Bose and what Mike Markkula did for Apple. If your organization doesn’t have any champions, then it is going to be difficult for big ideas to move beyond prototyping stage. You should be asking your senior managers, “Which idea are you championing?”

“Thought as a system” by David Bohm: A book review

David Bohm’s “Thought as a system” begins with a bombshell. He says, “What is the source of all this trouble (that humanity is facing – war, corruption, conflicts etc.)? I’m saying that the source is basically in thought. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems is the source of our problems.” It feels as though Bohm is pulling the rug under our feet. What is wrong with the thought?

Imagine you cross your boss in the office corridor and you see that he is looking particularly unhappy and avoiding eye contact. Then you recollect that he would have seen your email that your teams’ delivery will slip this time as well. Now, it is clear to you that he is really going to take some action this time. You go to your seat and immediately start browsing job market sites. Soon you are convinced that boss is going to fire you. You start sending mails to your close friends looking for help in finding a job. You are not able to focus on your work and you come home worried. A couple of days pass in this state. And then you get a mail from boss for a one-on-one meeting. Boss says, “Why are you looking so tense these days? I strongly suggest you should take some time off. And don’t worry about the slippage. I know how the customer requirements changed last minute. You have done a good job in making sure the schedule doesn’t go out of hand.” And you say to yourself, “Oh! My boss is really not mad at me. I suffered unnecessarily past few days.”

This is an extrapolated version of a short story Bohm narrates in the book. It highlights the role thought plays in altering our perception. The thought “My boss is mad at me” muddles up our perception and we start seeing the world as if it is real. Our actions of browsing job sites, sending resume, not focusing on work result from that. When we persist with incorrect perception in spite of contrary evidence, Bohm calls it “sustained incoherence”. Thought doesn’t know it is doing something and then it struggles against the problem it is producing. In this case, thought doesn’t know that it has imagined that boss is about to fire me and it is struggling to overcome the “firing” problem. Taken to extreme, my behaviour at work might be affected so much that boss might eventually fire me confirming my belief.

Sustained incoherence may result into “seeing” every person from a particular nation or religion or community as a “bad person”. In its milder form, this might result into shouting at your daughter or student. In its amplified form, it may lead to mass killings. A thought such as “I am the greatest” may lead to building a twenty seven storied house for a family of five. More importantly, thought is responsible for significant portion of our suffering in our day-to-day life and incorrect action that flows from it. Bottom line is – thought affects our perception and we don’t even know it.

Why don’t we see that the perception is muddled up by a thought and doesn’t hold real ground? Well, thought is built to resist everything that weakens its role. Thought operates very similar to how a knee-jerk happens. You hit the bone and knee jerks automatically, reflexively. Similarly, you see boss’ frowned face and like a reflex a thought pops up saying he is mad at me. Thought is a system of reflexes all ready to be fired at the press of a button. And what presses the button? Well, it could be a word, an image, an emotion, another thought etc. A thought such as “I am the greatest” or “I am useless” can create a chain reaction that can last a lifetime. The reflexes are continuously being adapted by new thoughts and being strengthened by repetitive thought patterns. Thought as a system of reflexes is constantly creating a huge amount electrochemical smog in which we live and suffer.

What do we do then? Here is how Bohm offers hope. He points out to a bright spot we already possess i.e. our ability to see the relationship between our intention and the movement of our body parts.  It is called proprioception. Proprioception makes us aware that it is my intention that is moving my hand.  On the other hand, the car passing by on the road is not being moved by my intention. Good pianists, dancers, gymnasts have highly developed proprioception at least for some of the body parts. What happens when we lose proprioception? Bohm tells the story of a proprioception impaired woman who got up in the middle of a night screaming and hitting herself. Only when the light was turned on she realized her mistake. It was her own hand that had touched her and she thought it was someone else. Thus proprioception plays a crucial role in our daily movements.

Bohm feels that thought is a close cousin of our body parts. Hence, we should be able to see its movement just like we see the movement of our hand and feet and its relationship to our intent. And we should be able to see how the story the thought is spinning is muddling up our perception. Most of us have lost our ability to see the movement of thought just like the woman who has lost it for the entire body. Can we build the ability of proprioception of thought? If so, how?

Bohm suggests we make a note of “boss is mad at me” kind of repetitive stories that lead to our suffering and identify the buttons which get them started. A button could be a word or an image (say of an ice-cream or french fries) or a thought. In an earlier article I had mentioned one of my buttons – someone cutting the line in which I am waiting for my turn. First thing is to observe how the button press and story spinning happen like a knee-jerk – automatic and reflexive. The next thing is to invoke the word that presses the button voluntarily and see its mechanical reflexive nature starting from your own intent. This helps us drop those stories which are not getting validated e.g. “boss is mad at me and will fire me”. This weakens the reflexes. Eventually, it may reduce the interference of thought substantially leading to a more coherent perception and more meaningful living.

“Thought as a system” is my third David Bohm and it was published in 1992 the year Bohm died. I read "Wholeness & the implicate order" in 1997 and "Science, order & creativity" a couple of years back. “Thought as a system” is clearly my most favourite among the three. It is an edited transcript of a seminar Bohm conducted in 1990 in Ojai, California. It is not a light reading and is in the form of a dialogue. I have a special liking for a dialogue / interview narrative as compared to a single person narrative. Hence, I was able to appreciate it even more. I am thankful to my dad and his friend Harshad Shah for suggesting and making it available to me.

Bohm talks about the worst thing a reader can do with a book like this. He tries to understand the concepts with thought and says, “I got it.” That’s where you lose the game. The concepts get incorporated into the system of reflexes and that adds further fuel to the electrochemical smog producing engine. In Bohm’s words, “Thought can deceive us about anything and everything. There is no limit to its power of deception.” Watch out for the thought-trap if you read the book and even if you don't read the book.

Related articles:

“The limitations of thought” - David Bohm explains the basic concepts in the book in this interview by Michael Mendizza done in 1978.

Video coverage of some of the sessions in the 1990 Ojai seminar on which this book is based are available on 

YouTube. Check out Friday evening session and Saturday morning session.

"The Matrix as a system vs thought as a system", compares "The Matrix" from the movie to thought, Jul, 2015

I am thankful to my dad Padmakar & my wife Gauri for giving inputs on the first draft of this article.

Image source: seekaftertruth.com

9 ways of losing oneself in egoic thought patterns

In an earlier article, I presented the three practices from Eckhart Tolle’s teaching that I find useful – Attention, Alertness and Acceptance. The second practice, Alertness, involves catching oneself losing in an egoic thought pattern. The question is: what kind of behaviour is indicative of egoic thinking? Here is an excerpt from Eckhart Tolle’s book “A New Earth: Awakening to your life’s purpose” in which he articulates 9 ways of losing ourselves in egoic thought pattern. (page 254):

---Start of excerpt---

Here are some ways in which people unconsciously try to emphasize their form-identity. If you are alert enough, you may be able to detect some of these unconscious patterns within yourself (Note: the book doesn’t have the numbering. But the wording is Eckhart’s):

1.      Demanding recognition for something you did and getting angry if you don’t get it

2.      Trying to get attention by talking about your problems, story of your illnesses, or making a scene

3.      Giving your opinion when nobody has asked for it and it makes no difference to the situation

4.      Being more concerned with how the other person sees you than with the other person, which is to say, using other people for egoic reflection or as ego enhancers

5.      Trying to make an impression on others through possessions, knowledge, good looks, status, physical strength, and so on.

6.      Bringing about temporary ego inflation through angry reaction against something or someone

7.      Taking things personally, feeling offended

8.      Making yourself right and others wrong through futile mental or verbal complaining

9.      Wanting to be seen, or to appear important

---End of excerpt---

This list helps me as I play "catch me if you can" game from time to time. Perhaps you might find it helpful. I found it useful to focus on one or two patterns which are dominant in those days. For example, I have played with no 3 (giving opinion when nobody has asked for it), no 5 (trying to make an impression through knowledge). As a trainer I become alert on "creating an impression" part. It appears as though "creating an impression" is necessary to have an impactful training. No 7 (taking things personally) is a slippery area too. Sometimes I just smoothly slide into it especially during the conversation with my wife. No 8 (I am right, others wrong) provides ample of opportunity for doing the experiment.

What happens when you catch yourself in an egoic thought pattern? You create a momentary gap in egoic thinking. How long is this gap? I don’t know. Perhaps the gap is tiny – less than a second. In fact, I don’t have any control over the duration of the gap. Hence, Eckhart suggests that one should try to catch oneself in the egoic thought pattern as often as possible.

Image source: goodreads.com