Killing an idea: The good, the bad and the ugly way

If you are serious about innovation, then killing an idea should be normal. And even if you feel, you don’t kill ideas, chances are high ideas are getting killed anyway by not allocating resources to them. So the action need not be that of commission (pulling the trigger) but could very well be that of omission (not supplying enough oxygen). Hence people serious about innovation activity don’t debate whether we should kill ideas or not. The real question is, “What is a good way to kill ideas?” In this article let’s look at the good, the bad and the ugly way to kill an idea.

The ugly: Alan Robinson and Dean Shroeder narrate this story of a lieutenant colonel in their book “Ideas are free”. In the mid 1960s, as the Vietnam War was intensifying, the lieutenant colonel put an idea into one of Pentagon’s suggestion box. His office produced a constant stream of reports for senior officers, all with the fame format – an executive summary, a table of contents, and a thick divider sheets with protruding alphabetically ordered tables to identify the various sections. The divider sheets came in standard packets of twenty six, one for each letter of the alphabet. Most reports had only 5 or 6 sections and hence only 5 or 6 dividers in each packet were used. Lieutenant colonel suggested that if one report used sections A through F, begin the next report with section G. He thought his idea would save the office several thousands of dollars every year. One day he was summoned to the office of his commanding officer.

“Is this yours?” the general asked.

“Yes, sir”

“Eat it”, the general said.

“Excuse me, sir?”

“Eat it. Now!” the general ordered. The lieutenant colonel stepped forward, took the paper from his superior, put it in his mouth, chewed it up and swallowed it. He was abruptly dismissed and nothing was ever said about it. Decades later, after that lieutenant colonel retired as army’s top generals, he still remembered the incident.

The bad: Dan Ariely is a professor of behavioural economics at Duke University and also at MIT and known more for his best-selling book “Predictably Irrational”. He narrates following incident during an interview at PurpleCar in July this year: Dan met with a group of 80 people around May-Jun 2010 from this big big software company based in Seattle. This group had been working in an incubator on some new ideas. They came up with this idea that they thought would revolutionize the computer industry. They met with the CEO a week before Dan met them and CEO told them that he’s burying the project. They had worked on it for two years and Dan felt he had never seen a more deflated group of 80 people in his life. It was bad way to just bluntly telling people that their idea is killed. The CEO did better than the army general but could do much better. How?

The good: Dan did something interesting. He asked the group, “What would you do if you were to kill a project and not deflate the project team?” Lots of ideas came up. What if the CEO allowed them to present their work? Not just the product but the thought process and ideology around it etc. and then say, “Look we have decided to cancel it but there is lots to learn from it.” Or let the team share working prototypes with people in the company and see what they feel about it (something similar actually happened with Google’s AdSense)

Perhaps Bill Packard of Hewlett-Packard (HP) understood some of this several decades ago. This is how David Hewlett recalls Bill’s “hat-wearing process” in “The HP Way”. Upon first being approached by a creative inventor with enthusiasm for a new idea, Bill immediately put on a hat called “enthusiasm”. He would listen, express excitement where appropriate and appreciation in general, while asking a few general and not too pointed questions. A few days later he would get back to inventor wearing “inquisitor” hat. This was a time for very pointed questions, a thorough probing of the idea, lots of give-and-take. Without a final decision, the session would be adjourned. Shortly thereafter, Bill would put on his “decision” hat and meet once again with the inventor and with appropriate logic and sensitivity, judgment was rendered. No wonder many HP folks remembered the method with admiration.

Searching the source of "low-cost car" idea in India

“Don’t go looking for the source of a river” goes a saying in my mother tongue – Marathi. A BBC documentary does exactly that as it traces the source of river Ganges from Gangotri to Gomukh to a trickle up the snow peaked mountains. As the documentary shows the real source is usually far more obscure and mostly impossible to find. Perhaps the same principle is applicable to ideas. The closer you look at an idea, you start seeing some other idea(s) which was a source for this idea. In this article, I will try to do to the idea of “low-cost car in India” what BBC did to river Ganges.

Today low-cost car in India is synonymous with Tata Nano. From mid 80s to 90s, it was Maruti 800. In fact, Maruti 800 was used as a reference while designing Nano. Where did Maruti idea come from? R. C. Bhargava, Chairman of Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL), tells the history of the car in his book “The Maruti story”. It is the first detailed biography of a product developed for Indian market that I have come across. Where did Maruti idea come from? It leads us to a different Maruti.

In November 1970, the Cabinet decided to manufacture a small car in public sector and discussions were held with foreign car makers, including Renault, Ford and Nissan. However, the estimate of Rs. 57 crore as initial investment turned out to be too much for the time. Instead private entrepreneurs wanting to manufacture a low-cost car were talked to. Eleven letters of intent were issued, one of those receiving the LoI was Sanjay Gandhi. Out of the 11 LoI, only three were converted into industrial licenses. Apart from Sanjay Gandhi, the other two went to Manubhai Thakkar of Vadodara and Sunrise Auto Industries of Bangalore, perhaps non-serious players by design.

Ever since his return from Britain, Sanjay had been obsessed with the idea of making a small car. He along with Captain Tillu an instructor at Delhi Flying Club, set up a workshop in 1966 in Gulabi Bagh, a congested locality in north Delhi. The workshop had minimal equipment and two mechanics. Maruti Motors Limited (a private company) was registered in 4 June 1971. Later Sanjay acquired 297 acres of land for Maruti in Gurgaon for Rs. 35 lakh. A prototype of the car was demonstrated at the India International Trade Fair in 1972. Another prototype was sent for testing to the vehicle research department of defence ministry, which gave it the certificate of roadworthiness. The car was test driven in Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Sevety-three dealers were appointed and each had to pay a deposit. Commercial production never started.

It was an impossible proposition considering the need to manufacture and procure all the required components, including gearbox and engine, locally. Two things shifted the priorities away from the project: First, the national emergency which came into force in June 1975 and subsequently Janata Party came to power in Jan 1977. And second, the aircraft crash on 23 June 1980 that killed Sanjay Gandhi. Sanjay's unfinished dream acted as an emotional force for Indira Gandhi to push government to start a small car project called Maruti Udyog Limited incorporated on 24 Feb 1981. Was Sanjay's Maruti Motors the first low-cost car project in India?

In late 1950s government formed an Ad Hoc committee on the Automobile Industry under economist L. K. Jha to look into the possibility of manufacturing a low-cost passenger car. It was meant to cater to those whose monthly salary with below Rs. 1,000. The committee, dubbed the Cheap Car Committee, studied different models and collaborators and submitted a report in 1960 laying out the criteria that should decide the model. The committee received 24 proposals from various firms including Hindustan Aeronautics, Renault, Hindustan Motors, Premier Automobiles, Telco (now Tata Motors). However, the tenure of the committee was over before it could take any action.

Does it really matter where the source of an idea is? What matters a lot more is how much impact the idea eventually makes, just like river Ganges.

Electronic Voting Machine: An innovation from Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL)

Imagine you are designing a product that will be used by several hundred million users within a matter of a few days. What do you think would be your topmost requirement? Usability? Reliability? For Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) designed by Bharart Electronics Limited (BEL), it was “security”. In a country where the election story is never complete without rigging and booth capturing, this is not surprising. Last Wednesday we got an opportunity to listen to the EVM story from Mr. I V Sarma, Director R&D, BEL at the Innovation forum meeting held at IIMB. EVM was first introduced in a Goa state election and rolled out nationally in 2004 General Election.

Security was implemented in EVM at three levels: Technical level (tamper-proof hardware and software design), operational level (security during voting process) and procedural level (throughout the deployment process). For example, the selection of EVMs for polling stations is a random process. Moreover, the machine has no operating system, no network and no external devices connected to it. Imagine a BEL product manager telling this with pride to a Nokia product manager! In spite of this, there were several court cases filed against EVM and it hasn’t lost any yet. For a detailed analysis on security of EVM and its possible loopholes, look at a recent study, “Security analysis of India’s Electronic Voting Machine” by Prasad et. al. presented at the 17^th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCCS’10) this month.

Apart from security, what were the other challenges in developing EVM? Sarma mentioned two more:

• Simplicity: EVM had to be used for diverse and many illiterate people. Ease of use was important. Hence, the design is kept as close to the ballot paper as possible. Similarly the operating mechanism is similar to the old style. A polling officer presses a button which releases a vote and then the voter presses a button.

• Reliability: It had to work in adverse weather conditions sometimes without electricity and should be light-weight. In fact, in the last general election the kit had to be carried on a 45km trek to reach a remote destination in J&K valley.

The idea of EVM originated within BEL to automate an internal election. And then Election Commission picked it up. Guess what was the first hurdle it hit? Indian constitution didn’t permit electronic voting. So a bill had to be passed in the parliament!

What kinds of enhancements are planned to EVM? One problem with the current device is that the voter does not have any way of knowing that the vote has been cast. The new version of EVM will have a small paper strip (2 inch x 2 inch) that will fall off giving a visual cue to the voter. EVM is currently being exported to Nepal, Bhutan and Namibia. Patents are filed both inside and outside the country to protect the IPR.

So what is in the next big innovation coming from BEL? One is weapon locating radar and the other is software defined radio.

What legends learn from gambling: Warren Buffett & the Rules of the Racetrack

I don’t gamble. At least that is what I would have liked to believe. “Nice people don’t gamble” is what I was told in school and at home. But when I look back on various decisions I took – like my investment in Satyam stock or leaving the job to become self-employed – each looked no different from a gamble. What differed were the odds and the stakes. Now I no longer look at gambling as – stuff that only other people do. It is something we do all the time whether we know it or not. What do people learn from real gambling? Here is an interesting tale from the chapter titled “The rules of the racetrack” in Warren Buffett’s biography “Snowball” written by Alice Shroeder.

“Pop, there is just one thing I want. I want you to ask the Library of Congress for every book they have on horse handicapping.” This is what Warren told his dad Howard who was at that time a Congressman living in Washington D. C. Howard cribbed, “Well, don’t you think they’re going to think it’s a little strange if the first thing a new Congressman asks for is all the books on horse handicapping?” Sixteen year old Warren persisted (1946) and got several books from the library. He studied them all and created his models. Tested them on old data he found in old racing forms in North Clark Street in Chicago. Through this process Warren discovered The Rules of the Racetrack:

1. Nobody ever goes home after the first race.
2. You don’t have to make it back the way you lost it.

The racetrack counts on people to keep betting until they lose. Couldn’t a good handicapper turn these rules around and win? Warren was to discover the answer first hand soon.

Warren found a new friend to go to racetrack with, Bob Dwyer, his high school golf coach. Together they started going to the racetrack in Charleston, West Virginia. Dwyer taught Warren advanced skills in reading the most important tip sheet, the Daily Racing Form. Warren recalls, “Sometimes you would find a horse where the odds were way, way off from the actual probability. You figure the horse has a ten percent chance of winning but it’s going off at fifteen to one.”

Then one time, Warren went to Charleston by himself. And he lost in the first race. But he didn’t go home. He kept on betting and he kept on losing, until he had lost more than $175 and his pockets were stripped nearly bare. This is what Warren recalls:

“I came back. I went to the Hot Shoppe, and I treated myself to the biggest thing they offered – a giant fudge sundae or something – and there went all the rest of my money. While I ate, I figured out how many newspapers I had to deliver to make up what I had lost (Note: Warren used to deliver Washington Post in the morning). I was going to have to work more than a week to make back the money. And I’d done it for dumb reasons.

You are not supposed to bet every race. I’d committed the worst sin, which is that you get behind and you think you’ve got to break even that day. [That is when I really learned] The first rule is that nobody goes home after the first race, and the second rule is that you don’t have to make it back the same way you lost it. That is so fundamental, you know. It was the last time I ever did anything like that.”

It is time we give some respect to bookies. By the way, which school do they go to?

S. Chandrasekhar and his attempts to get away from Astrophysics

I went back to Nobel Laureate S. Chandrasekhar’s biography a few months back after 17 years. Chandra written by Kameshwar Wali was a birthday gift I gave to my wife a few months after she joined me in Buffalo, New York after our wedding. If you have given books as gifts to folks at home, you must be aware of the hidden agenda. I don’t remember who started reading the book first, but I was definitely the first one to finish it. It was the first biography I read where the hero of the story co-operated with the author in a frank manner and the author has done a splendid job with the narration. Why did I go back the book now?

I had a specific objective – to re-read the story of “Chandrasekhar Limit” – the idea that languished for several decades before gaining acceptance by the scientific community eventually leading to a Nobel. It is a masala story with lots of twists and turns. It even has a villain, Prof. Eddington then doyan of Astrophysics, who launched a campaign to kill Chandra’s idea. But that would be a topic of a separate article. In this second reading of the book one of things that struck me was Chandra’s two serious attempts in getting away from Astrophysics. Why did Chandra try to do that? And what happened in each attempt? Let’s see briefly in this article.

Chandra’s career in Astrophysics was more of an accident. By the time Chandra landed in Cambridge he had already published a paper based on the work of Fowler, a Fellow of the Royal Society. Chandra had encountered Fowler’s paper while browsing the newly arrived journals in university library in Madras. In fact, Fowler helped him secure admission at Cambridge. So it was natural for him to start his PhD work under Fowler in Astrophysics.

1930s were hey days of theoretical Physics as a totally new foundation known as quantum mechanics was being built. Chandra soon realized that working in Astrophysics was more like being on the periphery. The real action was in pure Physics. In the meantime, Fowler left Cambridge on sabbatical and Dirac who had nothing to do with Astrophysics became Chandra’s official guide. Chandra consulted Dirac who advised him to visit Niels Bohr and co in Copenhagen. Folks at Copenhagen indeed turned out to friendlier and it is here Chandra made his first serious attempt at pure physics. He wrote a paper titled “On the statistics of Similar Particles” and sent it to Dirac in Cambridge. Bohr had already given his nod. But pretty soon Dirac found an error in his paper. “My paper sent to the Proceedings of the Royal Society is WRONG. That is all” Chandra wrote to his father in Nov 1932. Over four months of work was down the drain. Pressure started building up to submit a thesis. Chandra went back to Astrophysics.

Chandra’s second attempt at quitting Astrophysics happened just after he finished PhD in 1933 and was elected to trinity fellowship. Could this be the time to shift to pure Physics or pure Mathematics? The dilemma ended soon when he got an advice from a senior Fellow Harold Davenport, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Why don’t you continue in astrophysics? You got the fellowship on that account. There is enough time to do mathematics later.”

Fortunately for Astrophysics, Chandra not only stayed with it but made a significant contribution in bringing Astrophysics part of main stream physics. Today 10% of the 12^th standard Physics syllabus my wife teaches is Astrophysics. Incidentally, we will be hearing a lot more of Chandra in the coming months as this year is Chandra’s birth centenary year. In fact, Kameshwar Wali will be giving a talk at a conference on Chandra at Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Koramangala, Bangalore in December. I hope to attend it.

My most favorite YouTube video and the marvels & the flaws of intuition

Chances are high your most favorite YouTube video is very different from mine in its form and content. Mine is neither a funny clip nor a music video although I enjoy watching both kinds of clips. But here is what is perhaps common between your favorite video and mine. Like you, I have watched it a dozen times so far. But more importantly I have listened to the audio extract of the video several dozen times by now. I listened to it in the gym a couple of days back and I listened to it before going to bed last night. It is titled “Explorations of the mind” and it is an hour-long lecture given at University of California, Berkley by the father of behavioral economics and Nobel Laureate Prof. Daniel Kahneman of Princeton. Who is Kahneman? And what is this video all about? And why do I like it so much? Let me briefly describe in this article.

Kahneman was born in 1934 (same age as my dad) to Jewish parents of Lithuanian origin and spent his childhood in France where his parents had migrated in 1920s. He says in his bio at the Nobel Prize site, “I had grown up intellectually precocious and physically inept”. His school PE teacher felt to pass him means to stretch his extreme tolerance. Kahneman made up for what he lacked in his physique by writing essays in a notebook like, “What I write of what I think”. Kahneman became a psychologist and together with Emos Tversky formulated a theory known as Prospect Theory. This theory turned upside-down a long standing belief among economists that human decision making is a rational process and eventually earned him a Nobel in 2002.

This video is titled “Explorations of the mind: Intuition: the marvels and the flaws”. The video can be divided into three parts. Part 1 is where the speaker is introduced (0-4:20). In part 2 Kahneman sets the context and defines the question he is planning to address for the rest of the talk (4:20-20:10). Part 3 (20:10-55:05) is where he presents a simple and useful model that addresses the question.

What is the question Kahneman addresses in this talk? It is as follows – On the one hand we encounter marvels of intuition when we see world class chess players, basketball players, fire fighters consistently making accurate decisions in a “blink” of an eye (check out Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink for stories on this). On the other hand, we have “experts” like the Chief Economists of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Olivier Blanchard who on September 2, 2008 said, “If the price of oil stabilizes, I believe we can weather the financial crisis at limited cost in terms of real activity”. Within two weeks some of the biggest financial companies in the world collapsed (check out Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan for stories of these kinds). Why is it that the human intuition works beautifully in certain areas like sports and doesn’t work in some other areas like long term forecasting?

Why do I find this question so interesting? I have a deep-rooted fascination for the learning process. And I believe this question is at the heart of this process. I encounter people all the time who have spent decades managing projects but have stopped learning a while ago. Surprisingly, they believe that with every passing year, they are learning more. But actually they are not. The talk sheds light on what happens when we learn or stop learning.

Vinay Deolalikars proof of P=NP and the power of "web-test"

There are several ways of making a million dollars. One way suggested by Warren Buffett is to start with a billion dollars and invest them in an airline company. Unfortunately, for most of us this is not a practical way. There is another way which surprisingly needs no investment. Well, it needs a pencil and a paper which you can borrow from your friend. And of course, it needs your time which you can steal from your employer like Einstein did at Swiss Patent Office. Or better still, like Srinivas Ramanujam, you can make your dreams work for you. But here is the catch – you should be able to solve one of the six open problems in mathematics called the “Millennium Problems” defined by the Clay Mathematics Institute. The original list contained seven problems but one was solved by Grigory Perelman of Moscow in 2002. Three weeks back, on August 8, an HP researcher Vinay Deolalikar put up a draft of a proof sketch for one of the six Millennium Problems called “P=NP” on the Internet. Will Vinay get his million dollars?

I am supposed to have studied ABC of complexity theory in my undergraduate and graduate schools. But I pretty much don’t remember anything except for what “P” and “NP” means. Class P contains problems like sorting and searching which have fast computer programs. The other class NP contains problems which don’t have fast programs yet but if someone gives us an answer, we can write a program that can check its correctness quickly. Nobody has been able to mathematically prove whether P is equal to NP or not equal to NP. The problem is around 40 years old and was proposed by Steven Cook in 1971.

For an abstract subject like complexity theory, Prof. Richard Lipton writes amazingly lucid blog titled Godel’s lost letter and P=NP. In the months of May, June and July Richard wrote 8 blogs every month and averaged 17, 20 and 33 comments respectively on each blog entry. That’s very high for an abstract mathematical topic like complexity theory. But something even more extraordinary happened earlier this month. From Sunday 8^th August till next Sunday 15^th August Richard wrote 6 blogs on topics related to Vinay Deolalikar’s proof. Here is the list of blogs and the number of comments on each blog:

8-Aug A proof that P is not equal to NP (188 comments)

9-Aug Issues in the proof that P not equal to NP (121 comments)

10-Aug Updates on Deolalikar’s proof that P not equal to NP (184 comments)

11-Aug Deolalikar responds to issues about his P not equal to NP proof (129 comments)

12-Aug Fatal flaws in Deolalikar’s proof? (311 comments)

15-Aug P=NP “Proof” is one week old (257 comments)

That’s an average of 198 comments, roughly 8 times his average over the past 3 months. Some of the comments came from students and amateurs. But many comments came from what Richard called “The group”: Timothy Gowers, Gil Kalai, Ken Regan, Terence Tao, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian a powerful collection of top experts in the field. The Group found out three major gaps in the proof which Vinay has worked on and sent a final version for publication to a journal. Only time will tell whether his proof can fill the gaps but at this point odds are stacked against him.

Following sample comment gives us an idea of what Richard’s blog meant to readers:

I also want to thank Dick Lipton for the monumental effort. I am very thankful not only for the things already said (things learned, putting N != NP in the spotlight, etc) but also for something else that many researchers here take for granted: this was a public showing of the rigorous peer-review process that many people, specially aspiring researchers, non graduate students and amateur scientists, are unfamiliar with. For somebody attending a good university in his/her country of origin but where top notch research is not conducted, this whole exercise provided a glimpse about what’s like doing cutting edge work. Hopefully that might be a motivation to pursue a career in math or science later on.

Peer review in scientific publishing is undergoing a shift. “web-test” is becoming a powerful alternative to traditional “it-may-take-a-year” kind of review. Will review of this kind happen also in literature & social sciences? I guess so. Shakespeare Quarterly a 60-year old prestigious humanities journal is going to open its review to the web. “web-test” is still in its infancy but holds a great promise.

I would like to thank my friend D. Sivakumar for sending me the link to Richard’s blog. It is because of Siva that I can claim – I have a friend who is an expert in complexity theory!