Yes, I am not the first one to write either the first or the second half of the title
The point is: if you are used to something, that often is more a limit than a benefit.
As you will subject any new knowledge not to the standard that you applied to knowledge that you acquired before, but to the standard that you developed after years (or ages ) of structured, organized use.
“Connecting the dots” subject is something that times and again is discussed with fellow Mensa members- more recently, inside the International Facebook group created by a Canadian member.
You can find a longer article on the subject in a previous posting (that was actually an article that I wrote for the Bulgarian Mensa magazine, as an evolution of something that I posted on my facebook profile).
Considering that today is Saturday, and that soon I will have my customary Saturday night business development Skype call, I will keep this post short.
“Connecting the dots” is something that probably we all did as children- and unfortunately forget to do as we grow up.
You have limited information. But your brain is able to process it, and identify what is those scattered bits and pieces mean.
Actually: start guessing, and perfect the view as more information (connected dots) become available.
There was a famous commencement speech from Steve Jobs that I received few months ago, about… connecting the dots.
But I will stick to the original source- the game.
If you are able to connect the dots and infer from few points (or strategically positioned connected dots) what could be the final picture, you are used to think on what you see for what it is, not for what you are told that it is.
In my activity as a project manager, usually I was on each project only few days a week- budget constraints, and also the need to follow multiple projects at the same time.
Therefore, in my case, as I usually received the team (or had to assemble it with the available resources), it was critical to “profile” each person- so that I knew what I could delegate to each member, without finding a mess when I came back
And sometimes simple “connecting the dots” activities allowed to identify how each team member would behave, and what I could expect from the team as a whole while I was away.
Incidentally- I think that any project is a chance to grow for each member of the team (myself included).
In some projects, I was just a business analyst or expert, as somebody else had the manager mantle- so, it really applies to everybody.
But thinking outside the box is something that often is even more critical for the success of a new initiative.
Yes, I designed methodologies and coached people and teams, including non-professional project managers: but the first step is to see which “box” they are coming from, and identify how to match the activity, the people, and their “box” with the new “box” required to produce the expected results.
A practical example.
At the end of the XX century (I love this kind of perspective:D), a former girlfriend of mine was assigned a thesis on Le Corbusier, the architect from Chaux-le-fonds.
As I did in the past and thereafter (and not only for my girlfriends), I picked up some reading material, and, in that case, I also went to the Fondation Le Corbusier in Paris on her behalf.
Beside that, I read books, did research, discussed with her some material- contributing, as if it were an extended “position paper”.
And, then, I read in a book a comment on how funny was that some description from the Le Corbusier seemed almost to adopt a Marxist analysis framework- and considering that Le Corbusier did not know about Marx, that was uncanny.
What puzzled me was the absolute and unexplained self-confidence of the professor writing that statement.
In late 1990s I worked on different projects in the German side of Switzerland, and I remembered that people had a quite distinct conscience of their own history, and how foreigners (notably their big brother up North) perceived them.
So, my first step was: let’s check the background of the place Le Corbusier was coming from.
To make a long story short: the watch-makers had built a community-based division of work.
In my family library we had an edition from the 1950s of “Das Kapital” that had a relative (Italian) historical value, due to the supporting material published along with the book.
My reaction was: well, I doubt that, considering the location, not knowing that it had been studied and observed for its approach to production would be an option.
So, it was worth mentioning, as it was documented- at least as a possible point of further analysis on the development of the theoretical framework.
But then there was to consider the side-effect: if the famous professor had written in a book flatly denying the possibility, how could a mere student (I was just a ghost-writing collaborator) challenge the common wisdom?
And, of course, did not. So, the information stayed in the draft- and disappeared from the version given to the professor.
I use “information” instead of “data” because I differentiate between:
“raw information”, a.k.a. data
“structured information”, a.k.a. information
Collecting information is a selective process- you collect what you think that could be useful to your purpose.
But if to this selective process you add an analytical framework that filters the data before its is converted into information, then you are actually reducing the quality of the decision that you make on that information.
Because the risk is that you will force the data to fit into your existing framework, instead of seeing if the data keep confirming your framework.
It is a common discussion about methodologies: too often I saw “guidelines” becoming a kind of fixed reference for something that became almost a cult, with its followers and organized guardians of the meaning.
Whenever I had to deliver an analysis, say: on a customers’ portfolio of services or customers, I obviously did a survey (formal or informal) to understand what was their approach to business and their perception of reality.
But I also collected unfiltered data relevant to the aims of the analysis.
It could be the turnover, cost structure, work-force, number of contracts- whatever.
And, before applying the framework linked to their current “way of life”, I tried to identify the organization that was inside the data- converting it into “information”.
In business and politics, often the existing “view” is a limit.
Not only toward thinking in a different way.
But, simply, toward recognizing a new trend that is contained in the information.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, May 30th, 2009 at 23:26 and is filed under commentary, everything.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Connecting the dots: thinking outside the box
Yes, I am not the first one to write either the first or the second half of the title
The point is: if you are used to something, that often is more a limit than a benefit.
As you will subject any new knowledge not to the standard that you applied to knowledge that you acquired before, but to the standard that you developed after years (or ages
) of structured, organized use.
“Connecting the dots” subject is something that times and again is discussed with fellow Mensa members- more recently, inside the International Facebook group created by a Canadian member.
You can find a longer article on the subject in a previous posting (that was actually an article that I wrote for the Bulgarian Mensa magazine, as an evolution of something that I posted on my facebook profile).
Considering that today is Saturday, and that soon I will have my customary Saturday night business development Skype call, I will keep this post short.
“Connecting the dots” is something that probably we all did as children- and unfortunately forget to do as we grow up.
You have limited information. But your brain is able to process it, and identify what is those scattered bits and pieces mean.
Actually: start guessing, and perfect the view as more information (connected dots) become available.
There was a famous commencement speech from Steve Jobs that I received few months ago, about… connecting the dots.
But I will stick to the original source- the game.
If you are able to connect the dots and infer from few points (or strategically positioned connected dots) what could be the final picture, you are used to think on what you see for what it is, not for what you are told that it is.
In my activity as a project manager, usually I was on each project only few days a week- budget constraints, and also the need to follow multiple projects at the same time.
Therefore, in my case, as I usually received the team (or had to assemble it with the available resources), it was critical to “profile” each person- so that I knew what I could delegate to each member, without finding a mess when I came back
And sometimes simple “connecting the dots” activities allowed to identify how each team member would behave, and what I could expect from the team as a whole while I was away.
Incidentally- I think that any project is a chance to grow for each member of the team (myself included).
In some projects, I was just a business analyst or expert, as somebody else had the manager mantle- so, it really applies to everybody.
But thinking outside the box is something that often is even more critical for the success of a new initiative.
Yes, I designed methodologies and coached people and teams, including non-professional project managers: but the first step is to see which “box” they are coming from, and identify how to match the activity, the people, and their “box” with the new “box” required to produce the expected results.
A practical example.
At the end of the XX century (I love this kind of perspective:D), a former girlfriend of mine was assigned a thesis on Le Corbusier, the architect from Chaux-le-fonds.
As I did in the past and thereafter (and not only for my girlfriends), I picked up some reading material, and, in that case, I also went to the Fondation Le Corbusier in Paris on her behalf.
Beside that, I read books, did research, discussed with her some material- contributing, as if it were an extended “position paper”.
And, then, I read in a book a comment on how funny was that some description from the Le Corbusier seemed almost to adopt a Marxist analysis framework- and considering that Le Corbusier did not know about Marx, that was uncanny.
What puzzled me was the absolute and unexplained self-confidence of the professor writing that statement.
In late 1990s I worked on different projects in the German side of Switzerland, and I remembered that people had a quite distinct conscience of their own history, and how foreigners (notably their big brother up North) perceived them.
So, my first step was: let’s check the background of the place Le Corbusier was coming from.
To make a long story short: the watch-makers had built a community-based division of work.
In my family library we had an edition from the 1950s of “Das Kapital” that had a relative (Italian) historical value, due to the supporting material published along with the book.
I skimmed through the 1st book, and here it was (I am linking here verbatim to an English version online): “In the year 1854 Geneva produced 80,000 watches, which is not one-fifth of the production in the Canton of Neufchâtel. La Chaux-de-Fond alone, which we may look upon as a huge watch manufactory, produces yearly twice as many as Geneva.”
My reaction was: well, I doubt that, considering the location, not knowing that it had been studied and observed for its approach to production would be an option.
So, it was worth mentioning, as it was documented- at least as a possible point of further analysis on the development of the theoretical framework.
But then there was to consider the side-effect: if the famous professor had written in a book flatly denying the possibility, how could a mere student (I was just a ghost-writing collaborator) challenge the common wisdom?
And, of course, did not. So, the information stayed in the draft- and disappeared from the version given to the professor.
I use “information” instead of “data” because I differentiate between:
Collecting information is a selective process- you collect what you think that could be useful to your purpose.
But if to this selective process you add an analytical framework that filters the data before its is converted into information, then you are actually reducing the quality of the decision that you make on that information.
Because the risk is that you will force the data to fit into your existing framework, instead of seeing if the data keep confirming your framework.
It is a common discussion about methodologies: too often I saw “guidelines” becoming a kind of fixed reference for something that became almost a cult, with its followers and organized guardians of the meaning.
Whenever I had to deliver an analysis, say: on a customers’ portfolio of services or customers, I obviously did a survey (formal or informal) to understand what was their approach to business and their perception of reality.
But I also collected unfiltered data relevant to the aims of the analysis.
It could be the turnover, cost structure, work-force, number of contracts- whatever.
And, before applying the framework linked to their current “way of life”, I tried to identify the organization that was inside the data- converting it into “information”.
In business and politics, often the existing “view” is a limit.
Not only toward thinking in a different way.
But, simply, toward recognizing a new trend that is contained in the information.
Tags: box, connecting, data, dot, framework, information, le corbusier, marx, methodology, outside, thinking, trend
This entry was posted on Saturday, May 30th, 2009 at 23:26 and is filed under commentary, everything. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.