That’s some catch, that Catch-22
That’s some catch, that Catch-22
Crazy solutions can’t be crazy.
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22 which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.
Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
Businesses love innovation. Customers need to know that no matter the problem this business will stop at nothing to solve it, even if that means thinking the unthinkable. Investors need to know that the business is on the cutting edge. Marketing departments love to showcase the innovative credentials of an organisation. Innovation is growth. Innovation is life. Innovate or die.
I’m the guy they call when they need a new idea or are faced with a new problem that no one knows what to do with. I’m the guy who is expected to suggest wild ideas. And I deliver. But there’s a catch. A Catch-22.
No one wants crazy ideas.
The last thing a business wants is an unknown, a liability or a risk to be mitigated. A business wants safe, secure and rational solutions that closely follow the current product line and yet may also want disruptive, innovative and groundbreaking ideas.
That’s some catch, that Catch-22.
Innovative, divergent thinking is demanded, and yet riskless ideas are preferred. The good news is that this paradox has a solution. Ironically, they call me crazy and yet there is an entirely rational method to my alleged madness. To solve this contradiction does not demand crazy at all.
So much advice on innovation and creativity demands an indulgence in divergent thinking. This is often interpreted as a grasp for the wild, crazy, ridiculous ideas. The trouble with wild, crazy, ridiculous ideas is that if they are ridiculous, how can they be solutions to the problem? If your solution deserves to be laughed at, then it’s worth considering that it may be no solution at all.
A good innovation framework will offer provocations to think outside the box that has spawned so many cliché. An intractable contradiction will present an unresolvable paradox for which we may need some prompts to provoke our creativity.
The framework I favour draws such prompts from decades of analysis into the patent database. Altshuller began the work, but many others followed.
A good problem will present an unfavourable system trade or an intractable contradiction. To solve this we might be provoked to consider a solution that is segmented, asymmetric, nested, or the result of merging subsystems. Solutions might be inside out or upside down. Strategies may consider vibrations, periodic motion or rushing through harmful actions. Feedback may be implemented. A mediator or intermediate component may be applied. Parts may be copied, disposable, cheap or short-lived. Mechanical components may be replaced by electric or magnetic fields. Objects may become inflatable, jointed or porous. There are many more options to provoke one’s creativity.
Such strategies may provoke a creative idea that, at first, may seem quite divergent. Quite crazy. However, all of these strategies are to be found repeatedly manifest in the patent database. These prompts are a perfectly rational set of options. They’ve been used many times before. None of them are crazy.
Our seemingly crazy solutions are, by definition, solutions. If we are provoked to resolve a paradox with a new idea, then this is the correct response to the question asked. If a solution solves the problem well it can’t be wild, crazy or ridiculous at all. It’s the rational response.
I have stood before panels of extremely senior and sceptical authorities from the customer and explained from first principles what their problem is, how it is decomposed to find the specific contradiction that must be resolved and the solution that we must adopt to solve this paradox.
If you considered only this solution in isolation without the rationale that provoked it, a divergent strategy might indeed seem crazy. If you sit through the argument and understand the logic, the idea should appear perfectly rational.
I will end these presentations with a request for questions, and a panel of extremely sceptical senior authorities from the customer will often decline. By the end of such a presentation I want this audience to hold a crazy idea in their heads and consider it a sensible and rational option. The most sensible and rational option. If they don’t see my crazy solution as perfectly sensible, I have failed. Any questions? No? Good.
Innovation is king and so you’ll be asked for crazy ideas, but there’s a catch. No one wants crazy ideas, so crazy ideas must not be crazy at all. Ideas that are truly solutions to the problem should be rational and logical. You should be able to explain not only why they are solutions, but why they are the best solution. It should be entirely obvious why this crazy idea is a solution. It should not appear in the least bit crazy.
Crazy solutions can’t be crazy if they are indeed solutions.
