— Hans F. Hasen
Mathilda Bernmark - i think one of the most beautiful girl i’ve ever seen
Fireside Chat With Elon Musk
The best events reflect the DIY aspects of hacker culture that surface when business and money are out of the equation: when we can focus on building for the love of building
"Destroy Capitalism" by Banksy
Festo - BionicOpter
This shift is being brought about by three developments:
the shift will require a new kind of thinking: seeing physical products as platforms
I am reading W. Bernard Carlson’s Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age, and in it, Tesla describes his invention process. Instead of lab experimentation, he creates the machine in his head, and “experiments” in his mind until he achieves perfection.
Carlson makes an interesting reference to Joseph Schumpeter’s work, and the difference between subjective and objective rationality. In Carlson’s description of Schumpeter’s view, “[people] come up with incremental innovations by going out and assessing existing needs whereas entrepreneurs and inventors introduce radical and disruptive innovations by responding to ideas that come from within.”
Back to Tesla and Edison, because it was when receiving the Edison Medal in 1917 that Tesla elaborated in his invention method. In his words, he “evolved what he considered a new method of materializing inventive concepts, which is exactly opposite to the purely experimental of which undoubtedly Edison is the greatest and most successful exponent.”
Tesla goes on to explain that the moment you construct something you get engaged in practicalities, while if you keep building it in your mind, you achieve a greater degree of perfection, and higher quality of invention.
Two methods, one internal and deductive, and one external and inductive apparently; one that would only produce incremental changes, and one that would produce disruptive change. So, which one to follow?
Lean practitioners often forget about the ideal state. Whether you are using the Lean philosophy to create new processes, products, or services, Lean has this powerful concept of ideal state, to which you arrive in an ideation phase. Sounds familiar? Read again Mr. Tesla’s method: ideate and keep ideating either individually or collectively by using brainstorm techniques, rapid prototyping, or design experiments.
Ideal states, when ideated properly, are game changers. They should be disruptive and create not only a new state, but a new paradigm. They need to be bold and inspiring.
Most of the time, teams fail to create powerful ideal estates because they are not practicable in the short run, they are far out, and they may be easily dismissed if not properly explained. After all, they should be describing something that doesn’t exist and that until that moment wasn’t thought of.
The other powerful tool of Lean is the concept of Future State. Future state is a stepping stone towards the ideal state. It should radically transform the current state, but it should be feasible in the short run.
Future states sometimes are “next Monday” implementations: some change in the way we do things, that can be started immediately and produce powerful changes. The future state is not, and should never be, the end game, neither is a static estate.
This is when Edison comes in and starts tinkering with the newly built machine. This is where we gained enough (time, credibility, customers, money) that we can start experimenting more deeply. The only difference is that this experimentation is not going to be only inductive, but it’s going to move towards the goal described in the ideal state.
So I invite those of you who are either pro-Tesla and anti-Edison (or vice versa) to get acquainted with Lean as an invention tool, and you will find that the contradiction between the two invention methods can be solved dialectically with a new estate of invention: architectural change in the way to disruptive innovation.
Not everything in the mind, and not everything in the open. Just the right product from the point of view of the customer when the customer needs it.