Rapid Idea Improvement

About the (intuitive) misconception: it’s people who solve problems, not really ideas

"Hard" management methods: Focused on measurements (deviation between a target/ forecast and actuals), setting up authority (hierarchy, roles & responsibilities), predictions (visions, targets, goals, …), providing "clarity", ... "Soft" management methods: Focused on putting “people” central, with the idea that performance follows when people feel good

Sharing a quibble I have with the "blue" people characteristic in the Insights Disovery people assessment method.

The same question "why?" about some phenomenon in reality can have 2 very different types of answers: (i) the proposal of a causal explanation and (ii) the justification of the truth of the phenomenon

An explanation is a consistent mental model of a transformation/ task/ change, and it contains: The result or goal you want to achieve The actions required to achieve that goal The arguments why (why that particular goal (and not some other), why will those particular actions lead to the goal (and not some others))

Epistemology is relevant when explaining *any* human activity, as it is a better/ deeper explanation than explanations at the level of behaviours (actions) or personality (assessments of persons as a whole)

Key aspects discussed related to how companies typically use KPIs Start from the KPI and not from the problem and solution (for which the KPI was supposed to be an indicator) Corrective actions are parochial and without causal power Corrective actions that have causal power are corrective explanations and contain not only an action but also a goal and argument for how the action will cause the goa...

There are no "problem solving methods". Reason being that if there were such a method, we would be able to automatically crank out solutions by simply following it. The same goes for the "scientific method" (science is also problem solving). For example, Einstein had 2 miracle years (1905 and 1915), but followed "the scientific method" every day of his 40+ year career...

Does money printing create wealth ? Austrian economics says no and with a very simple but powerful logical argument.

Some thoughts on David Deutsch” definition of knowledge as ‘information with causal power” Also some ideas on how to use this in organisations

It is not contested that managers rely on their teams to get problems solved. However, in practise this turns out less easy than stated here. I go into some of the reasons why it is not trivial and concrete ways for improving this.

What is a business cycle ? The role of money. The unhampered economy. The hampered economy

Unpacking the slogan ...

The natural state of any relationship is that fact that ideas differ. That is not “a shame” … or a proof that there is distrust. It is just the natural starting position. If it were a proof of distrust, then the first step would indeed have to be to start developing trust Instead, trust emerges, but is not a methodological primary step to achieve The moral process and the knowledge creation proces...

DMAIC: D efine the problem (Set the goal, ...) M easure the problem (AS IS, ...) A nalyse (Root cause analysis, ...) I mplement (Find solutions test and implement) C ontrol (Monitor and sustain improvements, ...) Popper’s method: P roblem definition ( "What to do next ?" Given the ... Root cause analysis, AS-IS / TO-BE, ...) T entative S olution (Tentative answer to the what to do next question, i...

Illustrating what methods don't mention via the DMAIC problem solving method

Comparing the Popperian method to problem solving to it's alternative

Thoughts on why I think ESG is not a good vehicle for moral progress in companies

Some thoughts on why and how I took up an interest in Austrian Economics

Start from a problem (incl. scope, conditions for good solutions, …) Generate ideas  with idea owners Separate session on criticism in group (NOT adaptations) Idea owner’s free choice to adapt idea or not

Knowledge creation is "evidence based" when it starts from evidence, and "explanation based" when it starts from a problem and a (guessed) explanation for how to solve it

All plans are wrong for 2 main categories of reasons The goal is wrong: What you really get when you execute the steps may not correspond to the stated goal. Or the goal conflicts with another goal you want to achieve The steps are wrong: you need different steps to achieve the goal you said to achieve There are 2 ways to deal with this: The bad way: seeking positive arguments The good way: seekin...

Covering two opposite conceptions about what science is: the inductive method versus Popper's method Also briefly covering what the relevance of this is to all our "other" types of knowledge (e.g. sociological, political, moral, ...)

We seek answers to the question "Who am i ?" But is that possible ? What is the alternative ?

What you can not use a goal for: Derive what you should do next What you should not use a goal for: As an infallible prophecy of the future that cannot be wrong What you can use a goal for: Challenge your plans - eliminate things from your plan that will NOT get you to the goal Only one of the many ways to improve your plans, not the only one !