There is a lot of talk about incremental improvements vs innovation and companies calling themselves "disruptive".
What we should be asking:
- What is the root problem we are trying to eliminate?
- Where does the solution fit in the grand scheme of things?
- How far are we from actually eliminating the problem?
Everyone wants to be innovative instead of incremental. Why take a small step when you can take a giant leap?
What is "innovative" vs "incremental" can be measured and the solution should fit in a scale.
For example:
- Email is a communication solution. If we had telepathy and could leave messages remotely, would we type and send emails?
- Cars are a transportation solution. If we had teleportation, would we use cars?
Take something like food. What is more innovative:
- nutritious food engineering to reduce cellular damage?
- better food distribution? (the equivalent of tap water at home)
- in vitro meat?
- vertical farming?
- brain simulation of any food taste without involving the digestive system?
- a better digestive system, more optimized to breaking things down?
- replacing the digestive system by an alternative energy source?
- not having a body and being a stream of consciousness with optional sensory input?
If you know the root problem, you now have a comparison point for your solution. You know:
- where it fits in the grand scheme of things
- how far are you from eliminating the root problem
What do we mean by root problem? Let's use transportation as an example.
Horses > Trains > Cars > Planes > Space shuttles
All these technologies are designed to solve our transportation problems. The root problem in the case of transportation is: how to move from point A to point B in the least amount of time.
If teleportation existed before cars, would we have spent so much time incrementally improving cars?
We use food and have an entire industry from genetically engineering seeds, farming, manufacturing, distribution, restaurants etc. Food plays a humongous role in our economy. For the food industry, the root problem is: What's the best form of energy to power this body?
Would it play the same role if we no longer needed a digestive system because our bodies were powered by an alternative form of energy?
When you start thinking that way ("what's the root problem and how do you eliminate it?"), you start seeing where your solution fits in the spectrum; how far we really are from solving this problem once and for all.
Measure your solution against the ultimate solution.
- Transportation: Time and space. How fast, how far.
- Food: Energy and/or having a body in the first place instead of being a stream of consciousness.
- Food with a degestive system: Nutritional value to reduce cellular damage, effects on the brain etc.
It is difficult to measure the nutrional value and effects of food item for every individual.
A good indication that you are focused on a sub problem instead of the root problem is the number of metrics and how complicated they are to express. They appear important but after analysis, you realize they are caused by other problems i.e not the root.
What can you learn from past solutions trying to address the root problem? what were the key innovations that resulted in giant leaps?
For example, we have been using horses for thousands of years but the steam engine was a game changer in the history of transportation.
In computing, we analyze algorithms to understand their complexity and their limits. It is easy to get caught in incremental improvements because the work feels just challenging enough, the rewards are immediate and it does feel like you are moving forward. How fast and how far are you moving though?
Until the early 1900s, an entire industry (breeding, feeding, training, maintenance, cleaning streets etc.) existed around horses. Horses have limits. How many advancements can we make in genetic engineering and breeding until a limit is reached?
The invention of the car did not change the horse industry. Not until cars were commodotized by Ford.
When you focus exclusively on incremental improvements, you end up losing sight of the big picture. The market is rewarding you, your business is growing. You spend your days pondering "how can everyone have a horse?"
Horses have to be fed, sheltered, maintained, cleaned after etc. All of these problems now exist because of your solution. Horses still beat walking on your feet. Therefore you tolerate the problems they create.
As an entrepreneur, you get caught up in the whirldwind and start thinking the next innovative business is "how can anyone have a horse?", "A horse in every home", "cleaning services for horses", "UberHorse" etc.
Just because your business is growing and the market is rewarding you doesn't mean you are headed in the right direction. Ask yourself, "how impactful is my solution"?
This is what sparked this whole article. What's the mission statement of my next company? Which solutions should the company focus on? Am I working on yet another minor optimization, a small/quick hack or something that will have an impact on the root problem?
What comes after software? Is automation the elimination of all root problems? What can be done to increase the rate of automation? If automation is better done through software, how can we accelerate the software development life cycle?
Do we want more software or the power to do more things?
I'm thinking about writing a series of articles on these topics. Looking for the ultimate solution to the root problem and working backwards to what is doable now.
Maybe having a website where all root problems and the solutions are listed. Having clear metrics for the problem and solutions that fit in a scale to see how close we are to eliminating the root cause.