Being wrong

Expect to be wrong - even most of the time - and create better designs rapidly

I used to be worried about making a good impression - always. I wanted to be right. Being right equated to creating value. Being right was progress.?

Blind spots and misunderstandings are always there. The older I get the more I embrace how our cognition and understanding of the world is limited. I don’t understand often what is happening. I don’t see. I don’t understand deeply. ?

I used to think of being wrong as failure. But being wrong does not diminish you a person. Lack of effort to understand does.?

Ship the work - Discover the wrongs

I’ve come to think of design, agile and iterative processes as discovery. The problem is that you don’t know a priori what is right and what is wrong. Remember that we have our limited understanding of pretty much anything. It does not help to ponder much and create nice theories in your own head - it Is not like they get much righter with my understanding.

What I’ve learned about design bit by bit is to not be afraid of failing either totally or partially with the many first versions of the design. My creations are not me and not everything has to be perfect.?

The idea of course is that you create something very quickly. Think creating something in an hour. You don’t have to even like the artifact yourself. The key is shipping the work and then keenly observing how people react to the concept, prototype, or whatever was that you are exploring.

You have to get what you have created in front of someone who can react. This someone can be a colleague, relative or a customer. And then ask a few questions on whether or not you are onto something or not. People are quick to point out shortcomings and viewpoints missed. Now you have better understanding.?

And you have the information to iterate to something that is correct and valuable.

Complexity thinkers take on PDCA

The Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle is famous cyclical process from the Lean movement. It is a cycle of continuous improvement and continuous learning. The steps are 1) Plan to change or create something. This can be a prototype, process change or virtually anything. 2) Do - Do the work and create what you planned to create. 3) Check the results 4) Act - Absorb learning and adjust your process. Repeat the process endlessly.?

I have come across a slight variation of the process for the purposes of design. The cycle loops the same 4 steps but slightly different wording. 1) Plan to create something 2) Do the work and create the artefact 3) Check the results with somebody. Then the step 4 has ever so slightly different framing: 4) Create new theory. (Repeat)

I like this framing of creating new theory out of results.?

Creating new theory requires us to ask questions such as “what does the observed difference to what I expected mean?”, “which of my own assumptions of right and wrong do not hold?, and “why was the response as it was?”.

Asking these questions, sometimes we find some of the original thoughts that led to the creation of the design or artefact wrong. Then it is easy to correct the assumptions and redo the design. Sometimes results are simply puzzling and you don’t know why things didn’t play out as you would have expected. Then you know what information and understanding you should gather next.?

You create new theory for yourself based on your observations.? ?

In the complex world, so much of people’s thinking and responses are not predetermined. Complex domain is then “unplannable” linearly and up front. Theory cannot exists a priori. The right theory can emerge out of response of the world to your creation.

I have changed a lot in how I work over the last years. Less detailed analysis. Also less time in the creation step. Much more time in the “check” and “create new theory” steps. And I try build something much quicker. Not a week. Make the first, second, and third prototypes. Take only 1-2 hours in the “build” step of the cycle.?

Iterate to workable. Iterate to understand and learn. Iterate to create. ?