A framework to contextualize Frameworks

Introduction

Similar to the phenomenon of online-brands roll-ups (the Thrasio phenomenon) and 10-min deliveries (with funky names like Flink, Gorillas, Jokr) - discussions on mental models and frameworks in the Product Management blogosphere are a rage these days. Over the last 5 years, the PM thought-bois have picked up the topic with gusto and churning out one framework after another. So as an aspiring thought-boi, it was time for me to take a stab at the topic as well.

Now before we talk about the implementation of the models, it's important to take a step back and first contextualize what these frameworks and models are supposed to mean - and their importance. This post intends to do just that - explaining the Why, the What, and the How of the frameworks. If you are also a Product Manager who spends far too much time on Medium or SubStack, it would be an opportune time to furrow your brows - in my meta attempt at using a framework in explaining frameworks :)

By the way, there are many different terms to describe frameworks. Mental Models, Heuristics, Perspectives, Lenses, Thought process - the nine yards. So in this post, I'd be using the terms interchangeably ...

With that out of the way, let's now jump into the section that explains what frameworks are.

The 'What' of Frameworks

So how does one define a framework? What are these fantastic beasts and where do we find them? Let's start with these prompts.

A mental model or a framework is essentially a representation of how something works in the real world. We use models to retain knowledge and identify patterns to navigate the day-to-day scenarios.

As an example, an engineer often thinks in terms of systems by default. A business person may consider the opportunity cost and risk-reward matrix. A PM will think in terms of the effort-impact matrix. Many times, it's the same person donning multiple hats and shifting through the different lenses.

Similar to the example above, there are possibly hundreds of frameworks or heuristics that we use on a day-to-day level that are mostly subconscious. In a way, a repository of frameworks is similar to having a mechanical toolbox with nails, bolts, screwdrivers, etc.

Taking an analogy from food preparation, having access to data is similar to having ingredients. Frameworks and mental models are similar to the recipe. So with the same set of ingredients, one can whip up different types of cuisines. The quality of the food prepared however is directly related to the recipe used. Similarly, the quality of the decisions is directly proportional to the frameworks used to arrive. Of course, this assumes the data to be relevant (or the ingredients to be fresh in our analogy).

With this, now let's explore a few key features of mental models.

Characteristics of mental models

a) The famous adage: All models are wrong but some are useful - A rather famous quote used in Analytics and Stats circles while justifying why the R-square numbers are all over the place, this idea highlights the approximate nature of mental models.

Frameworks or mental models aren't the "absolute truth". The question while evaluating the models is not about if they are universally applicable. It is rather around if they are good enough for that specific purpose. The good news is that we don't need to reinvent the wheel as a few models have stood the test of time and songs from Kanye. Coupled with practice over the years, one develops a sense of which models and frameworks to use at which stage.

Taking an example from Science, Newton's law of gravity is an excellent approximation of our day-to-day reality of gravity. However, the law doesn't work too well in scenarios of an object moving at speeds to the magnitude of the speed of light. Most of the laws and models have their assumptions and bounds within which they perform well. To consider them as the eternal truth, however, is probably misplaced.

So, for example, when a certain company decides to go into Market A there are many parameters and hence, potentially hundreds of models to consider. What's important and useful is to be able to identify the relevant parameters and construct an approximate path of progress.

b) Models and frameworks are like maps - and not the territory: Just like maps are a digestible abstraction of geography and not the territory itself - frameworks are powerful tools to abstract life experiences and minutes in digestible perspectives. They are, by definition, reductions of something more complex and come with a certain sense of subjectivity. Hence, just like maps - mental models act as suggestible guideposts but do not dictate to be the final word on the territory or the truth.

c) There are only a few models which do the heavy lifting: Technically, there may be thousands of frameworks floating around cut across multiple domains and sectors. Now to assuage any possible anxiety in trying to grasp all of them, even Charlie Munger thinks maybe just 80-90 models are the ones that do all the heavy lifting. Since Charlie Munger is like the Gandalf of our time and someone extremely successful so I consider it to be a good idea to believe him. Interestingly, this characteristic of a few models (<100) out of possibly thousands of models doing most of the leg work is the classic Power Law (a mental model) in action. It's getting Inception-like, isn't it? :)

d) Frameworks are NOT to be force-fitted: The frameworks and mental models are highly contextual and don't apply to all the problems. As we have covered until now, frameworks are an abstraction of something more complex and have bounds within which they are effective. While some models are more robust than others, for example - Laws of gravity compared to Ayurveda, none of them are absolute truths. Hence, as an extension, there is an element of subjectivity and judgment that is required while using the mental models. Taking another example, Occam's Razor is a principle that favors (and not dictates) explanations with fewer entities, with other parameters being equal. Hence, frameworks are to be used in conjunction with good judgment for effective problem solving and decision making.

The 'Why' of Frameworks

In the previous sections, we covered the definition of a framework and key characteristics. This section explains the utility mental models bring in.

a) Reducing blind spots:

We all carry tons of blind spots. Just skim through the grand list of fallacies and biases that we carry around. It'd be a monumental achievement to even remember the names of all these fallacies and biases, let alone be able to avoid all of them in our day-to-day life. Implementing good frameworks and mental models helps us navigate through the choppy waters of fallacies and biases. Extending the analogy, good frameworks and mental models are akin to having access to a repertoire of navigation systems. They don't solve the problems by the mere virtue of being in existence but rather by mindful usage.

Taking another analogy, there's a famous parable of a group of blind people who have never come across an elephant before and who try to conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. So someone who touches a tusk considers an elephant to be a spear and someone who touches its tail considers it to be a rope. And so on.

The moral of the parable is we have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on our limited, subjective experience as it sometimes ignores other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true. Mental models help us to minimize these blind spots if not eradicate them completely.

b) A digestible abstraction of reality

Frameworks serve as a guidepost and a simpler abstraction of multiple nuances to move towards decision-making or problem-solving. The human mind can't really digest and remember the minutiae?pertaining to all the data we consume. Frameworks and mental models help to distill the information and develop imagery that can be used elsewhere even if the details change.

c) Deriving the "so-what" from the information tsunami

There's an adage in software development - Talk is cheap, show me the code. A thought-boi adage for Business functions would probably be - Information is cheap, show me the 'so-what'.

Let's unpack this one by taking a high-level stock of the last 50-60 years. Taking the example of India, the 1950s for India was an agrarian economy. So a lot of day-to-day work was just routine manual labor. You wake up, plow the land, take out the weeds, nurture the crops with water, harvest in season - repeat.

Fast forward to the 1980-1990s when we had a brush with globalization and the so-called Knowledge economy started. There was a tangible value ascribed to information arbitrage. That's where a lot of private banks started and major corporate houses blossomed. It mattered who had access to the best information and in many cases, was the sole differentiator.

Now in the world of 2020 and beyond, having access to information has also gotten commoditized. We all are carrying the world's largest-ever on-demand library in our pockets. So the key differentiator in this era isn't so much about if someone knows a lot of disparate facts. The differentiator is about connecting the dots and finding the "so-what" of the information. Deriving that "so-what" requires structured thinking and formulating a logical path to analyze the information. That's where mental models come in.

Charlie Munger (yet again), the fabled billionaire investor and possibly the best Robin to Batman Buffet summed it aptly in a talk 30 years back!

"Well, the first rule is that you can’t really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try to bang ‘em back. If the facts don’t hang together on a latticework of theory, you don’t have them in a usable form. You’ve got to have mental models in your head. And you’ve got to array your experience, both vicarious and direct, on this latticework of models."

d) Frameworks be the anti-dote to ambiguity: Most of the hard problems have a high level of ambiguity associated with them. Should a company invest in X or Y? Should we enter market A or market B? Should I order pasta or pizza today?

Solving these problems requires us to consider a multitude of factors, sometimes inter-connected, sometimes not. Developing a robust framework enables a structured approach to problem-solving and is also amenable to further improvement. Beyond just gathering information, creating a robust framework lays out a path to follow to get to the glory land of insights and robust decisions.

So to summarize, accessing and implementing a wide set of frameworks helps us to identify our blind spots and minimize risks. In the world we live in, our actions hardly exist in a vacuum, and being able to bank on multi-disciplinary thinking helps us to arrive at effective solutions faster. This becomes especially important while dealing with big ambiguous problems.

With that, we move to the section on how to use mental models in our decision-making.

The 'How' of Frameworks

This is the relatively harder part of frameworks. The definition (what) and importance (why) of frameworks is all fine and dandy but the implementation (how) is a trickier one. How do we move ahead with this toolbox of frameworks and mental models?

The Mr. Obvious answer is - Practice. It can be at work while trying to improve communication or decision-making. Or figuring out if the source of gluttony for today is going to be either Penne or Fusili. I am just joking, spaghetti?is the best.

Going back to the analogy of frameworks being the recipe of the cuisine, it's important to continuously use, tinker, and modify the well-tested frameworks in different scenarios. Sometimes check if stir fry is better or we gotta put some butter there. Maybe let it simmer for 5 extra minutes or change the order of how we put the spices. It's as much an art as it's science.

Here are a few frameworks sorted by category for further reading. Just so you don't feel shortchanged that I rambled on about abstract / meta-ish stuff without sharing anything practical.

Problem Solving:

a) Inversion

b) 5-WHY's

c) First-principles thinking

Systems thinking:

a) Second-order effects

b) Iceberg Model

c) Feedback loops

Decision-making:

a) Opportunity cost

b) Sunk cost

c) Eisenhower Matrix

d) Speed versus Quality

e) Reversible / Irreversible || Low impact / High-impact

f) Pareto Principle

Executive communication:

a) Crystalizing the 'so-what'

b) Pyramid principle

c) Rule of 3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the article seemed useful despite covering a bit of meta-ish prompt :) In a future article, I'd probably cover a few cases as examples and use frameworks to arrive at a possible answer. Feedback and thoughts are always welcome. Now go watch Dune!

References

https://fs.blog/mental-models/

https://untools.co

https://www.product-frameworks.com/index.html

https://models.substack.com/archive?sort=new

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model