I’ve long contemplates what math actually is. How can manipulating symbols on a paper according to some rules tell us how to manipulate atoms that we cannot even see, or send rockets to the moon, or create phones, and everything else we’re able to do today?
In Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Phaedrus contemplates where hypotheses come from. Phaedrus says that in the scientific method, hypotheses creation is the biggest mystery. Hypotheses just appear, out of nowhere.
I don’t agree. I think there is a clear explanation as to how hypotheses seem to suddenly appear from nowhere. It is a step by step process. Continue reading
Raynor’s definition of a Disruptive Business Model
In Innovator’s Manifesto, Michael Raynor describes a model of Disruptive Innovation that expands upon Porter’s concept of Strategic Differentiation. This is better than previous descriptions, but it still gets the categories somewhat wrong. Continue reading
According to the standard definition by Clayton Christensen, a disruptive innovation is a product that is lower quality from the viewpoint of existing value networks, AND offer lower margins to those vendors. The application, from existing value networks’ perspective, should not satisfy their customers’ needs and not be attractive from a financial point of view due to the lower margins and smaller markets.
But is “low margin” really a necessary part of the equation? Or can the definition of a Disruptive Innovation be even more pure without it? Also, there are some anomalies that may explain why Christensen got it wrong in some instances due to the “low margin” requirement being part of it.
While Trump’s efforts to make America great again are admirable, and will probably lead to short-term results, the reasons for America’s decline are more systematic and cannot be affected by a single president.
America suffers from the problems that Michael Porter describes in his book The Competitive Advantage of Nations. In it, Porter characterizes the rise and fall of nations’s competitiveness in four stages.
There is a fierce debate about what AI and improved robotics are going to do to humans’ productivity and the future of work.
Opponents are afraid that humans will be out of work. Proponents say that robots will allow humans to focus on what makes us unique.
Proponents are right.. For now.
According to recent rumors, Nintendo NX will be less powerful than current gen (PS4), and be a handheld that can slide into a dock that lets you play games on your TV.
Hence, it seems to fulfill the criteria for a disruptive innovation relative to today’s high-end consoles (PS4 and Xbox One):
- It performs worse from the view of the core consumer (the hardcore gamer)
- It offers “good enough” capability (better than last gen but less than current gen) seen from most gamers’ perspectives (this is pure speculation on my part, but based on personal experience and talking with friends who used to be gamers, this seems to be true)
- It offers more convenience, and likely at a lower price. This is likely valued by a vast amount of “forgotten” gamers (again speculation since I haven’t studiet the market, but I believe this to be true)
Thus, form the non-core market’s perspective, the Nintendo NX seems to offer a better solution. Sony and Microsoft will likely pursue their best customers – the hardcore gamers – in order to avoid losing that lucrative market to each other. Nintendo will take the market who’s needs are currently over-served.
Because of this, I believe that Nintendo NX will create another Wii-like runaway success, and eat non-core market share from Sony and Microsoft.
Time to buy Nintendo shares!
(BONUS: Because traditional analysts and industry experts are embedded in the current value network – that of the hardcore gamers – they are likely to miss the potential of the Nintendo NX and deem it a hopeless endeavor. Thus, stocks are likely to be cheapest sometime in-between the official unveiling of the console, but before pre-orders are opened up 😉 )
A principle-based decision making framework. That is – I’ve come to realize – the key to success. Regardless of how you measure success. Let me explain.
Currently reading 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. (Sidenote: probably the most life changing book I’ve read in my life – I can’t believe I haven’t read it until now – just imagining how my life would have been if I read it when I was 20 or so.) The book mentioned principle-centered living a couple of times, and even dedicated a whole chapter to the subject. But it’s not until I read this part that I really got it:
“Where does intrinsic security come from? It doesn’t come from what other people think of us or how they treat us. It doesn’t come from the scripts they’ve handed us. It doesn’t come from our circumstances or our position. It comes from within. It comes from accurate paradigms and correct principles deep in our own mind and heart.”
Suddenly, it made sense. I’ve been wrestling with a big decision for a couple of weeks now. It is actually a life changing decision.
I’ve always had a hard time making big decisions. I could never really feel that “gut feeling” that people talk about. I try to foresee the future. I weigh pros and cons. I analyze potential outcomes. I do everything – but decide, and just go with the decision.
In one blow, after reading that sentence, I realized this: I’ve been making decisions based on wrong premises all my life. I’ve been trying to predict the best outcome. This isn’t principle-centered decision making. It is outcome-centered decision making.
“What will lead to the greatest outcome” – rather than “what is the right thing to do, based on what I believe is right?”
Ironically, I realize now, outcome-centered decision making leads to worse outcomes, for several reasons.
First, it is prone to error. Nobody can predict the future.
Second, it is draining. By trying to predict the future, you will constantly end up evaluating your choice – never really “landing” in what’s the best course of action. Every bit of feedback you get along the way will make you question whether the choice you made will really lead to the best outcome, or if your other option was the better choice. You will end up constantly questioning yourself.
By making decision based on what’s the right choice – based on principles you believe in – regardless of outcome, you will be more centered. More firm. More trustworthy. Have greater integrity. Knowing what you believe in, and following that belief regardless of the possible outcome, does that to you.
And perhaps more importantly, the gut feeling can develop. Finally, it will be possible to feel what is right – because that feeling will be based on whether you are following your principles, or whether you are doing something wrong. Suddenly, it is possible again to listen to your emotions when making decisions.
This will save a lot of energy. Ironically, because you don’t waste a lot of energy questioning yourself, you will also become more productive. And, correct principles are time-tested. They are proven to work, through the history of people men throughout time. People who made the world a better place. People who were happy. So good principles are a good guide, and a great measuring stick for how well you are doing.
So what are the correct principles?
According to Covey, it’s the following:
- Human Dignity
- Quality and Excellence
- Potential and Growth
- Patience, Nurturing and Encouragement
And what do they mean? What is it, to be fair? What is it, to have integrity, honesty, to view people with dignity, and the other principles?
Well, that, I guess you have to decide for yourself. And that’s the part that I guess you can second-guess based on experience and feedback.