November 06, 2007

Urgent vs. Big

The urgent move is a misnomer. *The* urgent move is always the one that's supposed to be played. No matter if it's a big or small move with regard to territory or thickness. The usual rule of thumb "play the urgent move, not the big move" refers to the smallish moves that typically don't get played because they seem small.

Like so many cancers, small things can compound if not taken care of. While you can put it off for now, or another move or so, if the opponent catches your miss before you do about this small but vital matter, then you'll be in trouble.

Posted by wayofgo at 05:25 PM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2006

Addressing Requests for Toys

Oftentimes in my job, I'm asked to provide a service to someone(s). "Please give us X so that we can do our work." "Please set up Y for this community so that we can collaborate." "We need Z in order to do our jobs." The problem lies with X, Y, and Z, which are products or services for which I am responsible. The "client" doesn't know why they want X, Y, or Z, but they feeled compelled that this is the panacea for their needs and want it now.

At times, I feel compelled to just say, "No! You haven't thought through your own requirements of what you need, what you are trying to solve..." Just as I'd recommend in GO'S RULES - Reverse, I want to ask the client to solve the maze backwards instead of forward. But, at other times, I think there might be some value, if low cost and easy to exit (GO'S RULES - EXPAND), to just doing it for them.

On most occasions, when I do go the easy to exit and do route, the product sits on a shelf and remains harmless. Occasionally, however, a client will do something really excellent with the tools provided; albeit, this is far from the norm. But, it proves to be a nice way of proving the point - if you don't think about what you're trying to solve, technology, the latest buzzword, etc. won't help you. Which brings me to why I was thinking of this at all.

Thornton May, preeminent futurist to the CIOs of the world, asked "What's the future of all this (Google Maps, Location Intelligence, Where 2.0, etc.)?" I didn't have a good answer until I thought about the above.

Societally, I think the toys we build are like these stray requests without much thinking. While a lot of the toys were built with real Reverse thinking to them, the key was never the toy, but what they were trying to solve. Yet, there's huge fascination with the toys (read analysts - equity and industry) that powers their building.

At the end of this span of Web 2.0, Internet 2.0, Maps to the Hilt, etc. you'll end up with the Library of Alexandria at everyone's fingertips (or maybe a direct connect to the brain), but you'll still just have toys, their toymakers, and a lot of money flowing here and there.

Just as the clients who ask for X, Y, or Z, without thinking through their own requirements, society will end up with A through Z in products, services and information, but you'll still have the same basic problems that were around at the time of Aristotle and the development of the game of Go (some 4000 years ago).

Point is, humans are like monkeys at times. Chasing this and that, maybe even strategically, to get at something that still eludes them. To play the game right, you need to transcend this monkey-like set of aspirations and goals. As depicted in the Way of Go, the point is not to necessarily win more games, but perhaps to become a better person, or even a better world/universe.

Perhaps the way to get society to realize that there are no answers in the toys we keep building is to give in to all the requests, to get to a point where even they can see there's no point in making/requesting these toys. The fundamental questions and problems, that have lurked since time immemorial, are still the fundamental questions that they were looking to solve deep down anyway.

But, oh, more toys... couldn't I get one more first?

Posted by wayofgo at 11:54 AM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2005

Reverse: Turning things on their heads

The Way of Go concept Reverse is core to disruptive innovation and thought. For every thesis, there's an antithesis. The Reverse concept turns normal sounding things upside down.

Here are some famous thesis/antithesis pairs:

* "Customer First!" and "Fire your Customers!"
* "Follow the rules" and "First, break all the rules"
* "Out of sight, out of mind" and "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"
* Put out a fire with water AND Put out a fire with dynamite

So, it's no wonder while watching the news or the latest advertising that the Reverse rule comes into play. With so many shows doing makeovers and other spruce up jobs, who would want to advertise another one. We're saturated with makeovers. Instead, the latest craze is a "Make Under!"

Sure, it's clever marketing and probably not too different from a make over in a way, but the direction is very important to throwing the dull movement toward makeovers into Reverse. You can hear the would-be customers already, "Yes, I have been trying to find the perfect makeover for years, but maybe what I needed was a make under!"

Simple, effective and bound to put a new spin on things, Reverse works. Take your favorite phrase or strategy and turn it on its head. It's bound to reveal things that were always thinkable, but under the surface waiting for a reversal of fortune.

Posted by wayofgo at 08:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 11, 2004

Four Questions Part III

Strength and weakness is relative to your goals. Sometimes, no matter where you are strong or where you are weak, you'd best be served by not playing to or against them.

If you're strong at embezzling, I can't recommend you play to your strengths. If you're strong at embarrassing people, you might want to play to this if you're Simon Cowell, from American Idol, but in most instances, this strength should be redirected.

As we saw in Four Questions Part II, the Four Questions can help you win a duel with an opponent with known strengths and weaknesses relative to yours. But what if the point was not to win. What if you wanted to get better at boxing? Challenging a relatively friendly opponent to a boxing duel, is bound to be the right choice, not the wrong one. If your time frame and long-range thinking is "how do I get better" then who cares if you lose twenty duels. If you can learn more from losing than winning, you win, not lose, if your goal is to learn.

To make the Four Questions work, well, you need to know what your goal is. If your goal is to win one match, one time, and never have to compete again, the temptation to cheat, lie, steal, etc. might seem strong. Of course, who you are and what you are and how people see you will be impacted.

In Go, there are dispicable players who attempt such trickery and foolishness. For the sake of the win, they'll do virtually anything. They suggest you take back their moves. They miscount the board intentionally. They mess up the board so the final count cannot be done. This short time thinking way is not a recommended way for gaining in strength and, in the long-term, will tend to keep them at the strength they are.

The Four Questions, as easy as they are, are no simple task. You need to constantly reevaluate where you are strong, where you are weak, where the opponent is strong, and where the opponent is weak. Moreover, you need to keep in mind your own goals. Am I focused on the long-term? The short-term? Learning or winning? Better myself? Better my world? Better my soul?

Posted by wayofgo at 05:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Four Questions Rule Part II

The Four Questions rule applies in many instances.

Imagine that you and an opponent have decided to duel. The opponent is strong at boxing and bamboo sword fighting, but weak at wrestling and log rolling. You are weak at boxing, strong at bamboo sword fighting and log rolling and have middling strength wrestling. What dueling venue suits you best? What dueling venue suits the opponent best? The answers are obvious if strength and weakness between you is relatively similar.

Should you decide to box, you will be boxing against an opponnent who is strong at boxing where you are weak. While the experience might help your boxing skill, if the point is to win the duel, then you'd be better off not choosing boxing.

Should you decide to bamboo sword fight, then who wins is largely a toss-up. Both you and the opponent are strong at it. Should you decide to wrestle, you might have a good chance to defeat the opponent, but given your middling strength, there still seems a better option.

Log rolling. You are strong at log rolling and the opponent is weak at log rolling. If the point of the duel for you is to defeat the opponent, you'd best be served by having log rolling as your venue.

Yet, despite this very simplistic and common sense reasoning, in Go, business, and other fields, things get in the way of this sort of reasoning. Founders of small companies, excellent inventors or tinkerers, think they'd be better CEOs - an entirely different skill - than someone they could hire. CEOs, blinded by ego, emotions, or otherwise, try to get into a business or enter a market because of some sort of "god complex," not because it suits the company best.

The discipline and attention to oneself, the changes in strength and weakness, at every moment, in every decision, to hold the Four Questions rule in mind is no small chore. Complicating matters is that people often don't know what they want to do in the first place.

Posted by wayofgo at 11:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 10, 2004

The Four Questions Rule Part I

Of all the rules of Go, the one most often applicable is the Four Questions rule. The Four Questions rule asks:

- Where am I weak?
- Where am I strong?
- Where is the opponent weak?
- Where is the opponent strong?

Much like business's SWOT analysis - Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat - the Four Questions get at where to play by telling you to play away from strength and play closer to weakness. Loosely, if you're strong in the North, South and East, then you should allocate resources to beef up West. Continuing to make strengths stronger and leaving weak positions to fend for themselves violates weakest-link-in-the-chain type thinking. That is, the strength of the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Posted by wayofgo at 08:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack