(2013-05-21) Rao Iron Man Schlep Asset Puzzle Insight Package Aesthetic Framework

Venkatesh Rao on his Iron Man-inspired Schlep Asset Puzzle Insight Package Aesthetic (SAPIPA) FrameWork: Understanding the interaction of these 3+3 input and output elements can make a big difference to how you attack complex problems (Problem Solving, Grand Challenge)... Complex problems contain three sub-problems: schlep, puzzle and package... When you solve complex problems right, you are left with three corresponding intangible things of value: an asset, an insight and an aesthetic, which make the solutions both durable and generative (the solutions gradually and intelligently expand to occupy bigger problem spaces, realizing the potential of the original specific solution)... My definition of a good solution to a complex problem is one that solves the immediate problem, is built to last and generates more potential than it uses. The more I think about complex problems, the more I get convinced that the built to last part is critical. Almost all failures are caused by not aiming for durability... Good solutions have three parts, an asset that is the fruit of the Schlep Work, an insight that is at the heart of how the puzzle is solved (which, in the best cases, will apply to a bigger class of similar puzzles that can be solved with sufficient imagination), and an aesthetic that determines how the solution is put together into a package.

Not many businesses today demonstrate the kind of capability that Stark models in the third movie. Amazon and Google come close, but seem incomplete. Amazon has the package aesthetic down, but not a reliable source of generativity (Generative). A consequence, I suspect, of autocratic senior management creating a disempowered rank-and-file via hard-driving pressure, which also fuels a dangerously arrogant PR posture. As I have argued elsewhere previously, this is the same flaw that many military historians see as the cause of Napoleon’s downfall.

Google has the generativity, and a relatively empowered rank-and-file, but seems to lack a strong packaging aesthetic. So fascinating point solutions like Google Glass, driverless cars, maps a generation ahead of the competition, and Hangout aren’t coming together coherently to enable a high-potential assault on the so-called “so-co-mo” (social, collaboration, mobile) market.

Let’s talk a little bit about Stark’s Afghan-cave experience. It sheds interesting light on the BootStrapping vs. OPM debate... I am not being a bootstrapping vs. OPM ideologue, but I tend to view uncritical acceptance of OPM as responsible for killing the unused potential of creative solutions to important problems. In other words, taking OPM carelessly taken kills golden geese.

I prefer the Iron Man framework (if you want an acronym, call it SAPIPA: schlep-asset-puzzle-insight-package-aesthetic) framework to the more usual way of thinking about solutions to complex problems: the Platform-product model... the platform-product mindset, by relying on an a priori mapping, loses the potential for discovery latent in a more generative approach... With the Iron Man approach, there is no a priori map. There is no sharp product-market-fit-to-scale transition. Instead, by prioritizing survivability (anti-fragile, effectual reasoning), you buy the ability to grow at whatever natural pace is needed, with low reliance on sharp transitions, and freedom from artificial pressures... It’s what I’ve called exponential breakthrough in the past. It’s the difference between growing an intelligent entity that grows smarter as it scales, versus spreading a small initial amount of intelligence thinner and thinner. But then, our technology leaders are mostly human. Not superheros. That is why our corporations are mostly linear, rather than Super-linear.