82,891
edits
Innovation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil| | {{a|devil|{{Image|Clarice and Lecter|jpg|No! She ''covers'', Clarice!}}}}{{Quote| | ||
{{Innovation and the legal eagle}}}} | |||
}} | {{d|Innovation|/ˌɪnəʊˈveɪʃən/|n|}} | ||
Every story can be boiled down this: once there was a problem and | The practice of systematically identifying thoughtless, ineffective or wasteful processes wherever they arise in an organisation and, by surgical deployment of [[technology]], institutionalising them. | ||
{{quote|“''Major innovation comes, most of all, from the unexplored no-man’s land between the disciplines.''” | |||
: — {{author|Norbert Wiener}}, quoted by {{author|James Burke}}}} | |||
===On journeys and outcomes=== | |||
Every story can be boiled down this: once upon a time there was a problem, and it got resolved. | |||
It may be triumphant or tragic, but there must be an ''outcome''. Storytellers who don’t get to grips with this fundamental — who allow something other than ''resolution of the problem'' to drive their narrative — write unsatisfying books.<ref>This is why some people find the ''Lord of the Rings'' saga so [[tedious]]: all that delving into the history, mythology and language of elves is very clever — and yes, it may document the resolution of a whole raft of ''other'' problems, but it still has almost nothing to do do with the immediate problem of the Hobbits’ quest, beyond providing deep historical context. And as for the Hobbit folk songs, just shoot me. Hold your letters. </ref> | |||
To not resolve the problem — ''eventually'': we all love a bit of will-they-won’t-they suspense as we go — is literally what it means to not satisfy. | |||
Business administrators retooling their operations to “modernise” might bear this in mind. The goal is not ''to introduce [[chatbot]]s'', or ''to outsource'', or to ''implement [[distributed ledger technology]]'' much less to “bring lawyers kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century” — believe it or not, they are already here — but ''to [[Problem solving|solve a problem]]''. | Business administrators retooling their operations to “modernise” might bear this in mind. The goal is not ''to introduce [[chatbot]]s'', or ''to outsource'', or to ''implement [[distributed ledger technology]]'' much less to “bring lawyers kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century” — believe it or not, they are already here — but ''to [[Problem solving|solve a problem]]''. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 33: | ||
===Agents of innovation=== | ===Agents of innovation=== | ||
Now just as complex, [[tightly coupled]] systems can generate disproportionate ''peril'', so can they generate [[non-linear]] ''benefit''. ''Benefit is just as hard to predict as catastrophe'' — that is to say, in advance, by derivation from first principles, impossible. The same sparks that fly when you clash your swords can burn down your house, or lead to the discovery of the internal combustion engine. Now if the people you have spotting weights in the gymnasium of disaster are experienced, clever, imaginative, [[problem-solving]] people — no chatbots, in other words — you have better chance of averting disaster ''and'' spotting vistas to new and unimagined lands of plenty. | |||
===About that “will-they-won’t-they” suspense element=== | |||
When telling a story, do not overlook the importance of that “suspense” element. This is what converts your story from a matter of basic arithmetic to the rollercoasting ''bildungsroman'' that will sweep all other works of the ''New York Times'' bestsellers’ list. A problem whose solution is clear to all from the outset is — ''not a problem''. Patrons will not pay to see a movie without some ''jeopardy'' in it. The audience craves an ebb and flow of fortunes, some heart-in-mouth moments, some oohs, some aahs, but culminating in a grand set-piece of gravity-defying [[swordcraft]]: a fragile golden bauble rescued from the broiling crater into which the deal was surely headed. | |||
Hence, the psychology of professional advisory business: ''look for unsolved problems''. If you can’t find any, ''make some up''. | |||
There is no value in a solved problem — a basic reason [[why is legaltech so disappointing|why legaltech is disappointing]] is that no sooner has it achieved its purpose, it vanishes into the [[invisible present]]. It is straightaway taken for granted. Its value evaporates like dew on a desert flower. | |||
What do do if there are no problems? ''Make'' some. The dark art the adviser is to persuade her client that it has a problem. That may involve contorting previously-solved problems, ever-so-slightly twisting the chassis so the wagon doesn't quite seat itself on the rails any more. ''Then'' there is some valuable<ref>To the professional advisor: remember in whose eyes beauty lies.</ref> peripheral fiddling to do. | |||
Thus, the [[emergent]] property when any two or three [[legal eagle]]s are gathered together: to surface imperfections in the work product: illuminate them, turn them over, inspect them from all sides — to relentlessly focus on them until, by consensus, this tiny blemish has achieved momentous significance. | |||
This is the best kind of arse-covering, of course: identifying and, after lengthy exchanges eliminating, phantom contingencies that could not in, a sober universe, ever come to pass and which, even in our drunken one, are overwhelmingly improbable. Herewith, off stage, imaginary dragons can be slain, and maidens rescued while life and limb remains unwagered. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||