Innovation: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:
'''Clarice''': No. We just...<br>
'''Clarice''': No. We just...<br>
'''Lecter''': ''We begin by covering the arse we see every day.'' Our ''own'' arse, Clarice. Don’t you see people dissembling daily, to explain why whatever just happened wasn’t their fault? And don’t ''you'' make excuses to avoid responsibility for the things ''you'' didn’t pay attention to?<br>
'''Lecter''': ''We begin by covering the arse we see every day.'' Our ''own'' arse, Clarice. Don’t you see people dissembling daily, to explain why whatever just happened wasn’t their fault? And don’t ''you'' make excuses to avoid responsibility for the things ''you'' didn’t pay attention to?<br>
'''Clarice''': Just tell me how —<br>
'''Clarice''': Just tell me how — <br>
'''Lecter''': No. It is your turn to tell me, Clarice.}}
'''Lecter''': No. It is your turn to tell me, Clarice.}}


Every story can be boiled down this: once there was a problem and, for better or worse, it got resolved. It may be triumphant or tragic, but there must be an outcome. Storytellers who don’t get to grips with this fundament — 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 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.
Every story can be boiled down this: once there was a problem and, for better or worse, it got resolved. It may be triumphant or tragic, but there must be an outcome. Storytellers who don’t get to grips with this fundament — 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 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]]''.  


If someone clutching a hammer assigns you to a [[nail-finding task-force]], consider as you go Marcus Aurelius’ meditation, above. ''What is the problem?'' What are you trying to fix? Put down your [[PowerPoint]] and write this on a piece of paper.  
If someone clutching a hammer assigns you to a [[nail-finding task-force]], consider as you go Marcus Aurelius’ meditation, above. ''What is the problem?'' What are you trying to fix? Put down your [[PowerPoint]] and write this on a piece of paper.