November, 2022

There are proposed quite a few methods out there for innovating. And they all have roots in the most powerful method we have (whether it’s conscious or not). So I think it makes sence to look at the root for inspiration.

The method is the epistemology of science, following Karl Poppper, and later David Deutsch. What Popper and Deutsch has shown us about how science makes progress, it’s that it looks (kind of) like this process:

1. We have some knowledge
2. You discover a problem with this knowledge.
3. You conjecture (guess) a solution/explanation that solves the problem (after some research, observation, experimentation)
4. You critize that solution. If it stands up, you propose it as a theory/explanation that can tested.
5. You make a (or more) critical test to figure out if the theory is true.
6. If the ciritical test solves the current problem and stands up to tests, we consider it new knowledge.

I’d say that’s a good of a base method for innovating than any. Basically you discover a problem, figure out if you have a good solution, iterate on the proposal, and figure out if anybody wants to pay for it.

The key point is that the process starts with discovering problems to solve.

So do businesses actually have a method of discovering errors/problems, and use this to make their business better and innovate?

I think most businesses have a sort of ad-hoc, unconsciuous approach to this. They experience some problems and fix them. And some problems are just swept under the rug.

But I think one cold do much better by seeking out problems, and bringing them to light.

Nick Kokonas told a story on a podcast [1] about suddenly being in a position in his restaurant where he got to observe and ask a lot of questions about how things were done and why. He discovered a lot of problems people just worked around, and did not notice anymore. Problems where “it’s just the way things are”. These discoveries lead to a series of innovations by Nick Kokonas.

To discover problems more actively, you could for example have a process of routinely talking customers, having everybody capture problems and issues, capture ideas, etc.. and routinely reviewing them.

Deutsch actually have a great way of thinking about problem. He says they are “a set of ideas that seems inadequate and worth trying to improve, where the existing explanation may seem too glib, or too labored, unnecessarily narrow or unrealistically ambitious.” Meaning there are many ways to think about a problem, is not just some hiccup you are experiencing.

There is actually one area where tracking errors is common. That is in software development. Every software project has an issue-tracker, where you track problems, bugs, feature-ideas and so on.

I’m kind of suprised this doesn’t really exist outside of software development.

Now there are some “quality management” tools that track “non-conformance” and perhaps enhancemnet suggestions. But they definetely don’t inspire to active use - to actively report issues that when fixed can make the company much better off. Nor are they light-weight enough to just file an issue. I think the best part about something like GitHub issues is that it is expected that there will be errors, and that it is open so everyone can contribute to fix.

So for businesses outside of software development, I think there is a system waiting to be built around problem discovery.

I will definitely research this more.

(PS: How great of an insight isn’t this for any entrepreneur? That there will always be problems you can solve! [2])

---

1. Nick Kokonas - know what you are selling
2. The beginning of Infinity (book) - David Deutsch