Volume 1 | Issue 2
After re-reading two books (‘The Earth is Flat by Thomas Friedman and ‘Abductive Reasoning’ by Charles Pierce) over the past week, I discovered that the books have touched on my behavior and mental biases, earlier in my career.
Such behavioral attributes have little to do with work experience and what academic qualifications from which universities, but everything to do with deciphering a clear and succinct outlook of things that have an impact on our interpretation of meanings.
Not so long ago, when I first heard the buzz-words Google, Facebook, Cloud, 4G, Skype and LinkedIn, I joked about the words together with some of my silly friends. I am not afraid to admit that in some part, the jokes were meant to camouflage our embarrassment and unfamiliarity of such disruptive technologies:
▪ Google started off as noodles that got tangled
▪ Facebook was a digital photo-album
▪ Cloud was the white fluffs floating in the sky
▪ 4G was a parking lot on the 4th floor
▪ Skype was a typing tool
▪ LinkedIn was a digital storage-cage
The traditional approach is asking ‘Is it true?’ or “Can we prove that?”. That was much employed to market and develop a market for such products or applications (not the ones submitted to the Universities). Now to the present. I am a strong advocate of shifting my thinking paradigm and am actively encouraging my colleagues and clients alike to shift deductive thinking to an abductive reasoning. I find that asking questions differently can bring surprising outcomes. Some of the more common questions that we ask about market-competitive trends and technology-driven impacts are:
▪ Might this become true?
▪ How likely is it to become true?
▪ What might follow if it becomes true?
‘The art challenges the technology, and the technology inspires the art.’
John Lasseter (Director)