Cheap Ideas in the Junkyard
There is a constant desire to explore new ideas in the world of information, perspectives & opportunities. There is no escaping working on multiple ideas at a given point in time. It is the problem of getting lured by their deceiving nature that causes more harm than working on multiple ones at a time.
Let me state the problem clearly, It is the commitment to an idea without understanding it’s actual cost. For instance, If you happen to like a painting for your living room, you may take the decision to buy it based on it’s list price. Even though there may be unknowns such as transportation channels, the actual size of the wall, how to dispose of the existing painting. But in the end, a new painting cannot put a house in chaos!
The funny part is even though I know this for a long time now, I still end up making the same mistake of going after the new ones, without understanding what do they entail. I have had multiple notes about this, but somehow I do not have a set of principle that helps me navigate through this jungle of ideas without a feeling of missing an opportunity (FOMO).
And, I am not the only one who feels like this:
“People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully." Steve Jobs.
By nature, at first glance, ideas sound very exciting and look easy to implement. With time, while the excitement normalizes, the implementation details get more clarity. If I could make up a hypothetical mathematics equation for the perceived cost of new ideas, it would be a function of time (n).
On day one, when the cost looks cheaper due to a lower estimation of effort, no investments are made, and there is a higher component of excitement. The real cost is revealed on day n. The most harmful part of the equation is the Pre-Investments made with time. Not only they are costs but also they influence our judgment. It can be compared to the term “Getting tied to the pot” for poker players. It means that your bet in the current round is influenced by the fact that you have already played in the last round of betting, rather than the actual odds. As the commitment increases with time, it has an effect on our decision that gets influenced by our investments rather than our judgment about the idea. Moreover, it gets difficult to back out of it.
Ideas are cheap in the market, they get expensive when they reach home.
What if we could have a dedicated junkyard wherein we can toy with an idea for a fixed time to decide if we want to take it home, that can help us avoid getting deceived, and yet navigate through this jungle of ideas without a feeling of missing an opportunity (FOMO). Simply, it is a drill before you commit to an idea. In this junkyard, the aim would be to answer three principal questions to evaluate if it’s worth our time and can be taken home with us. We limit the time an idea can remain in the junkyard to curb the perceived cost of the idea.
Do we really want it, without the component of early excitement?
Test of time is the best test to answer the first principal question. If the idea keeps coming back to you in various ways, it signifies that you are want to explore it.
Does it help us in achieving the overall objective?
Guiding policy is an existence framework that tells us what lies within our purview. It helps stay away from the areas we do not want to foray into. Like the guardrails on a highway, the guiding policy directs and constrains action in certain directions without defining exactly what shall be done. OKR is also helpful to decide if the new idea helps us reach our current goals.
What are the approximate implementation costs (time and effort)?
To understand the implementation cost, we need to mimic that we are actually working on the idea. In other words, we need a framework that helps us limit the time spent on this. I find Shape up by Basecamp a great methodology for digital ideas.
It starts with a time appetite rather than estimates. It helps us estimate the effort by breaking the ideas into three major parts:
> Boundaries are like the raw idea encapsulated with a time budget.
> Solution is thought out in terms of various elements needed for the system to work.
> Derisk is defining probable rabbit holes that should be avoided.
Shape up duration can range from 2 days to a week.
Ideas are easy, building for their conviction is extremely difficult. You do not want to be owning one that you did not want in the first place. It is a good practice to bring ideas to a junkyard before committing to them.