Guy Kawasaki summarized the highlights of a new manifesto on innovation: Mind of the Innovator: Taming the Traps of Traditional Thinking by Matthew May.
Basically, the main point is that there are no easy short-cuts to true innovation. Of course, there should be a flash of inspiration, but most of it is just focused and methodical hard work. This is what separates idea and execution - after the initial idea is well defined starts the engineering of the idea.
However, it is not a linear process. The initial idea defines the over-arching vision, mission and problem/solution. This stays quite stable over time. On the engineering level there is a constant dialog between solution specification, development and testing through several iterations. We've been through a few already in Second Brain.
Looking at myself - I usually don't have problems with ideas - I get them from time to time and I visualize them as images, almost like paintings. Though very few of the ideas have any significance, and even fewer are acted upon, some of them stick and I try to deconstruct them into something that can be communicated meaningfully.
This is where things starts getting complicated for me. I tend to fall in the first of the traps mentioned in the manifesto:
Shortcutting. Leaping to solutions in an instinctive
way or intuitive way—i.e. the “blink” method of problem-solving—seldom
leads to an elegant solution because deeper, hidden causes don’t get
addressed. Watch CSI and House: first they collect the evidence, then
diagnose, and then solve. It’s never the guy or the disease you
initially suspect. (Source)
Translating the idea visualized as a painting into its individual components is the first challenge. I'm usually able to describe the main features and the context of the idea - what's going on here and there - but getting to the level on which a specification to an engineer can be made is difficult.
Developers need to know how the components are supposed to work together. I can tell how they are related, like this one talks to this one - also we have something over here that does something - and then, magically, stuff just happens. But the thing I find the most difficult has to do with the linear processes in the system over time - to explain the direction of interaction and the order of inputs and outputs. For example, the use case of creating collections in Second Brain from a library of content.
I think the reason I find this challenging is that my mind tend to gravitate to a higher level of abstraction when I work on the details. I look for perfection in the details, but I'm not so good at detailing things, and therefore I don't get much satisfaction from this part of the process. And this brings me to the second trap if innovation that I tend to fall in:
Complicating. Why do we overthink, complicate, and add
cost? And why do we ALL do it so intuitively, naturally, and (here’s
the killer) consistently? Answer: we’re hardwired that way. Our brains
are designed to drive hoarding, storing, accumulating, and
collecting-type behavior. We are by nature “do more/add on” types.
Don’t believe it? Watch the customers at Costco or Sam’s Club buy
thirty-six rolls of toilet paper. (Source)
I do this all the time because I think too much on the big idea when I should be concentrated on working out the details of the solution.
I am really impressed by engineers, and I try to learn from them. The past three months I've learned quite a lot from our technical manager, Maciek, and we've been pretty successful in not falling into these two traps.
First we agreed that I would write user stories instead of use cases as the product specification. This was so much easier for me, as I didn't have to worry about the nitty gritty of the "user does this and system does this" type of interaction.
Second, we decided to draft the interaction/functional design of Second Brain on pen and paper instead of the usual Visio designs. Previously I would spend too much time in perfecting the layout in Visio, when I should instead worry about the solving the most important pain points of the users. I suck at drawing, my recent designs are proof of this, but he is able to read what he needs from them and then just probe for the details.
This works really well for us. It has changed the dynamics of the team to the better, and, as you will see in Second Brain Reloaded, made us able to create a much better product.
Wrapping up this post, I see that it got too long. I should have been able to get my point across in just about a third of this post. Yet another example of me overcomplicating things instead of focusing on the details. On the other hand, at least I didn't take any short-cuts.