Good piece. I spent Saturday conducting a quarterly business review with one of my companies, exploring the right questions to ask. One particular question took us far away from the current business but solved an even bigger problem and positioned the business really well.
I think at lot of the time we don't think "big or wide" enough with our questions.
The answer is plausible; the prompt is wrong! And the answer is seductive because it's metaphorically a photograph. As David Hockney says, "We see with memory. That's not true in a painting; it's not even true even in a painting made from a photograph." The layers of paint make the painting interesting and useful, but most do not see this. The lack of context and nuance will be even worse with moving images, which are even more seductive than the written word.
I recall when we started using PowerPoint on Macs on a beautiful level, and clients could not resist; all the other firms were still typing out their foils using typewriters. OK, I'm old.
And now GenAI can create decks in seconds! However, I don't know why we call it GenAI. To me, it is ReplicativeAI (RepAI!?), the stochastic use of information to construct plausible answers. And that is McKinsey's superpower: excellent repackaging, smooth selling, and deep networks.
Most clients take action based on their memory (aka elite consultant branding and packaging), and their FOMO reinforces this.
I just spent a little time with a small firm on their supply chain strategy. The framing was wrong; they wanted a new planning solution. They were down the path of talking to planning consultants and systems integrators. As the saying goes, "Everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer." The more significant issues were (1) the overall operating model was still undeveloped (2) there were other more considerable opportunities in the supply chain. In the painting metaphor, the canvas is more expansive, and the layers of paint show different stories to work on. They're down the path of (2); it'll save a ton of money and should drive revenue from better service. (1) is TBD. The bottom line is a good outcome: effective framing yields efficient execution.
In the cheap answers/good questions dichotomy, I'd say that 90%+ of the questions are "routine" or "puzzles"; the other 10% may be "wicked" or "enigmatic," which demand a different level of inquiry. It takes a whole other level of strategic thinking and interpretation. Back to the art metaphor... Wayne Thiebaud has a great line about his work: "Art comes from art." It takes a long time to get a new artwork appreciated. Even when creating Quiet/Orchestro, the challenge was balancing routine problems vs acts of creation needs. We identified opportunities to unbundle across the value chain, but changing minds takes a long time. This would be an interesting dialogue on how to do this.
Even so, most "routine" or "puzzle" projects are poorly executed, often solving the wrong problem. Most companies implementing new planning solutions are generally solving for the wrong needs today and tomorrow. It rarely ends well.
Getting the right framing and thinking sets up the right implementation execution for both types of needs. That's the epilogue to your book! (I'm working on that one!)
Interesting from the perspective of how education needs to catch up with the concept of good questions are more valuable to execute change than a plethora of mediocre answers.
This is good stuff @Sangeet. Been following your stance super closely. The simplest of the questions often carve the path of curiousity. Lots of good PoVs here
Good piece. I spent Saturday conducting a quarterly business review with one of my companies, exploring the right questions to ask. One particular question took us far away from the current business but solved an even bigger problem and positioned the business really well.
I think at lot of the time we don't think "big or wide" enough with our questions.
One of the better thoughts i have read recently. To be or not to be is the question
Very insightful and thoughtful post. Thanks Sangeet!
Yes 100%. Also Douglas Adams realized this decades ago. (HHGTTG). I wrote a very short piece in a similar vein not long ago. https://www.emotif.us/journal/ai-acceleration-is-the-fastest-way-to-meet-yourself
So much to unpack!
The answer is plausible; the prompt is wrong! And the answer is seductive because it's metaphorically a photograph. As David Hockney says, "We see with memory. That's not true in a painting; it's not even true even in a painting made from a photograph." The layers of paint make the painting interesting and useful, but most do not see this. The lack of context and nuance will be even worse with moving images, which are even more seductive than the written word.
I recall when we started using PowerPoint on Macs on a beautiful level, and clients could not resist; all the other firms were still typing out their foils using typewriters. OK, I'm old.
And now GenAI can create decks in seconds! However, I don't know why we call it GenAI. To me, it is ReplicativeAI (RepAI!?), the stochastic use of information to construct plausible answers. And that is McKinsey's superpower: excellent repackaging, smooth selling, and deep networks.
Most clients take action based on their memory (aka elite consultant branding and packaging), and their FOMO reinforces this.
I just spent a little time with a small firm on their supply chain strategy. The framing was wrong; they wanted a new planning solution. They were down the path of talking to planning consultants and systems integrators. As the saying goes, "Everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer." The more significant issues were (1) the overall operating model was still undeveloped (2) there were other more considerable opportunities in the supply chain. In the painting metaphor, the canvas is more expansive, and the layers of paint show different stories to work on. They're down the path of (2); it'll save a ton of money and should drive revenue from better service. (1) is TBD. The bottom line is a good outcome: effective framing yields efficient execution.
In the cheap answers/good questions dichotomy, I'd say that 90%+ of the questions are "routine" or "puzzles"; the other 10% may be "wicked" or "enigmatic," which demand a different level of inquiry. It takes a whole other level of strategic thinking and interpretation. Back to the art metaphor... Wayne Thiebaud has a great line about his work: "Art comes from art." It takes a long time to get a new artwork appreciated. Even when creating Quiet/Orchestro, the challenge was balancing routine problems vs acts of creation needs. We identified opportunities to unbundle across the value chain, but changing minds takes a long time. This would be an interesting dialogue on how to do this.
Even so, most "routine" or "puzzle" projects are poorly executed, often solving the wrong problem. Most companies implementing new planning solutions are generally solving for the wrong needs today and tomorrow. It rarely ends well.
Getting the right framing and thinking sets up the right implementation execution for both types of needs. That's the epilogue to your book! (I'm working on that one!)
I wrote something similar but this is far more insightful - I love the "unexpected intersection of distant ideas". https://www.megbear.com/post/ask-better-questions
Exactly.
Interesting from the perspective of how education needs to catch up with the concept of good questions are more valuable to execute change than a plethora of mediocre answers.
This is good stuff @Sangeet. Been following your stance super closely. The simplest of the questions often carve the path of curiousity. Lots of good PoVs here
👏
👏👏👏