Filling the Gap with Technology

The launch of the Apple iWatch, and the Android Wear series before that, ushers in a new era of human-computer integration with attached mobile devices. Many people suggest there is not much difference between seeing a text message on your wrist, from pulling your phone out of your pocket, turning on the display, and viewing the message; that humanity is getting too lazy if this is what we have come to ask for from our technology. But I would look at this from the perception that humanity is asking for something else out of non-interruption technology. We’re asking to be made more complete.

If you think about it, we are technology; we are bio(nano)-technology. Technology has gone from something that was far removed from us, to something that is attached to us. Maybe we just long to upgrade our natural built-in applications and platforms with electronic software and hardware.


Back in the day, computers were huge expensive machines that were rare and hard to access. They were the size of whole rooms, their time had to be rented and booked days or weeks ahead of time, and then travelling to, likely miles and miles away. Now, machines with much more power and access to information are in our pockets – with remarkably less interruption. Additionally, technology is becoming more unique to it’s master. Back in the day there was a severe lack of variety. There were only a few makes and models, and the operating system and software was fixed. Today we have a variety of devices, with even more variety of software. They are becoming more unique to their master; if you and your friend both had the same smartphone, trading phones would physically hurt, it wouldn’t feel like your phone and would have less utility to you.

I find myself thinking of PCs as Stairs, and Wearables as moreof a Ramp. The stairs have interruptions, but a ramp is smooth and integrated. Technology will get more and more analog. Moving closer and closer to our life force. Filling a never ending gap in our humanity.

‘The Minimum Viable’ State of Mind

Quick and clumsy is always better than long and planned out. This was a core principle in Sun Tzu’s Art of War (also translated as Art of Movement). The belief being that just getting up and doing something is more advantageous than spending too much time trying to plan for every contingency. As long as a successful outcome is a clearly defined and benchmarked, use resources to accomplish just that. Nothing less, nothing more. Do the minimum viable amount for each iteration until you reach the ultimate end goal.

Let’s take a look at some of the reasons why. Many will seem highly correlated, and they are. I decided to divide them up to be easier to digest and think through.

1. ON BEING AGILE: Things change. The only constant in life is change. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, entropy will always exist in a system. This is also true in social networks, machines, or even government policies. We cannot make assumptions in our planning, because by the time we’re done planning and take the first step, the environment or requirements could have already changed. This is why we have to take smaller steps and re-align our target point as the target shifts. John Boyd, a US fighter pilot and military strategist credited for introducing Sun Tzu’s teachings into the US Airforce, would preach his OODA Loop framework. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.


2. ON CREATING TIGHTER BENCHMARKS: By creating shorter and easier to reach benchmarks, we can figure out faster if our strategy is even viable or not. This saves a lot of time and resources. A company may have plans for a big new product or service. Before launching a full release across the globe, it would make more sense to roll out a launch with a first Minimum Viable Product  (MVP1), something with none of the bells and whistles, and a basic user interface, for example, to see if it is something customers even want.

In addition to the common new product example, this tactic can even save individuals from emotional stress. This “Light Ball Approach” introduced to me by Mark Reale from Gallop Labs, is ‘The Minimum Viable’ Trust framework. Rather than spending a lot of time thinking about whether someone (an employee, business partner, life partner, etc) is trustworthy, or going ahead and, without planning, just trusting that person with something significant, use the MVT model. Throw that individual a light ball to see if they can catch it and throw it back. If they can do this, throw them a heavier ball and see if they can return it until the balls you are throwing are big and heavy. If they keep returning this ball to you, you keep building trust over time. You wouldn’t invite a stranger to a weekend getaway, that is a very heavy ball. Trust would have to be built slowly to avoid a potentially stressful situation.


3. ON MEASURING RESULTS: By just doing it, we are able to see results. They should be at least somewhat measurable. We may fail terribly, but at least we would know where we stand compared to our end goal. A Minimum Viable Product for our new business idea could be something as simple as a landing page with our product images, followed by a “buy now” button. We don’t need to have any inventory, or a delivery process, an office or even any employees. A $10 website, and a couple hundred dollars in targeted Google and Facebook ads would tell us if we have a product market fit. If we track 100 clicks we know there is potential, and perhaps we should go ahead with our MVP2 and buy some inventory (storing it in our garage and delivering it personally), until the next MVP3 can be chased (securing a warehouse to manage deliveries).

An upgrade to a previous #whiteboard #diagram. Build Measure Learn. #lean #agile

A post shared by Ahmad Iqbal (@ahmiq) on


4. ON FAILING FASTER: Related to the third point, failing faster means earning our bruises and scratches by practicing handstands on a bed or a mat before a trying on a concrete floor. “Failure” has been getting a lot of attention recently as a good thing, but it’s important to understand that it plays one role in a larger framework for success. Just failure alone won’t make us successful, it must be coupled with learning, iteration, persistence, and maybe a few dozen more virtues.

5. ON JUST DOING IT: The act of doing the thing you want to accomplish, and engaging in that activity provides a better “playtime” environment in which the mind can start to experience patterns. It is easier to analyze and experience a problem when more of your life force and energy is dedicated to it. Just using your mind is one thing, but when you get out of the building, walk, talk, engage with others and surround yourself with the issues there is more “energy” from that environment flowing through you. You will understand the possible solution better, and how to best get there.

We should do the Minimum Viable Activity needed to A) determine if our goals are worth pursuing, B) identify where we rank in our ability to accomplish these goals, and C) staying safe from hurting ourselves or our resources.