The constant entrepreneur

The ‘Red Queen’ in ‘Alice through the mirror’ inspired a generation of scientists with the idea that you must run to be able to stay where you are. It was the perfect metaphor for evolution of species. The concept was popularized in Matt Ridley’s science communication book ‘The Red Queen’.

Species innovate through random mutations.

The process is overall expensive in the currency of energy: although mutations are cheap, because the future is uncertain, species must accumulate a plethora of mutations to anticipate the change that may come. There is a lot of redundancy. And every time a cell replicates, it has to replicate all this ‘excess of luggage’. Species pay this high energy price, because the stakes are even higher: those who fail do adapta to change, face extinction. And extinction… you know… is forever.

The process is optimised for resilience, not efficiency.

The life spam of a species is on average 30.000 years. The very, very old ones that are still around, like amoebas and turtles, are still modified versions of the originals, which occupy very, very specific space/time niches. They specialised in not changing and although they may not disappear, the most likely will never dominate the Earth. They are a kind of evolutionary Zombie.

Still, species do this very expensive and inefficient process of innovation because… they have no other option: all species around them are differentiating and innovating, because there is one certainty: do nothing and you will die. Because the world around you is most certainly, because of the laws of physics, chemistry, nature, going to change.

If you think this could be a metaphor for companies and innovation, it is not unintentional. The difference to the real world is that there is no bail-out when you make a bad evolutionary decision. You go extinct, your competitors occupy your niche, life goes on.

To increase the odds of success, innovation has to be constant.

Innate talent may have a role, but is not more than 10%. Our analytical and emotional intelligence, creativity and sense of aesthetics, that influence our ability to innovate, are not genetically determined. It’s more nurture than nature.

For innovation to be constant, it needs a framework and a process.

The most basic principle of this process is our ability to observe the world and deduce its structure and function: our ability to create and test hypothesis. That is why our quality of life has improved so much so fast over the last 500 years, since we structured the scientific method. And it doesn’t matter if your goal is to study the atom or to create a new business model to sell books. The scientific method applies.

There are many books describing the (or a) framework to innovate. I really like the Business Canvas Model and the Lean Startup. However, you can read all that you want about the scientific method or business and still be lousy at hypothesising about the world around you. Maybe that is the reason why not all entrepreneurs (and scientists) that read the same books manage to identify and solve good problems.

Hypothesizing has to be a constant behavior. You don’t turn it on when you arrive at work or is about to do something. You don’t turn it off when you go home. You must never turn it off.

And those who do it, who never turn it off, are those who who experiment serendipity more often. As the old saying says: the more I work, the luckier I get. Just that for those how know how to do this, observing the world around you and coming up with hypothesis is not really work.

Train your mind by turning EVERYTHING into an hypothesis, evaluate them and conclude to make better decisions.