A simple idea (that no one's apparently thought of)

A book I'm currently reading, "Why Not?: How To Use Everyday Ingenuity To Solve Problems Big And Small", mentions a simple yet elegant idea for which, try as I might, I can't seem to find a downside. And the reason I'm moved to write about it now is that I spent 2+ hours on the phone with Dell yesterday, ultimately solving nothing, and turning me from a mild-mannered guy into a mushroom cloud looking for a place to happen.

The idea goes like this: Why is it that, instead of waiting on the line for minutes (or hours, as was my case), companies can't just have a system that places your call in a priority sequence for automated callback as soon as an operator becomes available?

This is just one of the many interesting questions raised by this book. Having just recently left the academic world, I can quite cleary see that stopping--even for a moment--to consider such apparent inconsistencies, is a rare and precious occurrence in the business world.

To wit, a colleague of mine--brilliant, thoughtful and extremely knowledgeable about this particular topic--was momentarily stumped by such a simple question. And I don't think it's a default of ability or creativity. Rather, I think it's simply that business imperatives are often crushingly blighted in their scope: Get it done, now, for as little as possible.

Anyone stumbling onto this post, by luck or accident, is welcome to weigh in.

Nic

Lance Armstrong is a genius!

From an article in today's Wired News: Drugs: Sports' Prisoner's Dilemma:

Consider two competing athletes: Alice and Bob. Both Alice and Bob have to individually decide if they are going to take drugs or not.

Imagine Alice evaluating her two options:

"If Bob doesn't take any drugs," she thinks, "then it will be in my best interest to take them. They will give me a performance edge against Bob. I have a better chance of winning.

"Similarly, if Bob takes drugs, it's also in my interest to agree to take them. At least that way Bob won't have an advantage over me.

"So even though I have no control over what Bob chooses to do, taking drugs gives me the better outcome, regardless of his action."

Unfortunately, Bob goes through exactly the same analysis. As a result, they both take performance-enhancing drugs and neither has the advantage over the other. If they could just trust each other, they could refrain from taking the drugs and maintain the same non-advantage status -- without any legal or physical danger. But competing athletes can't trust each other, and everyone feels he has to dope -- and continues to search out newer and more undetectable drugs -- in order to compete. And the arms race continues.

So now, Floyd Landis got caught with his hand in the testosterone jar, to everyone's surprise but those of us who live in the real world. Yes, he won amid a depleted field where the favourites were disqualified for doing what we all know they do. But must necessarily we assume that the drug screening caught all of the cheaters? Clearly not.

In essence, drug tests are a stupidity test: if you're dumb enough to get caught, then you deserve to get the boot. And in this respect, our old pal Lance was quite clearly a genius.

Me debunk and American myth
And take my life in my hands?

—The Tragically Hip, "At The Hundredth Meridian"

Nic