The value of change when there are infinite fixes
Solving problems of substance
I think it’s easy to look at a lot of systems in the world and observe issues or opportunities to improve them. There’s an infinite number of ways something could be better – whether the built environment, or a button on a software product, or some way to improve the line at the DMV.
It’s easy to notice problems in the world and to think “oh well it’d be so much if this was actually like that” but I’ve started to appreciate that sometimes problems are not solved so simply.
In order for there to be a substantial change, there has to be a solution to the problem that isn’t only equivalent to the mass of the problem, but also to overcome the “activation energy” of how the problem exists. In physics, the inertia of moving an object actually requires more energy than to keep the object in motion, because you have to exert enough energy to get over the friction of the object resting – this applies to all problems.
As I ideate on problems to solve in the context of a business, I have shifted my thinking from “there is an obvious first-order solution that could be easily implemented” to a mindset of most problems existing from secondary or tertiary-order contexts surrounding the problem. And a lot of these secondary or tertiary order problems are system-level.
So, when you consider the varying degrees of tackling a problem, you find that in order to enact change you either sift through the bureaucracy and bulk of what is already there to try to piece together a working system that people are familiar enough, or you rebuild it from scratch – baking in a new values system that seeks to prevent the failures of the old system.
If it matters, someone will be doing something about it
I’ve been looking at problem spaces in cities and civic engagement and the idea that keeps coming up again and again in my head is “What problems are worth the activation energy” to solve? And even more importantly, what problems are actually in need of being solved?
Travel has taught me that not all places rely on rigid rules—sometimes, the collective ingenuity of people suffices. For instance, take Mallorca's single-lane roads down extremely steep mountains in the north – What happens when you come across a car coming the other direction? Through a series of hand motions and facial expressions, you work together with the other driver to find a way for one of you to move to a better spot to let the other pass, and then you carry on with your day. It’s easy to see how a single vehicle road along a winding tourist destination can be perceived as a problem, but that the solution, while maybe a little uncomfortable, is attainable enough without needing to enact some sort of massive infrastructure overhaul.
I guess another way to say this, is that if it matters, someone will do something about it. Even if how they solve that problem is a bit scrappy.
This has been a great learning from The Mom Test – A good proxy for whether a problem is worth solving is to just find out if anyone’s even tried to solve it, or if they pay for someone else to solve it for them. Someone may perceive a problem but not actually do anything about changing the environment of that problem, because the activation energy is too high to implement change, and it’s simple enough to just stick with whatever hack or solution is already in place.
Part of the necessary activation energy for change is made up of the existing hacked-together solution, but it still can be a good signal that there is something valuable to build if the hacked-together solution involves a lot of steps.
The truest form of uncovering where opportunities are is to objectively look at how people operate in their own lives with a completely agnostic view to how problems get solved, and then see if there’s a level of pain or suffering that perhaps some non-obvious solution to the person who has the problem could alleviate.
Cities as hubs for problems
Cities are a great example of messy, bureaucratic systems that have survived through hacking things together. The activation energy for cities is also immensely high.
If you make a city website better looking, the amount of work (sales, procurement, RFP, etc. etc.) that goes into implementing the solution to the perceived problem of aesthetics is so vastly more intense than the improvement that it’s foolish to think a cosmetic solution is worth it.
Cities, with their ever-adapting chaos and charm, teach us that not every problem needs a high-tech solution. Sometimes the best fix is the simplest one, crafted out of necessity and a collective willingness to just make it work with what we got.
The maximalist in me often demands the highest quality of a solution. If it’s worth building, it’s probably worth building thoroughly.
But this realization that there are plenty of imperfections in the world yet things continue to hum along reminds me to refocus my search for problems away from problems that can achieve perfection with minor edits towards problems that demand a more enhanced overhaul – even if the change is relatively simple, and not maximized.
In fact, often when I have gone and done things in my life, I’ve been relieved to find that sometimes getting the problem out of the way is satisfying enough even when the maximalist in me still wants to conduct a plan that is comprehensive and fully immersive.
But I have to remind myself that the world is only made by doing things. After all, it’s not about fixing everything; it's about fixing the right things. And when you nail that, that’s where you find the sweet spot of real impact and value.
If you enjoyed this post, you may also enjoy some of my older posts.
And mostly as a reminder to myself…
