Category: Writing

Wednesday, 9.29pm

Sheffield, U.K.

God cannot alter the past, though historians can. – Samuel Butler

I talked in my last post about having to work on a talk about the history of SSM.

For the next several posts I’m going to work on this project – so you may ending up learning more about SSM than you might consider necessary.

Here goes.

I could look at this history chronologically or thematically.

Let’s start at the end.

Peter Checkland, the name most associated with Soft Systems Methodology or SSM, delivered a keynote at OR 60, the Operations Research conference.

The paper that followed was called Reflections on 40 years in the management field: A Parthian shot (friendly).

A Parthian shot is a hit-and-run battle tactic used by the Parthians, an Iranian people.

Their cavalry would attack the enemy, then turn tail and run. The enemy would chase them believing they were fleeing. When the pursuers were close the Parthians would swing around in their saddles and fire their arrows into the chasing army.

This is where the term “parting shot” comes from – delivered by the person who has to have the last word as he or she leaves the room.

The talk and paper mark the end of Checkland’s professional career and so are perhaps the right place to start from to understand the journey that led to SSM.

They are reflections on the years “spent trying to understand the everyday real world in order to bring about positive changes in real-world situations which are taken to be problematical”.

Let’s unpack some of these elements – what are real-world situations that are taken to be problematical?

Wars, for starters. The Second World War was decidedly problematical. And it led to the creation of Operations Research as a field.

After the war, however, OR practitioners looked for other fields in which to apply their learnings, such as the management of organisations.

This in turn led to a rich set of techniques that were increasingly reductionist in nature, as benefitted a field that considered itself scientific.

And that led to another issue. A technique that solves a clear problem is great. But what if the problem itself is unclear?

This is something most people never really stop to consider.

Think about the last conversation you had where someone came up with a problem.

Did you feel like you had to offer a solution instantly?

Did you feel like even if you didn’t have one, there was a solution out there that could be found?

Did you ever stop to consider that the problem might be the way you were thinking about problems?

SSM’s origin story is somewhere in this space – in that period between when people believed that science could solve everything, and we learned that people behave in ways that science finds hard to deal with.

That’s a rabbit hole for the next post.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Tuesday, 10.51pm

Sheffield, U.K.

A road’s just an opinion about which way to go. – Rudy Rucker

A few weeks back we went to visit the remains of a Roman fort at Housesteads.

Some unnervingly straight roads take you there.

It’s strange when you travel on a straight road in the UK.

If you do it usually means you’re on a road laid down by the Romans around 2,000 years ago.

I prefer to meander. It seems a more natural way to be. Or, I’m trying to excuse procrastinating.

I’m working on a paper about the history of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM).

I find that when I have a project to work on these days I start by avoiding working on the thing itself.

Instead, I find ways to think about how to work on the thing.

I started by re-reading John McPhee’s essay on Structure.

I go back to this one quite often because he insists that his students start with a structure of some sort. It can be an outline. It can be a diagram. But the starting point is always a structure.

I like to start with a drawing of some kind – like the one that starts each of my posts.

The approach seems straightforward – you start with a structure, with an outline – something that you can build from like a design blueprint.

But, I think that sometimes the structure can only be seen when you aren’t looking for it.

It’s something you spy out of the corner of your eye as you distract yourself with something else.

I’ve read quite a lot about SSM over the years.

If I were following McPhee’s approach I’d first collect all my notes, sweep up all the raw material I have and put it in a pile.

Then, I’d go through this list, making and organising notes chronologically and thematically.

Then I’d look at my collections of notes and start to arrange them in a way that matched the structure I was thinking about.

And then I’d write.

This is the right way. A good way.

So why do I find it so hard to do?

Instead of following this approach I complained a lot in a series of notes.

Then I had something else to do.

When I had a few minutes free again, I tapped out an outline, something that started at the end, worked back to the beginning, and listed a number of themes that need to be put in some kind of order.

I’m finding that this approach seems to be helpful with other kinds of tasks as well.

Want to write some code?

Do your research. Read background information. Take notes.

Then, take a walk. Think about something else. Avoid working on the problem.

Then start work and see how the next stage goes.

This separation between stages, the willingness to give yourself time is hard to do – but it seems to help.

Perhaps it’s about giving your subconscious time to work on something while your conscious mind takes a break.

Still, the work does need to be done.

Perhaps tomorrow I should work on getting the outline finished.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Monday, 8.14pm

Sheffield, U.K.

I don’t write about good and evil with this enormous dichotomy. I write about people. I write about people doing the kinds of things that people do. – Octavia E. Butler

We live in uncertain times. The S&P500 is down 13% since the start of the year and no one really knows how things will play out.

Is this really something new?

Not really. Since I became aware that such things like markets existed, back at the start of this century, we’ve had a dot com crash, a housing crash, an energy crisis, the start of deglobalisation, a pandemic, a number of big and small wars, and what’s happening whenever you read this.

If you’re interested in making decisions under uncertainty what should you do, are there any models that can help?

I’m starting to think there aren’t.

Everything gets more complex the more you look at it.

Take something simple – the amount of time you spend reading versus the time you spend writing.

What do you read these days?

My list is depressing. I look at the BBC and CNN and get a set of world highlights.

I don’t bother with social media other than taking a brief look at LinkedIn.

I read the Economist when I remember to log into my library app, which suggested in its last issue that LinkedIn is the last space where you get useful information but that’s changing because users don’t spend enough time on it – less than an hour a week versus 35 hours on Tiktok if I remember correctly, although 35 hours – really?

I find stuff worth reading on Mastadon, where you come across pointers to posts like this one by Kat Hicks.

There’s a section in this post that talks about how you see what’s actually going on, the real rules that people play by when you’re not watching.

It talks about how to understand a thing you must also understand its opposite – things come in pairs.

This is similar to Kelly’s concept of bipolar constructs that underpins Colin Eden’s Strategic options development and analysis (SODA).

I have a lot on my mind right now and Hicks’ post reminded me of the power of pairs and I used them to jot down some of the things I’m thinking about.

Reading, in this case, led to writing.

I used a model to help me get started but, if you remember, I said earlier that I’m not sure models help that much.

So what’s going on?

I’m not going to go through the rest of my list in the image above, but what I think I’m trying to say is that life consists of contradictions.

We spend our days trying to figure out where to position ourselves between these extremes, driven partly by what we want to do and partly by what the environment demands from us.

And that means we have to be comfortable with uncertainty, with complexity, with the unavailability of clear answers and simple solutions.

We have to figure our way through situations that are never as bad as they seem and never as good as we’d like them to be.

We usually find that the future is obscured, that we see dimly, that of the many options that we could pick from none are compelling enough to commit to completely.

It’s when we commit that we take on risk. It’s when we commit that we reap rewards. How can things be both good and bad? And yet they always are.

I therefore reach this unhelpful conclusion.

Keep all your options open for as long as possible.

When given a choice between two things, do both.

Except when you have to make up your mind and commit to one thing.

Then do that.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Thursday, 8.57pm

Sheffield, U.K.

In boxing, they say it’s the punch you don’t see coming that knocks you out. In the wider world, the reality we ignore or deny is the one that weakens our most impassioned efforts toward improvement. – Katherine Dunn

Think of a situation, a problematic one.

Struggling to come up with one? Just have a look at the news – perhaps the productivity challenge that seems to afflict so many parts of the economy.

Why don’t things just work?

The larger operations get, the less nimble they are – elephants don’t dance, as the saying goes.

Managers in organisations find themselves in situations that they consider problematic. What tends to happen?

The most common response is increasing paralysis. Things can’t happen because other things need to happen first. And those other things require the first things to happen.

The Economist has an article about the need for countries in Europe to increase defence spending.

The recommended approach is to spend more money on tanks and drones and interceptor missiles.

But that needs more actual money.

Instead, a number of countries are using accounting techniques – reclassifying existing spending as defence spending, such as defence-related pensions.

Which is all very well if you want to hit a target. It’s much less useful if you want to actually defend yourself.

I don’t know if paralysis is the right term, there’s a lot of activity but no actual movement.

It’s the opposite of a duck, all flap but no glide.

At the other end of the scale is demolition, or what is now referred to as “delete” on the other side of the pond.

It’s more common in commercial settings where a new boss comes in and fires lots of people or sells off parts of the company.

It’s a form of surgery – cut off the parts that are diseased and what’s left has a chance to survive.

That assumes that the person in charge knows how to do surgery and isn’t hacking at random.

And, of course, that the patient survives once the surgery is done.

If you speak to insiders you realise that the medical system is not there to help you, it’s there to make money.

Far too many procedures are unnecessary.

We should really try and avoid hospitals altogether – the best defence is to stay healthy.

These first two strategies are the ones managers reach for first.

The third one, which they should reach for, is simple, but not easy.

It’s trying to improve a situation, rather than trying to find a solution.

Let’s take an example that comes up again and again in my experience.

You have a data problem of some kind – you need information to meet some obligation.

The first thing people do is look for a system – is there an app for that?

That’s looking for a solution – a one-stop shop, a magic bullet.

Magic isn’t real.

What’s real is that we do things a certain way right now.

We need to deliver something that we don’t do yet.

How do we improve what we’re doing so that we can deliver this new thing?

Improvement takes time, patience and understanding. You have to go to where the work is being done, see how it’s being done, and learn your way into making improvements.

Some people are too busy to take the time to make things better.

They are also too busy to have the time to learn what’s possible.

And I don’t really know how to address that situation – when people are unwilling or unable we either have to accept a paralysed situation or use coercive power.

And that’s no fun for anyone.

Trying to improve things is hard, unsexy, valuable work.

And, when it works, it can be fun.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Saturday, 5.10pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Businesses, as well as individuals with desired talents, however, will usually find a way to cope with monetary instability as long as their goods or services are desired by the country’s citizenry. So, too, with personal skills. – Warren Buffett (2024 letter)

Things can seem a little bleak right now. It feels like we’re heading into stormy territory.

Markets are crashing.

The wave of optimism of the last few years, driven by hopes of an AI boom and a bonfire of regulation, have been replaced by uncertainty.

Markets hate uncertainty.

And then there is war, the actual kind and the trade kind.

Increasing protectionism and coercive politics make conflicts more likely.

How will things play out?

The one thing we know is that it’s impossible to predict what’s going to happen next.

Things could get worse. They could stay the same. They could get better. Who knows?

So, when there is such uncertainty what should you do? What should we do?

There are three things that should be in your strategy.

First, it’s about the long term.

As Benjamin Graham wrote, in the short term markets are voting machines. In the long term they are weighing machines.

If you have a 20-year horizon things will be different. If nothing else the main pieces in the game right now will be replaced on the board.

Some businesses will struggle. Others will do well. As long as you have a position in the whole market, you should stay there.

Time in the markets, as the saying goes, is more important than timing the market.

Second, it’s about sticking to your knitting

In Warren Buffett’s 2024 letter he writes that people will be able to cope with instability as long as what they do is still needed.

Try and be needed. Do useful things.

Build your business to do something people need, something that is rare and valuable, hard to imitate, which you can deliver competently.

It is time to focus on value because people are getting nervous, and when that happens they stop spending on things unless they need them.

And that sets off a downward spiral that is hard to stop – confidence is a fragile thing and unfortunately modern economies are propped up by confidence rather than substance.

Third, have a nut

I assume the term “nut” is about being like a squirrel – have a stash tucked away for the winter.

You need to have something in reserve, something that you can use if things go bad.

Something you can rely on if you have to walk away from a bad situation.

The problem with coercive methods is that they appeal to people in power and sometimes the only course of action you have is to have the power to walk away.

You cannot be controlled if you are not willing to be controlled.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Thursday, 10.53pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels. – Francisco Goya

Do you ever think about what you need from a product or service?

I find myself quite conflicted sometimes between what I need, what clients need, and what others think clients need.

Let me explain.

I was having a chat with someone about using a particular software application.

The app did something specific, as long as you gave it the data it needed.

There was still a lot of work involved in getting the data.

Once you had the data, the thing the software did wasn’t as necessary any more.

You had learned enough to do the rest of the work on your own.

I don’t think many products or services get this right.

Or, looking at it from the other end of the telescope, the products that survive do something right.

But, even then you sacrifice something.

Microsoft made it easy to use computers.

In doing so, they created a working environment where it’s easy to do easy stuff.

You just open a spreadsheet and add numbers in complicated ways.

It’s impossible, for most users, to do difficult stuff.

How many people do you know that can think of three ways to combine data from a hundred different spreadsheets?

It’s funny.

There are a thousand products that are vying for your attention.

The one thing you can be certain of is that not a single one will do everything you need.

If you push it, you’ll reach the limits eventually. Maybe even very soon.

Maybe we should think of software like we think of cars.

Worryingly, some are three-wheelers, economical perhaps but prone to tipping over if you go around a corner too fast.

Some are amazing, and come with a price tag to match.

There’s a tradeoff between factors such as speed, comfort, style, and cost.

How do you choose one? Pick the one that meets your needs.

The thing I am starting to see is that we should be using lean principles more when selecting software tools.

The most important principle is flow.

What happens next after you use the software? What happens before it? If the product doesn’t contribute to flow, then do you need it at all?

The second is to use what you already have.

If you’ve invested in systems, then you should make the most of them before buying anything else.

Then you should use Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS).

You should only choose something proprietory and controlled when you have no other choice.

Even then, think about what you will do if your access to that software is cut off – something that’s not unthinkable these days.

What will you do then?

I think we are moving into a world where it will be profitable to operate open source models.

The challenge these days is getting anyone to use your software at all.

The more users you have the more likely it is that you’ll find ones that are willing to pay.

You may not make billions but you’ll find a business model that creates value.

This may be a hard thing for some business people to understand.

Why would you invest in FLOSS?

It comes down to a belief that software is too important to be left to markets.

A child anywhere in the world should be able to access and use computers to find information, learn, and create.

People go to great lengths to control access to physical resources.

That’s bad enough.

We cannot afford to have others control our intellectual resources.

We need to be free to think.

That’s an unexpected conclusion.

What we need, from any product or service, is for it to help us stay free.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Wednesday, 9.53pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Technology is a useful servant but a dangerous master. – Christian Lous Lange

Technology should make our lives easier.

And it does.

But we also experience the unintended consequences of using technology.

Figuring out how to integrate technology into our lives without compromising the quality of our lives is a challenge more and more of us face.

An interesting example.

Yesterday, one of the not-so-small people in the house asked for help with his French homework.

I don’t speak French.

His pronunciation sounded problematic.

I took a picture of the page he was trying to practice, written in his handwriting.

ChatGPT transcribed it flawlessly.

Another AI generated French speech, complete with the right accent.

I sent the mp3 to his phone, and he had everything he needed to practice and learn the text.

Handwriting transcription would help me immensely.

Typing by hand makes my wrist hurt.

I’ve typed a lot of words in my time – and RSI was perhaps inevitable.

I work digitally because it’s efficient and because I don’t need paper.

But if I could just write by hand and get a decent transcription, then maybe I’d reduce wear & tear on my wrist.

That would be good, wouldn’t it?

The thing that worries us about technology is its impact on children.

We see them engrossed in devices, watching for much longer than we think is safe.

We see them move through a virtual world that is more pleasurable and fulfilling than the real world.

We fear they may get lost and never return.

Then there is technology that just makes things worse – like some workplace technologies.

The kind of technology that is about controlling and surveilling the worker rather than automating repetitive work.

Tech that prevents us getting work done, and instead pretends that process is the same as progress.

But there is progress.

And I remain optimistic that technology can do more good than bad for so many of us.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Tuesday, 9.50pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive. – Andy Grove

Is there a point when an organisation starts to fail?

Or are there crucial points, when the decisions they make lead to success or failure?

Let me put some context around the question.

A startup run by owner founders is a dynamic and interesting place to work.

We build things for clients. As owners, we take a keen interest in how to make things work better. We hire people with fire, people that want to work on interesting things that make a difference.

And the business grows.

Eventually, we take on staff and those staff come into job roles. There is a specification, often a hastily written one. There is a niche, a box, a hole to fit a human shaped peg.

And soon, we have more pegs in holes than creative product building types because we already have a product and customers and what matters is getting customers served.

Eventually, everything we do is so structured that people who want to build new things can’t do that because the existing structure constrains them.

They’re mummified in a web of their own making.

Well, actually, they just opt out, either leaving or being invited to leave.

After a while, what you’re left with is a company full of people who know how to do their jobs but don’t know how to build products.

It’s time to change leaders at this point but really that makes no difference.

What matters is the market you’re in.

As Warren Buffett has said, a great business will do well even with average management. A great management team will not be able to rescue a poor business.

So why do people want jobs so badly – why do they want to climb ladders that lead nowhere?

I suppose some ladders do lead to big jobs and good benefits and a permanent feeling of unease.

What’s it like having a job where you don’t actually do anything?

Real satisfaction comes from being close to the ground, working on something that interests you.

Why not wrap a business around that instead?

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Just remember, once you’re over the hill you begin to pick up speed. – Charles M. Schulz

I started the year planning to read the news more often.

I think it might make more sense just to stop altogether for the next four or so years.

Intelligence officials talk about monitoring chatter, a measure of the volume of communications.

You can use this technique with news as well now.

What I mean is that you don’t need to read the news, you just need to monitor how much something is mentioned.

Ten years back I had to read what was going on to know about certain bits of regulation.

Now, I can tell what’s happening and if its good or bad by monitoring my LinkedIn feed – not reading anything because who has time for that and posts are getting longer and longer – but just glancing at and noting the number of posts on any particular topic.

And this leads to a problem – what can you trust?

Not the mainstream news – even though I think many journalists want to tell a good story they’re forced down to do things that get clicks and traffic.

That is, if they still have a job. Because AI will clearly do that better and faster and cheaper.

Well, faster and cheaper anyway.

And the rest of the Internet is a cesspool of opinions anyway.

The most you can do is notice the pros and cons of a topic and see how things turn out.

Let’s take AI as an example.

My feed is filled roughly equally with evangelists and haters.

The evangelists think this will change everything.

The haters think it’s buggy and slow and not useful.

Me? I think it comes down to people and what feels right to them.

You’re probably somewhere on a slope when it comes to your experience of technology.

You don’t really like it, it gets in the way of doing what you really want to do. You don’t want to wrestle with a computer, you just want to get things done but it feels like you’re going backwards.

You use it because you have to but it really makes no difference. You’re about as fast with a computer as you are with a pencil and paper. It doesn’t add anything but it doesn’t get in the way either.

Then there’s a sweet spot, where you get the technology and the technology works for you. It’s accessible and understandable and you can get things done fast and well.

Finally, there’s the point where the technology moves too quickly for you to understand. Some people get it, but the rest of us are left behind.

Hopefully by that time you’ve made enough money to retire.

I think there’s a place for technology that doesn’t require human input, that replaces the effort altogether and there are countless examples of how that makes life better and civilisation possible.

But technology for people has to be at a level that serves them – that helps them to think and do what they need to do.

The right technology for me to think and work is unlikely to be the right one for you.

What’s important is getting a technology stack set up that lets you get on and work on what makes you happy.

And, of course, sometimes you just need to learn how to use the technology in front of you so that you can get on with the work.

There is a sweet spot, the right slope downhill that is fun rather than fearful.

That’s what you need to find.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

The least productive people are usually the ones who are most in favor of holding meetings. – Thomas Sowell

I’m looking at David Graeber’s “Bullsh*t jobs”, and just thinking about the challenge of doing useful work in an organisation, especially a large one.

The thing about being in a large organisation is that you have a real chance of making an impact.

Large organisations often prefer to work with other large organisations, so you are exposed to problems that you just wouldn’t see elsewhere.

You start to see how people make decisions about some really quite substantial sums of money.

And you also start to see how so many organisational problem situations are caused be internal rather than external forces.

Take hiring, for example.

When the amount of work we have increases we think that we need someone else – another body to help out.

That kicks off a process – you need to spec the role, figure out what the pay level should be, get permissions, advertise, interview, and appoint someone.

And then the cycle repeats itself – you have more work and your recruit has more work and it’s time to go and get someone new to help out.

Before we go down this route, however, we should really ask a couple of questions.

First, does this work need doing at all?

You’ll be surprised at just how much work is pointless work.

It’s not designed to be pointless – someone probably thought it was a really good idea – but it ends up being pointless because it’s not worth doing at all.

Of course, everything is more complicated than that.

Let’s argue that a particular type of work is pointless – like a formal performance review.

You don’t want to do it and your manager doesn’t want to do it. Surely you can just have a chat instead and talk about what went right or wrong.

That would be efficient, right?

But the reason you have these reviews is for more than feedback.

It’s a mechanism to show you’ve been treated fairly. A tool to ensure that the company has a record of how it’s dealt with you in case things go wrong.

So, from a legal point of view, doing all this extra work is worth it to avoid being sued.

And that’s hard to argue against.

Even though in almost every case you should.

The second question is whether you really need to hire someone.

Can a script do the job instead – what can you get a computer to do rather than a person?

Not because you don’t want to hire someone but because there is no point hiring a person to do something a machine should be doing.

Far too many jobs, especially temp positions, are of this type.

The difficulty is that the majority of people don’t have the skills needed to make computers work for them – and this is something, I am told, that’s getting worse for young people who have grown up tapping tablets.

Let’s wrap up this stream of thought.

Productive teams are small, have the minimum number of people needed to collaborate and use technology effectively to get things done.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh