The uncertainty depositaries

Most people would consider uncertainty a bad thing. You don’t know what will happen, you can’t control for the outcomes you would prefer. I’m not talking risk here, which can technically be insured against. I’m talking uncertainty, where there is no objective way to determine what the future state of things will be; no means to end framework by which to go.

However, not all people experience uncertainty in the same way. There is a great theory developed by the economist Frank H. Knight about uncertainty and entrepreneurship. Knight claims entrepreneurs have lower thresholds to apply their subjective decision making under highly uncertain circumstances. Whether positive outcomes are ascribable to competent judgment or sheer luck, is not really discernable, but at least it’s important to know that there are people who aren’t afraid to apply their own judgment to make decisions under deeply uncertain circumstances (with all the consequences of being wrong, and pretty much alone in your beliefs at many points).

Now consider two practical examples of this. First one is about someone whom we all know, Steve Jobs. Now at the time of developing the first iMac and the iPod, Jobs made a judgment call on the future state of the internet, where he envisioned that the ordinary consumer would have wide spread access, and could ship and receive much larger bundles of data. This was in a time that competitors will still banking on diskette drives… Job’s judgment resulted in the built-in modem and LAN port on the iMac, as well as the online distribution model for the  iTunes store that fed your iPod. The difference it made for Apple is nicely explained in this quote from this Forbes article:

The iPod took off after earlier MP3 players hadn’t not only because of its simplicity and ease of use but also because Jobs waited until broadband technologies were ready to support the music data transfers it would rely on.  

Another such example of uncertainty can be found in the informal economy, which is by definition a very uncertain operating environment. This one was discovered by Niti Bhan during field work in Kenya. She found somebody that had wired their house completely, without having access, nor guarantee of access to the grid: “it would come” was the home owner’s prediction.

Wired house before the grid came

Wired house before the grid was even available in the area (Photo credit: Niti Bhan)

This very much triggers my thoughts. Both examples are from widely different environments, but show the same type of judgment call about a very uncertain outcome. Could we be looking at the same thing here? Would that mean that we could thus better understand entrepreneurship and people who live in the operating environment of the informal economy, by relating the effect of uncertainty to decision making?

The only article which comes remotely close to this question, is a psychology experiment set up by Chip Heath, and Amos Tversky. A gem of an article, but very little used since publication, so I’ve learned by Chip himself. The article indicates that competence and aspiration seem to lower people’s thresholds to actively engage and invest, under conditions of uncertainty.

Would it be worthwhile to define personas on such basis? To inform accelerator programs on the people they’re funding? To engage with specific farmers in development programs in the informal economies in developing countries? To find the early adopters of the internet in emerging markets? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Agri meets Design: Design for results

I would like to share an observation I’ve made on the first Agri meets Design event, which took place during this year’s Dutch Design Week. Overall, the event has achieved a fresh, tangible perspective for the encounter of agriculture and design, which looks very promising. Yet despite this promise, I also have a concern with regards to inherent tendencies in both agriculture and design, which need to be addressed before the connection can really be made to flow.

Agriculture is an engineering-dominated arena, where existing decision making settings, and existing technology all too easily guide solution development. The new perspective brought by design has opened up for a more exploratory mindset: a big achievement! Most notable example of this from the event is the case of the Polderhack, where open data on food and agriculture was mashed into prototypes for applications addressing interesting use cases.

Despite this achievement in opening up a closed conversation, design is not without its own defaults. Through listening to various people during the Agri meets Design event, and in attendance of a few other side events, I see that design tends to limit itself to the space of opportunity/problem definition: the space of art and invention (projects like the Solar Sinter). Yet, real impact lies in completing the chain of development to defining solutions for implementation and adoption, ie. innovation.

I see this as an unaddressed part of the “meet”. If it isn’t addressed then I suspect an emerging law of social physics will tend to kick in in this space: Polarization caused by engineers staying on one side of the equation, whilst designers stay on the other. (this problem was aptly brought into real world terms by this goat farmer (in Dutch @1m:16)

In order to materialize the gains from the crossover between agriculture and design, I thus think there is a requirement for a new chain of collaboration between agricultural engineers and designers, so that thoughts from the space exploration can be transferred to results in the space of execution. Perhaps a design challenge for next year. I’d be happy to participate!