Just give it a nudge

Original post:  Sep 29, 2015

Professor Cass Sunstein wrote a book with Richard Thaler titled "Nudge". It theorized that one way to help improve decisions about health, wealth, and happiness was to set up subtle ways to influence behavior towards more positive outcomes. Many of these principles have been proven to work in a variety of areas.

One example is with 401(k) programs. Everyone knows that they should be saving for retirement. Many companies (including Medtronic) offer generous matches to employees if they will contribute towards their own retirement. Even with all of these incentives, people still elect not to participate. Sometimes it could be as simple as someone just forgetting to fill out the paperwork! Whatever the cause, this choice could end up being a significant liability in the long run to the employee. One simple solution is to change the default position. Instead of having employees elect to participate, some companies are starting off with automatic enrollment in the program. Participation is still voluntary. The catch is that those who don't want to join must take the active step to fill out the paperwork to withdraw from the program. This simple reversal makes significant, double-digit improvements in the participation rate!

This type of change is actually being investigated in the US government. There is a "Social and Behavioral Sciences Team" that is actively searching for ways to help make government work just a little better. Their nickname is the "Nudge Unit". Through emphasis on changing the design of programs, they are working to help improve the function of the various departments without massive infusions of capital. The result? Small changes that are creating outsized results at very low costs.

What's most important about all of this is that none of it is based on chance. Each of these tweaks is subject to rigorous testing. Using a model similar to A/B testing, small scale pilot programs are compared against the standard operating procedure. Changes are only made if the pilots can prove the overall value of the concept in the real world.

The results so far are impressive, suggesting that their work is going to save millions and possibly billions of dollars. And because the cost of these tweaks is so low, even moderate impacts yield extraordinarily high benefit-cost ratios.

In one case, the researchers tweaked some of the printers (but not others) linked to some Department of Agriculture computers so that whenever people tried to print a single-sided document, a pop-up message appeared to remind them how to make two-sided printing their default. On the printers they tweaked, 52 percent of all print jobs were double-sided, compared with 46 percent on the others. This increase of 6 percentage points may not sound like much, until you realize that about 18 billion pages roll off federal government printers each year, according to the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team report, suggesting that carrying this out across the entire federal government could save more than half a billion pages a year.

The changes may even lead to more ethical behavior:

Small nudges can also help make people more honest. In one ingenious tweak, the research team added a prompt at the beginning of a federal-vendor tax collection form asking vendors to promise to report the truth. Those who were randomly selected to use this new form reported more taxable sales relative to those who used the old form. In just three months of using this form on just one small and obscure tax provision, this box caused people to volunteer an additional $1.6 million in taxes. Expanding this idea could potentially bring in billions of dollars in extra revenue.

I'm sure that there are many ways we might be able to make small changes in our own lives that could produce similar results. It's impressive to know that there is real data underpinning the recommendations. Perhaps these kinds of activities can help reduce the overall waste in the system and make government ever more efficient in the coming days.

Here is the link to the full article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/upshot/a-better-government-one-tweak-at-a-time.html?rref=upshot&_r=0

"Fixing" an innovation

Original post:  Mar 23, 2015

One common misperception of innovation is that it springs forth fully formed (like the apocryphal Venus in the Botticelli painting). In reality, many inventions require constant tinkering and improvement. Sometimes, it requires someone completely separated from the original creators to take an existing idea and transform it into a transcendent idea.

This photo is from the first successful attempt at some version of a typewriter. While it looks somewhat familiar, there are substantial differences compared to what you might commonly associate with the classic models.

But it had big problems. For one, the keys pressed onto the curved paper at an angle, which meant some of the letters were blurry. It also necessitated a hunt-and-peck approach to typing that made it hard to use — you could get used to a writing ball (just as you do to a QWERTY keyboard), but it was difficult to master the angled keyboard. Worse, it was hard to see what you'd typed until your document was finished. Finally, there wasn't a workable way to use a "shift" key.

Yet modern typewriters didn't really take off until 1873, when Remington produced a version of the typewriter that had a QWERTY keyboard and a shift key. Equally important, it printed sharper letters. People realized that typewriters were good not just for those with visual handicaps, but for anybody who wanted to write a clear document. Though writing-ball advocates are still fans of the device's aesthetics, the typewriter won for functionality.

By taking the original "pincushion" design and making it more useful, Remington actually paved the way for commercial success.

Here are some other examples of twists to the original invention that helped changed the future:

These 4 big inventions were terrible ... until someone fixed them - Vox

Better net results

Original post:  May 8, 2013

Sometimes the greatest obstacle to improvement is success. There are many examples of athletes who are very successful at one level. They might have one superlative skill which covers for a number of other flaws. At more junior levels, it's easy to overwhelm the competition. As you rise in ranks, it becomes far more difficult because there are other competitors who may be able to match your greatest skills and flash other talents that the lesser player is unable to match.

There are even successful professionals who rely heavily on a singular talent. Andy Roddick is one of the best American tennis players in recent history. Recently retired, he was once known for a ferocious serve. For many years, he held the world record at over 140 miles per hour! He could often win matches through the sheer power of his unreturnable rockets. He was even able to win one major championship. Unfortunately, he was never able to harness all of his talents and reach the level of the superstars. He often came close, but never quite broke through. He came very close--he advanced to five other major championship finals only to lose each time.

Four of those losses came at the hands of one man:  Roger Federer. This Swiss champion is widely acknowledged as one of the best tennis players of all time. Federer was never able to match Roddick's sheer power on his serve. His serves are often 20-30 mph slower. Despite this difference, he is still able to locate them with pinpoint accuracy. This ability to literally freeze opponents in their tracks enables him to obtain results on his service game that are equal to Roddick's. He then separates himself with his overall game (which is far superior in just about every aspect).

This video demonstrates how lethal his serve can be. Using the same motion over and over again with almost robotic efficiency, he sprays the serve in different directions. It makes it nearly impossible to predict where he intends to go until it is too late!

When we are faced with similar situations, it will be important for us to learn how to raise our game. We will need to learn how to neutralize our opponent's greatest strength and transition the battle to areas where we can bring other talents to bear. In the end, it may be the only way to succeed!