Always Be Asking Why
Across most of the world, railroad tracks are surprisingly uniform: 4 feet 8.5 inches—what railroad people call gauge. This seems like an arbitrary number, doesn’t it? Have you ever questioned why? Well, you don’t have to dig too far in the literature to find that they are built that way because that is how they were originally built in England. Ok, but why did the English make them that size?
Because trams were originally built with that width. Alright, but why did the English build trams with such an odd-spaced wheel-to-wheel configuration?
Because the engineers who built trams used the same tools to build wagons, that also (you guessed it) had a width of 4 feet 8.5 inches. How did wagons come to have that gauge?
They were forced to, unless you wanted break an axle. Remember England had previously been conquered by the Romans, who constructed all the original English roads. Hundreds of years of use had worn massive, deep ruts in these ancient roads—at a width of 4 feet 8.5 inches. What made these ruts?
Roman chariots! But why had Roman chariots been constructed with these dimensions? Because 4 feet 8.5 inches is the exact width two Roman war horses need to stand side-by-side and pull a chariot.
So, the world’s modern trains operate on tracks that are 4' 8.5” wide because that’s the width of two, Roman horse rear ends!
Cool trivia, but why should anyone care? Trains get the job done; how they got to their current size seems like a moot point. Except when it isn’t.
When NASA was designing the first Space Shuttle the engineers were tasked with creating a novel vehicle—a reusable space plane. A vehicle that could be launched into space, land and then be launched again. Engineers modeled their perfect plane and envisioned massive, wide disposable side rockets that could propel the Shuttle into space. But there was a problem. The only way to get the Shuttle and all its components to Cape Canaveral was by rail. Very quickly the engineers realized that they could not use their ideal rocket shape—it was too wide to be transported on a 4' 8.5” track! So they had to compromise and create a less than perfect rocket design—all because of those damn Romans and their horses!
History has consequences. Not questioning history has even more.
A brand’s history (a company’s history) can be an amazing strength, but it can also be a detriment. It can be a crutch to lean on as you encounter new obstacles and new opportunities, a grooved path to avoid traveling into new territories.
If you are thinking that this doesn’t apply to you or your brand—you stay abreast of new trends, new technologies and competitor news—think again. In my experience, there are very few brands that bury their heads in the sand and look only to their own historical success as a guidepost; no, it’s a much more insidious process than that. Instead, what is most common, is that companies are very aware of what is coming, they just acted on this knowledge with out-of-date thinking.
Kodak saw digital (they invented it!), Firestone was three years ahead of Michelin in radial tire innovation and Microsoft knew that the market for an iPhone-like device was imminent. All of these companies saw the writing on the wall and actively got busy working on a game plan, but it was the wrong one. It was wrong not because of a failure to see the new but because they rested on their old ways of thinking to “solve” these issues.
The key here is that we all tend to think that “inaction” is the enemy, that management’s biggest problem is that they are “deer in the headlights” when it comes to confronting the looming problems. However, I don’t think that’s it. Instead what I’ve seen is that action is quick and thoughtful—meetings are booked, emails are exchanged and people trade pictures of competitor activity. But being active using old ways of doing things is actually worse than doing nothing at all; it lulls us into a belief of forward momentum, when the reverse is actually true. Instead, we must all question the very ways in which things get done! Why must we always have this much lead time for start-ship? Why do we produce sales samples? What is the purpose of the rules we have in place or the restrictions we have set? Are they a reaction to a threat that ceases to be or is it a legitimate and current need?
Always be asking why.
Love this! Never stop asking why...
While mentoring three MBA students in the last 12 months, One of the tasks I asked them to do was to talk about whether innovation is a revolution or an evolution. One thing I noticed in their views was the lack of willingness to question the old, and more inclined to build on what they have known or used in the past. When I pointed out that often time we are too bogged down in the processes and lost sight of the underlying desire that triggered or started the original process, many felt uncomfortable, as I asked them to throw what they knew out of the window as though those tools never existed. It's not an easy task for most people, as we grow and acquire he knowledge throughout our lives, and from history. Unlearning is almost as frightening as denying ones identity and/or existence.