Here’s an email I just sent out:
Hi there,
You’re receiving this because you’re a Commonplace Member.
Bottom Line Up Front
I’m launching a Cognitive Flexibility Theory (CFT)-inspired business case library as part of Commonplace. I’d like you to help me test it.
What you’ll get: you’ll receive eight emails on one concept — one a day, over the course of eight days, starting next Wednesday (1st June).
The first concept is going to be about scaled economies. The first email will serve as a short explanation of the concept, along with a summary of CFT learning theory. The next six emails will be six different cases illustrating the various instantiations of scale economies in the real world. The final email will ask you for your feedback.
You’ll also get periodic updates about building the CFT library after the alpha test is done.
Longer Explanation
CFT is a theory of expertise in ill-structured domains. I first talked about CFT in How Note Taking Can Help You Become an Expert. To recap, there are four big ideas in the theory:
- An ill-structured domain is a domain where there are concepts, but the way these concepts instantiate in the real world are highly variable.
- Because of this variability, cases are more important than concepts when learning in ill-structured domains.
- Experts in ill-structured domains reason by combining fragments from previous cases that they’ve seen. In other words, they reason by analogy.
- Experts in ill-structured domains have an ‘adaptive worldview’, meaning that they do not think there is one root cause or one framework or one model as explanation for a particular event that they observe in their domain.
The authors of the theory then detail a method for accelerating expertise in ill-structured domains. They say that if you present a learner with a concept, and then give them 10-20 cases that are very different from each other, the learner will rapidly internalise the feel of the concept, and would be better equipped to construct fragments from the cases or recognise instantiations of that concept in the real world.
Which got me thinking: What if I did this for business? What if I built a CFT library around all the business stories I’ve collected?
In truth, I’d already noticed what any suitably voracious reader would’ve noticed: if you read a large number of business biographies, certain deep structural patterns would begin to show themselves, even in very different industries, at different time periods, in books written by very different authors.
These concept instantiations may seem ridiculously different on the surface. But they all tend to have the same ‘feel’ to them, and if we take CFT seriously, then we should trust in our brains’s ability to reason from case fragments when we are asked to make decisions in business.
Collecting those case fragments appear to be key to such expertise. The question is how to get those case fragments if you don’t have the time to read.
This is where we might be able to help.
The Commonplace Case Library
Here’s the idea: we build a case library for you. The library lives on the Commonplace website, but members are able to receive cases for a concept as an email sequence if they see fit. They may also go to the site to browse cases or search for concepts that they want to dig into.
This library will start out sparse, but as time goes by, the value of the library should compound, since sufficiently complex cases tend to be rich with multiple concepts. (This is already true based on the few cases we’ve written).
As a reader, there are two ways I think you might view the case library’s value to you:
- The case library will serve as a way to grow the collection of fragments in your head, without spending time on a large selection of books. So, for instance, if you want to read stories about successful org design, you’ll be able to browse a library of fragments that are drawn from say ten different business biographies. You won’t have to hunt for these stories — which in any case may be prohibitively difficult: in many cases, these books might be written by writers that did not think they were describing a valuable concept instantiation (Kochland, the story of Koch Industries, springs to mind here — there’s a particularly interesting sequence where Charles Koch reorganises the company for fast adaptation to oil price volatility; if you were looking for good stories of successful org design, you might not think to look there. Similarly, Sebastian Mallaby’s The Power Law describes venture capital org structure, and how some firms are built to last while others are not. A case library brings these patterns together for you, and saves you from having to search for each book separately).
- Secondly, the case library will serve as a reminder that concepts are not as clear-cut as framework descriptions make them out to be. I’m hopeful that I can link out to and embed certain cases as time passes, because every framework is flawed and oversimplified in some manner. I also hope I’ll be able to discuss cases in the members forum with you — and that you’ll be able to point out concept instantiations that would never have occurred to me.
This is the goal, and I think it’s a good one. But there remain many challenges.
The Challenges (or: Where I Try to Set Expectations)
Here are several challenges that I’m working through, as I set out to test this concept:
- How do you capture subtle, non-obvious concepts? (For instance, the concept ‘launching a second product is surprisingly precarious and may be dangerous for the business’ is a pattern that is difficult to describe, but shows up often enough to cause me to pay attention).
- What software should I use to build the case library?
- How do I accelerate and scale case creation?
- And, finally: can I build a sustainable business around this, so that the case library can grow and its value may compound?
I don’t know the answers to many of these questions, but that’s where you come in. The goal with this Alpha test is to answer the following set of questions:
- What is the ideal length and writing style for each case?
- Is sending one case a day too much for most readers, even if they’ve opted-in for it?
- Is it better to call out concept details explicitly? Or is it better to have readers identify embedded concepts by themselves? And finally:
- Would CFT’s prompts work well in an email format? (e.g. ‘How is case A different from case B, which appears to be very similar?’)
Your feedback will also help me with the ‘scale’ question — how do I hire for, train, and help writers accelerate case creation? After all, I’ll need to figure out a repeatable method for building the case library, without sacrificing quality.
Finally, I should note that I’m not doing this alone. All of the cases you’ll read during this Alpha test would have been written by Commonplace’s first intern, Fung Guan Jie (@guanjief), who will be spending his summer working on the case library project.
You’ll hear more from him as we make progress on the project.
Thanks, and see you on the other side!
Warmly,
Cedric
This is the forum thread to discuss the Alpha.