I am travelling this week which means there is no new Skillful Notes episode, but I’m working on a couple exciting stories to share. So, expect something new next Saturday.
The whole thing is full of gems. For me though one of the most interesting parts was how the cultural direction that was set for the labs. Thomas Vail, who setup the unit promoted an ethos of continual investment to ensure technical innovation and long-term growth, something he had picked up while working for the US Post Office.
This paragraph sums up his impact:
”While Vail retired in 1919 and died the following year, he made sure to leave the company in the hands of leadership that believed in his credo of universal service, and that constant innovation was the path to get there. Vail conceived of the telephone network as ‘an ever-living organism’ which required ‘unceasing effort, continually improving and upbuilding.’ Thanks to Vail’s efforts, it became an article of faith within AT&T that technical innovation would always be needed, and would be valuable even if it took many years to bear fruit.”
Later in the piece Brian Potter also adds that:
”John Pierce, the force behind Bell Labs’ communication satellites, argued that ‘it's very important for laboratories to have some responsibility and some general goal’: labs operate best when there are people on the work that you’re doing. Pierce argues that Bell Labs and the other great labs of the 20th century ‘were really needed, and they rose to the need.’ Not only did this clearly articulated, strongly felt purpose provide a powerful motivation, but it created a ‘problem-rich environment,’ a clear set of problems that can act as a guiding star.”
So, one thought and a set of questions.
A government has a monopoly on the state. As such, the kinds of universal vision that AT&T had: “a telephone in every home”, are, by necessity, at the heart of every major government institution: ‘a railway to every corner of the country‘, ‘a system of justice available to every citizen‘ etc. This means that these institutions are ripe for the kind of programs that were setup at Bell Labs.
But, somewhere along the way, in most countries these institutions seem to lose the sense that to achieve their mandates requires “unceasing effort, continually improving and upbuilding“ (whether that be scientific, technological, economic or other).
I think one of the key things that drives this is that as an institution makes progress towards its goals it ends up lowering its standards. Every home gets connected to the telephone system, a rail line is built across the country, and the courts are open to all citizens. Suddenly the reasoning that drove the institution to innovate originally is no longer there. The need to push on boundaries and solve hard problems disappears and standards are naturally lowered to simply maintaining the status quo (with assumptions about long run degredation).
Is this actually the case for what happens? And if so, is there a way to raise standards again?
Can you simply create an ever broader vision of what your institution needs to achieve? Maybe, once you have a railway across the country you can now aim at connecting every city? Or, is there some way that this scope inflation will also run its course? Instead of transforming the vision of the entire enterprise, can you raise standards in a local way within specific departments? Or, does that cut you off from generating a “problem-rich environment“?
If you have any thoughts please drop a comment below. I would love to know what you think.
What does it take to have high standards?
What does it take to have high standards?
What does it take to have high standards?
I am travelling this week which means there is no new Skillful Notes episode, but I’m working on a couple exciting stories to share. So, expect something new next Saturday.
In the meantime
The whole thing is full of gems. For me though one of the most interesting parts was how the cultural direction that was set for the labs. Thomas Vail, who setup the unit promoted an ethos of continual investment to ensure technical innovation and long-term growth, something he had picked up while working for the US Post Office.
This paragraph sums up his impact:
”While Vail retired in 1919 and died the following year, he made sure to leave the company in the hands of leadership that believed in his credo of universal service, and that constant innovation was the path to get there. Vail conceived of the telephone network as ‘an ever-living organism’ which required ‘unceasing effort, continually improving and upbuilding.’ Thanks to Vail’s efforts, it became an article of faith within AT&T that technical innovation would always be needed, and would be valuable even if it took many years to bear fruit.”
Later in the piece Brian Potter also adds that:
”John Pierce, the force behind Bell Labs’ communication satellites, argued that ‘it's very important for laboratories to have some responsibility and some general goal’: labs operate best when there are people on the work that you’re doing. Pierce argues that Bell Labs and the other great labs of the 20th century ‘were really needed, and they rose to the need.’ Not only did this clearly articulated, strongly felt purpose provide a powerful motivation, but it created a ‘problem-rich environment,’ a clear set of problems that can act as a guiding star.”
So, one thought and a set of questions.
A government has a monopoly on the state. As such, the kinds of universal vision that AT&T had: “a telephone in every home”, are, by necessity, at the heart of every major government institution: ‘a railway to every corner of the country‘, ‘a system of justice available to every citizen‘ etc. This means that these institutions are ripe for the kind of programs that were setup at Bell Labs.
But, somewhere along the way, in most countries these institutions seem to lose the sense that to achieve their mandates requires “unceasing effort, continually improving and upbuilding“ (whether that be scientific, technological, economic or other).
I think one of the key things that drives this is that as an institution makes progress towards its goals it ends up lowering its standards. Every home gets connected to the telephone system, a rail line is built across the country, and the courts are open to all citizens. Suddenly the reasoning that drove the institution to innovate originally is no longer there. The need to push on boundaries and solve hard problems disappears and standards are naturally lowered to simply maintaining the status quo (with assumptions about long run degredation).
Is this actually the case for what happens? And if so, is there a way to raise standards again?
Can you simply create an ever broader vision of what your institution needs to achieve? Maybe, once you have a railway across the country you can now aim at connecting every city? Or, is there some way that this scope inflation will also run its course? Instead of transforming the vision of the entire enterprise, can you raise standards in a local way within specific departments? Or, does that cut you off from generating a “problem-rich environment“?
If you have any thoughts please drop a comment below. I would love to know what you think.