Science

Since engineering is the corner stone of analysis, for the most part, most quality analysis is conceived and executed in this domain. What’s lacking within the engineering domain is the desire to look beyond what has been done before. Fortunately we have science.  The scientific method lies at the heart of discovery and is so important it is almost shameful that it is the most often over looked aspect of good analysis. To seek the truth, by definition, we have to cast the widest net across the solution space as possible. To cast the widest net we must look beyond the solutions that are obvious, because quite frankly, those solutions are obvious. Fortunately there is a scientific method available to us. Again, we could not do justice to the scientific method a few blog essays, however, we can briefly outline what should be accomplished.

First establish a hypothesis for what it might be that you want to discover or at the least a hypothesis that suggests there might be something out there that you wish to discover.

Next run back to first principles. What are the governing physical laws that either constrain or open up your solution space to other things? The best way to know the truth is to know if the physics work. If the first principles work, by physical law, whatever you might be studying will also work, or at least be in the decision space. If you reduce it to first principles and are solid here, you most likely will be solid in your solution.

Next comes the investigation. This is the fun part and really consists on putting on your lab coat and becoming a scientist. Poking and probing at things. Taking them apart and putting them back together in different ways. Measuring and taking temperatures. Watching for color changes and checking to see when things either boil or break. And then documenting all the results. This will be the process that leads to the discovery of new things. In relentless pursuit of the truth, you must have the curiosity to explore these heights and depths. This is your chance to sail on the HMS Beagle and document and name yet undiscovered life in your decision space. Why would anyone ever give up this part.

If you discover new life, publish your findings. Perhaps your new life will ultimately not be the truth or the solution to the problem you were seeking, but it is part of the process that will add to your job satisfaction. This is also not the place to take all the credit. This is the time when the intellectual credit should be shared with your team members. Everyone will want to share in the discovery of something new.

Through publication you are naturally putting forth your work for peer review. This also is a major factor in the scientific method and should not be avoided. Although sometimes in the heat of battle it is difficult to find the time to get this done. You will be happier if your discovery begins to have credibility in a larger circle. Or, if it can’t stand up to peer review, you can gracefully back down. If you have found the truth, you should not fear others either working to found the same truth – because they will in fact discover the same thing. If they do not, then you have not either, and this is a good thing to know.

It will be reassuring to note that the truth will hold up if you have logically arrived at your assertions and your first principles are firm. If there is a dispute of the truth at this level, logically speaking, someone is in error, and that can be proven with empirical fact. It just means the experiment should be repeated. Again, the truth should never be feared. If you have been in error, you want to know this. If the other guy is in error then you want to know this as well.

Engineering

Engineering is the foundation for good analysis. You do not necessarily have to be an engineer to be an analyst, and sometimes engineers do not make good analysts because they lack other important skills required in the process. But engineering principles form the basis of what we would like to call formulaic analysis. In engineering the basic equations for various applications have already be derived and committed to books or tables to be picked up and reused when an engineer is confronted with a problem. It is the engineer’s job to pick what formula applies and then to use it correctly. To do this incorrectly, as a Primitive Pete, results could be catastrophic. This is why engineering has levels of expertise and in some disciplines, such as civil engineering, a Professional Engineering licence is required. These are when applications of safety and human life depend on the engineer doing his job correctly.

Nothing of this sort exists in the wide open discipline of analysis. We are free to call ourselves analysts with absolutely no certification whatsoever. We are not calling for certification or stronger safeguards in the problem solving profession because we believe analysis is so much more than the engineering/formulaic side to the field. It is, however, at the end of the day, the best approach for cranking through a known problem and getting to a solution. So once the problem is properly defined and we know how to approach it, let the engineers take over and crank out the solution. It is important to point out that there are a few rules that should be followed.

This blog is not the rule book for how to solve problems or to do the correct engineering but we should mention a few good habits to an effective formulaic approach in order to do the job correctly. If we fail in applying the right technique and then fail in executing the technique correctly, we will never find the correct answer and hence we will produce nothing close to the truth. So here just a few rules you should follow:

Establish the objectives of your study as early as possible. As engineers we learn to state the problem, state what is given, then list our assumptions, then you can begin listing tools for consideration.

Plan your study. Your study plan does not have to be perfect. We always say a study plan will be complete when the study is complete.

Decompose the study into bite size pieces. And then break each piece into the smallest component for which a solution might be possible.

Obey physical laws. Rule out early that which falls into the realm of the supernatural. These might very well have been considered during the scientific and artistic phases of your work, but when it’s time to make something fly, engineers will have to design and build it.

Put processes into place that are both verifiable and and can be repeated many times. This distinguishes you from the artists who may only have to build something once or the scientist who many only have to repeat his experiment a few times.

Always have some form of review in place where a Grey Beard analyst can take a look at what you plan to do.

Finally, document everything that has been done so it can be repeated and stand up to scrutiny later.

Science, Art and Engineering: Part II

My response to this earlier post was too long to put in a comment:  

Mooch, I'll take your Brooklyn Bridge and raise you one Hagia Sophia! Granted there are many examples like this from throughout the centuries, but my personal experience of standing inside it's great dome and imagining, this place was built in the early 6th century, is quite inspiring; it's a magnificent achievement and a beautiful place. They employed new building theories, new building materials, they were operating on the cutting edge of engineering. Oh and they didn't compromise on making it beautiful! According to my guide when I was there (though not documented on wikipedia per se) the dome did initially collapse -- it was the largest span anyone had ever built -- but they went back to the drawing board and tried again. (There are a number of other documented collapses, though these were do to natural disasters -- earthquakes, fires.)

When I was 9 I started taking art classes at The National Academy of Design (they have a nice museum a block from the Guggenheim in a beautiful old mansion -- overlooked, but highly recommended). Every Saturday morning from 9 - 12 I would draw and paint. Once I started in Highschool I started taking one of the adult figure drawing classes -- the human body is one of the most challenging, beautiful "objects" to draw. It was a wonderful outlet. For highschool, I applied and was accepted to one of the best performing and visual art schools in the country, Laguardia and always wonder who I would be today had I attended, versus staying at the school I did. The other day, I noticed Tim Booher sketching in our branch meeting and it motived me a bit; I haven't drawn in years but am motivated to start again, to exercise that other half of my brain...

Anyway, I think Mooch touched on a touchy point for me: I think our universities and colleges are doing a great diservice in regards to creating diverse graduates. When I went to The Johns Hopkins University I was looking forward to not only studying math and science, but history and philosophy as well. I was in for a rude awakening: the curriculum was just not geared for cross-disciplinary study. Of course there were a number of cookie-cutter humanities classes we were expected to take in order to get our "H" credits, but none of them were particularly interesting, challenging or rigorous -- the humanities equivalent of "rocks for jocks". Hopkins is a great school and there are some amazing intelligent people there, but I don't think I fit in well there (or did well there) because there seemed to be very little cross-over, academically. When I approached my advisor about taking a mid-level Philosophy class she balked. The course would be too competitive, she said, I would not have the background. Granted she did have a point -- I didn't have the background a lot of other students had in Philosophy, but why did that matter I asked her? Well, you wont do on the exams she said. I'm not interested in taking the class just to get a grade and pass go! I'm taking the class to learn, to expand my knowledge!

Luckily, not all Universities are so myopic. Take Columbia for instance, where they have a core curriculum -- irregardless of whether you are a Physics or Philosophy major, you will take a core series of proven, interesting, non-fluffly courses, across the disciplines. One of my best friends from highschool, David attended and spent his time not only on studying harmonic functions, but reading Plato and Homer. And I know for a fact that this has helped in his career: he obtained his Doctorate in Physics from this school across the pond - Cambridge. Oh and got to sit down with Dr. Hawkin's a few times. He is currently working on cutting edge string theory with one of it's "creators", Brian Greene. (And to think, I was better at math than him back in junior high...) I believe that without studying art, history, literature, in addition to mathematics and science, his research would not have been as successful. (He has told me so much over the years.)

This is why I am a major advocate of inter-disciplinary study; I just wish I had more of it in undergrad...

I just picked up a copy of Dr. Ken Robinson's book, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything" -- I've watched a number of his TED talks and I highly recommend them as I think he has a lot to say on how we are educating (or in this case, mis-educating) our kids. Changing Education Paradigms has been wonderfully illustrated by RSA and I think is quite brilliant.

Why We Do What We Do

Behavioral economics under attack

Here is an interesting article. I have not yet finished reading Nudge (though enjoying it) and Predictably Irrational is next on my to-read list, so it’s difficult for me to refute or support this piece.

http://www.slate.com/id/2283063

I will say that I don’t think it was Thaler & Sunstein’s intent to offer anything more than evidence (at this stage) that the classical economics models aren’t adequate in determining how people actually make decisions. (Have we forgotten LTCM?) I would however be interested in hearing their response to this challenge. I would also add that Thaler & Sunstein do point to “the why”: our Automatic and Reflective Systems (as discussed in the first chapter). We can describe these systems quite well, in fact – they do in the text – and there is considerable evidence to believe they are accurate models of how we think

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=of-two-minds-when-making

Curious if Pinker would agree, but I digress.

Gigerenzer and Berge are not wrong in their complaint; we do not have a complete description of our decision making system – there is no equation we can write down that says this is exactly how we behave. I guess the question is, do we need it to gain insights? (I would say no.) Is it sufficient to design experiments to test these black boxes that are our Automatic and Reflective Systems? (I would say I don’t know.)

Anyway, Gigerenzer seems to have something interesting to say: “Gut Feelings” looks like an interesting read and will end up on the wishlist:

The key concept—rules of thumb serve us as effectively as complex analytic processes , if not more so—is simple to grasp. Gigerenzer draws on his own research as well as that of other psychologists to show how even experts rely on intuition to shape their judgment, going so far as to ignore available data in order to make snap decisions. Sometimes, the solution to a complex problem can be boiled down to one easily recognized factor, he says, and the author uses case studies to show that the Take the Best approach often works.

I’m going to have to add Basic Instincts to my wishlist, too, since it was mentioned in the article along with Nudge and Predictably Irrational, besides also looking interesting. (I am humored that this article actually “nudged” me to add another book on the exact topic it’s trying to refute!) If any of you would like to borrow Nudge (or anything else on this or related topics, for that matter), let me know.

Cheers,

Ken