Author Archives: kevin

About kevin

I write the posts

Stop hurting my browser

I love Tweetdeck. Well, I love parts of Tweetdeck. Specifically the side-by-side view makes it really easy to see my stream, my replies, people linking to my website and people talking about Twilio on one screen and I haven't found another tool that can do it. But Tweetdeck also breaks my browser in really annoying ways. Here are the most annoying examples.

Use of outline:none on buttons.

When you tab through a form, Tweetdeck doesn't show you which button is currently focused on the screen. I tend to stay on the keyboard wherever I can because switching to the mouse is so slow. It's much faster to fill out forms tabbing with the keyboard than clicking around with the mouse.

Operating systems have highlighters that show you which button is currently focused - on Mac OS X they show a blue glow around the box that's currently focused, like this:

Focused text box

Clearly you can see the US Dollar field is focused. Now if I tab again, the "Measurement Units" button is focused:

Focused select box

Tweetdeck doesn't like having outlines on their buttons. This is what you get if you tab from the "Password" field:

Focused password field

See how the focus disappears:

Focus disappears

It's not that annoying there. Where it's really annoying is when you are trying to post a new tweet. In GMail when I press Tab from the message body, the focus jumps straight to the "Send" button:

Gmail focused send button

This is perfect because it makes sending emails really fast - I just hit Tab, Enter and the email's sent and I'm back in my inbox.

When you press Tab + Enter from the "Tweet" field in Tweetdeck, instead of posting your Tweet, they jump you to the Camera button:

tweet text focus, tab reveals..

tweetdeck camera upload page

Normally this is annoying, but it's not that annoying; I can just Tab multiple times to get to the button. But Tweetdeck also hides the focus with outline:none in their CSS, so you can't actually tell which button is currently focused. This means you can't figure out how many times you need to Tab through to get to the Tweet button.

It's really not that hard to fix, and it won't make a lick of difference to the mouse-clicking hoi polloi. Just change the HTML tabindex of the form, and add a focused style for the button.

Using target=_blank for links.

When I read my stream, I read through all the Tweets first, opening up interesting links in new tabs to read later. I don't want to constantly be jumping back and forth between my stream and articles, because I lose my place in the stream.

Fortunately, browsers offer two methods for opening new tabs in the background. One is to hold Cmd while clicking on a link. The second is to right click and press "Open in new tab."

Neither of these is good enough for Tweetdeck; they force you to immediately switch out of your stream into new articles by adding a target="_blank" attribute to all links in the app. target="_blank" links override your browser's default behavior and switch your focus immediately to the new tab or window.

The reason they attach target=_blank attributes to their URL's is so that all of their links open in a different tab, instead of the same and Tweetdeck stays open in the browser. But that's also evil, because it breaks a user's expectation about what's going to happen when they click on the link. I want to open links in a different tab, I just don't want them to be focused, and Tweetdeck makes this impossible.

Completely breaking when Javascript is disabled.

Lately I've been playing with disabling Javascript in my browser. Mostly I am disappointed in how much of the Internet breaks when you disable Javascript, especially pages that only show content like news articles or blog posts.

It's nice at least when a site includes a <noscript> tag telling you that you need to enable Javascript for the site to function. Tweetdeck doesn't even do this. Here is what you get if you browse to web.tweetdeck.com with Javascript disabled:

Empty Tweetdeck screen with Javascript disabled

That's a blank screen, with no notice or indication that your browser didn't crap out.

They also detect your user agent, and error out if you try to access Tweetdeck with Firefox or Opera, without even making an attempt to display the page. I can understand not supporting IE, but I don't understand why they can't even try Firefox.

Unsupported browser

Conclusion

Tweetdeck is good enough that I'll continue to use it, but there are some simple things that make my experience a little miserable every time I click on a link or try to write a new Tweet. I wish Twitter as a whole cared more about accessibility and usability for all of its users (here's another example); with an estimated 100 million active users, even a small percentage of users who lack the fine motor control to use a mouse (or even a keyboard) is still a large number of people that are affected by problems like this.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Better to prevent mistakes than to fix them quickly

Friday one of my favorite teams, St. Mary's, dropped an extremely close game to Purdue. They were up one point with 31 seconds to go when one of their senior players tried to run the baseline, something you can only do after you have scored a basket. Purdue took the ball and went on to win the game.

Client Steindl hangs his head

Obviously it was a bad mistake for the player to make in that situation. But there's another person who is to blame: the referee. Before inbounding the ball, the referee will signal to the player that they either can or cannot run the baseline. Sure, the referee can blow the whistle every time there is a violation, but it's better to prevent the error in the first place. It would be like letting players line up for a free throw in the wrong order, letting the player shoot and then blowing the whistle for incorrect order.

Ultimately the blame belongs with the player who made the mistake; he should have known better. But it was an awful way to decide the game; on a technicality instead of through the actions on the court.

It's a known law of websites that any type of mistake that can be made by your users (entering a username instead of an email address, entering a wrong phone number, etc) will be. For those cases we write error handling code and prevent incorrect data from being written to our database. But it's better to prevent the error as quickly as you can - as soon as they make the mistake, if it's possible. The more time that elapses between the error occurring and the time you tell them about it, the more frustrated they are likely to be. Even better is to design your form in a way that prevents them from making the mistake in the first place.

Pretty much every site needs to validate form data on the server to make sure it's correct. But the best sites will also validate data on the client side, e.g. when the user is typing it into their computer. This way they can prevent users from making dumb mistakes.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

How beginning programmers should read a quickstart guide

Programming is hard. Especially when you are just getting started, there are a lot of things, in Donald Rumsfeld's words, that you "don't know that you don't know." Lots of quickstarts for beginners assume the reader knows things about how the command line works that my experience shows they don't. I do lots of user tests with people new-to-programming and see these errors again and again.

I thought I'd put together a short list of things quickstart writers leave out, that will still leave you totally stumped.

  • Most of the time if you see an indented block of text in a fixed width font, like this:

    $ foo baz bang
    

    It usually means you're supposed to do something with the text in the box.

  • If the text in the box has a dollar sign at the beginning of it, it represents a command you are supposed to enter in your Terminal. If you get an error that looks like this:

        bash: $: command not found
    

    It means you aren't supposed to copy the dollar sign. Just type foo baz bang and hit <Enter>. Unfortunately it's hard to Google for dollar signs, so you can't really figure out what you did wrong.

  • If there's a dollar sign, followed by some more text on the lines below the dollar sign, the lines below represent the output of running the command correctly. For example:

        $ python run.py
         * Running on http://127.0.0.1:5000/
         * Restarting with reloader
    

    You are only supposed to type in python run.py into your Terminal. The rest of that stuff is the output of running the command correctly.

  • If the block of text doesn't have a dollar sign, it's probably a snippet of code you are supposed to copy into a text editor and save into a file (On Mac, use TextWrangler; on Windows use Notepad++). Hunt around the quickstart for a filename you should use.

  • If they don't tell you where to save the files, create a new folder and save all of the files in there, in the top level.

  • If the command line mentions a file you've recently created, like this:

        $ python run.py
    

    You need to run the command from "inside" the same folder as the file. The terminal has a notion of being "in" a directory (Directories and folders are the same thing). Here's a short guide:

    • To figure out which directory you are in, type pwd and press Enter. (pwd stands for "print working directory").

    • To list all files and folders in the current directory, type ls -al and press Enter.

    • To go into a folder below the current one, type cd Documents (or whichever folder you are trying to navigate to). To do more than one type cd Documents/code.

    • To go up a level type cd ..

    Once you're "in" the right place you should be able to run the command properly.

  • If you feel like you are spinning your wheels, ask for help! It's important to know how to ask. Make sure to tell people a) what you are trying to do, b) what you expected to happen, and c) what actually happened. Bonus points if you can talk about things you tried previously and why they failed to do what you wanted.

As an author of a quickstart myself, I feel like I owe an apology to users who are just getting started, for not including this information along with our guide. Sadly the terminal is just about the least beginner-friendly piece of software I can think of, and when you are just getting started, so-called "simple" errors can totally derail you and make you want to go outside and play Frisbee or roller blade.

Hopefully these tips will help you get started doing that cool tutorial you've always wanted to do.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

CMC’s website shows vast improvements

Last summer I tore into CMC's website redesign, saying that the new design emphasized looks over function and did a poor job of explaining what made CMC special. I recently visited the site and they've made a bunch of usability improvements.

Here are some of the highlights. Again, I offer these up with the caveat that, I haven't done any testing or looked at any data, but I do have a lot of experience in this area.

  • The old homepage, with only 14 links, call to action button that looked like an ad, and incredibly-difficult-to-change photo content, is gone. Instead users are redirected straight to http://cmc.edu/discovercmc, which is a much better page.

  • The Discover CMC page has lots of dynamic content that promises to be much easier to update; photos of speakers, links to events, a Twitter widget and a sliding bar. It also has an updated meta description, so a Google search for "Claremont McKenna" returns more contextual information about CMC.

  • Static assets (images, CSS, Javascript) are being cached with a Last-Modified and an E-Tag header, so that browsers will not re-request the same images and CSS every time a user requests the homepage. This will help with page load times.

  • There's a call to action button on the homepage: "Plan your Visit to Claremont McKenna today."

  • The "Student Gateway" replaced all of the stock photos with links to useful content, like the login form for your email account, which used to take around four clicks. That is outstanding. (For the record, http://bit.ly/cmcmail will take you right to the old form - I set up that link junior year :)) It looks like a page I would actually use to find things I was looking for - the maintenance request page, the Collins menu, etc.

  • The calendar on the Student Gateway page uses Google Calendar, instead of the old ASPX event calendar that no one used.

  • The "Prospective Students" page has an explanation of why you should apply to CMC.

  • Skip links for disabled users!! These will help people skip to the main page content and help CMC, a nonprofit, meet government standards for website accessibility.

  • The professor home pages, which I singled out for SEO improvements, have gotten about halfway there; it's clear someone is thinking about improvements in that area. Pages now contain an h1 tag and some keywords describing what the professor does; it's a lot of work, but the pages would be best with a unique <title> attribute and a meta description, however.

These add up to amazing improvements in usability and discoverability; they've addressed most of the problems with the old site. It also represents a tremendous amount of effort on the website and whoever is responsible should be proud.

That said, it's still not perfect, and there are some more quick usability/SEO wins to accomplish. Here's a shorter, less urgent, list of areas they could still improve upon:

  • You can access the Discover CMC page from eight distinct URL's:

    • www.cmc.edu/discovercmc
    • cmc.edu/discovercmc
    • claremontmckenna.edu/discovercmc
    • www.claremontmckenna.edu/discovercmc
    • www.cmc.edu/discovercmc/index.php
    • cmc.edu/discovercmc/index.php
    • claremontmckenna.edu/discovercmc/index.php
    • www.claremontmckenna.edu/discovercmc/index.php

    Google will sometimes interpret duplicate content as a sign that you're trying to farm for content by placing the same text at different URL's. It also means Google is unsure which version of the page to point people to. It's better for Google rankings to redirect all duplicate content to one canonical domain/URL with a 301 (and better still to serve it at the root - shorter URL's rank more highly).

  • It feels odd to have distinct pages for Admission and for Prospective Students; those two have a ton of overlap and it might be best to merge them. Prospective students are the only group interested in Admissions information, and the Admission pages may get more love (see the outdated Twitter feed on the Prospective students page).

  • The dropdown menu is great and includes a ton of links to useful content. However, I expected that when I hovered over the menu item, the menu would appear automatically. Instead I had to click to make the menu appear. Normally I expect when I click on something that looks like a link, I will be taken to a different page, so I was hesitant to click on the link.

    Dropdown menus have a usability problem where users scrolling the mouse from above the menu to below the menu trigger the flyout, even though they don't mean to. The best practice here is to have the menu only appear after the user has hovered over the item for around half a second, so that transient mousers don't trigger the flyout.

One of the reasons I set up Good Morning CMC was to provide students with an actually useful calendar and a more accessible view of the information that we needed on a daily basis. With these changes Good Morning CMC is becoming close to redundant.

The number of CMC students interested in different tech fields - web design, marketing, entrepreneurship - has been on the rise recently. I wouldn't be surprised if the web team and some smart interns couldn't continue to improve the site, boosting application rates, prospective student contact rates, and alumni giving rates, through iterative improvements to the current site.

PS Sorry I didn't include images or links - I am trying to blog more often and cut down on the amount of time it takes to do so.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

The consulting blog post series

Inspired by a great post on why college students choose consulting I decided to re-post my series of posts on consulting, written in 2008 when I was considering a career in consulting. I was also looking to write a more focused series of blog posts so a blog on consulting was a good fit. Not knowing anything about consulting at the time, I also thought it would help me get a consulting job. Ultimately I decided not to do consulting and doing the blog was part of the reason why.

I looked at why people hire consultants, whether consultants actually have value, why it's a good decision for you personally. Here's the full list of posts:

  • Why consulting?

    Information transfers slowly; despite what economists say, firms aren't efficient and lots of times they can do things better. Consultants have expertise about how to improve management and become more efficient, and when this knowledge is shared/diffused to companies, everyone is better off.
  • The evidence for evidence-based management

    The authors use evidence, and numerous case studies, to explain that financial incentive plans often don't work, developing a comprehensive long-term strategy isn't that important, most mergers only work under certain specific circumstances, and company culture can be more important than hiring the best workers. In each of these cases, studies have shown that the conventional wisdom is often wrong, and companies, schools or hospitals that implement evidence-based programs do better than those who don't.
  • A disastrous tale from a young BCG consultant

    I got the feeling that our clients were simply trying to mimic successful businesses, and that as consultants, our earnings came from having the luck of being included in an elaborate cargo-cult ritual.
  • What skills should you learn for a career in consulting?

    A lot of your job as a consultant is selling your services and acting knowledgeable. Many people are stuck in Dilbert-like situations and will look at you as a knight in shining armor. For this you’re going to need to be friendly, personable, and high status; you’re going to need to sell yourself as an Answer Guy.
  • Is it true that to do the best work, you need to hire the best people?

    As Bob Sutton and Jeffrey Pfeffer point out, it’s a myth that the best companies are best because they have the best people. Usually the best companies have great systems that bring out the best in people.
  • Save the planet by hiring better managers

    A one standard-deviation increase in management correlates with a 38 percent increase in sales per employee...smaller firms with better management out-grow other small firms with bad management...better management is associated with improved health care outcomes, employee satisfaction, and energy efficiency...Managers are not well informed about how good their own management practices are and which areas need improvement.

    Another experiment by the same group took a random group of textile firms in India and provided them with free management consulting. Not only did performance grow in the firms provided the consulting, but they also said the reason that they didn't implement the changes sooner was because they were not aware of good management practices.

  • Why firms don't experiment

    I've often tried to help companies do experiments, and usually I fail spectacularly. I remember one company that was having trouble getting its bonuses right. I suggested they do some experiments, or at least a survey. The HR staff said no, it was a miserable time in the company. Everyone was unhappy, and management didn't want to add to the trouble by messing with people’s bonuses merely for the sake of learning.

  • What's the downside to hiring a consulting firm?

    There’s a selection bias at play...it’s likely that consultants provide firms with value in excess of the costs of hiring them. Smart firms realize this, and want to hire consultants. But because they’re smart firms, they’re probably ahead of the curve and consultants can only provide them with limited amounts of profitable advice. The firms that need consultants the most are unlikely to hire them.
  • Why do firms hire consultants?

    Consulting firms can reliably signal authority and intelligence; bosses may hire consultants to confirm that they’re correct. To cite one recent example, the US Postal Service hired two consulting firms so that they could go to Congress and implement a restructuring plan.
  • There's hope for consulting

    I have seen some serious analytical firepower (maybe not always with quite the rigor of an academic paper but for sure at several orders of magnitude the pace those are developed at) being thrown at what originally seemed like simple problems – generally things turn out to be neither simple nor elegant in the end. The art of the trade is to come up with a coherent story in light of that.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

There’s hope for consulting

From the comments at Overcoming Bias:

As a consultant with one of the leading strategy consultancies, I take serious issue with that – well except the part about spending your day drawing slides, that sound way too familiar. In fairness, slides are a good reality check, if you cannot put it on one or two of them, it is probably not synthesized enough.

Furthermore, I have seen some serious analytical firepower (maybe not always with quite the rigor of an academic paper but for sure at several orders of magnitude the pace those are developed at) being thrown at what originally seemed like simple problems – generally things turn out to be neither simple nor elegant in the end. The art of the trade is to come up with a coherent story in light of that.

And while there might occasionally be the client who does not really know what they want, it is part of a consultants mission to find out.

And I have never fit an analysis to what the client expected. If anything, the opposite rings more true – painting darker scenarios than what the client expects (even then, within what I could honestly believe)

Let me make a hypothesis: For those that hire consultants, the real reason for hiring one is often so that they can avoid responsibility for any negative consequences that come from making a specific decision.

I fear there is a lot of truth to that. But it honestly reflects more on them than on the consultants.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Consulting Links

Dallas

Dallas Regional Chamber hired BCG to conduct a survey of the region. The fact that they’re willing to hire a consultant signals to me that they probably have good government and don’t need consultants as much as the places that aren’t hiring consultants. In short, consider a move to Dallas.

Two Bain executives wrote an op-ed in Forbes Magazine about how health insurance companies can cut costs. They studied large companies to find out how the companies managed health care costs and then cherry-picked the best practices of those firms.

Their main recommendations are that insurance companies should try to motivate employees to stay healthy. Healthy employees have lower healthcare costs (and, according to Eric Barker, get fired less often). For example, they could charge higher premiums to smokers or award prizes for healthy behavior.

They also recommend that insurers motivate sick patients to take treatments that will make them get better. Sometimes chronically ill patients don’t take their medications or follow through with recommended treatment, which delays recovery and increases insurer costs.

A third recommendation is to design healthcare systems so recommendations and decisions about care come from a patient’s primary doctor. When the recommendations are made in this fashion, rather than through an anonymous far-away bureaucrat, patients are much more likely to be agreeable.

I’m not sure that insurers will be able to follow through with these recommendations. People who get their health insurance from their company may respond more to motivation because they affiliate with the company, and the health insurance costs of the firm are pooled amongst other employees. With health insurance in general, affiliation is much weaker (Americans or Californians instead of Target employees), and people probably won’t feel any social pressure to change their behavior. Furthermore the regulatory or political climate for insurers might be more restrictive than that for firms, but I’m not an expert.

Here’s a recent piece from McKinsey on some problems with IT product design. Software is showing up in new products, for example, cars, as features and knowlege about the benefits diffuse slowly throughout the economy. However the recommendations in this report are mainly things that Silicon Valley design types have been saying for years: don’t jam your product full of features, make the code reusable, create product interfaces that are user-friendly, etc.

This reminds me of a piece I read yesterday by Scott Berkun about how the main challenge facing IT and user-experience (UX) professionals is convincing other people in their organizations of the importance of good design, and budgeting for product design. IT people often were brought up in a different culture and don’t do a good job of selling themselves or pitching the need to the management people. Management often likes intervening as a way of reinforcing their control of a design; the problem is that management doesn’t know much about usability or IT and can harm the project, or budget too little money to do a good job.

So that article can be useful by explaining the principles of user experience and product design to management types, and explaining why it’s valuable.

This Bain “capability brief” explains some basic principles of human resources, and how to cut down on bloat in your organization structure. They discuss reducing a firm’s “layers” and increasing its “spans” – “spans” are the number of people reporting directly to you, and the layers are the number of boss levels. The best firms have fewer layers and more direct reports than the worst. Fewer layers helps decision making, effectiveness, saves money, but is really difficult to achieve.

They go on to explain how to cut organizational bloat; it’s difficult but can be done. First, map the firm to figure out where you have excesses and duplication of work. Then set a target, like 7 layers of management or increase everyone’s direct reports by 2. Finally be really careful to avoid employee shifting and management excuses to avoid cuts (Get it Done), and implement automatic checks to avoid the process repeating itself. Everyone needs to be on board for a restructuring, because it is painful and there will be a status quo bias.

I am not hopeful about the ability of government to restructure.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Why do companies hire consultants?

On the face of things, it doesn’t make much sense to hire someone to tell you how to do your job. Ostensibly, the CEO of a company knows more about the business than any outside person. Plus, to the average person it may seem like consultants just offer tired advice (“Work more as a team! Find synergies!”)

However, it’s becoming clear that despite what economists say, firms aren’t really that efficient. Lots of times, managers may be unaware of strategies that would save them money, or boost profits, or they may be unaware that they are unaware. For example, Reenen and van Bloom went to India and offered strategy tips to a sample of textile manufacturers. The firms that implemented the strategies boosted profits by 15%. Why didn’t they implement that stuff earlier? The primary reason they cited was they just didn’t know about the management tools. This is one example of how consultants can be useful. It’s their job to keep abreast of the newest and best practices in management, strategy, and human resources and then impart that information to clients.

To that end, consulting firms do a significant amount of research, and knowledge sharing. Individuals within a consulting firm have access to wide databases and the accumulated knowledge of their peers, which means that there are probably increasing returns to scale among consulting firms. They also publish lots of research, to convince clients that they’re smart and can help out the firm.

There’s another reason firms hire consultants, however; to tell them things that they already know. Consulting firms can reliably signal authority and intelligence; bosses may hire consultants to confirm that they’re correct. To cite one recent example, the US Postal Service hired two consulting firms so that they could go to Congress and implement a restructuring plan. Another example is the firm that has to cut ten percent of staff. Maybe the manager knows which 10% he’d like to cut, but he would also like to maintain a good reputation as someone who is not ruthless, or cruel. So he could hire a consultant to tell him what he already knows, e.g. whom to fire and whom to keep on.

In sum, consultants facilitate knowledge transfer, but there’s also a signaling answer – that firms, or bosses, hire consultants to give credibility to a specific decision or strategy.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

What’s the downside to hiring a consulting firm?

For one, consultants are expensive. Consultants might be able to help you a lot and they might be able to help you a little, and you probably won’t be able to trust the consulting firm to give you an honest answer. You might want to hire a consultant to help you figure out whether hiring a consultant is a positive-NPV idea.

Second, you’re hiring someone to give you advice, which means you might not have the strongest grasp on the issue for which you hired the consultant. If that’s the case, you might over-weight the advice the consultant gives you (say, one possible decision of several) or be unable to replicate the thought process behind the strategy later. Furthermore, if you want to seek more advice later you’ll have to pay for it.

Third, it’s possible that the consultant doesn’t understand your situation and/or gives you bad advice. They might know that they don’t know very much and conceal that information from you, or they may be unaware of the depths of their unaware-ness and thus unknowingly give you bad advice. Fortunately, I don’t think this is a very big issue. Consultants have reputations, and clients can communicate: if you give bad advice too often your clients will talk and you may find yourself out of business.

Fourth, the nature of the advice-giving game is to be vague and give shaman-like answers. If your answers and predictions are specific and wrong, you can lose credibility; just ask a fortune teller. Especially because a firm’s hiring you to give them advice in an area about which the firm doesn’t have much knowledge, they’ll believe most of the things that you say to them. This may lead a firm to believe that consultants are telling them useful things, when in fact the firm is not giving very profitable, or actionable, advice. You’re hiring the firm to give you profitable advice but it may not be in their incentive to do so, if they can get away with delivering shaman-like answers.

Fifth, there’s a selection bias at play. Despite the problems listed above, it’s likely that consultants provide firms with value in excess of the costs of hiring them. Smart firms realize this, and want to hire consultants. But because they’re smart firms, they’re probably ahead of the curve and consultants can only provide them with limited amounts of profitable advice. The firms that need consultants the most are unlikely to hire them.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Why firms don’t experiment – they want to hire consultants!

Photo Credit: Marooned on Flickr, link:http://www.flickr.com/photos/marooned/235289077/Dan Ariely has a thought-provoking piece in the Harvard Business Review about firms that don’t want to experiment, and change. Based on his description and my experience I think that his assessment of the situation is accurate. Here’s a bit from the article:

This is a typical case, I’ve found. I’ve often tried to help companies do experiments, and usually I fail spectacularly. I remember one company that was having trouble getting its bonuses right. I suggested they do some experiments, or at least a survey. The HR staff said no, it was a miserable time in the company. Everyone was unhappy, and management didn’t want to add to the trouble by messing with people’s bonuses merely for the sake of learning. But the employees are already unhappy, I thought, and the experiments would have provided evidence for how to make them less so in the years to come. How is that a bad idea?

Experimentation and consulting are substitute goods, in terms of providing firms with useful information about how they can grow. However, getting advice from consultants is high status, whereas experiments are low status (like Steven Levitt, who became popular by running experiments that other economists thought were below them). It’s important to note that we should expect consultants to recommend less experimentation than actually makes sense, because experimentation is a substitute of advice-giving.

It’s well known that experimentation and change are necessary if a firm is going to prosper in the long run. In From Poverty to Prosperity Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz make the eye-opening observation that only one firm that was in the Dow Jones in the 1930’s is still there today, and that firm’s product is now completely different. As firms grow, entrenched divisions hold more sway and change becomes less popular.

At the same time, it may be hard for shareholders or board members to measure the amount of experimentation that goes on within a firm, on things like price points or marketing strategies. Furthermore, it’s pretty clear that individuals have an incentive to minimize the amount of experimentation that goes on.

Ariely’s guess is that the tradeoff between short-term costs and losses and long term gains, and the false sense of security provided by experts, are the reasons why firms don’t experiment as often as they should. I would add that in a firm where data is not king, managers believe that experimentation can undermine other workers’ confidence in their ability level. Sure, the firm might lose out in the long run, but they will maintain their status by hanging on to the status quo.

Ariely’s frustration is one that I often share. I always want to try out new things; the upside’s high and the downside is fairly limited (you can always end a new initiative if it doesn’t pan out). Unfortunately this isn’t really met with enthusiasm by many people I’ve worked with, so I resort to experimenting in my personal life, or getting really good at something even if it’ll never get implemented.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.