Looking At Solutions From The Ecologist’s Points Of View

Last time, I talked about how the designer and economist see and gauge the effectiveness of a solution.

This time, we’re moving into the third territory: the ecologist’s. We’re going to look at solutions that change the shape of the space they’re in. True to its name, I’m going to use the natural web of life, adaptation and evolution as analogies.

The ecologist, I think, will propose two things that problem solver could do:

Up until the end of the Cretaceous Period 65 million years ago, dinosaurs, large-sized, cold-blooded reptiles (or so they speak of them) became the dominant Phylum in the ecosystem. But notice how the game changed gradually afterwards. Small-sized, warm-blooded mammals, originally of relatively weak physique and small population, survived, thrived and changed the game until today
What does the mammalians do to change the space they’re in?

This is the first way: they did nothing. They let nature takes its course, kept themselves small, then wait for the impending disaster to arrive, survive thanks to their relative size and thrive that way.

Applied to problem solving, idea that at first doesn’t seem like much (whether by elegance or economy), but is able to withstand time by laying low until all the other idea (company, product, etc.) withers away, wins.

In a decidedly ethnocentric move, I’ll take our own race as a second example:

For at least most of the world’s history, no other species had changed the environment around it as much as we, humans, do (mostly negatively, but that’s beside the point.) I’m going to go into a classic argument here and say that we are weaker and less agile than many other creatures out there (cheetahs, shark and dinosaurs come to mind) yet we are able to change the space around us like no other species could.

What, then, made us different?

This is the second way: we became flexible. What we lacked in strength, dexterity or agility, we make up in our ability to adapt to any situation. In fact, you may even say that, thanks to our physical inability, we then are forced to rely on our flexibility to adapt. A shark, for instance, is perfectly suited for the underwater environment. A hawk for the sky. A tiger for land, and so on. It turned out that survival isn’t just about being the best at dominating any one environment. It’s being good at one and adaptable at many.

In the same sense, a solution that has more potentiality to change the plasticity of the the shape around it tends to not be:

• The most specialized (shark == water, hawk == air)
• Full-featured (shark and hawk == fully equipped for hunting)
• Or novel (a shark can sense a drop of blood amongst a million parts of water, a hawk can see from afar)

Rather, it tends to be the most barebone but flexible. This kind of solution may not have enough elegance or economy to do much, but it’s also one which principle can be applied to many other areas.

An example: MySpace. Does it do every one of its function well? No. Is it exclusively targeted to a niche at its inception (for example, towards artists or musicians?) No. Is it fast, full featured or standard-compliant? No.

But does it provide an interface that’s malleable to the user’s heart’s content? Yes. In fact, customizing is one of its key strength that allowed it to became one of the key players. Does it have enough flexibility to adopt most of the user’s area of life? Absolutely.

Another example: Twitter. Can it play music, display elaborate profile, or even be customizable to a good extent? No. Can it display more than 140 characters at a time? Mostly, no. But does its service have enough flexibility that the user can utilize in almost every area of her life? Absolutely.

Take WordPress. Is it a proper content management system? No. Does it have all the power needed to do stuff specialized for blogging? No. But does it have enough flexibility to allow any user of fairly low web development level to write her own plugin and customize the look and feel and behavior to her heart’s content? Yes.

The empty frame, the blank box and the universal interface is all you need. The rest could be good enough. MySpace, Twitter and WordPress aren’t products with killer features, they’re good enough products with flexibility and accessibility.

In the word of my friend and fellow tweeple, Rodney Rumford (@Rumford):

Twitter vs. FB they are very dissimilar ecosytems. twitter is really quite astonishing in many ways. it is whatever you want it to B

Source.