The Affinity Principal
I have observed a common behavior in problem solving which has impacted the efforts of most of my colleagues over the years. I call it the “affinity principal” which, in general, asserts that most people, even academics, develop solutions to new problems they encounter by incrementally redefining problems, the solution to which they are already familiar.
This doesn't sound so bad. Afterall, it resonnates well with the adage, "Learn from Experience." But, let's look a little more closely at the affect such behavior has on real-world problem solving in for-profit endeavors.
Often, when facing a new challenge, people pull from experience a known solution even before undertaking comparative analysis of the similarities and differences in the current problem and the previous problem they are drawing upon. While they expect some difficulty, it seems always a source of considerable frustration and surprise when the solution they first attempt proves grossly inadequate. Nevertheless, they proceed on only modifying their approach to incorporate the incongruent and novel aspects of the problem that persist but, only to the extent that they may be force-fit into their previous understanding. Put another way, still ignoring the non-operative, they proceed to extend their original solution, even though, more often then not, the solution derived is neither particularly new, nor particularly effective.
Now the amazing part: oddly, whatever solution is put forth is accepted and deemed sufficient based on some appraisal of cost/benefit, considering how much effort was expended to make the once square, now rectangular peg fit the once round, now oval hole. I’m sure you get my point.
To be certain, this lack of innovation is as much an organizational dilemma as it is an individual dilemma. The affinity principal scales nicely from the work of a sole individual to the work of even very large organizations (even as large as Microsoft :c))
I deduce that this very principal is the chief cause of management and organizational dysfunction that plagues so many endeavors. We are accustomed to calling out and blaming it on the “bureaucracy”; but, that is little more than convenient stalemate between originality and stability. Or perhaps it is sufficient to note only that dignity is often confused with status quo ignoring that dignity once equated with courage and conviction.
In my overall conjecture, I examine only the economic underpinnings of profit.
I conclude that while counter-intuitive, profit seeking as a primary objective de-stabilizes performance. I say de-stabilizes to drive home the idea that except in cases of proprietary advantage, as the availability of any given product or service increases, profit is realizable in only two cases; arbitrage or value in excess of cost in the form of reliability of supply.
It appears that overall, arbitrage is the resulting strategy in business today. Why is it so hard to "get" that reliability is the fundamental path to real cost reduction that ultimately secures the battle for market share and growth? The answer is relatively simple. Businesses are being built to be sold. Publicly traded companies are made profitable in the short-term to line the pockets of executive management. The statistics for longevity of Executives in Fortune 500 companies is telling. Short-term arbitrage is quick, and dirty.

Help



