Pens ‘n’ Pencils

By Pau

For some reason, engineers tend to value more complex solutions than simple ones.

You might have probably read the rumor of the space pen. In short, NASA developed a pen that could write in zero gravity, spending $12M and thousands of hours of work, while Russians used pencils instead. Although the story is simply a hoax, it well illustrates a principle seen in many engineering decisions: simple solutions are undervalued. High-tech, high-complexity solutions are seen as the correct ones by whole communities of experts, even if simple solutions might be just better.

space pen

I have heard in professional contexts: “Solution A is the one that works the best, but… it is too simple. We’d have a hard time justifying our job.”. Seriously. Sad but true. Simple ideas can save millions of dollars, not only because they are cheaper, more robust and perform better, but also because you can get rid of personnel that complicates things…

So here’s an history of my own. In a robot contest, which goal was to get out of a maze, we presented a radically simple design. It turns out that the kind of maze proposed can be solved by always going to the right. This was our proposal: a single wheel robot, that would turn in circles if left alone, but that sticked to the wall in its presence, and would just follow it straight ahead. Whenever there was a right turn, it would do the right turn as it turned in circles in absence of wall. A small curved arm was set to the front so that when it found a wall in the front, it would do a left turn. The results? Five times faster than any of the other competitors. And we were disqualified, of course. That was not a robot. It didn’t have chips, nor LEDs, nor IR sensors. And yet it solved the problem better than anyone else…

maze

So, which are the stories of your own? Which are the pencils that can be used instead of pens?

3 Responses to “Pens ‘n’ Pencils”

  1. Ramon Vega Says:

    Sometimes the comitee doesn’t know the ‘pencil’ either.

    ‘Knowledge’, as such, doesn´t really exist. We do have massive libraries and repositories of files, books, data, whatever… However, what does exist is partial information residing on the -by nature- limited brains of individuals.
    This goes beyond the scope of this topic, but when working in teams, the knowledge available to the purpose of the task is what’s on the team member’s head, plus the ability of the team to search on the knowledge repositories (and take advantage of it), in short.
    I’d say that the latter is seldom done (too much mork..) and most is relied on the ‘RAM’ or the ‘cache’, the current working knowledge, which is handy and easy to access.
    “Did you say pencil..? let me think… no, I get no hits on ‘pencil’, sorry. I bet it must be a good idea but, listen, why don’t we try to get the pen work fine instead…?”.
    I bet chances are that there are -old- solutions for current problems. If only the ones solving the problems knew…!

    As an example, I wonder, has this discussion ever happpened before? How can we know? We rely on what we ‘know’ or believe to know and move from there. Most likely this discussion, in its different forms, has taken place other times somewhere else, and will continue to be in the future.
    We may be taking baby steps on a trial we believe is unexplored when in fact we’re walking on a busy highway…?

    Anyways. Is there a problem with that? Of course not.
    There isn’t right or wrong. There is certainly an ‘optimal’ way of doing things / solving problems, but the solution may be different depending on ‘what’ is that is ‘optimized’. Be it product features, and a pencil must work fine. Be it ‘let’s put all this folks to think in something new and see what the heck they come up with..’ and you’ll probably end up with a hole in your department budget, oh, and tools and prototypes too.

    At the end, though, humanity is SO imperfect! If we were half innefective than we are today the system would -certainly- collapse. But that may deserve a separate posting. :)

    Humans are not either ‘lean’ nor ’six sigma’ yet (at least as far I can tell from the top of my head -which is what I -believe to- ‘know’, right now-).

  2. Pau Says:

    Very interesting. Wow!, many topics to discuss…

    I completely agree with you on that many times what matters is on what we are trying to optimize, our focus. Some people is more “solution-focused”, for which what matters is the end result; others are “technology-focused”, for which what matters is to buld a ‘cool’ and typically complex system; and others are “selfpromotion-focused” which is pretty self explanatory.

    On the information retrival concept, it is certainly interesting that most need to be familiar with a concept to accept it.

    And as Albert Einstein said: “Information is not knowledge”.

    -Pau

  3. Ramon Says:

    I’ve just found that. I think it relates perfectly to the subject:

    We Are Smarter Than Me: How the Wisdom of Crowds Can Help Businesses Succeed
    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1855

Leave a Reply