Flows, Fragility and Friction

I’ve long been a fan of flows but, in the spirit of paradox, I’ve also been a fan of friction. But, wait a minute, friction slows down flows – how could I possibly favor both flows and friction?

Until recently, I hadn’t even been really aware of the paradox in my perspective, much less thought systematically about ways to resolve the paradox. I’m not sure I can fully resolve the paradox, but I want to use this posting to reach out and ask for help in exploring both the paradox and its potential resolution.

Let me first provide some context.

From stocks to flows

I've written extensively about the Big Shift that’s transforming the global business landscape. One of the key frameworks that I’ve used in describing the Big Shift is that we’re moving from a world of stock to flows. What I’ve meant by that is that business for the past several centuries at least has been organized around stocks of knowledge as the basis for value creation. The key to creating economic value has been to acquire some proprietary knowledge stocks, aggressively protect those knowledge stocks and then efficiently extract the economic value from those knowledge stocks and deliver them to the market.

The challenge in a more rapidly changing world is that knowledge stocks depreciate at an accelerating rate. In this kind of world, the key source of economic value shifts from stocks to flows. The companies that will create the most economic value in the future will be the ones that find ways to participate more effectively in a broader range of more diverse knowledge flows that can refresh knowledge stocks at an accelerating rate.

So, knowledge flows become the key to creating economic value. The good news is that we're in a world where knowledge flows are expanding and accelerating at an exponential pace on a global scale. This is happening for many reasons. A key factor is the deployment of rapidly improving digital technology infrastructures. Another important factor is the rapid urbanization of the world’s population. As we move into more and more dense urban settlements, there’s a significant increase in knowledge flows shaped by the growing interactions of people in these urban areas.

More generally, I’ve been heavily influenced by the Constructal Law developed 20 years ago by Adrian Bejan, a Professor at Duke University, who expressed the law in the following way: “For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it." In essence, he’s made the case that all kinds of systems ranging from our circulatory systems within our bodies to our cities to our planets evolve to enhance flow. In other words, flow is not only good, it’s essential to our survival and evolution. I wrote a review of Bejan's seminal book on this topic - Design in Nature - that can be accessed here.

The dark side of flows

So, then, what’s the problem? Well, too much flow could be a bad thing. Right now, we’re beginning to realize that all this connectivity enabling much richer flows on a global scale also has its downside. We’re all familiar with the flash crashes associated with high frequency trading on electronic markets. Stories of significant security breaches multiply as we become more connected. Extreme events cascade out of nowhere to disrupt activity on a large scale. It turns out that too much flow can make our systems more fragile.

There’s another indirect way that too much flow produces more fragility. As human beings, we have a natural tendency to seek out those who think and act like us.

We can see this play out in social media where we tend to hang out with people who are like us. As Bill Bishop, in his book The Big Sort so persuasively demonstrated, we have a growing tendency to settle in geographic neighborhoods where the people share our beliefs and values. The more we do this, the more our own beliefs and values are reinforced and the more resistant we become to the different beliefs and values of others. There’s growing flow because we really enjoy having the positive reinforcement that comes from frequent interaction with people who are like us and we are likely to more frequently engage with others from our community. It’s also efficient – we’re much more likely to come to agreement and act on something quickly if we all share the same basic perspective.

But, the problem is that the flow of interactions is more and more contained within the communities that think like us and we become less willing to engage with those who might challenge our beliefs. And, the more polarized we get, the more fragile we become as a society, vulnerable to falling into violence when faced with the slightest provocation.

More flow with less fragility

So, how do we get more flow with less fragility? My instinct is that requires friction – institutional arrangements and personal practices that tend to slow down flows and reduce the likelihood that these flows will cascade into the breakdown of systems.

What do I mean by friction? I’m not really sure, but I have an instinct that it can take many different forms. For example, in the case of trading markets, it might take the form of buffers that require some reflection or more analytics before acting upon information.

In the case of individuals interacting with each other, productive friction might come from welcoming others with diverse perspectives and experiences as an opportunity to challenge our own beliefs and evolve to much more creative approaches than would be likely if we just interact with others who have similar perspectives. Sure, it might take us longer to come to some agreement or resolution, but the outcome would much more innovative and help us to learn faster. The key to keeping friction productive is to foster mutual respect for all the participants even though we might disagree on the topics or challenges under discussion.

Find the right kind of friction by focusing on the highest impact flows

But clearly not all friction is good – too much friction and friction of the wrong kind can flatten flows. Perhaps the key to focusing on the right friction is to shift our framework for thinking about flows. Too often, especially in the technology world, flows get reduced to data flows and the emphasis is on the efficiency and speed of the flow – how quickly can it get from point A to point B?

If the goal of expanding flows within our society and economy is to accelerate learning rather than to simply expand data flows, we might create a more useful framework for optimizing both flows and friction. What kinds of flows are generative, meaning that they promulgate even more productive flows over time? What kind of friction gives us opportunity for reflection and productive debate so that we can learn faster and come up with even more creative ideas and approaches over time?

Perhaps the old adage that to go fast, you must first go slow, has some merit here. Rather than just focusing on accelerating existing flows, maybe the key is to find ways to nurture the flows that can be most productive in generating even more flows over time.

Bottom line

I’m not sure about all of this, but getting the balance right between flow and friction will be key to building societies and systems that can accelerate performance improvement without exposing us to excessive fragility that increases the risk of collapse. In other words, it will be key to human progress.

What do you think? Are all flows created equal? If not, what forms of flows can be most helpful in helping us to achieve more of our potential, getting us to higher and higher levels of performance as individuals, as institutions and as societies?

Is all friction the same? If not, what forms of friction will help to reduce fragility while increasing our ability to learn faster as individuals, as institutions and as societies.

I need your help. Let the flow begin and let’s hope that some friction emerges as we seek more insight into the most effective ways to balance flow and friction.

Comments

[Susan C Hasty]

John, I admire your offer to crowdsource this conversation. I believe we're just beginning to tap into our abundance by accessing the power of the crowd.

The Law of Requisite Variety, coined by W Ross Ashby, asserts that "variety is required to regulate variety". Simply put, managing diversity comes down to two basic ways. 1. Reduce it or constrain it (causing friction) or 2. Absorb it or creating flow. Systems require both stability and homeostasis to survive. The balancing act comes down to flexibility and consistency. The answer may be in where to put flexibility to create balance. I reference this in more detail on my podcast titled Lucrative leadership Conversations. My co-host, Gene Morton, and I ask the question "How can leaders tap into their genius and the genius of others to thrive in an exponentially changing world? I've set up a linkedin group (also named Lucrative Leadership Conversations) with the hope of engaging minds on the topic. I hope you'll consider contributing there.

[Mark Heyer]

In his new book, The Physics of Life: The evolution of everything, Adrian Bejan stakes out a vast new territory for the Constructal Law and introduces the concept of universal evolution based on the principles of Constructal Law flow evolution. Life is defined as all that flows, morphs and evolves. Biology, cognition, society, economics and technical life forms are all consequences of the same principle of nature.

You asked the question, is more flow always better? Imagine a house on fire, with a group of neighbors gathered around. A single fireman holds a fire hose and controls its flow of water into the burning house. Realizing that more water is needed, the bosses start turning up the pressure on the flow of water, which exerts more pressure on the constraints of the hose, causing it to twist and snake around. Ultimately, the hapless fireman lets go and the hose becomes chaotic, whipping around unpredictably through the crowd.

It seems that human societies work in much the same way, turning up the pressure on control (friction) systems like governments, until the brink of chaos is reached. A most interesting topic and thanks for your wide ranging explorations. Another question: by understanding the mechanisms of social flow evolution, can we influence their direction?

[Sophiam1973]

John. I'd recommend you listen to frank wilczek in krista tippet's podcast On Being. He talks about complimentarity. Where two opposites can both be fundamental truths.
Frank recommends thinking about a problem using one lense at a time. In your case, friction and then flow. He says it's impossible to think of both at the same time.

I have been thinking about similar conflicts where 2 things are opposite but hold true. A way of dealing with this is to find a higher vision that joins both narratives, a holistic statement. A vision where both sides come together. 'Life' 'wellbeing' - those sorts of concepts.

Another way of thinking of the problem is Einstein's theory of relativity. Moving while staying still

Another way is thinking about flows and friction in the brain. The wider the axons (info flow) the smaller the space for computing (thinking). Humans have a larger computing to axon size ratio. Meaning we are designed to value computing over quick reaction. It also makes the different parts of our brain more segregated.

So maybe friction is western society and flow is eastern?

I love systems thinking!

[Tonyjoyce]

Organizations and organizational constructs are boundaries. Stocks and flows of knowledge is not enough to describe them as there is some form of transformation when crossing. The measurements on inside are different than outside. For instance outside the firm the efficiency of knowledge interactions can be measured as currency (contracts, profit, market share, etc) But inside we know monetary incentives yield false results, they are too easily gamed. The inside currency is not concrete. It isn't contracts or obligations, as those are artifacts of hierarchy. I suspect the internal currency is favors, freely given and redeemed. So to address your observations on finding a viable pace please consider the translation at the boundaries. In KM classes long age we talked about "impedance mismatch" I have no memory of the original source of the term.

[John Cousineau]

John: IMO, most effective way to optimize flows and friction and fragility:

1/ understand flows more clearly. Measure causal effects of a flow on desired outcomes so the present state of that flow, and effects of daily practices on it, are clearer for everyone affected to see.

As McKinsey notes, breakthroughs in performance are typically preceded by revolutions in measurement. The metaphor of IoT foretells huge opportunities to understand complex flows faster, and in more granular detail.

The craft of data visualization foretells huge opportunities to paint pictures of flow that make the story of performance much clearer for everyone to see. It becomes a new cross-domain language with which to come to a shared agreement on reality.

2/ THEN use what's discovered [and now observable] to have more honest [cross-domain, friction-inducing] about what to try as new ways to improve results, in flow, by improving practices, in the flow. Progress to better is a team sport. Which requires candid conversations, conducted with purpose.

3/ reduce the fragility of interventions. By shrinking the cycle times needed to witness the effects of changes made on outcomes. And shrinking the size of interventions tested. When the cost of 'flawed fixes' is shrunk, there's much less risk in trying new things. Which gives added purpose to learning at scale. And added value to it when it occurs at speed.

In sum: [small moves]+[smartly made from a clearer understanding of reality and more honest cross-domain dialogues on what to do about it]+[whose effects are quickly observable]=[better flows]+[from productive friction]+[with less fragility]

Trust this adds some value. Thanks for making me think.

- John

[Mburns]

Very interesting, John. My short answer is: remove human decision-making as much as possible and replace it with a series of algorithms that function much in the way of high speed (automated) trading technology within complex adaptive networks that replace most of what now transpires within federal and state gov't. A big pill to swallow, but if we're ever going to get to a place of predictive government, that is really our ultimate answer.

[ccz]

In August 2011 saw a cable channel like National Geographic (?), a documentary about the Nabataeans and civilization of Petra. A part of this documentary does not get out of my head ... the part that refers to the technique of the Nabataeans to carry water along km and km. They drew the inclination of the pipe does not flow for maximum efficiency transported but the most effective. The maximum efficiency leads to frequent breakage of the pipes.

[Taran A Rampersad]

I've always thought in flows. In my mind, I've always called it the CoT - Calculus of Things (The acronym is new). What has happened of late is that we've built silos - think pipes - all over the place in how information flows, which affects where knowledge is dispersed...

My issue I'm thinking of these days is making sense of all that knowledge and finding wisdom. As everything goes about it's own CoT, there is friction between - but there is also a lack of friction between as some things become isolated in their own pipelines, such that they cannot be easily disrupted.

This has got me thinking about it again - thank you for that.

[Paul Carlile]

When are you in Boston or up for a call; I would love to think about this with you!

[Blair Forlaw]

A key difference between stocks and flows is that stocks are something we draw on and use up, while flows are (should be?) highly participatory. The active participation of people creating, co-creating, and re-creating knowledge fuels a flow and also (because we all bring unique backgrounds and perspectives to the process) creates healthy friction. As participants in the flow, we have a responsibility to engage with others in the process, which requires taking the time and energy to get to know them. Unless / until we can change our understanding about learning from a view of passive receiving to active creating, we will be stymied. Of course, you have already written extensively on this. : )

[Sarah Queen]

This resonates with me. I think that one friction in some flows (thinking of political discourse & a few projects at work) is going to be the reminder that the source of the information is a human. As you point out about a need for diversity--flows make polarizing ruts when you're not having to share ideas face to face with people that disagree. A slow-down to see sources as a fellow humans seems very healthy. A slow-down from a regulation seems bureaucratic and less positive. Technology has hampered our ability to focus on humanity and civility...do you think it can bring it back?