Build bridges. Bridges that barely stand.

Science, data and maths are often perceived as binary. It either is, or it isn't. It either will, or it won't. Technical people are trained to look for precision. What does the evidence show? Is something compliant or non-compliant? Is the conclusion supported or unsupported?

Business, however, rarely operates in such comfortable binaries.

A skill a lot of technical people struggle to hone is that of flexibility and managing ambiguity, as it's not really in our nature.

What makes this even more challenging and frustrating is the fact that creative and commercial colleagues often thrive on ambiguity and creativity. They may neither understand nor welcome the need for precision. They may also not expect the creativity a technical person can bring to the party, making co-creation (the nirvana of innovation in my opinion) even more difficult. They just ask the “can we, can't we?” question. More on dealing with that later.

So how do I help overcome this? I usually start with an anonymous quote that I've used repeatedly throughout my career. Those who I have coached, mentored and worked with will be familiar with it. Read it a few times and digest it:

“Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”

What that implies is that it's fairly easy to over engineer or bluntly de-risk anything - but it requires real skill to engineer something to be just right. To paraphrase; “Understanding true limitations and risks, and remaining on the right side of them, requires a lot of know-how.”

Sometimes excessive risk aversion is not evidence of expertise. It's potentially evidence that the expertise isn't there, or hasn't gone far enough.

Someone who knows very little about bridges can build a strong one. Just throw far more material and design at it than necessary. The sophisticated engineer knows where strength is required, where it isn't, what the safety margin needs to be and why.

That's analogous to the technical expertise in your business. The novice says “No.” The competent expert says “There is a risk and it looks like this...”

The exceptional expert says “Here's the risk, here's its magnitude, here's where the boundary lies, and here's what I think we can do without crossing it.”

What's more, a real expert may recognise that the boundary is actually a long way away and that there's far more room to manoeuvre than everyone assumed. That's where technical expertise stops constraining creativity and starts enabling it. That's the heart of technical co-creation and EmVivo.

This matters from all perspectives. Technical experts need deep enough knowledge to understand both the boundaries of their expertise and the room for manoeuvre within them. With that knowledge, they have an enormous amount to contribute to ideation and creativity.

Commercial and creative colleagues need to understand the opposite: that this flexibility isn't casual. It comes from deep technical knowledge.

One brings creative ambition. The other understands where the bridge really falls down. Co-creation needs both. It clarifies the roles to be played, which as you'll remember from my previous article “Fact or Friction” is a key foundation of co-creation. Clear roles and responsibilities.

Armed with the quote and thinking, it's worth acknowledging that the technical person is not always necessarily accountable for the business decision. We're responsible for giving a clear opinion, and the way to do that best in my experience is to highlight the potential consequences very clearly. All too often the technical expert comes in all guns blazing giving reasons what something must not be done or how everything will be a disaster unless certain parameters are met (this is necessary in some limited circumstances I hasten to add). Instead, stay calm, give your point of view, explain where the bridge falling down point occurs, and explain your rationale.

Compare and contrast the two expert opinions:

1. “We can't make that claim on pack” (A definitive conclusion, but without context to help the business understand or navigate the risk)

2. “Obviously it's a business decision. We could use that angle, but the data don't fully support that claim, and if we do go ahead with that there's a chance that we get an ASA challenge which might be difficult to manage. We could say xyz which is still compelling but keeps us on the right side of the code” (in other words, I'll build you a bridge that won't fall down because I really know my stuff)

In my experience, Expert 2 gets listened to and invited back into the discussion. From expertise to impact.

It builds trust. It builds credibility. And ultimately, it builds better innovation. And there's another significant benefit. If you don't say “no” to everything, people pay attention when something really needs to be heard. I think this is the case for me after years of honing co-creation. If Bruce thinks there's a showstopper, there probably is, seems to be the view.

So what about the ubiquitous “can we, can't we” question?

I once got asked this about a very complicated claim in the sexual well being category. It was a brilliant bit of creative, but required some careful thinking. I tried to debate the finer points (to make sure the bridge was barely standing). A marketeer said to me “Bruce, just tell us if we can say this or not”.

I asked them what the speed limit on the motorway in the UK was. Once we'd agreed it was 70 mph, I asked:

“Can you drive faster than that on a motorway?”

The silence said it all. Of course you can. The more useful question is whether you should — what happens if you do, and when might that risk be more appropriate. Which brings me onto another favourite saying of mine:

It's rarely about CAN. It's usually about SHOULD. Just because we can doesn't always mean we should.

The best technical experts aren't the people who eliminate risk. They're the people who understand it well enough to help everyone else navigate it.

Perhaps that's what expertise really looks like: not building the strongest bridge imaginable, but knowing precisely how strong the bridge needs to be.

And knowing why.

BMB

What have you seen that highlights the power of co-creation and bridges that barely stand?