Loonshots

In Loonshots we’re taken on an innovative journey by Safi Bahcall. In the book, he argues how we can stimulate loonshots (moonshots, innovative new products, high chance of failure) on a personal and company level. He talks about the ingredients for loonshots, uses many examples (which can be a bit too detailed), and makes you want to start your own loonshot factory.

From my (read: Queal’s) perspective, I have mixed feelings about the need and viability of loonshots. What if innovation and progress are made in small steps? Bahcall does mention this in the book and I think he is also on board with this concept. He calls them franchises (making the next iteration/update of an original product). If the distinction (1 or 0) is a bit artificial, I will leave in the middle. Let’s just say the book focuses on one end, the loonshots.

Here are some ingredients/concepts from the book:

False Fail is a negative experimental result caused by a flaw in the experiment rather than a bad hypothesis. The book uses statins as an example: rats were a poor model for humans, and another attempt with chickens, followed by three more failures, eventually moved the work forward. Bahcall returns to those failures many times. The social-network example makes a similar distinction: some investors saw that earlier networks failed in execution rather than because the idea itself was bad, and invested in Facebook (see more here).

Phases of organisation treats a company as a complex system that can shift between encouraging loonshots and rewarding careers. Much of the book’s later discussion uses behavioural economics to examine incentives that can pull people towards career advancement instead of experimentation. DARPA is one example: people spend some years on a project, with no chance to move up within it, before rotating out.

Separate artists and soldiers. People working on loonshots should not be measured by the same metrics as those bringing in immediate profit, but both groups should be valued equally. Bahcall uses Steve Jobs as an example of focusing too heavily on the artists.

This being said, a very interesting book, but maybe not very much applicable for myself (at this moment).