Joe,
I wanted to send a quick note on your discussion of Mozart's creative
response to circumstances, resulting in his composing the symphony
#36. I think there are several differences between that situation and
what we see today:
First, that was genius, not mere creativity. Mozart had a reputation
as a genius and a prodigy, a reputation (regardless of its truth) that
cost him dearly to maintain; this story exemplifies this. Today, we
hold genius in awe, but apply it mostly to people (scientists,
writers, etc.) who spend a great deal of time developing and/or
proving a theory. We respect their ability to think outside the box,
to create breakthroughs. For Mozart, and the world of his time, the
symphony #36 was not a breakthrough (symphony #40, yes; Die
Zauberflote, yes; the Requiem, yes). His accomplishment with this
symphony is a little like writing some piece of software from scratch
in a short period. I know engineers who can churn out the code, and
it works, but I would not necessarily say that creativity was the root
of that achievement.
Next, there is the re-use question. J.S. Bach, another genius, was
constantly under even more pressure than Mozart to produce: for long
periods he had to produce a cantata every week. He, though, mastered
the art of re-use, recycling melodies, even whole movements from
earlier works. While Mozart also did this to a lesser extent,
transcribing pieces for different instrumentation to make more money,
I think that he was more concerned about creating new works as much as
he could. In this situation, were he less concerned, he could simply
recycle some components of his earlier work to construct the piece,
but he didn't.
In our world, we revere effective re-use: we demand it from our
product developers, we're building it into evaluation and reward
systems. In effect we want our product developers to say, "OK, you
want a symphony. Do you want a slow or a fast movement?
Sonata-Allegro form OK with you? Long or short introduction? A minor
key section in the development? Great. I've got just the thing, let
me just change this from A major to D major, and... here you are." If
we were commissioning a new piece and a composer did that to us, we'd
be outraged!
THe next point, closely related to the re-use one, has to do with
innovation. Generally speaking, new inventions are created by
extending the use of existing components/forms in a new way. The fax,
for example, combined scanning/photocopying technology with modem and
telephone technology. The light bulb combined existing knowledge of
electricity, materials science, and vacuum technology. Mozart's
symphony extended Haydn's symphonies, adding instruments, recasting
roles, etc. Haydn, in turn, expanded the sinfonias of the baroque
period; Bach enhanced the role of wind instruments, etc. Creativity,
then, is often combining existing material with one new feature to
create something new.
Was Mozart acting creatively when writing his 36th symphony? Yes.
Was he being innovative? Probably not very.
Finally, combining all of these thoughts and applying them to software
development alone: Is there value in ignoring available technology when
solving a problem (e.g. with software)? Maybe. Can we quantify the
value to allow comparison with the other approach (use every available
technology)? Probably not. If we are rewarded for the end-product (as
opposed to the production/creation process), with time as a limiting
factor, we will probably use every piece of technology we can to save
time.
Now, given that there might indeed be value in ignoring the technology
(to discover new ways of solving a problem), we might want to attach a
few "back-to-basics" or "no-tech" creative exercises to our
development process. A couple of hours spent on these might not help
the current project, but they could easily help a future project, by
opening a crack in a new direction we hadn't previously investigated.
To recall the music analogy, these cracks are like Mozart's
unprecedented use of the trombone in the Requiem; or Beethoven
extending the final coda in his 5th symphony to an unheard of (and, at
the time, very uncomfortable) length; or Schoenberg et al deciding to
experiment with all 12 notes in the well-tempered scale, as opposed to
sticking to a "key;" or Hindemith using chords emphasizing fourths to
support his theory of "undertones;" or early rockers of the 50's
emphasizing the "back-beat" (the 2nd and 4th beats of a measure,
instead of the 1st and 3rd).
Each new crack contains the possibility of exposing new vistas, new
ways of solving problems. Can we afford NOT to search for these
cracks?
Regards,
Ben
--JOE_PODOLSKY@HP-PaloAlto-om4.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>