“When we say that the Brain Science Program sits at the intersection of mathematics and medicine, of computer science and neurophysiology, what we are really saying is that the people in the program have managed to connect these fields, and through these connections they have come up with new creative insights. Individuals, teams or organizations step into the Intersection by associating concepts from one field with concepts in another.”

“The key difference between a field and an intersection of fields lies in how concepts within them are combined. If you operate within a field, you primarily are able to combine concepts within that particular field, generating ideas that evolve along a particular direction – what I call directional ideas. When you step into the Intersection, you can combine concepts between multiple fields, generating ideas that leap in new directions – what I call intersectional ideas. The difference between these two types of ideas is significant”

“There is logic to intersectional ideas, but the logic is not obvious. Obvious logic, for instance, tells us that it makes sense to prepare and budget a detailed plan of execution while pursuing directional ideas. What is not so obvious is that doing so at the Intersection can lead to failure. Obvious logic tells us to develop detailed, clear reward structures while pursuing directional ideas. What is not so obvious is that this will be self-defeating at the Intersection. Seemingly obvious logic tells us that having more resources should reduce the risk of failure at the Intersection. What is not so obvious is that the more resources we have, the more we will use – and thus the risk of failure remains the same. We may also find it strange that we do not have a better chance of achieving groundbreaking innovation by specializing in a field. But if we step into the Intersection, we can go from a mere 2,400 available concept combinations to almost six million – how do you compete with this?” [page 189]

Thanks for the clarifications, Harold. I think one area we can all do some work in is in this mistaken idea that these “soft skills” are just “fluffy bunny.” When did soft get to be a bad word, eh? Think about negotiation, mediation, sales — corporations don’t think those are fluffy bunny!

David’s comments on weak ties are to me at the core of the matter, as is something that I’m not sure what it is really called, but what I’m calling “adjacency.” Something that sits just next to what you are interested in. IN networks, we get a line of sight to things that are not just spot on to what we are interested in, but things adjacent, giving us more access to diversity. Maybe this is also that zone David is speaking to. I’m not sure. Maybe it is the flu, or maybe I just haven’t grasped it firmly, but it feels like something important.

This area is why I tell people they need to stop doing SOMETHING in their work life and pay attention to their network participation as it gives great value. But my suggestion is still so damn fuzzy, it is as bad as a fluffy bunny.

Where I would extend the model slightly is that there is, perhaps, another line that can be added to the bottom of your table, where the chaotic domain is revisited from the perspective of the network. It depends in some sense on how the boundary is drawn between complex and chaotic. If a network can still be operational is the situation truly chaotic? In a truly chaotic system is the situation too dynamic for any meta layer of organization to be able to exist? I can imagine a chaotic situation in which the network, or the idea of the network, is still implicit, if much weaker than in a complex situation, and in which it is providing the skeleton which stabilizes the chaotic situation sufficiently for it to transition back to the complex rather than the imposition of order which brings it into the simple. So though tribal and action oriented is the effective response, it is informed by the idea of the network, which gives it a different flavor than in the preinstitutional variant.