Davis Goss’ Mind Boggling Blog

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a classic example of what can happen when over confident people think they can make short cuts when dealing with natural laws and principles. Had engineers respected the irrevocable nature of these laws and principles the present catastrophe would not have happened.

(I have several highly visible 3-D signs around my office that remind me, “Don’t do stupid stuff”).

That BP engineers and management have not succeeded in stopping the oil leak tells me that, whatever they are doing, they’re doing it wrong.

If my experience as a professional problem solver tells me anything, it’s that BP engineers are focusing too much on the problem and not enough on a solution. This is just the opposite of what their focus should be. Not only because I have proven my unique scientific approach to the benefit of a widely diverse clientele for more than 50 years but because Dr. Einstein and other thinkers throughout history have reminded us, “You cannot solve a problem from within the same consciousness that created it.” BP doesn’t need more of the technological “expertise” that caused the problem, they need to reject their expertise and be responsive to new IDEAS.

There is a creative process that will meet any need, solve any problem and meet any goal or objective. There is virtually no adverse situation or circumstance that cannot be resolved by the proper application of natural laws and principles; “the creative and controlling forces of the universe.” (Webster)

(A logical continuity of these natural laws and principles is outlined in my book, “The Science of LIVING BETTER FOREVER.”)

In all recorded history nothing was ever accomplished, no need was ever met and no problem was ever solved that didn’t begin with an IDEA. The right idea can change the world. Ideas do not originate in the finite world of technology and limitation. They are revealed to the receptive thought of one trained in how to access them.

Perhaps we can all learn a lesson from a company that had a vat of liquid filled with a lot of loose material suspended in it on the first floor of their building. They needed to transfer just the liquid into a vat on the second floor.

No problem. All they had to do was to pump it up, right? Wrong! The solid debris fouled up the pump. Pump experts were consulted and new pumps were installed with similar clogging results. It was then decided that what they needed was a better filtering system to remove the debris before it got to the pumps. Various filter designs were tested but they, too, became clogged. The company’s management was convinced they had a serious filter/pump problem that was not only insurmountable but costly.

The solution to their “impossible” situation lay, not in addressing it as a filter/pump problem, but in seeing it as a need to transfer clean liquid from point A to point B. What they really needed was to reject the usual engineering approach (that didn’t work!) and find a new IDEA that would. They needed a new creative approach.

“Creativity” is defined by Webster as, “The ability to be productive through imaginative skills.” (notice he makes no reference to technology or skilled training, just the imagination) and “productive,” “to establish results, benefits and profits.”

A new, unorthodox system was developed and implemented that involve neither pumps nor filters. A conveyor belt affixed with sponges was cycled through the lower vat, absorbing just the liquid, and conveyed to the second floor where the clean liquid was simply wrung out. Problem solved.

Two axioms come into play:

1. The longer a person (technician) works in a given field the less likely he will come up with a creative idea. Familiarity can thwart expansive thinking.

2. History proves that the greatest creative contributions are made through a mind not too fully packed with existing knowledge or the awareness of past failure. New ideas usually come from sources outside the organization.

There are lots of ways to plug up a pipe. To date, all the “obvious” technological approaches have failed. As in the case of our pump / filter scenario, the solution will most likely be a radical departure from the “obvious” engineering approach and come from OUTSIDE the organization. There are thousands of people with ideas on how to solve the problem (myself included). In my opinion, BP needs to publicize an open channel to accept these ideas, set up submission parameters and a mechanism for objective evaluation

There is already more technical expertise than needed (axiom 1). What they need now is the uncluttered simplicity of a good outside ideas and concepts (axiom 2). Working together, the engineers can put the nuts and bolds of practicality to viable innovative submissions.

Traditionally, organization is the enemy of innovation and tends to retreat into an “N. I. H. (Not Invented Here) mode to defend themselves against anything that might challenge their technological mindset. But the enormity of the Gulf crisis demands an impersonal cooperative effort. The time has come to start thinking and forget all the reasons why past attempts have failed.

When all else fails, INNOVATE!