on a re-mission

Just a chronicling of my thoughts about the Re-Mission game:

First off, I do not have cancer. Second, I am not a video game addict. That being said, I may not be able to truly appreciate the "lessons" inherent in the game, and I may not be the most qualified judge of its ability to compete with today's traditional game systems. But from what I saw, it seems to be (a) an effective learning tool; (b) a fun, and often frustrating, challenge.

The biggest thing that struck me was the speed at which the cancer cells multiply. Just like in any game where you fight against an enemy that re-generates given enough time, the cancer cells beyond the easy level in Re-Mission regenerate really, really fast. That's both challenging and frustrating. But I truly developed a sense of appreciation for the power of the disease and, more important, the need to be ruthless in the efforts to fight it off. Assuming the target audience can make that connection, it's a powerful thing.

The "guide" voice behind the game is a character in and of himself, in that he's a partner to Roxi, giving her encouragement and making sure she remembers to get her energy boosts and chemotherapy when they run low. He's also an educational figure -- telling Roxi to avoid shooting white blood cells and other organs that look unidentifiable to the common eye but are definitely critical to sustaining human life.

You can choose where you live, the name/gender of the patient in which you'll fight the cancer, and go throuugh a tutorial at the beginning. I definitely agree with Pat Christen, the HopeLab CEO, that it's cool for the protagonist to be a woman, because there is a "bad ass" element to it that I don't think would be there if the character were a boy.

Playing this game makes me believe more strongly that, at some level, the MBA curriculum should include playing Civilization, Age of Empires, or some other long-term ridiculous, dorky but educational strategy game. I never played these games when I was younger, but now I see that they are the best preparation for being a CEO (other than the managing people part) that any young person can have. This doesn't directly apply to sick kids, but anyway.

jesse's step 1 for creativity -- surround yourself with the best

One thing I've come to appreciate more and more as my MBA studies go on is the value of my peers. I don't want this to sound trite, because I'm not specifically making reference to the traditional "networking" value common to the b-school parlance. I'm actually referring to people's ability to use observation, experience, and intellect to solve problems and make the world a funnier and happier place to be.

OK, so that might have been worded to sound too deep, so maybe I'm onto the other end of the spectrum now. It's just that a few people have taught me some creative ways to approach things and I am in the midst of figuring out how to capitalize on these learnings for myself.

For instance, take my friend Dan. Dan is one of the best strategic thinkers I know. When I say that, I mean that he is incredibly talented at looking at a situation (whether an NBA trade or a private-sector merger), understanding the factors that could possibly (and will most probably) influence the outcome of that situation, devising a framework for thinking about that situation from the viewpoint of all interested parties, qualitatively and empirically testing his hypotheses about possible outcomes, and describing the implications thereof. It's in his natural approach to life to think strategically about everything, which makes him both funny (in the case of discussing whether it would be better for the Oakland A's to sell 1,000,000 tickets at $10
or 1 ticket at $10mm) and insightful (in any case).

What's the point of this? Mostly that I have realized, through interactions with Dan (and other excellent strategic thinkers in our class like Anna and Kurt), that surrounding myself with people I think are really smart is the best way to learn. Professors at Haas have always said that learning from peers is the beauty of the case method, and it's certainly something that I made reference to in my application essays when I described the intellectual appeal of a full-time MBA program. But it's actually a lot like skiing with talented skiiers (I'm just an intro black diamond guy) -- I can actually feel myself growing intellectually when I am with certain people.

Of course, Dan would laugh at me for thinking this about him, and would incinuate that his knowledge of the 1983 Major League Baseball season is more important than his skills in doing game-theoretical analysis. But therein lies exactly the point -- without the former, he'd be a great contact, but maybe not so fun to hang with on a Sunday at a bar in Russian Hill. Without the latter, he'd be a guy from my high school that's doing...who knows what these days.

So is it a non-trivial finding that my intellect is enhanced around other smart people? Perhaps not. But almost any business leader I have encountered would argue that excellence in thinking is a true foundation for creativity, and that you can't have excellent thinking without the right combination of people. Get the "right people on the bus," to quote Jim Collins, and this will help to ensure your success. To continue the skiing analogy, I can't attempt moguls without first getting on the toughest runs, and I can't get on the toughest runs without getting some guidance and examples from the skiiers that really shred the 'nar. Once I'm on the moguls, my intuition and risk tolerance can then take over, because the foundation for creativity has been laid. So it is also if I surround myself with great people.

It's also neat to see that classmates (including some of the ones that I mention here) give solid reviews to their experiences with me. I had one classmate tell her significant other that she learned a lot while working on one semester-long project together with me, and that in fact, she felt like some of her early "missteps" on that project had caused me to think she wasn't as solid a thinker as she thought she was. I had certainly never thought this (quite the contrary, actually), and to some extent it was validating to know that my analytical approaches and communication styles (maybe I will describe my view on these in subsequent entries) had made an real impression on her.

So is it best to surround yourself with people who are strong where you are weak, in a sort of "portfolio" approach, or is it best to create teams that are really deep in one type of skill set? I think that depends strongly on the task at hand. If writing software code to execute a Blog search is the task at hand, having a team of tech marketing-savvy individuals may generate a helpful high-level vision, but it will be of limited practical value when the product needs to be designed. On the other hand, if the team were 100% engineers, the strategic direction may be slighted while a technically perfect product is written. I believe most projects, assignments, and challenges are like this -- a team having different perspectives, talents, and viewpoints is the optimal choice. This may not be required in some situations (e.g., a merger valuation should be left to investment bankers, and does not need accounting or supply-chain managers), but for those opportunities to differentiate based on creativity (which typifies most instances in the knowledge economy of our generation), a mix is usually best. It is never without its challenges, though, due to the "part of the elephant" each person sees, different approaches to problem solving, different levels of investment in a project, and so on. Perhaps our diverse group in this class will be the classic example of needing to find a common vision before we truly can succeed in all that we have been given to do.