In 2010 Paranjpe launched a three-phase initiative called Project Bushfire, with the goal of getting every employee—more than fifteen thousand people in India alone—to visit customers in their workplaces and homes.

每位同事都当客服？或者每位同事都要访谈用户？那种方式对了解业务、了解客户最有帮助？

There are three testing modes based on modes of learning under uncertainty: abductive, inductive, and deductive logic.

Questions to Ask When Creating Facebook Micro-Content

Is the text too long? Is it provocative, entertaining, or surprising? Is the photo striking and high-quality? Is the logo visible? Have we chosen the right format for the post? Is the call to action in the right place? Is this interesting in any way, to anyone? For real? Are we asking too much of the person consuming the content?

//一般来说，破坏性创新并不涉及特别复杂的技术变革，其主要表现形式就是将成品元件组装在一起，但相比之前的产品，产品结构通常会变得更加简单。破坏性创新并不能为主流市场的客户提供更好的产品，因此这种创新首先发生在主流市场的可能性很小。相反，破坏性创新提供的是一种完全不同的产品组合，只有远离主流市场或对主流市场没有太大意义的新兴市场，客户才会重视这些产品组合的属性。

这是有点反直觉的。

陈虻：当你觉得不会干的时候，是观众觉得刺激和新鲜的时候；当你觉得驾轻就熟的时候，是观众看厌了的时候。如果观众还在看，而创作人员已经没有了创作激情，那么这个节目很快就会垮掉。现在我们的创作人员有一种焦虑、有一种不满，我觉得这正是一个很好的状态。如果对自己的东西特满意，我觉得也就离死不远了。

The next day I went to Ehud and Amir, and I said, “Let’s make Waze the best working place we ever had.” They liked the idea and we defined what it would look like. What mattered for us was that: (1) we support employees and drivers, (2) the founders vote as a single person, and (3) we fire fast if someone doesn’t fit into our culture.

这个就是知识星球对 AI 虽然做了很多探索，但是迟迟不敢放到产品里的原因之一呀。

Project teams had truly mastered “going broad”; they were good at generating lots and lots of ideas . . . But teams did a bad job of picking the best ideas to work on because our selection criteria were generally faulty. The problem stemmed from the team voting on ideas, a classic design thinking approach . . . The ideas with the most votes get explored further. But it turns out that people often vote for what is easy to implement and familiar, and that rarely yields ideas that will surprise and delight customers.

Always bring in early majority users as soon as possible to gather feedback. Recall that they are not going to show up by themselves; you will need to encourage them to try your product.

这也是用户群的重要性。

陈虻说，现在我们有很多纪录片热衷于讲述一个悲欢离合的故事，如果仅仅是这样一个故事，而没有和大的文化背景、时代背景、民族命运相关联的话，其实是背离了纪录片的本源。因为故事片更好看，更能使人动情。现在我们需要解决的一个问题就是：因为走得太远，以至于忘了我们为什么要出发。当我们认真地去研究怎样去拍纪录片的时候，或许已经淡忘了我们为什么要拍纪录片。也就是说，当你过于进入、过于热衷于一个东西时，你就需要放弃这个东西。你只有出去了才能进来，也只有进来了才能出去。现在中国的纪录片恰恰需要跳出去，不要过于陷入，你才能反过来冷静地加以审视；如果一个人过于热爱，这东西就已经不再是它本身，已经变成了你的一种热爱，强加了你许多个人的东西，而不是事件本身。《太极》里说，太想练成的人和三心二意的人，都练不成太极。你必须保持一定状态，才能得到一种真传。按照西方的美学表述就是，距离产生美，必须有一定的距离，贴得太近反而什么也看不见。

Valve 的 Handbook 蛮酷的：

Our study of successful innovators tells us this: you should expect to be wrong much of the time when you operate under uncertainty. That is a fundamental part of the process and completely acceptable. The only failure is not failure itself, but failure to learn quickly enough that you were wrong.

Failure is an option here. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough.

今天整理我阅读的时候，顺手记录到 Keep 里的文字。重温一遍，或者删除，或者值得记录到这里，以后不时回顾。又或者值得写一篇文字来扩展说明。

Earlier in this book, I wrote that a start-up that doesn’t figure out PMF will die. The second reason a start-up may die is because of the team’s or, more to the point, the CEO’s inability to make hard decisions.

SCAMPER 是一个创造性思维工具，其核心理念最早由 Alex Osborn 提出。Osborn 是美国广告公司 BBDO 的联合创始人，也是“头脑风暴（Brainstorming）”概念的提出者。

在 Osborn 提出这些创新性问题框架后，Bob Eberle（一位教育专家）在1971年将其结构化，并整理为一个便于记忆的首字母缩略词：SCAMPER。

MECE（其发音为“me-see”），意思是“相互独立、完全穷尽”,它是麦肯锡解决问题流程的一个必要原则。新员工加入麦肯锡之初都会被深入灌输MECE思想。

• 麦肯锡方法

Complementarity between computers and humans isn’t just a macro-scale fact. It’s also the path to building a great business. I came to understand this from my experience at PayPal. In mid-2000, we had survived the dot-com crash and we were growing fast, but we faced one huge problem: we were losing upwards of $10 million to credit card fraud every month. Since we were processing hundreds or even thousands of transactions per minute, we couldn’t possibly review each one—no human quality control team could work that fast.

So we did what any group of engineers would do: we tried to automate a solution. First, Max Levchin assembled an elite team of mathematicians to study the fraudulent transfers in detail. Then we took what we learned and wrote software to automatically identify and cancel bogus transactions in real time. But it quickly became clear that this approach wouldn’t work either: after an hour or two, the thieves would catch on and change their tactics. We were dealing with an adaptive enemy, and our software couldn’t adapt in response.

The fraudsters’ adaptive evasions fooled our automatic detection algorithms, but we found that they didn’t fool our human analysts as easily. So Max and his engineers rewrote the software to take a hybrid approach: the computer would flag the most suspicious transactions on a well-designed user interface, and human operators would make the final judgment as to their legitimacy. Thanks to this hybrid system—we named it “Igor,” after the Russian fraudster who bragged that we’d never be able to stop him—we turned our first quarterly profit in the first quarter of 2002 (as opposed to a quarterly loss of $29.3 million one year before). The FBI asked us if we’d let them use Igor to help detect financial crime.

In Nvidia’s early years, even the longer-tenured employees could never feel totally secure because the company had adopted an “up or out” approach, with people either getting promoted on a regular cadence or getting pushed out to make room for someone with greater potential. The company handled personnel in the same uncompromising way that it approached chip design.

六点起床，跑到咖啡厅把今天必须完成的 Paper Work 做完了，今天还有一整天的各种讨论。我还挺喜欢做事的，真是离大谱……