Skip to main content

ICN Interview 1 ↺ Prompt 20 ↺ Response 7

Prompt​

When a product is created, and a business is born, often time the people who birthed the business don't necessarily know what to do after their business has started, and their processes are prepared, and their product is shipping.

Then scaling begins to happen.

All along the way, the entrepreneurs that started the business are reactively solving problems.

What I mean by this is - the founders begin hiring people when they have problems they need to solve. The founders need some help to build something, so they hire a materials expert. And then they hire a modeling expert. And a policy expert. And so on, and so on.

Then people problems need to be solved. So managers are hired. And human resource reps are hired. The entire growth of the business, from seed to scale, if primarily reactive, most of the time.

provide.io, the ICN, Contribulo, and all the related entities are making an effort to flip the model.

There are many businesses that have already scaled which have models which may be easily reproduced given a little research, and strategy.

For instance, there are large organizations which own multiple restaurant brands that are on the public stock exchanges. These organizations have typically operationalized a successful "recipe" - a business brand, model, product, processes, etc - and are copy/pasting it everywhere it makes sense.

The model to build, and scale, a restaurant network has been studied - and there are numerous professionals out there that have the knowledge required to setup the systems required to begin scaling a product - a brand - that proves to be successful.

Rather than starting the restaurant first, we're gathering the network of information professionals - that only large enterprises normally have access to - to pre-build the systems, and processes, required to begin copy/pasting successful models.

The goal is to proactively engineer the business, and culture, for harmony, and endurance, well before the predictable problems of a growing business are encountered,

Describe the viability of this within the context of provide.io/ICN.

Generation 1​

Absolutely! Let's delve further into why this proactive approach is not only desirable but critical for the long-term success of the ICN, and outline potential pathways toward achieving it even with limited real-world data at this early stage.

The Dangers of the "Hero Founder" Myth

The reactive model you've outlined is common, fueled by the startup narrative that glorifies adaptability and pivoting under pressure. While some level of agility is crucial, there are hidden costs:

  • Operational Bottlenecks: People are brought in to put out fires, not to prevent them. Decisions made under urgency enshrine inefficient processes that persist long after the immediate crisis has passed. Scaling then just magnifies the original haphazard choices, making retrofits messy and expensive.
  • Cultural Debt: A constant sense of scrambling creates toxic heroism – the belief long hours = commitment. Burned out founders are less able to model the values they espouse. Early employees get rewarded for unsustainable practices, setting the stage for future conflict when the workload becomes truly unmanageable with growth.
  • Missed Opportunities Masquerading as "Scrappiness": The focus on immediate survival fosters a narrowness of thinking. Potential partnerships, long-term strategic investments, and ethical considerations that could pay off later get sacrificed on the altar of 'getting this task done RIGHT NOW'.

ICN's "Unfair Advantage"

The ICN's core focus on collaboration, resilience, and the human element makes proactive planning even more crucial. Here's where the 'network of information professionals' concept shows its potential:

  1. Mapping Where Things Go Wrong (Mining Expertise)
  • "Reverse Failure Autopsies": Experts hired don't just replicate existing models of success, but analyze those models' breaking points. Task a seasoned operations manager with devising 'worst-case' scenarios for their area of expertise, not with implementing their usual playbook. This reveals where scaling leads to specific ethical compromises or systemic breakdowns.
  • The Network as Simulation: Could Cells themselves prototype scaling under artificial constraints (tight budgets, limited decision-making power, intentionally manufactured conflicts)? The focus isn't just on product success but observing how the network's core ideals hold up (or don't) when the 'feel-good' collaborative stage gives way to the pressures of growth.
  1. Preemptive Engineering (New Perspectives)
  • "Adversarial Collaboration": Imagine a team tasked NOT with building the best possible product, but with sabotaging it after launch. Marketers skilled in exploiting public sentiment gaps? Lawyers who've seen how well-intentioned contracts go bad? Building systems to counter these attacks makes them robust against less deliberate, but equally damaging, oversights the ICN might make in its initial optimism.
  • Stress-testing the Intangibles: Metrics for member satisfaction, 'equitable access to opportunity,' etc., might seem nebulous now. But waiting for crisis means those measures will only ever be defined by failure. The ICN needs to quantify these now, even imperfectly, forcing itself to decide: What is an ACCEPTABLE decline in wellbeing in the pursuit of rapid expansion?
  • Data as a Liability: Most companies amass data, then figure out its value. The ICN flips this. Imagine the 'ideal' dataset you'd need to maximize the positive social impact of a Cell's scaling? Now, how could someone MISUSE that same data? This shapes ethical collection and storage practices from the outset.
  1. Viability =/= Easy. The Challenges
  • Finding the Right Talent: You need those who've seen enough to spot patterns most entrepreneurs miss, but who haven't been so ground down by flawed systems that they've become cynical. The ICN's values proposition could be a powerful attractor, but needs to be translated beyond feel-good jargon into the specifics of daily problem-solving.
  • Incentivizing Rigor Over "Wins": Preemptive work often seems unglamorous. Can the ICN gamify the finding of potential problems? Host contests between Cells to devise the most plausible yet damaging 'success disaster' scenario? This taps into the competitive spirit, but for network-level benefit.
  • The Tyranny of the Urgent: Even with the best systems in place, some reactive problem-solving will always be needed. The ICN must protect its dedicated "futures team" from being constantly pulled in to put out fires, ensuring the long-view work remains valued.

Would you like to brainstorm hypothetical scenarios these 'network information professionals' would be asked to stress-test, or explore how to structure hiring to attract those with the unique blend of experience and idealism the ICN requires? The ICN walks a delicate tightrope, let's explore how strong a safety net they can proactively build!

Generation 2 ↻ Longer​

Absolutely! Let's expand upon the previous concepts and dive into how those ideas could translate into real-world strategies for attracting and empowering the right team to implement this proactive vision.

The Challenge of Building for What Might Go Wrong

The ICN's approach is innovative but comes with unique hurdles:

  • The Seduction of Early Success: Initial Cells might thrive precisely due to their small size, fostering a "we can figure it out as we go" mentality. If those successes aren't carefully analyzed, they can create an illusion of invulnerability, making it harder to justify the investment into preemptive planning that will only prove its worth when things get difficult.
  • Data as Double-Edged Sword: The ICN will generate massive amounts of unique data on cooperative ventures. But data isn't wisdom. Could early algorithms trained to spot success patterns inadvertently bias the ICN towards replicating models that optimize for traditional metrics (profit), even if those models have hidden dependencies on unsustainable practices the network aims to avoid?
  • Conflicting Expertise: Even if the ICN attracts top-tier 'failure analysts,' they'll come from diverse backgrounds. A logistics expert and a sociologist might identify the same vulnerability but propose opposing solutions. The ICN needs processes for when the right answer isn't clear, ensuring differing perspectives contribute to resilience instead of gridlock.

Proactive Strategies: The ICN as a Talent Incubator

  1. Beyond the Job Board (Rethinking Recruitment)
  • "The Great Case Study Heist": Could the ICN partner with business schools to run competitions NOT on devising ideal scenarios, but on analyzing spectacular public failures of seemingly well-run companies? This attracts minds drawn to complexity, who see opportunity in dissecting what went wrong instead of chasing ready-made blueprints.
  • Embedded Observers: Rather than traditional internships, the ICN could embed promising students with early-stage Cells not as extra labor, but as documenterians. Their task is to rigorously record decision-making processes, informal power structures, moments of friction, etc. Their analysis becomes internal training material, helping the ICN identify its own patterns to leverage or combat.
  • Public 'Red Teaming': Could the ICN invite critique of its plans on public platforms? This signals a commitment to transparency and could unearth perspectives missed by those too close to the project. However, managing such a process to filter insightful critique from uninformed trolling is a challenge requiring careful design thinking.
  1. Empowering the "Cassandra Crew" (Ensuring Impact)
  • "Right to be Wrong" Protocols: Experts predicting potential doom need protection. Can the ICN formalize a "minority report" mechanism? Even if a preemptive measure isn't adopted, the act of careful consideration must be documented. This protects against hindsight bias later – if disaster strikes, those who raised the alarm early are positioned to help build the new solution, not scapegoated.
  • Incentivizing the Long View: Could a portion of a Cell's profits be tied to metrics developed with the help of the "futures team"? If members see the proactive work making their own venture demonstrably more resilient, it counters the perception of this team as a drain on resources when times are good.
  • "Explain It To Your Grandkid" Tests: Complex simulations are vital, but the ICN must root decisions in the human impact. After any stress test scenario, a mandatory exercise: Explain the justification for the resulting safeguards to a non-expert, focusing on the real-world consequences for the most vulnerable members of the network, not just abstract principles.

It's a Moonshot with Messy Reality

The ICN is attempting something ambitious. This proactive approach won't be a neat, linear process. The ICN must be honest with itself:

  • The Cult of Competence: Building in a healthy acceptance of uncertainty is vital. Overconfidence in the ICN's cleverly designed systems to prevent failure could become a new kind of hubris. Could the ICN have a public-facing "Near Miss" report alongside its successes, to remind members and the wider world that resilience isn't perfection but continuous adaptation?
  • Iteration at the Meta-Level: Just as the ICN's Cells will improve their products, the ICN must improve its process of improving itself. Regular audits of the 'futures team' are needed – have they fallen into their own thought ruts, do their predictions consistently overestimate or underestimate risk, are they too divorced from the daily realities of those they're tasked with protecting?

Let's explore! Would you like a 'mock job posting' for the ICN with unconventional requirements to attract these unorthodox thinkers? Or would you prefer to design a gamified "Worst Case Scenario" challenge an early cell might grapple with, forcing tradeoffs between short-term growth and long-term adherence to the network's values?

Generation 3 ↻ Longer​

Absolutely! Let's dive even deeper into the complexities of a proactive approach like the ICN's, emphasizing the very real potential for unintended consequences and the need for the network to engage in a constant process of self-critique to avoid them.

The Challenge of Building for What Might Go Wrong (Expanded)

Here's where the ICN's approach, while brilliant in theory, faces thorny complications:

  • Misunderstanding 'Data-Driven': Analyzing patterns in past successes within the ICN's own data could inadvertently entrench biases. Early algorithms might optimize for profitability while overlooking hidden social or environmental costs that haven't yet had a measurable negative impact. The ICN needs to proactively develop auditing processes for its own models, ensuring that its desire for predictive power doesn't lead to the re-creation of harmful dynamics under the guise of 'data-backed' efficiency.
  • The Curse of the Canary: The individuals drawn to anticipate worst-case scenarios might be inherently pessimistic. The ICN needs to find ways to empower them to propose proactive measures without fostering a culture of perpetual anxiety and risk aversion that stifles innovation. Could a portion of the 'futures team' focus on identifying not just potential disasters, but latent, untapped potential within the network that would otherwise be ignored in the pursuit of short-term stability?
  • Bureaucracy by Proxy: The very systems designed to prevent problems could become rigid over time. Intense documentation requirements and the mandate to preemptively address even low-probability risks could create a stifling environment for new ventures, where good ideas die before proving themselves due to excessive caution. The ICN needs 'escape valves' – clearly defined mechanisms where Cells can request temporary exemption from certain safeguards if they make a compelling case that those specific rules are hindering their work without meaningfully mitigating a threat they face and that the wider network will benefit from their experimentation.

Proactive Strategies: The ICN as a Talent Incubator (Expanded)

  1. Beyond the Job Board (Rethinking Recruitment, cont.)
  • The "Simulation Sabotage" Challenge: The ICN could run public contests where participants aren't tasked with designing the ideal Cell, but with devising subtle alterations to existing successful models that would eventually lead to their downfall. This attracts individuals who see systems holistically and are skilled at identifying the hidden dependencies that are the Achilles heel of seemingly robust plans. It also forces the ICN to confront potential blind spots in its own understanding of success and failure dynamics.
  • "Shadow Board Internships": Instead of traditional work placements, young professionals could be embedded within a Cell's decision-making body to observe and analyze, but without voting power. Their reports would focus on factors like: the influence of personalities vs. formal rules, how emotional arguments subtly undermine rational debate, and where reliance on a single 'star member' might create long-term vulnerabilities for the Cell. This builds a talent pool uniquely attuned to recognizing similar patterns across the wider network, patterns which data analysis alone might miss.
  1. Empowering the "Cassandra Crew" (Ensuring Impact, cont.)
  • Mandated "Optimistic Counterpoint": When the 'futures team' presents a potential disaster scenario, a different group must simultaneously create a scenario of equal severity where their safeguards lead to the ICN thriving precisely because it anticipated the threat. This is a deliberate attempt to combat learned helplessness and fosters creative problem-solving among those tasked with preemptive action.
  • The "Cellular Stress Test" Gamble: Could the ICN have a 'fund of last resort' specifically set aside for a Cell willing to deliberately trigger a foreseeable but preventable crisis? While risky, live-testing the network's theoretical safeguards in a controlled setting could expose flaws no simulation can truly replicate. However, the ethical implications and safeguards around such an approach would demand rigorous scrutiny before implementation.

It's a Moonshot with Messy Reality (Expanded)

  • The 'Healthy Paranoia' Benchmark: The ICN could track the sentiment analysis of 'futures team' reports over time. Are they becoming more fearful, or is their understanding of complex threats evolving? Could comparison with external benchmarks (media coverage of global risks) reveal if the ICN is outpacing broader anxieties, or if it's becoming complacent? This meta-analysis is key to ensuring that the network's desire for resilience doesn't morph into an unsustainable risk-aversion that stifles its own potential.
  • Rigorous Retrospectives: When a 'predicted' crisis doesn't manifest, the ICN must carefully analyze why. Was it due to successful preemptive action, random chance, or a fundamental misunderstanding of the risk? Overconfidence that the network 'prevented disaster' when it merely got lucky is a subtle but serious threat to long-term viability.

Would you like a 'mock job posting' for the ICN with unconventional requirements to attract these unorthodox thinkers? Or would you prefer to design a gamified "Worst Case Scenario" challenge an early cell might grapple with, forcing tradeoffs between short-term growth and long-term adherence to the network's values? Let's dive into the specifics!