Disproof of Concept

A common pattern in problem solving and product development is known as proof of concept (POC). In a proof-of-concept exercise, we charter a team and give them access to what we believe to be a package of resources sufficient for building a demonstration of the concept we're trying to study. It seems like a reasonable approach. Proof of concept limits risk by limiting the scale of the trial. Then, so the theory goes, if the trial works we can scale up with a great degree of confidence. If the trial doesn't work, we make adjustments and try again. But for problems that require much scaling up proof-of-concept is an unsafe choice. The approach we really need is disproof of concept.

Bias in the proof-of-concept concept

The goal The name "proof of concept" is
actually part of the problem.
It communicates and reinforces
the bias of the investigation.of proof-of-concept exercises is to find a way to make the big idea work. That's why we call them proof-of-concept exercises. To achieve that goal, the team makes a string of decisions and assumptions designed to help it reach the goal. The problem with this approach is that it encourages a bias. That bias arises from three factors: the name of the POC approach, a conflict of interest, and the politics of POC teams.

The name "proof of concept"

The name "proof of concept" is actually part of the problem. The name communicates and reinforces the bias of the investigation. In essence, the team isn't investigating the properties of the concept or any preliminary implementation of the concept. Rather, the name communicates the fact that the team is responsible for proving the validity of the concept. Instead of searching for adjustments that strengthen the concept, the team focuses on finding ways — any ways at all — to demonstrate that the concept works.

An inherent conflict of interest

The conflict of interest arises from the conflict between the overall goal — make the idea work — and another goal, often unspoken: find the weaknesses, misconceptions, and shortcomings in the concept under study. Indeed, some of these POC teams take as their charter the necessity of proving that the concept works. For them, failure is not an option. For them, the concept must work because they believe that failure to prove the concept would raise questions about their personal capabilities and, in some cases, their loyalty to the organization.

The politics of POC teams

To be a member of a POC team is to recognize the politics of failure. The framing of the team's mission is to prove the concept. Team success is defined as proving the concept. Team failure is failing to prove the concept. One result of this framing of the team's mission is the tendency of some POC teams to search for the set of special cases and circumstances in which they can prove the concept. Finding those circumstances enables them to declare that they achieved the goal, subject to constraints. Example: A POC team studying the plans for the Titanic might have found that the Titanic was a fine, safe, ocean liner provided it doesn't run into icebergs — or anything else unexpected. The problem with this kind of conclusion is that it isn't a proof of concept; it's a proof of concept with some very important contingencies. But politically savvy POC teams find it difficult to choose any other course.

Disproof of concept

A significant risk of the POC approach is that the POC team might expend resources — and more important, calendar time — discovering conditions and devising adjustments that make the concept workable. In one unfortunate scenario, the POC team does find conditions and adjustments that make the concept workable, but the conditions and/or adjustments aren't acceptable in anticipated field conditions. That is, the concept works in the POC environment, but it isn't feasible at full scale. For teams that want to avoid producing this outcome too late in the investigation to be helpful, a very useful alternative is an approach based on disproof of concept (DOC).

In the disproof-of-concept approach, the DOC team aims to find the "fatal flaws" in the concept as quickly as possible. It's actually a variant of the "fail faster" approach to innovation. The DOC approach recognizes that calendar time is the most precious of all resources. By uncovering fatal flaws early, the DOC approach affords designers and strategists early warning of the need for adjustments. And with early warning they have greater freedom and a wider array of options for making adjustments.  Top    Next Issue

Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:

Forward Backtracking

The nastiest part about solving complex problems isn't their complexity. It's the feeling of being overwhelmed when we realize we haven't a clue about how to get from where we are to where we need to be. Here's one way to get a clue.

New Ideas: Generation

When groups work together to solve problems, they employ three processes repeatedly: they generate ideas, they judge those ideas, and they experiment with those ideas. We first examine idea generation.

How to Foresee the Foreseeable: Focus on the Question

When group decisions go awry, we sometimes feel that the failure could have been foreseen. Often, the cause of the failure was foreseen, but because the seer was a dissenter within the group, the issue was set aside. Improving how groups deal with dissent can enhance decision quality.

What Are the Chances?

When estimating the probabilities of success of different strategies, we must often estimate the probability of multiple events occurring. People make a common mistake when forming such estimates. They assume that events are independent when they are not.

Goodhart's Law and Gaming the Metrics

Goodhart's Law is an observation about managing by metrics. When we make known the metrics' goals, we risk collapse of the metrics, in part because people try to "game" the metrics by shading or manufacturing the data to produce the goal result.

See also Problem Solving and Creativity and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 1: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 2

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of miscommunications. Here's Part 2 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in communication under time pressure, emphasizing those that depend on content. Available here and by RSS on May 1.

And on May 8: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 3

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of problems. Here is Part 3 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure, emphasizing past experiences of participants. Available here and by RSS on May 8.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info