How I spend my time at work

My job is boring. Well, my job isn't boring, but I am frequently bored at work. That's what I learned by trying to cut back on my electronic distractions. I don't turn to email, Google Reader, and sites like changethis.com because I'm avoiding work. I check those things out because I don't have anything else to do! This is likely a temporary situation, the work tends to come in ebbs and flows, but with the big reorg announcement coming any day now, I really don't know what my day will be like once all of the changes have been implemented.

I actually hope that I still have this empty time in my day. I try to use it constructively (as opposed to spending all day idling reading news stories or chatting with other bored co-workers). My free time gives me a chance to look for answers to interesting problems that come up in our development projects or pursue some "personal development" activities. I used some of my empty time this afternoon to read a few pages from my latest book acquisition, Scientific Genius. The book is a lengthy discussion of Simonton's chance configuration theory of scientific insights. I was attracted to this theory for two reasons 1) I am looking for ways to foster a more innovative environment at work, and 2) the theory justifies my decision to follow my curiosity where ever it may lead. I have read several papers, articles, and book chapters about innovative thinkers. Intellectual curiosity is a prominent theme in all of them. I think finding a way to be a little more innovative in my thinking is a good way to spend an hour or so of my work day.

Chemistry Research=Design

In reading Notes on the Synthesis of Form (I feel like I should add a reference to a statement, which is a link in this venue, when the situation warrants), I kept coming on tools being proposed to solve a design problem that I have used to solve problems in my research. Alexander touts the importance of a "productive diagram" to get to the heart of a design problem. A good form will almost suggest itself if a diagram effectively captures the most pressing needs of the problem. I have struggled to understand a set of experimental results only to see the answer emerge when I changed the way I was looking at the data. A second idea, using misfits to determine a good fit for a particular design, mirrors a process that I use to evaluate my thinking. Is there some data or known fact of the system that contradicts my explanation for a particular observation? Seeing my own approach to problem solving discussed in the context of a much different problem has put a new wrinkle in my problem solving strategies.

Being trained to solve science problems and not to design new forms, I have never thought about solving complex problems with many interacting factors in the terms discussed by Alexander. My colleagues and I seem to circle issues that demand scientific knowledge, which we all have, but also require the ability to resolve contradicting demands in a single form. Based on what I just read in Alexander's book, the discipline of design strives to find solutions to these kinds of problems. Having gained a little insight into a designers perspective on design issues, I have no doubt that my own approach to what I used to think of in purely science terms will take on a little design perspective.

So this book that I learned about from the 37Signals blog and read because I may be joining the new "product design" group has 1)shown me a new way to use some of my problem solving skills and 2)given me a new way to look at problems that I routinely encounter at work. Assuming this book changes the way I approach my work, it may become a great book. I'll let you know how the 7th book I've read this year ends up changing how I do my job.