TL;DR
This essay introduces the MASTER framework—a structured approach for managing projects with binary outcomes (either fully successful or not). MASTER stands for Map, Analyze, Simulate, Tweak, Evaluate, and Refine, guiding users from defining clear goals and understanding key components to iterative testing and polishing. By extending the scientific method to either/or undertakings, the framework emphasizes clarity, diverse examples, critical analysis, creative experimentation, rapid prototyping, and effective communication to enhance the likelihood of achieving definitive progress.
In “Binary Progress: Rethinking Advancement in Either/Or Situations”, I argued that some undertakings - either/or projects or projects that rely heavily on synthesis and border on being innovative in nature - tend to demonstrate a progress pattern that can be binary in nature (we have either done it, or all apparent progress does not count for much). In this sequel, I will present a conceptual framework for thinking of, and attempting to track binary progress.
I call the framework the MASTER framework. The name MASTER is an acronym representing the various phases of the framework:
M: Map – Define the scope and find relevant examples.
A: Analyze – Analyze examples to understand components, subdomains, and relationships.
S: Simulate – Replicate to solidify understanding.
T: Tweak – Tweak and expand upon what has been replicated (Creative play).
E: Evaluate – Evaluate hypothesis, and falsify or validate via rapid prototyping.
R: Refine – Sharpen the final product or process.
At its core, the MASTER framework is an attempt to extend the scientific method beyond science. I stand to be corrected in thinking that the scientific process is the most successful method man has created. Why then, do we use it for science only? Can we use elements of it for Either/Or undertakings?
I think the answer to the last question is an emphatic yes. Firstly because doing science is essentially an Either/Or undertaking. Consider for example, that a good scientist is often veering into the unknown, and that while the world is largely blind to the toil of science, results are the criteria by which the same world accords merit to scientists. As a subset of all Either/Or undertakings, science sure does have something to teach us about conceptualizing and seeking binary progress.
The MASTER framework is inspired by the heuristic that if 1) one remains fixated on an end goal that is unambiguously clarified, 2) can exercise the judgement to identify, decompose, and learn from a diverse set of undertakings that accomplished the same goal, and 3) is able to play creatively at a reasonable speed, they can be better judges of how well they are making progress.
The following sections present the phases of the MASTER framework.
M - Map
“If a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favorable.” — Seneca
Every failed project is unique; all successful projects are similar in that it was crystal clear from the start what the expected outcome was. While being clear about the expected outcomes does not guarantee success, the opposite all too easily guarantees failure. Since we cannot see much in the way of progress till it is either done or not done, clarity of purpose is critical for Either/Or undertakings.
The goal of the Map stage is to obtain clarity by defining the scope and finding as many examples of reasonably close outcomes. For these examples, it is as desirable to have a large sample size as it is to have a diverse one. This allows the tension of resolving inconsistencies to drive a deeper understanding of the subdomains and the reasoning behind the synthesis that drove the various outcomes.
It is very important to pick examples that are as close to the end outcome as possible. That is the whole point. Since the approach is to decompose, picking an example that hardly approximates to the desired outcome is a risky thing to do first. One’s knowledge level is irrelevant here, as it will eventually be made for by the next phase. Just pick the right number and combination of heroes!
A - Analyze
“What is essential is invisible to the eye.” — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.
The goal of the Analyze phase is to get acquainted with the domain vocabulary, create accurate mental models of the relationships between the various sub-domains and understand how these relationships inspire outcomes.
The anti-goal is to gather facts and end at the level of domain vocabulary.
Even when competent people convince themselves that they are not just gathering the facts, a good number of them mistake an ability to speak the domain vocabulary for a profound understanding of the fundamentals.
Consider for example, that when some people make statements like: “Company X has been able to stay ahead by continuously innovating”, they do not know (or care about) what innovation means in the context of Company X.
A good way to mitigate against this anti-goal is to 1) always remember that fluency does not always guarantee understanding, and 2) always ask yourself 5 whys. Is the fact that I memorized Einstein’s paper on General Relativity proof that I understand it? The word memorized probably gave me away. Without any extra effort, what most of us tend to do is slowly memorize things.
As we saw in the previous phase, having a diverse group of examples can also prevent you from achieving the anti-goal. We tend to ask questions when we see things that do not conform to our pre-existing conceptions; one is more likely to ask why a cow is green than they are to ask why it is brown (have you ever asked why a cow is brown?).
It is key to not be in a rush at this phase. In any decomposition, you will stop every now and then to dive deeper into a sub-domain, and rushing is a good way to achieve the anti-goal. A book that has so many footnotes is hard to read because you either have to know a lot to comfortably skip the footnotes, or you have to stay on each one till you grasp the context it seeks to provide (that being said, I hate endnotes – it is painful to keep flipping the pages to the back).
While this phase should provide a sense of progress, it is only a foundation for intelligent practice.
S - Simulate
“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand” — Confucius
If a diverse sample set is the first step in mitigating the risk of achieving the anti-goal, then being able to simulate/replicate other’s success is the second step. Simulation is important because it forces us to assign the right degree of importance to the various components of what it is we are trying to understand.
Even our brains are subject to the laws of economics; because they cannot contain an infinite amount of information, we are prone to sort (consciously or unconsciously) information into a hierarchy that allows us to remember some things and relegate others. In practice, that means that if one is observing a system in which ten factors influence an outcome, only the effect of two or three or four may bear heavily on our consciousness (with a sometimes interesting difference between people). If the system is being observed from the lens of another person’s documentation, then there is a good chance that their personality is baked into what you take away. Simulation can create a balance by forcing you to discover in a more practical way what is important, and reassess the importance you previously accorded the various factors.
Simulation is also a counterweight to the confusion that can arise from dealing with too many opposing ideas. In the previous phases, I have argued that it is important to consider a vast amount of diverse examples. A curious reader will have spotted that too much diversity can lead to indecision and stagnation. That is right. However, a bias for simulation forces categorization and contextualisation in a way that inspires decision making; it forces you to develop an intuitive understanding for what works where, and the limiting and enabling factors that govern your inquiry.
T - Tweak
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” — Sir Isaac Newton
Now you have measured up to the giants, is it time to rest on your laurels? Oscar Wilde wrote that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery: that is not our goal. Our goal is to try to stand on the shoulders of giants.
A good way to think about this phase is as being the phase of creative play; you want to see what will happen in many situations, and to develop an intuitive understanding of your environment of inquiry that will allow you to formulate hypotheses in the next phase.
Just as with the type of playing you did as a kid, you do not want to play alone AND you do not want to lose yourself in a crowd. It helps to keep an eye on how others are playing, and to question any divergence of your own games from theirs in a bid to self check against delusion or to reinvestigate the reasons for your play.
If the earlier phases of mapping, analysing, and synthesizing had been done well, the tweaking phase can be a productive phase and can itself flip the binary progress switch. Reason being that having developed the ability to quickly prototype, the constant tinkering can sometimes create unexplained magic (it is better if the magic is explained).
It can however, hardly become a source of sustained productivity, simply because if one doesn’t know why something worked, they are unlikely to consistently make it work.
As such, it is a good idea to move on from disorganized play to a sort of play that leaves footprints and markers for us to better understand why things worked.
E - Evaluate
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality — Karl Popper
At the evaluation phase, we want to develop a system that allows us to: evaluate the merit of ideas, keep the ones that are worth keeping, and discard the ones that are worth parting with. Speed is of the essence here. And not only speed, it is also essential that the ideas (or claims to be more specific) that one is making at this stage are falsifiable statements — statements to which an inquiry can ultimately attach the label of true or false.
The beauty of falsifiable statements in the context of this framework is that they are a protective mechanism against – again – the illusion of understanding. When we make statements that are not falsifiable, we are more likely to be right than can be explained by a proper understanding of our field of inquiry.
Consider, for example, the statement, “It will rain”. Of course, it will rain (assuming that the world is not ending soon). Without having said when, for how long, and why it will rain, can the supposed prophet ever be wrong? Now consider the statement, “On Friday morning, Central Florida will experience 3 mm of rainfall”. All we have to do is wait for Friday morning to be out and armed with our rain gauges, and we may have the honour of anointing a false prophet.
In a bid to keep things simple – which is always a good thing – a common mistake that is made in this phase is to sacrifice falsifiability; you may have rightly noticed that the second prophecy was not as simple as the first. While simplicity is desirable, it should be promptly abandoned if it comes at the cost of falsifiability.
Are we done yet? I doubt that we are; we have to polish and present our work.
R - Refine
“Belief creates the actual fact” — William James
While doing good work is essential, it means little if no one is persuaded by it or moved to act on it. Now that the work is done, you have one job; to make concerned people believe you.
The goal of the Refine phase is to polish our work and to persuade the powers that be that it has moved from a 0 to a 1.
I think that proper communication can be achieved with three rules: 1) speak in the simplest terms possible, 2) speak concisely in a manner that spells the essence, and lays the foundation for questions (answering the questions is how you put meat on the skeleton), and 3) think like your audience.
Conclusion
The framework I have described above is the one that has worked for me time and time again. It may never work for you. And even if it did, it may never be reliable enough for you to think highly of it.
To attempt the creation of a universal framework for Either/Or undertakings is a task for which I have no commensurate skills.
If all you took from this was the realization that certain undertakings are fundamentally different to require a shift in how we think of and seek to measure progress, then I should have done a good job.
You can be rest assured that anytime I am faced with an Either/Or undertaking, I will be a MASTER-man. What will you be?