Skip to main content

Creativity in the small things

Before I got into science writing I was mostly working in business creativity, something I still get involved in, though not quite as often now. This involves solving problems and coming up with ideas for business. It's not all about the big 'how do we make millions more profit' type ideas - and I think the concept of creativity in the small things is one that's just as applicable to writing as it is to business.

Let me give you a 'creativity in the small things' example from my BA days. Like many creativity ideas, it was never implemented - the opportunity is still there, but chances are it won't ever be used, because those involved don't have the imagination to implement it.

Like many organizations, BA had a whole manual giving details of allowances in different countries. For each country, reflecting exchange rates and goodness knows what, you were allowed so much for breakfast, so much for lunch and so much for dinner. I suspect someone was employed full time just updating the allowances.

A more creative solution? Have an allowance system based on the price of a Big Mac meal. You could allow, say, two Big Mac meals for breakfast, three for lunch and four for dinner. Before anyone worries about impending heart attacks, could I emphasize that I didn't mean you should have four Big Mac meals for dinner. Just that the amount of money allowed for each meal would be based on the cost of a Big Mac meal in that country.

You can throw away the manual and its hundreds of pages needing updating. McDonalds will do the sums for you. It's so simple, you might think at first sight that it's silly. But I really don't think it is. Creativity, as I said, in the small things.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox4 May 2009 at 17:46

    I have a feeling I've heard this before but can't remember where... The idea of the Big Mac as a kind of international monetary unit. I'm lovin' it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4 May 2009 at 18:39

    I agree, I find this really appealing and neat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. laurasdad6 May 2009 at 11:33

    The original Big Mac index was (and still is) prepared by the Economist (http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11793125)

    It's sufficiently robust to allow for a comparison of currencies but I don't think it could really do justice as a global allowance system because McDonald's local pricing policy is based on whether they dominate a market or are newcomers, or are somewhere in between. In each country their prices reflect this and hence in some countries they could be expected to be significantly different from the Purchasing Power equivalent of the actual currency.

    In any case the best deal these days for a company with multiple locations is to only allow staff to claim for actual expenses; no allowances. Exactly what MPs have been trying to move away from ....

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more