06 · Rebuild with genuinely different mechanisms
Colabmo development course A-P05
Learning objective: Generate alternatives that differ in how necessary functions are fulfilled.
Begin reconstruction with a blank functional model and the agreed principles. For each function, vary who performs it, when it occurs, what information it uses, what triggers it and how exceptions are handled. Combine compatible choices into complete alternatives rather than collecting disconnected ideas.
A request process could use centralized triage, distributed authority within explicit limits, or customer-assisted preparation followed by specialist review. These are different operating mechanisms. Three software brands implementing the same approvals are usually variations of one mechanism.
For every option, walk a standard case, an incomplete case and a disputed case through the design. Identify the decision owner, evidence created, handoff and recovery path at each relevant point. If a proposed shortcut leaves an exception owner unknown, the design is incomplete.
Show the chain from principle to function to design choice. If reliable identity must precede activation, identify the mechanism that establishes identity and the event that blocks activation when evidence is missing. “The platform handles it” is not a sufficient mechanism.
Keep current-state improvement as a comparison option when appropriate. FPT can support retaining the present architecture if alternatives have worse tradeoffs. The point of alternatives is to expose assumptions and choices, not to force dramatic novelty.
Generate individually before group discussion so the first speaker’s preferred design does not set the entire search space. Use analogy only after establishing the necessary functions: an appointment system may suggest capacity reservation, but its suitability for supplier approval still depends on the premises in that business.
The brick: look beyond its familiar use
A familiar object makes the distinction between generating ideas and reasoning from requirements visible. These are Colabmo learning exercises, not a standardized creativity test. Use a picture and written ideas.
How many uses can you find?
List possible uses for a brick for two minutes before comparing answers. Suggestions might include a paperweight, bookend, doorstop, garden marker or surface for a rubbing. For a bit of humor, add “slowing down cars”—a nod to the brick-basket crosswalk meme. Group ideas by the function they would perform instead of merely counting them.
Look past the label
Describe the object without using the word “brick”: mass, flat faces, rectangular form, rough texture and a rigid body. Some are visible; exact weight, strength and friction need evidence. Connect one property to one proposed function. A heavy object may resist movement, but that does not prove it is a suitable doorstop on every floor.
Bring it back to work
Replace “brick” with your team’s favorite tool, meeting or form. First explore what it can do; then restate the required outcome without naming it. In W6, compare mechanisms that meet the outcome and control requirements. More ideas expand the search; first principles reasoning supplies the basis for selecting and testing them.
Apollo 13: reconstruct the function within hard constraints
During Apollo 13 in April 1970, an oxygen-tank failure forced the crew to use the lunar module as a refuge. One problem was carbon-dioxide removal. The command module’s square lithium-hydroxide canisters did not match the lunar module’s round canister interfaces. The required function was to remove CO₂ from cabin air using resources already aboard.
NASA’s ground team devised an adapter using available materials, including plastic bags, a cue card, tape and a hose. The arrangement was tested on the ground, and the crew assembled it from communicated instructions. The famous “mailbox” allowed command-module canisters to serve the lunar module’s air-cleaning need. This was one part of the mission recovery, not the whole rescue.
Historical sources: NASA, “Houston, We’ve Had a Problem” and Putting a Square Peg in a Round Hole. We use this documented engineering episode as an illustration of reasoning compatible with this course, not as evidence that NASA followed Colabmo’s FPT method. The feature film is a dramatization, not our source.
A first principles reading of the example
| Reasoning move | Question for the team |
|---|---|
| Define the function | How can cabin air pass through effective CO₂-removal material? |
| Distinguish capability from interface | The canister can perform the needed chemical function; what prevents its use in this system? |
| Honor the constraints | What can the crew actually assemble with the materials, time and instructions available? |
| Recombine resources | Which properties of the available items could create a workable connection? |
| Verify and communicate | What must a ground test establish, and how can instructions be made executable by the crew? |
The reasoning table is Colabmo’s interpretation. Expertise, existing equipment, teamwork and testing were essential; the example is not a case for improvising without evidence. CO₂ removal is distinct from producing oxygen.
Eight-minute transfer discussion
Write the required function, two hard constraints and one inherited assumption. Then consider a fictional business handoff: two teams each have useful customer evidence, but their forms use different identifiers. Compare a shared evidence record, a controlled translation step and a redesigned intake. What must each preserve—identity, decision authority, completeness and traceability? An adapter may help, or it may preserve a fragile arrangement.
Choose one uncertain interface to test in W8 later. State what failure would look like and who must authorize the test. Do not claim a business proposal is sound merely because it resembles Apollo 13.
Practice
In W6, create three complete options for one process. Each must vary at least two structural choices, such as authority and timing. Give each a standard path, exception path and failure recovery. Trace three features back to W5 principles.
Check your reasoning
A team offers three tools that all reproduce the same serial approvals. What is missing?
Worked response
It has explored tool selection, but not meaningfully different arrangements of the necessary functions. Ask it to vary authority, dependency, timing or information ownership while respecting the principles.
There are no comments for now.
to be the first to leave a comment.