How cappuccino, green energy, motorcycle design and innovation are inextricably linked, with Marco Ferrara

Bill Duane: 0:00

Hi, welcome to the heart of innovation Podcast. I'm Bill Duane former Google engineering executive and Superintendent of wellbeing and courage consultant and speaker on innovation strategy. We're going to be diving deep into the internal innovation that unlocks external innovation and the surprisingly practical ways we can become better innovators. We'll be in conversation with innovators from many different backgrounds and contexts including business, science, social change and technology and not only benefit from their expertise, but also their personal stories of their innovation journey. Today, we get to hang out with Marco Ferrara. Marco is co founder and Senior Vice President of Software and analytics at forum energy, the company pioneering the use of iron air batteries to enable renewable energy and fight climate change. Mark also serves on the board of directors for the LDS Council, a global nonprofit working to accelerate the market for long duration energy storage technologies. He also holds a PhD in Nuclear Engineering from MIT and if that wasn't enough, also has a PhD in electrical engineering and computer science from the University of L'Aquila in his native Italy. Marco is also passionate about beauty and designs custom motorcycles as part of his innovation practice. So please join me in welcoming Marco Ferrara. All right, so welcome, Marco. So fun and exciting to have you here.

Marco: 1:22

It's great to be here, Bill.

Bill Duane: 1:24

So I wanted to start off so you and I can see each other as we're as we're recording this, but I want to note that I am currently drinking a beverage one it is noon, just afternoon Pacific time. And I am I have a small medium coffee cup in front of me that is filled with a beverage that is espresso and milk. But I want to be at pains to point out that the amount of milk is less. And therefore even though this afternoon, I am not drinking a cappuccino. But I am drinking a cortado

Marco: 1:58

I don't know if it's culturally acceptable. But okay, let's go on.

Bill Duane: 2:05

Last time, we talked about this, calling it a cortado gave me Yes. Are you recinding?

Marco: 2:12

Although I agree with that, that from what I'm seeing on V, they're actually there may be a fraction of the nouns too much.

Bill Duane: 2:22

Okay, so let's say hypothetically, you know, because obviously, I doubt your ability to assess the volume of milk versus espresso over video camera. But even for you, supposing you were somehow right, what would be wrong if I was consuming a cappuccino past the hour of noon?

Marco: 2:43

Honest, honestly, nothing. And you know, I must admit, sometimes I do it myself. But it's quite interesting. So now, where I'm from in Italy, that is considered an unusual, the very best as in cappuccino out to be drunk in the morning with a coordinator. That's how that's how it is. That is That is how it's supposed to be. And don't ask me why I actually never questioning myself while I was in Italy. I started drinking cappuccinos in the afternoon when I moved to the United States. I never did it Italy.

Bill Duane: 3:31

Well, so that brings an interesting question, because I think my you know, for me, the Italian definitions of beauty around coffee are really different. The best, most beautiful espresso I ever had, was in a truck stop. Outside of Turin on the freeway, no chairs, no nothing, just a whole bunch of truckers having their espresso and it was sublime. It was amazing. So I you know, given that we're gonna be talking about beauty and aesthetics and form and function. It's interesting that we can have these rules and I think in some cases, paying attention to the rules is fun. You know, like any creative and like creative endeavors that have constraints of one kind. Absolutely. So even though my preference might be lattes or to milky for me espressos you know, just like a little bit of milk, but there's something about our interaction with some rules set, as you mentioned, that even if it's arbitrary and then when you go into a different context, then you can play with it.

Marco: 4:37

Absolutely constrains drive. Creativity, how you make the master there, they force innovators to think also, they give a sense of the direction they they They force a degree of focus, which is really necessary for the creative process to exist to manifest itself. So I fully agree with that. It's interesting. Another constraint that actually applies to coffee is in a to espressos in Italy. Again, another consider that to an extent is what artificial is the speed at which the espresso needs to be pulled or served and consumed. It's usually something extremely fast, right? You approach a coffee shop, they pull the shot, you drink it, you walk away, it's it. That's it, it's really fast, right? There is not necessarily a lot of enjoyment, or like sitting and hanging out and having the carpet. So there. There is also that concept of the coffee bar, right, where you approach the barista, or you ask for a shot, you consume the shot, you walk away, there is also something that hadn't found in the United States in my 20 years here.

Bill Duane: 6:09

Hmm. So it's interesting, bringing up this idea of constraints. One of the things as, as an engineer who does a lot of innovation work is holding the realm of the possible and maybe even the ineffable. While at the same time really honoring these constraints and using them and you know, what the story you told about? In Italy one doesn't question because it's just not done. You know, I mean, for for reasons of honoring, you know, it's like, if you buy, okay, bear with me for this one. So, you know, for people that keep kosher or halaal, right, the my understanding listening to friends, who who respect that is there, like it takes a daily, fairly mundane activity, and ties it to the glorious the awful, you know, sorry, not awful, meaning bad, but awful meaning full of all you take this very prosaic workaday thing, and tie it to something much greater. So when, when you're saying, I'm not in when you're in Italy, you're saying, Well, I'm not going to do this, because it's almost like this under I'm not gonna have the cappuccino afternoon, because that's not part of the system, which provides so much benefit for my life. And by by having some constraint over it. I'm actually honoring that. But then you come to the United States, and you're like, oh, actually, I quite like epigenome. And then that invites the question of, Why have the constraints. So maybe the, there's something there about? You want to have the constraint because otherwise, at least for me, I end up flailing in the world of possibility. If anything's possible, like, you know, it's like a terrible joke. How do you eat an elephant? One forkful at a time? Like you have to start somewhere. And maybe these constraints are enough of a scaffolding so that maybe then you can say, Well, why do I need this scaffolding? And then later on, take it down and rebuild it?

Marco: 8:10

It's interesting. So then that leads to the question. How many constraints are too many? Because I can tell you that. For me, the past 20 years in the United States have been extraordinary, because the system is so so much more dynamic, and full of opportunities, and self generated opportunities than the Italian system. is in like, I found it really refreshing and empowering and energizing to be in, in a very specific, you know, context in the United States, very entrepreneurial context. But, you know, contexts that do not exist to this extent, say in my native Italy. So in that case, definitely, the fewer constraints were really empowering. But I agree that some constraints are necessary, right? If you if you think about starting a new enterprise, you always you're always cognizant of what the market is and isn't willing to buy. That's one constraint. Certainly, you're always carnies and all the time and money it takes to launch new innovative products and services. In generally all that is reflected in the constraints of launching a profitable and self sustaining enterprise, those are all very important constraints, right? That you know, at a high level apply to any enterprise. You know, likewise, you could say that constraints are the right amount of constraints is, is is very conducive to innovation. In in art, some are the most beautiful painting paintings are black and white are black strokes, powerful, thick, emotional strokes, on white backgrounds. And in some cases, the painters decided to minimize the palette because they didn't have money to buy expensive, you know, colors or oil paint. They went for simple painters paint, on canvases. And those are striking, you know, works of art. So, you know, on the other hand, probably excessive constraints are limiting, innovative thinking creative thinking, for example, is where we know that that a certain amount of cares in a, in an artist studio is necessary. It needs to be a little bit messy. So, I think it boils down to the, the fundamental question is that, you know, what is the right amount of constraints?

Bill Duane: 12:18

Well, and also, I think that those are, you know, when you talk about chaos and a certain amount of chaos, and all of a sudden, you know, we went from the language of boardroom entrepreneurialism into that of the artist, which is one of my favorite favorite things about you, because I think a lot of people would not be able to. So smoothly transition between the two, and I want to, I want to come back to that. But in that transition, I heard you take the lens of engineering and business, and then swap out one for for art. Right. And I think this is the difference. I've been spending a lot of time learning about this recently in my AI project, in particular, on computational biology. And it says real difference between engineering and evolution. Right, engineering is inefficient. Right chaos in an engineered system. And we have so many, you're talking about cultures in Italy. You know, one of the big business cultures is and this is this is entirely a good thing, in some cases is like how do you drive down error in a complex system, and this is where your six sigma TQM, all of these and, you know, I've done a fair amount of work with biotech and I know with with your company, now spinning up a factory, you really want to have control over this system, a biotech company, you don't want there to be much chaos on the pill line. Because people could people could get hurt, of course. And so I think it's really like these are two separate and I think complementary disciplines. But I think it's important to note that they are different, I think, if we don't notice that they're different. We can say our lens is the right one. And just in the interest of transparency. At one point, when I was at Google, I had a sticker on my laptop that said, Fuck you, I have charts and graphs to back me up. Right. Which, which, you know, obviously flying the flag of that of that engineering mindset. But I do think they're different. And I think that different contexts call for a different approach. And let me let me go I'd love to get into your story. And then yeah, yeah, for sure. For sure. So I'll share with the listeners about how we met. So I was doing an off site for Marcos company, form energy for the CEO and his direct reports. And, you know, when you get ready for one of these things, it was about managing complexity and ambiguity and creativity and innovation, and you look to see who is going to be there And what their background is. And so as I'm getting going, There's this one guy in Italian guy, who, as I remembered, you know, was the, you know, SVP of software and analytics. And he's really banging on about beauty. And I was like, What? What is? What is going on here? And then, you know, as I got to know you, I mean, I think this is really remarkable. And one of the many reasons why I love spending time with you, and I'm so glad we became friends is you have two PhDs in highly technical fields, right? You have nuclear engineering, and then you also have a PhD. Yeah, in computer science, electrical engineering. And yet, you know, your, your role on the team is obviously, of this executive team, which is producing iron air batteries. So important for grid level storage and green energy. It was just so interesting to me that you were flying the flag of, of beauty and creativity, while also holding the space on the leadership team of measuring and metrics and analytics and all of that. So, you know, one of the first questions I had and I'd love to share with the people listening is like, how did that happen? How did you have the drive? Like, just I'd love to hear your superhero origin story about how all those things came together. And I should also note, that when I was referencing this during the off site session, we're doing a bunch of your colleagues said, oh, yeah, yeah. Marcos or CIO or chief Italian officer.

Marco: 16:38

Yeah, that's what I go by. Yeah, yeah. I also recall that all site and you're making a huge impression on me Bill and really happy we became friends. So, yeah, so my story is a meandering path. I think you can say that on many entrepreneurs. It is study a lot of technical subjects and diverse technical subjects, computer science, electrical engineering, nanotechnology, superconductivity, quantum mechanics, and then transition to more like energy focused studies. So nuclear engineering, Plasma science and fusion. Along the way, I picked up control systems, I spent some time trading electrical commodities on a power trading desk. And then around 2010, I picked up the entrepreneurial bug, I was like, okay, a lot of energy, a lot of clean energy. And I also loved the idea of building companies focused on innovative products. I was by then graduated from MIT, I was living in Boston, and I was just at the heart, really these nascent clean tech entrepreneurial ecosystem. So I dove in and over the course of the past, you know, 13 years or so, be in thought had been involved or at founded several companies in the clean tech space focused on solar storage hardware software, eventual things, but I mean, not that end, I guess along the way. I have never lost a strong passion and fascination for the you know, for the physical embodiment, products and services, whether hardware and software, and how powerful that is to human sensitivity and sensibility, right like the aesthetics, the aesthetics of products and services, the aesthetics of manufacture, manufacturing processes, everything has an aesthetic component to it, everything has beauty, a mathematical equation the, you know, the unlocking some, you know, some scientific discovery Very the you know, the the vortices generated by airflow, you know, of the, the wing of a supercar, everything, everything has really a beauty embedded in it. And, and for manage, I mean, going back to your point, you know, why was I upholding the kind of the centrality of beauty in the meeting is because, you know, for managers, so very special company. And as a matter of fact, you know, we we do hold one of our values is, you know, appreciating beauty in all its forms. And we do encourage that also sharing internally, you know, beautiful experiences, or beautiful pictures of what people consider beautiful, and we all know it together. Which is, which is incredible. As a as a tech company, I agree. It's a bit unusual and incredible.

Bill Duane: 21:22

Well, it is it is a very unusual company in the in the best way possible, I think. And I think in particular for a tech company to have as one of its core values. Beauty sort of speaks to that. And I'd love to come back about how one operationalizes that, but so what kind of kid were you I just have this image that you were very technically curious. But also, and I don't know, this is coming from Italian culture, but also very steeped in aesthetics. Like I think I think most times those two points of view are not so one strong two integrated within one person. So what what what do you think were some of the formative things when you were when you were a kid that led to this or experiences I know, you also mentioned that for the creative, sorry, for the entrepreneurial part that some of the culture you grew up in felt like a constraint also.

Marco: 22:16

Yeah, I, I love to build things. I've always loved to build things, I certainly love to build things as a kid. And that there's always been a big a big, I think, constant. And I think there is so much actually intelligence in your hands there is rarely exercised any is deeply fulfilling and soothing when you get to build stuff. So there is that element. And so let's say that now you engage with the material world, and you try to build the things, you build them. For function, typically, you want to achieve a certain goal, right? But there is inevitably an aesthetic component in what you build, inevitably, because sometimes we associate also beauty with function, there is a strong correlation between those two things. sound principles, I think, some fundamental principle of aesthetics are also correlated with some fundamental principles of function are fundamentally correlated with foundational elements, visual intelligence, and cognition. So there are some elements, they're really deeply rooted and common. So you build for function, and inevitably, there is an aesthetic component in it. And, and because I think, you know, the pursuit of beauty is inherent with with human creativity with human sensibility. And so, you build it and you engage with the material world, you try for function, and aesthetics is a big driving force throughout the creative process. And you discover also you discover the beauty of proportions, the functionality and the beauty of proportion, you discover the aesthetical qualities on materials and different forms of you know, surface treatment, or materials. You go through the process and you learn. And so, in other words, I don't, I do see a strong relationship between beauty and function between the two laws of aesthetics and the laws of the physical world. And even when you're new, artistic expression, intentionally departs from the laws of the physical world, the tension that is generated, that is what really strikes the imagination, that's what's most powerful, right? When you perceive that tension, when you look at a beautiful painting, where, for example, proportions are off, or, you know, there is an inherent momentum in the figures, because they are in a position that is somewhat not natural, or not compatible with our experience of the physical world. So, function, and aesthetics, I think that is a strong relationship between the two of them, whether they are intentionally harmonized, or intentionally put in context, we want to know, or intention we want to know.

Bill Duane: 26:20

Yeah, and that would speak to I think, even knowing which lens you're you're looking through, you know, a story is a friend of mine, who is a painter, we were walking from one place to the other. And she had been around tech people and Googlers, a fair amount. So I asserted, we should take this path to go from here to there. And she had learned the language of our tribe, and she said, Pray, tell, in what way is your way more optimal? And I said, Well, this is shorter and more efficient. And she said, My way is prettier. And this is really stayed with me, because I think I think a lot of times, we have an assumptive goal of what is correct, that we don't really think about, and I think depending on what discipline you come from, what mindset, you know, you would say so in other words, someone who had this assumptive goal of efficacy of efficiency would look at chaos and tension, as broken. Whereas, you know, obviously, you want things to be efficient, otherwise, you'll fall off the edges of one of your constraints. So if you have a great product, but it costs a billion dollars to manufacture, you fell off the edge, what I'm hearing from you is implied is that it's important to be able to hold multiple lenses, and then actually look at the same thing through one and then the other. And I think we do that subconsciously, that's where this idea of, of tension or a slight asymmetry or wabi sabi or any of the languages different cultures have for that purposeful injection, but it really speaks to this idea of being conscious of our lenses, and then having the ability to swap one or than another, depending as the as the context or even just to look at it from a second point of view.

Marco: 28:25

Oh, absolutely. That's, that's also where innovation comes from. You got to look at a problem as an opportunity, or the that's the fundamental lens switching, right? It, you know, it's the, it's the switching from, oh, they're just this issue to her, how do I innovate around this issue? And I, you know, another example comes to mind in this sense is, you know, when Michelangelo tackled the day did, you know, that piece of marble had been crooked by a previous sculptor who had damaged the integrity of the piece, and it so Michelangelo was able to see, like an incredible one of the highest achievements, I guess, in the history of artists sculpting around that concern around the constrain, in spite of that constraint, right and innovate around there, and then, you know, achieve the, the, the incredible proportions and the tension inherent in the in the posture or the David Wright that's because the original piece of marble marble had been crooked. I mean, that's, that's one example. Right? So this switching from a problem to an opportunity, that's a fundamental lens switching, you know, all entrepreneurship and that you know, again, like we we gave an example on how that applies to watch as well.

Bill Duane: 30:03

Right. And also, you mentioned, you know, sort of modes of perception and cognition, I think those are like underneath, we'll call it like the top level lenses. There's these differences of perception and cognition. And, you know, I think in particular, in the computer science world, or the, or the technology world, in particular, the software world, is that it's so abstracted away from the human substrate. Human body, I know, this was, this was so true of me in the past, as I really lived my life, shoulders up, like anything Shoulders down was like, that's where hassled comes from. Like, there'll be drag, it's like, I remember, I was I was dating somebody in my late 20s, or 30s. And she said, I was proposing that we have something for for dinner. And she was like, oh, yeah, I just feel terrible after I eat that kind of thing. And I was like, What are you talking about? Because I literally, like the only shoulders down, the only awareness I had is like, Am I hungry? Or not hungry? And then did it taste good or not this idea of of being able to discern how you felt, and so the phrase that you used was the language of sort of the intelligence of the hands. Yeah. And so something I've learned in terms of distributed cognition is that the largest mass of neural tissue outside of your brain is sort of in the in the core, and the degree of independence of cognate, cognitive independence, our bodies have that operate fairly. And so I do think that there's literally, I do think that working with your hands, particularly if you work with your mind, mostly, is a practical way of then training that other embodied intelligence. And when I when I teach, and when I coach this, the more you can get in connected with the signals of the nonverbal signals of the body. The more you can learn both your bias and your intuition. And based on what you said, that makes me want to take it even further. And to say, you're actually practicing a different kind of cognition, because you do something, you look at what you're working on. And then you work it with your hands or your body in some way. And then you and then there's this assessment, in which the brain comes in again, with with aesthetic. So, you know, in particular, you build motorcycles. Yeah. And and that's a new build, not only do you build motorcycles, but you build spicy motorcycles people have an opinion. About Yes, the motorcycles. So so, you know, and obviously, as a co founder and an executive, you're really busy, but you make huge amounts of time for this one, because I assume you love it. But also, it seems like this is you're developing this different kind of intelligence that then you can bring to bear on different kinds of problems.

Marco: 32:57

Oh, yeah, you can kind of get a start your week. Full energy, full focus, full commitment. And you know, that those kinds of hours, I can take away on a weekend to build the stuff brings me back to the candidate state at the beginning of the week. And, you know, they're long weeks. And so, you know, that kind of being, you know, in the right space, mental, and physical, but really mental is so essential for the productivity and success. And that just those few hours, steering my attention away from a screen to a physical object. And working on it with the with the materials is just, yeah, it's just a lifesaver. And also exercises these these different levels. Yes, intelligence, right. And they are so complimentary or so, so complimentary. And, you know, one thing about for managing eyelid is that we are working also with, you know, incredible physical embodiments of our technology or our manufacturing process, with this digital intelligence also embodied in need and the form of software. And so the, you know, I'm fortunate that my day job also has a fair amount of that physicality in it if you wish us as my summer may have this. Yeah, did you know that they but it's different. It's different when you Engaging with a hobby like a, you know, whether it's painting or installation, or like building a motorcycle. It's interesting, you're removing some of the constraints, we went back to this, like we're removing some of these constraints, particularly if it's a hobby, you're removing the constraint of your to be done by certain time you remove the constraint of a must be profitable, you remove some of those constraints, what you don't remove are the constraints you're working with the physical world, for example, I only this amount of material, or, you know, I get only this space, or I can find I cannot find the original parts, I need to make new parts. And you know, how I make them. I'm only I only have availability of certain manufacturing processes and equipment. So some constraints go some constraints stay. And that changes the experience, of course, with that, depending on the constraints you have, and you don't have your experience, I guess. So the physical world and the creative process changes completely.

Bill Duane: 36:18

Hmm. That's amazing. I mean, and I think it's so easy for us to not be intentional about having these different outlets that that complement each other a very practical question. And I'm, I'm almost a little hesitant to ask it, because you're, you're Some bastard who has two PhDs. When we talk about, about doing things like making sure that our creative our physical side is nurtured, and this comes up in my in my coaching work all the time is the key constraint is is time. So like I say, you're, you're you're a co founder, you're very involved in work that is very personally important to you. And that's something that can really lead us to have bad boundaries. Around work, you work with an astonishingly amazing group of humans, for whom it's just delightful to be around, how do you find the time like, we talked about your aesthetic pursuits, and then your entrepreneurial thing and I know, relationships are very important to you also. So in a practical way, how do you decide what gets resourced with time and what doesn't?

Marco: 37:33

Yeah, time is a constant, but productivity is not and productivity is a function of state of mind. And so, what you're trying to do is your maximum you're trying to maximize productivity right. And so, how you achieve the most productive state of mind in arguably the most productive state of man is not achieved by working 24/7 on the same issue, you know, exercising also on only one aspect of our intelligence, the maximum productivity is achieved with some degree of variety or the types of problems that we focus on. And this is a little bit dependent on on the person right, some folks enjoy context switching more than others, right. There is some variety that maximizes productivity and also exercising I think, the full set of intellectual capabilities right. So, the goal is maximizing productivity. And that is achieved in the mind in my specific case, I know that the combination of some physical creative activities and their intellectual like activities like banning touch of digital like computer focus computer screen or types of activities, that maximizes productivity. There is also an element in the in Sorry, I'm gonna go on layer these in for a second. There is also an element of happiness. So you know. Happiness means in the candle, the positive energy that somebody can bring to their daily job, or the main job or whatever you want to call it. There has been In incredible impact on the happiness of your teammates, on the happiness of the company large on creating a very human and supportive ecosystem of folks that care for one another, and can truly push through the hard times. Right. And so, you know, we're solving for productivity, we're solving for happiness. And quite frankly, one cannot happen without the other.

Bill Duane: 40:42

No, I would agree. 100%. And, you know, I think that idea of happiness or even satisfaction, then comes into actually knowing what your values are. Right? That that sense of, you know, I mean, because I'm actually a little hesitant to use the word happiness, because there's a sense of satisfaction that happens, even when things are bad, and difficult. That comes from integrity, which means that your actions are aligned with your intentions, that they are integrated. And that sense of integrity is, at least in English, I think that word happy can be conflated with having like a bouncy American smiling effect, where whereas you know, that sense of I do think happiness is a good word, but I want to expand it Yeah, a little bit, because also, it brings back what you were talking about with Michelangelo's David. And thinking about making time, you know, that that constraint with the fault in in, in the marble, it would be really good, it would be very normal to look at that and to have that actually SAP one's energy and time and view it as a time sink or, or the money was wasted, or some other sunk cost fallacy, but on the sunk cost fallacy lens. But instead, what what you're what you were saying about having these activities that bring in different intelligence is in terms of making time, it's almost like how can you look at whatever bump in the road the world gave you and then turn it into an opportunity to switch lenses. So the the idea that came to mind was, you know, a parent has a meeting, the next morning that they're presenting at and their baby, their newborn won't go to sleep, it's very easy to meet that and saying, like, oh, no, I'm, I'm, this is taking away from my intelligence. But a reframing of that problem is like, Well, why do I work at all? Like, you know, we work for, for our own sense of satisfaction, but also for other people company, I work that was very wise. And everybody that had kids, they just had a professional photographer, take a picture of the kids. And there was a whole wall just full of everybody's kids or pets. And the real idea of like, Why? Why. So I'm wondering, because again, this time constraint, but I think the model you're offering is, how is this an opportunity to switch lenses, it may not be you may not have chosen it, it may not be consensual, but then there's this idea of what are the lenses could be brought to bear at all times? In which case, every every moment has the flexibility? That's a

Marco: 43:37

great one. Okay, so you, I mean, you're, you're, you're interesting, you're proposing a different lens, which is also very apropos. So there's the element of Okay, time is a constant work, what are the variables that I can try to optimize? And one of them is productivity, so I get more stuff done, if you wish, but the other one is, time is given a time is a constant, I can change that. How the hell does that? Cause me to switch lenses for example, what does that do to my prioritization framework? And ena? What does that due to my appreciation of relationships, appreciation of affection, appreciation or my time with a family, how does that put things in perspective? Yes, I think both both those things are true. And then there is okay. What is the role? Personal life, hobbies? affections, like a As a whole, if you wish personal, like ecosystem interacting productivity in the professional realm, right in our day jobs, and you know, on the how do we solve that really holistically across all those dimensions? Realizing the fundamental constraint of time? Yes.

Bill Duane: 45:23

Well, and then to let go of the notion of time as a fundamental constraint, we're both physics people physics fans. Are you familiar with carbo Carlo Rovelli? Italian physicist? No? Oh, he does. He has written a couple of really good books, quantum physicist working on quantum gravitation mostly. And he has very wonderful, very accessible YouTube talks that, you know, for humans time is real is it is a it is a constant. But when you look at it deeply, none of it is real. Yeah, I'm sure all the things that we assume that are true about time that it that it runs at a constant rate everywhere. That time needs to go in in one direction. That time is some line that sweeps through the universe. When you look at them closely, none of them are actually ever there's matter of fact, they're demonstrably trivially demonstrably not true. So there's even that lens of Oh, of course, I mean, for humans and our perception, time is an invariant is an invariant, it is a constraint. But then there's another lens of just being like, oh, and it's kind of made up at the same time, I think having the mental flexibility, because obviously, 99.9% of the time, we're actually maybe since we're talking so much about Italian culture, and Dr. Rovelli, maybe Italians just have a sense that time is made up more so than other people. And therefore, lead is is just being in accordance with quantum physics.

Marco: 46:58

Yes, specifically, the uncertainty principle. Mark that was ever will they ever show up, there is always some uncertainty up to the last moment where you can actually measure the event. So yeah, it's interesting time, the meaning of time in different cultures, I mean, we could open a big chapter on this. But again, so going back to the, to the physics, so there is truly fascinating. I think one of the biggest areas of inquiry is, you know, when you look at the very, very microscale of cosmology and so on and so forth, is a you know, is there going to be what is the closure? Where is the closure, right? So you say on the one end, there is Big Bang, and then there there is all this, like crazy sequence of events coming after that. And, you know, I don't know if there is a yet a convincing, and, you know, unified theory, on the closure of that thing, or the circularity of that thing. So, of course, then may actually corroborate the meaning of time that because if you, if you do not have a, you know, a former closure of that process, then things aren't moving in one direction. The you can say there are fundamentally embodiment at the level, I don't know, quantum particles of quantum physics. And yes, there is the also the fact that you can invert the arrow time for, you know, the fundamental physical equations, and they don't change their invariant. So it's like, okay, so the direction of time doesn't really matter. The, you know, it kind of does, unless you can find, you know, the, the greater closure to some of these, you know, big questions. Well, there's that. And so this is my that's my, that's, you know, my poor opinion as somebody who hasn't really spent too much time on those on those topics. Well, this

Bill Duane: 49:27

is this is maybe we'll put a pin in this. But I want to mention one more thing, because I think this would be a second podcast, those ideas because, to me, it's very interesting now that science and love science and consciousness are starting to come towards each other. And it's so interesting, you mentioned second law of thermodynamics and entropy stuff, because as you mentioned, all all formalism in physics works by directionally except for entropy. And you're talking about the closure generally the heat death of the universe as explained by second law of thermodynamics, I gotta say it blows me away, I spent a week with the Center for the Study of apparent selves. In at Tufts a few weeks ago, we had a whole bunch of integrated information theory. Folks in computational biology folks, and it just blows me away as an outsider, that we're starting to look at these laws of thermodynamics as actually a way of calculating awareness, right away of of calculating, of viewing, you know, all the stuff around Markov blankets. And so I wanted to note that, for me, the takeaway with regard to this work on innovation is that, like, it's lenses all the way down. And the real and I think it is an art is choosing which lenses to look at it. So we talked about there's the lens of is this a problem? Or is this an opportunity for me to, for me to think differently, even at the point of we can have a system that is very, very predictive at a certain scale Newtonian physics, billiard ball physics, and the predictability of that just utterly falls apart, and we take it down into the quantum realm. And there's this immediate question of well, Are they consistent? And it's a bit of a side question, because there might not need to be. So even though we're talking about physics and grandiose, things like that, I think this is also true, even if we're trying to solve some problem with like a spreadsheet or a product of what are the right lenses for this situation, because we fall in love with our lenses. And we say my lens is right. And again, I mentioned I'm someone who said, Fuck you, I have charts, like I was very much an empiricist. Anything that can't be demonstrated with, you know, good p values and statistical power and all that just isn't true. And, you know, I think that that world, that method is extremely useful, and we jettison it at our peril. But what if it wasn't jettisoning it? What if we just had these other lenses and something I really wanted to ask you about is as a as a senior executive, as an entrepreneur, you know, I run into this all the time is that something I'm arguing for is not countable, it's not as countable. It's not as numerable as these as these other things, and yet, I need to convince this group of other senior executives, that some notion of aesthetics or love or beauty, whatever has to be co equal with some of these things that are much more readily accessible. And, and I think it's a, it's a, it's a dunk EOD failure mission, if you if you don't try and change the lens, like what's needed is like, there's a perceptual part that needs to shift as well. Because you know, a lot of this stuff, either the systems are too complex to have a strict causality. Or, or we just don't have a great, great way of measuring it you were talking about the primacy of happiness or satisfaction, you're not yet our ability to assess that, particularly in methods that we use to aggregate things that we use to count things.

Marco: 53:16

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I think there are any, that's a great point they are how they have you been held you bring some of those difficult to quantify criteria into companies, modus operandi. How do you justify their rationale, how do you measure their impact? So I can tell you at that micro level or myself, the impact is clear, when I when I find time to dedicate to the some of these creative, alternative, alternative complementary activities, my focus on Monday mornings is much higher, my energy is much higher. I can plow through difficult challenges, I can think faster, I can see solutions faster. I can even switch lenses in a way that may be more dramatic or, you know, aggressive than I would otherwise. I am trained in Lanza switching and in pretty diverse perspectives in adopting pretty diverse perspectives. I'm also happier, and that helps everybody around me. So, at the micro level or my personal experience, it works, I cannot I cannot measure or much or I cannot get I cannot necessarily pour a unique kind of metric, a specific metric, but I know he works. I assume that, that also extrapolates to a company. But it's a lot. But then there is the fundamental questions like how do you even like operationalize some of these principles at the company level? Right? Do you just encourage people individually to kind of have this kind of plurality of experiences? Unless switching? Or do you? Do you really need to do anything at the corporate level to kind of instill that culture? And yeah, that's a bigger, that's a bigger question at the level of for managers, we do certainly recognize, I mean, we have to, we have two values. One is, if you wish, the official one, which is humanity, that take care of each other, recognize the uniqueness and depression, the preciousness of each one of our employees. Right, and colleagues, right, there's that humanity is very foundational. And then there is the kind of unofficial one, which is appreciate beauty, that continues to be a thing. And, and beauty is interpreting a different way that each one of us and is shared by each one of us, right. So there are things I think that a company can do to build those elements as pillars as foundation. So the culture by Yeah, I wouldn't know how to further operationalize and honestly, so I'm actually curious about your thoughts there.

Bill Duane: 56:58

Yeah, I mean, from a from a culture perspective, my my formulation, and you've probably heard this before, is, culture is an emergent quality of groups of people making decisions in a certain way. And if you want to influence that, I think the main control surfaces are, what behavior the leaders model. And in the case of forum, you have a super extraordinary group of people, like you have military guys with huge hearts, you have Italian physicist, nuclear physicists, you have a CEO who also has a master's in divinity. So I think really choosing your leaders who are predisposed towards this more holistic way of thinking is really, really important. And as you mentioned, this is a different definition of effective, right, so what one, what behavior to the leader is model. Two is what behavior is rewarded or punished. And I think this one is key. If you look at Enron's value statements, we talked about this in the off site, like, you're like, wow, these people are amazing. But the behavior that they rewarded, was utterly orthogonal or orderly, in opposition to them. And then the third is what's the story the group tells about itself? I think if you look at the most successful organizations, in their heyday, Google HP, they really had this sense of mission and who there was an identity that had to do with what decisions are making. So I think at the culture side, I would point to that one of the things I'm most interested in now, and working, especially with the care as a driver of intelligence is how might we within decision frameworks, in particular ones to determine what gets resources and what doesn't? How do we have ways of surfacing this because I really want to honor the power of scale. However, many of our methods of scale, by definition, strip out any of these notions of aesthetics, beauty, or love. So for example, in a peer reviewed scientific paper, there's no section for awe and wonder and inspiration. In intuition, even though any any good paper, that's probably the most important and hardest to replicate part, but we have this culture that says, Oh, if you talk about that stuff, you're less professional or scientific, right? Or, you know, I mean, and I really want to honor the power of aggregation, honor the power of scale to do things, but at the same time, a lot of our methods of aggregation are numerical based, because it's easy, it's easier to count things than it is to assess things. And therefore if it's difficult to assess, the default is well let's pretend like it doesn't exist and just to Be transparent. I used to be in this world because it feels unsafe to them. Yeah, given my background Yeah, to not be able to touch ground of what's of what's true. And so and so I really think is how our ways, what are ways that we can actually assess? So it's I think there's two parts. One is to go bottom up of what are measurements that can stand by? And then the other is there's the perceptual side. How do we, you know, the way that this shows up in my own life, and a lot of my coaching work is to separate doing goals from being goals, a lot of times, like, like, how do you feel and this needs to be this is a perception method. So I think when you talk about working on motorcycles, or car or or sculpting, it's this idea of bringing in this other intelligence, and our a lot of our current systems don't actually have a way of assessing that

Marco: 1:00:59

incentivizing and assessing the impact and so on. Fair enough. And I think, you know, that there's a problem to kind of the perception that art and technology levers to cultures, right? Which is not necessarily the case. And so, you know, we can take these in a number of possible directions, for example, we can ask the question, what is beauty quantifiable? You're going back to a conservative beauty? And the answer is some aspects. Yes. Do you know, if you there are some seminal works by Rudolph are nine, psychology, a psychologist of art, and Harvard University, you know, was at Harvard University. And, you know, these works are really kind of seminar in terms of the quantitative and the structural aspects of aesthetics and visual perception. So, there are elements of beauty, they are quantifiable, there are foundational. There are in that kind of is everywhere, it's not only in painting sculpture in in an installation in a building that is also on a mass manufacturing line, what makes it proud that mass manufacturable the fact that it was designed for manufacturing, design for manufacturing means there are certain roles of streamlining function and the embodiment of that function. And in the process of designing that component, so that it minimalistic Aliy and efficiently embodies function that is beauty. The machine itself that makes that part is beautiful. And, you know, you I mean, you can the whole, like, aesthetics of Futurism, if you wish is about the machine, the machine, right, and the aspects, the aesthetical quality of the machine. So there is beauty also there. Right? So I think, you know, generally speaking, there are ways of measuring beauty. And there are aspects that you cannot measure. And that's fantastic. Because you need to maintain that. Do you need to maintain that degree of chaos, for creativity to be possible, right. It's very important, but there are aspects. So we could design also for aesthetics, and we could design for aesthetics, not only products, and services, and manufacturing lines, and batteries, and supercars. And in all the other stuff that we do, and motorcycles, etc, etc. We could design organizations with principles of aesthetics embedded in it. How specifically, I don't know, but I assumed that ought to be there to be doable?

Bill Duane: 1:04:25

Well, and I think there's a real opportunity that hasn't maybe existed as as much before, because what I what I heard you saying just now and I agree with it fully, is that the world of counting and metrics is extraordinarily important. And it is not a complete system, which means that you have to row that boat as far as it goes. But there's a certain point when you need to get out of the boat. And I think I think a lot of what's going on in particularly in sort of the more theoretical areas of science, about you know, girdles Incompleteness Theorem that says that any, any, any formal system of logic that has any degree of self referencing will be inconsistent, and that the harder you force it to be inconsistent, the more inconsistent it comes. And the way that that I internalize that is that, you know, the science, this formalism, the idea of like instrument things and and, and then use the past to extrapolate the future. So important such a such a, that's brought so much good to the, to the world and, and down. But then there's this point, and it's a very liminal alive space, because we've built these huge constructs around entrepreneurialism and capitalism for which this works really, really well. And I think we're exploring the outer boundaries now of where it doesn't work well, either. Because, because the whole the whole method is to subdivide things into parts and then study their causality. But if we subdivide parts, all of a sudden, it make sense to for an individual factory to do something that may end up tipping the biosphere to a certain point, and we end up with, with climate change, so and now even in AI, we're starting to then ask, Well, what about awareness and consciousness? So I really want to respect how painful these boundaries are, we're finding out the limits of this metric based science. And I think what you're pointing to, is something that can be complimentary and can counterbalance. And I do think thank you for the recommendation of the book about perceptual science, it was a fascinating it was a it was a lens I never even imagined could have existed. And I'll put a link to it in, in the show notes. But, you know, I think this is the real call, the question that we're landing on is okay, as people that have a certain amount of power authority, not intimate knowledge of these causal based systems. We're now looking at the at the aggregate of these going on for awhile, and finding out that what got us here has a very dangerous edge. Yeah, how do we build what comes on? And I think what you pointed to is at the micro levels, we have to design our own lives and be innovative for our own lives in ways that are I think, sometimes, especially in the cultures, we're in profoundly counter into counterintuitive.

Marco: 1:07:27

Yes, they're, they're counterintuitive until they're, they're obvious, right? As a, as is almost like that kind of learning after the fat or acknowledging after the fact. So there is a bit of a leap of faith as in, like, you know, me try to incorporate these additional lenses, with these additional practices, these additional experiences in my life. And then after the fact say, Oh, yes, of course.

Bill Duane: 1:08:01

Well, in addition, you know, just to completely beat this metaphor of lenses to death. Other people are really good lenses also. And I think asking other people, so when you mentioned how counterintuitive it is, oh, how was formed gonna have amazing analysis software, building motorcycles, you know, and it's like, oh, meditation. Oh, you want to get more done? Just go sit in the even though your inbox is exploding, go sit in the corner silently.

Marco: 1:08:37

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So when we

Bill Duane: 1:08:39

talk about this, particularly in leadership positions is how can we create environments that make that safe or encourage it? Even though in the very, very, I mean, the the perils of the certain numerical systems are in or extreme short term divided thinking, where we're doing a local maxima, that actually degrades the overall system? And then how can we create systems that encourage people in their own lives and discover the the wisdom of their hands and their hearts? Yeah, and have that have that show up as hopefully as Co-equally and I think the pain that the world is going through or about to go through is helpful in that regard.

Marco: 1:09:24

Yeah, yeah. I agree. What makes us better? A scene more productive, happier, more connected humans? Because that will reflect on everything we do. That's big question, I think.

Bill Duane: 1:09:42

Yeah, I think it's a good point to land on although I will, I will land on this point is Marco, you are a beautiful human being. And I am very happy to be your friend.

Marco: 1:09:53

And very happy to be your friend Bill. Thank you for inviting me. This has been exciting. A lot of you as well. I and I look forward to the next one