Last week, I spoke at the NASPI (North American Synchrophasor Initiative) Fall Working Group Meeting in Charlotte in order to share my perspectives on a recent multi-party collaboration in which my team and I played a central role. The collaboration was an exercise to create a data product but more fundamentally was an attempt to answer the question of “how can the [electric utility] industry make better use of its data?”.
A simple, cursory “update” didn’t seem worthy of the community, nor did it feel in line with my preferred style of presentation. So, to prepare my message for the conference, I looked for something deeper and more controversial thought provoking. And as desired, my comments, while calibrated, were very candid. I considered posting the speech verbatim (e.g. laziness). But after some consideration, I felt the message was more durable when distilled to something more general purpose.
Techno-humility
Principally, I shared what I saw to be the lessons learned from the collaboration. That is, I talked about what we discovered regarding the question of “how can we make better use of our data?”, all while maintaining that this is a non-trivial question to answer. As you’re reading this, I suspect your inner monologue has already served up some technology-based responses to this question. And if this is the case, you should definitely keep reading.
As I reflected back on the experience, a thematic answer to our question began to emerge. Interestingly, it requires a slight reframing of the question:
“What values drive better use of data in our industry?”.
The answer that emerged was the value of humility.
As I saw it, there were 5 key dynamics that both individually and collectively demonstrated the usefulness, or at least relevance, of humility. They were:
- Industrial Introspection
- Structural Incentives
- Dynamics of Industry Players
- Vanity of Artificial Intelligence
- Recognition of My Own Mistakes
Industrial Introspection
The first step to any transformation is to develop honesty with yourself. To “make better use of data in our industry” we need to be able to assess ourselves truthfully and select objectives accordingly. To our credit, the existence of the aforementioned collaboration alone is a self-admission by the industry that (on the whole) we do not use data well. However, many people act as if we already do – to all of our mutual detriment. I’d argue that this statement requires a nuanced explanation to unpack because, in some ways, we used data at scale before it was cool – but this post is not that explanation.
When we fool ourselves about our existing capabilities, the likelihood that we invest in the wrong capability dramatically increases. This wastes not only money but, more importantly, wastes time. Under present circumstances, it’s only wasted time that truly translates to lost opportunity cost. If the cost of failure of a critical technology project is a multi-year do-over, there simply aren’t enough years to necessarily evolve the industry. Alternatively, having an honest opinion about each of our capabilities means that we can make informed investments that move our respective companies, the industry, and society forward at maximal pace.
Humility means understanding your current limitations, taking ownership, and thoughtfully working towards the ideal outcome. Hubris means chasing the wrong objective at the expense of a genuine outcome because you failed to know yourself. I have a vague memory of learning this as a child… something about trading a cow for some magic beans…
Structural Incentives
The environment that we operate in affects incentives and incentives affect behaviors. Therefore, structuring our environment and incentives correctly pays dividends towards progress.
The structure of our collaboration was different from others like it in the past. This demonstration of humility recognized that not all traditional mechanisms are ideal for sparking innovation with data in our industry – that it’s worth trying something different. Put plainly, the sponsors checked their assumptions and their egos at the door.
For instance, despite initial hypotheses and objectives, the collaboration was designed to leave room to radically pivot once work had begun. Because the objective is to create something valuable rather than something specific, collaborators have the freedom to move beyond their original conceptions. Therefore, the structural basis of the collaboration is one where everyone can shed their assumptions and fully engage with the problem. This is certainly an exciting prospect for everyone involved.
Frustratingly, not everything was rainbows and butterflies – leading to a darker version of this same lesson. Once we began, we encountered, let’s say, varying degrees of humility. While we didn’t know to call it that at the time, it’s now clear that humility does end up as the defining characteristic of success.
People tended to cling hard to their original assumptions, their original methodologies, or their perceived strengths, even under the guidance of our experts (no, humility is not blind deference – but it is open-mindedness). Their behavior was not unlike a hammer looking for a nail. Furthermore, challenges emerged when collaborators imported their own incentive structures rather than taking on the incentives of the mission. This behavior undermines the very structure which was previously demonstrated as inherently humble. I hope that it’s clear to the reader that under these conditions, success is highly constrained.
It was only once everyone began discarding their hubris that they started to experience progress. Guided by a truer objective, without limiting possible solutions by a predetermined approach, all involved found more success than they would have otherwise.
Dynamics of Industry Players
My next example is regarding dynamics of industry players – in particular, those that serve the utilities.
Industry players, specifically when it comes to digital solutions (e.g. data, etc.) are dominated by incumbents, legacies. The trouble with folks like that is they typically presume that software and data are commodity skillsets and that it follows that they can do it better than those who specialize in those technologies. Creating incentive structures that reward this behavior promotes hubris. Humility would encourage and incentivize new players (fresh meat!) to also come to the table and show us their best stuff.
Having said that, there is another side to this coin – another edge to this blade. Many times outsiders, whether they are utility outsiders (e.g. from the industry but with little to no utility experience) or industry outsiders (e.g. big tech and those who are a facsimile of big tech), tend to believe that the utilities and the industry, respectively, are in desperate need of rescuing – that there is no possible way that the big, dumb, lumbering utility sector could possible know more than the tech geniuses. So, when they do succeed over an incumbent, they come in with this terrible hero mentality of “we’re here to save you from your own ignorance”.
“Do what we say. You’re wrong and we’re right. We have the exact formula for your success. It worked for us so it will obviously work for you”.
Something like that. You get the idea.
Outsiders believing they can ride in on their white stallion and rescue the backwards utility is an example of profound hubris. Every single one of us has experienced how important domain knowledge and an appreciation of “how things are done” are for making positive change. Humility is acknowledging that as an outsider you are, in fact, an outsider. As Jon Snow’s wildling girlfriend pointed out many times, “you know nothing“.
Yes, you’re coming to the table with powerful tools and technologies – but it is their correct and appropriate use that creates value – not their abuse. In order to properly wield such powerful technologies you first must become an honorary insider. You’ve got to get down in the mud and muck with us insiders. You’ve got to experience the natural ebb and flow of progress and constraint. You’ve got to learn the fundamentals, and frustratingly, this means you’ve got to put in the time.
Humility is partnership. There are even those in the tech sector that agree with me on this. Steve Case’s book, The Third Wave, speaks to the need for deep partnerships between technologists and foundational institutions (e.g. utilities!) in order for us to capitalize on the next “wave” of innovation.
Vanity of Artificial Intelligence
Now, what is the word I am looking for here? What word should I use to describe how I feel about the application of AI in our industry (specifically as it pertains to our fundamental question of expanding the use of data)? Not “frustration”. Not even “anger”. I think it’s “disgust”!
This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate and valuable applications in the sector. Because there are. However, the vast majority of the “applications” of this technology, both in research and in industry, are simply AI for AI’s sake. They aren’t grounded in an understanding of the real problems and, frankly, they’re often not grounded in trying to solve problems in the first place.
The clear, underlying motivation in virtually all cases is to achieve (perceived) relevance and pecuniary exhaust given the rise of AI in modern society – a genuine case of FOMO. Attention is all you want, but humility is all you need.
In contrast, my team and I have seen time and time again that, especially within the modalities of data we are working with, the fastest path to the greatest value is almost never machine learning and artificial intelligence. Make no mistake, we do believe that these technologies and techniques have their place in a modern toolkit, but we don’t want to be the metaphorical AI hammer looking for a data nail.
In fact, our only opinion about which methodologies we use is that we don’t have an a priori opinion – we only have selection informed by the problem and its constraints. Just like the KISS principle that we learned on Day 1 (excuse me, Day 0) of engineering school, we don’t value complexity for complexity’s sake.
The KISS principle itself embodies the value of humility.
Recognition of My Own Mistakes
It would be quite humorously hypocritical for me to preach humility if I weren’t willing to share some of my own failures. Therefore, my final example is one of acknowledging when you’re wrong.
When we rebooted our synchrophasor program in 2019, we did so, correctly I might add, with the idea of exploiting low-cost experimentation and rapid prototyping to guide us towards the answer to “what use cases of synchrophasor data are valuable to our company?”.
Our goal was to “try everything” and see what sticks and then take what sticks and double down on it. We could only afford to do this because we had positioned ourself with the right technology to make this seemingly brute force approach cost effective. And by cost effective, I also mean hyper time efficient. However, I fell victim early on to my own hubris.
I had brought in a friend and colleague onto the team (and in the beginning it was just he and I) to help move our program forward and he asked, genuinely, “should we look into oscillations?”. I responded, like an automaton. “No”, we don’t need to “look into oscillations” because “oscillations are a control room problem and I’m still licking my wounds from my 5 and a half years in the control center.” And besides, “this problem has been largely solved by both academia and the industry with many commercially available tools out there”.
Yes, I sounded like that. Thankfully, he didn’t listen.
And because he didn’t listen, we’ve come to know that the entire paradigm of how we and the industry at large have talked about and studied grid oscillations is myopic. It turns out that, unlike conventional wisdom suggests, we aren’t dealing with discrete events that acutely manifest operationally. In fact, we are dealing with chronic, long-running, low energy phenomena that are filled with a richness of information that, if properly leveraged, can have an outsized impact on ensuring reliability throughout of the clean energy transition. Presently, focus on this problem is now central to the synchrophasor program and the industry is catching on.
I ask only this…what would have happened if my hubris had won out?
Summary
So, I leave you with one final question to reflect on as well as a simple tool to use.
First, the question: “How does what we’ve learned about the relationship between humility and the greater use of data in the industry translate over to the domain you’re working in (whether inside the industry or not)?”
But puzzlingly, while valuing humility seems to be a guiding principle for our work, its not self-evident how one puts this into practice. Direct observation of humility in the present moment, at least based on my personal experience, has not been so easy. So, if I can’t reliably observe its presence, how can we possible navigate using this value?
This leads me to the tool (perhaps more of a heuristic) that you can more easily put into action right away. What I perceive is that spotting hubris is far easier than spotting humility, or even its absence. So my suggestion is that in order to “help the industry achieve greater use of data” or “maximize the sustainable adoption of synchrophasor technology within the industry” or even “study IBR oscillations” we should, in adopting these objectives, also adopt a healthy vigilance for adjacent hubris. And when we encounter it – whether coming from the outside or from ourselves – we should challenge and question it. If we can adopt a calibrated openness to the change we seek, a clear path should emerge and success should follow.
So, let’s aside our hubris.
Humility is All You Need.
Sign Up
Subscribe to receive email notifications whenever a new blog post is published.
You can unsubscribe at any time.