Multidisciplinární myšlení

Stop guessing, and start decomposing the loss. The trap is anchoring on one variable — your cofounder’s pricing theory — when the real signal is buried in the funnel. Apply the Inversion model: instead of asking “why did we lose?”, ask “what would have to be true for us to win?” Then work backward.

Run a base rate check first. What’s your historical win rate at this price point? If it’s stable, pricing is likely a red herring. If it collapsed recently, dig into the deals themselves. Interview the lost prospects — not your sales team — and ask them to rank, in order, the friction points: onboarding time, narrative clarity, price, and competitor fit. That ranking is your evidence.

Cross-check with Opportunity Cost: every hour spent re-pricing is an hour not spent fixing onboarding. And use Causation vs. Correlation discipline — two losses is a sample size of two, not a trend. Run a cheap experiment: change one variable (e.g., shorten onboarding) while holding price constant, and measure the next three deals. That isolates the bottleneck without reliving the same mistake.

The collapse happens because each group argues from a single mental model — housing advocates see shelter, mental health providers see care, small business owners see economic survival. Your job is to make the interconnection visible before the money is committed.

Use the Systems Thinking frame: present the initiative not as housing, but as a network of feedback loops. Affordable housing reduces homelessness, which reduces emergency room visits, which frees city budget, which supports small business districts. Draw this on a whiteboard in real time. Let each stakeholder see that their issue is a node, not the whole system.

Then apply Second-Order Effects: ask each group to predict what happens to their own priority if the others’ priorities are ignored. The mental health provider sees that unstable housing undoes treatment; the small business owner sees that chronic homelessness hurts foot traffic more than the housing itself. That turns adversaries into allies.

Finally, use the Latticework principle explicitly: name the disciplines in the room — economics, psychology, public health, urban design — and ask, “What does your lens predict the others miss?” That reframes the fight from “my issue wins” to “whose blind spot gets exposed.” Commit millions only after the map is shared.

The trap is that students default to the single-hammer model — composting is the obvious nail. Break that by forcing them to state their solution as a hypothesis with disciplinary constraints, not a final answer.

Start with Inversion: ask “what would make food waste worse?” That flips their thinking from solution-first to problem-structure. Then assign each student a lens and require them to defend their proposal through it. The economist asks: what’s the price signal that makes waste rational? The biologist asks: where does the waste actually decompose, and what nutrients are lost? The sociologist asks: who eats last in this community and why?

Use the Latticework method explicitly: have them build a two-by-two grid — one axis is “cause of waste” (production, distribution, consumption), the other is “lens” (economic, biological, social). Every proposed fix must fill a cell, and no fix can be proposed unless it addresses at least two cells. That forces composting to be justified economically (cost of hauling), biologically (methane vs. soil carbon), and socially (who does the labor).

Finally, grade the cross-checking, not the solution. Require each student to write one paragraph explaining how their own lens would critique their own proposal. That embeds the habit of self-correction — the real lesson.