Lessons come at us from many directions. Some – at least for me – have been most valuable when applying something to one area that came from a completely different area. Here’s a handful of thoughts I’ve found that cross over from aviation into business.
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate
A fundamental principle in aviation prioritizes flying the aircraft first, then navigation, and finally communicating with air traffic control if necessary. The idea can be summed up as “Deal with the things in the order in which they’re most likely to kill you if you neglect them.” Ideally, all of these things are being done appropriately on any flight. The point is if things get challenging, you fall back on this simple order. The reasoning is simple: humans facing cognitive overload tend to fall back on habits or training. This is well studied. (Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, and Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking.) When we translate this into business, it looks like considering differences between emergency, urgency, and importance.
Thankfully, when we think of our business priorities, we usually have the luxury of at least some planning time. It might not feel like it, but excepting relatively rare true crisis situations, we generally have more time than a firefighter might. Or pilot. Or surgeon. Etc. We can consider costs and outcomes, how to optimize and so on. (Unless something truly emergent or urgent arises.) For product efforts, there’s a variety of prioritization frameworks. I’ve written about this in Feature Ideation and Evaluation for Product Managers. At a more general level, it might be useful to consider another decision-making framework called the Eisenhower Matrix. This decision-making tool helps prioritize tasks by categorizing them into four quadrants based on their urgency and importance. It helps focus on what matters most by prioritizing important and urgent tasks first, delegating less important tasks that are nonetheless somewhat urgent, scheduling important but not urgent tasks, and eliminating tasks that are neither important nor urgent. This was originally developed by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, and enhanced by Stephen Covey in his 1989 book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. (The quadrant numbers seem not unimportant, but I’m leaving in for completeness’ sake in case you happen to come across this elsewhere.)
We need to find balance across these quadrants as there is risk here. Items in the “Decide/Schedule Later” quadrant are often strategic. They may be low urgency, but ignore them long enough and that can change. Smartsheet offers a template if you like. And here is a more in-depth guide. Clearly, some of these ideas are limited as not everyone has someone to whom they can delegate tasks.
The bottom line is it probably doesn’t matter what decision-making model you use. Just that you have one that’s rational. That which seems obvious oftentimes isn’t. While we want to avoid “paralysis by analysis,” making bad decisions fast isn’t the best alternative. Having a framework can offer balance in helping with decision speed vs. deliberation, ensuring that your choices are both timely and well-considered, rather than rushed and reckless.
Use Your Checklist(s)
Do you have checklists or procedures for critical work items? Maybe you can get away without them. Maybe not. My dad was a pilot. Besides running his business, he enjoyed traveling, generally having fun, etc. While he was serious about his business, he was fairly casual about things in general. Except when flying. In all the flights I recall taking with him as a child through growing up, I don’t recall seeing him not use his checklists. Even with his thousands of hours of flight time. While we occasionally encountered issues, I always felt safe because there was no messing around when it came to operational safety. (Check out The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right.)
When it comes to our day-to-day business tasks, we may dislike processes. Or do we? Maybe we just dislike poor processes that don’t work, waste our time, cost us money, etc. But when they work? They can keep us on track and out of trouble. We all have to decide where we want to have some structure and what’s better off left more flexible. Some may dislike processes due to seeming rigidity, time and effort, lack of autonomy or complexity. On the other hand, some prefer structure and consistency, risk mitigation and perhaps efficiency in the long run. I’m suggesting that any time we face significant risk or struggle with consistency, it may be best to develop and stick to a structure. You can always change it. But think about it… how many times have you said about something… “How could they have missed that?” Maybe if someone forgot to bring you bread at dinner, that’s not a big deal. But if “they” gave you an incorrect dosage of medicine, forgot to reassemble a part after fixing your car, etc. you may have a bigger problem. Whatever you’re providing to the world, make sure you’re clear on the risks as you develop your checklist processes.
Maintain Your Gear
People talk about the need for proactive maintenance. How many do it? How often do you skip steps you know you shouldn’t; in both business and personal life? If you spend time on the road, you’ve seen how often cars break down. (And how bad it is when it’s on the bridge or in a tunnel or another choke point.) How often would this happen if every driver ran through a vehicle checklist every time they went to drive; checking the oil, fuel, and its state? What about doing and documenting maintenance when you’re supposed to? What about inspections where a certified mechanic goes over mandatory items, fixing anything of serious concern. How about if there was a recall item or service bulletin and vehicle owners legally had to satisfy each? How often do you think cars would break down? There would still be problems. But not like now. Maybe this treatment is more important for aircraft than for automobiles. But is it? What are societal costs of avoidable breakdowns? While I can’t locate my original reference, a UK study in 2015 estimated cost to UK businesses of £1.2bn a year due to breakdowns. While traffic congestion happens for many reasons, breakdowns contribute to this. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) 2019 Urban Mobility Report put U.S. congestion costs at $179B, though didn’t break out how much due to breakdowns.
What about your company? Your systems and procedures? What does it cost when they fail? How many customers do you lose? How much liability are you assuming for not maintaining risky items? What are the risk levels for the components of your product; physical and software? Have you run the checklist to assess them? Are some of these risks minor whereas maybe some others could be serious?
Might be good to know.
Takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory
Pilots never forget their first solo. The first time you advance the throttle and launch into the sky. Alone.
Every takeoff is optional. Landings are not. You will be coming down at some point. The manner in which this occurs may differ. It can be with a nice smooth landing or a fiery ball of twisted aluminum. Obviously, everything in life has risks. So we do what we can to eliminate or mitigate them. I’ve been a volunteer EMT for decades and have seen this randomness up close. Sometimes things just happen. Other times, (most times), we have a large degree of agency. Before departure, pilots check a wide variety of items. How’s the Weather (in detail), the aircraft, assessment of our own physical state; any illness, fatigue, and so on.
We all decide how much risk we will assume. (Although perhaps sometimes we’re not sure.) I’ve written before – as have others – about the balance between speed to market via so-called Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) vs. risk; whether a new product and company or a feature upgrade. In our drive to get things to market, it’s perhaps the case that some have gone too far to the speed side. Yes, there’s the risk of missing a market or getting beaten to market or running out of runway/cash. But I wonder how many companies have failed because all of their bumbling toward MVP was pure waste. How many chose to launch when they really shouldn’t have? How many such failures ended up being just as fatal taking too long might be? Remember, even if you’re on target, the center of it might be small. And maybe it’s fine if you just get anywhere on target to start. You can iterate towards optimizing and getting to the bullseye later. Maybe. It’s your call. Just understand which things you can adjust and which are going to be in the category, “You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression.”
Yes, there’s a good argument that we need to get to market to learn as early as practicable. This is the perspective I personally most often prefer. However, there’s a balance. In 2020, the Peloton Tread+ was recalled due to defects that apparently killed at least one and injured dozens of others. Ever heard of Google Stadia? No? Well, there you go. With all their money and brainpower, Google’s cloud gaming product made it maybe four years and went away in 2023. Did it launch too early? Or did it have to get to market to get more app developers? That one’s maybe an arguable point. Still, maybe it’s better to do something small that a handful of customers love and expand from there. This may be more challenging for a larger company where moving the needle means a relatively large success. There’s plenty more examples of product failures which – of course with the ease of hindsight – seemed to have stumbled over issues that appear to have been foreseeable. Fear of mistakes may be an enemy of progress just as perfect is the enemy of the good. What constitutes “good enough to go” will always be a judgement decision. Only you can decide; ideally your need for ‘completeness’ is commensurate with the risk level. Are the choices a) potentially mildly damaging, b) potential company killers, c) is a choice reversible?
So make whatever choices you like, but insofar as possible, Know Before You Go. Because once you’re in flight, you’re headed somewhere at high speed. It’s best to have a plan. And a backup plan. And perhaps another.
Conclusion
I hope some of these ideas are useful to you. There are a few more I’ve left off that I’ll try to get to soon. The main takeaway is to look at how a high-stakes environment, (such as aviation), which can be rather unforgiving of any carelessness or neglect can help us apply decision-making in our day-to-day business choices. Perhaps lessons from somewhat demanding environments can help us navigate less extreme situations more effectively.