Answers Aren't Always Where We Look for Them
There is a particular kind of teacher who does not give you answers. He gives you just enough to make the answer findable — and then he waits.
Ian Duncan Clement had a PhD, a career at the State Department, and a decade directing a scientific and academic exchange program between Harvard and Cuba, centered on a botanical research station in Cienfuegos. He had spent years as the kind of person governments send when the work requires someone who understands both the science and the room.
When he retired, the newspaper had two job listings. The first was a research assistant at the local library. He wasn't interested. The second was the front desk at a 105-room hotel with two PGA golf courses — four to midnight. He took it.
That is how I came to work alongside one of the more quietly remarkable people I have ever met. I was the night auditor. He was, technically, my subordinate in the hotel hierarchy. I want to be clear that this did not operate in our conversations. The credential differential between us — his PhD, my GED — was simply not a thing that entered the room. That was his doing more than mine.
I was in my early thirties, taking a chemistry course, turning over the idea of nursing school. One evening I brought him a problem from the homework. The question was written: HiHoAg. I had searched through every reference I could find. Nothing matched.
He looked at it. Waited a beat — the way a certain kind of teacher does when they already know where you went wrong and are deciding how much to let you find yourself.
Then he told me the question wasn't asking for a formula.
HiHoAg. Hi-yo, Silver. Away. The Lone Ranger's call. The answer wasn't a chemical compound. It was a piece of American vernacular disguised as a science problem. I had been so locked into the framework of the question — so certain it was asking for what questions like that always ask for — that I couldn't see past my own assumption about what kind of problem it was.
I have thought about that question many times since. Because what it demonstrated wasn't that I missed a reference. It was that the frame is often the problem.
I was also working on something else at the time — a concept I had been developing for several years. A system to eliminate the discharge of partially treated sewage into Florida's waterways. I had designed a pipeline to capture the waste gases from a treatment facility and use them to generate the electricity to run it. The solid residual would become agricultural soil supplement. The treated water would come out potable — returning to municipal supply, to groundwater recharge, or directly to the Everglades, where clean water in volume would dilute existing contamination and support an ecosystem that had been under pressure for decades.
I had the mathematics. I had the routing. I had drawn the whole thing out.
He looked at it for perhaps thirty seconds.
Too expensive, he said. Make it cheaper.
He did not tell me why. He did not tell me where. He said it and let it sit.
I spent two weeks on it. I went back through every number. I could see the system worked. I could not find the cost problem. I went back to him more than once. He didn't move.
After two weeks, he offered four words.
Pipe is cheaper than land.
The light came on.
I had designed the pipeline on straight-line geometry — the shortest distance between two points. Which meant acquiring easements across private land everywhere the line ran. What I hadn't seen was that the state already held easements along every roadway. I didn't need to buy access I didn't have. I needed to route along access that already existed. The pipeline would run longer. The pipe would cost more. But pipe is cheaper than land, and the land I thought I needed to buy was land I never needed to touch.
I rerouted the entire system along roadways. The cost problem disappeared.
What he did not do was give me the answer. He gave me one orienting fact at the moment I had genuinely exhausted my own ability to find it without help. The solution was mine to find. He simply gave me the key — in the minimum number of words necessary — and stepped back.
The project was eventually denied a patent. Not because the system didn't work, but because every technology in it already existed at commercial scale. The Patent Office called it obvious.
I have made my peace with obvious. If it was obvious, it was also correct.
Every assumption deserves examination. Every straight line is worth questioning. Sometimes the longer route is the only route that doesn't cost you everything.
Pipe is cheaper than land. I am still applying that principle to problems that have nothing to do with pipelines.
Comments