#22 - The Heilmeier Catechism
8 simple questions to unlock clarity
Welcome to this weeks edition of Tuesday’s Rule. A breakdown of a “life-rule” that I find to be useful or interesting.
I've described my approach to writing Tuesday's Rule before, but for my new followers (👋🏻), I’ll briefly recap.
Since 2021, I've kept an iPhone note titled "Rules for Life."
It’s a collection of quotes from podcasts, books, articles - anything that I hear and that resonates as an interesting nugget for living intentionally.
Every Tuesday, I break one down. If I'm feeling especially creative, I'll weave into a story. Here's a previous example.
This week, I was compelled to do something very slightly different.
I’ve wanted to write about the "Heilmeier Catechism" since coming across it a few weeks ago, but I couldn't pin down a concise rule to bend it around. So, I started writing today without knowing what rule we'll end up with at the end...
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the United States Department of Defence research and development agency responsible for developing emerging technologies for military use.
DARPA has pursued a singular and enduring mission for more than fifty years: to make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security.
A 2015 Business Insider article revealed they were actively working on research for bullets that can change direction mid-flight, flying trucks and material that could help soldiers climb up walls.
According to their website, DARPA operates on the principle that generating big rewards requires taking significant risks.
This means that the agency needs to decide on the risks that are worth taking.
Enter George H. Heilmeier, a former DARPA director (1975-1977).
Heilmeier crafted a set of 8 questions known as the "Heilmeier Catechism" to help Agency officials think through and evaluate proposed research programs:
What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
What is new in your approach, and why do you think it will be successful?
Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?
What are the risks?
How much will it cost?
How long will it take?
What are the mid-term and final "exams" to check for success?
This may say something about me, but I absolutely love this.
I discovered it in a professional context, but there is a ton of learning here that can be applied to wider contexts.
I find something new in it every time I re-read it, but here are my main takes:
Intentional Planning
When deciding to do something new, or take on a new challenge, it is easy to be fast and loose with the definition of what you are trying to achieve.
The very first edition of "Tuesday's Rule" outlined the concept of zero-based budgeting for life. The basic principle was that starting from scratch when planning and removing any preconceived ideas or commitments is a way to ensure that what you decide to do is in line with what you seek to achieve rather than what has been collected along the way.
These questions take this to the next level, and cover everything you need to ask yourself before embarking on something new, ensuring that whatever it is is well thought out and in line with your broadest goals.
Setting High Standards
Catechism (what a tremendous word) means "a manual of religious instruction".
This gives me the impression that this isn't an optional set of rules that researchers can reference if they need guidance.
Naming it a catechism sets the tone for adherence to these standards, that this approach is a religious truth within the agency.
The questions feel pretty demanding, and making sure that each proposal answers each of these questions feels like a way to not only make it easy to review but also provide a framework to ensure that the researchers proposing new projects are thinking through all possible implications in a thoughtful and detailed manner.
Demanding Clarity
More than anything else, I love both the clarity it achieves alongside the clarity that it seeks.
There isn't one unnecessary word within the questions and the instruction to “articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon” is a resounding message to ensure that the proposals are achieving that same level of clarity.
Whilst the questions may not all be directly relevant to what we do, the lesson in the importance of clarity, internally and externally, is maybe the most obvious.
So this weeks rule is:
Seek Clarity
Clarity is the foundation of contentment. Clarity makes everything simpler. Clarity makes our relationships better.
A lack of clarity can lead to frustration, a lack of motivation and multiplication of problems.
Whether this is clarity of thought, clarity of communication or objective, we should all seek ways to find it.
The problem is that it's really bloody hard.
Competing objectives, infinite distractions, a baffling media landscape, the modern world is not set up to facilitate clarity.
That’s why artefacts like the Heilmeier Catechism should be looked at, and why I believed this breakdown was valuable. Let’s finish with some elements of it that can be applied broadly, and that I’ll seek to remember going forward:
Avoiding jargon - unless you can clearly explain it to a smart 12-year old, do you really understand it?
Identifying clearly what’s new, and why it will be successful - what am I actually doing differently, and why am I confident that it is the right approach to take?
What are the risks of a new approach - what could go wrong? What should I do about those risks?
Holding oneself to account - how is it going? Is this where I thought I would be? Do I need to change tactic?
More clarity = better work and better life. A strong mantra for Tuesday’s Rule to exist by going forward.
See you next week ✌🏻