> As a technologist, you know that the worst thing that you can do is over-constrain the problem before you start.
From what I've read on this subject, this is not the worst thing you can do. The absolute worst thing you can do from a creativity standpoint is be completely unconstrained. That "blue sky" thinking leads to a lack of focus that prevents you from coming up with good solutions. The startup mentality of "embracing constraints" is more than just a rationalization that tries to turn a negative into a positive...it's an observation of how to best creatively problem solve.
There's no doubt that over-constraining can also have negative consequences, but if you've got little to no natural constraints, it's almost always best to invent some reasonable constraints prior to diving in and trying to solve the problem. It's okay to document those constraints and, perhaps, make changes if you find the problem you've created to be intractable. But operating without those constraints, whether real or self-imposed, is the absolute worst way to approach any creative problem solving endeavor.
I always think about it from an artistic standpoint. Art forms are almost defined by their constraints: movies can't use text, literature can't use pictures, ice sculpting can't use clay, mosaics can't use paint.
Of course, art is also about breaking out of those constraints and creating new mediums. But that seems more about finding a new set of constraints rather than eliminating them entirely. Decide to break free from the canvas and paint an entire mountainside? Great, now you have to consider things like the angles from which you can see the work, the way the lighting will fall, how long you have to complete the work and show people before the work succumbs to the weather, etc.
So I agree that creativity is strongest when operating within constraints.
The post opposes excessive constraint. An example of that would be making your examples hard and fast, inviolable rules: there are movies that use text and books that use pictures and illustrations to great effect. The constraint may be "presentation should be primarily visual and auditory, and not require much reading". The over-constraint would be "presentation must be exclusively visual and auditory, and no text may be displayed on screen".
Add to that: people who can successfully "break out of those constraints" are pretty rare. Most painters will get better results on the canvas than the mountainside.
I can't help but read between the lines on that quote: "As a businessperson, you know that deciding a direction is hard. Foist your half-baked ideas off on the technologists, and blame any shortcomings on over-constraint, on their failure to accomodate all possible pivots."
> As a technologist, you know that the worst thing that you can do is over-constrain the problem before you start.
From what I've read on this subject, this is not the worst thing you can do. The absolute worst thing you can do from a creativity standpoint is be completely unconstrained. That "blue sky" thinking leads to a lack of focus that prevents you from coming up with good solutions. The startup mentality of "embracing constraints" is more than just a rationalization that tries to turn a negative into a positive...it's an observation of how to best creatively problem solve.
There's no doubt that over-constraining can also have negative consequences, but if you've got little to no natural constraints, it's almost always best to invent some reasonable constraints prior to diving in and trying to solve the problem. It's okay to document those constraints and, perhaps, make changes if you find the problem you've created to be intractable. But operating without those constraints, whether real or self-imposed, is the absolute worst way to approach any creative problem solving endeavor.