SAP & Psychology?
When I studied economics, the discipline that most fascinated me was behavioral economics. Fascinating because it contradicts classical economic theory quite heavily by claiming that human beings are generally not able to behave rational (in the sense of being consistent in your choices) and do not always optimize their utility (in the sense that decisions you make are not always good for you). And it explains why, using psychology.
One of the pioneers of Behavioral Economics is Daniel Kahneman and his work was first considered blasphemous but eventually won him the "Nobel Prize in Economics" in 2002.
I recently got around to reading his bestseller "Thinking, Fast and Slow", which had been on my reading list for quite some time. Between last occupying myself with his theories and reading his book, I had been working in SAP projects for a number of years. And so I found myself constantly remembering situations from my daily work that showed the same behavioral patterns that Kahneman describes.
In this series, I will try to record those findings for my own future reference (this is why I include page numbers), but would also like to share them with anybody interested. I will focus on the findings relevant to my work in SAP, yet the book also includes plenty of observations relevant to your private life.
Overall, I strongly encourage everyone interested to read the book and use this article series as a reference, just like I do. No summary would do the book justice, as it is in itself already a condensed summary of Kahneman's work.
The research: Why and how you think fast and slow
To get us all on the same page, let me give you a brief introduction to the concept of the book before I start to present my findings:
It sets out (page 20) by explaining that our thinking (in a very abstract way that most psychologists would frown at) happens in two "systems" - the fast one ("system 1") and the slow one ("system 2"). This is a recurring theme throughout the book.
"System 1" is intuitive, fast and our gut feeling. It takes us through most of the day and does a good job when thinking is not really required. Examples: Your reflexes, solve 2+2, reading a text in a familiar language, riding your bicycle.
"System 2" is slow and requires our attention. It's only activated if "system 1" cannot solve a task or needs affirmation for a conclusion it has drawn. Your pupils will usually dilate when system 2 is active. Examples: Solve 23 x 17, read a text in a foreign language you are not familiar with, learn to ride a bicycle, be "in the zone" while coding ABAP 😉.
You won't have a problem talking to someone else during your regular drive to work. The driving happens automatic. Your system 1 is at work, and it is easily capable of multi-tasking. If, however, something unexpected happens (e.g. accident in front of you), "system 2" will kick in, you will be highly focused on the situation and unable to have a conversation at the same time - no chance for multi-tasking here.
Sounds like a perfect division of work? It is - usually. Because sometimes your system 1 thinks it's right and doesn't bother to alert system 2, even though it should.
The Müller-Lyer illusion is a very good and basic example of this (page 26): If you've never seen the image, you (your "system 1") will think one line is shorter than the other and not bother to check. If you're being told about the error, system 2 will take over, you will get a ruler, see for yourself and memorize it. Next time you see the image, system 1 might shortly activate "system 2" to check what that image was all about. If you see it the third time, system 1 will not bother and you'll "know" that both lines are the same length.
But even if your "system 2" kicks in, it may be in a "lazy" manner. Take the following puzzle from Kahneman's book (page 44), which you should try to answer it intuitively):
A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
Most people will answer that the ball costs $0.10, but the correct answer is $0.05. While system 1 readily activated system 2 to solve this puzzle, "system 2" was being "lazy" and confirmed "system 1's" intuition because the answer seemed plausible. Even for those who have seen this puzzle before, $0.10 will come readily to mind, but they also know that this answer is wrong and will put more effort into finding the right one.
The SAP Example
I have a quite simple approach regarding OSS Calls: They are free (unless the customer has a special arrangement), so if I cannot find the solution to an issue quickly, I don't wait until I've asked in the forums or my colleagues, I just raise one. I can always close it the next day if I have found the solution in the meantime.
When I raise a call, I (almost) always prepare a word document with screenshots and detailed steps to reproduce. While those steps help SAP to understand my problem clearly, it also has the benefit of putting my "system 2" to work, especially when taking screenshots and describing what I seen in them.
In that process I sometimes notice that I was the one making a mistake all along, so the detailed writing of the steps to reproduce forces me to question every single step I have made, which enables me to find the issue.
From Kahneman's book I can now infer that my mistake was likely caused by my "system 1" thinking it knows what it's doing and even though my "system 2" was alert during the following iterations of trial & error, it was being lazy - until it was forced to work by looking at the screenshots and describing the apparent error they contained.
A similar example of the workings behind this is how difficult it is to proof-read your own texts. "System 1" will recognize the text as familiar and you have to try really hard to keep your "system 2" working to find your own mistakes, and will probably fail.
The Lesson
My takeaway from this was to be aware that my mind might trick me into believing I know the right answer when it may not be right after all. However, this is easier said than done. Because - as explained - system 1 only consults system 2 when needed. And even then, system 2 may be in "lazy" mode and support an answer based on weak evidence.
In my SAP projects, I do not continuously question all my decisions. That would be too tedious (mentally). And after all, part of the value I provide to my customers is my experience and that is system 1 at work and knowing when system 2 should be consulted.
What I do try to do is watching out for important decisions that I or my team make, that is, mostly effort estimates of customer requirements but also advice we give to customers regarding the way their SAP journey should go.
In those instances, I try to be my own devil's advocate so that I have to justify my or our decisions to myself.
Appendix: "Nudge"
It may have occurred to you after reading this first post that behavioral economics might be used to manipulate others. You are not the first with that idea, marketing departments around the world work tirelessly to exploit errors of choice for their purposes (more on that in later parts).
There are, however, good applications of behavioral economics. Richard Thaler, who also won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in 2017, wrote a famous book called "Nudge" (still on my reading list), which suggests policy makers do just that: "nudge" people towards the choice that will serve their long-term interest, while still giving them free choice (Kahneman, page 413).
Example: When you sign a work contract you might be asked if you want to contribute some of your earnings to a pension plan. Research shows that people tend to stick to the default option (i.e. do nothing). So when the text reads "Tick the following box to contribute 10% of your earnings to a pension plan", most people will not tick the box. However, if the text reads "We will contribute 10% of your earnings to a pension. If you do not want this, tick the following box." most people (at least more than in the previous example) will choose to contribute as this is the default option.
You still have choice. But you may have also guessed already that "free choice" is really an illusion. Being aware of this, to me, has been a great improvement, or at least I have that illusion 😀.
In that sense, please use errors in choice and behavioral economics to make your life and that of your friends, colleagues and customers easier. Nudging is as far as you should go (I will probably mention examples in following parts). Don't try to exploit it to the disadvantage of others. I'm not sure if it is even possible, given that there is still no rule for successful marketing campaigns.