Mike Walling

Mike, owner of 3Dynamic, is a pro in the industrial and mechanical design industry. Would you believe that, as a child, a particular line of LEGO® kits set him on that path?

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

[ Introduction ]

Welcome to the Strategic Play Podcast.  Unlock Your creativity, expand your mind, and have good clean fun with Strategic Play founder and LEGO® Serious Play® Master Trainer, Jacquie Lloyd Smith, and creative force and curious mind, Mark Millhone.

Mark: 
Hello, Jacquie.
Jacquie:
Hello, Mark. How are you?
Mark: 
I’m very excited for our conversation. it’s such an interesting time, in any field, but I think particularly in innovation fields, design fields, places where creativity meets real world challenges. It’s just such a fascinating moment and I think we’ve got a really great guide in Mike Walling to tell us about how this space is shifting and changing. Don’t you?
Jacquie:
Yes. I think this is going to be a really fun conversation. Mike is definitely on that leading edge of using innovation to create new things, and I’m very interested to hear what he has to say. 
Mark: 
Here’s some background on Mike. Mike Walling is the lead designer and owner of 3DYNAMIC, with over 20 years of experience in the industrial and mechanical design industry. His career path started in the specialty vehicles department of Western Star Trucks. Mike has a varied design portfolio, ranging from electronics enclosures to helicopters and with an emphasis on prototyping and concept development.
For the last three years, he has been lead designer for KXI Wildertec Active Suspension Project. He has been a certified LEGO SERIOUS PLAY facilitator since 2019.
Jacquie:
That’s right. So he does all of that and plays with Lego, which makes him a perfect guest for us. So let’s go say hi to Mike.
[ Interview ]

Mark: 
Mike Walling. Great to see you, once again. I’m so excited to have you on the podcast. 
Mike
Yes. thank you for having me. I’m very happy to be here.
Mark: 
Great. Well this is the way we place Strategic Play in the podcast. My cohost, the Master Trainer of Strategic Play, Jacquie, gives a prompt for you to develop. Jacquie, what is the prompt that you gave Mike Walling?
Jacquie:
I asked Mike to build a small model of the work that he’s doing, because I know he’s doing some fabulous work and I kind of left it really open. I thought maybe he could do whatever he thought was fun. So Mike, what did you build? I have a picture of it. But tell me: What is this?
Mike:
As with most things with Lego, it’s definitely interesting trying to take your thoughts and your processes and build them into a metaphorical model. So what I did is I tried to build a 3D graph that shows the relation between time and complexity and creativity. 
Jacquie:
Wonderful. Okay. So I’m looking at the model and I see a guy on—with a top hat. And he has some kind of a stick in his hand. Can you tell us, who’s that? 
Mike
Yes. So that’s me. I was kind of imagining the entire process as sort of an orchestra. And I’m conducting an orchestra with the other people that I work with, partners and clients, sources and providers. And it’s—there’s a lot of interrelation between all the different parties in order to make a project work. 
Jacquie:
Right. Okay. And I see a big cog with some kind of a gear behind it. And then I see something else with kind of twisties. It’s got like a string around it. can you tell us what that is?
Mike:
Well the cog is supposed to be a clock. And then the twisty mess of things is, I guess, a representation of complexity. 
Jacquie:
Oh. Okay. And then how about the big stick with the green bush on top?
Mike:
Well that is the end of the graph where all of the things sort of accelerate through infinity. So that’s maximum creativity on the vertical axis of the graph. So at some point, with unlimited time and unlimited complexity, you end up with just an explosion of creativity.
Jacquie:
Wonderful . That’s great. I love it. I love it. That’s super. So maybe just to jump into the work that you do, how would you sum it up? If you ran into somebody on an elevator and they said, “Hey, Mike. What do you do?” What would you tell them in a short snappy, I don’t know if you could—what would you say?
Mike:
Yes. so basically, what I like to tell people is that I take ideas and turn them into realities. So effectively what happens is a lot of times people have an idea of where they want to get to, but they don't have a path to get there. So I use techniques—well, basically, I use digital CAD systems in order to prototype ideas. And then I coordinate with manufacturers in order to go from a conceptual idea to a physical product that can solve a problem.
Jacquie:
And this is all with mechanical—like, this is all out of metal, or what is it? Do you work in plastics? What do you work in? 
Mike:
All different materials. So that's one of the things that I have is a broad base of information in terms of different materials and their work abilities and how they work with each other. And the material that's selected is highly dependent on the desired outcome. So some things are much better to make out of plastic. Plastic can be a very lightweight solution that's easy to work with, provided you don't need a high level of strength. Or sometimes we might choose an aluminum or steel. It's constantly in flux. And sometimes you start a design with one material and you find that it's not going to work, and you're forced to change to different materials. So that's all part of the process. 
Jacquie:
Okay. So I have to ask another question about this, because this is really fascinating. So—well, maybe I'll go like this. What is—tell us one project that you have worked on that's been the most fun for you. 
Mike:
Well, currently I'm working with a company called KXI. And we are developing a fully automatic suspension system—suspension and steering system. What's currently going on a light truck—a light-duty truck. And it has been a massively creative process. And we use a lot of what's called finite element analysis, which is essentially a computer model that represents a relationship between the amount of force that goes into an object and how the material reacts to the forces going into it. So in order to reduce material weights and reduce cost of production, there's a high level of testing that goes into a prototype. 
Jacquie: 
Okay. So your prototype isn't out of Lego. It's actually a truck. 
Mike:
It's an actual real product. Yes. 
Jacquie:
That's so cool. So when you build these and then you test them, so they're testing the prototype right in the field, then. They're taking it out and trying to make it do the things that they want it to do? So give us some examples of what this truck would do. 
Mike:
Well the company that we're developing for has the idea of using it for things like backcountry search and rescue, forest firefighting, mineral exploration, and things of that matter. They want to develop a vehicle that is capable of going to places that no other vehicle can go to, and they want to be able to put a driver in the driver's seat with a minimal amount of training. So they're effectively trying to make the back country more accessible. 
Mark: 
Oh.
Jacquie:
Okay. So that's interesting. So the constraints really are—what about weight or cost? Are those constraints as well? Or are they just trying to, with the prototype, try to do it first and then figure out how to make it more effective and efficient? How does that process work? 
Mike:
Well, that—those are absolutely concerns. I mean, developing a new product is always going to be expensive. I don't really know that there's a real way around that. But there is definitely a balance between whether you incur those costs on the engineering side or whether you incur those costs through prototype development, because the engineering side can also be quite time intensive.
So we kind of have a mix of both of those approaches going on right now. So we have a certain number of components that are highly engineered and we have other components that it was cheaper and easier to simply fabricate them and test them in the field.
Jacquie:
Okay. Wow. Mark, what do you think? Doesn't this sound interesting? 
Mark: 
Yes. I'm really struck just with the degree of complexity that you're talking about. And there's real resonance for me in the model that you've shared of, you are like conducting an orchestra and the image that I'm getting from your model is that there are other players that are in this space, which would be fellow artisans, technical experts, clients. But in a way, when you look at this as a creative process, the collaborative elements then become things like maybe the stress test of what carbon fiber does versus steel versus aluminum. These become sort of collaborative factors in helping to orchestrate these different solutions. 
And I can just see how much knowledge you must have in terms of: Okay, there's these different off-the-shelf solutions. They can get us to this point. How do I visualize the gap then between what has been made before and can be repurposed and what must be made anew.
So I think they are tremendously lucky to have someone like you who can visualize something really almost in four dimensions. Because you're also having to look at the dimension of time, maybe the dimension of cost, and trying to get all these different elements to come together at a given place and time and budget point for a person's needs.
So, yes. It's tremendously complex. One question that I would have for you is, when you're not actually at your desk, if you're out walking the dog and you're just kind of brainstorming along the project. I mean, how is it that you visualize it? Is it sort of like a three-dimensional space and you're kind of like imagining this part of the process over here and there's kind of fuzziness. What's the mental model that you have in terms of how you're modeling this creative process for yourself in the work that you do?
Mike:
Well, I think you summed it up really well there, Mark. And, yes. We definitely do use third party solutions. I mean, you quite often don't have the time or the budget in order to recreate all the wheels. So quite often we are sourcing parts from third party suppliers, which sometimes is an absolute blessing.
And other times it's a limitation that we have to work around, especially if it's a complex part, which we can't then make to work with our current design. But, yes. I quite often have a hard time getting these things out of my head. So even when you punch off the clock at the end of the day and slide down the dinosaur, you still have all the gears and cogs turning in your head.
And I find that the way I picture things and imagine things is actually very similar to the CAD platforms that I use. And I typically have a 3D representation inside my head that I'm constantly thinking about and going over. And quite often, I will have ideas or epiphanies that I then have to go back to the CAD platform and realize, and sometimes those ideas work and sometimes they don't.
But using 3D CAD platforms is very much so a physical representation of the way that I picture things in my head. So it's an incredible tool, really. And it only seems to be getting better as we progress into the future. So as we start looking at things like augmented reality, I'm very excited to see how potentially I could have these things sitting in my living room and manipulate them in real time.
Jacquie:
That is cool. So you told us about the truck project. Do you have another, or I don't know whether some of the stuff that you've done is top secret and you can't talk about it, because I would think that if I was hiring you to do a prototype of something that I was going to take to market, I might not necessarily want you to be talking about it. So do you have some of that kind of stuff too that you're not really able to share?
Mike:
I do. Yes. I have projects where I have NDAs where I'm not free to talk about them, and then other projects where it's okay to talk about them at a high level, like this KXI project, since they are broadly advertising.
Jacquie:
Right. 
Mike:
But we absolutely would not talk about any sort of mechanisms or complex systems that are proprietary and cannot easily be discerned by looking at photos that are available to the public.
Jacquie:
Right. Okay. So maybe, can you give us another example of something that that you've done or that you've worked on?
Mike:
Yes. So I love what I do. I love it when I get these massively creative projects, but I also get other projects that aren't quite as imaginative where I have to work within the bounds of existing structures. So I've done a lot of reverse engineering. So I had a big project where I had to reverse engineer the entire tail section of a helicopter because parts were no longer available.
So I had a company that came in and they requested that I essentially come up with a solution, because when the helicopter was originally designed, it was designed by engineers in the ‘50s and ‘60s using slide rules. So you end up with a bunch of profiles that don't fit together as well as you would like, which ended up twisting material in a way that made it hard to manufacture. So through reverse engineering, you're able to make very slight, almost unnoticeable changes that actually make the assembly much easier. 
Jacquie:
That is so cool. 
Mark:
Yes. That's really fascinating for me. I mean, the idea of how the tools end up shaping what gets created in a way that if you're working with a product that you're having to reverse engineer that was made with slide rules, which was made at a time where they didn't have AutoCAD to sort of model these things and to do sort of virtual stress tests based upon the different factors that you can put in there. Yes. It's really interesting to kind of look at how the tools end up shaping the solutions that you come up with. 
Mike:
Absolutely. Well, and having computers, having technology frees you up to come up with much more elegant solutions, in ways that you may not have been able to imagine without the use of a 3D CAD system.
So in my time working at Western Star, there are a lot of engineering drawings that, again, were done in the early days of the company and they were all done by hand. So guys would come up with solutions, and they would have to draw it out with a pencil and a piece of paper on a drafting board. And some of the drawings that people did, you look at and it's absolutely mind blowing that people were able to draw things with such complexity without the use of computers. 
Jacquie:
Yes. That’s pretty cool.
Mike:
We're really being—the opportunities or the potential is boundless as we start relying on computers more and more for assisting in design. 
Mark:
I think it's just really interesting. I think that there's—I feel like there's both plus and minus. I mean, and this might be something where I'm kind of dating myself. I mean, a lot of the work that I do as a creative is in the content creation space, filmmaking space. And like, one thing which I noticed that I'll do with a student is they'll be editing something and I'll sort of see the situation and I'll say like, “Well, here are your next seven edits to sort of like see what I'm suggesting you try here.” And they'll just say, “How do you know what the next seven edits are?” And I said, “Well, that's just how I learned how to edit.”
I learned in very sort of labor intensive ways. I was either cutting actual film or I was cutting videotape. And if I didn't think like seven edits ahead and have that sort of in my mind, then I could get myself into real challenges. I guess part of the curiosity that I have is, as the tools become more facile, does the process become in a certain way more complex because there's more avenues that are available to you?
Mike:
Yes. I would say so. I mean, especially when you start looking at things like artificial intelligence. And artificial intelligence is already being put into use in design. And one of the very interesting avenues is again back to that finite element analysis. People are doing these analyses using AI. So AI will come up with 100 different designs. And then you can go through each one of these designs, and you really realize how many how many different ways there are to skin the same cat. So, I mean, we are limited as human beings in terms of how much we can visualize and how many different options we have to pursue a design.
But ultimately, we typically end up I mean, this is kind of—the goal of coming up with elegant solutions. So basically, what you're trying to do is you're trying to eliminate any extraneous detail and reduce the number of parts that are used in assemblies and that sort of thing. So the more you work through a number of designs, the more the solution starts to present itself. And especially when you're working on a design and you realize: Agh! This just isn't going the way that I want it to go. And I don't like the way that it’s shaped. I don't like the way that the forces are transferred through the parts. And it puts you in a position where sometimes you have to scrap everything that you've been working on for the last day or two days and start again.
And it's quite often a blessing in disguise. Because by working through this process, you can end up with just something that you're really proud of, something that works exactly the way that it's supposed to work. And that reduces the cost of production and ends up making your clients very happy. And I find that very rewarding.
Jacquie:
That's great. I mean, it's really interesting to hear you embracing—obviously, you've always embraced computers and been working on these kinds of programs. I think a lot of people in the creative space are a little bit nervous. I don't know, Mark, if you kind of hear that too. But I think people are a little worried that all of the artificial intelligence is going to just take over and there's no need to be creative anymore.  I hear people kind of saying like, “What's the point if you can just get a computer to do it?” But I think the way that you're using it makes it sound like you're allowing the computer to work as another tool, which you then can get ideas from so that you can brainstorm things that perhaps are going to work.
I mean, these computers are going to keep getting smarter too. So I just sort of wonder. And it's funny, because I think about people that went to school and just got degrees not that long ago. I was saying after I did my MBA, then we had the big financial crash and kind of everything I learned was almost like not relevant because everything had changed.  
And now I'm thinking, with the age of computers and with the artificial intelligence that now is available to everybody, the game has changed again. And so it's sort of like, I think the call to action is to continuously stay on top of everything that's coming out and have an open mindset. Think like a designer, maybe, and say, “How can I use this? What can it do for me? How can I bring it into what I'm already doing?”
Mike: 
Absolutely. Well, at this point, I personally haven't seen any threat from AI. I believe that there's still a long way to go. But it is definitely a tool that people are adapting and modifying and attempting to use in every facet of industry, I think. And from my point of view, I mean, I'm excited to use it. I think that there will always be a place for designers at a high level. And I mean, if I can use a machine to improve my workflow and my ability to produce solutions and results, I'm quite happy to employ those tools and techniques. So we'll see how things shape up in the next 10 years, I suppose. 
Jacquie:
Yes. I mean, it's not even that. It's like in the next 6 months, what's going to happen? It's so fast, right? 
Mark:
No, completely. And there was a story I heard recently about one of the first big tests of artificial intelligence, where it was a computer playing chess against the grand master. And it got to this place where the grand master had the knowledge of all of the different moves and how things have been played throughout all of history. And so it worked the way in which human intelligence works, meaning we tend to pair off the unessential so that we can focus on what is most useful and pertinent.
And what happened in this match was that the computer didn't have the benefit of really all of the different ways that this had happened and what was the most essential way to look at it. It just looked at every single way that you could look at it. And in the end, it came up with what was, from the perspective of this grand master, a stupid move because it wasn't part of how this practice of chess had evolved. But it opened up this new opportunity, which allowed the computer to win that game.
And I think that the grand master, and maybe I can find this out so we can add to the show notes, he then retired. It was just like: If I'm no longer the master, then my time is done. And the challenge I think is to—how can we embrace all of these new tools as sort of co-intelligence. 
Jacquie: 
That's the answer. Yes. Instead of saying something’s going to replace me, because really, I mean, once you play a game with the computer, then the computer has that. So it's not like I can remember every move that Mike made if we were playing chess, but the computer can. And the computer can—that's what they're doing. They're constantly getting smarter. But I think the challenge really is for all of us is to think about, not just computers but also working with each other and collaborating in order to get better ideas all the time. An individual person doesn't really come up with that many ideas.
Most ideas come from talking to other people, being exposed. Somebody says something, you see something. This is really kind of the way we all get smarter. So it'll be interesting. We now have a new friend called a computer that's getting smarter along with us.
Not to say that there aren't any threats, because I think that we would be naive to think that we shouldn't keep an eye on all of that. But I think that as far as creativity goes, if we can use these things and we're not afraid of them, I think that’s the biggest thing that we want to make sure we're not, is that we don't fear it.
Mike:
Well the one thing that computers are really good at, as Mark said, is presenting ideas that haven’t previously been considered. And it's really interesting when you watch a chess game, and if you play chess, you recognize that a lot of the moves and a lot of the way that a game develops is very similar to other games.
And especially, I mean, I've played a little bit of chess. And I know enough to know that anyone who's good at chess typically has openings memorized. So if it's a timed game, you'll watch people go through half the game and you think to yourself, how are they doing it that fast? Because they know what's coming. They've memorized the openings. They've memorized the strategy. And it's— and when you see this, the game slow down, you know that, that's when they've reached the point where no one has the openings memorized anymore. 
Jacquie:
Ah, or the next move. 
Mike:
Yes.
Jacquie:
So how would you say those patterns then, if you think about the chess game and the patterns that you just explained, do you see that in the work that you do? Where it's at first, people have things memorized that they do, or there's a pattern, and then all of a sudden it kind of stumps you? Is that sort of what happens? 
Mike:
Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. Because you're always going to go to the simplest solution first, right? So if you see a problem and you think to yourself: I can solve this problem with a technique that I've used previously. And we already have all the connections and we know the parts are available. We are immediately going to jump to that solution because it's going to save us time, money. It's going to be easier to procure the parts and assemblies. And it's not until you hit a wall that you really have to rethink your approach. And it happens constantly, especially with what we're doing right now. We're currently using a chassis from a major vehicle manufacturer, and I don't know if you've ever looked under the hood of your car. But it's incredible how complex it is. They are jamming so many parts and systems into such a small space that you really don't have a lot to work with. So a lot of times we're pulling systems out and moving them and changing them and rerouting them. And then we have to work with what's left. We have to work around the components that we can't move.
And in that sort of a scenario, sometimes you have no choice but to develop a solution that you don't necessarily like at first and is more complex than you would like it to be. But ultimately, you are able to make it work. And you strive to simplify that as much as possible. But, yes. Sometimes you're forced to completely rethink the way that you're doing things.
Jacquie:
That's interesting. So maybe that's where innovation lives is when you hit the wall. 
Mike:
That's definitely where innovation lives.
Jacquie:
Yes. It's like, yes—if it already exists. But I think this idea of getting white label solutions or ideas that are already pre-packaged that somebody has already done in order to move you ahead in the creative process, I think that's really important. Because innovation lives in the space where there's a problem and there is no solution that we know of. And maybe even the computer doesn't even have the answer. So you kind of walk the dog or go to the beach and then you come up with: What if we try it this way? And then, as you said, sometimes you test stuff out and it works and sometimes it doesn't work. And that's got to be time consuming. 
Mike:
It's absolutely time consuming and you really start to see why it is so important for companies to be able to capitalize on major investments that they've made in coming up with these sorts of ideas, because there's quite often a very significant amount of time and money that goes into developing these sorts of systems. And in order for it to be feasible, you really have to be able to recoup that investment. 
Jacquie:
Yes. And I guess this is the idea of hiring people like you who are not just logging hours but are actually curious enough that you're working through the problem with them. Because I think that when I listened to you talk about the work that you do, it sounds like you love it. And it does sound like that you're highly engaged and you're also highly committed to getting the solution. 
Mike:
Yes. I definitely love what I do, and it depends on the project. I mean, it's interesting working through different projects. You can really feel when the fire gets ignited. There's lots of repetitive work that has to be done. There's lots of data processing that goes into it as well. And sometimes it's really hard to feel the initiative to be creative, and sometimes there's situations where it's not really possible to be creative.
And I sort of have to suffer through those times, but they really do make the innovative design sessions much more enjoyable and much more worth it. You can really feel when the creative juices start to flow, so to speak. And that's really what makes this job worthwhile. That's what brings it all together to me for me.
Jacquie:
That's great. 
Mark:
I think it's just so interesting that relationship between the grind and the inspiration. There was a study that I was hearing about where they looked at the question of how imagination came to be and just neurologically, how it works in the brain. And so they had one of these unique situations where they were working with a test subject that had a certain part of their brain as injured. And so they were working with someone who had a challenge in being able to form memories. And they're like, okay, so that just affects the past though, so they could probably imagine things in the future. But then they found that they couldn't. That part of what needs to happen for that innovative thought to happen is that you have to kind of load all of these different facts and considerations and details into your mind until—and so that it has this four-dimensional Rubik's Cube that it can play with so that, that aha moment can happen. Like, you can't really separate the mud from the lotus, if you will, or the inspiration from the perspiration. 
Mike:
Like your library of experience that you have to be able to lean on. 
Mark:
Yes. And—go ahead.
Jacquie:

Yes. I was going to say the interesting thing, I've been reading this book and it is all about the hand. And it's an anthropology study about how the hand has evolved over years. But they have mapped out how the hand has evolved for things that humans needed. So it would have started off just basic things like eating. But then of course we started to make tools from things in the environment and we used those tools to make new tools. And as we started to—as our hands started to evolve and our shoulders started to evolve as well, so it's like the two things together, it actually—there is a correlation between your frontal cortex and problem-solving.
So when we think about how you do all this boring stuff to get to this next thing, is like Mark with his students. He wouldn't be able to answer that question with his students if he hadn't have spent hours editing. And I think it's interesting how much of that gets just passed down to the next generation through just the process of evolution of birth and that next generation learning from the group before them. And then that question comes up about how much have we forgotten, like how much—like when Mike, you talked about the paper and pencil drawings that somebody did. That information didn't get lost.
It must have gone into the next tool that we made or the next computer program that was developed. So it's interesting, not just in our own brain going through the boring stuff. But it's also the interesting of the generation before us that had to go through perhaps all that boring mathematical stuff to get to that next place.
Mike:
Well, the thing that I find really interesting that always kind of surprises me is when I am doing that sort of boring data processing type information, I actually get into it. I get into a flow state and actually start enjoying it. And then I'm kind of energized by the progress that I'm making. So there has to be some sort of innate drive to make progress, even on repetitive tasks, very deep inside your brain, as well.
Mark:
Yes. And for me that the true gift of LEGO SERIOUS PLAY is, especially as work becomes more and more hybridized, more and more virtual, to have a place where we can connect kinesthetically where we can be reconnected with our organic tactile intelligence.
We evolved as the embodied cognition of we are a physical being that has eyes in the front of its head that developed stereoscopic vision and had to manipulate tools in its environment. And that's how our brain evolved in active dynamic connection with our physical environment and the challenges and opportunities that were there.
And so it's –I think it's a really fun question to see how we anthropomorphize these tools. There was an interesting interview that I heard that was talking about: Well, how should I be using AI? And the answer really surprised me. They said that oftentimes it's computer science people and people who are really connected to AI that don't use it particularly well, because they are used to making the technology and they tend to think of it as a calculator that uses words. But the people who oftentimes do really well with it are educators or psychologists or parents, who are strong relationally. So to think of it as a co-intelligence, as someone that you're bouncing ideas off of. He said, in some ways, in the AI space, the cardinal sin is to anthropomorphize. But to anthropomorphize ends up becoming the way that you can adapt relationally to what you're experiencing in a way that allows you to make maximal use of it.
So instead of punching in this information and thinking that it will give you the answer, it's like you bringing together your information and saying, “Well, what do you think of this?” Kind of having a conversational engagement? And I don't know. It's just for me, I just find it really interesting. And it's sort of a diffuse concept, so I'm going to forgive myself for being a little bit long-winded in getting to it. But just this question of, as we create more and more technology, how we catch up to that arc of technological development by understanding it in ways that are tactile, that are relational, that end up feeding back to how we've evolved as beings in the world and understand things on a human tactile level.
Mike:
Absolutely. Well, I mean, when you look at hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of dealing with humans and talking to humans and facial cues and all that sort of stuff, to go to talking to computers and trying to think like a computer. Naturally, I think it's going to be a bit of a disconnect there. But I absolutely understand what you're saying in terms of having a tactile touch.
I mean, working within a CAD system for hours, days, weeks on end, you quite often lose your—what would be the word—your connectedness with the actual physical things that you are designing. And I find myself getting to a point where I have to put the computer down. I have to get away from it. And the best thing is to go and see the things that I've designed in firsthand, because sometimes you design and you build something and then you—it's almost difficult to imagine how big it is. So I can design something and then when I go and see it. I mean, you see 200 kg to 300 kg on your computer screen, but then when you actually go and interact with something that weighs 200 or 300 kilograms, it's like: Wow. It’s hard to imagine the forces that are going through some of these objects.
And quite often, you have to take two large things and put them together. And you have to be able to imagine what types of fasteners you need to hold them together and how big they have to be. And it's—you really kind of get into a habit of looking at the numbers and doing everything mathematically. But it's tremendously helpful to have a picture of what's going on.
And this is one of the key tenants of engineering, is—I don't necessarily know the engineering or the educational system does a great job of doing this. But they want engineers to be able to have an idea in their head of what the forces are going to be and how big things are going to be. So quite often there are questions of, “Hey, can you make an estimate of this and tell me how big you think it's going to be? Tell me how much you think it's going to weigh. Tell me what you think the forces are going to be that's going through this object.” And then afterwards, you do the mathematics and figure out how close you are to that estimate. And that can really be illuminating in terms of how your brain works and how you're imagining these problems. So it's definitely important to have a tactile touch. 
Jacquie:
Okay. So I read a fun article, quite a while ago, that was saying that—and I think things have changed now. But at one point, we were buying kids—because we knew computers were coming. So I'm going to talk about kids, maybe in the ‘90s, their parents—or even in maybe the 2000s—their parents were buying kids electronic toys. And I even remember trying to buy something for my niece. And going to a toy shop, it was probably not the best toy shop; but everything took batteries. Everything was electronic. And I remember thinking: I don't want that. I want something that is just—that the child could use their imagination with. So shortly thereafter, I read this article and it was saying that children who don't play enough with regular toys, like go outside and throw snowballs or use sticks and mud, kind of play in the real world, those kids whose parents were buying them more electronic toys were coming out of engineering school with poor spatial reasoning skills. And so I guess this leads a question back to you, Mike: Did you play with LEGO or Meccano or any of those kinds of toys when you were a kid? 
Mike:
Absolutely. I never had a Meccano set. I was never a big Meccano fan, but I had a massive LEGO collection. And it was one of the only toys that I ever really played with. It was the only toy that I ever went back to on a regular basis. And it was always—the best Christmases were the ones where there were a bunch of LEGO Technics kits under the Christmas tree.
Jacquie:
Okay. So you remember. That's funny. And would you build it like the kit? Would you follow the instructions and then build whatever it was? And/or did you take it apart and build something completely new? Like how—what was your process when you were a kid? What do you remember? 
Mike:
I remember I would always follow the instructions. I would take the biggest and coolest model— because usually in the LEGO kits, there were two instructions to make two different models. But obviously one was the major showpiece. So I would always build the big exciting assembly. And then afterwards, that's when the modifications would begin.
So I'd start by changing things I didn't like and adding things onto it. And then over time, the assemblies always ended up as a bunch of pieces in the LEGO bin. So I always loved the components. So there was—I think there was a LEGO loader that came with a hydraulic system. I think it was a pneumatic system, so it had like a pump and an air tank and hydraulic rams. And after the loader came apart, those were always the sought after components to integrate into the creative things that I came up with on my own. So I love that LEGO is continuously developing and coming out with new components. And sometimes it makes me angry that the things that are available now weren’t available when I was a kid. 
Jacquie: 
You'll have to go visit the LEGO store once in a while and buy yourself a new kit. 
Mike:
I would love to do that. Where—I don't have to go to Denmark to do that, do I? 
Jacquie:
No, no, no. You can go online. You can go to legoshop.com and they'll order it—they'll send it pretty well anywhere. But on that note, this has been great. Thank you so much. I've heard quite a few designers and engineers say that they played with LEGO when they were a kid and that's why they became a designer.
So I'm happy to hear that since we do so much with those creative toys that, that's also part of your history, too. So here's another question. You took the Playsonality assessment and—can you tell us a little bit about what your profile said and what you found out about that?
Mike:
Yes. So I am the Designer Playsonality type. And after reading through the description, I think it suits me quite well. I think it pretty much hit me on the head. I have a—I think I have a little bit of the Maker in me as well, but definitely more so the Designer Playsonality type. And LEGO has really been—it's really interesting to see that LEGO has transformed from essentially a child's toy to something that is so useful as an adult and as a designer and in the industrial space.
I think my foray into the LEGO SERIOUS PLAY started with the duck. And I still, in my laptop bag, I think I have two of the duck model kits that I use. It really blew my mind to realize how differently people think and how many different ways people are able to solve the same problem. And ultimately, what it highlights, is that everyone has a different mental map.
And really, when you are working with other people and you're communicating with other people, you are trying to describe things and solve problems and communicate with them in a way that they can understand. And quite often, I have seen two people yell at each other, trying to make one another understand the same point. They're both trying to make the same point. They both see things essentially the same way, but they don't have the same mental map. So really what it comes down to is a communication problem. And that was one of the major takeaways from all the LEGO Serious Play training is trying to work with these different personality types.
And I've always been the type of person—some people say, “Well, you have to work on your weaknesses. You have your strengths, but you have to work on developing your weaknesses.” And I find it really interesting to think I have weaknesses. So maybe that's in communication or maybe that's in some other way that I relate to other people. And it's interesting to think that, well, I could invest a whole bunch of effort bringing something that is not a strength up to the level of mediocre. Or I could direct that energy into my strengths and continue working on my strengths and then rely on other people that have the strengths that compensate for your weaknesses. And that's where team building really comes in, is that what you want to have, is you want to have a team where everybody brings a different strength to the table. But it is really important to be able to communicate with them. You have to have everybody on the same page working towards the same mission statement.
Jacquie:
Yes. No kidding. I like the way that you just said mental map, because research says that the more accurate of a mental map a team has, or like a project team, the higher functioning that team will be. So one of the big problems, and you're right, everyone does something a little bit different. Like if the three of us formed a company, we could all have completely different jobs and we would all do—and yes. And I think we do gravitate to our strengths, but you're right. I think one of the things that's really important is to be able to identify the areas that challenge you. I don't necessarily call them weaknesses as much as they're undeveloped functions.
And I think your point is really well taken. It's very difficult to be an expert in everything. You're going to pick one thing that you're going to be an expert in and—but if the team can communicate well and if people have the empathy for each other, they can augment those areas where people need support so that the team itself can become high functioning.
Because there's no way we can do it all alone and having a team is really the key. And the higher functioning your team is, is part of that. And I really think that teams that kind of like each other, sometimes it's because we've revealed something about ourselves that's made us more human that is then giving the other person an opportunity to say, “Yes. That person's not perfect and that's okay, but they're trying. That kind of team development is really hard. People don't do it, especially when people are working remotely. It's really difficult to do and it's really easy to attribute blame to somebody or to— we all want people to judge us by our intentions, but we judge others by their output.
And so it's trying to figure out how we can work together as a group to get to these—this higher level. Obviously, the team that you work with must be figuring out how to do that to be able to accomplish these amazing innovations that you're doing. And I think that's wonderful. But that often can be—the thing between good to great is how well the team communicates and works together. 
Mike:
Absolutely. And sometimes people have a blind spot, as well. And I can speak from personally that I've had blind spots, not realizing where my undeveloped skill sets are. And that's one of the things that the LEGO SERIOUS PLAY system is really good at is helping you identify where you have these undeveloped skill sets. And also working on large projects, it can be extremely frustrating when you have a good idea or when someone else has a good idea, and they're unable to communicate it to the group. And I imagine there are scenarios where many excellent ideas have ended up unrealized because the person who had these excellent ideas was unable to communicate those ideas to the group.
Jacquie:
Yes. So articulate them in a way that people could hear them. Yes. 
Mike:
Well, that's—at the end of the day that's what it comes down to is people have to hear these ideas and understand them. 
Mark:
Hearing from someone like you that's in the professional world as an employer and how that relates to education, because I think that what I hear you saying is you have to lean into your extraordinary strengths and then be able to connect with others around a common vision for what it is that we're trying to create together and be able to share your unique mental maps in a way in which you can come up with a novel solution, which is just a novel mental map that's never been made before. But in school, basically what we're conditioned, I think, both intellectually and sort of socially, is that there's one mental map. 
Jacquie:
That's right. There's one answer. 
Mike:
Yes.
Mark:
The teacher has it. And so you need to figure out what that is, but you can't share your developing mental map with anyone next to you because that's copying and cheating.
Jacquie:
Right. 
Mark:
And you shouldn't get interested in how you make your own mental maps, like, I don't know. All of this just sort of points to how important this kind of learning is, because it helps us to recognize our—the ways in which we tend to approach problems and challenges, which is ends up being what we're interested in, what is played to us is where we get extraordinary and is what can create our blind spots and can create this opportunity for communication and collaboration, innovation, if we can feel comfortable to share those unique takes that we bring to each challenge. So this—listening to you has been a masterclass to me for how we need to train people for a world in which there are no answers at the back of the book and work is no longer doing—knowing how to do your job. It’s like your job becomes knowing how to face things that no one has figured out yet. That becomes the job. 
Mike:
Absolutely. I think the work that you guys are doing is incredibly important, and I will absolutely be continuing to follow it and I'm excited to see what you come up with next.
Jacquie:
Well thanks, Mike. We'll be watching you too. And that brings us probably to the next question. How would people that are listening to this—if somebody wanted to get ahold of you, how would they reach you? 
Mike:
I can be reached from my website, which is 3dynamic. ca, and I will apologize in advance. It's an old website that has not been updated basically since it was first published. So I like to tell people I've been too busy doing the work to actually focus on my website, but it is drastically in need of an update.
Jacquie:
Well that just shows you're busy. I mean, I often laugh at these people that are really active on social media. I think, well, they must not be doing anything. They have time to be on social media and their websites look fabulous. I mean, either that or they've hired somebody. But I think it's true: The cobbler's kids go without shoes. But that's okay. Anyone that's listening to this is not going to judge you by your website. And so that's super. And this is—and what about LinkedIn? Are you on LinkedIn at all? 
Mike:
Yes, I am. I'm also on LinkedIn. So I imagine people can find me by searching for Mike Walling. Yes.
Jacquie:
That's great. Okay. So Mark, over to you. 
Mark:
Well, just thank you so much, Mike, for giving us a picture of your process and helping us see how things get made in this world. It's really just a fun exploration. 
Mike:
Yes. Well, thank you very much for having me. It's been great talking to you guys. And I hope I did a good job of explaining some of the work that I do. 
Jacquie:
No. Well, obviously, I mean, you're talking to a couple of laypeople here about a complex process. We don't even really know the right questions to ask you, but I think that, that—I think that the linkages here are pretty clear for people that are trying to solve problems and trying to think of ways to do that. So I think you did a great job explaining basically the complexity and how you orchestrate it with the element of time, which was all captured in your model, too.
So there'll be a picture of your model underneath this podcast. If people are listening to this, there's a going to be a photograph underneath it. And also your bio will be there. And if people have questions, we'll ask them to send them to us and we can always send them your way as well.
Mike:
Sounds great. Thanks again, guys. 
Mark:
Thank you. 
Jacquie:
You're so welcome. Take care. 
Mike:
Bye-bye.
[ Conclusion ]
Mark:
What a great conversation. 
Jacquie:
I know. That was so much fun. It was so interesting too, to hear about on the Playsonality that he's a designer and then him talk about playing with LEGO when he was a kid and really finding those parts. And those parts that he all mentioned, those were all like hydraulic mechanical LEGO pieces that he was pulling off to use on other things he was going to make later. So I—it's so funny to see that here he is as an adult, but he can trace that back to childhood play. 
Mark:
I was really struck by that as well. And how fun it was for us to get this view into just what someone's journey was, with design and innovation, and the way that he's bringing that same kind of playful perspective to a whole new set of toys that are coming out. Moving from CAD design tools and then now looking at it embracing artificial intelligence tools and seeing how those tools create new challenges, especially for someone who's working in a very concrete mechanical industrial field, but also create tremendous new opportunities to expedite processes and to come up with creative solutions that, without that tool, he never would have found.
Jacquie:

You’re right. I just—that conversation was really interesting. I'm sure he toned down some of the language and jargon just to make it easier for laypeople like us to understand. But a couple of the analogies that he drew that I thought were really interesting, when he was talking about playing chess against a computer. And when the computer starts to slow down, it's because it hasn't seen these moves before. And then he said that's like him. That he gets into the flow when he's doing simple things that are tasks that he needs to accomplish in order to get to the more difficult moment. But then in that difficult moment, how he has to really stop and think and come up with new solutions, which he tries. And sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. But then saying this is really where innovation comes from and then being able to reflect that as to how the computer also works when it's trying to figure things out. So I thought that was really interesting. 
Mark:
Yes, I did too. I mean, he really brought out insights, not just about technology but also about how our brains develop. That part of the human development process is that we take in a lot of information, but also as we get more and more practice in a given field, we filter out a lot of information and we tend to sort of pare down the neural networks to that which is most efficient; and that can be tremendously helpful. But in some ways, innovation is where, like you said, where we hit the wall, where we're forced to pause to reevaluate things. That's a sort of—it can be a positive disruption of our thought process that allows us to look at something from a different angle, which becomes that opportunity for creativity. I love the way that we can see this, not as something which kills creativity or takes over creativity, but it can be a positive disruption and help us to see a new creative opportunity. 
Jacquie:
It's interesting. I was at a LEGO conference, and Dean came and spoke. And he is the inventor—a lot of people know that he was one of the inventors for the Segway. But he also invented so many things, like the portable dialysis machine. And he was really hands-on with the LEGO Mindstorms ® robots. And one of the things that he said is, it's in that moment where it's really dark and you feel like you're completely stumped. And you're just about ready to give up. And it's usually in that moment where it's really, really difficult is there's the transition that comes up with that next great idea. So he was just sort of saying that it feels awful when you're stuck and you're there and you don't have the answer.
And then it's like magical once you kind of move. And I'm sure that for a lot of us, you get into that dark spot and you just say, forget it. And so tenacity is also—it's tenacity. It's faith. It's a belief that you can do it. It's mindset. It's all of that, that goes into how we encourage ourselves to continue when we're chased with a—we're faced with a really difficult problem and then the ability to be creative in that moment.
And  I heard Mike talk about that, which I just thought was really—that's how inventors operate. 
Mark:
Wow. Well, I've got chills. I'm feeling inspired myself. How can we invite our listeners to this party? Do you have a challenge for them that was inspired by our conversation today?
Jacquie:
Well, I think one of the things that would be really fun—I'm going to give two. So if people are experiencing that time when you've been really stuck and then something happened that transitioned you into that next moment where you came up with a great idea. I mean, if you want to build that or even just tell us a story, that would be really fun.
If there's other people that are thinking about how what they do now is really—they can trace back to play when they were a child and they can see that connection, I'm always interested in hearing those stories as well. So I'll leave it open. And I'll just—anything that you heard in this podcast that you thought was inspirational or gave you an idea, we'd just like to hear from you.
So go ahead and build a model or take a picture or draw a picture, and send it over to us at hello@strategicplay.com. Or if you're listening to this podcast in our community site, please post under it and we'll keep the conversation going. 
Mark:
Awesome. Well, I, I look forward to that and to our next conversation. Thanks for making time today, Jacquie. 
Jacquie:
Thank you, Mark. That was lots of fun. Till next time.
Mark:
Until next time.
[ Outtakes ]
Jacquie:
Even Einstein said: You can't know it all. 
Mark:
Yes. He was probably close, though.