The illusion of understanding cause and effect in complex systems

Also know as the "you're probably firing the wrong person" effect.

Consider the following market share evolution model (which is a very bad model for many reasons, and not one that should be considered for any practical application):

(1) $s[t+1] = 4 s[t] (1-s[t])$

where $s[t]$ is the share at a given time period and $s[t+1]$ is the share in the next period. This is a very bad model for market share evolution, but I can make up a story to back it up, like so:

"When this product's market share increases, there are two forces at work: first, there's imitation (the $s[t]$ part) from those who want to fit it; second there's exclusivity (the $1-s[t]$ part) from those who want to be different from the crowd. Combining these into an equation and adding a scaling factor for shares to be in the 0-1 interval, we get equation (1)."

In younger days I used to tell this story as the set-up and only point out the model's problems after the entire exercise. In case you've missed my mention, this is a very bad model of market share evolution. (See below.)

Using the model in equation (1), and starting from a market share of 75%, we notice that this is an incredibly stable market:

(2)  $s[t+1] = 4 \times 0.75 \times 0.25 = 0.75$.

Now, what happens if instead of a market share of 75%, we start with a market share of 75.00000001%? Yes, a $10^{-10}$ precision error. Then the market share evolution is that of this graph (click for bigger):


The point of this graph is not to show that the model is ridiculous, though it does get that point across quickly, but rather to set up the following question:

When did things start to go wrong?

When I run this exercise, about 95% of the students think the answer is somewhere around period 30 (when the big oscillations begin). Then I ask why and they point out the oscillations. But there is no change in the system at period 30; in fact, the system, once primed with $s[1]=0.7500000001$, runs without change.

The problem starts at period 1. Not 30. And the lesson, which about 5% of the class gets right without my having to explain it, is that the fact that a change becomes big and visible at time $T$ doesn't mean that the cause of that change is proximate and must have happened near $T$, say at $T-1$ or $T-2$.

In complex systems, very faraway causes may create perturbations long after people have forgotten the original cause. And as is for temporal cases, like this example, so it is for spatial cases.

A lesson many managers and pundits have yet to learn.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

The most obvious reason why this is a bad model, from the viewpoint of a manager, is that it doesn't have managerial control variables, which means that if the model were to work, the value of that manager to the company would be nil. It also doesn't work empirically or make sense logically.

Why asymmetric dominance demonstrates preference inconsistency and spoils market research tools

(Another old CB handout LaTeXed into the blog.)

Recall from the example of ``The Economist'' [in Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational] that the options to choose from are

$A$: paper-only for 125
$B$: internet only for 65
$C$: paper + internet for 125

When presented with a choice set $\{B,C\}$ about half of the subjects pick $B$; when presented with choice set $\{A,B,C\}$ almost all subjects pick $C$. This presents a logic problem, since if C is better than B then there is no reason why it's not chosen when A is not present; if B is better than C, then there is no reason why C is chosen when A is present.

Logic is not our problem.

The reason we care about ``rational'' models is that they are the foundation of market research tools we like. In particular, we like one called utility. The idea is that we can assign numbers to choice options in a way that these numbers summarize choices (sounds like conjoint analysis, doesn't it?). Once we have these numbers we can decompose them along the dimensions of the options (yep, conjoint analysis!) and use the decomposition to determine trade-offs among products. We denote the number assigned to choice $X$ by $u(X)$.

As long as there is one number * that is assigned to each choice option by itself, we can use utility theory to analyze actual choices and determine what the drivers of customer decisions are. One number per option. Consumers facing a number of options pick that which has the highest number; this is called ``utility maximization,'' is extremely misunderstood by the general public, politicians, and the media, and all it means is that the customers choose the option they like the best, as captured by their consistent choices.

That is the problem.

Suppose we observe $B$ chosen from $\{B,C\}$; then utility theory says $u(B) > u(C)$. But then, if we observe $C$ picked from $\{A,B,C\}$ we have to conclude $u(C) > u(B)$. There are no numbers that can fit both cases at the same time, so there is no utility function. No utility function means no conjoint, no choice model, no market research --- unless we account for asymmetric dominance itself, which requires a lot of technical expertise. And forget about simple trade-off methods.

Meaning what?

Suppose we want to ignore the mathematical impossibility of coming up with a utility function (who cares about economics anyway?) and decide to measure the part-worths by hook or by crook. So we divide the products in their constituent parts, in this case $p$ for paper and $i$ for internet.  The options become $\{(p,125), (i,65),(p+i,125)\}$. We can try to make a disaggregate estimation of the part-worths using a conjoint/tradeoff model.

The problem persists.

If $(i,65)$ is chosen over $(p+i,125)$, that means that the part-worth of $p$ is less than 60. That is the conclusion we can get from the choice of $B$ from $\{B,C\}$. If $(p+i,125)$ is chosen over $(i,65)$, that means that the part-worth of $p$ is more than 60. That is the conclusion we can get from the choice of $C$ from $\{A,B,C\}$.

A marketer using these two observations to design an offering cannot determine the part-worth of one of the components: the $p$ part. It's above 60 and under 60 at the same time.

Oops.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
* Up to any increasing transformation of the utility function numbers, if you want to get technical; we don't, and it doesn't matter anyway.

Evolution of information design in my teaching

People change; books and seminars help.

No, not "empower yourself" books and seminars. Of those I cannot speak. Presentation and teaching books and seminars, that's what I'm talking about. It all starts with this picture (click to enlarge):

I made that picture one evening, as entertainment. I was cleaning up my hard drive and started perusing old teaching materials; noticed the different styles therein; and decided to play around with InDesign. After a while I ended up putting online something that I believe has useful content. It includes some references, which is what I'm writing about here.

Though I'm writing about the references, I cannot overemphasize the importance of the seminars. Tufte's books explain all the material (and the seminar's potential value is realized only after studying the books); but the seminar provides a clear example that it works. Some may read the books and go back to outline-like bullet point disaster slides because they don't trust the approach to work with a live audience. Tufte's seminar allays these fears.

The HBS seminar is more specific to teaching, but for those of us in the knowledge diffusion profession it's full of essential information. There are books on the case method and participant-centered learning, but they are not comparable to the seminar. I know, because I read the books before. And when the seminar started I was skeptical. Very skeptical. And when the seminar ended I reflected on what had happened - the instructor had made us, the audience learn all the material I had read about, without stating anything about it. Reading a book about the classroom skill would be like reading a book about complicated gymnastics.

But, even if one cannot attend these seminars, here are some references that help:

Edward Tufte's books and web site contain the foundations of good information design and presentation.

Made to stick, by the Heath brothers explains why some ideas stay with us while others are forgotten as soon as the presentation is over.

Brain rules, by John Medina, uses neuroscience to give life advice. There are many things in it that apply to teaching and learning; in addition, the skill with which Medina explains the technical material and the underlying science to a popular audience, without dumbing it down, is a teaching/presentation tool to learn (by his example).

Things that make us smart, by Donald Norman, a book about cognitive artifacts, i.e. objects that amplify brain powers. I also recommend his essay responding to Tufte, essentially agreeing with his principles but disagreeing with his position on projected materials.

Speak like Churchill, stand like Lincoln, by James Humes, should be mandatory reading for anyone who ever has to make a public speech. Of any kind. Humes is a speechwriter and public speaker by profession and his book gives out practical advice on both the writing and the delivery. I have read many books on public speaking and this one is in a class of its own.

The non-designer design book, by Robin Williams lets us in on the secrets behind what works visually and what doesn't. It really makes one appreciate the importance of what appears at first to be over-fussy unimportant details.

Tools for teaching, by Barbara Gross Davis covers every element of course design, class design, class management, and evaluation. It is rather focussed on institutional learning (like university courses), but many of the issues, techniques, and checklists are applicable in other instruction environments.

These references helped me (a lot), but they are just the fundamentals. To go beyond them, I recommend:

Donald Norman's other books, as illustrations of how cognitive limitations of people interact with the complexity of all artifacts.

Robin Williams design workshop, which goes beyond the non-designers design book. E.g.: once you understand the difference between legibility (Helvetica) and readability (Times), you can now understand why one is appropriate for chorus slides (H) and the other for long written handouts (T).

Universal principles of design, by William Lidwell, Kritina Holden, and Jill Butler is a quick reference for design issues. I also like to peruse it regularly to get some reminders of design principles. It's organized alphabetically and each principle has a page or two, with examples.

On writing well, by William Zinsser. This book changed the way I write. It may seem orthogonal to presentations and teaching, but consider how much writing is involved in class preparation and creation of supplemental materials.

Designing effective instruction, by Gary Morrison, Steven Ross, and Jerrold Kemp, complements Tools for teaching. While TfT has the underlying model of a class, this book tackles the issues of training and instruction from a professional service point of view. (In short: TfT is geared towards university classes, DEI is geared towards firm-specific Exec-Ed.)

As usual, information in this post is provided only with the guarantee that it worked for me. It may - probably will - work for others. I still stand by the opener of my post on presentations:

Most presentations are terrible, and that's by choice of the presenter.

In defense of BS (Business Speak)

Let's leverage some synergies, the comedian said and all laughed.*

This happened in the middle of a technology podcast, the sentence unrelated to anything and off-topic. Such is the state of comedy: make a reference to a disliked group (businesspeople) and all laugh, no need for actual comedic content.

Business-Speak, or BS for short, does have its ridiculous moments. Take the following mission statement:

HumongousCorp's mission is to increase shareholder value by designing and manufacturing products to the utmost standards of excellence, while providing a nurturing environment for our employees to grow and being a responsible member of the communities in which we exist.

There are two big problems with it: First, it wants to be all things to all people; this is not credible. Second, it is completely generic; there's no inkling of what business HumongousCorp is in. Sadly, many companies have mission statements like this nowadays.

Back when we were writing mission statements that were practical business documents, we used them to define the clients, technologies/resources, products, and geographical areas of the business.

FocussedCorp's mission is to to design and manufacture medical and industrial sensors, using our proprietary opto-electronic technology, for inclusion in OEM products, in Germany, the US, and the UK.

This mission statement is about the actual business of FocussedCorp. Mission statements like this were useful: you could understand the business by reading its mission statement. It communicated the strategy of the company to its middle management and contextualized their actions.

FocussedCorp's mission statement is what was then called a strategic square (should be a strategic tesseract): it has four dimensions, client, product, technology/resources, and geography. Which brings up the next point:

Most BS is professional jargon for highly technical material, just like the jargon of other professions and the sciences. So why is it mocked much more often than these others?

Pomposity is a good candidate. Oftentimes managers take simple instructions and drape them in BS to sound more important than they are. In some cases this might even be a form of intimidation, along the lines of "if you question my authority, I'm going to quiz you in this language that you barely speak and I'm fluent in."

Fair enough, but there's much technical jargon in work interactions and only BS gets chosen for mockery. Professionals and scientists do use their long words to the same pompous or intimidating effect as managers, and the comedian in the podcast is as unlikely to know the meaning of "diffeomorphism," "GABA agonist," or "adiabatic process" as that of "leveraging synergies."

I suspect the mockery of BS rather than other professional jargon has to do with the social and financial success of the people who work in business, and therefore are conversant in BS. The mockers are just expressing that old feeling, envy.

They can't play the game, so they hate the players.

------
* Leveraging synergies means to use economies of scope, spillovers, experience effects, network externalities, shared knowledge bases, and other sources of synergy (increasing returns to scope broadly speaking) across different business opportunities.

Online learning can teach us a lot.

Online learning is teaching us a lot. Mostly about reasoning fallacies: of those who like it and of those who don't.

Let us first dispose of what is clearly a strawman argument: no reasonable person believes that watching Stanford computer science lectures on YouTube is the same as being a Stanford CS student. The experience might be similar to watching those lectures in the classroom, especially in large classes with limited interaction, but lectures are a small part of the educational experience.

A rule of thumb for learning technical subjects: it's 1% lecture (if that); 9% studying on your own, which includes reading the textbook, working through the exercises therein, and researching background materials; and 90% solving the problem sets. Yes, studying makes a small contribution to learning compared to applying the material.

Good online course materials help because they select and organize topics for the students. By checking what they teach at Stanford CS, a student in Lagutrop (a fictional country) can bypass his country's terrible education system and figure out what to study by himself.

Textbooks may be expensive, but that's changing too: some authors are posting comprehensive notes and even their textbooks. Also, Lagutropian students may access certain libraries in other countries, which accidentally on purpose make their online textbooks freely accessible. And there's something called, I think, deluge? Barrage? Outpouring? Apparently you can find textbooks in there. Kids these days!

CS has a vibrant online community of practitioners and hackers willing to help you realize the errors of your "problem sets," which are in fact parts of open software development. So, for a student who wants to learn programming in Python there's a repository of broad and deep knowledge, guidance from universities, discussion forums and support groups, plenty of exercises to be done. All for free. (These things exist in varying degrees depending on the person's chosen field -- at least for now.)

And, by working hard and creating things, a Lagutropian student shows his ability to prospective employers, clients, and post-graduate institutions in a better country, hence bypassing the certification step of going to a good school. As long as the student has motivation and ability, the online learning environment presents many opportunities.

But herein lies the problem! Our hypothetical Lagutropian student is highly self-motivated, with a desire to learn and a love of the field. This does not describe the totality of college students. (On an related statistical note, Mickey D's has served more than 50 hamburgers.)

The Dean of Old Mizzou's journalism school noticed that students who downloaded (and presumably listened to) podcasts of lectures retained almost twice as much as students in the same classes who did not download the lectures. As a result, he decreed that henceforth all journalism students at Old Mizzou would be required to get an iPod, iPhone, or similar device for school use.

Can you say "ignoring the selection effect"?

Students who download lectures are different from those who don't: they choose to listen to the lectures on their iPod. Choose. A verb that indicates motivation to do something. No technology can make up for unmotivated students. (Motivating students is part of education, and academics disagree over how said motivation should arise. N.B.: "education" is not just educators.)

Certainly a few students who didn't download lectures wanted to but didn't own iPods; those will benefit from the policy. (Making an iPod required means that cash-strapped students may use financial aid monies to buy it.) The others chose not to download the lectures; requiring they have an iPod (which most own anyway) is unlikely to change their lecture retention.

This iPod case scales to most new technology initiatives in education: administrators see some people using a technology to enhance learning, attribute that enhanced learning to the technology, and make policies to generalize its use. All the while failing to consider that the learning enhancement resulted from the interaction between the technology and the self-selected people.

This is not to say that there aren't significant gains to be made with judicious use of information technologies in education. But in the end learning doesn't happen on the iPod, on YouTube, on Twitter, on Internet forums, or even in the classroom.

Learning happens inside the learner's head; technology may add opportunities, but, by itself, doesn't change abilities or motivations.

Quants make good scapegoats

Inspired by this post by Eric Falkenstein, here's some advice to managers:

You need a quant. If there's any risk you'll make a mistake, and if your boss, board, or stockholders are dumb enough to accept a pass-the-bucket excuse, you need a quant!

Quants make good scapegoats. Nobody likes smart people, nobody understands their elaborate models, and everybody wants to beat up the kids whose success is based on being smart and knowing difficult technical stuff.

You may be thinking finance is the only field blessed with such great flak-catcher posts as "Chief Economist" and "Head of Analytics," but if you're in marketing or strategy, quants are now available to you as the whipping boys for the ignorant to feed upon.

Forgot that marketing is about creating and delivering value to customers, first and foremost? (Oh, you were texting during that MBA class?) No problem, for only a zillion of your stockholders' dollars you can buy a CRM system that will support your multiple decisions to force churn the bottom 10% of customers -- until there's no one left. Then you don't need to bother with the pesky customers and can blame SAP/SAS/Accenture/Whomever. Never mind that these CRM purveyors tried hard to explain what you were doing wrong; they'll take the blame because they can't succeed by attacking their clients. At least they understand this.

No time for strategic thought? Why bother with complicated things like understanding the sources of differential advantage or identifying potential threats? You can get always a quadruple-PhD's macro-economic model to take the blame when you miss out subtle indicators, such as your competitor buying your only distribution channel. Odds are that your golfing buddies... I mean your board will side with you over the kid who can't tell a mashie from a niblick.

Don't like your quants' recommendations? Ignore them. Got in trouble? Point the finger at the nearest quant. Odds are that when quants start explaining nobody will listen, anyway. Nobody ever wants to listen to knowledgeable smart people. And the quants will be on the defensive, with only the truth on their side... and truth is so overrated in these post-modern times.

Get a quant! They're cheap insurance against your incompetence.

Because not everyone may notice this is sarcasm, my position on the above is summarized by the chyron with which I finish all my modeling classes:

Unlike the managers who blindly trust them, computer models cannot be fired.

Some observations on being an Accidental Tourist

In a bit over 20 years of business-related travel, most of it for one- or two-day engagements of the peroration-plus-consulting type, I have collected some ideas that have made travel less miserable.

These are ideas that work for me, derived from observation, planning, experimentation, and reflection, all in the context of what I do in these trips, which is talk to people about highly technical business topics, generally wearing business attire and usually including a presentation of some kind that requires last-minute edits and some data processing on-site. Yes, these details matter. Little of what's below applies to Jean-Michel Jarre going on tour.

Don't check bags. The site OneBag elaborates on this -- for tourists, mostly. As a business traveller for whom flexibility is important, I find that being able to carry all my stuff, fast and without having to negotiate ramps for wheeled trunks, is a great advantage.

After working through a large collection of rolling carry-ons and hanging garment bags, I've settled on a Victorinox trifold bag. Yes, the tri-fold may harm the suits if you're such a novice at packing that you don't know how to pack a suit for travel. But the small size and light weight, the large open space, and the backpack conversion (for when you have to lug it over miles, oh, say, in Heathrow airport, if you're ever so unlucky as to be forced to fly through it) are worth the small risk.

For some one-day trips, I take only a Brenthaven Urban backpack; its design and all-black look are professional enough to not clash with the clothes, and judicious choice of suit and chinos will allow the suit jacket to work as odd jacket (hung during the flight), while the suit pants & vest and the other clothes take up the rear compartment of the backpack. (Bundle packing is worth learning, if you travel much.)

If you need to get a large bag from place A to place B when you fly from place A to place B, say a lot of A/V equipment in a Pelican case, use a messenger service like UPS or FedEx. This doesn't work well internationally, but is a good alternative domestically.

Multitaskers are very important. Smart phones and high-end laptops are worth carrying; the Kindle, not so much. Because I do data analysis and the occasional data processing on the road, I have to carry a full fledged MacBookPro instead of a MacBookAir. I'm hoping for a new iPhone next week which will replace a gaggle of small electronics: phone, iPod Touch, voice recorder, GPS, camera, camcorder, and ebook reader.

The main point about multitaskers is not the particular choices I made, but an attitude of doing more while carrying less. For entertainment, I used to carry DVDs to watch; now I have movies on the computer. To work on downtime, I used to bring a stack of papers to read; now I bring them as PDFs. If in my office I'd print them to read off paper, but on the road I make my adjustments.

The quintessential multitasker, the Swiss Army Knife, of which I have several, is sadly no longer a staple in my travel, as the ridiculous "security" rules in place now preclude it.

For some critical tasks, you need the optimal tool, even if it is a unitasker. Neckties are unitaskers, in fact their task is just to be present, but they are a part of business attire and must be worn to many social functions. Presentation remote controls are unitaskers, but the difference between being at the podium operating the computer and doing the theater that is a live presentation makes it worth carrying some of these. (One? Are you kidding? Critical equipment requires backup.)

Backups are very important. Everything in the laptop is replicated in a portable hard drive, obviously, and all the critical materials are replicated again in several flash drives, each with a full set of copies. Everything important is also on the cloud -- encrypted, of course. But that's just the obvious backing up.

There are other things to backup: your flight, your hotel, your transportation. Having backup plans for these help. It doesn't mean having the reservations on several flights and hotels, but rather knowing available alternatives. There's a big difference between letting the front desk at the hotel try to help -- assuming that they try -- and having a list of hotels and their phone numbers ready.

Backing up your presentation doesn't mean just backing up the presentation materials. It may mean backing up the presentation strategy. My most important backup is a high-quality print of my handout, which can be photocopied just-in-time if all other materials fail. (I generally send the handout as a PDF early, so the client can make and distribute copies in advance. And I always try to get the contact of the point person whose job is to get these handouts made, distributed, etc. Of the times I don't get a point person contact, it's best to carry copies myself. Pays to make 1-page handouts.)

I always carry my prescription glasses, even though I never wear them, which makes them no-taskers. They back up my eyes' ability to hold contact lenses. If it's temporarily lost, I don't want to be blind. (Of course I carry extra contact lenses; but that's no use to me if for some reason I can't wear them.)

And entertainment or social commitment backups are also a good idea. If I was planning to spend a free afternoon hiking in the hills near my hotel, a list of nearby museums and rare music stores is a good thing to have in the event of rain. If my plans to exercise vigorously are cancelled by being tired from presenting, having a map of local parks and eateries is a good idea.

The main thing here is the attitude that there must be more than one alternative to everything important. It doesn't need to be planned -- though I've found out that planning and researching does help. With time and experience, I have built a personal library of ideas to serve as alternatives at the drop of a hat. Now I never need to watch TV in the hotel to pass the time. (I take a look at the news, especially if I find out via the web, feeds, and twitter that there's something interesting there.)

Always carry a notebook and pen. Ubiquitous capture, as they say in Getting Things Done. In my case, it's more a matter of remembering ideas, of quickly sketching out presentations, or doing some recreational math or drawing while on the move. Making notes helps me remember things (as Field Notes say, I'm not writing to remember it later, I'm writing to remember it now).

I've used Moleskines more than other options because I like the elastic close, the place-marking ribbon, and the back pocket. But I'm not a snob, and use various notebooks. Mostly I buy these from the museums I'm a member of, supporting the arts and differentiating my notebooks from those of other consultants.

I like fountain pens, but they are not practical for in-flight use. Even the Rotring Initial doesn't work well -- though it doesn't leak. I've used a variety of high-tech pens (including the Fisher space pen), but I found that carrying a nice Montblanc Starwalker Rollerball and a couple of Papermate ballpoints is best. The MB impresses upon people what good taste I have (it was a gift) and the others give me two additional colors to think with and they're essentially disposable (I won't care if a borrower never returns them).

Audiobooks turn wasted time into useful time. True in all situations, like walking or running, and certainly for waiting in line while the airlines mutate their customers from sheep to sardines. (Mintzberg's joke.) But in my case audiobooks make a significant difference in the travel experience. My eyes tire very easily when reading from an unstable surface; even watching a movie is difficult. (I wear very strong contact lenses.) So, instead of trying to work or read a paperback, I just listen to audiobooks. Audible has quite a large selection of both fiction and non-fiction, and I can easily go through my Platinum membership's two free books a month. In fact, I keep buying extra credits.

Of course podcasts are a cheap alternative, and sometimes a good way to get up-to-date on some specific areas. However, other than the WSJ Morning Read (which I get gratis as a Platinum member), most business-related podcasts are disastrously bad, and podcasts about strategy, innovation management, marketing, analytics, statistics, and business economics -- my interests -- are even worse. I do listen to many TWIT podcasts and several non-work related ones.

I find that I retain less of audiobooks than I do of books I process visually (ebooks or paper books). For scifi and other fiction that's not a problem, and for many non-work related books that's acceptable. For work-related books, or books that I really want to explore, I end up buying a visual copy in addition to the audio copy. (How about bundling the three options, publishers, ebook, book, and audio file, for a discount? Huh? Too advanced for you?)

As with client, so is locale and trip: a little research does a lot of good. Taking a look at a map and figuring out how your hotel, client, and airport relate to each other, figuring out the major thoroughfares, locating restaurants and convenience stores nearby, picking interesting locations to visit if there's downtime, the possibilities are endless.

Same with the trip: research the airports involved, if some are unfamiliar to you, and the amenities available at each; research the hotel and its amenities and the neighborhood. Weather is always good to know, and sometimes a quick question on internet forums catering to your personal interests may lead to interesting discoveries.

Travel vests are lifesavers. I used to wear tactical pants and tactical shirts to fly. This is a bad idea: you spend a lot of time at security emptying and refilling pockets. Two better alternatives are the fanny pack and the travel vest. With either you just put them on the conveyor belt without taking anything out of their pockets. I used to prefer fanny packs (worn in front), but some places have "no bag" rules, and some airlines want to count them as your personal piece of luggage, so travel vests won.

In my experience nothing beats a Scottevest travel vest; its pocket-in-pocket architecture allows me to keep things organized, its structure lets me carry a lot of weight with comfort, and its Personal Area Network is a great way to keep wires out of the way. I have several cargo vests, including two Scottevests, a Columbia, a Trail Designs, and a Paul & Shark, and I'm buying more Scottevests.

Avoid airline food, drink as much water as they'll give you, and carry multivitamins. Airline food is not as bad as it's made out to be, but just barely. If you want to eat airline food, ask for one of the alternative meals when you make the reservation. Alternative meals are usually handled more carefully and generally better prepared.

Depending on the arbitrariness of the day's security personnel, you may be able to bring outside food into the plane, say a sandwich from a good deli. I used to bring several protein bars and eat them in lieu of food. If all fails (the TSA page says you can bring food, but you might be made to miss your flight by the petty tyrants manning the x-ray machine if you argue that point with them), not eating for a few hours is not a big deal.

Water is important, though. Dehydration decreases your ability to speak clearly, your mood regulation, your cognitive abilities, and especially your brain executive function. Keep hydrated. I'm shameless in my quest for airborne water; you need to be, given how unfriendly the skies have become.

Multivitamins are important because on the road you may not have time to eat right, or to eat, outright. Vitamins are more necessary than other nutrients, so making sure they're available is important.

Plan your clothing, and I don't just mean the outfits. But do plan the outfits. In my case this is fairly easy as I travel with conservative color schemes for everything but ties and pocket squares. (What? Wear a tie without a pocket square? The horror!) Add backup underwear and shirts. You always end up needing one more than you thought.

Not wearing tactical pants for travel means you can wear chinos, which -- in a suit emergency or in some social situations -- can dress down a business outfit to a business casual outfit. Yes, there are many places where this matters. Chinos can then multitask as travel, walk-around, and business casual clothes. Sorry, 5.11 pants.

Black sneakers are not shoes. But, as a last resort, when your oxford shoes are dripping wet due to your inadvertently walking on the rain-filled potholes that your client's city calls sidewalks, they might work as part of a business casual ensemble. And you can exercise with black sneakers as well as with those with funny colors.

Exercise works out the kinks of travel. Even if the hotel doesn't have a health center (what kind of cheap-ass hotel doesn't have a health center of some kind or a swimming pool?), doing some calisthenics in your room or going for a run -- even an energetic walk -- helps get those lactic acid deposits out of the muscles. It also helps relax and re-oxygenate your body.