Is your business a quantum computer?

A little more than a decade ago, I dove deep into quantum computing algorithms, specifically Shor’s algorithm which can find the factors of very large numbers very efficiently. As a mathematician, I love thinking about those problems.

Classical computers have a very hard time with factoring large numbers. Even the fastest machines can take thousands of CPU-years to solve those puzzles, for numbers with more than a few hundred digits.

Quantum computers on the other hand, can reveal the answer in just a few steps, which, by the way, would break many of the currently existing cryptographic algorithms — once quantum computers become an actual reality.

How can quantum computers do this? They can interact with a field of possible factors, and, with a trick called the quantum Fourier transform, reveal a pattern that leads back to the factor that works.

When I learned about the details, I became both fascinated and confused. Fascinated by the possibility of operating on a potentially large field of inputs in parallel. Confused by the ideas behind it. How did researchers even come up with the ideas and concepts?

Just a while later, I moved to Eugene in Oregon. And if you are a little familiar with Eugene, you might not be surprised that, here, I had an encounter a spiritual telling me about this new research field of quantum physics. She told me that it proves that peace on earth is possible. She wanted to spare me the details on the proofs (because they were very difficult to understand for mere mortals like).

This time, I felt quite judgmental, angry, and again confused.

Judgmental, because I was pretty sure that the spiritual healer I was talking to had no idea what a quantum fourier transformation is, or even the background to understand it. Angry because I felt belittled by her. And confused because the concepts of quantum physics seemed intuitive to her, whereas I found them completely baffling.

It took me a while — and some other experiences — until I understood more about where she was coming from. But a few realizations helped:

As a mathematician, I am trained to argue with precision and defensible proofs. So, whenever I come across a situation where I didn’t agree with the decisions made, I start to gather data, create metrics that underpinned my concerns or would disprove them.

In one particular case, I surfaced some data about the usage pattern of the product that I was working on, that really underpinned my concerns: we were not building the product that our users were looking for. They were simply not using them. It was so clear that the company even made the metric I surfaced their north-star metric.

But: To my surprise, the product decisions didn’t really change. I was still puzzled by the product iterations that I saw, and my own arguments were dismissed — just as before the metric came into existence.

The north-star metric connected our brains. It clarified that we had the same goal to get the product used, but it didn’t change anything about the fact that there was still an infinite number of possibilities on how to get there. And the metric itself did not put any constraints on which ones we had to explore.

This was defined by how we felt about the metric.

The product team was certain that the way to get there was going to be an arduous and frustrating experience through and through with an exciting breakthrough in the end. So having a metric that proves that we are not there yet didn’t really prove that anything was wrong: a long spree of frustration was expected.

I personally thought that the path to move the needle would be also arduous, but also one of joyful creation, some sadness about experiments we had to let go of, and continuous learning. I thought it was time to let go of some beliefs, and focus on smaller experiments that would lead us to understand the problem space better.

Needless to say, I wanted to interact with a very different field of possibilities.

The team was not aligned, and eventually the project was abandoned in silent shame and maybe some sadness.

To be clear: I am not saying that my approach would have provided a better outcome (although I have lately been reading a lot of books that suggest so.) I am just saying, there was no alignment, or the framework to get there.

What I missed with my mathematical approach was that there was no shared language on how we felt about the future of the product. This is what high-functioning teams have. And this does not have to be difficult to get there. Patrick Lencioni, for example, stresses that not everyone has to agree, but everyone needs to be heard. If everyone is heard, it is easier for the team to commit to one way of seeing the problem space.

When teams align, it is not only about getting the measurable KPIs right. Sure, they are helpful to define the outcome that wants to be achieved, and that can constrain the possible solution space, but there is more to it, and it requires paying attention.

Paying attention to the infinite space of possibilities. Measuring how reality aligns with these possibilities in the future and now. That means we pay attention to our own feelings and those of others, and we work towards some “quantum entanglement” inside the team. Which in this case is just a fancy word for “alignment and commitment.”

But it is easy to believe that if the team is well entangled, and working with commitment towards a common goal, they build a strong force to manipulate reality. Just like a quantum computer can build a measurable force to surface a truth that classical computers cannot find.

And now I know, that’s what the spiritual healer was talking about. Some of these sub-atomic quantum principles look awefully familiar when we look at human relationships.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the subatomic forces physicists have proven that we can achieve world peace, but the conceptual similarities are definitely interesting.

Why I find the quantum computing analogy interesting at this point in time

In a time when people can build businesses on the internet, it won’t take much longer until agentic computing is advanced enough that agents can build or run large parts of a company.

Clearly, people are already thinking about prompting an LLM agent with: “Here is a million dollars. Build a company that looks like X, and send the profits to my bank account.” For some businesses this will probably even work, because their workflows are so automated that they are easily reproducible. In a few years, the machines will likely be better at thinking through the ways to an outcome.

But LLM agents are no quantum computers. Aligned teams can make leaps in finding truth that connect people — people who ultimately become customers — in ways AI might never be able to accomplish. Is your company ready for it?

With care,

Martin