When the usual answers aren't enough

Most hard problems aren't short on effort.
They're short on lenses.

macgyvering takes a problem that's stuck and builds a way through it from what's already at hand.

Discover possibilities that conventional approaches can miss. Combine what works. Challenge what doesn't. Get to the next good decision faster.

See a Real Exercise The Idea
Faceted gold macgyvering emblem and wordmark
The advantage

EXPLORE IN HOURS
WHAT MIGHT TAKE WEEKS.

Compress the search, not the proof.

macgyvering can explore a much wider field of possibilities in a fraction of the time a conventional exploration might require. The hard work of engineering, validation, and execution still matters. The difference is knowing sooner where that work may be worthwhile.

The Idea

The pieces may
already be there.

Sometimes we don't have the right tools. We have a paper clip, some duct tape, and whatever else is within reach. But we still need to find a way out. That's macgyvering.

Most stuck problems are like that room. The pieces of a solution are often already there: in other fields, in abandoned work, or in a rule nobody thought to use.

The trouble is that people keep looking from the same few directions - and seeing the same few answers.

What’s already within reach that nobody has put together yet?

What You Get

More than ideas.
A way forward.

The goal isn't to produce more ideas. It's to discover what might work - and find out what doesn't.

01

See what others may miss

Examine the problem from directions outside the usual field of view.

02

Build from what exists

Combine overlooked mechanisms, knowledge, and resources into potential solutions.

03

Keep what survives

Challenge assumptions, reject unsupported routes, and name the weaknesses in what remains.

The deliverable

An honest, decision-ready brief: where to put effort first, what the recommendations won't do, and what evidence would change the advice.

One three-hour exercise · How to handle Orbital Debris

ONE OF THE WORLD'S HARDEST PROBLEMS. MACGYVERING FOUND A DIFFERENT PLACE TO START.

1,414Distinct possibilities explored
70Potential solutions synthesized
3 hoursApproximate exploration time

I put the problem of orbital debris through macgyvering's 138 lenses. After examining 1,414 distinct possibilities, the engine produced 70 potential solutions. But one of its most important findings wasn't a new way to remove debris. It was that a company should first determine whether removing debris would actually be worth doing. The exercise also uncovered possibilities involving international cooperation, technical controls, and new ways of approaching the problem.

macgyvering gives you exploratory findings, not validated solutions. It yields new ways of looking at the obstacles and the work.

Inside the Orbital-Debris Discovery Exercise

Fresh Eyes Can Give You a Wide View.

How do we tackle the problem of removing derelict spacecraft and orbital debris? It's more than a capture problem. It also presents a problem of trust, consent, and control. I approached the problem from the perspective of a company that operates thousands of satellites, using macgyvering's multi-stage discovery engine.

I don't know anything about the space industry and certainly not debris cleanup. But when I put the problem through macgyvering, 70 potential solutions emerged. One was particularly interesting: could a spacecraft owner's authority be built into the command system itself, rather than relying solely on agreements between governments?

I don't know whether that particular idea would work. That's a question for aerospace engineers and the people responsible for these missions. What interests me is that macgyvering found a different place to look for an answer. And it did so in a field I knew almost nothing about.

The first discovery challenged whether the proposed solution was necessary. Another revealed that a problem of international trust might also have an engineering solution.

Read the Orbital Debris Discovery Brief.

One Proposed Solution: Owner Co-Signature Final Approach Interlock

What changes: The object's owner would retain a separate authorization key. Final approach and grapple closure would require co-signature, while autonomous safety responses remain available.

What still needs proof: Resistance to bypass, emergency safety, independent verification, and whether the design would actually build sufficient trust.

The larger lesson: A diplomatic obstacle may also have an engineering component.

The Standard

A possibility isn't a solution merely because it's clever. It has to survive contact with the facts.

macgyvering accelerates discovery. It does not replace specialist review, feasibility testing, or operational validation.

The next question

What have we
not seen yet?

A problem that's stuck may not need more effort in the same direction.
It may need a different direction altogether.

I'm interested in the problems that have resisted the usual answers.
I'd like to hear about it. I'm here to help.

Call me