Book Review-Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Innovation

Creativity seems to have some mystical property to it. It seems like some people are creative and others are not. It’s like someone is born to be an artist, and another person is born to be an accountant. In Creativity, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi dispels the notion that creativity is something that you’re born with and begins a journey with us about how creativity might be encouraged or discouraged. Creativity, it seems, is a pretty difficult thing to pin down, because it means different things to different people.

The real story of creativity is (as Csikszentmihalyi explains) “more difficult and strange than overly optimistic accounts have claimed.” Creativity is context-sensitive and sensitive to subtle environmental factors that are hard to detect and, in some cases, even harder to create. We’ve learned that creativity is hard to predict.

On Becoming Creator

When the first creation myths arose, we were primitive apes that could barely survive except through our work with one another, and even then with haltingly high numbers of casualties. However, over time, we’ve taken over the role of creator as we began to shape and control our world.

Our creativity wasn’t a thing when we were struggling for survival, but now that we’ve placed ourselves in the creator role, we feel the need to ensure that we’re always creating.

Catching Creative

Some of the most creative ideas ever thought have been lost to the sands of time. It’s not enough to have a really good idea. Every truly creative thought can only be defined as such once someone has decided that it’s creative. Everett Rogers, in Diffusion of Innovations, explains how an innovation can be spread in a community. He, at the same, time tacitly acknowledges that even a good idea might not diffuse its way into a community without the right conditions.

It takes more than just the next creative idea. It takes a recognition that the idea is creative and useful for it to possibly catch on. Creativity is validated by the domain that it’s creative in. That requires the right mix of different and the same – or at least acceptable.

Defining a Domain

Sometimes, new domains are created by creativity, but, much more frequently, creativity exists inside of a domain. A domain is defined by the symbols and routines that define it. That is, a domain is a set of agreements about how things will operate. There’s a language that is used, a way problems are approached, and a set of rituals.

A domain is the space, and a field is the people in that space. The people in the field understand the domain, including its rules, and choose to operate in it – at least sometimes. By operating in a domain and learning the semantic rules, the field has developed an enhanced schema for the information in the domain. (For more about schemas see Efficiency in Learning.)

A side effect of the enhanced internalized schema for the domain is that it can make it difficult for outsiders to penetrate the domain. Developing the baseline understanding or schema for the domain is difficult, because those in the field have “the curse of knowledge” and cannot – typically – understand what it’s like to not know the field. (See The Art of Explanation for more on “the curse of knowledge.”)

Crossing Boundaries

Creativity often is the crossing of boundaries in domains. Sometimes the boundary is the division between the domain and another domain. Simply leveraging marketing concepts in communication can be creative. So, too, can the person who brings manufacturing insights to creating websites. The point is that the creative person often has experiences beyond the domain and brings those experiences with them as they come back to participate in the domain again.

When we think of Edison, we think of electricity and the lightbulb. Few people recognize that Edison’s experience and expertise expanded well beyond these two simple things. He did substantial investigation into rubber in his later years and even created a failed voting machine in his early life. For the lightbulb, he employed and consulted with dozens of experts on gas lighting, metallurgy, and other topics to intentionally bring together different domains to try to infuse creativity into the very nature of his work. (Find out more in Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World.)

The Medici family – whether intentionally or unintentionally – did the same thing in Florence. They brought together experts and masters and caused them to interact. (See The Medici Effect for more.) The result was the spawn of the Renaissance period. It was the crossing of boundaries that fueled this period.

The ONE Thing

The ONE Thing, by Gary Keller, suggests that we should focus on only one thing and ignore the rest. Well, actually, you’re encouraged to find one thing in each area of your life – but focus is the key goal. Jim Collins, in Good to Great, encourages focus through the analogy of the fox and the hedgehog. Robert Pozen, in Extreme Productivity, explains how focus can help you get more results – and simultaneously acknowledges that much of his own life has been driven by serendipity – happy accidents.

The road to mastery of a domain seems to be driven by Anders Ericsson’s research on peak performance – as explained in Peak. It encourages the focused, purposeful practice that takes time – though he doesn’t simplify it to the level that Malcolm Gladwell does in Outliers with 10,000 hours. Whether it’s more or less than 10,000 hours, the point is the time investment required. The problem with this is that these kinds of time investments can’t often be made in multiple areas.

The draw of this research and approach is the simplicity of getting good at one thing. However, as the canal conductors learned, sometimes outside forces – like the railroad – can transform or eliminate your industry nearly overnight.

Lean Agility

An often-overlooked aspect of both agile software development and lean manufacturing is in the way that you make decisions. You’re encouraged to make reversable decisions where possible and, when not possible, delay decisions as much as possible. While lean is focused on the elimination of waste, it acknowledges that making decisions – particularly irreversible ones – too early yields more waste. (There’s more about lean in my review of The Heretic’s Guide to Management.)

Agile development is focused differently, towards a better end product, but the results are the same: you’re expected to explore, discover, and make investments that will yield the information necessary to make better decisions. Necessarily when you’re exploring, you’re going to backtrack and find new paths – you’ll be focused on more than one thing.

Creating Confidence

Tom and David Kelley have nurtured creativity in many through their company IDEO, the Stanford d.School (design school), and their books. Creative Confidence focuses on the barriers that prevent us from believing we’re creative – the lies we’ve been told that it’s not a part of us. The Art of Innovation instead focuses on the factors that help creativity (and therefore innovation) to grow. In it, Tom Kelley shares the idea of a Tech Box, which contains a set of random things that may be useful in building a prototype or just sparking an idea. The Tech Box contains a random set of things from many different industries. They’re just interesting objects.

If we want creativity to be driven from inside of us, we can’t drag along a Tech Box with us wherever we go. Instead, we must collect a set of experiences and learnings that we can draw upon as we’re confronted with new, novel, and interesting challenges.

Not in a Person

Creativity isn’t, Csikszentmihalyi explains, “an individual phenomenon.” Instead, it’s the environment that a person finds themselves in, including all the resources and barriers in the system. (If you need a primer on systems, Thinking in Systems is a good place to start.) The Difference pointed out that the diversity of thinking that comes from different backgrounds can sometimes propel groups to greater levels of productivity, creativity, and, ultimately, performance.

The environment itself can create opportunities for the creative person to decide to explore ideas further – or limit their ability to learn and grow in new directions that might be transformative in their domains.

Tension

Boiled down to a single word, creative people are complex. They exhibit characteristics that shouldn’t be compatible. They find ways to exist in the world by holding onto opposite ends of multiple spectrums and experience this without internal conflict. They can be at home in any environment, creative or not, because they can themselves exist across so many different places. The ten key dimensions that Csikszentmihalyi exposes are:

  1. Creative individuals have a great deal of physical energy, but they are also often quiet and at rest.
  2. Creative individuals tend to be smart, yet also naive at the same time.
  3. A third paradoxical trait refers to the related combination of playfulness and discipline, or responsibility and irresponsibility.
  4. Creative individuals alternate between imagination and fantasy at one end and a rooted sense of reality at the other.
  5. Creative people seem to harbor opposite tendencies on the continuum between extroversion and introversion.
  6. Creative individuals are also remarkably humble and proud at the same time.
  7. In all cultures, men are brought up to be “masculine” and to disregard and repress those aspects of their temperament that the culture regards as “feminine,” whereas women are expected to do the opposite. Creative individuals, to a certain extent, escape this rigid gender role stereotyping.
  8. Generally, creative people are thought to be rebellious and independent. Yet it is impossible to be creative without having first internalized a domain of culture.
  9. Most creative persons are very passionate about their work, yet they can be extremely objective about it as well.
  10. Finally, the openness and sensitivity of creative individuals often exposes them to suffering and pain yet also a great deal of enjoyment.

Tipping Scales

The question of what makes someone interested in something is a perplexing one. It doesn’t seem like an initial skill in something makes much difference. This is something that Carol Dweck’s work (in Mindset) and Angela Duckworth’s work (in Grit) would agree upon. The initial conditions aren’t nearly as interesting as the desire to work towards being better, but what causes someone to want to do better?

The answer may be found in looking at Judith Rich Harris’ work, No Two Alike. In it, she explains why no two children are alike. Even identical twins don’t always develop an interest in the same things. Sometimes, the advantage that one of the siblings has prevents the other from even trying. There’s a randomization to things and how one child may develop in one direction and the other child in a completely different direction.

Creativity has a similar aspect, it seems. You may develop an interest in a topic when your relative – but not absolute – skill is better. When you start to receive praise, recognition, and results, you’ll invest more and become better skilled. This process begins to feed back upon itself, and the changes can be substantial. Being able to get into and sustain the psychological state of flow can have huge impacts on long-term skill growth. (See Flow and Finding Flow for more on this.)

Inner Strength

There’s an understated theme that runs throughout Creativity. It echoes through the quotes and descriptions of creative people. There’s an inner strength to do what’s right – for them. Somewhere born out of a small advantage and hard work, there has developed an assurance that, in their chosen passion, being themselves and doing what they believe to be right and true is the only way to go.

In the description of E.O. Wilson, there’s a note about his favorite movie, High Noon, followed by, “I don’t mind a shoot-out, and I don’t mind throwing the badge down and walking away.” It’s a statement of confidence and inner strength that the person still retains the responsibility to do what they need to do. This does not, however, eliminate the need for compassion.

Compassion

Csikszentmihalyi explains, “Creative individuals are often considered odd—or even arrogant, selfish, and ruthless.” However, as was explained in the tension section above, there are often great tensions inside of creative folks. Sometimes, other people can’t quite figure out how these tensions can be resolved inside of someone else. Like looking at one of Escher’s works that looks fine in two dimensions but could never exist in the real world, they have trouble making the care and concern that a creative person often feels for his fellow man make sense.

Compassion is simply the awareness of the suffering of another and the desire to alleviate it. I’ve written about compassion repeatedly, but perhaps the best way to understand it better is to contrast it with related, but different, words as explained in Sympathy, Empathy, Compassion, and Altruism.

Creative people often become wrapped up in their awareness of the plight of humanity and the suffering of others and seek to leave their indelible mark on society by changing some corner of the world. They do this with a passion for the change and a detachment from whether they’ll ever accomplish the goal or not.

Detachment

To many members of the Western world, detachment is a bad thing. We’ve been conditioned that secure attachment is a good thing. However, our attachment to outcomes – particularly outcomes that we don’t control – is challenging. It leads us down a road of suffering, because we’re constantly shaken by the impermanence of life. Buddhists are taught that it’s attachment to our impermanent world that causes the cycle of reincarnation and suffering. (You can find a longer discussion of detachment in my review of Resilient.)

Creative people are able to stay compassionate about their world and detached enough to recognize that they won’t always succeed in alleviating the suffering of others – but that’s not the point. The point is that they should try. Maybe the thing that you should do is try to be a bit more Creative, whether you’re successful or not.

The Real Data Type for Dates and Times; and Microsoft Flow’s Perspective

It’s OK to call me old school. For me, dates are stored as floating-point numbers. It’s still that way in many applications, including Microsoft Excel. Sometimes I think of date and time as a series of seconds after a fixed time – so, a very large integer, because that’s another way we’ve classically represented dates and times in code. However, Microsoft Flow takes a different approach. To Microsoft Flow, a date/time is a string – a standard ISO timestamp.

Background

The next three sections provide some background on how we came to understand dates and times and how we represent them. If you’re just interested in the details of implementing dates in Flow, you can just know that they’re strings – and skip the background.

Tracking Dates and Times

Most of us take it for granted that we all agree it’s the same day – but until 1875, that wasn’t the case. That’s when everyone officially agreed upon the Gregorian calendar that we’re all familiar with. Similarly, few people need worry about the fact that the agreement only stabilized dates back to 1582.

Our relationship with time became more concrete around then. While we had chronometers – which were capable of relatively stable timekeeping – since 1764, it wasn’t until the introduction of the railroads that people officially standardized times to allow for train schedules that worked across large distances. Before that, “high noon” literally meant when the sun was directly overhead in the place where you are. Time zones started to be ratified across the globe, and by about 1885, we had a framework for the time zone system we use today.

The ISO 8601 Timestamp

Getting dates and times from one computer system to another is a classic problem. Storing dates as the number of days past a fixed point, as is done for both floating point and integer representations of a date, requires that everyone agree on what the fixed starting point is. The problem is that people didn’t. Sometimes they used January 1st, 1900, and other times other dates were used. This created problems where dates would seem to shift. As an attempt to resolve this issue, the ISO 8601 standard was first published in 1988.

It spells out the details of how to convey a date and time (as well as durations) in a standardized way. This addresses the difference between the folks in the US, who often represent dates in month-day orientation, and folks in Europe, who are more accustomed to day-month approaches. More than once, I’ve had to look at a date carefully to figure out what was intended because of the possibility of these transitions.

Time Zones and Daylight Savings Time

One of the tricky challenges that happens in computer systems is addressing times across time zones, particularly dealing with daylight savings time. I’m based in Indiana, and for my formative years in computers, we didn’t observe daylight savings time. Though we do today, I vividly remember my joy at not having to adjust every clock in the organization I worked for twice a year. Today, this is mostly handled automatically, but back then it would have been a task for some poor human.

When we refer to our time, we do it conveniently. I refer to 5PM in my current time zone. Two people speaking of meeting at 5PM are fine if both are in the same time zone. If they’re not, one of the people may have to wait a while. Because of time zones, 5PM in one place isn’t the same time as 5PM in another place. It sounds obvious, but it leads to a challenge when sharing times across time zones.

The solution in aviation is that all times are referenced in Coordinated Universal Time (“UTC” came about as a compromise due to the different order of the words in French), which is also called Greenwich Mean Time or, in aircraft parlance, Zulu time. This is the time zone from which every other time zone is referenced. Eastern time – my home time zone – is UTC-5. Thus, if I want to meet someone at 5PM, I’d say 10 PM, or, more properly, 2200 Zulu. That is, I’d use a 24-hour clock instead of the more common 12-hour clock with AM and PM designators that we’re used to. Well, that’s not exactly correct.

If we were observing daylight savings time when I was trying to meet, I’d have to subtract one hour, because daylight savings time advances our clocks one hour. So, it would be 2100 Zulu. One would think that daylight savings time would be consistently observed, but it’s not. Each country chooses when to observe and stop observing daylight savings time. The United States Congress has changed the official dates of observance more than a few times. So, even today, trying to understand what time it is in another place on a given day can be challenging.

The result is that the ISO 8601 standard defines a time zone designator that can indicate the time added to or removed from UTC time to get to the time indicated. This keeps the time human-readable and ensures that it’s possible to get to the exact time.

Standard Date Problems

There are a set of problems when working with dates that we’ve grown accustomed to. Adding days is easy, but adding months isn’t. Because months don’t have a standard number of days, adding a month could mean adding 28, 29, 30, or 31 days to the current date. Similarly, adding a year to the current date could mean adding 365 or 366 days – though, in practice, few people worry about this problem. The good news is that Flow’s Date and Time activities allow you to address these standard problems.

There are a second cluster of problems that Flow’s activities don’t solve. That is the common requirement that dates be expressed in terms of business days. So, if you’re a five-day per week operation, the dates should be advanced five business days. This isn’t possible directly with the actions provided, but it’s possible to leverage the dayOfWeek() method to determine how to address weekends. However, holiday observance isn’t something that’s feasible today.

Times in Microsoft Flow

The good news is that all the challenging activities – like adding and subtracting from dates and converting from one time zone to another – are available as activities. You must remember that the dates are strings. If you want to see more about the out of the box flow activities for managing dates, take a look at Working with Dates and Times inside of your flows.

Microsoft Flow, SharePoint, 429, and Throttling a Workflow to Death

We’re here to mourn the death of many a workflow instance at the hands of SharePoint’s HTTP throttling. Except it’s not SharePoint’s throttling that is the true killer. SharePoint’s just the accomplice in this crazy dance that will get your workflows killed. Though it’s possible to protect your workflow instances from being throttled to death, it isn’t as easy as it might seem. In this post, we’ll talk about what happens every day and then what strategies you can use to protect your workflow.

Request Throttling

Before we can explain how a flow gets throttled to death, we first must understand a bit about throttling. Web servers are under constant assault from well-intended users, the code written by bumbling idiot developers (of which occasionally I am one), and malicious people. One of their defenses is to respond with “I’m too busy right now, come back later.” This comes back as the code HTTP status code 429. Sometimes these responses are kinder and will indicate when the person should come back. “Hey, I should be able to take care of that request for you after seven seconds” tells the program when it should retry the request – and here’s the kicker – expect that it will be able to be serviced.

The problem is that, when you’re dealing with so many different users and so many variables, it’s sometimes difficult to predict when the server will be willing or able to service a request.

Automatic Retries

Because a server may respond with a 429, most programs know to retry the request. The strategies vary but the default answer is an exponential interval. The first time you get a 429, you stop for a period of time – say four seconds – and then each time you retry, you square the interval. So, four seconds becomes sixteen on the second retry, and 256 seconds on the second interval. Flow allows you to follow the default policy, which is described as exponential, or explicitly set the interval to exponential. To do this, click the ellipsis at the right of the action and select Settings.

The action’s space in the flow will change to the settings view, where you can explicitly set the retry policy to exponential – which will further change the view to provide spaces for a maximum retry count, an interval, minimum interval, and maximum interval.

The default settings, however, are supposed to do exponential waiting on retries and four retries. So that seems like a good place to start. The default is implemented as one try plus three retries. That is how they get to four retries.

Retry Schedule Conflicts

What happens when there is a conflict between the provided retry schedule and what the server responded with as a part of its 429 response? The good news is that Flow will use the larger of the two numbers. In theory, at least, you’ll never hit a retry more than once or twice. Sure, the server could make a mistake with its guidance once but surely not twice. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Sometimes the response from the server – and the default exponential interval – will be too small, and you’ll exhaust the three retries and end up failing your request. This typically happens when you have multiple flows running at the same time.

Parallelism

Any given Flow may not be making that many requests, but what happens when there are many Flow instances running at the same time? If you do work on a queue that information is dropped into, you can’t necessarily control how many items will come in at the same time. With the scalability of the Flow platform, what’s to stop you from running hundreds or thousands of Flows at the same time – against the same poor server that’s just trying to cope?

If you have 100 Flows all starting in a relatively short time talking to the same back end server, it may be getting thousands of requests from Flow every minute. Even if each Flow is told to retry later, even the server telling the consumer to retry later may cause the server to need to push off work even further. The result is that every Flow gets throttled to death – until so few remain that they can be handled inside of the capacity of the server.

Luckily, Flow offers a technique for limiting the number of active flows at any time. This can be done by going to the ellipsis and then Settings for the trigger. This changes the trigger to its settings display, which allows you to limit the number of concurrent Flow instances – or the degree of parallelism.

SharePoint Request Throttling

Generic request throttling is fine but how does my favorite server – SharePoint – do it? Well, the answer isn’t clear. Microsoft published an article “Avoid getting throttled or blocked in SharePoint Online“, which says that they won’t publish the rules – because they’re changing them.

At the same time, they make clear that some of the criteria being used to manage the workflow are things like user agents, accounts, and App IDs. However, when it comes to Flow, we have some limitations.

Flows always run as the user that created the Flow – not as the user initiating the request. So, from the point of view of SharePoint, one user is making all the requests – and they’re making them from the same application, Flow. This makes Flows a high target for throttling, even when you consider it’s a well-known and well-trusted application.

It turns out there’s more to it than that. There’s an interface layer that the connectors – including the connector to SharePoint – use.

Connectors and Infrastructure

Many of Microsoft’s new offerings like Flow, PowerApps, and PowerBI need access to the same service data inside of multiple tenants. As a result, the connectors use a common architecture that allows multiple services to interact with Microsoft’s online service offerings. This architecture has its own throttling built in. It’s designed to protect the back-end services and has its own rules for throttling requests that’s more aware of the uniqueness of each of the fixed number of Microsoft internal consumers.

One of the things that this infrastructure can use to manage throttling is the connection to the service. In the first figure, you’ll notice two connections in the settings menu – with the same identity. This is one way that you can help the infrastructure avoid throttling you.

Multiple Connections

When there aren’t many things to differentiate requests on, the connection is one. It’s got its own identifier. Because of that, it’s easy for the back end to see which connection a request is associated with – and throttle too many requests from a single connection. Thus, if you want to help your Flow avoid getting throttled, you can make multiple connections to the same data source. This allows your requests to get spread across different thresholds and for more to get through.

The Fingerprints Match

For my case, the Flows were getting throttled not by SharePoint directly but through the infrastructure hub. I set the maximum degree of parallelism and assigned every action in the flow to a different connection, but it wasn’t enough. I didn’t set the retry settings manually, and the default settings continued to allow my poor Flows to be throttled to death by the infrastructure.

In the end, to spare more Flows from being throttled, we moved some of the data to Azure SQL. However, we saved many Flows just by adjusting the retry strategy and concurrency and creating multiple connections.

water flowing

Microsoft Flow and Azure Logic Apps Quick Formula Expression Guide

Microsoft Flow and Azure Logic Apps are powerful tools for automation, with tons of connectors and the things that you need to do work. Microsoft Flow in particular makes the design of a workflow easy with a rich design experience – except when it comes to expressions. You’re expected to know some relatively arcane formula expression rules to make your steps work together. I’ve gathered up the things that I felt like are the most important for writing expressions into this quick guide. Let’s get started with some basic math.

Arithmetic

If you want to get tripped up in a hurry, try to write your basic math statements with the operators that we’ve come to know and love: + – * /. They’ll make your expression fail – unless you swap them for their function call equivalents:

+ add()
sub()
* mul()
/ div()

The parameters to each of the functions occur in the order you would expect. Thus, you can swap:

A*B/C+D with…

add(div(mul(variables(‘A’), variables(‘B’)), variables(‘C’), variables(‘D’))

It’s not super easy to read, but once you get the pattern, you can create even more complex statements. For now, ignore the variables() function, we’ll come back to that in a bit.

Nulls

With basic math out of the way, next it’s important to know how to deal with nulls. Dealing with nulls is two pieces. First, separating a property with a question mark (?) instead of a period (.) will automatically handle nulls for you – return a null in the end. This greatly reduces the amount of testing that you must do to ensure that you don’t accidentally reference a null value.

The corollary to this is what do you do to get a default when a value is null. Here we use the manipulation function coalesce(), which returns the first non-null object. So, if I were to do:

coalesce(variables(‘A’), variables(‘B’), ‘Default’)

I’d get A if it is non-null. If A is null, I’ll get B if it’s non-null. If both A and B are null, this will return the string ‘Default’. If you’re wanting to get a zero instead of a null, you can wrap the result in a float() or int() conversion, which will return zero when the value is null.

One Thing About Strings

There are many string functions, but one that’s particularly useful and necessary. That’s the concat() – short for “concatenate” – function. It takes two or more parameters and concatenates them into one large string. If I wanted to create an ODATA compatible filter, I might write:

concat(‘SalesProID eq ‘, variables(‘A’))

If I needed to put a single quote around the values, I’d use the escape syntax, which is two single quotes together. If I wanted to filter by OrderType, the command might look something like:

Concat(‘OrderType eq ”’, variables(‘A’), ””)

That provides a string that has the quotes needed around the value.

Getting Values

That’s good basics, but how do you get the values from other parts of your Flow into your equation? You’ve already seen one approach. That is to use variables() to fetch one of the variables you’ve defined in your flow. To do this, you simply include the variable you want to use in single quotes like this:

variables(‘MyVariableNameHere’)

This will return the value of the variable. However, it’s more likely that you want to get a variable from another step. Here, we start with the values from the trigger that are fetched with triggerBody(). If I were fetching the ID of the SharePoint item that triggered the flow (assuming that’s our trigger), I’d write:

triggerBody()?[‘ID’]

This would return the ID of the item or null. If I had another step that fetched a different item, or had some other output, I could use the body() function with the parameter, which is the name of the step. So, if the step was named “Quote” and I wanted the symbol property, I could write:

body(‘Quote’)?[‘Symbol’]

There’s one caveat here. If the step has spaces in its name, then you must replace those with underscores. To get the Quote property from the Quote of the Day step, you’d write:

body(‘Quote_of_the_Day’)?[‘Quote’]

One other common condition is when you’re working on a set of items in a For Each step. If you’re in a For Each step, you can get the values from the current item with item(). If I wanted to get the ID of the current item, I’d write:

item()?[‘ID’]

If you’re inside nested For Each you can refer to the specific item, you want to pull from by using the function items() and specifying the name of the For Each. If I had a name of a For Each Step called ‘Each Item’ inside of a For Each Step called ‘Each Order’, I could write an expression to get the order number and item number in a string like this:

concat(‘Order Number :’, items(‘Each_Order’)?[‘OrderNumber’], ‘ Item Number :’, items(‘Each_Item’)?[‘ItemNumber’])

If you want to see the full list of functions, you can go to https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/logic-apps/logic-apps-workflow-definition-language — for warning, there are lots of methods listed there, but you’ll have to search for exactly what you’re looking for.