« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 25, 2006

Measurement Versus Trust



Do people only do things when they are “measured” on what they have done? Can no one be trusted to do what they have been convinced is right, even if there is nobody checking up on them afterwards? The “audit mentality” that pervades business today is undermining any trust that might exist. Yet we have never needed people’s innate sense of values and honesty more, since constant supervision will eventually overload any manager, and people whom you don’t trust don’t trust you either.

I noticed this comment recently from someone who was writing about diversity in organizations. The writer claimed that it is essential to measure every behavior in detail because: “You only get change when you measure it.”

What a depressing viewpoint! It implies people will only do things if they are supervised and—at least potentially—criticized or punished for non-compliance. It this true? Will no one change their behavior because they believe it is right to do so? Or because they have been convinced by rational argument?

It used to be assumed that people of good will could be trusted to do what is right, once that had been made clear to them.
Such an attitude appears to be generally prevalent amongst many managers and leaders. Such is their distrust of others, and perhaps their cynicism after various past experiences, that they assume no one will comply with a reasonable request on a voluntary basis. Everything must be measured, supervised, and monitored—or people will simply ignore you.

Heaven save us from the audit mentality that measures everything and knows the value of nothing.
No wonder so many managers are grossly overburdened. It used to be assumed that people of good will could be trusted to do what is right, once that had been made clear to them. Now it seems no one is trusted to do anything on their own. What happens if the behavior cannot be measured? Or if whatever you wish people to pay attention to must be done when there is no one else to watch and take note of any backsliding? Does that means certain behaviors—like treating others kindly, doing the job you are paid for, and behaving ethically when no one else is there to see—must be abandoned as impractical?

Heaven save us from the audit mentality that measures everything and knows the value of nothing. And from those who no longer believe in the power of rational argument and proof to convince others to do what is in the best interests of all. If all that remains is measurement and enforced compliance, we are getting close to the “Mind Police” and the awful totalitarianism described by George Orwell in his book “1984.”

Sunspots: The disruptive edition

Death metal band logos
Scary logos from Zyklon (Norway), Extreme Noise Terror (England), Vomitory (Sweden), Dead Infection (Poland), Regurgitate (Sweden), etc.
Netflix and fast iterations
“We make a lot of this stuff up as we go along. I’m serious. We don’t assume anything works and we don’t like to make predictions without real-world tests. Predictions color our thinking. So, we continually make this up as we go along, keeping what works and throwing away what doesn’t. We’ve found that about 90% of it doesn’t work.”
Kathy Sierra on how she makes her graphics
“People pay attention to graphics. They respond to graphics. They learn from graphics. If you want your readers/learners/audience to ‘get’ something as quickly and clearly as possible, use visuals. And you don’t have to be a graphic artist, designer, or information architect to put pictures in your presentation, post, or book. This post is my first attempt to categorize the kinds of graphics I do here, and offer tips for creating visuals that tell the story better and faster than words.” Related: The power of rough edges.
SmugMug saving big using S3
“Total amount NOT spent over the last 7 months: $423,686. Total amount spent on S3: $84,255.25. Total savings: $339,430.75. That works out to $48,490 / month, which is $581,881 per year…These are real, hard numbers after using S3 for 7 months, not our projections.”
LCD Soundsystem's James Murphy creates jogging-friendly track for Nike
“The DFA cofounder has just teamed up with Nike to release 45:33: Nike+ Original Run, a 45-plus-minute track designed to accompany joggers on their workouts. Displaying Murphy’s inimitable production style, the track has the dynamics and temporal ebb and flow of an eclectic DJ set, beginning with a long, warm-up segment, moving into a rousing Afrobeat crescendo, peaking with double-time disco, and finally coming back to earth on a parachute of cool, ambient synthesizers.”
Steven Wright’s paintings
The comedian is also a painter. He was recently interviewed by The Onion.
Daring Fireball: 'Beta' Is Not an Excuse
“What Disco smells like to me is released. And released software — particularly released software that is available for sale — is open for criticism. In what way does Disco, or any other app that is labeled ‘beta’ but is available for sale to the public, deserve to be cut any critical slack?”
Kottke: “For podcasts, there’s no need to fill airtime with anything but content”
“The playing of music before segments and as transitions between segments makes some sense on the radio, where it’s used in some cases to fill airtime. But for podcasts, there’s no need to fill airtime with anything but content. 30 seconds of music before the actual podcast begins is the audio equivalent of Flash splash pages on web sites.” Hmm, long intros can certainly be annoying but transitions that help bridge disparate parts can provide some nice breathing room and ease segueways.
Honda, individual enjoyment, and flow
“Many business thinkers write about managing innovation, as if innovation were a thing. But innovation is ultimately the expression of a set of behaviors originating in the individual. So rather than focusing our energy on understanding the output of those individuals (innovation), we should think instead about how to lead those individuals so that they can be as innovative as possible. Could creating a culture of innovation be as simple as cultivating a culture of enjoyment?”
How to get on TechCrunch
“Don’t use descriptions such as ‘revolutionary,’ ‘Web 2.0,’ ‘huge,’ ‘change the way you’ll use the Internet,’ and ‘disruptive.’ This is what Mike calls ‘cheap adjectives,’ and they are kisses of death in Michael’s eyes.”
RetailMeNot.com offers coupon and promotion codes for online stores
“Many online stores allow for a ‘coupon’ or ‘promotion’ code when you order to automatically assign discounts, deals and freebies (kinda like money for nothing). RetailMeNot.com is a place for finding and sharing these coupon codes. So… when you buy online, check here for discounts first (unless you’re frikkin crazy).” [via GE]
Minimalist breadmaking technique
“A truly minimalist breadmaking technique that allows people to make excellent bread at home with very little effort. The method is surprisingly simple — I think a 4-year-old could master it — and the results are fantastic.”
Apple ditches 'Mac Guy' in new ads
“Apple’s ‘I’m a Mac’ campaign is almost perfect: It’s funny, memorable, and efficiently lays out the advantages of Macs over PCs. It’s only defect: Virtually everyone who watches it comes away liking the ‘PC guy’ while wanting to push the ‘Mac guy’ under a bus.” Update: Mac Guy Justin Long denies he’s getting the boot (“I’m literally setting my alarm right now to wake up for a mac shoot tomorrow.”) [tx Jesper]
NanoNuno Umbrella uses lotus leaf for inspiration
“In nature, a fascinating effect is produced by the microscopic, rough nanostructure on the leaves of the lotus plant: Dirt and moisture simply roll off. This is because there is a much smaller surface area to which things can stick than on a smooth surface. The design of your NanoNuno® umbrella is based on this natural principle, with the result that moisture does not penetrate the fabric and so there is no tedious drying.”

Innovation on the runway

Making business headlines today was the announcement that Paul Charron, a 17-year veteran of the $5B fashion apparel and accessories company Liz Claiborne will retire as CEO. Intrigued by the fashion world thanks to Project Runway and reading this recent news made me realize what a fascinating company Liz Claiborne is. It was the first company founded by a woman to be listed on the Fortune 500. The company has more than 40 brands in its portfolio (including hip fashion brands like Juicy Couture and Lucky Brand) that are available at over 30,000 points of sale worldwide. Lastly, Liz Claiborne is an innovative company that started as a low-end disruptor to established women fashion brands.

Liz Claiborne was founded by a group of designers who identified an important unmet Job to be done in the marketplace – helping women conveniently find fashionable ensemble driven clothes that are appropriate for wearing to work. Fashion brands such as Calvin Klein and Bill Blass were getting this Job done but their ensembles were too expensive for the average working woman. Recognizing the importance of keeping the clothes affordable, Claiborne established a low-cost model in the 1980s (at this time they challenged norms in the fashion industry by testing the concept of manufacturing overseas in Asia). They also recognized the importance making the shopping experience of the working woman more convenient and simpler. They were faced with a major stumbling block addressing this challenge. At this time department stores were classified according to items – pants in one department, skirts in another and blouses in yet another. This made it challenging for women to put together a decent outfit – forcing them to move around from one section of the store to another. Furthermore, the buyers at the department stores were not equipped to make purchases from one manufacturer across product lines. Liz Claiborne worked together with retailers to test a model wherein a section of the store was dedicated to a type of occasion (e.g., sportswear, suits that work, etc.). This model laid down the foundation for the brand and lifestyle “store-within-a-store” concept that is very popular today.

Over the last decade, Liz Claiborne has also had success riding out the waves of disruption in retailing. If you are interested in learning more about these patterns of retailing throughout history from specialty stores, to department stores, to category stores, catalogs and now the Internet, we recommend the HBR article “Patterns of Disruption in Retailing” authored by Clayton Christensen and Richard S. Tedlow.

The 10 most innovative Chinese cities

Shanghai%20night%20skyline.jpg

According to a survey conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics in China, the most innovative city in China is Shanghai. Other cities cracking the Top 10 included Hangzhou, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Suzhou, Beijing, Changzhou, Yantai, Guangzhou and Shaoxing. For close followers of the Chinese innovation scene, these findings may not come as a shock, but I was personally a bit surprised to find Beijing at #6. Anyway, the survey also looked at the pace of R&D spending in China, the composition of this R&D spending, and the primary sources of funding for this R&D research:

"The survey found that that the majority of research and development funding is spent on improving existing products and technology; only one third is spent on developing new products and basic research programs. According to the survey, 33% of funds are used to improve efficiency and reduce the costs of production; 31% is spent perfecting current technology, and doing research to widen the uses of products; 24% is spent on the development of new products and technology; 9% is used in basic research; the remaining 3% is spent elsewhere. The survey also found that internal revenue-raising is the major source of funds for innovation. Over 75% of funds come from the enterprises themselves, 12% from loans, and less than 5% from the government, partners and capital market."

[image: Shanghai skyline via TravelBlog]

Creating the ultimate innovative office!

Video games during work hours, all-day slot car races, a pirate ship and a tree house. Who allows these things at the office? At Davison Design in O'Hara, the boss does. In fact, he pays for it. George M. Davison says that after listening to ideas from his employees he brought in a special effects expert and invested millions of dollars to create Inventionland, a designer's utopia that would make Walt Disney proud. The complex is nestled inside a nondescript warehouse in a suburban industrial park. But inside employees are hard at work trying to transform inventors' ideas from the conceptual to the physical. Amidst the white noise of the waterfalls and the smack of a ping pong paddle against a ball -- not to mention the rat-a-tat-tat emanating from an Xbox -- designers work to make the next big thing. See the video here to see how they created a real innovative environment at Davison Design.

Can Russia become an innovation superpower?

Bolshevik%20poster.jpgDr. Dmitry Orlov, member of the RIA Novosti Expert Council, explains that Russia must become more than just an exporter of raw materials - it must become an energy superpower that is able to transform oil and gas resources into innovation. Below, he outlines a vision for building an innovation economy in Russia:

"Some experts describe the Russian economy as "an extended raw materials model", while others claim Russia is "an energy superpower." In my opinion, both definitions are true, but one describes the current economic structure, in which energy revenues are mostly accumulated and used, and only partly invested in long-term development. The other is an aspiration... An energy superpower differs from a raw materials supplier in that it turns oil and gas into innovation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin enthusiastically speaks about an innovation economy. In particular, he spoke about it in his spring 2006 state of the nation address. The issue is addressed even more frequently by the economic authorities, notably Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref and IT and Communications Minister Leonid Reiman.
The priority national projects, which Putin initiated a year ago and entrusted to First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, should pave the way to an innovation breakthrough. However, they are so far limited to roughly balanced state programs aimed at increasing allocations to social projects. The time has come to turn national projects into the main tool of the state's industrial and infrastructure policy, or at least to add several innovation aspects to them."

With that in mind, Orlov outlines various projects that could jump-start the innovation economy -- such as establishing new business incubation and innovation zones, working to solve the "digital divide" in rural Russia, and helping the economy to become more energy-efficient. The goal is nothing less than an innovation revolution:

"When everyone has access to these communications and business zones, it will mean that we have achieved what Alvin Toffler described as a fast-paced economy, where any strategy must be agile and flexible. Mobility will become a fact of life, though young people will no longer want to move from rural areas to big cities. Just like the spread of electricity and roads in the 20th century, technology parks and the Internet can change the Russian landscape in the 21st century."

[image: "You - have you signed up as a volunteer for the Revolution?"]

November 23, 2006

Managing an orchestra can make you a better innovator

Christian%20Gansch.jpgAustrian innovation blogger Hannes Treichl recently interviewed Christian Gansch, a Grammy award-winning conductor, manager, consultant, and author to find out how he translates elements of leading an orchestra into daily management practices. After all, leading an orchestra comprised of 100 or more people has a lot in common with managing a department of 100 or more people: "An orchestra is an outstanding example for bringing together 100 individuals and motivating them for a successful cooperation in order to get out one voice and to follow a common goal which results in fascinating the audience." In the case of management and business, of course, the "audience" is really the consumer.

Gansch has a unique perspective on innovation, suggesting that the process of reviewing innovation projects mid-way tends to stifle the future growth and development of these projects:

"New ideas need space and time in order to be able to develop and grow. Permanent interim judgments and reviews in the middle in the working process are... a popular game to play, but these reviews prevent fledgling ideas from growing. However, please do not misunderstand this line of thought as in favor of abolishing quality controls!"

Gansch also shares his thoughts about leadership, teams and individualism:

"The Mona Lisa carries the artistic touch of only one painter and not of 100 specialists who might have never come to any results. Also, in the orchestra, it's the conductor's vision. Musicians clearly are aware of the fact that the listener asks for one result and does not want to get confused by 100 individual visions of how to interpret Beethoven's thinking."

[image: Christian Gansch]

Tribal Knowledge: Buy It

John Moore's first book "Tribal Knowledge: Business Wisdom Brewed from the Grounds of Starbucks Corporate Culture" is an awesome read.

John worked in marketing Starbucks for 8 years, then left to work at Whole Foods for a couple of years. He then left to pursue his Brand Autopsy marketing practice and to write "Tribal Knowledge."

John accomplished his original intent of the book: To document the unwritten rules, guidelines, brand guardrails, and the other do's-and-don'ts of working at Starbucks.

He discusses the stuff that we learned only after years of working at Starbucks... sometimes through trial-and-error... Sometimes from a great supervisor... And often directly from the company founders... Howard Schultz (brains), Howard Behar (heart) and Dave Olsen (soul/coffee).

This isn't the material of company handbooks... It's what you get if you could read between the lines... John has done a terrific job capturing this behind-the-scene thinking. The topics John discusses truly are what started and grew Starbucks as a group of people, as a company, and as a brand.

While the Starbucks fan will find the book engaging, they're not the intended audience. The true target reader for this book is anyone at any business who...

  • cares about quality,
  • cares about the customer experience,
  • cares about the the details,
  • cares about keeping what you have special, and
  • is passionate about what they do.
You will be able to relate, and apply the lesson's learned from, Starbucks to your own business. This isn't just a marketing book either... Because operations and marketing are strongly linked at Starbucks, you'll get as much out of Tribal Knowledge if you lead a group of front-line employees or manage marketing programs.

This book is not authorized by Starbucks. John wanted to be able to write autonomously without potential approval from the company. John explains the lessons, provides real-life examples, and even shares stories from when Starbucks didn't follow their own lessons.

His love and knowledge of the brand come through... and you benefit from his ability to distill the ideas into something that you can immediately use at your own organization.

Finally... John wants the book to be a conversation starter... a kind of book you can use, not simply read. His Tribal Knowledge (tribalknowledge.biz) website allows discussion for each of the chapters of the book... questions, discussion, a "I don't believe you," or whatever comments you have are welcome.

John Moore Fun Fact
John is better known as "johnmoore" - one word... all lowercase. In fact, in his voicemail message at Starbucks he would spell out his full name... Folks knew him as "jay oh aych en, em double-oh are ee."

If you've read the book, do you have any thoughts? Comments?

Adidas jumping into Blue Oceans feet first

Blueoceanstrategyadidas “When companies are willing to challenge the functional emotional orientation of their industry, they often find new market space... Emotionally oriented industries offer many extras that add price without enhancing functionality. Stripping away those extras may create a fundamentally simpler, lower-priced, lower-cost business model that customers would welcome. Conversely, functionally oriented industries can often infuse commodity products with new life by adding a dose of emotion and, in so doing, can stimulate new demand.” (Blue Ocean Strategy, p. 70)

Embracing the principles of Blue Ocean Strategy, iconic German footwear- and sports gear-maker Adidas is challenging the functional-emotional appeal of its industry with the opening of its new Innovation Center and store on Paris' Champs-Elysées. A recent Business Week article describes just how Adidas is reconstructing market boundaries by reaching out to buyers’ emotional sides:

Design Appreciation and Innovation. The high-tech “cube” store is a full-on sensory experience which, across all facets, showcases Adidas’ dedication to Innovation.

Entertainment Factor. Built-in games, gadgetry and entertainment features make shopping for, and customizing, an Adidas shoe fun. "When people are shopping they don't want to learn…They want to be entertained," says Heinrich Paravicini, the director of Mutabor.

True Customization. Using Star Trek-like technologies, Adidas enables visitors to create customized shoes and “try” them on for size.

Creating Repeat Buyers. Can’t make it to Paris each time you wish to buy a new pair of Adidas shoes? Adidas stores your personalized foot measurements so that you can apply them to new trends later. As Fiona Fairhurst, director of Zero Point Zero One, says: “If you know that Adidas fits you perfectly and comfortably then they have a customer for life."

Adidas says the Paris store is just part of its rollout to major cities around the world, including Beijing just in time for the 2008 Olympics. With Adidas charting this new course, it’s joining the ranks of industry leaders like Swatch, the Swiss watchmaker and Cemex, the Mexican cement manufacturer, who have greatly elevated the emotional appeal of traditionally more functional products, and created Blue Ocean market spaces.

Benchmarking Talent and High Skills Immigration

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation released a new report today – Global Flows of Talent: Benchmarking the United States – that benchmarks flows of highly-skilled people to the US against similar flows to seven other high-income countries. The report finds that while many other nations are making it easier for talented immigrants to enter their country, either as students or workers, the US is struggling to decide what to do.  The report compares how national immigration policies – permanent, temporary, and student – foster or constrict these flows.  All seven nations in the comparison group are liberalizing their immigration policies for the highly-skilled, although some more than others.  Finally, the report suggests several broad policy recommendations that the US should consider to ensure that we not only compete effectively for talent in the short-term, but also lead the world toward a global system for developing and using talent that is beneficial for everyone over the long-term.

The report is available at: http://www.itif.org/files/Hart-GlobalFlowsofTalent.pdf

Dr. Hart can be reached at dhart@gmu.edu.  ITIF can be reached at mail@innovationpolicy.org or by phone at (202) 449-1351.

Design Interactions

ideobk.jpg

Bill Moggridge, industrial designer and a founder of IDEO, has released Design Interactions, his new literary endeavor exploring the impact of digital technology on aesthetics, utility, and the design process from start to finish.

Moggridge and his interviewees discuss why personal computers have windows in desktops, what made Palm's handheld organizers so successful, what turns a game into a hobby, why Google is the search engine of choice, and why 30 million people in Japan choose the i-mode service for their cell phones. And Moggridge tells the story of his own design process and explains the focus on people and prototypes that has been successful at IDEO-how the needs and desires of people can inspire innovative designs and how prototyping methods are evolving for the design of digital technology.
...

Coloring inside the lines

People who want to do a good job are more likely to follow instructions that they know they can successfully accomplish, while they'll often ignore the 'softer' tasks if they can.

If you’re marketing a product or an idea to a group of people and you juxtapose two ideas--one obvious and simple while the other is challenging and subtle, you can bet the mass of people will grab the first one (if they don’t ignore you altogether).

Example: it’s easy to get people to wake up early on the day after Thanksgiving if you offer them a TV at a discount, the way Wal-Mart does every year. It’s a lot trickier to challenge consumers to figure out which one of the eighteen refrigerators you offer is likely to offer the best price/performance ratio.

The first task requires nothing much but effort and that effort is likely to be rewarded. The second task takes judgment, and the opportunity for failure is much higher.

If you’re a teacher and you give your third graders instructions for an essay, the motivated ones will listen. If you ask them for vivid, creative writing, and also let them know it must be five sentences long, in blue ink and with not one word outside that little red line that marks the margin, guess what sort of work you’ll get back? Writing in your format is easy. Being vivid is hard. It’s easy to focus on the achievable, the measurable and the simple.

I thought of this as I braved the insanity of JFK for a quick JetBlue flight. The instructions to the TSA folks probably fill several looseleaf notebooks, but I imagine that they can be summarized as follows:
Volume 1: Identify suspicious people and be on the lookout for bad people and new and unimagined threats.
Volume 2: Stop anyone with liquid in their bag.

Guess which volume got read?

The guy in front of me got busted (aggressively) for having a 4 ounce can of shaving cream. Isn’t it OBVIOUS that the limit is 3 ounces? I could hear the TSA thinking, What’s going on here!! At the same time that scores of expensive, trained teams of inspectors were focusing on interdicting the forbidden liquids, no one cared very much about ID or travel history or what that item on the x-ray actually was.

The same thing happens on your website every day. Sure, if I work my way through the sitemap and pay attention to your carefully crafted copy, I’ll probably find exactly what I need. But it’s way more likely I’ll just click on that cute picture or leave the site altogether.

People want to feel successful, but they’re often unwilling to invest the time in doing something that might not pay off.  It’s not fair, but that’s the way it works.

When we create together

To me, a piece of art works best when it is not just a story served up for consumption. But actually, the audience takes some part in telling the story with the actors. Because when I see a great film or something, it is not just the film that strikes me, it is what it evokes inside me. What memories it brings, what images, what connections I make between my own experience and what I am seeing. So for me, when I think of the audience as they walk out, my hope would be that they are not talking about the play, but that they are talking about their own stories. To me, that would be the highest hope. That the audience thinks of the play as though it was their story too.
That's a quote from Julia Cho. She's a playwright and the author of a new play called Durango. You can catch it at New York's Public Theater up until December 10.

Artists have an amazing way of telling us how to we can live and work together. Personally, I really like this idea that the creative process begins somewhere, and then grows and evolves.

I have noticed something similar, working as a consultant with one of the “Big-4”. I have learnt that is doesn't help to show up with re-baked answers. People are generally not interested in being told what to do. Instead, they want to have a dialog about the challenges they face, and together, develop the right solution. Our job is to guide them through the process of coming up with the right answers for them. That kind of discourse takes time. The consultant helps drive the process (which often means just setting up the meetings), provides a neutral point of view, offers access to a broader information set and a different point of view. But, the consultant does not dictate the answer.

There are interesting parallels between these two insights, and this Enterprise 2.0 idea of emergent intelligence within an organization.

When a Chief Knowledge Officer tries to create a system for “capturing an organizations knowledge” they have instantly failed because it is the dialog that is most important; not the knowledge. Large organizations need help facilitating the process of creation. Knowledge can fall out as a positive externality, but it shouldn't be the end goal unto itself.

To focus only on knowledge would be like a consultant dictating the answers, or a playwright who was not interested in having the audience connect the emotions and insights of a play with their own stories.

Rather than ultimate control, one should seek and facilitate ultimate communication.

Sleep Deficit: The Performance Killer

napping.jpg
I didn't purchase this article, but it sounds interesting.

Companies today glorify the executive who logs 100-hour workweeks, the road warrior who lives out of a suitcase in multiple time zones, and the negotiator who takes a red-eye to make an 8 a.m. meeting. But to Dr. Charles A. Czeisler, the Baldino Professor of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School, this kind of corporate behavior is the antithesis of high performance. In fact, he says, it endangers employees and puts their companies at risk.
I've been using the Sleeptracker watch for about a month now, and my sleep has definitely gotten better. I focus much better and pay less attention to distractions when I am rested. The challenge I have is that I sleep better when I don't stay on the computer the last hour before I go to bed. I'm a 10pm-5am sleeper, but I have problems shutting down the computer at 9pm.


Five Ways to Screw-Up a Good Idea


Don The Idea Guy:

Check out the “Five Ways to Screw-Up a Good Idea” below. I’m sure we’ve all been guilty of one or more of them at some point in our life. I know I am!

1. Flies The Coop:
You don’t write down the details of the idea, and it slips from your memory.

2. Failure to Launch:
You’ve captured the idea, but do absolutely nothing with it.

3. Fear of Loss: You’re not doing anything with the idea, but you’ll be damned if you’re gonna share the concept with anyone else for fear THEY will actually DO something with it.

4. Faulty Follow-Through: You actually make a concerted effort at putting the idea into action — but then you abandon it, half-finished.

5. Fades Away: The idea has been back-burnered for so long that its ‘born-on date’ has expired. The once fresh concept has gone bad — it’s spoiled. Your opportunity to profit from your creative idea has been spoiled by your lack of initiative. Others who may have had the same (or similar) thought put it into action and are reaping the rewards of their hard work while you’re just a little older and (hopefully!) a little wiser.

Photo by matchstick.


The Economist reviews four new books on innovation

mavericks%20at%20work.jpgIn search of the best books about innovation and entrepreneurship, The Economist reviews four important new books that might make some good holiday reading for that innovator on your shopping list:

(1) Joe Ellis and the Creation of Xerox - "Chester Carlson's invention of xerography would never have become the hugely profitable Xerox photocopying business were it not for what Charles Ellis calls the “extreme entrepreneurship” of Joe Wilson."

(2) Mavericks at Work: Why the Most Original Minds in Business Win - "A pivotal work in the tradition of In Search of Excellence and Good to Great and featuring many of today's most interesting corporate rising stars. These are companies that blend the revolutionary zeal of the late 1990s dot-com era with an emphasis on values in a way that has set them apart from the ethical crisis gripping American business in the first years of this century."

(3) Outside Innovation - "Patricia Seybold focuses on the potential for using customers more in the innovation process... She does a decent job of justifying her Martin Lukes-esque subtitle, “How Your Customers Will Co-Design Your Company's Future”. Her case studies cover a number of web-based companies and are written up with even more breathless enthusiasm than those of Mr. Taylor and Ms. LaBarre (authors of Mavericks at Work)."

(4) The Entrepreneurial Imperative: How America's Economic Miracle Will Reshape the World (and Change Your Life) - "Mr Schramm, who, as head of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City pays for a lot of research into the subject, argues that America needs to do more to maintain its entrepreneurial edge. At the same time, it must promote the American model abroad as the centerpiece of its foreign policy—the global spread of wealth being the best recipe for national security."


ASIDE: In case you're wondering just exactly who Martin Lukes is, it's an inside joke about a character that appears in the Financial Times on a regular basis. Patty Seybold, author of Outside Innovation, explains the Martin Lukes reference on her Outside Innovation blog:

"For those who aren't loyal readers of the Financial Times, Martin Lukes is the main character of a hilarious email soap opera that runs every Thursday in the FT. I admit to being an addict--so much so that on a recent Thursday on which the column was inexplicably missing from my edition of the paper, I was miffed all day. Martin Lukes is delightfully depicted (by his creator, Lucy Kellaway) as a complete fool and idiot. He is particularly prone to coining over-the-top terms like "creovation" and to sexist and boorish, insensitive behavior. His escapades never cease to delight and amaze!"

How Google, Apple and Toyota increased their return on R&D;

Google, Apple, Toyota and 91 other global companies appear to have discovered an elusive elixir that enables them to spend less on R&D; than the norm while achieving a higher return on each R&D; dollar they spend. Such is indicated by the findings of Booz-Allen’s benchmark new report, “Smart Spenders: The Global Innovation 1000” . So – how do you mix up the secret elixir? Although Booz-Allen did not identify a single formula, it did find “several common themes among their strategies.” In a nutshell, those common themes involved strength in and coordination between four key links in the “innovation value chain.” The four links: 1. The ideation process (basic research and conception) 2. Project selection (the decision to invest) 3. Product development (in tune with the rest of the organization) 4. Commercialization (bringing the product or service to market and adapting it to customer demands). The key, quite simply, was to execute well on each of these four dimensions, and to make sure that they were tightly integrated. For the full report, click here!

Tech leaders gather for innovation summit

Bill%20Gates%20Charlie%20Rose.jpgThe third annual TechNet Innovation Summit took place this week on the campus of Stanford University, attracting some of the biggest names in the technology sector - including Bill Gates, Jerry Yang, and venture capitalist John Doerr. (Oh, and the Governator made a surprise appearance as well.) The four-hour event was staged as a live taping of "The Charlie Rose Show," episodes of which will appear at a later date. As the San Jose Mercury News explains, the event focused on how to compete during a period of rapid innovation and globalization:

"The third annual innovation summit, where industry leaders talked about emerging trends and government technology policy, was organized by TechNet, an advocacy group that lobbies on behalf of tech executives. Much of the discussion centered on how American companies and workers will compete in an era of rapid innovation and globalization.
"The United States has been spoiled by being a global leader for so long that there may be an adjustment," Gates told the audience of nearly 2,000, a mix of suit-and-tie executives and college students in hooded sweatshirts. "We've got to get used to the fact that our relative share of everything -- our ability to exercise unilateral decision-making, military power, and economic power -- won't be as out of line with our 5 percent share of world population as it is today.''

[image: Bill Gates chats with Charlie Rose]

Inventor Ray Kurzweil on TEDTalks

Ray Kurzweil

Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil illustrates the increasingly exponential evolution of technology, predicting a sharp rise in computing capability, robotics and life expectancy within the next 15 years. He outlines the shocking ways we'll use technology to augment our own capabilities, forever blurring the lines between human and machine. A prolific inventor, Kurzweil developed the first Optical Character Recognition (OCR) system, the first text-to-speech reader for the blind, one of the first speech-recognition systems, and numerous electronic instruments. He's written several books exploring the social impact of technology, including The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

. (Recorded February 2005 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 23:41)

Download this talk: Audio (MP3) | Video (MP4)

More TEDTalks: TEDTalks website | iTunes (audio) | iTunes (video)

Blog this video: Use this code to run the video on your own site:

Subscribe to TEDTalks for free, automatic updates.

Problems, Predicaments and Sleight of Hand


How many times have you heard organizational types talk about the need for problem-solvers? Or spout clichés about “dealing with the problems that confront us in this competitive environment?” Or saying that they “face many problems, which we will overcome, as we have overcome those in the past?” The sad fact is that problems are not the problem, so to speak. What really causes leaders and managers difficulty and heartache, not to mention most of their failures, are predicaments.

A problem, properly speaking, has a solution, You may not know what that solution is, nor even how or where to look for it, but you can be reasonably confident that it exists—somewhere.
A problem, properly speaking, has a solution, You may not know what that solution is, nor even how or where to look for it, but you can be reasonably confident that it exists—somewhere. Science has solved many problems and will likely solve many more in years to come. Technology has also solved some of our problems, such as how to handle vast amounts of data; how to transmit messages nearly instantly to anyone, anywhere in the world; and how to wake you up with a cup of coffee ready made, when you can’t afford a servant to make it for you, and your partner tells you to go jump in a lake when you hint that it might be his or her role to make it. Problems have solutions. If you characterize a manager or a leader as a problem-solver, you are saying that he or she is adept at finding and applying the necessary solution to deal with various workplace problems.

Now that’s a very useful skill, but it will only take you so far. While there are, indeed, many problems to be faced in the world of work, the most difficult, the commonest, and the most intractable problems are not problems at all, because they have no clear, graspable solution. They cannot be “solved” by any technique. They are not problems. They are predicaments.

. . . the most intractable problems are not problems at all, because they have no clear, graspable solution. They cannot be “solved” by any technique. They are not problems. They are predicaments.
Take the “problem” of succeeding in a competitive market. The way that we usually see organizations try to deal with this is by employing a series of assumed solutions, derived from the actions taken by fortunate companies who achieved success in similar situations in the past. That is why every successful product, marketing campaign, form of business organization, or approach to financing is copied within hours or days of the world registering its success. There is no bandwagon that others will not jump onto in the belief that what worked for others will work for them.

Of course, this approach does not work, either consistently or sometimes at all. If it did, no one would have any problem with competitive markets ever again. Not only does copying others contain the causes of its own failure (what everyone does no longer gives anyone a competitive advantage), but it assumes that what you think led to success (or what the happy organization said it did) actually did so. Most times, success was due to luck and an unexpected coming together of actions and reactions. Not only can no one else replicate it, even the company that was successful in the first place usually cannot repeat their own past good fortune either.

Just about all the fundamental “leadership” issues that beset organizations are . . . predicaments: situations that have no solution now—and never will have one, because they are not capable of being “solved” by any one set of actions.
So why doesn’t life play fair and do what it is supposed to do? If I could answer that, maybe I too could become a major guru and live in luxury for the rest of my days. What I can see, however, is that difficulties like dealing with competitive situations—along with just about all the fundamental “leadership” issues that beset organizations—are not problems at all. They are predicaments: situations that have no solution now—and never will have one, because they are not capable of being “solved” by any one set of actions.

Problems remain essentially the same. Predicaments constantly shift and change their details as “solutions” are tried. As soon as one business gains a competitive advantage, others copy it (so it is no longer unique or unusual), while others adapt their own actions to block it. Competitive advantages are, by their very nature, temporary. And since the universe changes constantly in random ways, any source of competitive advantage today will likely become worthless—even potential a drawback—within a short time. Replacing people by machines and computers once gave an advantage. Now everyone does it, so organizations who use actual people in certain areas, like answering customer service calls, find that an advantage instead. Then, with the coming of out-sourcing, the advantage comes from having the phones answered by someone who doesn’t sound as if they are in Mumbai.

Hamburger Management (the process of serving up whatever approach is quickest, simplest, and cheapest) is a curse because it negates every way of dealing with the predicaments of business life, turning each one into a problem for which there must be a known solution technique (even if there isn’t).
Predicaments are not solvable. All you or anyone can do is to try to cope with them as effectively as you can. And since any technique you apply that seems to work will very quickly produce a counter-technique, or a copy, or a random change in circumstances, the only two “tools” that remain useful again and again are time and thought: to have enough time to consider the options, plus the ability to reflect on whatever you can know of the circumstances and come up with a creative approach that may help for a while. Even that will fail in time, of course, so there can be no end to the need for either enough time or sufficient creative thought.

Hamburger Management (the process of serving up whatever approach is quickest, simplest, and cheapest) is a curse because it negates every way of dealing with the predicaments of business life, turning each one into a problem for which there must be a known solution technique (even if there isn’t). Like stage magicians and illusionists, Hamburger Managers rely on moving fast to confuse onlookers (and bosses) into believing that what they have just seen is truly magic. There’s no time to think or be creative. Just produce the next quarter’s numbers out of the top hat and get off the stage before anyone asks too many questions. Oh . . . and remember to clear away up the smoke and mirrors on your way.

If you demand impossible miracles on a daily basis, you’ll force people into being illusionists and confidence tricksters. All the other guys will fail and be removed.
As I’ve said many times before, I don’t blame these managers. Organizations get the managers they deserve, based on the culture they nurture. If you demand impossible miracles on a daily basis, you’ll force people into being illusionists and confidence tricksters. All the other guys will fail and be removed. Any organization that systematically denies people the time and opportunity to work out how to cope with business predicaments, will cause frustration, stress, and a sense that all that truly matters is to seem to be doing something useful—even if you know that it’s all illusory and based on luck and some creative use of data. Tomorrow you may not be around to worry, and it will be your successor (who will denigrate everything you did anyway) who has to clean up the mess.

Just Ask the Customer

Dharmesh Shah has a great post about how start-ups kill themselves.

One of the methods he describes is Death By Doing Nothing: 

When I say “doing nothing”, what I really mean is “doing nothing that is creating value for customers”.  I am constantly amazed by how many creative ways founders can find to do things that have the illusion of moving their startup forward, but that has almost nothing to do with creating value for customers.  Let’s design this fancy website.  What about our business cards!  What about this 120 page business plan?  Surely we have to think through competitive analysis to make sure we build the right product.  Don’t get me wrong, all of these things are important – but they are all trumped by the single act of creating customer value.  If you don’t know how to create value:  ask the customer!

Just ask the customer.

There are two interesting Web 2.0 ways to do this:

  1. Hold a contest such as mydreamapp.   Get end users to design mock-ups of the application, and then vote on which version / feature they want.
  2. Give end users the tools to build their own applications.

November 21, 2006

Introducing the innovation radar

Mohanbir%20Sawhney.JPGBased on his research into the innovation habits of FORTUNE 500 companies such as Boeing, Microsoft and DuPont, Mohanbir Sawhney, director of Kellogg School of Management's Center for Research in Technology and Innovation, in collaboration with Kellogg fellows Robert C. Wolcott and Inigo Arroniz, is developing a new innovation management tool known as the Innovation Radar. The tool was first described in the Spring 2006 MIT Sloan Management Review:

"The radar features four major dimensions that serve as business anchors: (1) Offerings a company creates (WHAT) (2) Customers it serves (WHO) (3) Processes it employs (HOW) and (4) Points of Presence it uses to take its offerings to market (WHERE).
Spread over these 4 main dimensions, companies can innovate their businesses far broader in scope than product or technological innovation: a company can actually innovate along any of 12 different dimensions... The innovation radar can help to broaden the innovation focus in companies and to show that innovation is about creating new value, not about creating new products."

[image: Mohanbir Sawhney]

Don't wait for the muse

Waitingmuse_1

Yet another benefit of constraint-driven creativity is that you don't have time to wait for the muse to show up. And as film critic Roger Ebert told an audience of would-be filmmakers and musicians, "The muse never shows up at the beginning." You have to start doing something and trust the muse will follow, not the other way 'round.

I came across this Federico Fellini quote today, and it seemed to echo what others have been saying about everything from software design to business ideas:

"I don't believe in total freedom for the artist. Left on his own, free to do anything he likes, the artist ends up doing nothing at all.

If there's one thing that's dangerous for an artist, it's precisely this question of total freedom, waiting for inspiration and all the rest of it."

It's from a book I'm enjoying called Hillman Curtis on Creating Short Films for the Web (there's a short review of the book on Speak Up)

My favorite tool for creativity-on-demand is still mind-mapping. You start with that one circle in the center and draw/write as quickly as you can. The more you think, the less effective it is. You'll always find things on the paper you didn't expect... things you didn't know were in your head. But whatever you use, and whether you're writing, drawing, composing, coding, designing, whatever... just DO something. Or as Ray Bradbury put it in another quote from the book:

Life is "trying things to see if they work."

You can't try things if you're waiting for the muse to show up first. And if you want inspiration, it's everywhere including:

Creative Component blog

Billy Harvey

Speed of Creativity

Drawn!

Hugh, of course

Evelyn Rodriguez

TED blog

DIY Planner

Vera Bass

Presentation Zen

David Seah

MAKE blog

Brand Autopsy

Josh Spear

you didn't think I'd get out of this without mentioning Signal vs. Noise, did you?

Urban Retro Lifestyle

Threadless

Creative Think

Cute Overload
[visit at your own risk]

... and about 20 gazillion more.

Please comment with any website, book, movie, blog, whatever that you use for a creativity jolt. Nothing is off-limits, and PLEASE don't hesitate to do a little shameless self-promotion if you think your blog or site might help someone else (just be sure to give us a sentence about it).

Microsoft is looking for the winning idea

Microsoft%20ideaWins.jpgAs part of a search for the most creative small business idea in the country, Microsoft has launched the ideaWins contest. The contest has been designed to spur the imagination and spirit of entrepreneurial activity that drives small business, with winners receiving $100,000 in cash and free retail space in New York City, as well as infrastructure and software to run the business for 12 months. Plus, as an added bonus, every participant in the Microsoft-sponsored contest will receive a free Microsoft Office Accounting Express 2007 software package. The deadline for submissions is January 31, 2007.


[image: Microsoft ideaWins]

New Book: How to Spread Rumors and Gossip



I heard that there's a new book called Rumor Psychology and that it talks about the difference between rumor and gossip and how their accuracy depends on particular circumstances. In a nutshell, "expert rumor researchers Nicholas DiFonzo and Prashant Bordia investigate how rumors start and spread, the accuracy of different types of rumor, and how rumors can be controlled, particularly given their propagation across media outlets and within organizations."

Why Management Education Sucks Too

Kathy Sierra has a great posting today about the mess that science education has been reduced to in the United States (and pretty much everywhere else in the world, I believe). It's called: Why does engineering/math/science education in the US suck?.

Here is some of what she says:
We just do MORE of what's wrong. We redouble our efforts. We drill and test students even harder in facts and rote memorization. We work and test them even harder on using the tools for communication (e.g. code) rather than the tools for thought (e.g. intuition, visualization, etc.)

Our educational institutions--at every level--need drastic changes or we're all screwed. The generation of students we're turning out today need skills nobody really cared about 50, 40, even 20 years ago. Where we used to prepare students for a 'job for life', now we must prepare students to be jobless. We must prepare them to think fast, learn faster, and unlearn even faster ('yes, that drug was the appropriate way to treat the XYZ disease, but that was so last week. THIS week we now realize it'll kill you.')
Everything in her post applies just as much (maybe even more so) to management and so-called "leadership" education. Business schools and trainers focus on teaching people historical lessons about past leadership efforts, a mass of poorly-evidenced theories, and simplistic lists of do's and don'ts about what to do and not to do. Communication is the big kick—but almost nothing about what to be communicating.

Where are the classes to encourage lateral thinking, creative outlooks, innovative ideas, or challenging the status quo?
Where is the teaching about how to think, how to spot untested assumptions, how to apply logic and reason to find answers, how to understand the mass of numbers that managers are drowning in today, or how to use your brain instead of your mouth? Where are the classes to encourage lateral thinking, creative outlooks, innovative ideas, or challenging the status quo?

They aren't there for several reasons:
  1. Those in charge are afraid that encouraging people to think will also encourage them to think "heresy" and challenge the present way of doing things—their way. (It should—and a very good thing too!)

  2. Half the population in management offices fears they aren't as bright as they make out they are, and don't want the fact revealed. The other half has been brainwashed into believing they are much less bright than reality would prove, if only they tried thinking for themselves, but are too afraid even to try.

  3. Everyone is so damned busy and stressed that adding thinking to the mix seems altogether too much. Let's just get it done, is the cry. Having to think as well is something we can do without.

  4. Some nations, like the United States, have developed a severe case of distrust in anyone "intellectual" or clever. They prefer the Plain Man (and Plain Woman) to the one who has a brain. Mostly this is a mixture of envy and fear, since most people have been convinced by the education system that they are fairly stupid, because they cannot recall the capitals of all the US states, the names of every Founding Father, and how to solve differential equations on demand to pass some crazy test. If you need to know things like that, look them up. Use your brain to think, not regurgitate pointless facts.
Come on, guys. We all know this kind of learning has virtually nothing to do with actual business success, and everything to do with maintaining the status quo and minimizing the risk that someone, somewhere will (gasp!) do something new or creative.

Designing Business for an Open World

Andrea Saveri, Howard Rheingold, Kathi Vian, and Ming-Li Chai with a team at Herman Miller have released a report on applying knowledge of cooperation theory to the practical problems of business today. A short PDF, Creative Commons licensed, is now available: Designing Business for an Open World.

Hot-Stove and Foolishness

From an interview in October's Harvard Business Review with Stanford management guru James G. March, I found these two particularly interesting passages:

One form of the hot-stove effect is the competency trap, where learning encourages people to stick to and improve skills they have already honed to a fine degree rather than spend time gaining new ones. Some of my grandchildren say to me, “We’re not very good at mathematics, so we’re not going to take any more mathematics.” I say, “Wait a minute. Mathematics is a practice sport. If you’re not very good at it, you take more of it.” That’s counterintuitive, and it goes against the main logic of experiential learning, not to mention grandchildren’s sentiments about control over their own lives. It has also been demonstrated that the hot-stove effect leads experiential learners to be risk averse. It is possible to limit the hot-stove effect by slowing learning so that you increase the sample of alternatives that have poor results. That obviously has the cost of incurring short run losses and consequently is hard for an adaptive system to do. ...

Part of foolishness, or what looks like foolishness, is stealing ideas from a different domain. Someone in economics, for example, may borrow ideas from evolutionary biology, imagining that the ideas might be relevant to evolutionary economics. A scholar who does so will often get the ideas wrong; he may twist and strain them in applying them to his own discipline. But this kind of cross-disciplinary stealing can be very rich and productive. It’s a tricky thing, because foolishness is usually that—foolishness. It can push you to be very creative, but uselessly creative. The chance that someone who knows no physics will be usefully creative in physics must be so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from it. Yet big jumps are likely to come in the form of foolishness that, against long odds, turns out to be valuable. So there’s a nice tension between how much foolishness is good for knowledge and how much knowledge is good for foolishness.


(via Cultural Canaries)

Staying Small to Stay Competitive


Entrepreneur Daily:

If you’re working in a creative field, staying small might be to your advantage, or so thinks Elaine Cantwell.

Her graphics and promotions firm, Spark Creative, employs three people and outsources back-office work.

The award-winning designer stays competitive by focusing 90 percent of her time on creative work, and feels that staying small helps her respond to price shifts in the industry. “It’s very difficult to keep a large company in this industry because of the ability of the client to control the budget,” she says.

Even with such a small firm, she brings in between $1.5 million and $3 million a year. Sometimes staying small and staying focused is the way to go.

Photo by omar_franc.


Questioning the Link Between Education and Economic Growth

30463662.jpg
An educated population leads to economic growth. You've heard that. You probably believe it. I know I believe it. The idea makes sense, particularly in a world of knowledge workers that increasingly relies on creativity and innovation for economic progress. Now a researcher is questioning the idea. In a paper entitled "Student Achievement and National Economic Growth, Francisco Ramirez and his co-authors suggest that these relationship between these two issues is one of correlation, not causation.

We find that countries with high science and mathematics achievement scores tend to grow somewhat more rapidly than other countries. This finding is consistent with the main inference reported in Hanushek and Kimko (2000) and very much in line with mainstream educational policy discourse in the United States. But we further find that this effect is reduced when the four Asian Tigers, with high growth and high scores during the period, are removed from the analysis. Moreover, the effect weakens in the recent period, when a number of Asian countries went into a slow-growth phase for reasons unrelated to matters of educational achievement. The special status of the Asian Tigers, and the additional finding that the apparent achievement effect decreases (rather than increases, as we expect) with the increased level of educational enrollments in a country, suggests that the overall effect may not be a causal one. Perhaps regimes making a push for development can also make a push for disciplined student achievements in areas such as science and mathematics, which less pressured students might choose to avoid. From this perspective, achievement and development are outcomes of a regime but not really causally related to each other.
This is an important idea because, if it is true, then perhaps the focus of government should be less on education and more on whatever it is that drives people to seek education independently.


Cop-outs, Excuses, and Put-downs



When an organization has to resort to mindless excuses and put-downs to stop necessary change from even being considered, you know that you have just about reached rock-bottom in complacency and mindless attachment to defending the status quo. Yet that is what is common in many companies today: managers who routinely set aside potentially useful ideas without any form of rational argument. Using a well-worn set of rude and dismissive phrases, they browbeat their subordinates into remaining quiet about the inefficiencies and stupidities that are all too obvious.


Most companies are horribly complacent. The guys in charge got to their current positions under the status quo, so they have little or no real interest in changing anything. The current system must be good, because they are the kind of people that it produced. That's why they so often react to new ideas with a "so what?" response; and why they defend the status quo by saying things like: "This may sound harsh, but that's the way the world is." Of course, they pay lip service to wanting greater creativity, but only as long as it remains within bounds. Improvements on current ways of doing things are acceptable. Significant changes are viewed with emotions ranging from deep suspicion to outright hostility.

Such organizations fail to get the full range of innovative suggestions from their employees because they actively discourage truly fresh ideas. Very, very few proprerly creative ideas are ever subjected to reasoned consideration or argument. Instead, complacent managers have developed a series of instant responses to any suggestion that is too threatening to their pre-determined point of view. These phrases have two important purposes:
  1. To stop any further discussion or consideration of the idea; and

  2. To belittle the person who made the suggestion and make him or her feel foolish, so such behavior won't be repeated.
There is a list of instant, thought-free excuses for keeping things as they are that is almost endless. Here are some serial offenders:
  • There's no budget (money/space in the program) for it.

  • We tried something like that years ago and it was a disaster.

  • The customers (suppliers/staff/shareholders/top brass) will never buy it.

  • When you've been around as long as I have, you'll understand why that will never work.

  • That simply isn't a practical suggestion. It will never fly.

  • Sorry. It's not worth the risk

  • So what? (Said with a shrug and usually followed by: "Let’s move on, shall we?")

  • That's the reality of life around here. If you don't like it, you know what to do.

  • I can tell you right away that no one else will support you on that (said glaring around to make sure nobody does).

  • (Sigh) Isn't it wonderful to be so idealistic and naive.

  • Perhaps we should set up a working group to discuss it (. . . and bury it).

  • Forget the blue skies stuff. Come down to earth with the rest of us.

  • What an amazingly courageous, unusual, and personally risky idea. Is anyone else ready to support it? (. . . and put his or her neck into the noose as well.)
Complacency is especially prevalent wherever who you know is more important than what you know. If office politics and brown-nosing are the ways to succeed, it's unreasonable to expect ambitious people to risk offending those higher up by even suggesting that the current way of doing things (which is usually the result of decisions by those presently in alpha-dog positions) should be changed to any significant extent.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the way organizations are run today is a failure. Look at all the scandals and criminal charges against corporate executives. Consider how the tide is changing against over-payments to CEOs and the casual plundering of corporations for personal gain. Listen to the pitiful wailing by those in charge against regulations that force corporate wrong-doing out into the open. Visit almost any business school and see the frantic attempts to find space in the curriculum for more substantive courses on business ethics.

The time for mindlessly defending the status quo is (hopefully) past. Its failures have become too obvious to ignore or paper over. Corporate America (and the rest of the developed world along with it) is in urgent need of fresh ideas, before businesses from nations who don't carry so much baggage from the past sweep on past and consign us to the margins. I heard recently that the giant US automakers are pleading with the government for relaxation of regulations and handouts from taxpayers. I don't hear Toyota making the same requests. Could it be that they don't need to, because they have seen the need for change and grasped it whole-heartedly?

Don't let the conservatives browbeat you into accepting that there is nothing to be done about the status quo. We made the world how it is today. Who keeps it running that way? We do. But since we made things like that, we can change them as well.

How To Not Suck At Design

pacifier

Michael Shrivathsan just wrote an article presenting five tips for creating products with great design.

Michael’s List

  1. Start with the user interface. [Roger Cauvin adds, start with a working first iteration]
  2. Work closely with UI designers.
  3. Pay attention to details.
  4. Simpler is better.
  5. Be brave.

Our Thoughts

User centric design is the core of UX and interaction design. It is the most effective way to design something that is a pleasure to use. As Michael points out, almost no one does it. Kent Beck (founder of Extreme Programming) argues with Alan Cooper that all the up-front design work to understand the users is wasting time that could be used to build something valuable. Cooper argues that designing for the users is the most important thing. They are both right. There isn’t a black-and-white answer to that debate.

Simpler is the key to avoiding featuritis, where too many features actually make a poduct less effective.

Being brave. Great point. Great designs are product leaders. Many politicians try and predict where the population will be (test polling, trial balloons, etc), and then try to get there first - so that it looks like leading. Not very brave. Michael’s examples of the iPod and GMail are good ones. Both products demonstrate design departures from “everybody else.”

Our Additions

We would also add

  1. Have Valuable Innovation. Innovation for it’s own sake isn’t worth much. GMail uses tagging (instead of folders) because it is valuable. Folders require every email to only be in “one place.” Tags allow emails to be in more than one place. That’s valuable innovation. [Here are ten tips for preventing innovation too - one of the most-read posts at Tyner Blain]
  2. Focus On Killer Features. Prioritization drives the identification of what is actually important. Don’t do the other stuff. Combine this prioritization with Simpler Is Better to get the most bang for your buck.

Conclusion

Great ideas from Michael. Thanks!

November 20, 2006

The future of the sporting goods industry

Burton%20iPod.jpgAt a dinner keynote speech for a sports and technology convergence conference in San Diego, futurist and innovation guru Jim Carroll outlines a futuristic vision for the sporting goods industry: "When it comes to the future of sporting goods... the future is being redefined by the next generation... These kids live, breathe, learn, teach, talk, listen, create and innovate through a widely networked world that facilitates feedback so quickly it's rapidly changing how this generation will expect results and satisfaction from new products." As Carroll points out, there are at least five key trends that sporting goods manufacturers should keep in mind:

(1) It's happening faster than you think: "The rate of change in the world of sports -- by which everyday sporting goods are being connected, redeveloped, redefined and redeployed -- is nothing short of astounding";

(2) It's about much more than iPods - "It's not about accessorizing, it's about re-defining the product";

(3) It's happening in the infinite global innovation idea loop;

(4) It's about extensibility - "Smart sports goods manufacturers won't build a product and release to market. They will build a platform that customers can tinker with, add on to, modify and enhance";

(5) The rapid rate of change is being driven by the next generation, which expects products to perform a wide range of "cool" functions.


[image: The Burton iPod for skiers]

Francesco Cara of Nokia explains the concept of "organic innovation"

Nokia%20display.jpgThe Putting People First blog has provided extensive commentary and notes from the European Market Research Event in London, complete with real-time blogging updates from a number of the sessions. On Day 1 of the event, Clive Grinyer, Director of User Design at France Telecom Orange, reflected on the relationship between usability and design, while Francesco Cara, Director of Nokia Design, Insight and Innovation, explained the process of "organic innovation":

"Cara, who has a cognitive science background, provided a talk on organic innovation, where innovation is created in dialogue with the end-user, in an open, interactive way. Nokia, argues Cara, advocates a human approach to technology, with a strong emphasis on dialogue. Fast prototyping and ethnography are crucial, with the latter assuming a strategic role.
Cara provided the case study example of Skype, which is a typical example of convergence, bringing together voice telephony, instant messaging and broadband access. The ethnographic and contextual interview study, which took place in Germany and Brazil, explored who the Skype users really were and how they used the service. Some of the learnings showed that Skype should not be seen as a replacement but as an additional that has a number of quite distinct features: such as openness (the channel remains open), targeted and intimate, low virality and enriched communication."

Other speakers at the event included Flemming Ostergaard, Marketing Innovation Director at Lego, and Anne Kirah, senior design anthropologist at Microsoft’s MSN Customer Design Centre.

[image: Nokia Display]

How MTV stays Innovative without a formal Innovation structure

With all of the talk about innovation, the creation of corporate innovation departments, and the hiring of chief innovation officers, it's worth noting that some companies with long track records of innovative product and service development have little to no formal innovation structure. Take MTV. In its 25 years, the company has established the music video as one of the most bankable currencies in pop culture. Yet look at MTV's org chart, and you won't see any mention of the I-word. "We don't have a chief innovation officer," says Nusrat Durrani, MTV World general manager. "We don't even think about innovation formally as other companies do." Lasting Advantages Instead, the company has fostered a culture of innovation, an open and active environment in which new ideas are encouraged from a variety of personalities and perspectives. If a concept holds up to quantitative and qualitative business analysis, it can spawn a new venture no matter whose idea it was. All Over the Map MTV's culture of innovation stems, at least in part, from the network's eclectic hiring tendencies. One of the company's founders had been an importer of textiles. The head of MTV International is an Army man. And the chairperson of the company used to be a copywriter. As Durrani puts it: "we have a diversity of talent, backgrounds, and experiences. We bring these diverse experiences with us." How they used this unique Innovation culture to launch MTV World in the US, read the full article here!

Open Source Innovation - it works!

The latest issue of the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge has a great interview with Harvard Prof. Karim Lakhani (his blog here), in which he describes the results of his latest research - the analysis of how open source norms of transparency, permeable access, and collaboration work with scientists.

After studying the effects of broadcasting or introducing problems to outsiders for 166 distinct scientific problems from the research labs of 26 firms over a 4 1/2 year period they found that this method, borrowed from the software open source movement, was yielding effective solutions. In fact they found that it was those with expertise at the periphery of a problem's field who were most likely to find the answers quickly!

Some of the best innovations do happen at the intersections of disciplines, which is why it is always a bad idea to have siloed organizations.

Another interesting finding is what motivates people to spend time in open source projects. Sure, reputation and the potential for rewards - as is the case for Innocentive - count, but some of the most important drivers are "fun and the enjoyment of problem solving." The more creative people feel in projects, the more likely they are to spend time with those projects!

[Tags: ]

The Medici Effect in Bangkok

the%20medici%20effect%20paperback.jpgAccording to The Medici Effect, the bestselling business book from innovation guru Frans Johansson, the biggest innovation breakthroughs occur when there is an intersection of diverse ideas and cultures. With that in mind, check out the fusion of Swedish innovation know-how and Thai entrepreneurship that could lead to new breakthroughs in Thailand. ScandAsia has the details:

"Sweden takes good care of creative ideas and clever innovations, from idea to market, while Thailand is full of great entrepreneurs making decent incomes and often not much more. The idea behind Rangsit University’s new Master of Arts Program, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Management, is to merge the best of the above from the two nations. That will enable Thai students, who wish to work in an international environment by creating products and services from their visions, to achieve their goals.
RSU starts the program early next year at its Sathorn campus in downtown Bangkok... The programme runs over approximately 18 months. Five to ten months of them will be spent at Mälardalen University in Sweden, [where] innovation and entrepreneurship is taught at the school’s center for creativity/innovation/design. How long one stays in Sweden depends in which country the student wish to write the thesis that rounds off the program."

This is more than just a one-time event for Bangkok. It looks like the city is engaged in a comprehensive effort to create similar types of Medici Effects throughout the economy. On the Medici Effect blog, Frans Johansson profiles the launch of The Medici Effect in Bangkok:

"I did not actually expect to be in Bangkok only weeks later after making that post [about the diversity of Bangkok]. It is actually my first time here and it was for the launch of the Thai version of The Medici Effect. The publishers here provided me with a great tour of both Bangkok and the outskirts of the city - and what I found interesting was that the country’s diversity is so deeply ingrained in its history. Everywhere there are clear signs of how China, India, Burma and other regions has been a huge influence in the country’s development. Thailand is, in some ways, at a huge intersection of cultures and so it makes sense that they are fairly comfortable with this diversity."

The New IN

in3.jpg

The new IN is out (we'll never get tired of that joke) and focuses on redesigning yourself (your business, that is). Items on Kodak and Electrolux flank a double gate-fold on Second Life, and short snappers in the Inshort area focus on "tools and trends to spur creativity". Our favorite quote is from Philip Rosedale, CEO of Second Life's Linden Lab, who observes, "Second Life is improving in resolution and functionality at the rate of Moore's Law. The real world isn't getting better by the day." Sadly. Inblogs gives shout-outs to Worldchanging, Treehugger, Gristmill and Inhabitat. So cancel the aforementioned "sadly," visit these sites, and prove Rosedale wrong.

...

November 19, 2006

Creating the products of tomorrow in Inventionland

Inventionland.jpg

What if you worked on a pirate ship, in a cave with fake deer and fish, in a giant baby crib or a tree house instead of an office? Chances are, you'd be more innovative and creative. That's the premise behind the creation of the fantastical new "invention factory" of Davison Design and Development. Inventionland, which opened its doors on November 8, was built to "free the creative mind" and create the "products of tomorrow." As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette explains, Inventionland is a leading-edge design and innovation incubator that feels much like stepping into an adventure from Alice in Wonderland or a Hollywood movie set:

"The pirate ship, crib, rock cave and tree house are just four of the 15 fantastical sets that comprise the company's offices, now known as Inventionland. The "magical wonderland" is the work of company founder George M. Davison, who believes that creativity is best fostered in an imaginative environment. Many of the designs harken back to his childhood -- the concept behind the office is not unlike Story Book Forest at Idlewild Park, which Mr. Davison, 42, visited frequently as a child. "Growing up, it was one of my favorite places to be," he said, watching the indoor waterfall he built outside the rock cave."

Davison Design and Development's services include everything from research, industrial design, virtual reality, and product samples to packaging, presentation for possible licensing, and royalty management. For more on this invention wonderland, check out the collection of photos on Flickr here.


[image: Inventionland]

Competitiveness Index Released at Innovation Symposium

John_a_young America's innovation leaders gathered in Washington DC this week to celebrate cutting-edge innovations and to mark the 20th anniversary of the Council on Competitiveness.  The celebration included an elaborate and special tribute dinner for John Young, chairman of the President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness in 1983-1985, and at that time president and CEO of Hewlett-Packard and founder of the Council on Competitiveness. The event coincided with the release of Competitiveness Index–Where America Stands . DuPont CEO Chad Holliday, chairman of the Council on Competitiveness, led the day-long Innovation Symposium. Other participating in the dialogue include Richard Clark, CEO of Merck & Co.; Robert Greifeld, CEO of NASDAQ; John Menzer, Vice Chairman of Wal-Mart; Patricia Russo, CEO of Lucent; and Dr. Irwin Jacobs, Chairman of Qualcomm. Among the American innovators who spoke during the symposium are Dean Kamen, who holds more than 440 patents for innovative health care devices; James M. Phillips, inventor of the medical imaging VeinViewer and the 2004 Information Week Innovator of the Year; Dr. Mark Humayun, R&D Magazine 2005 Innovator of the Year and one of the lead scientists in developing the revolutionary artificial retina; John Naisbitt of Megatrends fame; and Adam Bly, founder of Seed Magazine and Seed Media Group. The Innovation Symposium was produced by Richard Saul Wurman, founder and creator of the renowned TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) and eg2006 conferences. To download a copy of the Competitiveness Index and more information on Council activities  go to: www.compete.org

Creative Generalist Q&A: Jane Fulton Suri



Jane Fulton Suri is chief creative officer at IDEO, with special emphasis on the contribution of human insight, creative practice and design thinking to client companies. She came to design from human factors psychology to pioneer the integration of social science-based approaches with design, grow a flexible community of practitioners, and evolve human-centered design methods, including empathic observation and experience prototyping, across the company’s client projects worldwide. In addition, Jane published a book last year about intuitive design titled Thoughtless Acts?.

In your BIF-2 presentation last month you remarked that observation, intuition, empathy and imagination together make up "the empathic economy". Please elaborate on what you meant by this.

I shared several examples in the talk at BIF-2 that illustrate how observation, intuition, empathy and imagination about customers/end-users/consumers can inspire and inform innovation. This is no longer a very new idea; at least in progressive companies, it's a fairly widely accepted and well-established approach to innovation. When I refer to "the empathic economy" I’m talking about a future possibility - about a huge opportunity for innovation in which a similar level of empathy and imagination might be applied to the many different kinds of people who populate the business ecology of a particular industry, not just customers/end-users/consumers. In an empathic economy the provider/supplier of goods and services would be keen to reach an empathic understanding not just of consumers, but also of many other people within the business network upon whom business success depends: the farmer who grows/gathers the raw material, the processor who creates the basic technology, the distributor who ships it around, the sales-person, the trash collector (think "life-cycle" and interdependent human network).

By calling it the "empathic economy" I'm emphasizing that part of the inspiration and motivation for innovation that comes from creativity sparked by emotional, human, empathic resonance with other people's conditions, not only the more traditional functional analyses of interdependencies that might be more common. As our networks and supporting technology become more sophisticated the interdependence between many different kinds of individuals across the globe becomes more apparent, more accessible and more visible. It seems natural that companies will/can soon have a much broader view of sources and opportunities for innovation in their business than simply around the offer that they make to a consumer.

Also in your BIF-2 presentation, you noted that companies that "connect to the humanity in all of us can unleash the creative capacities that everybody has". What organizational processes and structures encourage such a connection? How has IDEO encouraged it?

In part, this is a matter of fostering an organizational cultural in which people all respect, even like and enjoy, one another, one another's ideas and diversity in different work-styles, knowledge and skills. That comes from leadership both living and behaving in that respectful way and in bringing in people and conceiving projects that promote it within the organization. An organization that doesn't do that internally will have a hard time encouraging others to participate with it in creative ways. Processes and practices can help by establishing behaviors and activities that involve listening, making sense, and encourage sharing of ideas in an
atmosphere of positive energy and critique. Part of it then is about seeking opportunities--activities like observation, rough prototyping, role playing, personal story-telling, brainstorming, deep dives--that allow people to leave behind (physically, literally and metaphorically) the traditional limitations of "the workplace" and formal roles to ask, look, try and learn new things, take risks, experiment and "fail" without fear of retribution. Space too, the quality of workplace and furniture elements makes a huge difference. Human behavior and creative capabilities need spaces and furniture elements that are flexible and accommodating to a wide range of activities - from individual to group, from passive to active, from study to play, from talking to making, reflective to stimulating. And location matters too - what do you see when you look out of the window, or step out of the door? People? Beautiful cityscape? Good places to eat? Nature? Being readily able to connect with a variety of pace and levels of stimulation in the environment--urbanity, natural landscape, activity, quiet, community, humanity--seems to be crucial to that unleashing.

In your experience, what type of personality typically makes the best observer?

I find that curiosity, open-mindedness, and imagination are important. It helps to be non-judgmental, able to move easily from noticing detail to thinking about patterns and the big picture, perceptive about (their own and other) people's behavior, motivations, and personally genuinely interested in other people’s points of reference.

On the whole, do you think that generalists may understand human factors better than specialists? If so, how come? If not, why not?

I think there are very many different kinds of specialists who are helpful in understanding human experience and our responses to the designed world. Human experience is very rich and complex, so many factors are at play...physiological, neurological, hormonal, biological, psychological, emotional, cognitive, social, sexual, organizational, cultural, spiritual, ideological, contextual, motivational, attitudinal, visual, tactile, auditory...on and on. These are all human factors. I think that we come to good understanding when specialists of deep and different kinds are able to generalize and integrate their specialist knowledge and insight - from specialists in other things. Design thinkers are specialist integrators of this kind...but I don't think that being integrators makes us generalists.

Can you elaborate on that? Why do you not consider integrators to be generalists?

To my mind integrative thinking doesn't preclude deep expertise. It does involve a willingness to go beyond the traditionally accepted limitations of that expert knowledge though, to fold in other factors and work with other diverse ways of viewing an issue.

A lot of what your team does is deciphering, explaining and altering various experiences - all of which involve a keen awareness of context, complex systems, and inter-relationships. How do you approach the complexity of evaluating, communicating, and re-engineering an experience?

This is where an human-centered observational and empathic approach can really help. As you say, all the elements that make up experiences are very complex when viewed objectively. But since experience is subjective, it is wonderfully refreshing and most useful to look at that kind of complexity through a human subjective lens and ask simply "what does the experience feel like from this perspective?". Literally seeking to understand the experience, the journey through time and space, for someone else. That perspective automatically integrates all the contributing elements into a whole and helps you appreciate the interdependencies in a way that doing only objective analysis wouldn't. It also lets you imagine and mock-up/prototype changes to one or more elements and explore how that might affect the context, or the overall experience. You can enact, role-play or literally try out your "re-engineered" experience following the journey of that specific experience whether it's navigating through a new airline check-in system, conducting a medical procedure or buying a new pair of jeans.

What is the most misunderstood aspect of human factors research?

I think a big misunderstanding is the belief that human factors is about research. I think that human factors is about design. Research is an important activity within the context of design, but it's important to understand that the value is in application, in answering "so what?".

Your 40-person human factors team at IDEO is necessarily multi-disciplinary. Can you offer a story that illustrates the value of multi-disciplinary collaboration?

IDEO employs about 500 people globally, of whom about 40 or so are design professionals with a human-science or social-science related background of some kind. All our project teams comprise designers of many different backgrounds: engineering, interaction design, industrial design, writing, film-making, psychology, anthropology, business etc. The idea is that team members work in a highly collaborative interdisciplinary way that we call post-disciplinary - it's about seamless integration, so it's hard to pull out distinctive contributions. You will see examples of work on ideo.com: the Lifeport kidney transporter, Marriott Towne Place Suites, Bank of America's Keep the Change debit card; or in Thoughtless Acts?: the design for SFMoMA's new entrance, the Heartstream defibrillator - all are examples of post-disciplinary teamwork where human insight has inspired and informed the final design solution in an integrated way.

I'm curious to learn why IDEO uses the term "post-disciplinary" (rather than multi- or inter-disciplinary). You mentioned in an earlier response that the factors are understood by specialists - is that not inherently disciplinary?

We use the term "post-disciplinary" not to diminish the role of discipline and expertise as a foundation but to communicate the idea of going beyond it, not being limited by a disciplinary stance in collaborative teamwork. Working collaboratively on teams is both about what you bring (your depth, your "discipline") and about how you apply it (your breadth, your integrative thinking). I like the term "inter-disciplinary" too, in that it emphasizes action in the creative spaces between disciplines.

What has been the most surprising or interesting response to your book Thoughtless Acts??

Surprising and interesting, though obvious in hindsight, was the extreme polarization of response. People either love it or hate it. Those who love it seem to enjoy responding to the challenge the book throws out, to look at the images, to think about them and the behavior and motivations behind the depicted actions or evidence. The enthusiasts engage with the open-ended intent of the book and its invitation to bring their own ideas and perceptions to bear. People who hate it seem to want to receive more from the book, to have more didactic content to read and also find it frustrating to look at images without captions alongside them. The most gratifying thing for me personally was to learn early on that a group had formed on Flickr.com where people are submitting images and tagging them as "thoughtless acts." What makes me happy about that is that the idea has captured some creative imaginations and is encouraging people to notice and speculate about the many small human traces that are all around us—and that was what I’d hope for.

Where do you look for inspiration? Are there any organizations, people, books or websites that you find especially inspiring?

On a daily basis my colleagues and the clients are a huge source of inspiration for me—always challenging, questioning, curious. And my husband is a woodworker, so he also inspires me everyday with his understanding of materials and his craft in making beautiful things. I'm very lucky that I find the ordinary everyday interactions of people, places and things, our continual cleverness and confusion endlessly fascinating—and especially so when I get to travel to new places with less familiar traditions, language, artifacts and ideas. I have a very favorite radio program (such old technology!). It's Fresh Air with Terry Gross. She has a way of connecting with the people she interviews—writers, musicians, film-makers and artists of all kinds—that brings out the very best in them. She so evidently enjoys the people she interviews and so is able to reveal a level of personal intent and integrity in their work that makes me want to engage with it too.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, Jane. Cheers!

Yaniv Steiner's talk on rapid prototyping process

yaniv_for_wmm2.jpgYesterday i attended the Italian edition of World Usability Day and found it really good.

The conference focused on two themes: How prototypes can promote usability and Integrating usability and creativity to achieve ‘pleasure of use’. Yaniv Steiner was part of the first panel and he gave a truly inspiring talk. The audio is online, the slides of his presentation and the links as well (and no, don't even try to ask, i have no intention to do anything similar for any of the talks i give) so i'll just sum up his ideas.

Yaniv is a prototyping specialist, game player and developer, software and hardware developer, Head of R&D at experientia and the founder of Nastypixel which is a "prototyping sweatshop" and i'm sure i'm forgetting something here. I first met him when he was teaching at the Interaction Design Institute in Ivrea. He's also teaching at the University of Architecture in Venezia and at the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design in Jerusalem.

He doesn't define himself as an interaction designer, because he believes that Interaction Design is an "entity made of designers, artists, technologists, and cognitive scientists." The key is the communication, the unification of language and methods to achieve one goal: the product.

0instatou.jpg

While he was working at Ivrea he lead a brilliant project called InstantSOUP, it's a path into electronics using an approach of “learning by making”, introducing electronic prototyping in a playful, non-technical way to designers and artists. It makes the first steps into the world of physical prototyping almost as easy as preparing Instant Soup.

Two of his students at IDII, Michael Albers and Shawn Bonkowski, applied the lessons of InstantSOUP to FloorIt, arcade car racing brought to life.

0floooooooor.jpg 0flooooooo2.jpg

Yaniv also talked about process, one of the most important elements of rapid prototyping:

1. Collect the user data, observe it, understand it and act by it. Take your first assumption, try it on your own team, then push it forward by taking it out of the team and give it to users (the car racing toy to kids for example) and observe, take pictures, make videos, etc.

2. Stay in Beta. In software development you develop a beta version, test it, twitch it, correct its problems then you sell it as a "product." That's an old fashioned way to look at things. E.g. Microsoft Vista vs Google. So keep it open and design for changes. Your first assumption is not what you're going to end up with at the end.

For him, computer game is the best place to check usability. In game, usability is so important it has its own name and it's called Game Play. If it's not fun no one will play your game. That's a real challenge because it means that you have to let people play for months or even months before deciding that the game is a success. Today people don't design the core of the games, they design the editor. This could be applied to other contexts, not only in software.

Nastypixel and experientia work on the concept of assumption-breaking design, assumptions give the kick off but as soon as you start designing forget about those first assumptions you had because it's going to change all the time. Example: a project he designed along with Ofer Luft. SmartRetina, a lightfast gesture-tracking platform. After having developed that platform they needed a product and came up with Mossalibra, a kind of computer game for clubs.

0mossali.jpg 0mossalibne.jpg

While dancing to the music, the user (represented in pixelated form as a pure gesture) can mimic a given set of gestures in order to gain points. These gestures are actually pixelated snapshots of previous players.

The developers were quite surprised by the way people used it: they loved MOssalibra but not because of the game element but because it allowed them to glorify themselves in front of other clubbers.

They also converted the SmartRetina system into something else: a visual catalogue of recent art work exhibited at the Fondazione Sandretto Re Rebaudengo. It was premiered last weekend at Artissima.

The Essence of Delegation



What prevents most people from becoming effective leaders? They believe that, if they have the authority to make an important decision, and must take direct responsibility for the outcome—especially if that choice proves to be a mistake—they must make that decision personally. It seems impossible to consider that they might allow a subordinate to make the decision under any circumstances. It seems too great a risk—bordering on culpable folly—to allow someone else to make a potentially erroneous decision for which you will ultimately be held responsible. Yet that is an essential part of all good leadership.


Leaders are continually urged to become better delegators. It’s sensible advice. Much of the overwork and pressure that is endemic in organizations comes from a simple inability to delegate. Whether you call it “staying in the loop” or “keeping your finger on the pulse,” or use any of the other fancy ways of describing the rooted tendency to want to be involved in everything that might possibly affect you, the behavior is the same. It’s why circulation lists have become bloated out of all proportion, and people waste large amounts of their time attending pointless meetings.

The result is obvious. Their subordinates are given boring, routine, trivial work—and expected to like it—while they hold onto anything interesting that might affect actual business results.
But have you noticed that almost nobody has the slightest problem in delegating work that they see as boring, trivial, routine, or inconsequential? They cannot be rid of that fast enough. What they cling onto—like leeches—is whatever they think is important, especially if the result might reflect on them or alter their standing in the eyes of the people above them. The result is obvious. Their subordinates are given boring, routine, trivial work—and expected to like it—while they hold onto anything interesting that might affect actual business results.

That isn’t delegation. That’s the action of any privileged person who can afford servants to handle the boring parts of life, while he or she sits around and pretends to be above such mundane concerns. It turns subordinates into slaves or despised gophers, who can learn little of any use for their future development, since they are rarely allowed to deal with anything challenging. It’s also extremely risky. Should some crisis occur, when passing important work to subordinates becomes an unavoidable necessity, those subordinates will have neither the knowledge nor the experience to handle it. Mistakes and muddles are inevitable, further reinforcing the leader’s comfortable view that only he or she has what it takes to deal with important issues correctly.

Many of the greatest leaders spend nearly all their time coaching others to do the jobs that they would otherwise have done, believing (correctly) that their real job is to train and develop their subordinates, not carry out tasks they could perfectly well have delegated.
Delegation is inviting others to share your full workload, not just the boring bits. It is getting them involved in ways that can add to your own thoughts and ideas. It is using all the extra ability and creativity that they can bring. Of course, it inevitably involves some risk: the risk that they will make a mistake that you might not have made yourself. But then, they may very possibly save you from mistakes you definitely would have made, so it balances out. Indeed, many of the greatest leaders spend nearly all their time coaching others to do the jobs that they would otherwise have done, believing (correctly) that their real job is to train and develop their subordinates, not carry out tasks they could perfectly well have delegated.

Being a major-league leader means delegating everything you possibly can—and then some. It means accepting that you will continually carry the can for things that others have done; and dealing with that by training and developing them to do what you ask them as well as possible, not by hanging onto the decisions yourself. The essence of delegation is trust, which is why it is so often poorly done. If you don’t trust your subordinates, why are you their leader? They would be far happier and better off without you. Consider that.

Think Brighter


Fortune Small Business:

Do you ever face a mental blank at the drawing board? If so, it might be time to explore new ways to come up with creative ideas.

Over the years I’ve discovered that many entrepreneurs who become successful idea generators follow a routine. By learning their brainstorming patterns, you can demystify your creative thought processes and generate better ideas with more regularity.

Daydream. Muse. Visualize. Mull. Doodle. Those activities are considered by many to be a waste of time, but they’re actually invaluable pieces of the creativity puzzle.

When ideas come to you, write them down without worrying about their value–what may seem a lark today could spark a brilliant idea tomorrow. I fill memo pads with scribbled notes, far-out doodles, and crazy ideas that eventually grow into keynote speeches, unusual marketing strategies, and new business opportunities.

Finally, transform your new idea into reality by cooking up a plan to implement it. This is the most rewarding part of the creative process. An idea remains meaningless unless it’s put into action. Besides, your mind will tire of generating fresh ideas if none ever become real.

Photo by mrmatt.


Turning a conference intro a creative event

One of the innovation we’re trying to bring forward at LIFT07 (7-8-9 February 2007 Geneva, Switzerland) is to have a more creative and interactive platform during the conference. This is going to be LIFT+, a concept intended as a bridge between creativity and pragmatism, allowing all possible forms of interaction, gathering individuals working freely on a specific topic - DIGITAL FRAGILITY – to evoke the overwhelming presence of connectivity in daily life.

The whole point is to make the conference environment more creative so that people could participate and work out some ideas related to the concept of digital fragility. The website describes some of the project that we plan to have:

  • Plotter: Content and selected works will be printed (four plotters will output content uninterrupted) during the conference in the main entrance.
  • Double Photo: Build a tiny portrait-studio in the event’s premises, a small world (somewhat exterior to all the fuzz of such a conference) dedicated to shooting portraits.
  • Post-it Floor: You post literally – by writing on a post it - some words and its meaning. You’ll have to draw tehm with real pens
  • Snake Run: SnakeRun is an actual sized two-player snake game. Each participant controls a virtual snake that is projected on the playing field.


Why do I blog this? as one the organizer, I can tell how stimulating it is to think about how to go beyond sit-and-listen-to-a-talk conference! We’re trying to do our best to do something more innovative.

Divine Discontent

Dame Anita Roddick, the founder of The Body Shop chain of stores, has written a piece in The Financial Times in which she attacks business schools for their failure to understand what it takes to be an entrepreneur. Predictably, a range of business school spokespersons has sprung to their defense and attacked Ms. Roddick in return.

I don’t want to get involved in this argument, but I couldn’t help noting this comment from Ms. Roddick:
The problem with business schools is that they are controlled by, and obsessed with, the status quo. They encourage you deeper into the world as it is. They transform you into a better example of corporate man. We need good administration and financial flair, after all, but we need people of imagination too.
Whether or not business schools help potential entrepreneurial types, it is a valid point that too much of the business world in general suffers from this obsession with preserving the status quo.

Among the actions that Ms. Roddick suggests, these in particular seem to me to be likely to prove helpful to anyone who leads an organization:
  • Tell stories. The central tool for imagining the world differently and sharing that vision is not accountancy. It has more to do with the ability to tell a story.

  • Concentrate on creativity. It is critical for any entrepreneur to maximise creativity and to build an atmosphere that encourages people to have ideas.

  • Be passionate about ideas. Entrepreneurs want to create a livelihood from an idea that has obsessed them; not necessarily a business, but a livelihood. When accumulating money drives out the ideas and the anger behind them, you are no longer an entrepreneur.

  • Feed your sense of outrage. Discontentment drives you to want to do something about it. There is no point in finding a new vision if you are not angry enough to want it to happen.
Complacent, satisfied, comfortable people do not make change. Why should they? Nor do those who have been convinced by anyone that the way things are today represents the best of all possible worlds—or, at least, the only kind of world that is possible.

Let us cherish our imagination, our vision, our discontent, and, above all, our sense of outrage at the mess we see around us. Maybe then we will summon up the courage to do something about it.

Virtual gold and tool creativity

ige (Internet Gaming Entertainment) is an intriguing website/company that allows people to buy and sell gold for MMORPG. So people who don’t have time to farm can busy gold and use it for them or their guild. What is interesting is that people who used to do it on eBay now have a specific platform for that. The market must be huge.

Now, if you look a bit at the creativity about this phenomenon in terms of tools/websites/information available concerning gold/goods, this is quite crazy (price comparators…):

  • Eye on MOGs: “Eye On MOGS is a MOGS search-engine cum comparison/availability tool. Our aim here has always been simple – to provide you, the user, with a quick and easy way to find the virtual good you want; when you want it and for the best price for you
  • Gold Pricer: “This website is dedicated to finding you the lowest priced World of Warcraft Gold for your server on the internet. Every day, we search more than 30 different providers of WoW gold, to ensure the prices we display for your server are completely up to date“.

November 12, 2006

The future by design

On YouTube.com, there's a three-minute trailer for the film Future By Design from Academy Award-nominated director William Gazecki. In the film, renowned futurist and inventor Jacque Fresco "extrapolates from the present" to conjure up a vision of levitating trains, underwater cities, and futuristic buildings:

"Future by Design shares the life and far-reaching vision of Jacque Fresco, considered by many to be a modern day Da Vinci. Peer to Einstein and Buckminster Fuller, Jacque is a self-taught futurist who describes himself most often as a "generalist" or multi-disciplinarian -- a student of many inter-related fields. He is a prolific inventor, having spent his entire life (he is now 90 years old) conceiving of and devising inventions on various scales which entail the use of innovative technology. As a futurist, Jacque is not only a conceptualist and a theoretician, but he is also an engineer and a designer."

The film had its world premiere at the Atlanta Film Festival in June. Hopefully, a major studio will pick up and distribute this fascinating documentary to a wider audience.

Google's secret innovation formula

Life%20in%20the%20Googleplex.jpgWhat is Google's secret formula for innovation success? According to Amy Rowell of Innovate Forum, it is the company's willingness to experiment with "wild, ambitious" ideas, while at the same time, understanding that failure can be a catalyst for innovation success. Also, it doesn't hurt that the company has created "a sort of playground for adults" to get the innovation juices flowing:

"Google is one of those companies that just seems to keep getting it right. But as even its management team will tell you, that’s in large part because it’s not afraid to get it wrong – at least some of the time. In fact, Google’s innovation process leaves plenty of room for experimentation and failure, and does so by having a rather novel workplace environment.
By design, Google’s product development environment is a sort of playground for adults. In a campus setting, Google employees can, for example, reportedly enjoy the benefits of an outdoor wave pool, an indoor gym, free meals and the use of company-provided scooters to transport them between buildings."

[image: Life in the Googleplex]

Innovation is about breaking the rules of your industry

Today, every business feels the pressure to innovate. Innovation is touted daily in the headlines of business magazines, the presentations of consultants, and in the books and conferences of business visionaries. Yes, OK! We need to innovate. But how? Here's a suggestion: Break a rule! Do something that disrupts a fundamental tenet of your market or industry. If you look back at some of the most successful examples of innovation, you'll observe that in many cases innovators didn't come up with some entirely new product or service, but instead directly challenged a sacrosanct practice of their industry and bested their competitors by changing the rules of the game. So what is a rule? A rule is a widely accepted business convention that is so common and constant that it seems like an immutable natural law. For some examples of companies that broke rules successfully, read the full article by Thomas Ordahl.

Just Innovating

I have come to the firm belief that too many firms have set too high a goal for innovation. We are frankly making innovation too "hard" in many organizations and setting such a high expectation that many people are looking at innovation and shying away from participation.

It's like reading Das Capital and trying to understand the dialectic, whatever that is. Why use simple explanations and examples when long, amorphous sounding phrases will work? I feel the same way about innovation. There's far too much talk about innovation and theory and discussion but just not enough action. And far too frequently the reasons behind that are not structural but expectations.

I spoke recently with a senior individual in a large firm who is convinced that innovation must happen outside the "normal" business process. This person felt that people were too ill-informed or too busy to innovate and generate new ideas. What gets in the way of people generating ideas as part of their day to day job? Expectations and quarterly result pressure. But surely most people in that rather large business experience challenges or identify opportunities that they can pass along as a new idea or product. Certainly they can take a few minutes out of their schedule to evaluate an idea that may have merit to their business. Otherwise we may as well transfer all innovation work to the business development guys.

There's simply too much talk about innovation and not enough experimentation and trials. As the talk increases, the level of discourse is not improving, and is only creating barriers as the expectations increase. What most firms need now is to provide tools, processes and training to their innovative folks and get out of the way. Instead, most firms keep talking about innovation and raising the bar, and more and more people are discouraged from getting anything started since it can't possibly measure up to the talk.

We need more experiments, more trials, more intentional accidents. We need to set the expectations that everyone should be involved in innovation - at least to the extent of generating and submitting ideas. As we define an innovation "team", let's take care not to create innovation ghettos. Too many people are being left out of the process, which means too many ideas aren't being discovered and evaluated.

Yes, we want ideas that the firm can capitalize on, and yes, there needs to be some evaluation of the ideas and better portfolio management, but right now we are reaching a cusp where the expectations for innovation are beginning to discourage the average employee from participating.

I'd like to see an approach where any employee can "just innovate". That innovation by any person is the baseline expectation, and that the organization will sponsor and support those who innovate. We need to build the enthusiasm and the processes at the same time. Right now I think we are raising the bar without increasing the involvement or investment.

You Can't Be Innovative and Risk-averse Too

Management Issues recently gave a summary of research by Archstone Consulting on the topic of innovation. The survey was based on results from mostly larger organizations in both consumer durables, consumer non-durables, life sciences and services, half of whom were Fortune 1000 or Global 500 companies, and a third of whom have revenues in excess of $10 billion. Half of these companies say they are unhappy with the return they see on their innovation spending. What's the problem? This was the paragraph caught my eye:
"The survey also found that having a culture that does not foster risk taking was the biggest impediment to innovation," said George Davie, a Managing Director of The Hazelton Group, an Archstone Consulting company.
Surprise, surprise. Despite "calling on the services of a range of consumer research firms, brand strategy and innovation firms, management consultants, advertising agencies and brand and identity design firms," such businesses don't make it in the innovation stakes because they don't foster risk-taking.

Change and risk are joined at the hip. You cannot have one without the other. And the more innovative the change, the greater the risk will be.
You cannot be innovative and risk-averse at the same time; and talking about “risk management” rather than “risk aversion” won’t change anything. Change and risk are joined at the hip. You cannot have one without the other. And the more innovative the change, the greater the risk will be.

Many organizations get risk completely wrong, because they focus entirely on the risk of being wrong. What about the risk of being right—maybe even more right than you ever dreamed? It’s the continual focus on the downside of risk that leads executives to institute whole books of rules to limit their exposure to it, and to punish those who take risks and get them wrong. But much—maybe most—of success in the real world has to do with chance, not design. That’s how evolution works, for example. It puts out changes into the world and sees what happens. What works, survives. What fails, dies. It’s trial and error, not some carefully plotted process of superior design thinking. Hey, if Nature works that way, who are we to say we know better?

Of course it makes sense to avoid mistakes whenever we can. Nature has almost endless resources (and no shareholders to complain) and we don’t. But we can still learn how to make better use of the chances we can afford to take:
  1. Start by encouraging as many ideas as possible, from any source. Innovation needs raw materials, and that’s what ideas are.

  2. Get people together to discuss those ideas and sort out the ones that look most promising. Don’t, whatever you do, make the process competitive or do anything else to make those people whose current ideas don’t make the cut feel they are losers. If you do, they’ll never share another idea again. Encourage them to keep trying with yet more ideas. Praise those who bring forward the most potential innovations, not just those whose ideas are chosen for the next stage.

  3. Start committing resources for studies and small-scale trials of promising ideas. Don’t try to second-guess what will work eventually and what won’t. Try as many as you can. Involve the inventor of the idea in the process. Keep encouraging them to extend, adapt, change, add to their idea to make it work better.

  4. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER criticize, let alone punish, anyone for an idea that doesn’t work out—even if it costs you money. Treat every failure (and there will be many) as a great chance to learn something more.

  5. Run your successes hard and cut your losses fast. Never pour more money into something that doesn’t work in the real world, however attached to it you have become. There is an almost infinite supply of other fresh ideas. Be as quick to forget your last (unsuccessful) love as the hardest hearted Don Juan.

  6. Make innovation and initiative something that attracts praise and recognition, regardless of the outcome. A failed idea is far better than no idea at all. Remember that.
You don’t encourage innovation and creativity by talking about them. You get them only when you make it quite clear that the real “crime” in business is stagnation and a dull mind, not making honest mistakes. Everyone gets it wrong—often—and everyone needs forgiveness, understanding, and support when that happens . . . even (especially?) the CEO and the executive team.

November 11, 2006

50% of companies unhappy with their innovation efforts

Archstone.jpgAccording to a new survey from Archstone Consulting, more than half of all companies are dissatisfied with the results of their innovation initiatives. That's the bad news. The good news is that nearly 75% of companies plan to increase their spending on innovation over the next few years in an effort to drive top-line revenue growth:

"The importance of innovation spending to the bottom line has been highlighted in a new survey by Archstone Consulting which found that half of the companies questioned said that between 10% and 25% of their revenues over the next three years would be driven by products and services that will be developed over the next 12 months. Yet less than 5% of these companies believe they have a highly effective innovation process and only a small number are using state of the art approaches to innovation like open networks and innovation-based metrics.
To bridge this gap, the vast majority of companies are investing significantly in consumer research as well as tapping into external resources such as formal and informal inventor networks to help them uncover new ideas, concepts, improvements and enablers. They are also calling on the services of a range of consumer research firms, brand strategy and innovation firms, management consultants, advertising agencies and brand and identity design firms."

As Archstone explains, there are two key reasons that account for the relatively poor performance of innovation initiatives thus far: (1) the failure by many companies to put a formal innovation strategy in place and (2) an inability to measure the effectiveness of innovation programs. Other reasons include "confused project sponsorship," a failure to achieve high-level buy-in from senior executives and a lack of dedicated resources. Going forward, the consulting firm advises companies to start building a culture that fosters and respects risk-taking and innovative thinking.

Biologically inspired ocean power

Biomimetic%20ocean%20power.jpg

In her groundbreaking 1997 book Biomimicry , Janine Benyus described the brave new world of innovation inspired by nature. By studying and emulating nature, engineers, architects and designers can develop world-changing innovations, such as these ocean power generation systems pictured above. Treehugger details the efforts by BioPower Systems to create the bioWAVE™ and the bioSTREAM™. Both systems try to take advantage of the biophysical properties marine animals and plants have adopted for living in near shore wave and high flow environments. One system mimics the kelp while the other mimics a shark's tail:

"The bioWAVE™ takes advantage of near shore wave environments. The design appears to be inspired directly by the kelp. There appear to be two specific advantages of this design. First, the device "lies flat against seabed during extreme conditions" which is a good idea to reduce the potential for damage, something most other wave energy platforms do not directly address. Second, the "zero visual impact" may make this technology more palpable for people who do not want big floating buoys."
The bioSTREAM™ mimics a sharks tail. It shares the "no visual impact", and I understand how this design self orients to the direction of flow. What I find curious is that the tail will use a processor-controlled fin pitch actuator to create oscillation. I imagine that this actuator will need tweaking depending on current flow conditions, and shape of the tail. Something that sounds tricky to me…"

As Treehugger explains, both of these solutions have real possibilities: "The vivid and compelling ideas capture the imagination, and it will be hard to wait another year or two before we can see if these ideas are more then just pretty pictures."

[image: Biomimetic ocean power]

Co-creation at P&G

P&GCocreation.pngProcter & Gamble documented their product co-creation process in a white paper (pdf) (click here for the web site - via John Winsor).

In a program called Connect + Develop, P&G is trying to accelerate their internal R&D capabilities - provided by 7,200 R&D staff - by seeking to leverage ideas, talents and innovation assets of individuals, institutes and companies around the world. So they are not just trying to expand their innovation process to other employees besides their R&D staff, they are actually trying to expand it to include outside partners, customers, and even competitors.

Their primary focus is on ready-to-go innovations - solutions that have already been reduced to practice in some part of the world, and in disruptive ideas for their business categories. So in a way they are trying to identify lead users in their extended networks.

Some of the successes to date include Bounce, which was a ready-to-go technology acquisition, Spinbruch, which was a ready-to-go product acquisition, pump dispensers used for Olay Skin Care product, which was a ready-to-go packaging acquisition, and Swifter Dusters, which came from a partnership with a competitor.

Here is what A.G. Lafley has to say in his introduction:

I want us to be the absolute best at spotting, developing and leveraging relationships with best-in-class partners in every part of our business. In fact, I want P&G to be a magnet for the best-in-class. The company you most want to work with because you know a partnership with P&G will be more rewarding than any other option available to you.

Pretty powerful stuff!

.

[Tags: ]

Developing a Trends Program

The HenleyCentre/HeadlightVision newsletter has a good article describing the process they went through with Nestle to develop a trends program to help Nestle gain insights into changing consumer attitudes and behaviors.  The article unfortunately (although understandably) doesn’t tell us much about the insights they’ve gained from the program - although it does briefly mention some resulting product innovations - but it’s a helpful mini-case study if you’re new to the world of trends and foresight.  Although Nestle is a consumer focused business the concepts are equally applicable to B2B including professional services.
 
Technorati Tags : , , <!-- End Technorati Tags -->

Take an Extra Hour in Bed . . . to Grow Smarter?

Here's a happy thought from Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper, in an article called: Don't feel guilty about that extra hour in bed this morning. It's made you smarter:
Extra hours in bed really are good for the brain, according to findings announced on the weekend that the clocks go back, giving people 60 minutes more sleep. Three psychologists at the University of Rome analyzed more than 100 studies on the effects of sleep on cognitive tasks and found that being awake for too long could have a serious effect on the ability to learn and remember new information. For students, a bad night's sleep could result in worse grades, they discovered.
It seems that students with higher grades reported going to bed earlier, getting more sleep, and having "more stable" sleeping patterns at weekends. Students with poor sleep patterns are more likely to fail at school and develop poor learning patterns.

It's easy to speculate on what all those students who stay up late are doing instead of learning, but there is a serious point here. Many overworked managers and professionals are forcing themselves to get by on only a few hours of sleep each night—and the definitely aren't spending all that extra waking time on anything remotely likely to cause a jolt of envy in anyone.

So give yourself a break and stay a little longer in bed. After all, you can now claim that you are doing it for your employer's sake too, so you'll be cleverer when you do—finally—make it to work.

Is Business Creative? Many Think It Is Not

Here's an interesting point from the blog "Presentation Zen." The article is called Creativity, presentations, and "design thinking", and is about making business presentations. But I believe what it says applies much more widely to business attitudes in general. The author describes giving a presentation to college students like this:
When I asked for a show of hands, most said they were not particularly 'creative.' After all, they said, they are not designers or artists, they are business students. Then I asked them if they thought creating and delivering a business presentation or a conference presentation was 'a creative endeavor' or something requiring a creative process. Only a few felt that it was.
If this represents a common situation, and not one where chance brought together an odd set of students, it suggests our business education system has some serious flaws. Because if business students think they do not need to be creative, what does that say about the future of our organizations? That they will need only dedicated followers, doing whatever a small cadre of leaders tell them to do? That repeating what is done today, only with greater efficiency, is all that will be needed to stay in front of the rest of the world? Don't make me laugh!

Creativity is too often seen as the preserve of "arty types" and "geeks and weirdoes" who must be kept safely in specific departments, like design, IT, or marketing, and not allowed to interfere with the serious, practical process of running a business.
I suspect the attitude of this student group is not at all uncommon. Creativity is too often seen as the preserve of "arty types" and "geeks and weirdoes" who must be kept safely in specific departments, like design, IT, or marketing, and not allowed to interfere with the serious, practical process of running a business. That is for people who don't allow themselves to be lead astray by such frivolous kinds of impractical self-indulgence.

Who says that leadership is only about managing existing process and making administration run smoothly? Who believes that we already know all we need to know about how to do it well? If that is what the managers and leaders of tomorrow believe, they must be learning it from somewhere, and the only places will be either their MBA courses or current managers. Heaven help our industry if its leaders go on thinking they don't need to be creative to succeed. They couldn't do anything more calculated to hand over an unassailable advantage to just about every overseas business you can imagine.

The author of the article that started this piece goes on to praise Stanford Business School (and the Silicon Valley area in general) for being an exception to this dead-head attitude to creativity in business. Let's hope he is correct.

November 06, 2006

My customer, my co-innovator

Toronto_Skyline_.jpg

On November 30 at the University of Toronto, CATA Alliance, Knowledge Media Design, Whetstone, Pearson, and The Access Group are co-sponsoring a My Customer, My Co-Innovator roundtable event that will take a closer look at the nascent co-innovation trend:

"How can we co-innovate our business processes in order to serve our customers in a new way? What challenges lie ahead? Who's making progress and how? In today's world, customers and competitors are consolidating, revenue targets are increasing and business complexity is at its highest peak. How can today's leaders "co-innovate" their "business processes" with their customers? What are leaders doing differently from the rest?"

As Michael Schrage recently pointed out in strategy + business magazine, more companies than ever before are working with their customers at the earliest stages of the innovation process:

"It's difficult to create products that customers want without understanding what they really need. Now that simple realization has spurred companies such as Cisco, Procter & Gamble, and Goldman Sachs to work together with their customers at the earliest stages of the innovation process, while making the entire process more transparent throughout the value chain. As a result, information flows freely between company and customer, designers have a clearer picture of what customers need, and the resulting products are more successful in the marketplace."

[image: Toronto skyline]

Innovation is for everyone

I've heard the statement recently, repeated as if it's a mantra: Innovation is for everyone, but not everyone can innovate. Seems reasonable enough at first hearing, but a little insidious after further contemplation.

I first heard this in the context of corporate-wide idea generation. This approach to innovation encourages everyone in the business to submit their best ideas to some central repository where they are collected and evaluated. I guess if I were to follow the logic of Innovation is for everyone, but not everyone can innovate, we'd have to say thanks very much for your ideas, now we'll turn them over to the experts who will bring them to fruition. Is that really what we want? Seems to me that people who generate good ideas may have some insight into a problem and have taken the time to think through a possible solution. Taking their idea and implementing it without involving them will only lead to less idea generation, since people will feel left out of their own ideas and creations.

Later, I heard this statement as a defense for traditional "R&D" style innovation. Ideas should come from experts within our Research and Development labs, not from regular line workers or marketers or finance types. Well, there's usually some admission that some ideas are acceptable from outside R&D, if they are about small improvements to business processes. There's an unstated bigotry in many firms that seems to say that only "certain" people are capable of innovating. No, it's just that most people have never had the opportunity and means to work an idea through the maze of the organization. Since there's no clear definition for generating and managing an idea through most organizations, it is almost impossible for most people to innovate. But this is a comment on the organization and its processes and stumbling blocks to innovation, not on the quality or caliber of the people.

Think about this for a second. Would your organization argue that "Customer service is for everyone, but not everyone can provide service to customers?" I suspect the Ritz Carlton, Hilton and Marriott chains would argue that anyone who interacts with a customer - from the bell hop to the front desk clerk to the hotel manager to the cleaning crew - provide customer interaction and customer service, whether that's their primary job or not. The reason it's easier to provide customer service rather than innovation is that the customer and the hotel staff interact on a frequent basis - face to face. Innovation is more difficult because it is often impossible to understand for the average person in an organization 1) who to raise the idea to 2) how it will get evaluated and 3) what should happen next. Again, not a fault of the person who raised the idea - this is a lack of definition and process.

Here's a good example. In the most recent Fast Company (Nov 2006 issue), there's a brief article about a guy who created a "TV Taco". A project manager in Best Buy's service division noticed that many large screen TVs were being damaged during delivery and set out to create some reuseable packaging to protect the TV during delivery. His first ideas and concepts didn't succeed, but his management team encouraged him and he created the TV Taco, which is now being rolled out across the Best Buy organization. (Fast Company, November 2006, p. 66). The article is headlined "How do you get enough ideas into the pipeline? We're doing it by trying to get our 128,000 plus employees to give us their ideas". It seems at Best Buy, innovation is for everyone, and everyone can innovate.

The challenge for broad scale innovation across your business is not how smart or capable your people are, but how ready and able your organization is to accept, manage and test the ideas. This is a cultural and process problem, not a people problem.

Eight definitions of innovation

As part of a dissertation I wrote, I collected over 20 definitions of innovation from various books and journals (this took forever). These definitions tend to emphasize one or more of the following: the economic/market/value-creating aspect of innovations; the diffusion/adoption/demand-side of innovations; the implementation/push of innovations; and the role that attitude/energy plays in implementing innovations. Here are eight of them (I haven't included the page numbers here):

1. " . . . introducing new commodities or qualitatively better versions of existing ones; finding new markets; new methods of production and distribution; or new sources of production for existing commodities; or introducing new forms of economic organization." (Schumpeter, 1942)

2. "An innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption." (Rogers, 1995)

3. "The intersection of invention and insight, leading to the creation of economic value." (U.S. National Innovation Initiative, 2005)

4. "An innovation is anything new that is actually used (enters the market place) - whether major or minor." (von Hippel, 2005)

5. "The adoption of an internally generated or purchased device, system, policy, program, process, product, or service that is new to the adopting organization." (Damanpour, 1991)

6. "Creating new and better ways of doing things that your customers value and that create value for your shareholders." (George et al., 2005)

7. "A new way of doing things . . . that is commercialized." (Porter, 1990)

8. "The successful exploitation of new ideas." (U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, 2003)

Tata Consultancy Services launches new innovation lab

Imperial%20Hotel%20Delhi.jpgTata Consultancy Services has launched the TCS Innovation Lab, an incubation and innovation center for the travel & hospitality industry. According to the CIO of British Airways, the lab will be a great place to test out innovative new business solutions: "IT innovation for innovation's sake has no place in business, but innovation that benefits passengers and hotel guests are most welcome."

For Tata, the new innovation lab could become another way to shed its image in the West as primarily an IT outsourcing organization: "The focus is to go beyond technology innovation, and develop solutions that result in higher productivity and business innovation for our customers." If all goes as planned, the new innovation lab will enable TCS clients in the travel & hospitality industry (airlines, hotels, resorts and travel companies) to access a wide range of domain experts, business process analysts, technology specialists and R&D team members while testing out innovative new product and service offerings.

[image: The Imperial Hotel in Delhi]

The Innovation Skill No One Is Talking About

There is an interesting discussion not happening about Innovation.

No one is talking about methods that translate concepts into reality. These systems engineering / system architecture type of issues are essential to Innovation. It is where the product “wants” get translated into the “whats.” For example “doesn’t break” gets turned into “must survive 3 successive 36 inch drops onto concrete with no loss of functionality.”

Without this translation the engineers don’t know how robust they have to make the design or how to test to see if they design is complete. Likewise, manufacturing has no idea if they are hitting nominal or not.

While there are a lot of tools available to help with the translation, my favorite is the House of Quality, there hasn’t been a lot of talk in the mainstream about them.

If you want a leg up on the competition on turning your Innovation dreams into actual products get some system engineering / architecture skills.

“Permanent Innovation” the Perfect Primer

In a recent post entitled “Innovation 101” Jeffrey Phillips said he was meeting many people at innovation conferences that “could really use an introductory program just to introduce the various concepts and approaches for innovation“

Those folks could do themselves a favor by reading “Permanent Innovation” by Langdon Morris (which you can buy or download for free from the Permanent Innovation website). The books subtitle “The Definitive Guide to the Principles, Strategies and Methods of Successful Innovators” is not hot air. In my view it’s probably the best book out there covering (in engaging style) the core concepts of innovation. There are many excellent books on innovation (and their number seems to increase almost daily) but the vast majority focus on some specific form of innovation - such as disruptive innovation, open innovation or innovation culture. Permanent Innovation provides a foundation that you can work with today while providing a context for some of those other works.

Some highlights from the book from my perspective were:

  • “The Innovation Table” (p.38) illustrating the four different forms of innovation (incremental, product/service, business model and new venture) across a variety of industries
  • “38 +2 Ideas To Get Started” (Chapter 12) including ideas such as:
  • “If your firm is large enough you may want to consider designating a Chief Innovation Officer” (had to agree with that one!)
  • “Create an Innovation Advisory Board and invite five outsiders who know your industry to give you their candid feedback about your firm and it’s innovation initiatives.”
  • Identify a company that you admire that’s outside of your industry. Study that company in detail to learn why it’s so good, and figure out how to emulate its strengths in your own organization.
  • And my favorite “Innovation Principle #5 - Innovation without methodology is just luck.”

Technorati Tags : , , <!-- End Technorati Tags -->

Creating a culture of design research

I recently read “Design Research: Methods and Perspectives” (Brenda Laurel, Peter Lunenfeld, Eds.). One of the chapter that I found relevant for my work is the one about Creating a Culture of Design Research by Eric Zimmerman.

The author describes some of the strategies they took at the game development studio called “gameLab“, pushing the boundaries of game companies and cultivating a “design culture”. It’s mostly based on 6 hints:

1. Create a space that encourages design research: “the office space we inhabit is filled to bursting with games, toys, and other play objects”
2. Build a design research library: ” retail game titles, books and graphic novels, DVDs and videotapes, magazines (we have many subscriptions), board and card games, and toys of all kinds.”
3. Attend and create events: “GameLab has attended films, exhibits, conferences, and other events connected to games, design, and popular culture / we also host our own design research affair”
4. Let them teach
5. Encourage side projects: “We encourage our staff to pursue personal projects.”
6. Create contexts for experimentation: “from time to time we create opportunities for our staff to undertake experimental, noncommercial projects as a form of design research. ”

Why do I blog this? I was looking for ideas of creative companies, especially in the game industry, I found those highlight relevant and fruitful for future projects. The idea of creating a proper environment, with a culture of design creativity is of interest to me (given that my role in various organization is too nurture designers).

What's the Big Idea?

Big%20Ideas%20Store.jpg

The latest issue of Chuck Frey's Innovation Tools briefing (available via e-mail) includes links to several interesting feature articles on the Innovation Tools site, including one by innovation and creativity expert Paul Williams on the idea generation process. According to Williams, ideas come in all sizes, some big, some small. Over the long run, argues Williams, it is simply a mistake to place too much emphasis on finding The Big Idea:

"How often does your company develop 'big ideas' and what is their impact?" The answer typically ranges from once a year to once in a blue moon. The answer to the impact portion of the question reveals that the overall impact is quite often short-lived, as the rest of the market quickly adapts to the new idea in order to stay competitive. They know this because, these same business leaders admit to reacting quickly to the groundbreaking new ideas of their competitors. So what is the real advantage of that BIG idea? A quick win, a brief capitalization of market share, and some improved morale."

In contrast, small ideas can provide lasting value to a company in terms of efficiency and competitive advantage. As a result, Williams suggests, organizations should not discount the value of these small ideas:

"If you are willing to make the assumption that your company is full of these small ideas, waiting to be born, you can begin to see that their impact vastly outshines the impact of the big ideas. The beauty of the small idea - discounting the sheer volume of them when compared to the big ideas - is the fact that these will most likely never be discovered by your competitors. These small ideas are specific to your individual business operations. They improve the way you produce or provide services to your customers. While not earth-shattering, small ideas, when added together, provide the same market capitalization advantages as the big ideas."

[image: The Big Ideas store in Edinburgh]

12 Consumer Values that drive technology-related innovations

Mark Vanderbeeken links to Social ("The future is our business") Technologies' study of some of considerations in determining what's next when we mix tech into the product and service soup. Here's a snippet:

Technology-related products and services will increasingly be shaped by 12 underlying principles or "technology values". These values--such as simplicity, efficiency and personalisation--represent the characteristics that consumers will look for in products, services, and technologies over the next 10 to 15 years. This is the conclusion of a new study from the Washington, DC-based research and consulting firm Social Technologies.

The 12 of them are Appropriateness, Assistance, Connectedness, Convenience, Efficiency, Health, Intelligence, Personalisation, Protection, Simplicity, Sustainability, and User creativity. So yes, a good list. And nice and useful as a check-list. Read more about it here.

...

The two things that kill marketing creativity

The first is fear.

The fear that you'll have to implement whatever you dream up.
The fear that you will fail.
The fear that you will do something stupid and be ridiculed by your peers for decades.
The fear that you'll get fired.
The fear that there will be an unanticipated backlash associated with your idea.
The fear of change.
The fear of missing out on the thing you won't be able to do if you do this.

The second is a lack of imagination.

I believe that every single person I've met in this profession is capable of astounding creativity. That you, and everyone else for that matter, is able to dream up something radical and viral and yes, remarkable. So why doesn't it happen more often? Sure, fear is a big part, but it's also a lack of imagination.

Basically, most people don't believe something better can occur. They believe that the status quo is also the best they can do. So they don't look. They don't push. They don't ask, "what else?" and "what now?" They settle.

Fear is an emotion and it's impossible to counter an emotion with logic. So you need to mount emotional arguments for why your fear of the new is the thing you truly need to fear.

As for the second issue, just knowing it exists ought to be enough. Once you realize you're settling, it may just be enough to get you wondering... wondering whether maybe, just maybe, something better is behind curtain number 2.