metacool

thoughts on the art & science of bringing cool stuff to life, by Diego Rodriguez

Do both, and focus on everything

477822428_1f1e17111d_b

Joi Ito has taught me so much since I started reading his writing around seven years ago.  More recently I've been able to collaborate with Joi on some stuff, and I can now safely say that the only thing better than Joi on the web is Joi in real life!

Recently at IDEO we've been talking about the difference between having a vision and having a purpose.  A vision is something you shoot for, a point in the future, while a purpose is a point of origin, something that guides you.  We're of a belief that visions are tough to go after when you desire innovative outcomes because they tend to reduce emergent behavior and serendipity.  A single, defined point in the future may be better suited to a top-down, variance-eliminating organization trying to reach a single goal, rather than for one trying to exist in certain way, believing that a guiding purpose will ensure that the outcomes that do arise will be not only appropriate, but likely extraordinary.

Against that context, I just read Joi's latest blog post, Focusing on Everything, which is just wonderful.  Here's an excerpt:

One of the great thoughts in the book is the idea that you should set a general trajectory of where you want to go, but that you must embrace serendipity and allow your network to provide the resources necessary to turn random events into a highly valuable one and that developing that network comes from sharing and connecting by helping others solve their problems and build things.

I heartily recommend reading the rest of Joi's post -- it is powerful stuff.  As someone who took John Maeda's advice to "do both" to heart a few years ago, I find Joi's philosophy of life very reassuring. 

Focus on everything.  Yes, I think I will.

photo credit: Mizuka

14 May 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

When in doubt, just do good stuff

Metacool Just Do Good Stuff

I found truth in a cup of yogurt today.

I was fortunate to have breakfast with my friend and collaborator Ryan Jacoby today, and he reminded me that, at the end of the day, it's all about making good stuff.  Yes, everything else in your business ecosystem has to be in place, but you need to sell good stuff.  An Apple Store without Apple products would be... not so good.

Back to the cup.  Having intended to purchase a cheap(er) lunch, I just walked out of Whole Foods with a more expensive lunch, natch.  Actually, at around six bucks for a frozen burrito and a couple of yogurts, it is not bank-breaker meal, but I am a semi-Mid Westerner and have a kids to send to college and I'm living in the land of massive taxation... but I digress.  Back to the cup: while wandering the isles, I fell prey to a pricing promotion, and though I can never justify a container of Siggi's yogurt at $2.49 per unit, I certainly was up for two of them being promoted at $2.00 a lid.  Yes, it would seem that I need to turn in my MBA, but I am not a perfect person nor do I want to go through life making rational purchase decisions.

And how very happy I am right now with spoon in mouth and a wallet $4.00 lighter.  Siggi's, for those of you who have not had the pleasure of sampling yet, has exquisite mouth feel.  It is thick without being clompy, smooth without feeling excessively processed.  It comes in some of the standard yogurt flavors -- vanilla, blueberry, etc -- but also in some unexpected ones, like grapefruit.  Love that grapefruit.  And none of the flavors feel like they feel off the back of a truck destined for IHOP; they are light and complex, not syrupy and bright.  There's a wonderful backstory to Siggi's, too:  the company is led by a passionate, entrepreneurial Icelander named Siggi who is crazy about his native skyr yogurt and so found a bunch of wholesome cows in New York and started cranking out skyr.  The packaging is eco-friendly and the graphic design meets my psychographic needs.  With all of this, $2.49 starts to feel reasonable.

There's no big punchline to this post.  Just do good stuff.  Just do good stuff.  When in doubt, repeat that under your breath:  Just do good stuff.

14 April 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

12 March 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

The Farm Aquatic with Dan Barber

Because it works on so many levels, this talk by Dan Barber was by far my favorite of TED 2010.  

Without spoiling the talk for you, I love the way Barber takes us on a walk through his life, and has a conversation with us all along the way.  And it's a funny one at that.  His insights changed the way I think about the relationship between oceans and food; prior to this I did not recognize that one could create an aquatic version of Polyface Farm.  Amazing.

This talk is also a master class in public speaking.  No, in public story telling.  This talk defines the bar by which we should measure pitches for a cause.  This is how to start a movement, how to get people to sit up and take notice, take action.

Awesome.  And now I'd like to try some of that Spanish fish...

10 March 2010 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Execution really matters

Yes, anyone can say that they value a nicely pressed shirt, that their employees are 100% aligned behind delivering a world-class pressed shirt experience, that their shirts are the mostly likely to be properly ironed, etc...

But can you actually do it?  Over and over and over?  Until it feels as natural as breathing, when it becomes the thing you just do?

Thus are reputations made.  And reputation is the stuff really great brands and careers are made of.

08 March 2010 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

A conversation with Michael Mauer

918-Spyder_02_1920x1200
Earlier this year I was very fortunate to have a conversation with Michael Mauer, Porsche's head of design.  You can read the complete interview here at Aol Autos.

I thought this thought from Mauer about creative leadership was particularly interesting vis a vis Innovation Principle 12, Instead of Managing, try Cultivating:

... at the end of the day, I do not tell them to move a line exactly 50 mils lower or higher or more to the left or more to the right, because if the boundaries are too narrow you really kill all the creativity. I try to motivate people to think for themselves about the solution and how they could achieve the goal... Even if I have a solution in my mind, it is just one possible solution. There might be ten other possible solutions that are maybe much better, but by giving a direction that is too detailed or showing a solution, a way to the solution that is too detailed, I kill all the creativity. One of my major goals is to give the team freedom in order to have a maximum of creativity.

This feels very much to me like a "cultivation mindset".  Instead of trying to push his ideas through the system at Porsche, Mauer is trying to develop the ideas of others.  He is a curator, a director, a cultivator.  As you can see from the stunning new Porsche 918 Spyder pictured above, his approach speaks for itself.

04 March 2010 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Principle 10: Baby Steps vs. Too Many Questions

Scott Anthony has a great post over at HBR called How to Kill Innovation: Keep Asking Questions

In it, he says:

It's just hard to have robust answers about an unknown future state. Too frequently, taking the time to answer "What about..." questions doesn't bring you any closer to achieving the goal of creating booming growth businesses.

I like his essay because it is a nice way to frame the importance of Principle 10: Baby steps often lead to big leaps.  By asking too many questions, Scott says, firms avoid taking the kinds of small actions which would actually yield answers.  As I noted in my writeup of Principle 10:

As obvious as it may seem, starting something is essential to its completion.  But often times people can't accept the challenge in front of them, and so they find myriad ways to avoid doing something:  budget reviews, scoping meetings, taking sick time, eating pizzas, buffing that feature on your last project, surfing Facebook... all fine ways to delay dealing with reality. 

The problem with shifting from "smart talk" to "right action" is that you may end up not looking so smart, at least in the short run.  You may do everything right, but you'll still fail, at least in the short term.  The trick is to be able to take a longer-term view in which each small failure becomes part of a stairway to success.  We learn a lot when things go wrong, because we're forced to reexamine our beliefs and assumptions about how the world works, and in doing so we are more likely to arrive at a hypothesis which, when acted upon, will create value in the world. 

For the solo entrepreneur or inventor, this is as easily said as done.  For the rest of us who live in large organizations, we can't expect to fail over and over and succeed unless the larger organization is set up to understand.  For that we need another innovation principle, which I will discuss here soon.

02 March 2010 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Bill Gates, nuclear Yule logs, and the equation of all equations

This talk by Bill Gates was by far the most important given at TED last week (if not my favorite one). 

The equation he presents is extremely powerful in the way it structures the conversation around energy and society.  Simply put, something has to go to zero, but only one thing can realistically go to zero.

I also found fascinating his discussion of a nuclear power plant which burns depleted uranium as a fuel.  Audacious and of a level of complexity which is hard to fathom, this "nuclear Yule log" could offer the kind of radical step-function we need to meet the needs of the equation he presents.

This is twenty minutes well-spent.  My hat is off to Bill Gates for helping all us become more informed citizens, and for equipping us with a formidable tool for critical thinking.  This was TED at its best.

There were a couple of other talks which also knocked my hat in the creek, so I'll post those as soon as they go up.

18 February 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

"Ship early, ship often, iterate and listen to all of the feedback. I think that if you have the courage to listen and the ability to take the feedback and iterate on your product, you will better off than waiting and trying to deliver something perfect. Imagining your product or project as a way of communicating with people and thinking of product development as a conversation might be one way to think about it."

- Joi Ito

09 February 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

"Today, what defines the most innovative, and the most successful, people is their willingness to fail. And, that’s especially true in journalism, media and advertising...

This is the key to the future for all of us. It’s not how we deal with success but how we embrace and learn from failure that will define all of us during the Great Inflection...

Instead, dare to fail. Fail fast. Learn from failure. Build on failure. Share failure. Understand failure.

Most of all, enjoy failure. Life is so short. Hold nothing back."

- John Winsor

08 January 2010 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Innovating takes courage and faith

Earlier this week I made the following statement on Twitter (if you're interested in following, I'm @metacool):

Innovating takes courage and faith. You've got to jump from the plane believing your chute is going to pop.

Having thought about it more this week, that statement isn't right.  Parachuting out of a plane is not a good metaphor for the act of innovation.  Instead, it's all about being able to jump out of planes in a way that's more akin to this:

Don't try this at home, kids.  Or this, for that matter.

The reason the parachuting metaphor doesn't work for me is because it makes innovating out to be a solo activity based around a linear, I-have-safety-net process.  But, in my experience, jumping out of the plane without the parachute seems closer to what actually happens in the art and science of bringing cool stuff to life: when you start the process of bringing something new in to the world using design thinking, you don't know where you'll end up or what is going to be like getting there, but you do know that you can always rely on an iterative, intersection-focused design process achieve your end goal.  This concept is illustrated well by three key elements of this video.

First, in this jump, Travis makes the leap knowing that he has a premeditated process for landing safely.  There's quite a bit of on the spot improvisation happening in those long seconds after he jumps, but clearly he has a rough sense of what needs to happen and when.  In a similar way, innovating with a design process to guide you feels much the same way -- beforehand you don't know exactly when you'll put each component part in to play, but you certainly are intimately familiar with all the tricks and tools at your disposal.  And practice makes perfect.

Second, it's all about the team.  Innovation may start with an "I", but the reality of making it so given a problem of even mild complexity calls for a team effort.  It's a team that gets Travis to the ground safely, and in the same way, a tight, interdependent design team can do things that would be impossible if undertaken alone.  In the course of the design process, we become each other's parachutes, as it were.

So, allow me this opportunity to rephrase my original statement:

Innovating requires courage and optimism.  When making a leap in to the unknown, you must have faith that your team and process will take you to where you want to go.

Having the courage to leap in the first place is the third and final lesson to takeaway from Travis's parachute-less jump.  Without the courage to engage with the abyss with the audacity to believe that you can create something beautiful and valuable for the rest of the world to use, nothing valuable can ever happen. 

So, with optimism as your co-pilot, figure out who can help you pull off those jumps you want and need to make in 2010, and go for it!

07 January 2010 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Innovating Day: a new (un)holiday?

0001

I hereby propose a new (un)holiday.  I'm calling it an (un)holiday because it won't be an occasion for grilling meats and drinking spirits (though that could happen, I suppose).  It's not a day of vacation, for it is meant to remind of us to be mindful of our approach to working through certain types of problems.  It is not a day for celebrations, but it is celebratory in nature: it celebrates not just an event, but an entire way of being.

I hereby declare December 17 to be Innovating Day. 

Innovate.  Take action.  It's about the verb -- innovating -- and not the noun.  Personally, I'm tired of talking about the noun innovation and reading books about that noun, and only want to help people and organizations get in better touch with their creative confidence so that they can go out and innovate.  Trying to understand how to get to innovative outcomes via a process analyzing the inputs and outputs of innovation is akin to trying to understand love by reading textbooks on biology and genomics.  I'd wager that the best lovers in history didn't read books on the subject.  Much better, methinks, to go out and do it in order to understand it.  Love, innovate, do, live: you'll come to understand your own self and process in due time.  Which is the whole point.

Today is Innovating Day because December 17 marks the anniversary of Wilbur and Orville Wright completing the first controlled flight of a heavier-than-air machine.  The Wrights were nothing if not intuitive innovators, deeply in touch with a personal design process which allowed them to go where no man had gone before.  I won't pretend that the Wrights followed any of the principles of innovating which I've been discussing here over the past year, but I will declare that those principles are largely inspired by the lives of the Wrights.  In particular, the events of December 17 helped inspire these specific principles:

 1.  Experience the world instead of talking about experiencing the world.

 4.  Prototype as if you are right.  Listen as if you are wrong.

10.  Baby steps often lead to big leaps.

14.  Failure sucks, but instructs.

I'd like to ask you to do one thing today:  as you work your way through a situation that's new within the context of your own life experience, be it big or small, try to mindful of your approach to the situation.  Try to see of you can apply any of the principles of innovating to your task at hand.  If you're stuck, I highly recommend proceeding with Principle 3 as a starting point.

So, please spread the news and let your friends and loved ones know that December 17 is Innovating Day.

One final thought:  as the great Gordon MacKenzie wrote, "Orville Wright didn't have a pilot license".  You don't need a degree from a fancy program in design thinking or engineering to start being innovative. 

Just try it.

17 December 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Principles 1 & 2 at work: Sam Martin on man spaces

I really like this talk by Sam Martin about "man spaces".  Same came up with this really interesting talk by putting Principles 1 and 2 to work:

  • Experience the world instead of talking abou experiencing the world
  • See and hear with the mind of a child

His talk isn't the kind of thing you could whip up out of one's imagination alone, but it does depend on his intellect to synthesize the wonderful narrative we hear above.  Taking the time to get out in to the world, and then having the ability to see clearly, are two keys to bringing great stuff to life.

Great presentation structure and delivery, too.

12 November 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Liu Lecture Series in Design at Stanford

Metacool Liu Lecture Series

25 October 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

What are you going to do today?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
William Kamkwamba
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorRon Paul Interview

Be sure to check out William's blog

08 October 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

The future of NPR


Npr digital think in

And now for something not-so-completely-different, on Friday I'm participating in a Digital Think In for National Public Radio.  A group of us are going to spend the day formulating and envisioning a digital media strategy for NPR.  I'm really excited, as there's going to be some juicy business design involved, especially as we work with issues around the "social", "open", and "platform" aspects of their service.

Anyhow, if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them -- please drop me an email or leave a comment.  The official Twitter hashtag for the event will be #NPRthink, and of course you can always find me at @metacool.

Hope to see you on Twitter!

06 October 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Join the conversation at Living Climate Change

I'm really happy to be able to point you to Living Climate Change, a conversation that we're hosting at IDEO. 

Our goal with this new site is to expand and enhance the debate about climate change, and also to show what might be done about it using design thinking.  While I didn't have a direct role in producing any of the video scenarios on the site, I did a modicum of work to support them coming to fruition (Principle 12), and I'm really happy with where we are with this rollout.

There's a lot more to come.  Believe me, there's a lot of interesting stories and visions coming to the sight over the next few months!  Most important, though, will be your contributions.  If you're interested, please take a minute to subscribe to updates from the site, and contribute your thoughts and feelings here.

29 September 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Principle 3 in action: ColorCapture Ben

BenColorCapture_001

Over the weekend I spent some time fooling around with an iPhone app called ColorCapture Ben.  The way it works is you take a photo of a color you like using your iPhone, and then this app from Benjamin Moore shows you the closest matching color chip from their collection, and then serves up a listing of complimentary colors and so forth.  I found that it works equally well sampling a Barnett-Newman style solid color field as it does mixing across the various colors found in a Seurat-like shot of a lawn.  Even if you're not in the market for some new paint, it's a wonderful source of quiet, adult entertainment if you ever find yourself, say, attending a live performance of music designed for the toddler-preschooler demographic.  As I frequently am.

It's also a great example of Principle 3 at work.  Principle 3 states that we must always ask "How do we want people to feel after they experience this?". If you've ever painted a room in a house, you know that there are many areas that could stand some improvement, and indeed there has been quite a bit of innovation lately in the areas of zero-VOC paint formulations, easy-pour paint containers, and new application tools.  But those are all about the paint or conveying the paint to the wall, and when you think about it, there's so much more to the painting experience.  The beauty of Principle 3 is that, by asking that you put yourself in another human's shoes, it forces you to consider all of the non-obvious aspects that make up an experience:

Another part of the challenge lies in thinking about usage through time.  We often design for those few moments that make up the core value proposition.  But what about all the other experiences?  How does it feel to start using it?  What does mastery feel like -- is it exhilarating or boring?  How does using this expand our human experience?  How does it influence our environment?  What does it feel like to extend one's relationship with the offering?  Does it help someone get to a state of flow?

I don't know about you, but for me, the entire process of choosing a paint color is terrifying.  Mistakes are expensive, and because it is difficult to sample paint colors accurately, iteration in a baby-step kind of way (Principle 10) is also tough.  This is where ColorCapture steps in.  For example, for a while I've been meaning to paint one wall of my bedroom green, but I'd rather go clean my garage than have to choose the right color of green amongst the hundreds of choices available to me -- the paradox of choice at work.  With this new app, I can take a picture of my wood floor (the dominant color in the room that I need to play with), and then boom!, I have the green I need, or at least a handful of greens.  And now I can start painting, and to start painting I'll go buy a gallon of Benjamin Moore Natura.

While I don't think Principle 3 is the most powerful of the principles, it certainly is one of the most foundational.  If you can put it in to action, you're well on your way.

28 September 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

More on Principle 16

Earlier this year I wrote up a preliminary version of the sixteenth principle of innovation, Grok the gestalt of teams.  In the spirit of Principle 16, my colleague John Foster just posted a great blog post about teams, called Another kind of team.  Do give it a read.

Here are the four principles he outlines:

  1. Proactive Self Disclosure
  2. Conditional Statements
  3. Interpersonal Congruence
  4. Clarity of Purpose

It's a really good post, as you would expect from an subject expert like John!  In the spirit of Principles 4, 6 and 8, I'm going to borrow and steal more of his thinking in order to push Principle 16 to a better place.   Stay tuned for a revamped version.

As always, your comments, feedback, and ideas are not only welcome, but extremely valuable as I wade through this space.

24 September 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Director's Commentary: Adrian van Hooydonk

Metacool directors commentary hooydonk

I really enjoyed listening to this interview of Adrian van Hooydonk by Tyler Brule of Monocle.  It's a wonderful Director's Commentary, because in it van Hooydonk explores many themes that are relevant far beyond the world of BMW.  Anyone engaged in the art and science of bringing cool stuff to life will get a lot out of this video.

Some of the high points for me were:

  • his thoughtful exploration of how the 2009 financial crisis will shape user behaviors in the future
  • his thinking on what it takes to design remarkable experiences, and his emphasis on the importance of having a strong point of view.  When he says that the BMW Gran Turismo is about "traveling in style", I really get what the car is all about.  By the way, the Gran Turismo has officially replaced the Honda Ridgeline as the focus of all my automotive fetishistic energy (but Honda, if you're listening, I'd still be very happy if you delivered a Ridgeline to my house one Saturday morning.  With a bow on top).
  • his clear focus on user experience as the wellspring of compelling designs.  This worldview, of course, is what Principle 3 is all about.

My favorite part of the interview comes near the end, as Brule and Hooydonk discuss what it is like to bring designs before the board of BMW for approval.  Here's an excerpt:

Design is an emotional thing.  So, as a designer, I will lean to one or the other design in the final stages, and I can't completely explain why.  But my responsibility is to advise the board on which design we should go with, and they don't even expect from me that I can explain it to the last millimeter.  In a way, there has to be trust between a board of management and the chief designer.

I could not agree more.  In my experience, trust in the informed intuition of talented designers is what separates the great brands from the also-rans.  Informed intuition is what allows designers to make good decisions regarding intangibles.  In the absence of trust in informed intuition, organizations are tempted to decode intangibles via metrics, surveys and other algorithmic devices, and all the poetry gets trampled.

Could trust be the killer app?

19 September 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

The hierarchy of success

Seth Godin has written a really important post:  The hierarchy of success

When it comes to the art and science of bringing cool stuff to life, this point is especially important:

As far as I'm concerned, the most important of all, the top of the hierarchy is attitude. Why are you doing this at all? What's your bias in dealing with people and problems?... Sure, you can start at the bottom by focusing on execution and credentials. Reading a typical blog (or going to a typical school for 16 years), it seems like that's what you're supposed to do. What a waste.

When trying to get something done that's been done before, it's important to look at credentials of execution:  Dr. Heart Surgeon, I hope you've done this surgery many times before, and done it well, and had a chance to learn from your mistakes and those committed by others.  But when faced by the challenge of creating value where none has existed before, what's important?  As Seth points out, it's mostly about attitude and approach.  Those are the lifelines to get you from here to over there when everything is foggy and unknown.  Those are what get you to a viable strategy that makes certain executional tactics more or less relevant.

If you're trying to create the right team to go after something revolutionary, you can't ask "show me all the similar things you've shipped".  You can only ask "how many times have you stepped in to the abyss, and what have you learned about how to do it better?.

For more, see Principle 17

16 September 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

“I make all my decisions on intuition. But then, I must know why I made that decision. I throw a spear into the darkness. That is intuition. Then I must send an army into the darkness to find the spear. That is intellect.”

- Ingmar Bergman



source: Breathing on Your Own

21 August 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

17: It's not the years, it's the mileage

If you're going to reach innovative outcomes on a routine basis, you need to match the right team to the opportunity.  Part of that means understanding Principle 7 so that you know what type of problem you're tackling, the other part involves understanding what kind of experience you need on your team. 

When it comes to answering that last question, the right kind of experience profile depends on whether you're looking at a high or low variance situation.  Examples of low variance situations are flying a 747 from San Francisco to Singapore, operating on a heart, or serving up burgers at In-N-Out.  In each of those situations, we desire a predictable outcome delivered with a low degree of variance from a predetermined standard, and in this context, the right experience is expressed in terms of having done the same thing many times before.  We want a pilot who can fly the 747 on, well, autopilot.  We want a surgeon who has done hundreds of the same operation, and learned something from each one, not a surgeon who has done one hundred different surgical procedures once.  As such, experience is really about tenure in a role, with relevant experience having a direct correlation to years in the role.  

In a high-variance situation, where we are expecting an innovative outcome, but have little to no sense what the right answer might look like, we need a different definition of what "experienced" means.  In this context, we want people who are experienced with the process of innovation -- in other words, people who have gone through the "understand - build - test" cycle of Principle 4 many times.  We want folks with a lot of mileage under their belt, in other words, but that mileage need not be strictly correlated with years at work. 

For example, one of the reasons why Honda cycles its production engineers through its various racing programs is to increase their innovation process mileage; designing a new component for a mass market automobile takes several years, so between the time an engineer graduates college and turns 40, they may have only shipped three to four designs to market (if they're lucky).  Contrast that with a race engineer, who faces the challenge of optimizing a race car for a different track configuration every two weeks for eight months, as well as managing an arc of innovation for the entire car over those same eight months.  During that short period of time, they may experience 10, 15, even 20 cycles of "understand - build - test".  So when it comes to picking an engineer to go figure out the future of mobility, which one would you choose, the "I've shipped the same thing to market three times" person, or the "I've done 20 cycles every year for the past  four years" individual?  By my reckoning, in this world an engineer age 26 could have 20 times the relevant process experience as a person 14 years their senior.

Mileage really does matter when it comes to understanding the art and science of bringing new stuff in to the world.  Many of the hottest Web 2.0 apps are springing from the agile fingers of lads barely past drinking age who are in fact hoary veterans of the coding wars, having been engaged in hacking kernels since they were eight.  They have a tremendous amount of relevant mileage under their belt, and have a skillset that's perfectly tailored to the nimble world of innovation on the interwebs.

I'd like to propose a metric for assessing the innovation prowess of an individual or of a team.  It looks like this:

innovation experience index =  [market ships] / [years of practice]

In other words, how many innovation market ships have you experienced over a given period of time?  And of those, what's your profile for incremental innovations?  For revolutionary innovations?

It's all about mileage.

This is number 17 in a series of 21 principles of innovation.  I really welcome your feedback, questions, and ideas.

12 August 2009 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Joi Ito on innovating with agility

Awesome post from Joi Ito today, talking about innovation process and government policy.  An excerpt:

Generally speaking, it's probably cheaper and faster and more effective to make a prototype than to make presentation deck. It's also probably easier to test something on real users than to do lots of marketing and guessing. My recommendation to just about anyone with an idea is to just build the thing, iterate until you have some user traction, then pitch angel investors based on that traction. This is very much in line with the old IETF motto of "rough consensus, running code."

Joi's thinking is well worth a read (us usual, I'm not telling you anything new there).

When it comes to innovation principles, I'm a bit of a wooden stake looking for vampires these days, but in Joi's thinking I see the following at play:

  • Principle 4
  • Principle 9
  • Principle 10
  • Principle 15
  • Principle 17
  • Principle 21

Speaking of which, I need to heed my advice and ship the last set of principles.  Now.  I'll get on it.

11 August 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Maira Kalman on the American Message

As far as this art and science of bringing cool stuff to life thing goes, Maira Kalman really nailed it in today's NYT.  You have to see it all.  It's the triple distillation of pure awesomeness.  Here's a quote:

Everything is invented.
Language.  Childhood.  Careers.
Relationships.  Religion.
Philosophy.  The future.
They are not there for the plucking.
They don't exist in some
natural state.
They must be invented by people.
And that, of course, is a great thing.
Don't mope in your room.
Go invent something.
That is the American Message.
Electricity.  Flight.  The telephone.
Television.  Computers.  Walking on
the moon.  It never stops.

I simply love what she's created here and am totally inspired.  Many thanks to my friend (and great innovator) John Lilly for pointing me to this.

Have a great week, everyone.  Go make a dent in the universe.

And no moping!  Always ask yourself, "What would Travis do?"  Just do it, that's what.  JFCI!

02 August 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

What's up with those principles, and a request for help

Diego Rodriguez metacool Principle

Over the past few months I've been writing up a series of 21 Principles.  We're now 16 principles deep, with more to come soon.  The feedback I've received so far has been very helpful, and has helped to push and improve my thinking in multiple dimensions (that would be Principles 4, 5 and 8 at work).  For those of you new to metacool, I have a running roster of these principles on the right side of this blog window.

These principles are intended to underpin a general theory of innovation.  They are not meant to be principles of design thinking, though some of them are obviously closely related to the theory and practice of design thinking.  Inspired by the simplicity work of my friend John Maeda, I'm trying to figure out what I think and know at this point in my life when it comes to all things innovation.  Hence my working through these principles in public in a messy kind of way (that would be Principles 9 and 10, with a little dash of 14).

So here's where I need your help, in triplicate:

  1. What is missing?  When it comes to innovating, what situations or dynamics or practices have I not touched on yet?
  2. What is wrong?  How am I being dumb, silly, foolish, pigheaded, idiotic, unintelligible... and just plain wrong?
  3. What resonates?  What matched up with something you've experienced in your life?  And if it did, would you be willing to share your story with me?

Please leave me a comment or shoot me an email. 

As always, thanks for all your help and for the conversations!

21 July 2009 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

"In business, it's not how many ideas you have.  What matters is how many ideas you translate into products and services."
- Henry Chesbrough

20 July 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Jacek Utko and Principle 3

Here's a great view in to the design process of Jacek Utko.  He's managed to take things that are "dead" and turn them around so that they're remarkable, moving, and cool.

I'm always amazed by people who are able to take a moribund category and turn it in to something wonderful.  There are so many examples of this in action in our world:

  • selling commodity products:  Zappos
  • helping people eat when they don't have time to cook:  Dream Dinners
  • financial planning and tracking:  Mint

And so on. 

What ties of all of these together?  As you can hear from Jacek Utko's talk, it's all about a commitment to really living Principle 3.

17 July 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Running with your innovation radar on

I really dig this interview that Helen Walters recently conducted with Alan MacCormack.  In it, MacCormack uses the metaphor of a radar system to express a way of viewing the world that is quite consistent with behaviors I've seen expressed on a repeated basis by creative individuals and innovative organizations alike.

I particularly like his emphasis upon establishing "innovation radars" to tap in to high-variance information streams that will help you see and understand what is coming next.  For example, MacCormack talks about taking R&D funds and spending them on external organizations via mechanisms such as research grants.  In that example, the notion of information streams comes to play not in the grants themselves, but in the array of grant applications you'll receive as a result of announcing that you're giving money away; the resulting stack of applications allows you to see future trend patterns emerge without having to leave the office.

In his book Weird Ideas that Work, Bob Sutton expresses a similar idea when he suggests using job interviews as a way to gain new information about how the world is working.  Imagine the difference between viewing a lineup of ten job interviews with prospective employees as a task to plow through and seeing each of them as an opportunity to learn something new from a (potentially) interesting person.  All of this is about finding creative ways to put Principle 1 in to action.

I was extremely fortunate to spend four semesters studying with Professor MacCormack at business school.  I learned a tremendous amount from him, and consider Alan a leading researcher in the world of bringing cool stuff to life.  He's a true guru of innovation, and I'm always inspired by his insights.

16 July 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Leading from behind

BusinessWeek just ran a good article about Mozilla's development process for Firefox.  As readers of metacool know, I'm a big fan of Mozilla, and look to them as a living example of many of the organizational trends that will become more widespread over the coming years.

I particularly like the idea of "leading from behind" mentioned in the article:

How Mozilla channels those efforts is a model for a growing number of companies trying to tap into the collective talents of large pools of software developers and other enthusiasts of a product, brand, or idea. "There's structure in it," says Mike Beltzner, who runs Firefox. "But at the same time you allow people to innovate and to explore and [give them] the freedom to do what they want along those edges—that's where innovation tends to happen in startling and unexpected ways."

At Firefox, Beltzer calls it "leading from behind." His team makes only the highest, direction-setting decisions, such as the date each new version of Firefox has to ship. It's up to Mozilla staff and volunteers to meet those deadlines through a process of identifying specific tasks that need to be done and accomplishing them. A system of recognition has formed among volunteers, who can be designated as "module owners" and given authority over certain areas, such as the layout.

Mozilla is a wonderful example of Principle 12 in action.

02 July 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

16: Grok the gestalt of teams

If you're going to get innovative stuff done in the world, odds are you're going to do it with other people.    If you haven't looked out the window lately, we're living in an ever more connected and interdependent world.  If there ever was a time for lone inventors to thrive, this is not it:  smart, action-oriented, high-EQ, multidisciplinary, interdependent teams are uniquely positioned to take on the broad, systemic challenges so in need of innovative thinking today. 

So if you're going to do remarkable stuff, you've got to learn to grok the gestalt of teams.

There's an entire literature on effective team roles and dynamics that I won't go in to here, but based on all my years of battling on the front lines to bring new stuff in to the world, here are a few of my favorite insights in to behaviors that make for exceptional teams:

  • Build it out of T-shaped people:  an effective innovation team is composed of people who are really good at what they were put on earth to do, but also share a common way of getting things done in the world.  We want depth: an engineer needs to be an engineer's engineer, and we want the MBA to be capable of unlevering a beta in her sleep.  But we want breadth, too.  We need them both to not only get along, but to thrive in a symbiotic relationship centered on getting stuff done.  In my experience, what adds that breadth to a team is a group of individuals who are versed in the ways of design thinking. 
  • Know thyself, and let everyone else know, too: a high-performing team is no place for posturing or secrets.  If you're good at something, we want to know so that we can you let you be the lead on that.  And if you're not so good at something, we want to know that too so that we can help you get better, or keep you from wasting time on that front.  The way this happens is for individuals to be proactive about disclosing this information through the course of the life of a team.
  • Be friendly, because the networked world is your oyster:  imagine how powerful your small team could be if it were part of a vast network of experts and people wanting to contribute to your success, if only you'd ask.  Well, guess what?  Via the marvels of modern technology, you're already there.  Need someone to hack some code?  How about a coder in Bangladesh?  Need an expert on nanotubes?  Find her on Twitter.  Need some help with that marketing plan?  Why not befriend that VP that occasionally strolls by your team space?  The network your team needs to hit the remarkable zone is already there waiting to be asked.  Be friendly and invite those folks in.  Because they want to be on the team, too.

These are only a few points.  What matters to you when it comes to being part of an effective innovation team?  I'd love to hear.

As the cliched saying goes, "there's no 'I' in team"  (and you never want to be at the receiving end of the saying "there's no YOU in team", but I digress...), so get out there and grok the gestalt of teams.  Be the team, good things will happen.

This is number 16 in a series of 21 principles of innovation.  As always, your comments, thoughts, and ideas are most welcome.

29 June 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

"What is it that confers the noblest delight? What is that which swells a man's breast with pride above that which any other experience can bring to him? Discovery! To know that you are walking where none others have walked; that you are beholding what human eye has not seen before; that you are breathing a virgin atmosphere. To give birth to an idea -- to discover a great thought -- an intellectual nugget, right under the dust of a field that many a brain -- plow had gone over before. To find a new planet, to invent a new hinge, to find the way to make the lightnings carry your messages. To be the first -- that is the idea. To do something, say something, see something, before any body else -- these are the things that confer a pleasure compared with which other pleasures are tame and commonplace, other ecstasies cheap and trivial."

- Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad

18 June 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

| |

How will it look through time?

I love this video because of the way it illustrates the necessity of considering the passage of time as we think about bringing new things in to the world. How will it look through the day? How will it look after 10 years? 20? 50? 200? How might future generations feel about the work we've done today?

As this video aptly shows us, Philip Johnson considered these questions in the design of his Glass House. For me, this is further validation of the importance of Innovation Principle No.3.

08 June 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

15: Celebrate errors of commission. Stamp out errors of omission.

When we attempt to bring new things in to the world, we will make mistakes and screw things up.  That, along with death and taxes, is a certain thing.

So, for individuals trying to make a difference, or for organizations trying to be innovative on a routine basis, a fundamental question must be asked and answered:  do we want to reward smart thoughts in the absence of action, or do we decide to celebrate the act of trying, even when it takes us to places of failure?  I say that we need to err on the side of errors of commission.  Doing must be more weighty than thinking or talking.

In the words of Bob Lutz:

Errors of commission are less damaging to us that errors of omission... taking no risk is to accept the certainty of long-term failure.

Obviously we need balance, and not everything can be about charging in and apologizing later.  It's good to listen to what the world is telling you and course correct as you go.  But a bias for action, and ways of rewarding action and penalizing inaction, will lead to remarkable things happening over time.

We must celebrate (and learn from) errors of commission and stamp out out errors of omission. 

This is number 15 in a series of 21 principles of innovation.  Your feedback is most welcome.

04 June 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

CIMG5723

26 May 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

Innovating under our noses

I saw two cool things today which renewed my faith in the ability of us all to innovate anywhere.  There are tons of things right under our noses which would benefit from a rethink.  Today's examples come from two organizations that usually go by their three initials.

The first is Apple's brilliant rethink of "banner" and "skyscraper" ads in the online version of the New York Times:

Metacool Apple NYT ad

In these ads, the PC and the Mac guys on the right interact with the Apple Customer Experience banner on the top, and then with the bald guy from the Sopranos in the "Hair Growth Academy" ad on the left.  It's funny, witty, clever, and catchy.  And it's the first web ad I've clicked on in, well... forever.  It's a nice example of an incremental innovation, and I'd love to see the resulting web metrics.

The second piece of inspiration is the Intern Auction being held by Crispin Porter + Bogusky on eBay:

!BSm4bFQBGk~$(KGrHgoOKisEjlLl5Pu2BKEFIhWvTg~~_1 

Not only is it a fun way to raise awareness of CP+B's intern program, but it also provides a market check on the value of an internship to clients.  Just to be clear, the auction is to buy the services of the intern, not to buy the internship itself.  I wonder how much more the internship would sell for in that latter mode?

Thanks to both the NYT and CP+B for an making this an inspirational Monday.

18 May 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

I saw this video clip earlier this week. I love it.

In it I see the following principles we've been discussing over the past few weeks:

Principle 1: Experience the world instead of talking about experiencing the world

Principle 6: Life life at the intersection

Principle 8: Most new ideas aren't

09 May 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

| |

13: Do everything right, and you'll still fail

Odds are your innovation efforts will fail.  Bummer.  Big, big bummer.

It's tough to bring something new in to the world.  Your chances of survival improve with a process informed by design thinking, but it's very likely some key factor -- across desirability, viability, or feasibility -- will not quite be there, and things will go pear-shaped. 

This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to win, to make things happen.  Quite the opposite: because the odds are so low, it means working even harder, pushing as much as you can to get things right.  I don't know about you, but I really hate failing.  It feels bad when it happens from a big-picture point of view; I have no problem with a prototype failing (that's a good thing, per Raney's Corollary), but I loathe the idea of something failing at a systemic level.  Yuck.

But acknowledging that failure is a likely outcome enables us -- if we work with the end in mind -- to make a leap to a more productive state of being.  That state of mind is the focus of Principle 14.

This is number 13 in a series of 21 principles of innovation.  Your feedback, ideas, and comments are greatly appreciated.

07 May 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

12: Instead of managing, try cultivating

Leading people to innovative outcomes has much more in common with the successful cultivation of gardens than it does with traditional, top-down, centralized, command-and-control management techniques.  Whereas the later is concerned with efficiencies, coping with scarcity, and always being on top of things, cultivating is about embracing variance, abundance, and the idea of living at the bottom of things.  A leadership model based on a cultivation mindset can be found in the following four defining behaviors of cultivators of innovation:


1) Being at the bottom of things

Flourishing gardens come from being at the bottom of things. Instead of pursuing the traditional management goal of being on top of things -- with the lucrative by-product of being at the top of things -- the leader-as-cultivator makes it their job to live simultaneously at the bottom and in the middle and on the edges, dealing with things that might seem like plain manure to outsiders. 

It's not lonely at the bottom. The bottom can be a messy place, but it is the wellspring of success when it comes to fostering creativity. With plants, as with people trying to act in creative ways, you can't tell them what to do, but you can try to support what they need to do, matching essential resources to tasks at hand. This is not traditional, I'm-the-heroic-boss leadership. Instead, the creative cultivator takes satisfaction from tending to the health of the overall garden, and wisely leaves the kudos for smelling great and looking good to the roses.


2) Trusting what is there

Creative cultivators trust what is there. A wise cultivator resists the temptation to "dig up the seed as it is growing", as it were, to check if people are being creative enough. Many breakthrough innovation initiatives are stifled by linear project timetables more appropriate to incremental efforts. The paradox of cultivating innovation is that confidence in outcomes is itself an enabler of innovation; a wise gardener knows that roses are the best authorities on the creation of rosiness, and until they bloom, only checks in to see if they need more food and water. Furthermore, creative cultivators trust that the right answers -- though not necessarily the ones they would have thought up themselves -- will emerge from their gardens. So much about what makes a creative organization tick is tacit; it is about what's there and what it creates in an emergent way, rather than what a few brains wish to have happen via explicit processes and goals.


3) Embracing the ecosystem

By their nature, gardens are part of larger ecosystems. Healthy gardens readily accept inputs from the outside world.  Rain, seeds, nutrients, soil: we needn't worry where they come from, we just care about their integrity and how they help us grow good stuff.  Encouraging variance -- the generation of weird or unexpected ideas -- is a key goal for someone cultivating a creative culture. Anything that encourages variance through the cross-pollination of ideas from outside sources (very much the function of bees) should be reinforced. And as we're sadly seeing out in the world, gardens without the benefit of bees soon stop producing.

Thinking about the long-term health of all stakeholders in an ecosystem is also a signature act of a cultivator. Innovating is a long-term endeavor and requires a great deal of patience, investment, and fortitude. Actions that value short-term productivity over the long-term health of the garden and its larger ecosystem are not conducive to lasting success.


4) Taking a bird's eye view

Finally, creative cultivators do all of the above while simultaneously curating the garden from a bird's eye view. Managing a portfolio of creative endeavors requires knowing how many plants a certain piece of land can support and then pruning or culling as need be.  As Principle 9 states, sometimes you have to prune (or kill) ideas and projects.  Doing the most with the resources at hand, listening to what works and what doesn't, and guiding growth to be something unique and wonderful – that is the essence of strategy, and of gardening as well. Most importantly, by taking a bird's eye view, a creative cultivator creates the context for plants to grow in accordance with a strong vision of how the garden should evolve. In organizations, this means having points of origin that can inspire individuals to be creative in certain ways, and not others, and to innovate in the right directions.

Taken together, these four ways of leading should help innovations flourish.  Instead of trying to manage innovation, we must move to a model of leadership that's all about cultivating it.

This is number twelve in a series of 21 principles.  Your feedback is most welcome.

06 May 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

11: Everyone needs time to innovate

Given all the challenges we face in the world, we need to everyone to innovate.  Everyone is potentially creative and able to bring something new in to the world.  The idea that there two types of people: "creatives" and everyone else, is but a myth, albeit a damaging one at that.  Up and down an organization, everyone needs time to innovate.

If you're sitting at the top of an organization, or in a position with a high degree of gravitational pull, you need time to innovate.  To get the most out of it, your time spent innovating should take the form of helping other people grow and setting things up to be successful.  Your innovations will deal with setting the stage in the right way for the right things to happen, and with architecting systems, teams, and structures so that appropriate behaviors emerge given the innovation challenge at hand.

If you're working on the front lines of an organization (where some might describe you as being at the "bottom"), you need time to innovate.  Because you are doing the critical work of the organization, you're the most in touch with the people who benefit from its offerings.  You can use the tools of design thinking to start making a difference today in how you make those people feel.  Figure out what they need that you're giving them, make some prototypes, and start testing them.  Cycle though that and improve the way things get done.  It takes time, but the potential benefits are enormous.

Note well that I'm not saying that everyone should be creative all the time.  Far from it: we need people to be executing when they should be executing.  Land that 747 safely, mend that broken leg, receive that shipment of returned goods, and file that tax return.  But for the critical questions of how, let's give everyone more time to make it all better.

This is the eleventh of 21 principles.  I really do appreciate your feedback and ideas.

04 May 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

10: Baby steps often lead to big leaps

When operating in the realm of the blank sheet of paper, where assumptions about how things might work outstrip the things you know will work, baby steps are a way to learn your way to success.  Granted, a big leap can also get you to your end goal, and will do so very quickly if you're lucky, but a leap into the darkness is very likely get you hurt.  Smaller steps allow you to assess the best path forward as you move forward, recognizing that for trailblazers, the path is of your own design. 

Baby steps are appropriate at the start, middle, and end of things.  This applies equally to individuals, teams, and entire organizations.

As obvious as it may seem, starting something is essential to its completion.  But often times people can't accept the challenge in front of them, and so they find myriad ways to avoid doing something:  budget reviews, scoping meetings, taking sick time, eating pizzas, buffing that feature on your last project, surfing Facebook... all fine ways to delay dealing with reality.  By taking a huge problem statement and breaking it in to smaller chunks, baby steps make it easier to get going.  If you're stuck in foggy, uncharted waters, you can spend a lot of time trying to to shoot the stars to chart a course, or you can raise the sail and move a bit, then reassess and move a bit more.  Baby steps help you get going, fast.

In the messy middle of an innovation initiative, baby steps allow you to quickly explore multiple directions in parallel, rather slaving to polish one idea before you know it is The One, or even The Best One We Have Now.  Big leaps make for expensive bets. Baby steps, on the other hand, are by their nature cheaper to pull off, so you end up spending less money per unit of learning, and that learning comes sooner.  And it's easier to kill off ideas when they're expressed as baby steps, because there's no huge sunk investment tempting you to spend more time and money in order to save the project or your career.  Most important of all, per Boyle's Law, baby steps increase the frequency of feedback you receive, because you can bring  a lot of baby step prototypes to quick meetings.  You learn a lot this way.

Many "overnight" innovation successes are actually the result of years of baby steps which added up to a big leap.  That  E Ink screen in your Kindle is the result of years of incremental innovations in the marketplace that took the technology from something best suited to department store signage to its current form, which is a truly remarkable breakthough. Those years of patient baby stepping at E Ink allowed them to accumulate a huge amount of explicit and tacit knowledge about how to design and make these displays; the more they learn, the harder it will be for others to duplicate their efforts with one big leap.  Baby steps can also lead to capability growth.  If you look at the product launch history of a firm like Honda, you see a steady beat of incremental product launches scheduled with presidential election regularity.  Every time Honda launches a new Accord, they not only put a better product in the market, but their people and systems evolve as well.  Stack all those launches up, and you can see why car companies that default to a "big leap" strategy are not doing so well.  Finally, baby steps can open up unforeseen opportunity streams in the guise of real options.  The folks behind Guitar Hero and Rock Band didn't set out to create the world's biggest ever living room music entertainment system -- they were just MIT guys interested in making the music performance experience more accessible to all.  Via fourteen years of patient experimentation and baby stepping, they got there, big. 

Baby steps often lead to big leaps. This is the tenth of 21 principles.  Your feedback, comments, and ideas are most welcome.

29 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

metacool Thought of the Day

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." 

- Winston Churchill

24 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

| |

9: Killing good ideas is a good idea

So that brilliant idea of yours isn't the only version of it under the sun, but that's okay (Priniciple 8) you're pouring everything you have in to making it real because you believe it is the one and true answer to the problem at hand.

A this point, killing that good idea could very well be a good idea.

It's easy to fall in love with an idea.  And when we're not mindful of process, and spend our energy worrying about whether we'll be successful and on budget and on time (not that those are bad things, they're very important), we can also fall in love too early with an idea, simply out of fear.  The mental or organizational dialog goes something like this: "This one is good, and we're in a rush, so let's go do it.".  Early closure is the enemy of innovation.  Better to move fast through lots of ideas early, throwing most of them out in the process, than to hone down to one in the very early days, polishing it to perfection in the vague hope that it is The One. 

Killing ideas also reserves energy so that there's enough left over to actually bring the very best ones to market.  In work, as in life, you can't do everything, so deciding what you won't do becomes as important as deciding what you will do (while always maintaining a bias toward the doing).  In a discussion about why Apple never shipped a post-Newton PDA, Steve Jobs said "If we had gotten into it, we wouldn't have had the resources to do the iPod.  We probably wouldn't have seen it coming."  At the end of the day, you never want to be low, slow, and out of money or time.

So go look at  your portfolio of ideas, and then kill a few that aren't going to be remarkable in the way they go about making people happy and creating value in the world.  You'll be much more innovative as a result.

This is the ninth of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback and ideas.

22 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

| |

8: Most new ideas aren't

Most new ideas aren't.  Someone, somehow, somewhere already thought up the essence of what you're thinking about.

Which is all the more reason to keep plugging away.

Accepting that someone else already had your idea is liberating, because it frees you up to learn.  It moves the focus from what's going on in your head to what's going on in the world.  Much of innovating is actually about stealing ideas from one context, connecting them to other ideas, and putting them to work in another.  Where can you find analogous experiments or successes or failures that can inform your own work? Remember, before Facebook there was Friendster.  And before the iPhone came the Newton.  You can choose to live ignorance of what came before or what is happening in other parts of the world, or you can dive in and embrace all their hard-won lessons as your own.

Best of all, standing on the shoulders of giants is a free activity.

At the end of the day, if someone else has already had your idea, then the goal shifts from having ideas to making them real.  Innovators ship, dreamers don't. 

So what's keep you from making your idea real?

This is the eighth of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback and ideas.

20 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

| |

7: Develop a taste for the many flavors of innovation

In music there's a big difference between Mick Jagger and Maria Callas.  If you're a pilot, hopping a bush plane around Alaska requires a different skill set you need to grease a 747 on the runway in Hong Kong. 

And so it is with innovation:  it comes in many flavors, and the ability to discern those flavors and proceed accordingly is a foundational of skill of individuals and organizations who are able to achieve innovation outcomes on a routine basis.

This is most easily explained using a 2 x 2 matrix.  I promise this is the only 2 x 2 I will be using in the course of this ongoing discussion of innovation principles:


Ways to grow metacool

No matter where you want to go tomorrow, today you and your organization sit at the lower left vertex of this 2 x 2.  So, looking up the vertical axis, you start with the offerings that you currently deliver to the market, and then range up to things that are new to you. Then, looking out across the horizontal axis, you start with the people you know, and out at the end of the axis you have people (or users) you don't know at all.  The four quadrants of the 2 x 2 then fall out as follows:

  • lower left:  existing offerings for existing people
  • upper left: new offerings for existing people
  • lower right: existing offerings for new users
  • upper right: new offerings for new users

Three different flavors of innovation are defined by these quadrants:

  1. Incremental Innovation: you seek to deliver improvements to offerings you already sell to people who you understand fairly well.  Your capabilities as an organization are designed to deliver these offerings to these people.
  2. Evolutionary Innovation:  one aspect of your offering (either unfamiliar people or an unfamiliar offering space) is changing as you seek to bring new something to market, forcing you to evolve away from what you know.  Your mainstream organization will be only partially equipped to successfully innovate here.
  3. Revolutionary Innovation:  the proverbial blank sheet of paper.  Everything is new, as you don't have a history with the offerings, nor do you understand the people here.  Your mainstream organization not only is not equipped to innovate successfully here, it won't even see the value in innovating here.

For each type of innovation to work, different organizational structures, metrics for success, development processes, individual skillsets, financial structures, even seating arrangments and reward structures must be put in to place.  Just as you wouldn't take a 747 to reach an Alaskan fishing village, so too you wouldn't try to go after a revolutionary innovation outcome using a team and structure built for incremental outcomes.  But it happens all the time, ergo the need to develop a taste for these flavors.  Innovation efforts are more likely to fail due to flawed architectural decisions made during their genesis than because of a lack of effort or luck on the part of the participants who put that architecture in to action.

There is no value judgment being applied across these three flavors of innovation.  Though "revolutionary" innovation is the flavor which captures the imagination of the public, incremental innovation is what keeps the lights on and your brands relevant in the short term.  But revolutionary innovations are what lead to breakthroughs that build value for the future.  In reality, a healthy organization must maintain a portfolio of innovation initiatives across this landscape if it wants to stay healthy for the long haul.

I am the last person to claim that this is a definitive model for understanding the landscape of innovation.  But in my experience it is simple enough to be used in practice, yet not so simplistic that it yields erroneous outcomes.  For more depth, please reference the following paper authored by Ryan Jacoby and yours truly.

This is the seventh of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback, thoughts, and ideas.

17 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

6: Live life at the intersection

Innovative outcomes result from living life at the intersection.  This is true not only within the confines of innovation initiatives, but also at the level of individuals, teams, and organizations.

Innovation needs to happen at the intersection of desirability, viability, and feasibility.  These three elements make up the legs of a proverbial stool called "it'll work in the world."  Too many innovation initiatives focus on only one or two, much to their detriment.  For example, creating something without regard for its feasibility out in the world is not unlike designing a bridge without regard to the existence of gravity: it might work, but the likelihood of it being a reliable, safe, means of transport will be greatly diminished.  And while it might be tempting to "really be creative" by ignoring constraints, a wiser approach is to view constraints as liberating.  Look at any bridge by Santiago Calatrava, and you'll see desirability, viability, and feasibility all coexisting in a glorious symphony enabled by constraints.

Calatrava is great example of what happens when an individual lives life at the intersection.  He is a prototypical "T-shaped" person, combining great depth in engineering, architecture, and sculpture with the breadth that comes from a design education and a life lived, well... getting stuff done.  

Teams and organizations engaged in the art and science of bringing cool stuff to life need to live at the intersection, too.  A team of experts ("I-shaped people") with no means of communicating will get no where, fast.  A team of generalists ("hyphen-shaped people") with no means of building and executing will suffer the same fate.  Diverse teams of T-shaped people are uniquely able to communicate in ways that support the generative application of their areas of expertise.  The end result is innovation.

This is the sixth of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback, thoughts, and ideas.


16 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

5: Anything can be prototyped. You can prototype with anything.

Prototyping is the lingua franca of innovation.  It externalizes internal thinking in a tangible form, rendering it more intelligible by others and the world.  The good news is that, though it has its roots in the creation of physical things, when taken as a mindset and a methodology, as a way of finding solutions, prototyping can be applied to any domain.  Anything can be prototyped, and you can prototype with anything.

Anything can be prototyped. Prototypes aren’t just for physical products. I routinely see people prototyping services, complex experiences, business models, and even ventures.  Really, anything can be prototyped: before filming Le Mans, Steve McQueen took a film crew to the French race a year earlier, shot an entire movie's worth of stuff, and then threw most of the exposed stock away.  He knew that they best way to learn how to shoot a great movie at Le Mans was to first shoot a rough movie there. His camera people gleaned deep insights into camera placements, mounts, and techniques which put them in good stead when it came time to shoot the real movie. And the value of the tacit knowledge transfer involved cannot be underestimated: rather than try to explain to new camera people what he wanted, McQueen could point to actual film clips and say, “This is good.”  Prototyping leads to speed as a process outcome.

You can prototype with anything.  You want to get an answer to your big question using the bare minimum of energy and expense possibly, but not at the expense of the fidelity of the results.  It's not only about aluminum, foamcore, glue, and plywood.  A video of the human experience of your proposed design is a prototype.  Used correctly, an Excel spreadsheet is a wonderful prototyping tool.  GMail started out as an in-market prototype.  A temporary pop-up shop is a prototype.  Believing that you can prototype with anything is a critical constraint in the design process, because it enables wise action, as opposed to the shots in the dark that arise from skipping to the end solution because zero imagination was applied to figuring out how to run a create a prototype to generate feedback from the world.

A wise person operates with the worldview that anything can be prototyped, and we can prototype with anything. 

This is the fifth of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback and ideas.

15 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

| |

4: Prototype as if you are right. Listen as if you are wrong.

To make change in the world, we must constantly engage in a yin-yang cycle of prototyping.  This implies a commitment to two behaviors:

  1. Prototype as if you are right.
  2. Listen as if you are wrong.

What is a prototype?  A prototype is nothing other than a single question, embodied.  In a way quite similar to the scientific method, productive prototyping is about asking a single question at a time, and then constructing a model in the world which brings back evidence to answer your question.  In order to believe in the evidence that comes back to you, you need to prototype as if you already know the answer.  A strong belief in your point of view will push you to find more creative solutions to the question at hand.

Once your prototype is ready for the world, it is important to listen as if you are wrong.  You (and everyone around you) must be willing to respect the evidence that the prototype brings back, whether you life it or not.  You must also go out of your way to put your prototype in to the world.  Hiding it in a closet is only cheating the process, and ultimately, yourself.  My colleague Dennis Boyle, who is one of the world's truly great design thinkers and a remarkable product development guru, has a saying which we like to refer to as Boyle's Law.  It goes like this:

"never attend a meeting without a new prototype"

This serves to both push and pull.  It pushes you to prototype earlier and with more frequency, because you want to (and have to) meet with other people in the course of life.  And it pulls you toward a more productive state, because you can't have a meeting without having a new prototype, which means that you spend less time talking in pointless meetings and more time doing productive explorations.  Doing is very important.

There is an important build on Boyle's Law, which goes by the handle of Raney's Corollary.  Coined by another one of my colleagues, Colin Raney, his corollary states:

"you only learn when things start breaking"

The goal of a prototype is not to be right, but to get an answer.  That answer is what allows you move forward with wisdom.

When we engage in both of these behaviors, prototyping as if we are right but listening as if we are wrong, we engage ourselves in a continuing cycle of do-try-listen.  When faced with the challenge of bringing something new in to the world, this cycle leads to concrete results that have a better chance of changing the world, as they are born of lessons from the world.  As such, I much prefer the word "prototyping" (a verb) over the word "prototype" (a noun).  It is about doing.  Prototyping is how things move forward.

This is the fourth of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback and ideas.

14 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

| |

3: Always ask: "How do we want people to feel after they experience this?"

Too often we focus all of our energy on designing the thing, and forget about the people who will use it.  As we approach any design effort, we must step back and always ask: "How do we want people to feel after they experience this?"

Part of the challenge lies in taking an "ecosystem" approach to the human experience.  It's relatively easy to think about the experience of the end user of the thing you design, but what about the experience to be had by the person who sells it?  How could we make that better?  Who will service it?  Who will retire it?  Who will market it?  Who will provide training and education?  A comprehensive look at all of their needs will help (but not guarantee) a better overall experience for the end user.

Another part of the challenge lies in thinking about usage through time.  We often design for those few moments that make up the core value proposition.  But what about all the other experiences?  How does it feel to start using it?  What does mastery feel like -- is it exhilarating or boring?  How does using this expand our human experience?  How does it influence our environment?  What does it feel like to extend one's relationship with the offering?  Does it help someone get to a state of flow?

There are many examples where designing for the entire experience has made for success in the world (here's a list of "well done" vs. "not so well done"):

  • Apple Store vs. Sony Style
  • Dream Dinners vs. Hamburger Helper
  • Trekking in Bhutan vs. in Nepal
  • Disneyland vs. your local amusement park
  • World of Warcraft vs. Second Life
  • Mint.com vs. your credit card and bank statements

As Lance Armstrong would say, it's not about the bike.  We must keep asking "How do we want people to feel after they experience this?"

This is the third of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback and ideas.

13 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

| |

2: See and hear with the mind of a child

If experiencing the world firsthand is about wisdom, then being open to what that world tells you requires cultivating the un-wise mind of a child: open, curious, fun-loving. 

Being open and curious takes practice. 

Having an open mind requires one to suspend (or at least defer) judgment.  This is an acquired skill. 

Curiosity must be fed: when asked by a classmate of mine how we should best spend our time preparing ourselves for a life spent designing stuff, the great design guru Sara Little Turnbull said, "Great designers are great readers."  In other words, you must feed your curiosity, because it grows stronger as it is fed, and the cognitive foundation set by that curiosity is what enables one to recognize patterns and make connections across disparate elements of complex systems.

Having fun (especially as you work) requires energy and time.  But it’s worth it: fun shows ways forward other than the drab grey of the mundane, and it can shake us out of the path of an obvious solution.

Without the mind of a child, one can’t see or act deeply.  We must see and hear with the mind of a child.

This is the second of 21 principles.  Please give me your feedback and ideas.

11 April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

| |

« Previous | Next »

Categories

  • designing
  • innovating
  • leading
  • marketing
  • meta metacool

search


About

Subscribe to this blog's feed

    follow me on Twitter

    Favorite Posts

    • A million reasons why...
    • Mo Cheeks and a fundamental question of leadership
    • Innovation Lessons from Garage Majal
    • From Obama to Pink to Oprah
    • Shinya Kimura and the primacy of doing
    • A tribute to friends and friendship
    • Strategy that makes your hands bleed
    • Quality in a switch
    • Travis Pastrana and the future of the world economy

    on the nightstand

    • : The Great Bridge

      The Great Bridge

    • : Porsche - Origin of the Species

      Porsche - Origin of the Species

    Principles for Innovating

    • 1: Experience the world instead of talking about experiencing the world
    • 2: See and hear with the mind of a child
    • 3: Always ask: "How do we want people to feel after they experience this?"
    • 4: Prototype as if you are right. Listen as if you are wrong.
    • 5: Anything can be prototyped. You can prototype with anything.
    • 6: Live life at the intersection
    • 7: Develop a taste for the many flavors of innovation
    • 8: Most new ideas aren't
    • 9: Killing good ideas is a good idea
    • 10: Baby steps often lead to big leaps
    • 11: Everyone needs time to innovate
    • 12: Instead of managing, try cultivating
    • 13: Do everything right, and you'll still fail
    • 14: Failure sucks, but instructs
    • 15: Celebrate errors of commission. Stamp out errors of omission.
    • 16: Grok the gestalt of teams
    • 17. It's not the years, it's the mileage
    • 18: Learn to orbit the hairball
    • 19: Have a point of view
    • 20: Be remarkable

    CC

    • Creative Commons License