do_matic

Non sequitur: When you sell your magazine business what are you selling anyway?

KazakhstanNewsNet, Portfolio (ironic right?) and other news sites have been reporting the latest chatter about Time, Inc. selling its magazine business.

It just made me wonder, what would I be buying and how excited could I get about what I had and what I could grow? Not only the assets, but also the potential.

If you took an aggressive growth mentality into these businesses, what would you do? Could you even do that?

Congratulations Tim!

Today, Tim's book Change by Design launches. Writing a blog post is hard enough, so I can't imagine writing a book (let alone a book as good as this).

I really enjoyed the whole book. Chapter 10, designing tomorrow today, was my favorite based solely on my love of lists. It's squarely aimed at the knowing-doing gap.

Congratulations Tim!

Why can't... somebody tell me where to set up shop?

I'm going to start putting some ideas up here.

This one popped up when I was walking by a couple of budding restaurateurs (ok, maybe barmen) readying their establishment on 2nd Avenue at 12th Street...

Why can't we leverage the power of location-based information to help companies understand where I should put a store? Or place an advertisement? Or for communities and governments to help have a dialog about what a neighborhood needs?

By coupling mobile phone location-awareness technology with widely available geographic information, the proprietors of this service would sell an integrated analytical offering to developers, governments, small businesses and advertisers. They'd probably start in the top 15-20 MSAs.

The company would likely start as or end up being a strategic subsidiary of a mobile phone company. Mobile phone subscribers would opt-in to be profiled and tracked in exchange for advanced location-based data services or free mobile phone service. These same subscribers could also receive free local information in exchange for their participation or serve like Neilsen families of old.

Systemically, the service would "crawl streets" periodically (think radar sweeps over a particular block for a given time period). A customer could commission a "crawl" and the company could offer a premium service that showed detailed demographic information as well as historical comparisons.

Developers, small business owners and advertisers would use the system to assess locations and neighborhoods. Both subscription and ad-hoc services would be offered. Customers would be able to discover not only what traffic looked like at given points in time, but also where people came from, where they went next and a lot about who potential users or tenants were as people.

The online reporting interface would utilize Google mashups to get street views, data on other complementary and competitive aspects of the area (e.g., competitive businesses, vehicle traffic or a nice park to eat lunch). Developers and advertisers could run "placement" searches across markets, allowing them to drill down on both geographic and demographic information.

The company would likely do a deal with a partner like Trulia to assess corporate real estate rates. Similarly, it would integrate data from sites like Yelp and Zagat to glean sentiment.

The company would have a public-facing, free component that shared basic traffic information and visualizations. Citizens could provide suggestions or insight into certain locations or ask for certain additions to the neighborhood.

I think some of the location-based services (foursquare, Loopt?), data and analytics companies are likely considering this. Does anybody know? I seem to recall a WSJ or NY Times article about a New York-based company running selective monitoring of subscriber traffic flows to profile and create new types of segments.

[Editors note: Jon pointed me to exactly the company, Sense Networks, and the article I was trying to recall. Amazing Jon. Thanks!]

(No street names=other solutions. Japanese neighborhood map courtesy of Kamoda on Flickr and Creative Commons.)

Colin responds: Measuring Innovation

Between Colin's response, prototyping some measures and the rich discussion in the comments, I think we've arrived at a really great answer.

We don't know the one thing we'd measure for innovation.

But I'm glad we tried to answer it.

First, let me say I like Colin's idea of measuring personal experimentation. It's a good innovation measure that would likely lead to improvement.

Experiments require action. Innovation loves action. Experiments are fun. Innovation loves playfulness. Experiments, unlike tests, are designed for learning. Innovation loves learning. Experiment has a nice "tone" to it. Unlike "test," "experiment" takes some of the pressure off of being right and lets you work your way to what's right.

Many small experiments often get there faster than big initiatives or projects. Innovation loves velocity. Colin's measure implies an ongoing process that starts at human scale and also scales to an organization. Innovation loves it when everybody can see themselves in it.

It would be important that such a measure not feel like a quota, otherwise you'd likely not get the variance in experiments - the process learning that's so critical. However, if an organization simply said, "we want you doing a lot more personal experimentation and we're going to tell you the kind we want, let you do it and support you in it" that would probably have a big cultural impact.

From the comments, Gabe's idea of an index says a lot. An index tries to bundle disparate factors into a predictive or explanatory telling of the whole. It's like Prego, it's in there.

In a sense, an outcome measure is an index. I hadn't thought of things like that before. There are myriad factors that lead to an amazing (or terrible) outcome.  The challenge with indices is that they perform at a level of abstraction that is hard to affect as an individual. It's hard to grab hold of and change the Prego. Contrast a broad index with a concrete outcome measure and you'll see what I mean. For example, "we need to improve our 'open innovation score'" vs. "50% of our ideas need to come from the outside."

OK, if we don't know exactly what to measure, yet it's worthwhile, then what?

Simple. Design measures. (Or at least simply stated.)

Innovation measures, just like an innovation strategy, can and should be designed for a company's given situation, culture, brand and people.  When designing innovation measures, I assess organizational readiness, approaches and outcomes of the process itself. Diego and I were tossing this around a couple of years back and described this as being considerate of what happens before, during and after the process or a project.

So, here's a list of some design principles for innovation measures. Innovation measures should:

- Be concrete, otherwise we won't connect to them
- Scale, ideally from human-scale to organization-scale, so we see ourselves in them and can impact larger goals
- Be designed to improve, not to solely prove
- Encourage action, inspiration, intuition and feelings of safety, excitement and joy
- Have an expiration date; what you need to improve will likely change
- Have a bias towards experimentation, breaking things and learning

(Photo courtesy of Leo Reynolds and Creative Commons)

Intuition, innovation, collaboration and credibility

 

(There's a good idea in there somewhere. Some bokeh courtesy of u07ch's stream on Flickr.)

Intuition is fire for creativity: absolutely necessary yet potentially dangerous when wielded clumsily.

Intuition describes a personal process of connection-making and idea generation that occurs at a subconscious level. In a sense, intuition describes what it's not: a systematic, rational process of analysis. When working alone, a personal process works great. (I always like my own intuition when I'm having some.) In collaborative and interdisciplinary settings, it gets a little stickier. Here are some thoughts I've had about intuition reflecting on collaborating for innovation.

Embrace intuition and make it concrete
Leaders of creativity and innovation should embrace and encourage intuition in their people. If it's not acceptable to have and share intuitive ideas at all points throughout a creative process, then the process is broken. People should be bringing to life unconscious connections informed by their innate sensibilities, outside inspiration and practical experiences. Leaders should encourage and support systematic inspiration-gathering and sketching of all forms.

Honestly discuss
Early in a creative process, when divergence dominates*, intuition is extremely important and sometimes all you really have to get going. But early, intuitive ideas aren't easy to judge as you transition towards convergence. Collaborators get curious about why something is good or the origins of an idea. If you have a nascent idea and can't describe its provenance (because it sprang forth from your subconscious), you could end up having a tough situation on your hands.

At the same time, individuals bring a wealth of experience to life through an idea or in a decision**. These experienced folks might say an idea or decision just "feels right" based on their experience. But if you find yourself saying that, and only that, you're missing an opportunity to share that experience.

Channel intuition
Here are some ideas about how to wield intuition in collaborative and creative organizations:
    ▪    Encourage intuition and lay the foundation for it to occur (promoting, inspiration, sketching and safe, early sharing)
    ▪    Bring intuition to life through "sketching" and concrete design
    ▪    Accept that your intuitive idea might not be the right idea
    ▪    Explore in advance why others might find your idea "good": whether they be a user, a team member or a client
    ▪    Be honest as a team about whether one person's intuition (experience) is more valued, and then be open to ignore that hierarchy if the merits of an idea dictate that you do so
    ▪    Embrace critique
    ▪    Be open to the fact that others will be curious about your intuitive idea's underpinnings
    ▪    Claim and share your experience if you have it; others will learn from it
    ▪    Don't steamroll with "my gut" when you're really talking about your experience
    ▪    Don't use "my gut" to replace "I don't know" when you really just don't know
    ▪    Make it safe to say "I don't know"

*My gut (ha!) says that, in team settings, intuition is more practically valuable for divergence than convergence because of the friction involved in justifying intuitive decision-making. That makes a willingness to detach from an idea during convergence really important as a designer.

**I'm finding it useful to think of two "types" of intuition in individuals: inspired and informed. Sometimes the most experienced individuals, those who might exhibit a high degree of informed intuition, could use a dose of inspiration. Likewise, some of the most inspired individuals would do well to learn from and listen to the experience of others.

Countermeasures vs. Solutions

In the August issue of the MIT Sloan Management Review, there is an article by John Shook describing the A3* report - a lynchpin of the famed Toyota approach to improvement. As a structured, fact-driven and ideally visual way of capturing and sharing a situation, the A3 is really attractive. It's more rational than intuitive, but there's room for intuition in the A3 for the enterprising business designer as well. We've got similar tools that we sometimes use at work.

In one of the callouts in the article, I found a really nice observation by the author that made me stop for a second.

In the A3 report, design responses to challenges are typically framed as "countermeasures" rather than "solutions." Whereas "solution" connotes the "end-all, be-all", countermeasures represent a refinement or evolution to combat a challenge. As Shook points out, countermeasures might introduce new challenges to the system. You'd never expect such rude behavior from a solution.

"Countermeasures" is just a much more honest way to frame design responses. Plus, the word appeals to my irrational attachment to The Hunt for Red October.

*As a paper size, I like A3 (tabloid or 11X17) for worksheets and sketching - especially early in a process. You can see the whole problem, especially if your sketching is as "loose" as my ideas usually are. I find my writing and visualizations get smaller and clearer as I work through the divergence and convergence cycle. Too bad. If I was working more sustainably, I'd flip that.

Trial when your lights are off

 

A few weeks ago, I was running by a restaurant that serves vegetarian fare on a somewhat dire stretch of 10th Street in the East Village. They had a table offering free samples. People commuting to work that particular morning could sample what this ten-table place had to offer.

When I first saw the sample sign, I thought "what a nice idea." I'd noticed the restaurant before, but never really been interested in it (probably because I'm usually looking for something a little more indulgent when I'm out in the neighborhood). This move made me reconsider. Here's the conversation I could have imagined playing out among the proprietors:

"Get locals on their way to work to actually try us out. Many of these people often make decisions about what to do for dinner earlier in the day, so why not introduce ourself to them when the streets are a little quieter and they can focus on us?"

It made me think of how to engage potential consumers out of the context of use, but at a time that still represents a reasonable context for consideration.

This isn't a new idea for sure. In a sense, advertising is predicated on it and targeting / placement is meant to get you half-way there. Yet I wonder how else it could be more personally and mindfully pursued? Where else could this be applied?

August: A lost month? Or not?

Do you ever get that feeling of something slipping away, even as you experience it? August was like that for me. I was traveling a lot, working with clients a ton, spending time with design teams and reading as much as I could.

What I didn't do during August was make time for conscious distillation. I was doing some quick synthesis on the fly in conversations with design teams and with clients, but much of my focus was on execution.

Twitter helped me, but it also might have hurt me. I could throw little intuitive thoughts into the void and, at times, dip my head under the faucet for some rapid inspiration. But when I did that, I was also giving myself a free pass from doing some deeper thinking and connection-making.

While in the midst of this period, it felt as if I was alternating between floating in and treading water. But looking back I don't think anything was really lost. I was laying a nice foundation of inspiration and charging my batteries a bit for a busy Fall. In the meantime I stretched my feet out below me, realized I was only in four feet of water, and I've walked onto the shore.

As a jumpstart, I've started giving myself constrained challenges to share some long-simmering thinking.  Regardless of where I am at the end of the day or week, I have to share what I have with an interested party (or sometimes disinterested!). I'm also trying to share some of the inspiration I gleaned over the Summer, an important creative act for me because I like to give my point of view on what I read.

Reflecting on August, I've been reminded that anyone, regardless of where they work and their role, has to balance execution with exploration, reflection with creation, inspiration with action and consumption with creation. The trick seems to be to notice when it's time for a change and then do something about it.

(Really cool map and graphic design idea courtesy of LeSmou Imperator and Flickr.)