do_matic

Matisse: Constrain yourself to push your design craft

(Mattsse, Goldfish and Pallette, 1914-1915)

On Saturday, I visited the new Matisse show Radical Invention at the MoMA. On display is Matisse's experimentation with his craft between 1913 and 1917. The show (and the curators) explained a couple of things to me.

First, Matisse would give himself a constraint (the same subject matter, the same color palette) allowing him to focus on variation in technique. Why worry about composition or subject matter if you want to focus on something else altogether?

Second, a piece could evolve quite significantly over the course of several years. One style would morph into another. We could see the faint lines of a prior manifestation underneath the end result. The subject would be shaped and reworked ("The Italian Woman" stands out in this respect). Perhaps Matisse was the inspiration for Photoshop tools?

These principles naturally extend to those of us working on our craft or design skills. By picking a direction or a mode of expression or a technique quickly at the beginning of a project, we can focus our energy on learning or experimenting with other techniques.

Interested in revolutionary innovation? Focus on the bookends.

(Check out Kristian Bjornard's fun Flickr pages. He did a design a day in 2010.)

Last Wednesday, it occurred to me that a preoccupation with process can really impede the pursuit of revolutionary innovation. By process, I mean a focus on what happens between when an idea "emerges" and when it first gets to market.

Instead, leaders should communicate constraints and conditions and then actively support action. Focus on the bookends, not the books.

Constraints and conditions

1. Utilize clear constraints
Let people know they'll get real money, but not a lot of it, to take the next development and learning step.

2. Focus on user and market outcomes
Fund fundamentally different customer experiences or "good enough" solutions to disrupt our own market.

3. Start with impact, wait for mass
Be patient for scale, but impatient for in-market proof and per-unit profitability.

Support action

4. Cultivate hunches
Steven Johnson's forthcoming book (Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation) seems to be built in part around his idea of "cultivated hunches." Think of them as wise hypotheses and patterns that you're people have seen. They're out there in your organization. Actively find them, help people develop them and unlock them. If you asked people to share their hunches right now, how many big ideas would be in there?

5. Act, preferably fast
Help people get things shipped to generate feedback from real users, in-market. One of your jobs as a big-shot leader is to help people make progress. Is there an experience out there that you can't prototype or build within 60 days?

Agile/lean thinking and the theory of disruption come together quite nicely when you do this.

Dynamic duos: Bravery, Creativity and Innovation

(There are always others in pictures like this. From Clickflashphotos on Flickr.)

The last two days I've spent at the New York Forum. If you follow me on Twitter, you might know that and hate me for it!

On Tuesday night, I led a session with some colleagues on rebuilding trust in the financial system amongst 20-30 year olds. Definitely lots of energy and fun despite the heady subject. I think they might post the notes, so if they do I'll share them.

After our session, I took the luxury of attending many of the workshops. The morning session on innovation was quite (and surprisingly) good. There were many highlights, but I thought an idea shared by Shelly Lazarus of Ogilvy was quite important.

Shelly posited that having a collaborator in the formulation of ideas can be extremely productive. The way I captured it was:

"Having another person helps people to be brave. The other person hears an idea and say, 'hey, I think you have something there' which allows you to go further." (or something like that).

Not teaming for a project per se, instead collaborations that stretch over time that evolve a certain dynamism and trust.

I had the pleasure of chatting briefly with Shelly afterwards and she expanded further noting that often that the skill and quality of the two people might not matter. That is, somebody that's not quite as good could still be the missing ingredient to make the other person truly great. And if you break up the dynamic duo, you might see the greatness fade.

Seems pretty simple and anecdotally true for me. Sign of a good insight.

Leading Innovation: Ignore your instincts, say "yes"

(From Dean Terry's Flckr photostream shared herewith under the auspices of Creative Commons which says "yes.")

When in doubt, don't.

Almost every organization in the world struggles to design and bring new, valuable and cool stuff into the world. With their success, organizations evolve towards consistency and away from variance. As individuals, leaders follow suit. We develop all kinds of strengths and behaviors that help us to perform well at "consistency tasks".

To avoid being too smart, leaders looking to encourage innovation have to learn to catch themselves and overcome the urge to say "no."

Great innovation leaders learn to start with "yes." They see the possibility of new options, give the gift of emotional support for those bringing them new ideas and provide the instrumental support to help these new options progress. The strong ones survive anyway.

See Chapter 16 of Oribiting the Giant Hairball ("The Office of the Paradox") for more on this.

Hey Colin: The future of strategy is design, launch and learn

(Next stop, Eskimo Jo's Flickr page.)

Hey Colin, This is late. Several months ago you asked me "What's the future of strategy?" I've been tossing this around in my head since then. No shit.

You have a William Gibson quote at your desk: "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." So you know the answer.

The future of strategy is: design, launch and learn.

The past of strategy was: deliberate and decide.

And as the William Gibson quote so aptly illuminates, the future is already here. It's Eric Ries, lean startup stuff. It's Clover Food Labs. It's your Business in Beta pattern.

Non sequitur: Questions are the new answers

Working on my Brite Conference talk earlier this week, I wrote this sentence. Then I saw this on the walk to work this morning. I wonder if I saw it before and the phrase stuck.

I'm excited about the talk. It's one of my first times talking somewhat comprehensively (though likely not coherently) about Venture Design.

Tidying up - a critical part of the design process

(Banksy gets it. Courtesy of danbrady, flickr and creative commons.)

This morning I engaged in one of the most satisfying and productive parts of the design process. I cleaned up after a frenzied day of creation with my team yesterday.

When I see a team that's looking for some direction, one of the things I'll suggest is to go ahead and clean the workspace. I think cleaning, at the right time, can be as important as getting messy.

When we do it in the middle of the process, what we throw away and what we keep tells us something. In that sense, it's a codeword / code activity for "convergence." Taking it slow and being quiet, ends up being really good reflection time as well... meditation while keeping your hands busy and steeping in the space.

At the end of a project, it can be really valuable as well (as well as polite). In that sense, it helps us learn, reflect, purge and let go.

Non sequitur: Be stupid

My buddy Scott pointed me to this Diesel campaign embracing Stupid and eschewing Smart. Some really nice overlaps with doing innovative stuff. The right approach might feel kind of stupid at first!

You might not love the approach or the brand, but you have to admit that they're on to something. Here's the Diesel site: http://www.diesel.com/be-stupid/

 

Apparently I'm a child of the Bauhaus

(Josef Albers Stacking Tables; My wife's favorite piece in the exhibit.)

Until a recent visit to the Moma's Bauhaus exhibit, I wasn't aware how influential that movement was (and the importance of the word "diaspora"). Apparently I'm a child of the Bauhaus and we're all brothers and sisters. It was pretty amazing.

Some observations:

>> The commitment, desire and expectation to work across mediums and disciplines. That's a hallmark to what our teams exhibit at work, but wanting to do it and committing to do it as an individual requires another level of curiosity and risk-taking.
>> There's a difference between a studio and a workshop. This made me think about the idea of "craftspeople" and how they may differ from "tradespeople" (see Shop Class as Soulcraft). Guess which side I err towards...
>> The striking similarity of what we have, use and like today with what they were designing then. Great design is self-referential.

My favorite piece was the so-called telephone enamel pieces by László Moholy-Nagy. He didn't build it, he gave the specifications to the builder over the phone:

I'm sure I missed tons of stuff and actually learned one one-thousandth of what there is to learn, so I bought a big ol' book about it to learn more. (Update: a few pages in and man I didn't understand half of it.)

Inevitability: A tell for disruptive innovation opportunities

My colleague Joe just pointed me to this nice article describing one of the big aspects / inner workings of the Visa business model.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/05visa.html

We do a lot of work in this space and there's lots of room for innovation and designing for users. I was struck by the sentiment in the article that interchange is a God-given right. Hmmm... maybe...

Certainly banks and the associations have real expenses and there is a value they are providing. They should absolutely have a right to capture and compete for that value.

Yet the idea that this situation is inevitable could be a dangerous one to hold onto too dearly within these companies. There are lots of smaller players out there that would gladly halve those fees and take a percentage of the now smaller amount. It's a good message to broadcast to keep competitors at bay and vendors placated...

There are some firms trying to do it, but that are having trouble competing effectively quite yet. The barriers and scale benefits are still difficult for these entrants to overcome. But some big folks, Google among them, are playing with payments.

Where else is there an "inevitable system constraint" in this industry or any industry?

It could point us to other disruption opportunities.

Define: Idea Blindness

(Photo courtesy of Giancarlo D'Allesandro's Flickr stream and Creative Commons.)

Sometimes we hold onto an idea just a little too tightly. Sometimes we encounter somebody holding on a bit too tightly.

You know the situation. No matter what is said or suggested, it always comes back to the same concept, the same meme, the same position.

The concept is a black hole possessed of such gravitational might that it bends light and twists words. It's not that we're ignoring other ideas or people, it's just that we can neither see those ideas nor hear those people. We're idea blind.

Sometimes we cling to the idea because we couldn't possibly have been wrong all this time. Our commitment, as the psychologists say, has escalated. Sometimes it feels like this idea is all we've got.

But to others, those that might feel otherwise or be talking about something altogether different, it's like living with a parakeet that only knows one phrase.

I wonder what it would be like to force ourselves to let our pet idea (or parakeet) go for one solitary day? To convince ourselves that we were wrong all along.

Have no fear, I'm betting that we won't lose much in one day. And if the idea is good enough, it'll actually be stronger in the morning.

To get it right, be interested in being wrong

Mrs. F was my first grade teacher. She was wonderful. At the start of first grade, she handed out those big, thick pencils - the ones without erasers. I asked Mrs. F why our pencils didn't have erasers. She said, "so you'll take your time and do things right the first time." Though I love her still, I think Mrs. F had the right pencils but the wrong message.

To do new things - things that are delightfully better and fundamentally different - you have to be really, really interested in putting things out there and being wrong; making mistakes and loving it.

I meet lots of folks in my work: designers, innovators and business people. It's a rare person that's confident enough to have their ideas critiqued. Even more seldom is the person that seeks feedback on an idea after it has been delivered. If you get it wrong, it sucks. If you got it wrong and it's your only shot, it really sucks. We confuse critique of an idea with a critique of us. I've certainly felt that way.

Great designers and innovators see evaluation moments as learning opportunities. They couple confidence with humility and curiosity. Some really amazing designers certainly possess a "never look back" approach. I think that works really well when what you're doing is closer to art.I don't think it works as well for innovation. I find with practice that it gets easier and easier to be wrong - you hate the sting, but you seek it.

So next time you hear something akin to "that's the worst idea I've heard in a long time." Say "Perfect, when did you know it was awful?"

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!

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.