Logic+Emotion

Killing Cows + Jumping Sharks

Sometimes taking risks means risking both.

John Maeda goes To RISD

The big news in the Design world is that John Maeda, author of the "Laws of Simplicity" has left the MIT media lab to become president of RISD (video) (Rhode Island School of Design).  What a great move.  RISD, which is a excellent school will be lucky to have him.   In an Interview at BusinessWeek's NEXT blog, John says:

"I know that a great deal of my start up phase will be spent learning and listening about RISD’s unique strengths and using that base knowledge to figure where it could possibly go. Where can it go? Really the sky is the limit because it RISD is perfectly grounded in the perfect traditions of the past."

Right on.  John, if you're listening—I have a thought:

Would you ever consider opening up the RISD blog to the outside world?  How cool would it be to have academic discussions that transcend the halls of RISD and include perspectives from all over the place?  I dunno.  I could be wrong.  Maybe it's a dumb idea.  As a Pratt graduate, one of the things I loved about that school was that it's location in Brooklyn was the best of both worlds.  It felt like a private Oasis in the middle of an urban jungle—but on the other hand, you could get to NYC in minutes and expose yourself to a universe of experiences.  It provided an interesting mix of seclusion and exposure.

Design school was one of my favorite times in life.  But I often reflect back upon it, and realize how many new skills I needed to learn once I joined the business world.  I hope that 2008 promises more interaction between the worlds of academia, business and even design.  What a great year it will be!

Tip 'O the hat: Bruce Nussbaum

Giving the Gift of Creativity

When I was a kid, my favorite playthings were simple and sometimes not even toys.  Boxes were spaceships, aprons were capes and oven mits were space alien claws.  My  seven-year-old Max is shown here messing around with Roger von Oech's Ball of Whacks.  The thing I like about it (and I think what Max likes about it too) is how open ended the object is.  It's not like clay since it's made up of geometric shapes, but it leaves much to the imagination.  Roger recently sent me a "six pack" including the new "blue balls".  No really.  That's the latest color.  And there's also a tri-color version(below).  So this year, I'll be giving the gift of creativity in a box.

 

Phizzpop Gets Fuzzy

I'm a big believer that creativity can and often does come from anywhere. So it came as no surprise to me that at last night's Phizzpop design challenge, the firm that ended winning the challenge was not a creative agency, but a technical integration shop.  Clarity, who's winning design solution (above) bested well known creative shops such as Tribal DDB and included solid ideas, with a great user experience and even a prototyped iPhone concept—all done in two days.

Let me take a step back.  Phizzpop is a Microsoft sponsored event.  The basic premise is that teams are given a business oriented design challenge complete with personas and they get two days to come up with a solution.  And oh yeah, they have to use Microsoft design tools such as the Expression suite to bring the concepts to life.  How's that for a twist?

All of the contestants did a great job, but it was the tech shop that took home the prize and gets to go to SXSW for the finals.  I found this to be quite ironic as my presentation included examples of agencies playing "outside of their sandbox".  I chatted with one of the Clarity guys after they presented and he told me how ill equipped he felt given that the firm isn't "creative".  I guess the judges didn't see it the same way.

Cool event.  Below is the presentation I gave to kick off the evening:

Signs You Might Be On To Something

1. You can't stop thinking about it.
2. You draw stuff with whatever materials you have available.
3. You talk about it with anyone who is willing to humor you.
4. You build different versions of it in your head.
5. You blog about it from your iPhone.

Permission to Fail

When was the last time you gave yourself permission to fail?  Seriously.  When was the last time you said screw it, if this doesn't succeed, at least I gave it a shot--at least I did something.  When was the last time you did the right thing--even if the only person you needed to prove something to was yourself.  When was the last time you had a good night's rest, because deep down in side--you did something you believed in.  Speaking of, when was the last time you believed?

Specialist or Generalist?

CM colleague Matthew Milan pointed me to this visual from Xplane's Dave Gray.  It's a thought starter, that's for sure.  The visual defines Generalists as being best at defining the problem or goal.  Specialists are best at solving the problem or "executing the plan".  There's probably a lot of truth to the stake that this visual puts in the ground.  It certainly simplifies the differences between Specialist and Generalists.

One problem.

My view on creativity is that it's problem solving at the core.  Innovation, design, communications, invention, all disciplines that depend on both the Generalist and Specialist mindsets working in concert to solve the problem.  On the flip side—Specialists can also be quite good at defining the problem, especially if it falls within their area of expertise.  Do you consider yourself to be a social media expert?  Maybe your knowledge is more specialized than you think.

I think the reality lies somewhere in this:  Generalists can excel at both defining and solving problems but may require the assistance of specialists as they go deeper into execution.  Specialists can excel in defining the problem especially when it falls within their area of expertise.  Are we saying the same thing?  I think the difference is stressing that both can actually function in the other's "role" depending on the individual and context.  And I definitely would expand effectiveness of Generalists in solving problems as opposed to just the definition of them.

Maybe it's the title if the visual.  Change the "or" to "and" and you can look at this from another perspective.

Are You a Synthesizer?

(click above for larger image)

So let’s say you are a planner.  You’re probably looking up at the visual and thinking to yourself—"yup, I do a lot of that”.  Or maybe you’re a designer (or design strategist) and you might be thinking the same thing.  Or you could be a business analyst or brand strategist and think “yeah, I do that”.  Maybe you are an interaction designer, writer, information architect or creative director and feeling the same way.  Maybe you aren’t any of these. 

Could it be that you are a human “synthesizer”?

I believe that the more options technology gives us—the more complexity, and potential—then the more important it becomes to hone in that core set of "truths" AND be able to articulate them to a diverse set of project influencers.  The reality is that while many of us think we have this ability—few probably do it really well.  But you know it when you see it, they are the ones who are able to cut right through the distractions—to the essence of the problem.  But they don’t stop there, they are able to tell stories which move people to a point consensus or action—or just move them period.  Synthesizers help take the inputs, distill them into something meaningful and articulate and output them in compelling, meaningful ways.

I believe that these soft skills are needed now more than ever because design, technology, business, brand and human needs have never been so intertwined before—so co-dependent.  Like good designers and planners, synthesizers possess a healthy dose of empathy.  But they can also look at things from a business perspective.  Good synthesizers can be analytical—but operate enough on intuition to not over analyze.  I wouldn’t be surprised if synthesizers tend to be fuzzy, T-shaped, or generalists—they would need to be able to go deep in certain areas, but also look at things holistically.

But one of the most important traits of a synthesizer is the ability to produce a set of “outputs” which moves insights from the abstract to the concrete.  To put this in perspective, a good synthesizer crystallizes the problem which needs solving for—so the solution process can begin in an informed fashion vs. a more arbitrary approach.  This is where competencies in design thinking, and storytelling become critical.

Synthesizer does not = job title.

Let’s be clear.  Being a synthesizer doesn’t require you to trade in your job title.  But, here’s the question I would pose.  Does your organization see the need for this kind of skillset?  Not only do I think it’s needed, but I think it may come not only from one person, but a group of people with complimentary strengths.  And often times this kind of thinking can emerge from outside the areas where you would think they should reside.

If you think your organization can benefit from more synthesis—here are some ideas of what you can do to help foster more of it:

1. Identify who is doing it, where and if it’s working (regardless of title or dept)
2. Develop case studies and document how synthesis impacted the actual solution
3. Figure out how your environment can be tweaked/adjusted to support more of it

Research without synthesis usually ends up being raw data—which is important, but data alone has never led to effective solutions, great work or innovation.

The Fuzzy Tail

Tomorrow I'm off to Toronto to attend "Summer Event".  Every year, Critical Mass holds a 2 day "festival" complete with creative exercises, music and lots of beer.  I am going to be part of the "speaker series"—so I had to come up with something to talk about.

I guess I could have blathered on about "2.0" stuff.  Social Networks this and community that...  I could have dazzled the audience with my knowledge of the newest lingo like Pounce, Ziggs and of course BouGie.

What I opted to do instead is talk about something much more subtle.  The changes that we are all feeling in the workplace and within our industries which are requiring us to think and work slightly differently.   We can no longer afford to over-analyze our challenges.  We must try to get things launched—learn from these experiences and refine.  We must define ourselves and what we do more broadly while retaining the potency of our our crafts.  It's about going from left brain to right brain and ending up on "light brain".  We must become "fuzzy".

Being fuzzy as I outline in the deck is about unlearning everything we think we know—so we can actually learn and adapt.  It's about less focus on rigid tasks and job descriptions and more focus on bringing our efforts together in the overlaps—where our skills compliment each other.  It's about being more nimble and adopting "fuzzy" processes to compliment our tried and true methods that have served us well in the past.

The Fuzzy Tail is my way of saying "we won't become the blacksmiths of our time".  It's about pushing past the commodity—the end product or service which can be outsourced.  It's about putting aside egos, getting out of silos and mixing it up with each other—I mean really mixing it up.  Planners who think like designers—designers who obsess about business—information architects who write—writers who act like strategists—project managers who can direct creative and creative directors who are willing to let them.  People who are willing to let others play in their sandbox. 

Fuzzy people.

Well' that's the thinking anyway.  We'll see how it goes over.

iBabble

Laura Ries points us to an observation on the iPhone from non other than Jon Stewart.  From her Origin of Brands blog:

"and last night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Jon delivered a classic comment on the fruitlessness of combination convergence devices.

During a discussion about Ultimate Fighting, which is a mixed Martial arts sport, Jon says that by combining all the fighting disciplines you lose the form and artistry of each. (Indeed Ultimate Fights usually just ends up with two guys rolling around on top of each other on the ground.)

John Hodgman refutes Jon’s statement with “So why combine a cellphone and a camera then?”

Jon comes back with “Why? That’s my question. You just end up with a crappy phone and a crappy camera.” It receives big cheers from the audience and at this point Hodgman concedes that Jon wins the round."

Honestly, I think Jon's argument is one of the lamest I've heard about why the IPhone could possible fail.  I won't go into reasons why it might fail—I haven't had a chance to play with one yet.  But the "people don't want convergence" argument is thin stuff.  Here's why.  Jon's comments imply that someone will buy a phone with camera or video to replace their current equipment.  This is nonsense.  Smartphones act as "supplements" and appeal to people who want to e-mail, browse the web or take a spontaneous picture now and then.  Is it even possible to buy a phone without a camera in it these days?  Do you want a phone without one?

These features support the evolution of human behavior fueled by classic needs (like the need to connect + share).  I see moms and dads at Target and Home Depot snapping pictures of a product they are interested in and sending it to their spouse to take a look.  I see people commuting to work glued to their mobile e-mail as they make their way home.  Have these people thrown out their computers or digital cameras?

No—the "crappy phone, crappy camera" argument is thin.  And what about video?  We've already seen a surge of vidoes uploaded and distributed on YouTube taken by people on their mobile phones.  Is the video good quality?  As good as a the latest digital cam corder?  No, of course not.  But it supports a shift in human behavior.  It's called citizen journalism—or marketing.  I think there may have been a few books written about this phenomenon.

Jon should stick with the jokes.  PS, phones are lifestyle devices—or at least many phones are beginning to achieve this status.  We all have different lifestyles with different needs.  I may not get an iPhone.  But the new Blackberry Curve (shown above) is looking awfully tempting to me.  With a 2 megapixel camera, media player and full sized QWERTY, maybe it fits my current state of human behavior.  It might not fit yours.  And that's OK.

Thought of the Day

Good news for Sun-shaped People:

"The majority of those reaching out to embrace this trend have their roots in the UI industry rather than industrial design. While traditional product and graphic design practitioners enter the field with a foundation based on design history, emphasis on form, method and process, those in the UI field come from myriad backgrounds such as software engineering, marketing, and brand strategy. Without a common heritage and education, these designers are more comfortable working with disparate client groups and in interdisciplinary teams."
~Niti Bhan, Seismic Shift: Rethinking the Design Industry

Digital Moleskines

I recently bought a set of thin Moleskines for the new job. Pretty basic stuff--I opted for the grid paper version, ideal for both notes and visuals. But the more I think about it, the more a realize that my mobile phone has become my "digital Moleskine". In addition to e-mail, and all the stuff you can do on a smart phone--I use mine to take notes, snap photos of stuff that interests me and I occasionally blog from it as I am doing this moment. I got caught in the rain on my motorbike and I'm in a Starbucks waiting for it to clear up.

So I'm pretty sure that I'll be using my new set of Moleskines but it just hit me that I've been using my mobile device as the digital version of one (sans the sketching). Can anyone else relate to this or am I just a weirdo?

Strategy '07 Conference Blog

I didn't think that this year's Strategy conference was going to have a blog—but I was thrilled to see that John Maeda of the MIT media lab has stepped up to create one:

"Blogs are odd resources that sprout up around conferences. They usually take a back seat to the main activities, but they can sometimes provide a good place for more conversation.

In order to get this blog going, we have surveyed the illustrious list of speakers  -- and a variety of other favorite creative leaders -- on a simple question: "What role does creativity play in design strategy?"

We present our findings here in this space, and hope that we might all think together about these 3 words: creativity, design, strategy.

— John Maeda + Becky Bermont (MIT Media Lab)"

Let the conversation begin.  Oh, and speaking of conversation—I recently found out that Helen Walters from BusinessWeek will be there.  Helen did the editing for my BW article titled "It's The Conversation Economy Stupid".  Looking forward to meeting Helen and hopefully connecting with some L+E readers as well (I know you're out there...).  :-)

Also, see IIT's Institute of Design's blog called D log—it's chock full of visuals.

Thought of the Day

"We have to recognize that the practice of experience design is miscellaneous.

Unfortunately, standard thought around design work is rooted in a typical, and, I would argue, retrograde, notion of what a practice and/or discipline is. Most organizations are stuck in classic mid-19th to 20th century thinking, borne of a manufacturing economy, where optimization arose when people were as interchangeable as the parts of the machines they built.

21st century work is going to have to be much more synthetic, mixed-up, and uncertain, largely because of the forces that Weinberger points to in his book.

I think it’s a key reason why experience designers have had such a hard time defining their work. It escapes definition.

And you know what, that’s a good sign."

~Peter Merholz

The Relationship Renaissance

I just finished my contribution for The Age of Conversation E-book.  The name of my "chapter"?  The Relationship Renaissance.  The idea for the contribution came initially from Roger von Oech's question during his write-up on me a while back:

"Let’s suppose Digitas says, “David, we’ll pay you to take off two months to write a 200 page book about marketing, creativity, and new media.” What would your “take” be?"

My answer?

"The title of my book would be: “The Relationship Renaissance: How design, social media and technology have created an explosion in creativity, and communication.” And the premise:

Some have called it a revolution. Others evolution. But are we really living in an age of digitally fueled invention and re-discovery?  Enabled by technology, architected through experience and supported with an “open source” thought democracy—we are living in a relationship renaissance which is forcing us to re-think the definition of brands, marketing and how we think about “consumers.”

And since I haven't been given time off to write a book—I did the next best thing.  I used the idea in my contribution (just over 500 word essay).  I won't give too much away, but here is an excerpt:

"What sparked the original Renaissance?  Some historians speculate that the “Black Death” had something to do with it.  The theory is that this caused individuals to focus on the quality of their lives on earth in addition to the afterlife.  As a result, art and science exploded with the help of Greek and Arabic knowledge.

Maybe our own “Black Death” has been business as usual.  In Advertising.  In Business.  In our everyday lives.  To be called a “Renaissance Man” means that you possess multidisciplinary talents.  Today’s Renaissance men and women combine skills in personal publishing, podcasting, virtual worlds and other kinds of digital disciplines—which connect, converse, and ultimately allow us to relate."

You'll have to buy the e-book for the rest—in addition to tons of great perspectives from over 100 other social media participants and thought leaders.  It will be worth the wait.  Proceeds go to Variety, the children's charity, and the book is dedicated to the memory of Sandra J. Kerley.

We Are The Story

What can brands learn from social experiments?

1. A passionate community is the lifeblood of your brand.  Without it—a brand is hollow.
2. People want to interact with your brand—to be a part of it somehow, to make it their own.
3. Your community can make your brand better, stronger and smarter.
4. Inviting your community to become an active part of your brand stimulates ideas, creativity and potentially innovation.

In my last post I asked "What is the story" behind this simple visual.  What happened?  You told the story—each in your own unique ways.  You became the story.  You took the idea and poked, prodded and narrated.  Some of you translated it in a very logical fashion.  Others created tall tales around what it meant to you.  Some of you created your own visuals like the three-eyed-monster (which I absolutely love)  And I'll be honest with you—these are some of the best comments I've ever had here.

So what can brands learn from social experiments?

Well, for starters—brands can learn to experiment.  I usually narrate my own visuals—and of course feedback is always welcome.  But this time I felt you could tell the story even better than I could.  And you didn't let me down.  Sometimes we mistake these invitations as not having a strong sense of self-identity.  If brands let their communities define them—are they strong brands in the first place?  The answer is yes.  My voice is my voice.  It will not change—I am who I am.  But my thoughts and actions can be influenced by what you say and do.  Are brands willing to do the same?  Does this make them weak or strong?

My original intent was to call out some of the comments which "nailed" the visual.  But the truth is that you've all nailed it in your own ways—so now I'll have to re-think what to do with these thoughts.  I'll probably pull them together in some type format for easy distribution—maybe a PDF.  It's more work for me, but in the end I know it will be worth it because it's worth sharing and proves a point.  The point is that a healthy brand does not live in isolation—just like healthy people.

What's The Story?

What is this visual saying?  You write it.  If it makes sense, I'll add it to the post  with your name and a link.  Have fun.

How Old is Your Brain?

It's Friday.  Everyone seems to be talking about Coke in Second Life.  That's great.  But I'd like to talk about a subject even more dear to my heart.  Two of my favorite thinkers recently got together for a chat.  Author and inventor Roger von Oech and BusinessWeek's Bruce Nussbaum.  Roger is 59 years old.  Bruce is 60.  One of the priceless things about my blogging experience is the access I now have to minds like this.  Roger and I connect fairly regularly and Bruce and I correspond every once in a while.

But I don't want to talk about their age or my relationships as much as I want to point out something that I feel these individuals have in common.  In my opinion, based on my interactions with both Roger and Bruce—I believe both posses very rare minds which I would describe as "young brains".  Each time i interact with and observe Roger and Bruce I see the willingness to experiment.  To take risks.  To speak their minds and say what they really mean.  To be open to other points of view regardless of the source.

For example—whenever I talk with Roger, he tends to ask a lot of questions.  The only other person who asks me more questions than he does is my six-year-old!  And the way Roger took to blogging was fascinating to watch.  He experimented, tried out different things, tinkered etc.  Bruce has been interesting to observe as well—as someone who's been around the block a few times, he's met all kinds of important people through his career as a journalist.  But from Bruce's writing's, I don't get the sense that he's easily impressed.  I often think about how my boys would react if they met someone famous.  They would be unimpressed too.  Oprah or Bono would be just another "grown-up" to them.  And as Roger mentions in his write-up about their meeting, Bruce has gradually been modifying his blogging style on BusinessWeek.  He's engaged his audience a bit more.  I've seen comments from him on other blogs.  He's allowed himself to be influenced and as a result his behaviors have been altered.  I believe he's "un-learned" some habits that no doubt have served him well in the past.

What's my point?

My point is this.  In the past, I've worked with inflexible people who are set in their ways.  I'm sure we all have.  The thing is that these folks were much younger than Roger and Bruce.  But their brains didn't always reflect this .  They possessed "old brains".  Brains which crave the familiar.  The routine.  The status quo.  Brains that tell them that they know what's best because of their past experiences.  One of the things that blows me away about people like Roger and Bruce is that they think and act a little differently.  They take in viewpoints from not only peers, but from people outside their immediate circles.  In my opinion, they posses "young brains"—not so different from the kind of mindset I describe above.  I'm inspired to do what it takes to keep my own neurological clock from ticking along too quickly.  Maybe I can turn back the clock a little.  Maybe we all can.

Breaking Silos

The above visual is one that I've used before in different contexts.  This is a bit of a random thought, but I've been observing some of our Flash/Ajax developers working feverishly over the past few days.  There's been a lot of activity here lately and the developers have been working on each others projects.  It's not an assembly line.  Each touches a part of the project—a piece of the code while another works on other parts.  Sometimes it's at the same time.  Other times it's not.  No one has clear ownership, bugs come up and are taken down one by one.  People leave their cubes to go help someone else who's hit a wall.  IM's, e-mails, and impromptu "meetings" happen in rapid fashion, unplanned and spontaneously.  Territories don't exist—the goal of making the launch date is everything.  It's a shared goal—a purpose.  QA includes not only links that work correctly but animations and design assets looking just right.  Execution and fine-tuning happen simultaneously.  It's organic.  It's collaborative.  It works.

Tip for all the executives out there.  Get out of your offices every once in a while and go to where the action is.  If you find yourself working in silos—ask yourself why this is.  If our people in the trenches can work this way—so can we.

Sun-shaped Collaboration

"Collaborate. The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife, exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential."
~Bruce Mau Design

Let's take another look at "Sun-shaped people"—but before we do that, what is your perception of collaboration?  When you hear the word "collaboration" do you envision a group of people holding hands and singing Kum Ba Ya in perfect unison?  To some people this is the textbook definition of collaboration.  But to others who have collaborated to create something worthy—we know it's messy business.  It's not neat and tidy.  It's organized chaos in some ways.  Authentic collaboration is more like a mosh pit than a carefully rehearsed waltz.  Make no mistake, even a mosh pit has a code of ethics and boundaries.  But anyone who's ever been in one (I have) will tell you that the people in mosh pits are the nicest you'll ever meet.

So what happens when we take several Sun-shaped people who bring both passion and diverse skills to the table?  Here's a hint:

Get ready to mosh. 

Sun-shaped people can actually work very well together when galvanized by a common purpose which each individual shares.  Take a look at the visual.  Each "ray" from one individual "dovetails" with another.  I could envision the "Sun-shaped" team members rotating—swapping the respective dovetails as the project time line moves forward.

So this leaves us with a couple of thoughts:  what does collaboration really mean anyway, and how can we persuade passionate professionals who tend to be "Sun-shaped"—to rally around a shared purpose?

T-Shaped + Sun-Shaped People

As you probably already know—I'm a big fan of the "T-shaped" mindset.  So much so, that I dedicated the notion of it on my personal Website.  The first time I read about this was in an Article in Fast Company written by IDEO's Tim Brown.  The article is called "Strategy By Design".  It's a must read.  Here's a snippet of how Tim describes a "T-Shaped" individual. 

"We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they're willing to try to do what you do. We call them "T-shaped people." They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T -- they're mechanical engineers or industrial designers. But they are so empathetic that they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That's what you're after at this point -- patterns that yield ideas."

This notion instantly connected with me.  I approach creativity as a "generalist"—blending skills in multiple areas.  Recently I thought about what my "T" would look like if I visualized it.  I put my "principal skill" in the vertical leg as "design".  I've always been one kind of designer or another.  Then I put my "branches" in the areas of brand strategy and user experience.  These seemed to be the best labels I could come up with regarding how I approach my work (or at least try to).

But lately I've been wondering—is there another way to look at this?  What if we took a more basic human truth.  Most of us have some kind of passion in a specific area.  For some—it's a hobby or interest.  For others, it's directly related to there work.  I fall into the latter catagory.  If you were to ask me what my "passion is"—I would probably say that at the core, it's creative problem solving.  This is pretty broad and incorporates a lot of disciplines that can relate to it.  But that's the point.  What if we start with our passions regardless of discipline, and look at the skills which radiate out from it the same way we think about how rays from the sun radiate warmth?

Does this make us "Sun-shaped people"?

OK, I know I'm getting a bit literal here.  And I'm not proposing another way to bucket ourselves.  But it was interesting to try this.  Once I started doing the second visual here—when I began with my core passion vs. competency, it was easy for the "rays" to flow out from the center.  I learned something about myself while doing this.  More importantly it makes me think about the bigger implications of being a "passionate professional".  I wonder how individuals like this fare in risk-averse corporate settings where the focus is primarily "the bottom line".  Most corporations will tell you that they want passionate people who think differently.  But what happens when they get one?  What do they do with these types of individuals?

How does a company like Google operate behind the scenes?  I don't know since I don't work there, but I wonder if it's different from companies who seem to be averse to taking risks and experimenting.  And who are the Sun-shaped people out there anyway?  Are they designers?  Are they businesspeople?  Are they entrepreneurs?  Are they the ones doing all the "2.0" stuff out there?

Labels.  It's a double edged sword.  Who is a designer exclusively these days anyway?  Who is an "Ad guy/gal"?  Who's still making widgets? (in the economic sense)  Are you?  Call it T-shaped—call it Sun-shaped.  How has your job description changed in the past 6 years?  I hear a lot about information Architects doing storyboards and incorporating storytelling into the process—I don't remember this 7 or 8 years ago.  I see Art Directors concerned about usability.  I see designers writing.  I see Planners being part of the creative process—part of the solutions.

I don't see this all the time—but I often wonder if we'll be seeing this more or less frequently in the years to come.  What is your job title anyway?  Can you narrow it down to one thing?  One thing that I like about the Sun-shaped model is that, metaphorically speaking—it's about shining and radiating.  It's about sharing warmth vs. keeping it to yourself.  And like the actual Sun, people—just like planets tend to gather 'round it.

Food for thought.   

Anatomy of an Idea

Where do ideas come from?  How do they move beyond the realm of abstract thought into something more tangible?

Every day is an opportunity to learn.  To observe.  To ask ourselves "why?".  And to take things apart before we put them back together.  To my surprise—the article I authored for BusinessWeek ended up being featured as the lead story in the Innovation section.  And I just noticed that it's in the Top 5 most read stories at #4.  Did you know that this article would have never come about it wasn't for the actions of the following individuals?  Here's how:

Valeria Maltoni
Several months ago, Valeria sent me a handwritten note including this phrase "You are designing conversations".  It was this simple combination or words which sparked the initial idea that designers could become conversation architects.  I thought about how the role of information architects used to be about organizing information and how this is evolving.  I asked myself—could we become conversation architects?

Jessi Hempel
Jessi works at BusinessWeek and featured my blog a while back.  I sent her an e-mail saying I had an idea around designers/marketers being "conversation architects".  That's pretty much all I had.  Jessi forwarded my thought to Helen Walters, an editor at BusinessWeek and we began working on the idea some more.

Helen Walters
Helen took the initial draft and encouraged me to broaden the context.  She's also responsible for some pretty darn good editing.  And she made the brilliant move of turning a key line from the article into the headline "It's The Conversation Economy, Stupid".  I buried the lead, and Helen dug it right out again.

Ann Handley
Ann brought me in to Marketing Profs to do a Webinar titled "Emerging Media's Impact on the Customer Experience".  Though I found the Webinar to be challenging, it basically ended up acting as my revised outline for current version the article.

Bruce Nussbaum
Bruce caught wind of the Webinar and sent out the signals that he liked what he saw.  This added momentum to the idea.

You
None of this would have happened if it weren't for YOU—the active participants who add to the daily conversation here.

So that's the anatomy behind the article.  That's how an abstract idea turns into something more tangible.  Inspiration can come from anywhere, at any time.  Collaboration is not always what you think it is.  And challenging yourself in ways that make you uncomfortable can lead to good things.  That's what I learned today.

A Tale of Two Architects

"design" is inherently about control.”
~Ed Lee

Allow me to tell a story.  This story is fictional, but maybe you’ll find value in it and maybe you wont.  Either way, I'll be honored that you read it. 

Dick and Jane are professional architects, both are excellent at what they do—though they have very different working styles.  One day the Mayor of Chicago invites Dick in Jane to participate in a new park program where each of them will be commissioned to design a children's playground environment and given cart blanche to do whatever they want.  The Mayor encourages Dick and Jane to buck traditional convention and come up with something “innovative”.  The only requirements are that the playgrounds be kid-friendly, accessible and encourage play, socialization and recreation.  In other words a positive and sustainable experience.

Dick and Jane go to work.  Each of them designs—yes DESIGNS a playground environment that is unique, useable, differentiated and just plain cool.  Though each of their designs are different—both encourage meaningful play, interaction, socialization, and recreation.  The Mayor is thrilled as he and his team evaluates the prototyped models of the designs.  He approves both of the designs and production/construction begins immediately.

At the opening of both playgrounds, hundreds of city kids swarm the amazing new playgrounds in delight.  Both Dick and Jane are invited to the events to see their playground designs come to life.

But both designers have different reactions.

As Dick watches the children test out every object, climbing crawling and investigating he finds himself “wincing” inside as he witnesses children interacting with his creation in ways he didn’t predict and doesn’t really approve.  Though he doesn’t want to admit it—it makes him uncomfortable.  A little voice inside his head is quietly saying “no, that’s not how it works—please don’t do that.” and “that’s not how it’s meant to be used”.  Dick smiles along as he watches the children enjoying themselves while deep down inside, he’s disappointed that his creation was not interacted with “appropriately”.  He walks away with mixed feelings.

Halfway across town, Jane is observing the children playing on her playground.  She also experiences a similar phenomenon, but reacts to it very differently.  The children are sliding down things she didn’t design for that.  They’re gathering in areas that were meant to support only small groups.  Jane is surprised, but pleasantly at how the children are playing in her environment.  She begins to take notes.  She’s inspired.  She gets ideas about how facets from this design could be used in some of her other projects.  Though the outcome is different from what she planned and anticipate—she’s thrilled.

"design" is inherently about control.”

So, is design inherently about control?  Maybe to Dick it was.  Maybe for him the validation that he’s a good designer is underscored by people interacting in his environment the way he envisioned them to.  For Jane, it’s the opposite.  She understands that people are unpredictable and she feeds off of the unexpected results.  It makes her better at what she does and inspires new ideas and creativity.  She thrives on it.  Jane would make a good conversation architect.

"design" is inherently about control.”

Are we really so sure that conversations can’t and shouldn’t be “designed”?  Does design = control?  What would the developers/designers of Twitter say about their application which has evolved into something that goes beyond answering “What are you doing?”.  Are they not designers because their application is used in ways that maybe were not predicted?  Sure baking soda can be used to keep refrigerators smelling fresh, which was maybe not the original intent—but somebody concieved, invented and created baking soda. 

Each and every “2.0” application is architected, designed and developed.  Many of these digital experiences facilitate dialogue which manifests itself in different ways.  We the people, the users, the consumers, co-creators and mashers then become the "children" who decide how we want to play and socialize.  We do what comes natural.  But that doesn't mean our playground was never designed in the first place—it was, we just do what children have always done.  We play.  We investigate and interact with our environments.  We improvise and adapt.

"design" is inherently about control.”

I'm not so sure that it is.  And if design is about control, then maybe I shouldn't be a designer.

Designers Are The Enemy of Design

Stop what you're doing and go read this.

Bruce Nussbaum of BusinessWeek has written what I consider to be a near-manifesto which challenges our assumptions of what design is, who designers are—and how this all impacts the business world as we move into the next generation (and yes, it's relevant to brands).  The piece is a bold form of communication, and I think comes from the heart.  Bruce shares a bit of personal experience in how he is trying to shape his own teams and working process.  He's also a little "politically incorrect" calling out Al Gore for his own hefty carbon footprint.  And Bruce uses Mink fur coats to illustrate the idea of sustainability—a risky analogy, but when you read it in context, makes perfect sense.  Personally for me—this is one of the more refreshing reads I've seen from a mainstream business journalist in a while.  He almost sounds like a "blogger".  You got a problem with that?  :)

Check out the post and do so with an open mind.  Let it simmer a bit.  Then think about it as you start your day on Monday morning.  Below are some choice bits—I added some of my own visuals where it seemed like there was a fit.  Enjoy.

"Are Designers The Enemy of Design?

In the name of provocation, let me start by saying that DESIGNERS SUCK. I’m sorry. It’s true. DESIGNERS SUCK. There’s a big backlash against design going on today and it’s because designers suck.

So let me tell you why. Designers suck because they are arrogant. The blogs and websites are full of designers shouting how awful it is that now, thanks to Macs, Web 2.0, even YouTube, EVERYONE is a designer. Core 77 recently ran an article on this backlash and so did we on our Innovation & Design site. Designers are saying that Design is everywhere, done by everyone. So Design is debased, eroded, insulted. The subtext, of course, is that Real design can only be done by great star designers."

"This is simply not true.  Design Democracy is the wave of the future."

"But the design of our music experiences, the design of our MySpace pages, the design of our blogs, the design of our clothes, the design of our online community chats, the design of our Class of ’95 brochures, the design of our screens, the design of the designs on our bodies—We are all designing more of our lives. And with more and more tools, we, the masses, want to design anything that touches us on the journey, the big journey through life. People want to participate in the design of their lives. They insist on being part of the conversation about their lives."

"Egos and silos are coming down, participation is expanding, tools are widespread and everyone wants to play. People want to be in the design sandbox so you have to figure out how to get them in and do design with them."

"Today, I kind of coach a team of about 8 people, 6 women in their early 30’s, one guy in his thirties, and a women in her twenties (she’s Canadian and a generation ahead of the 30-something sisters in technology). Our process is totally different from the hierarchical way of writing and editing we had just a few years ago. We all write for both platforms—online and print, and do a little TV on the side. Our job today as journalists is to curate conversations among groups within our audience"

"Business men and women don’t like the term “design.” I think they think it implies drapes or dresses. Even top CEOs who embrace design don’t want to call it that. They want to call it “Innovation.” That has a manly right to it. It’s strong, techie."

"But how do people who’ve spent a lifetime using their left-brain, suddenly shift to using both their left and their right? How do people used to deconstructing old problems into their parts and squeezing answers out of each of them then learn to see problems with fresh eyes and integrate parts of many solutions into one new one."

"Over the past decade, design has evolved to become an articulated, formalized method of solving problems that can be widely used in business—and in civil society. Design’s focus on observing consumer/patient/student—human behavior, it’s emphasis on iteration and speed, its ability to construct, not destruct, its search for new options and opportunities, its ability to connect to powerful emotions, its optimism, made converts out of tough CEOs."

"We design stories with our audience. As John Battelle said recently, the conversation now is the content. It’s not about the finished story but about the ongoing story. It’s the conversation. And since most conversations don’t have a conclusion, they are ongoing. We live a life in beta."

We live life in beta.  That's a nice way to summarize the spirit of the essay.  You can look at BusinessWeek critically and poke all kinds of holes in what they do if you want.  Same with any organization.  But I believe Bruce and his staff are genuinely grappling with the changes we're witnessing and trying to make sense of it—even in the context of how it applies to a big mainstream publication like BusinessWeek.  They're out there.  Looking.  Learning. Taking it in.  Prior to my mentions in BusinessWeek, it was Jessi Hempel who found me—I didn't find her.

Lastly, another reason that I relate to Bruce's essay is that I think we may be witnessing a gradual but real change in how we create.  The ego-driven top down, traditional style of management will continue to be challenged in the years to come.  Innovation will continue to come from anywhere—in places we least expect it.  Designers may still have the stigma of being stylists—but that won't matter, because at the end of the day good experiences which lead to relationships will rule.  Relationships between people and brands and with each other.  And that, my friends is by design.

Digital Turns Everything Upside Down

Once upon a time we were consumers.  We watched commercials.  Brands spoke to us—we didn't speak to them.  We had to change the TV or Radio station if we wanted to watch or listen to something else.  It was hard to get away from advertising because sometimes we were just too lazy to change the channel. 

Once upon a time we read books from authors.  We admired from afar.  We would have to attend a book signing or be a "somebody" to have access to our thought leaders.  Once upon a time the rules were clear and defined.  Content was content and marketing was marketing.

That was once upon a time. Digital turns everything upside down.

Here's my latest example.  Creativity consultant, author and inventor Roger von Oech recently celebrated his 100th post.  He chose to do an interview with me as his way to celebrate.

Why is this upside down?

Several years ago—I came across Roger's very inspirational Creative Whack Pack.  The deck of cards is a great tool to help break stagnant thinking.  They instantly connected with me and I've used them with my clients and my teams.  I keep the deck in my desk drawer for easy access whenever I need a shot of inspiration.  If you would have told me that years later the author and creator of this inspiration would be asking to interview me—I would have laughed you off.

But digital turns everything upside down.

With nothing more than I blog, the way I view community and the people I have access to has been flipped on it's head.  Digital amplifies what we have to say.  Digital lets us enjoy on demand.  Digital gives us a degree of control.  Digital acts like a backstage pass, granting us access and even fellowship with brands/individuals that we never could have come close to before.

Digital enables connection, access and relationship.  All of which are very human.

That's why I call this a Renaissance more so than a revolution and even evolution.  The Renaissance challenged conventional thinking.  It turned art and science on it's head.  It changed our perceptions about what we thought we knew.  It embodied a spirit of discovery and re-discovery.  Maybe the reality is that what we are experiencing in this digital age is all three(Revolution, Evolution, & Renaissance)—but I definitely think it has a Renaissance feel to it.

Anyway, go over and give Roger a big "whack" on the back for hitting his 100th post.  It's been great to see Creative Think "age", and if you turn 100 "upside down" you get 001.  Think about it.  :)

Beyond Data

In the early 1700's—a curious, intelligent and good natured soul by the name of Ben Franklin was faced with a problem.  In his time spent working with agriculture, he had made a simple discovery.  He discovered that plaster made grains and grasses grow better.  The problem was that his neighbors did not believe him.

So, Ben did the logical thing any resourceful individual would to.  He fired up Powerpoint—called his local Forrester representative and started methodically making his case for plaster using charts and stats to back it all up.

No, actually he didn't.  Microsoft and Forrester weren't around back then.  What he did do was get his hands dirty.  Literally.  When spring arrived, he went to a field that was close to a path where people would walk by regularly.  He then dug out some letters into the dirt with his hands, put plaster in the ruts and planted some seeds in them.

Time passed and as people walked by the field, they could see this message emerging in a brighter shade of grass that stood out from the rest of the field:

THIS HAS BEEN PLASTERED

Ben's neighbors got the point.  Here's the sixty four thousand dollar question.  If Ben were alive today, working for a large company with the typical corporate culture in place—would he have been asked to supply a research document/deck in spite of the fact that he had just proven his point?  Don't get me wrong.  We shouldn't do away with research.  Quantitative and qualitative research is critical to pretty much any industry around.  What I'm asking, is do we encourage enough demonstrating?  Do we reward people when they take matters into their own hands to prove that an idea might be worth something?  Our do we get upset that they've bypassed conventional procedures? 

Red Staplers + Happy Accidents

Did you know that before the movie Office Space, it was impossible to get a Red Swingline stapler?  That's because they didn't exist.  They do now.  And they've become a desirable object, highly sought after by cube dwelling office lackeys across the globe.  For proof, just do a search on Flickr for "Red Swingline stapler".

Fact is that during the making of Office Space, production designer Edward T. McAvoy had a problem to solve.  He needed to find a Stapler that was so special—the film's quirky character Milton would covet and reclaim at all costs if taken from him.  McAvoy decided that a Swingline Red stapler would be the perfect object.  Only problem was that after calling Swingline, he was told they didn't make Staplers in Red.  So what did he do?

He painted one himself.

Now here's where it gets really interesting.  After the infamous Red stapler made it's debut in the film, Swingline started getting scores of requests to purchase the Red staplers (which didn't exist).  So they did what any good business would do.

They started producing them.

I've always loved this story for a couple of reasons.  I'm a big fan of Office Space, but even more importantly I am amazed at the powerful and unexpected result from what seemed to be just a detail.  After all, it was only painting a stapler.  It's not like McAvoy was coming up with the next "big thing".

But ironically he did.

His simple gesture created the symbol for that movie.  It's the one thing that almost everyone who sees it remembers.  It's become an icon of corporate culture and maybe even a statement of rebellion against it.  I was thinking about this recently because I realized that I haven't created any Red Swingline staplers lately.  In fact, probably the last thing that came close to it was Blogger Anonymous, which was meant to be an inside joke, but before I knew it was getting more traffic and link backs way faster than this blog.  And it was all a goof!

Why is it so hard to make Red staplers?

I wish I were creating more Red staplers both in my day job and here.  Why does it seem so difficult?  It's hard because sometimes we don't know when to do the right thing—what measures to take to see our ideas through the way we intended them to be.  What if someone approached McAvoy and said "look! I found a Red stapler. It's not a Swingline, but who will notice"?  Not good enough.  For reasons not known, McAvoy wanted a Swingline.  So when he found out that Swingline didn't make a Red product, he asked them if he could have one painted.  When they agreed, he wasted no time taking the ordinary black stapler to the auto body shop for it's makeover.

Speaking of painting—anyone remember Bob Ross?  Bob was the guy on TV with the spectacular Afro-like hairdo—who effortlessly painted outdoor scenes of "happy little trees" and "happy little clouds".   When Bob would make a boo-boo on canvas, he called it a "happy accident" and he would magically make the "mistake" into an integral part of his painting.  Maybe what it comes down to is that we underestimate the power of Red staplers and happy accidents.  We become so obsessed with pleasing others that we forget to please ourselves.

The world needs more Red staplers and happy accidents.  I need them.  Crap.  Where's my ca