I recently had a document passed along to me from my business partner.  The piece from the Boston Consulting Group, titled “The Seduction of Reductionist Thinking”, opens up by mentioning how every company is grappling with change and few are finding success.  As I read through I kept nodding my head agreeing to every point made.  I thought to myself, it’s about time someone exposed the functional silo structure and linear “resolution” process as the primary handcuffs to successful change.  If large organizations would take this to heart we wouldn’t be in the economic mess we find ourselves in…  Then the big shock.  The paper was published in 1992!

Having worked in a big corporation myself I saw first-hand the everyday failings of silo structures and linear processes.  Departments are actually incentivized NOT to share knowledge with each other, let alone even talk to one another.  As projects move through a “gate” process, small subsets of issues are resolved without any consideration for the impact those decisions make further along in the process.  Design groups, marketing groups and sometimes engineering groups wind up “polishing turds” as it’s known.  No matter how talented they may be, they were handed an unsuccessful project from the start. 

I believe the functional silo/linear process is residue from the industrial revolution.  It allowed us to make the same thing over and over with fewer and fewer failures.  In today’s world this is simply an execution operation and in my opinion a commodity.  To be successful, organizations better figure out how to create “new” and solve challenges never encountered before again and again.  Call it an innovation operation, a change operation, an operation with design thinking/process injected… the terminology isn’t so important.

The path toward a “better way” is discussed in the article.  It really comes down to multidisciplinary teams working together, processing all salient considerations and features at once to deliver holistic solutions.  Off the top of my head, Apple comes to mind.  They conceive the entire experience from brand, to product, so service, to marketing communications, retail, and packaging concurrently.  Each outward touch point of the organization depends on and supports the others in a coordinated fashion.

If you have an interest in revolutionizing business operations, or innovation I strongly suggest reading the piece… it’s only 2 pages:

http://www.mgmtarticles.com/content/5530/

Last week I saw a History channel special highlighting the impact Bruce Lee has had on our world.  The program provided a unique perspective I thought relevant to this blog and worthy of a post.

Prior to the program I had assumed Bruce Lee invented Tae Kwon Do.  He actually invented Jae Kwon Do or the notion of the mixed martial arts theory.  While others preached that their martial art was the best, Lee took on an opposing, realistic philosophy.  With his background as a street fighter in Hong Kong he readily acknowledged that there were no rules in real life fighting.  Because of this he believed the fighter had to prepare for all scenarios.  The parameters and constraints of each martial art did not reflect reality on the streets.  This led him to master many forms of martial art from Thai boxing, Karate, Tae Kwon Do to Judo and other ground based techniques.  For Lee it was not one OR the other… it was ALL.  He was holistic in his method of fighting and preparation.  He was one of the first people to integrate bodybuilding diet and training theories into martial arts preparation.

I believe there are several things to take away from Bruce Lee:

1. contrary to popular belief, there is never a “best practice”

2. a broader, more holistic approach to achieve desired results is required

3. generalists with knowledge across functions are able to see patterns

4. current organizational structures & functions do not reflect real life on the street [in the market place]

5. its ok to pull proven ways of thinking practiced in other markets and industries into yours

6. holding opposable views seemingly at odds with one another in your head can lead to the develop of new solutions

Last week I attended a forum on conscious capitalism sponsored by the local chapter of Flow Idealism.  Conscious capitalism is a business management model that promises to provide value for a broader set of stakeholders.  In doing so the model delivers greater return for investors.

Over the last few years the concept has been widely publicized by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey.  I attended the founding Catalyzing Conscious Capitalism workshop held late last year in Austin.  Mackey and other like-minded CEOs and entrepreneurs were part of the small collective numbering around 100.  I certainly believe in the concept and its potential to solve many of our issues and current crisis through a better form of business.  However, I have noticed that these events are predominantly attended by well off people.  While they all seem to have good hearts and of course podiums to preach, the events lack they type of people who can deliver impact at the grass roots level.  Where are the people living further down Maslow’s hierarchy?  It would be nice to see a plan to engage these foot soldiers. 

I sincerely hope we don’t see a new conscious business alliance.  I fear this will become another list to join with little or no standards and therefore no meaning or impact.  What’s mentioned at last week’s event?  …Yep, a conscious business alliance.  This will go the way of the “Designer’s Accord”… a marketing tool that delivers zero impact.

Back to last week’s event.  I was particularly drawn to the dialogue of Bijoy Gaswami and Gary Hoover.  They seemed to banter back and forth well with Bijoy providing a philosophical perspective founded in logic and Hoover in practice and experience.  I hope to see both of them together on future panels.  They helped me further understand the conscious model and how I might deploy it in my own small business.

If you have not heard of conscious capitalism or simply want to know more I strongly suggest reading John Mackey’s white paper on the subject:

http://www.flowidealism.org/2007/Downloads/Conscious-Capitalism_JM.pdf

Below is a post I found from Brandon Roger on Linkedin of all places.  It does a good job exposing common innovation challenges within large corporations.  I believe “design thinkers” are ideally suited to lead the multifunctional teams mentioned.  I also believe solutions arise by working above and across silo to process a broader set of salient “features” concurrently.

“Professor James Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus at Harvard Business School, has   published a new book - Stall Points. The book is based on quantitative research of business failure and cause. Of four hundred corporations that have been included at some point since 1955 in the Fortune 100 and ninety foreign based corporations, innovation and growth for fifty companies was reviewed. In each of these industry leaders, the authors found that growth increased up until the “stall year” – a phrase coined in the text to denote a change in growth curve. Once the stall year was reached, growth dropped significantly and each group of leaders found it difficult, at best, to regain the momentum previously enjoyed.

Innovation is a catalyst of increasing value to a system (i.e. a business model, an industry, goods, or services). The research conducted provides focus on the need to hardwire and sustain a culture of innovation within their organization. Creating value for a system is typically a longitudinal process requiring nurturing, sustainability, and champions.

All too often a colleague or employee is characterized as the “out of the box thinker” within the organization and without the appropriate nurturing and shielding from others will leave the organization – on their own or forced to exit, because they did not fit the mold. If this same individual is supported by an organizational celebration and communication of new, different – innovative, thinking they will flourish and evolve into a driver of strategic and financial growth.

Evolving a culture supportive of innovation is a purposed process like any other process with corresponding key learning’s or best practices. Five best practices to ensure hardwired innovative growth include:

1. Cultural Alignment. Innovation assumes its own life track when there is alignment with the organization’s culture. If the destination of the healthcare system is one which requires constant change; adapting to that change; and, introduction of new and/or disruptive technology, organization culture should provide the support and process.

2. Multifunctional, integrated teams. Silo or independent innovation consists of limited scope and vision. Bridging disciplines through collaborative and facilitated thinking expands the locus of control and broadens the skill set to create innovative thinking.

3. Champions. The team is essential and a senior level champion provide value and importance to the innovation process. A senior champion serving as sponsor offers two unique values: (a) entry outside of a silo or business unit into the organization-at-large and (b) the shield required from those favoring the status quo.

4. Cross-business pollination. Pollination in nature appears random and ever-present. IN reality, pollination is purposeful and focused. Pollination of ideas in the organization is as directed and purposed. Building the multidisciplinary team or choosing the champion requires alignment of role, understanding of the designation of organizational strategies and objectives, and harnessing required investments supportive of trial and error.

5. Innovative technology, programs, or services are a tactic and not a strategy. Tactical innovation is enveloped within broader strategies – service, products, technologies, or competencies. The destination is to beat the competition. Innovation therefore serves a how the strategy is achieved.

Proactive and strategic management of innovative ideas and processes benefits the thought leader, leadership, and the business model”

I suggest reading a post by Mike Carlton I found on Knoll.  He offers a compelling argument for an organizational structure that I believe has legs beyond the advertising realm.  It is applicable to most organizations excluding “operations” whose primary goal is to output the same result consistently [meaning they already have the "answer"]. 

Social media may be the ultimate enabler of the proposed structure.  I believe adhocracy holds promise for solving some of the most complex issues of our time.

Please find the full read here:

http://knol.google.com/k/mike-carlton/is-your-agency-an-adhocracy/18al2rzcu6dck/6#

Why Adhocracy?

At this point you may be asking, “Why would anyone want to trade what we have now for the disruption of an adhocracy?”

Quite simply, because adhocracy works.    

1.     It focuses, in a laser like way, the entire organization on finding solutions to client business problems.  After all, this is the deliverable that clients value the most.  That is the business for agencies to be in.  And the one that can be most rewarding to the agency in the long run.

2.     It is the organizational model used by many of the most exciting and successful new breed of firms entering the creative marketplace.  Organizations that are competing with agencies for a place in the client’s inner circle.  And threatening to ultimately displace agencies.

3.     It has very high appeal to the best and the brightest young talent that agencies desperately need.  Like it or not, Millennials will drive the future success of all agencies.  Getting them on-board early will be a plus.

4.     It is more efficient.  Work is almost entirely client task focused with very little time spent on intramural activities.  Thus it can make the agency more cost competitive.  And boost profits.

Tim Sweeney, founding partner of Upstream Thinking and practitioner of social innovation, joined the critique to offer real-world expert perspective.  “I am paying close attention to how these students think and what values they are creating for a broader set of stakeholders”, says Sweeney.  Prior to the critique, he lectured ULL Business students on the “Future Design of Business: the integration of design thinking into business management, operations and the pursuit of innovation.”  The lecture was sponsored by the College of Arts, the College of Business, and the Student Government Association.

A total of twelve projects were presented. Each student spent approximately fifteen minutes communicating their design process which included framing a personal civility challenge, concept development and their final solution.  Three of the more impactful solutions included shoes for the underprivileged, faith lamps, and a new fitness center concept.

Herbert Hunter found civility in design to be rooted in consideration for the user. Therefore he set out to design a proper shoe for the under privileged that maintained a sense of dignity. His goals focused on repurposing materials and keeping manufacturing costs to a minimum. His solution is a rugged “Tiva” style shoe constructed entirely from disposed vehicle tires and components.  Shoes ship flat and are assembled by the end-user.  The material lifespan allows the shoes to be passed from generation to generation delivering lasting value that connects communities.

“Faith Lamps”, by Marcel Courtois, sought to answer the question of “How to use her design knowledge to create a self sustaining system that enables people.”  Letters written by victims of domestic abuse were repurposed as design elements used to create inspirational warm lighting for the home.  The act of letter writing and artistic expression supports the healing process for the victims while spreading the message about an issue that affects women of all backgrounds, ages and ethnicity.  Meanwhile, proceeds from sales support the Faith House in Lafayette.

Jason Guillory defined civility in design by enabling human interactions that are productive for society.  Jason’s concept centers on a new breed of fitness centers where the human energy produced at the machine level is delivered back to the municipal energy grid.  The return of energy to the grid results in cost savings which may be used for any number of purposes.  “I could envision gym membership dues fluctuating based on the amount of energy produced to incentivize individual health”, adds Sweeney.

The project appears to be a success, helping students cultivate a sense of social responsibility.  Students like Justin Pittman hope to continue pushing their projects forward in the future.  “I feel like I’m only at half time. I have two more periods to go”, Pittman exclaims.  “The energy from the projects was great to see, I think a few of the ideas that emerged from this exercise have tremendous potential to create positive impact on the lives of many people in need”, Sweeney says.  “Faith Lamps’ reminds me of some of the work we do professionally for non-profits called ‘purpose products’ and the potential for incentivizing health and sustainable energy simultaneously through a new fitness brand is seriously innovative.”  Each year the civility in design project continues to provide inspired seeds for beneficial social change.  Sweeney closes by stating, “I look forward to seeing how this project will translate to their professional practices in the future.  I plan to be here next year to witness the next generation of ideas developed by ULL Design students.”

HOUSTON, TX., April 9, 2009 | Upstream co-founder Tim Sweeney led an interactive workshop on design thinking for 3^rd and 4^th year students in the Industrial Design program at the University of Houston.  “Our aim with this workshop was to expand the boundaries of design well beyond “product” and instill the thinking skills required to deliver broader social impact”, says Sweeney.  Over 25 students from Professor Eunsook Kwon’s Junior and Senior studios participated. 

To inspire students and establish a foundation for the day, Sweeney discussed the attributes, skills and real world practice of design thinking.  Following his talk students formed groups of 5 in preparation for a 3 phase practical exercise.  In phase I groups identified changes in student behavior they have noticed.  This effort resulted with insight questions like, “why are more and more students taking online classes?” and “why are students beginning to wear opposite gender apparel?”

Insight questions focused a quick phase II research study to understand the logic behind why these human behavioral changes are occurring.  For example, ownership of time was driving the student desire for more online classes.  Understanding the forces responsible for shifts in human behavior provided design students with key insight into unmet and emerging student body needs and desires.  Through this understanding challenge statements were developed.  For example, “How do you compress learning cycles in a home environment?” and “How do you create authentic student community?”

In phase III, students envisioned new scenarios that addressed challenge statements in context.  As a result, they defined business opportunities.  “That was a lot for any student to absorb.  Considering this was a 4 hour workshop I was really impressed with the results”, Sweeney remarked.  Solutions included bringing interactive contextual learning into the home through a 3-dimensional experience, a genderless fashion & apparel brand, a new category of drinks targeted at helping students manage their lifestyles in a more health conscious manner, and a “message in a bottle” concept that provides an analogue experience to broadcast honest messages through the student community.

“We believe designers are uniquely suited to lead diverse teams through definition, problem solving and co-creation processes.  I think the workshop proved to be a great introduction to this notion.” said Sweeney.  Kwon added, “I believe this workshop proved successful from both academic and professional practice perspectives.  Students were able to explore strategic design thinking processes, which could support and reinforce their learning in studio.”  Students plan to practice the methodologies learned today throughout their student and professional careers.