I was recently given a book of poems by Dave Russell, Verses from a Vermont Hillside. Dave spent most of his life as a lathe operator and farmer in rural Vermont. He's now in his mid-90's and only recently stopped cutting his own firewoood. Here's one of my favorites:
The Psalm of David
I am a man; my destiny is in my hands.
Whatever I shall have or be
Whatever I have been,
Is, was, and will be my own doing.
I could blame my failures on luck.
I could lay the fault at my neighbor’s doorstep.
I could say that my wife or family influenced me.
I could thank God for my successes.
I could curse the Devil for my failures,
But to do or say any of these
Is to brand myself a liar
God Has made me what I am,
And God granted our forefathers the foresight
To crystallize the American Dream
And thus blessed me with American freedom.
Beyond this His responsibility ends.
Mine is the task, chose by intent
Or drifted into by default
To be or not to be
The man that God gave me the chance to be.
I passed it along to my friends at the Good Man Project. They want to include the poem on their website, but did not know how to contact him. After thinking about different ways - his grandson has a website, I suggested (drumroll) ....the phone book! I'd forgotten the old days where you looked people up in the phone book or through directory assistance.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
George Prince
George Prince, a co-founder of Synectics, died this week. He was a warm, friendly, generous guy. He did not hesitate to reveal his inner thoughts, fears, and failures. Most of us put up barriers with other people, hiding our inner selves. George put his inner self on the outside for all to see. It was totally disarming. I loved the guy.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Career Advice for the Perplexed
Career advice from some of the leading guru’s in the field suggest that one build on one’s strengths and give up on trying to shore up one’s weaknesses. Great advice!
I’ve done an inventory of my skills and have identified three things* which I believe I am world-class at performing:
1. Guessing what time it is without a watch. My wife will often say to me, “What time do you think it is? DON’T look at the clock!” Invariably, I will give the right answer to within about a 15 minute range. Awesome, eh?
2. Finding things (specifically my ear plugs) in the dark. Sometimes I get up in the middle of the night. I take my earplugs out (My lovely wife snores.) and put them on the nightstand. When I return, even though I can’t see a thing, I can put my hands right on the place where those soft spongy things are resting. “So I’ve got that going for me, which is nice.”
3. Filling the coffee maker with water. I make six cups of coffee each morning. I can turn on the faucet in the kitchen and add exactly the right amount of water to make the 6 cups of coffee. First time! No going back to get more and no need to pour the excess water down the drain. I start every day feeling good about myself.
So, of course, the big question is: How do I “monetize” these skills? I am open to suggestions from any of the vast number of readers of this blog.
* I have some other skills (remembering people’s names from grade school, walking with my shoe laces untied, finding free wireless signals, etc.) but these are less unique and I’m probably not really top drawer in these departments.
I’ve done an inventory of my skills and have identified three things* which I believe I am world-class at performing:
1. Guessing what time it is without a watch. My wife will often say to me, “What time do you think it is? DON’T look at the clock!” Invariably, I will give the right answer to within about a 15 minute range. Awesome, eh?
2. Finding things (specifically my ear plugs) in the dark. Sometimes I get up in the middle of the night. I take my earplugs out (My lovely wife snores.) and put them on the nightstand. When I return, even though I can’t see a thing, I can put my hands right on the place where those soft spongy things are resting. “So I’ve got that going for me, which is nice.”
3. Filling the coffee maker with water. I make six cups of coffee each morning. I can turn on the faucet in the kitchen and add exactly the right amount of water to make the 6 cups of coffee. First time! No going back to get more and no need to pour the excess water down the drain. I start every day feeling good about myself.
So, of course, the big question is: How do I “monetize” these skills? I am open to suggestions from any of the vast number of readers of this blog.
* I have some other skills (remembering people’s names from grade school, walking with my shoe laces untied, finding free wireless signals, etc.) but these are less unique and I’m probably not really top drawer in these departments.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Outcome-driven Innovation
A client recently recommended "What Customers Want" by Anthony Ulwick. I found it to be one of the more irritating business books that I've read in quite some time. It tirelessly promotes Ulwick's consulting firm and makes boastful claims based on a few unconvincing (at least to me) examples. It claims superiority for its process by setting up very weak strawmen, and then easily dispatching them.
My basic issue with the Outcome Driven Innovation process is that it is extremely tedious and probably mind-numbing, not exactly what one wants when one is trying to be innovative. Ulwick claims to make innovation a scientific process, but he seems to just suck the life out of it with excruciating detail. I know that some people feel more comfortable when the have lots and lots of data to look at. They like things to feel "scientific." But I've found that clarity and a few key insights are more valuable for generating new ideas.
Gerry Katz of Applied Marketing Science has written an excellent analysis to Outcome Driven Innovation, which you can read by Googling his name and the topic. Gerry and his cohorts did a side by side comparison of ODI with Voice of the Customer. Thanks, Gerry.
My basic issue with the Outcome Driven Innovation process is that it is extremely tedious and probably mind-numbing, not exactly what one wants when one is trying to be innovative. Ulwick claims to make innovation a scientific process, but he seems to just suck the life out of it with excruciating detail. I know that some people feel more comfortable when the have lots and lots of data to look at. They like things to feel "scientific." But I've found that clarity and a few key insights are more valuable for generating new ideas.
Gerry Katz of Applied Marketing Science has written an excellent analysis to Outcome Driven Innovation, which you can read by Googling his name and the topic. Gerry and his cohorts did a side by side comparison of ODI with Voice of the Customer. Thanks, Gerry.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
How to Irritate a Baby Boomer
Want to know how to irritate us irritable baby boomers in three easy steps?
1. Assume that we are all alike.
2. Assume that we are all fat and out of shape and can't get into or out of a car.
3. Assume that we all love the Beatles and are nostalgic about Woodstock.
I could go on....
1. Assume that we are all alike.
2. Assume that we are all fat and out of shape and can't get into or out of a car.
3. Assume that we all love the Beatles and are nostalgic about Woodstock.
I could go on....
Today's Boston Globe Automotive Section has an article "Automakers Race to Keep up with Boomer's Needs." It contains gems like this one: "Ford has its designers and engineers wear a 'third age suit' when creating features and systems for its cars. It's a heavy, bulky suit that limits muscle and joint movement to simulate the aging process, including stiff foot pads, anlke braces, knee and back braces, elbow and hand braces, rubber gloves, a neck brace and yellow tinted glasses that magnify glare. Once strapped in, designers get in prototype vehicles to see how weel they can see, turn, back uup, reach and use all the knobs, buttons and handles in the car." AWESOME! Just what I want!
No wonder the car companies are in trouble. Lowest Common Denominator approach to car design. No Boomer that I know owns or wants to own a geriartic car.
I once met Tom Matano, the designer of the Mazda Miata. He knew how to design a car. "We want to get so close to the customer that we can smell the liverwurst sandwich that he ate for lunch." He listened intently to real customers. He understood how boomers see themselves. He understood that in Japan, cars were seen as an industrial product - they were boring. He understood that in America, cars were a reflection of one's personality. He test marketed the car by driving it to a nearby shopping mall and parking it by the curb. As he drove off, people were literally chasing him to find out what kind of car it was.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Innovation Dream Team
There's a lot being written about innovation these days, much of it by people who I suspect have never really done anything truly innovative in their life. One from something called "Innovation In Practice- The Corporate Perspective (a sure fire tip-off here) on Innovation Methods" forced me to comment. Some key points and my take on it. The title was "How to form an Innovation Dream Team"
1. The leader of an innovation is needed to provide brakes on ideas that are off base. "Brakes" are not needed. Most corporate people are too scared to offer truly divergent opinions in front of the boss. Everyone watches to see what he or she will say. There are situations where the boss needs to be in the room, but not to provide brakes on the group. The boss needs to set the direction, contribute, build on the ideas of others, encourage new ways of thinking, and let people be a little wrong sometimes. If he or she tries to apply the brakes to every bad idea, the group will flounder.
2. 12-16 people is the ideal team size to balance off the various functions. Way too many. No more than 8, but 5-6 is better. Too many people, each with their little role inhibits teamwork. The Marine fire squad is a good model.
3. Need gender, cultural, and functional diversity. People do not fit into narrow functional, cultural, or gender roles. The real diversity that is needed is different ways of thinking, which has nothing to do with organizational function, skin color, cultural background, or gender. I've seen lawyers who are closet poets, for example.
A "Dream Team" needs to be a small group with different styles of thinking and expertise and a leader who encourages them and supports them.
1. The leader of an innovation is needed to provide brakes on ideas that are off base. "Brakes" are not needed. Most corporate people are too scared to offer truly divergent opinions in front of the boss. Everyone watches to see what he or she will say. There are situations where the boss needs to be in the room, but not to provide brakes on the group. The boss needs to set the direction, contribute, build on the ideas of others, encourage new ways of thinking, and let people be a little wrong sometimes. If he or she tries to apply the brakes to every bad idea, the group will flounder.
2. 12-16 people is the ideal team size to balance off the various functions. Way too many. No more than 8, but 5-6 is better. Too many people, each with their little role inhibits teamwork. The Marine fire squad is a good model.
3. Need gender, cultural, and functional diversity. People do not fit into narrow functional, cultural, or gender roles. The real diversity that is needed is different ways of thinking, which has nothing to do with organizational function, skin color, cultural background, or gender. I've seen lawyers who are closet poets, for example.
A "Dream Team" needs to be a small group with different styles of thinking and expertise and a leader who encourages them and supports them.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Lessons from Paintapalooza
Paintapalooza
In 2003 we fell in love with and bought a painting by a local artist, Paul Schulenburg (third from right, above). Our unstated assumption was that we would acquire more of his work over time. Each time he produced a new set of paintings we would go over to Addison Art in Orleans to attend a showing. But nothing he produced ever moved us the way the first work did. Until this past weekend.
Addison Art had sent us a flyer about “Paintapalooza”- the output of twelve artists from California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Mexico, Maine “who over a ten day period painted together, ate together, slept under the same roof, exchanged strategies, mixed paint, and stayed up late conversing about everything form politics to history to approaches to painting outdoors.”
“The creative stimulus was high,” said Frank Gardner. “For me, the challenge of paint in different subjects in a different light than what I am used to really pushes me creatively. Being around a group of painters many of them challenged by the new environs as well, helps to push that creative energy even higher.” (American Art Collector, February, 2009)
Paintapalooza lead to a burst of creativity that we had not seen from Paul and the others before. We bought two paintings. (To read more about it and see some of the work, read American Art Collector, or go to http://www.addisonart.com/)
It got me to thinking about what’s happened to creativity in corporations today.
We seem to have moved away from intense extended focused face-to face encounters to develop new ideas. We are working remotely or in isolation to solve problems.
Years ago, off site meetings were held over several days to provide focus, inspiration, and shared learning. Today? Maybe a half day meeting in a conference room or online chats with software tools like Go-To-Meeting. Yes, they are less expensive. And they are appropriate for routine discussions. But it would be a minor miracle for a truly new idea to emerge from a bland conference room with a white board, coffee, and donuts.
So, why did Paintapalooza unleash such creativity?
Isolation from other concerns provided focus
A unique setting- Port Clyde and Monhegan Island, Maine provided stimulus
Spending time together in a relaxed creative atmosphere lead to learning.
Getting away from the plein air painting to finish off the work in studios.
Corporate America could learn a lesson or two from these twelve artists.
In 2003 we fell in love with and bought a painting by a local artist, Paul Schulenburg (third from right, above). Our unstated assumption was that we would acquire more of his work over time. Each time he produced a new set of paintings we would go over to Addison Art in Orleans to attend a showing. But nothing he produced ever moved us the way the first work did. Until this past weekend.
Addison Art had sent us a flyer about “Paintapalooza”- the output of twelve artists from California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Mexico, Maine “who over a ten day period painted together, ate together, slept under the same roof, exchanged strategies, mixed paint, and stayed up late conversing about everything form politics to history to approaches to painting outdoors.”
“The creative stimulus was high,” said Frank Gardner. “For me, the challenge of paint in different subjects in a different light than what I am used to really pushes me creatively. Being around a group of painters many of them challenged by the new environs as well, helps to push that creative energy even higher.” (American Art Collector, February, 2009)
Paintapalooza lead to a burst of creativity that we had not seen from Paul and the others before. We bought two paintings. (To read more about it and see some of the work, read American Art Collector, or go to http://www.addisonart.com/)
It got me to thinking about what’s happened to creativity in corporations today.
We seem to have moved away from intense extended focused face-to face encounters to develop new ideas. We are working remotely or in isolation to solve problems.
Years ago, off site meetings were held over several days to provide focus, inspiration, and shared learning. Today? Maybe a half day meeting in a conference room or online chats with software tools like Go-To-Meeting. Yes, they are less expensive. And they are appropriate for routine discussions. But it would be a minor miracle for a truly new idea to emerge from a bland conference room with a white board, coffee, and donuts.
So, why did Paintapalooza unleash such creativity?
Isolation from other concerns provided focus
A unique setting- Port Clyde and Monhegan Island, Maine provided stimulus
Spending time together in a relaxed creative atmosphere lead to learning.
Getting away from the plein air painting to finish off the work in studios.
Corporate America could learn a lesson or two from these twelve artists.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Radical Collaboration
Last week I was out in San Francisco helping to name a new online game. Thanks to a good friend, we were invited down to Palo Alto for a visit to the Design School (d-school in their parlance) at Stanford.
What a cool place! The environment is fluid, simple, and very low tech (at least on the surface). Particle board, exposed 2x4's, and fiberglass predominate. Nothing looked 'slick'. The same vibe carries over to the people there- low key and collaborative.
In fact, what struck me most was the concept of Radical Collaboration that they espouse. In their words:
We constantly bring in new people with different points of view
The d.school is a place where experts from across campus and industry come together to work on projects that require their different points of view. This creates a vital interactive environment.
The diversity and breadth of the d.school community make it possible to establish bold new initiatives and projects that integrate a unique mix of disciplines.
And our culture of collaboration means we move quickly beyond obvious ideas. We help each other even if it's inconvenient. We ask for help when we are stuck. And, we defer judgment long enough to build on each other's ideas.
This kind of radical collaboration creates a culture of innovation at the d.school.
"We ask for help when we are stuck." Shocking! Rare! Not easy to do! Very cool!
What a cool place! The environment is fluid, simple, and very low tech (at least on the surface). Particle board, exposed 2x4's, and fiberglass predominate. Nothing looked 'slick'. The same vibe carries over to the people there- low key and collaborative.
In fact, what struck me most was the concept of Radical Collaboration that they espouse. In their words:
We constantly bring in new people with different points of view
The d.school is a place where experts from across campus and industry come together to work on projects that require their different points of view. This creates a vital interactive environment.
The diversity and breadth of the d.school community make it possible to establish bold new initiatives and projects that integrate a unique mix of disciplines.
And our culture of collaboration means we move quickly beyond obvious ideas. We help each other even if it's inconvenient. We ask for help when we are stuck. And, we defer judgment long enough to build on each other's ideas.
This kind of radical collaboration creates a culture of innovation at the d.school.
"We ask for help when we are stuck." Shocking! Rare! Not easy to do! Very cool!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Innovation Blink
After many years in this innovation business, I can tell in an instant (Blink, thanks Mr. Gladwell) whether a client will succeed or struggle with innovation. If they say that they want to meet me, then delay for a variety of vague reasons, then want me to meet someone else, then delay some more, there's no hope. They need a kick in the pants and someone to shake them out of their little analytical comfort zone.
If they want to do a lot of upfront analysis, there's hope, but the odds are that they'll dither in the end.
Clients who say, "Let's go. When can we start?" tend to be the successful innovators.
If they want to do a lot of upfront analysis, there's hope, but the odds are that they'll dither in the end.
Clients who say, "Let's go. When can we start?" tend to be the successful innovators.
If nobody spoke unless he had something to say, the human race would very soon lose the use of speech. - W. Somerset Maugham
Online Idea Generation and the Wow! Factor.
As someone who has facilitated idea generation sessions (flipcharts, markers, off-site locations, etc.) for over 20 years, I’ve been watching and to some extent worrying about the development of online idea generation tools for several years now. Will face-to-face idea generation become extinct? Will clients see that they can get the same level of creativity from online sessions at a dramatically lower cost? Will I become the buggy whip of the innovation world? Yikes!
But..no worries. So far, most clients have seemed disinterested in online tools. Or they’ve tried them and found them lacking. “I want something that explodes in the room! Something that makes me feel like ‘I’ve gotta have it!” said a guy from a money management firm. A market researcher from a consumer product company told me, “We’re going the other way. More face to face to get people engaged.”
Among those who have tried online tools the biggest complaint I heard was that there’s ‘No Jim Ferry, no one to stimulate our thinking. It’s really just an elaborate communications tool. Boring.“ Whew! I thought.
But…now along comes this new version of Idealyst. Oh-oh, I say. I’ve been working with AMS to put creativity stimulation into its idea generation tool. It definitely has that Wow! Factor. Nice graphics. Easy to use. Stimulating.
I still think people will want the face to face element. That’s one of the more enjoyable (but sometimes frustrating) side benefits of business- the interaction with team members.
But I see Idealyst as a really nice complement to face to face. It allows people who can’t be in the room to add their ideas and build on others’ ideas. And it’s a terrific way to get people engaged BEFORE they come into a brainstorming session.
Yes, it makes me nervous. But it’s inevitable. So I will adapt to it and use it myself.
Online Idea Generation and the Wow! Factor.
As someone who has facilitated idea generation sessions (flipcharts, markers, off-site locations, etc.) for over 20 years, I’ve been watching and to some extent worrying about the development of online idea generation tools for several years now. Will face-to-face idea generation become extinct? Will clients see that they can get the same level of creativity from online sessions at a dramatically lower cost? Will I become the buggy whip of the innovation world? Yikes!
But..no worries. So far, most clients have seemed disinterested in online tools. Or they’ve tried them and found them lacking. “I want something that explodes in the room! Something that makes me feel like ‘I’ve gotta have it!” said a guy from a money management firm. A market researcher from a consumer product company told me, “We’re going the other way. More face to face to get people engaged.”
Among those who have tried online tools the biggest complaint I heard was that there’s ‘No Jim Ferry, no one to stimulate our thinking. It’s really just an elaborate communications tool. Boring.“ Whew! I thought.
But…now along comes this new version of Idealyst. Oh-oh, I say. I’ve been working with AMS to put creativity stimulation into its idea generation tool. It definitely has that Wow! Factor. Nice graphics. Easy to use. Stimulating.
I still think people will want the face to face element. That’s one of the more enjoyable (but sometimes frustrating) side benefits of business- the interaction with team members.
But I see Idealyst as a really nice complement to face to face. It allows people who can’t be in the room to add their ideas and build on others’ ideas. And it’s a terrific way to get people engaged BEFORE they come into a brainstorming session.
Yes, it makes me nervous. But it’s inevitable. So I will adapt to it and use it myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
