CPH127

Two years ago I had the pleasure to have a conversation with Russ Ackoff, aka Russel L. Ackoff. I meet him during a course at Wharton where I together with aprox. 30 other Danes joined a course on Complexity, Leadership & Innovation.

The program was well arranged but I lacked enough time for reflection. I do in a stressed up working life. I don’t with you but sometimes the “the moment of truth”, the crucial learning point’s come to me quite a while after the actual conversation/learning situation.

I just came by his blog again and had the possibility to read up some of his work:

Transformations not only require recognition of the difference between what is practiced and what is preached - a transformation called for years ago by Donald Schon (1971) - it also requires a transformation in the way we think (…) I believe the pattern of thought that is required is systemic (…) Systemic thinking is holistic versus reductionist thinking, synthetic versus analytic. Reductionist and analytic thinking derive properties of wholes from the sum of their parts. Holistic and synthetic thinking derive properties of parts from properties of the whole that contains them (…) In general, those who make public policy and engage in public decision-making do not understand that improvement in the performance of parts of a system taken separately may not, and usually does not, improve the performance of the system as a whole. In fact, it may make system performance worse, or even destroy it.

This is key. Indeed, from my experience, I can testify that the obstacles to introducing knowledge sharing and collaboration have little to do with the lack of management support, lack of time, or lack of ROI metrics that knowledge managers tend to complain about. They also have little to do with so-called “mental models” of hierarchies vs. social networks and the like. In the end, what makes it difficult is exactly what Ackoff discusses in his paper: the inability of some key managers to move away from analytical thinking.

What do you think?

DesignLondon will develop, research and deliver radically new practices, tools and processes to transform the way businesses innovate, and translate their creativity into commercial success.

- Simulator - Teach - Incubator - Research

This new venture combines creativity and expertise in design from the Royal College of Art, engineering from Imperial College’s Faculty of Engineering and the business of innovation from Imperial College’s Tanaka Business School. It was established following the Cox Review: Creativity in Business that highlighted the need to stir together the scientific, engineering, business and creative design communities to enhance business and public sector innovation. Design London has four main pillars: creating new teaching programmes, conducting top-level research, incubating new business ideas and pioneering the next generation of innovation technology. It will deliver integrated design and business programmes for MBA and Masters of Engineering students at Imperial College, as well as for the MA students at the Royal College of Art.The innovation triangle blends design (represented by the Royal College of Art), engineering and technology (represented by Imperial College Faculty of Engineering) and the business of innovation (represented by Imperial’s Tanaka Business School). It has initial funding of £5.8 million from HEFCE and NESTA.

Read more at DesignLondon. Via. Royal College of Art News

Last week I went to a course on Complexity, Knowledge Management and future Innovation - gosh it was interesting. Maybe you already know Dave Snowden - a real thought-leader in that specific field. And he knows…

Nevertheless Dave and Cognitive Edge is on the track of something “new” and VERY interesting. The Cynefin-framework is outstanding when it comes to some sort of explanation of what is happening in the intersection between traditionel Knowledge Management, Technology and future growth and Innovation. As a true believer in proper use of Social Technologies - aka Web2.0 - internally in companies, I strongly believe that the flow of information between people is THE way to enhance innovation capacity, not by putting everything into a rigid data structure on a server.

Dave describes the development by setting up opposites:

Interesting - in Wemind we see that every day and try to advice our clients to move away from the old paradigm of thinking. It’s a tough call, a mental journey for most people.

Last week I was educated as a Accredited Practitioner in The Cynefin framework and I would love to have a conversation with you on how to cope with complexity in an internal organizational setting an still manage to make positive bottom lines.

If you are interested in further reading - and in Dave Snowden’ thoughts - you may be interested in these podcasts:

KM Australia 2007 Keynote
Jon Husband interview with Dave Snowden on Web 2.0
KM World 2007
KM Asia 2007 Keynote
Oil & Gas Exchange Houston September 2007

or the blogsposts:

Reporting on sin…
sense-making & path-finding
Safe-fail probes
Whence goeth KM?
Natural numbers, networks & communities
Volunteer not conscript
If the world is flat, seek out the bumpy bits
Good judgement comes from experiences. Experience comes from bad judgement
Confusing story telling with narrative

How to you see the challenges in management of today - is the cure to find in the books written around the time of the industrial revolution or is there by any chance new insights hidden in areas where we haven’t looked, yet? What do you think, and which implications does that have on our view on how to conceive business and companies?

Alex Osterwalder from Arvetica has been commenting here at CPH127 before - his work over at Arvetica is highly relevant, not only for Private Banking Professionals, but business in general.

He just published a podcast with John Hagel about how strategy is formulated by most companies, and more interesting, how it should be done when coping with uncertainty and complexity.

Personally I believe that most companies are organized to handle different problems, and thereby also strategy, as is the reality of today. We are shifting away from handling complicated matters to coping with complex problems, and that with a rapidly shift and increase in speed and uncertainty.

I also believe that a shift in mindset is heavily needed. A shift towards a more adaptable mindset, a mindset where each and every individual in the organization sees control as a nice thing, but not needed always, where competencies like intuition and improvisation is highly valued, and where diversity is embraced.

But then again - maybe I’m wrong? What do you think?

A few months ago I almost stumbled over an article when reading a comment on the Google Transforming Group. Kamille  invited me back in September/October and I’ve been on and off in the discussion since then. I an highly recommend the group if you’re interested in the definition of the “new” field of design & innovation.

In October I came across this interesting article by Robert K. Logan and Greg Van Alstyne - Design Ecology: Designing for Emergence and Innovation II

What I find especially interesting is how they:

1. define the role of the designer, which not necessary is a designer…
2. see innovation and-what-ever-processes as adaptive complex systems - I definitely agree!
3. combine theoretical areas like Biology, Technology, Sociology and Ecology into a new decipline…

I don’t know about you, but as I see it they are up to something VERY interesting and  important to understand, if coping with the challenges of tomorrow. But maybe I look in the wrong direction?

We’ve been writing a lot about the impact of thinking the design methodology into business process. Now Businessweek has an article, which at it’s best could be called a recap on the importance of diversity in innovation.

The point is of course still valid - important. And of course it’s interesting to look ont how different knowledge domains get’s in play, but the hole discussion lack’s a discussion about the management/leadership implications.

Perspectives?

JP Rangaswami has some thoughts on the individuals capacity creating and maintaining relationships. He has a rant on the new Dubar numer in the digital world where social networks setup new premisses for interactions and relationships.

Quite interesting stuff.

I agree with JP, but I also think that the number in the different circles of intimacy will differ a lot. Some relations expects a real-life-meeting, other don’t.

What is the new Dunbar number for you?

Last summer I attended a class at Wharton Business School about Peripheral Vision – it was part of a Leadership Development Program arranged by LinKS here in Denmark.

The visit was great for several reasons, and one of the outcomes from my stay here was some great learning points about acting on the unexpected.

My teacher was Paul Shoemaker – GREAT authority in the field of strategic planning.

In my daily work I advice clients on how to cope with uncertainty, creating innovation cultures and helping them to understand how they can use multidisciplinary approaches towards better product- and business development.

Since my posting here at CPH127 back in the early 2006 I’ve been struggling with how I could link design thinking to the use of social software. In Connecta we are heavy users of Social Software as part of our problem solving process

But few months ago I got it – I think. Like the design-thinking ingredient I began to realize that social software provide several aspects which I believe is crucial for good development processes:

• Multi disciplinary input
• Open processes
• Ability to prototype
• Democratized dialogue 
• Rapid development
• Improved timing in product launch

And by seeing that I think I got the reason why start blogging here at CPH127 again

If you know about Social Software, innovation and design-thinking which similarities do you see - if any?

For those of you who didn’t have the pleasure of going to LIFT06 in Geneva last February then, I would definitely tell you to go to SHIFT, in Lisbon on the 28th and 29th of September. With a very similar lineup of speakers, Shift is about Social and Human Ideas for Technology.

I might try to go to that and will live-blog once more if i can. Anyone going?