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?
Since the very beginning of CPH127 my main interest has been on the organizational side of what innovations is all about. And yes, the design discipline has a lot to offer in that respect.
I have – and a lot of the other pilots at CPH127 too – mentioned several different approaches toward how innovation can be approached.
Back in December I wrote about Open Sourced Leadership – in that post, among others, I described the “term” pull as a factor – as a mindset – for growth, innovation, value-creation, future business development.
Last weekend I read a very interesting piece “From Push to Pull – Emerging Models for Mobilizing Resources” and it stroke me that everything I meant back then is written down in that article. Not that my mind was all set, is all set, but it’s very good put and definitely a worth read.
John Hagel & John Seely Brown seems to have set the lens on a “new” model for mobilizing resources. Rather than “push”, the new approach focuses on “pull” – creating platforms that help people to mobilize appropriate resources when the need arise.
2 X John state further that pull models emerge as a response to growing uncertainty. Did anyone say complexity?
They also state that pull models treat people as networked creators, even when they are producers or customers purchasing goods and services. Did anyone say weblogs, social software or Web2.0?
Read the article – it’s a good one 
Mark just linked me to a great site about experience economy and design processes. It’s a MUST resource for the many of us, really great and with some thoughtful links an resources too.
I just read an article there about experience economy and creating sense/meaning. It refers to the development of an innovation or an experience concept which involves a process of thinking, doing and reflecting. It states that both parties can certainly work together in this process, and they will book more success through their collaboration than either one could do individually.
Important in this regard are four building blocks that the article find in the work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). They speak of the DART principle:
1. Dialogue
Dialogue means interactivity, being engaged with each other and listening to eachother. Both parties (supplier and customer) intend to accomplish something. It also means that attention is given to the interests of both parties. This requires both a location in which the dialogue can take place and a number of rules with which both parties must comply in order to be able to hold a useful dialogue. The principle of ‘learning by sharing’ holds here: the company learns through the dialogue with the customer and vice versa.
2. Access
The traditional focus
Democratizing Innovation – what’s all about? Vol 2.0
Eric von Hippel has done a presentation on his book with some nice examples.
He proffes multiple examples where an ordinary user, frustrated or even desperate, solves a problem through innovation. His research found innovative users playing with all manner of product: mountain bikes, library IT systems, agricultural irrigation, and scientific instruments.
Please see the presentation here
Thanks to Business Innovation
Since we’re talking about complexity, perhaps Anecdote: Michael Crichton and complexity science will be of interest.
Understanding complexity, seeing patterns and knowing where you fit in – personal leadership - in the process, in the picture is what is needed when dealing with chaos – I think.
But do you understand complexity, do you know how to deal with chaos? And what about your personal leadership?
I just found a bibliography on complexity resources that I what to share with you.
The reason why I think complexity and personal leadership is important is of course because I think it matters in terms of your ability to innovate the right way.
What do you think?
Sometimes you forget the tools you once loved - I still love del.icio.us…..:-)
Yesterday I was - again - in the search for "leadership" and re-discovered this amazing tool.
Recently I began to explore the blogosphere for weblogs on leadership to see if there in fact was something worth reading and digging into……
There is!!
A good startingpoint for me was to find places defining leadership.
I found a valuable resource here - Don describes leadership as:
How do you describe leadership and where do you experience it?
Do you know of any othere resources - please let us know
I’m throwing this provocative question out to our global audience on CPH127, whether establishing a national design council, creating a national design policy, or in general, bringing government support to the design industry has any benefit?
My reason for doing so is not out of any particular opinion on my part, instead, two recent issues in the news impelled this question out of curiousity. Especially since I know that our esteemed founders are closely connected to the Danish Design Council :).
The first article, from The Hindu, announces India’s imminent ratification of a National Design Policy, creation of an Indian Design Council, and most interesting, their intention to create a "mark" to qualify good design. This article states,
"The National Design Policy will be announced in January. Merely
coming out with a policy statement will not suffice, as it will have to
be followed up with implementation. Among other things, the `Designed
in India’ label will have to be linked with a certain quality
specification," Mr N.N. Prasad, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, said.The attempt would be to position `Designed in India’ as a
label that assures quality and utility. This could be in conjunction
with other labels - `Made in India’ and `Served from India’.A mechanism will be worked out for creating a brand image for
Indian designs through the award of an `India Design Mark’ that satisfy
certain criteria such as appeal, centricity, ergonomic features, safety
and environment findings.
The EETimes, on the other hand, has an article titled "The politicization of Innovation" and covers the recently proposed bill submitted to the United States Congress, the "National Innovation Policy 2005" [.doc link] While I will not enter into the "is design equal to innovation" debate, an overly battered dead horse, methinks, I do however wonder if a national design policy or design council, along the lines of those established in Europe, (notably the UK, the DDC of course :), ANZAC and Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Korea - all leaders in consumer electronics) would benefit American industry. Indeed, this Innovation Policy, and it’s intention to create a President’s Council on Innovation, could possibly be the equivalent of a design council/policy, as per the other nations, I doubt though, that it is. These are it’s three key initiatives,
increasing investment in basic research;
improving science and technology talent;
and developing a robust innovation infrastructure.
and their terminology implies a) that innovation is inherently technology led and that b) design is not innovation. On the other hand, for argument’s sake, if this were a design policy and the intention was to create a national design council, do you think that it would be of greater benefit? If so, how and why? While on this topic, I’d like to throw out a few more questions on design policies in general, are they useful to nations? Actually, what I’m asking is, Hans, do you do anything over at that Design Council? [just kidding] Here’s a link to Ars Technica, which has a pessimistic view of this initiative by the US to give balance, and perhaps add fuel to this discussion.
Michael Beirut wrote a thoughtful piece on "Innovation is the new black" at Design Observer, where he made a point, amongst others, that,
It turned out that the operant word at the symposium wasn’t design but innovation. Yes, innovation. Everyone wanted to know about it. Everyone wanted to talk about it. One of the panelists was Business Week’s legendary design advocate Bruce Nussbaum.
"When I talk to my editors about design, I have trouble keeping them
interested," he confessed. "But there’s a tremendous interest in
innovation." The lesson to me seemed clear. If we want the business
world to pay attention to us, we need to purge the d-word from our
vocabularies. That’s right: we are all innovators now.
I appreciated his take from the classical designer’s point of view, as it gives balance to the word "innovation" showing up everywhere, but more importantly, was this very insightful response by Larry Keeley of Doblin, on the subject that innovation is not equivalent to design and should not be used interchangeably. Larry’s kindly given me permission to post his comment in full here on CPH127, so here it is:
Michael (et al),
Since I have been toiling intensively to separate innovation from
design for over a decade, no one could possibly be more distressed than
me to see it so over-blown, over-used, misused and abused than me.
Personally, I have absolutely NO desire to conflate innovation and
design, nor would it be my advice to any switched on design firm that
they cavalierly adopt this (perhaps already passe) "new" lexicon.
But at the same time, it would be good if thoughtful designers
actively consider why this new field has arrived now, what it means,
and how they can participate in it if they choose… Above all else NO
ONE should assume that this is just a change in terminology–for if
that is the only way you see it, then you are most decidedly missing
the point…
The roots of innovation as a field…
Large companies need innovation now because efficiency is no longer
enough. After 12 years of intensive effort to get process streamlining;
to outsource non-essential operations; to build supply chain
integration; to buy all kinds of digital tools to deliver greater
efficiency and economy of operations–all those tricks are now expected
and discounted by analysts. MANY CEOs call me these days to explain
that they are being criticized by analysts after pulling off what many
regard as miracles in complex, global markets, only to be told that
their firms are now efficient but now boring.
So they have iPod envy… Firms are seeing that Target, Pixar,
Google, Amazon, and scores of other cool companies simply have a faster
clock speed for bringing newsworthy stuff to markets, and making them
work…
Consequences for design and designers…
Most designers can do nothing
and still benefit from this trend–so long as your skills are great,
your firm is distinctive, and you are able to work well in teams. A lot
of the background interest in innovation is mostly hunger for
distinctiveness and stuff that is on the edge (witness the meteoric
rise of the signature architects Gehry, Koolhaas, Calitrava, Hadid, and
others). The great news for designers about the rise of a corporate
interest in innovation is that it recognizes, more than ever before,
the strategic contribution of design to product, service, information,
and environmental offerings. At Doblin we see this as a trend likely to
persist for at least the next decade.
But it is also possible to do more than nothing… If you want to
actively participate in the base ideas of the emerging innovation field
then you have to develop a keen interest in what works in marketplaces.
Of course great designers always have solid instincts about what is
likely to work in marketplaces (and these instincts, for my money, are
FAR more important than any known form of evaluative research). But the
innovation field per se needs to use MANY forms of
design, carefully orchestrated and integrated, to get beyond some
threshold level of activity–enough to get noticed, to make a
difference, to be strategic. Think about it: how many kinds of
excellence would Sears or Wal-Mart need to develop to be as cool as
Target? How likely is is that they will develop these skills
spontaneously? How will they learn what to do and do it with any
quality, subtlety, freshness, or uniqueness? It is easy for designers
to simply say: "they won’t." And odds are, you’d even be right (at
least about those two firms).
But here’s the deal, and it is novel, important and unprecedented:
nearly every firm needs to be smarter about this now than ever before.
I contend that this is a NEW field, not just a new word. I further
contend that it has its own methodology, complexity, and professional
demands. It will be VERY GOOD for the design field, but is not the same
as the design field. It is my fond hope that the better practitioners,
design firms, schools (including a rapidly growing number of business
schools), and desigers, will help to create the broad new capabilities
and professionalism that will actually meet the underlying need for
stuff, places, clarity of messages, and distinctive experiences that
human beings crave–and enterprises must increasingly learn to deliver.