Ed Wilms, this one’s for you.

In line with the proliferation of talk around execution, there is also much going on as it relates to strategy. Strategy and execution are inextricably linked, they are useless without each other. Without a focus on execution and performance, strategy is a purely academic pursuit. Without a strategic foundation, execution is a “car without a steering wheel” (or any number of fitting clichés). Strategy is one of those things that seemingly everyone talks about, but few actually practice. It is something that is typically top-of-mind as companies think about the imminent new year, but once that new year commences it is quickly forgotten about, and rarely followed through. This plays out everywhere. We have all seen it in one form or another. The same can be said for execution. At the heart of this is determining how an organization is going to get where it needs to go, how it is going to navigate the range of strategic risks before it.

The linking of strategy with execution, and understanding the importance of the relationship between the two, has been gaining important attention. The Harvard Business Review just published an article discussing the rise and importance of the Chief Strategy Officer. There are a number of reasons that companies are creating and assigning this position, the most common of which is most likely that CEO’s now find their attention diverted to an increasing range of priority issues, and the nurturing and development of strategy suffers. The CSO’s entire purpose is around developing and executing on a range of strategies, and ensuring that decision making supports these strategies and aligns with the company vision.

The HBR article does a nice job discussing the importance of linking strategy to execution and lists three critical strategy implementation tasks:

• - Engendering commitment to strategic plans. Articulate a clear definition of your company’s strategy and explain how each person’s work relates to it. This clarity enables the building of the federation necessary to put strategic plans into action.

• - Drive immediate change. Facilitate the change initiatives required to execute the strategy.

• - Promote decision making that sustains change. Ensure that strategic decisions don’t get watered down or ignored as they’re translated throughout the organization. Communicate with managers at all levels to determine whether decisions being made over time continue to be aligned with the strategy.

Now, the role of the CFO is most likely not a reality for many organizations, but the value of this approach is inherent. What this article effectively describes is the role and importance of strategy and implementation for organizations of all types and sizes. This is serious stuff, and with the complexity and speed with which markets change is also potentially the only way to effectively navigate this complexity, stay on track, and begin to anticipate risk.

The mantra of execution is heavy on the minds of everybody these days. Actually, that would be accountability AND execution. Seems that we all need a little primer in business 101 as without a culture based on both… all is lost. Or, at least all is at risk. It turns out that execution is also a top concern with CEO’s around the world. Actually, according to a Conference Board global survey, execution is their number one concern, ranking above profit and top-line growth.

“This year’s overall top challenge shows that CEOs from around the world are realizing that strong execution is a critical factor in driving profits and revenues. These executives are also becoming increasingly aware of the crucial role that people play in growing their companies.”

Jonathan Spector, President and CEO of The Conference Board

As a part of this survey, 769 CEOs from 40 nations were asked to rate their greatest concerns from among 121 challenges. “Excellence of execution” was selected as the top concern with “keeping consistent execution of strategy by top management” the third-greatest concern. Of particular note is that “sustained and steady top-line growth”, which led the list last year, now ranks second, with profit growth fourth, and finding qualified managerial talent fifth. I believe that this indicates a shift in the concept of performance within many organizations, and that the inception of performance is execution. This is being driven by the myriad of strategic risks we face in our industries, and by the ethereal nature of success that is today’s reality.

Of note is that the survey uncovers some interesting regional differences. The European CEOs surveyed expressed greater concern with speed, flexibility and adaptability to change as it relates to getting new, more responsive ideas out sooner. This was a dominant theme in Europe (third place), while in Asia it tied for eighth and the U.S. was back in 10th place.

I do not think that anybody can question or doubt the realities that most creative businesses face. The business environment for creative organizations is changing rapidly and presenting unique challenges to those charged with leading successfully. Specifically, our firms face issues of technology use and integration, team organization, process development, leadership and leadership transition, intense competitive realities (and increasingly global), and the commoditization and devaluing of our work. Many of these specific challenges have been discussed on Schneiderism already. I speak the obvious when I say that determination of success in the future is dependent not on navigating one or two of these challenges successfully, but all of them.

I had the opportunity to recently attend a presentation by Adrian Slywotzky, the author of “The Upside: The 7 Strategies for Turning Big Threats into Growth Breakthroughs“, at an event for YPO. It was especially good, and prescient regarding the challenges that many organizations face, but it seemed especially relevant to creative businesses (design, marketing, advertising, architecture). At a high level everything comes down to innovation, being innovative, and how you innovate. Easy to say, hard to do. But beyond those relative truisms, there was one all encompassing concept that I loved hearing about:

STRATEGIC RISK MANAGEMENT

The presentation began with the concept of business model design and that business models that remain static are destined for failure. The environments in which we all operate are changing and evolving in ways that were not possible 10, 15 and 20 years ago. This demands reinvestigation, in an ongoing manner, of a company’s business model and introduces the opportunity for business design innovation. Most industries have seen dramatic change, and those of us who anticipate change and evolve our companies as our markets change will be around to talk about. Adrian Slywotzky not only aligns with this thinking, he takes it much, much further.

“Our greatest growth opportunities are our greatest risks - reversed.”

Adrian Slywotzky

The strategic risk management piece is important in several ways. Obviously, this is hugely informative as we investigate the threats and opportunities of a given business model, and the proper identification and understanding of strategic risk is what ultimately determines a course of action. Elements of this is knowing the reality of where your center of gravity resides with respect to your customers and clients. To ensure prolonged success, that center of gravity needs to reside at the heart of your company, at the core of what you do and the value you create. Inevitably, though, it resides with the customers who have a range of relatively equal options from which to choose. The challenge is in retaking that center of gravity and subsequently reversing or inverting the value chain. A traditional value chain begins with assets and ends with a customer, inverting it creates a business model around the customer that results in assets. Think about that for a second and get back to me.

Getting into more detail about strategic risk management… it is the perpetual survey of your landscape for those things which will make you irrelevant, those things which can damage your business design. Things like:

• Misreading your customers
• Damaged reputation
• Commoditization of your product or service
• Technology
• Ownership/leadership transitions
• Global politics
• Currency fluctuations
• Supplier changes
• Factor of costs
• Talent deficits
• Changing customer demographics

Now, that list is by no means comprehensive and is pretty high level. So, stop for a second and reflect on your own business. What would your list look like? Can any of these strategic risks be turned into opportunities? To be successful, the answer needs to be a committed “Yes.” We live in an age of volatility and our lives, our businesses, are subjected to a diverse and evolving range of generators and catalysts of this volatility. What we do about this is also evolve our businesses in advance of these risks and in answer to the volatility. When these risks are unmanaged they will affect even the very best teams and the very best business models. No one is immune, and we are seeing this play out seemingly everywhere. There are innumerable case studies of companies not managing this risk:

• Contrast the S&P High-to-Low Quality ratio of A-ranked stocks to C-ranked stocks over the last 25 years. The A-ranked stocks have decreased from 31% to 14% of total value while C-ranked stocks have increased from 12% to 30%
• Why has Procter & Gamble taken 5 years to recover from the 2000 market value drop? Why did they suffer the drop in the first place?
• Other blue chips face the same fate… look at McDonald’s, Siemens, Merck and Deutsche Bank. Their performance lines are nearly identical.
• More specifically, why has Coca Cola lost market value while Pepsi has gained market value over the same time?
• Sony has lost while Samsung has won, Johnson & Johnson is winning while Merck is losing, and Maytag tanks while Whirlpool takes off. Each example, two companies in the same industry. One wins, the other is losing.

What is going on here? The winners sited properly assessed risk and realized that the time of maximum value is the time of maximum risk. This is really tough for most companies, but especially difficult for historically successful companies to address. Legacy thinking persists. This can be scary, and sometimes is not something anybody really wants to talk about or bring up in a meeting. Even worse, it just is not what management wants to hear… they can’t handle the truth. The reality is that strategic risk is the killer of business models. It is killing the US automotive industry, it is working its way through consumer electronics, and (getting back to the beginning) it is challenging creative enterprise.

Knowing this, and anticipating risk at this level begins to tell you how to protect and grow your business. For creative enterprise it entails a concerted effort to identify what the true value is in the work we do. Really, do our clients VALUE the work that we provide on their behalf? Do we create value at all? Who in our space is being successful and why? What are they doing differently and what is setting them apart from the rest of the firms around them? This starts with shrewd competitive analysis, but it cannot stop there. What are the technology risks that we face and what are the event horizons for these risks? Where are we allocating capital to activities that give us no differentiation? Ultimately, after answering all of these questions (and many, many more) what are the business designs that take advantage of the fact that all of our competitors face the same questions, challenges and realities?

How do we turn our problems into our competitor’s problems?

A summary of the risks we face, and that successfully navigated will inform your business model design:

• Technology shift
• Industry economic squeeze
• Brand investment mix (advertising, design, PR, training, information…)
• Project risk
• Customer shift
• Stagnation risk

While automobile companies on this side of the Atlantic determine how best to disassemble enterprise, elsewhere things are somewhat more positive. In contrast to the hard times seen by GM, Ford and Chrysler, Porsche has had a remarkable few years. So much so, that with the strong increase in sales, and the commensurate increase in profits, the employees of Porsche will be getting a significant bonus, and one larger than their bonus last year. I posted about the changes that went down at Porsche in the mid-1990’s, and as a result of those changes the successful strategy that has transpired. It would seem that Porsche is on the right track, and continuing to expand into new markets with new products. This will not last forever, as luxury automotive products can reach saturation in a market very quickly, but for the time it is a reality to be savored. Not fifteen years ago Porsche was on the brink of insolvency.

Porsche is, and has been, the world’s most profitable car company as of late. As a result, its 8,000 workers will receive a bonus of $7,350. Their bonus last year was $4,900. The increase is due to the fact that they sold nearly 98,000 cars and as a result profits rose by 3.4 percent to $10.5 Billion. Fifteen years ago Porsche’s sales numbers were decreasing towards 10,000 units.

That’s quite a turnaround, and I applaud the success. Porsche is an amazing case study in the value of decisive leadership, clear vision, knowing how to expand the value of a recognized and iconic brand, innovation across the board, and a belief in reinvention.

via Winding Road

An ongoing area of interest for me is how we can innovate in the guidance and leadership of a creative enterprise, and thus sustain successful operations. This is centered around the challenges facing most professional services in the creative arena, something that it would seem all are struggling with, at least at some level. The core of this is the commodification of creative work, whether that be advertising, architecture or graphic design. Many firms have allowed themselves to become factories, to become production houses. In some ways, this is the result of our own devaluing of our efforts. In others, it is born out of an entirely different decision-making process that has been progressively gaining ground with the clients for creative services… the prevalence of value assignment based on time worked and not on value created.

I came across an article that was very insightful in relation to these realities by Avi Dan in Advertising Age. It succinctly lays it all out. His article is leveled squarely at advertising agencies, and why so many are facing the music as their business model is yanked out from under them. As I read his article I could not help but see strong similarities to the realities we face in architecture, and those I experienced in other creative businesses. Avi outlines five key areas that agencies, and by extension most creative enterprise, need to investigate:

• COMPENSATION
  Should be tied to value creation and not based solely on labor. Clients and creative firms need to work out a fairer compensation scheme recognizing the value of intellectual capital.
• OUTSOURCING
  Smart creative organizations should evolve into creative portals, outsourcing external creative talent in areas such as production, as well as in logistical operations.
• REVENUE STREAMS
  Firms need to explore ways to monetize new areas of involvement such as licensing, e-commerce applications and even the work itself.
• SPEED
  Creative enterprise must recognize that in a web-based world that moves at warp speed, speed itself is a strategic asset and those that can help their clients with speed-to-market executions will have an advantage.
• SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
  The firm model should recognize that social responsibility is at the core of the modern firm, hand in hand with its financial accountability to shareholders, and is essential for recruiting top talent.

Of special note are the ideas around outsourcing and revenue streams. There is a controlling mindset in most creative firms that they must own all waypoints in the project process. I cannot help but ask “why?” Outsourcing is a tremendous opportunity to not only diversify your talent, but to allow you to focus on what you are truly good at… and seek support from partners who are better at the other project roles than your team may be. Additionally, seeking complimentary and supplemental revenue streams is enormous. As creative businesses we are perpetually innovating with respect to our client’s businesses. Why is it that we cannot bring this same approach, this innovation, to benefit our own businesses? Over the course of a year there will be any number of revenue opportunities available to a firm that are outside of their traditional business model, but because of that model these ideas will make it scarcely farther than the whiteboard.

All of this to say, many companies face an environment of intense change and competition. Those that get it are focused on changing with the environment in which they operate. Some are changing fast, with a cultural premium on innovation and knowledge in the value created by their own people. Those that do not are not going to last. I feel it is that simple.

Digital Arts had a great post yesterday that speculates, and probably very accurately, on the secrets to the sustained success of Apple in the fiercely competitive consumer electronics category. There is no denying that Apple has honed an approach to engaging the consumer that no other company can claim. Beyond creating loyal customers, Apple creates passionate adherents. Why? How? The article breaks it down into eight secrets:

Secret 1 - Engineering supports design — no exceptions

Typically, design enters the strategic momentum behind an idea at precisely the wrong time, and that is once the idea has been defined by real world constraints in the wrong direction… from the concept to the audience. Success comes out of designing from the audience to the concept. Apple understands that the interaction is the design, and that designers need to drive the strategy for an idea.

Secret 2 - Fewer is better

Apple clearly understands the dangers of product oversegmentation. They work to create the fewest number of products with the broadest possible appeal. This works incredibly well.

Secret 3 - The experience is the product

See Secret 1. But even beyond crafting the experience of using their products, Apple has integrated the experience of interacting with their packaging, and added drama to the unboxing of a new product. Websites are dedicated to this phenomenon alone, and it takes product fetishism to an entirely new level. While competitors look at packaging as necessary, Apple sees it as another incredible opportunity to connect with their audience. This extends to the physical environment of the Apple Stores, and to the Apple website. The experience is consistent.

Secret 4 - The product is the product

As companies become successful, they generally become bigger. At some point, feeding the machine becomes the product that the executives are selling. Look at Microsoft as an example. Apple maintains a relentless focus on their products, on what they do, and everything else is secondary and useless to their audience.

Secret 5 - You can’t please everyone, so please people with good taste

I cannot say this any better… from the post:

“Targeting the low end cheapens the brand. Going after the ‘average’ consumer shrinks margins. Only the high end creates the pixie-dust intangible quality of buzz, brand affinity and, ultimately, brand loyalty, which can be converted into higher margins and higher sales.”

Secret 6 - Leave the past behind

You are either a company focused on innovation and invention, or on supporting legacy ideas, systems and technologies. You cannot do both and keep your customers.

Secret 7 - Product names are important. Really important

A name supports the identity, which supports the overall brand. It gives people something immediate to identify with, something to reference. It is recognizable. A series of letters and numbers is confusing, not memorable, and not user friendly.

Secret 8 - Group affiliation is the driver

This is the biggest, baddest secret of the eight. Basically, people want to belong and they want to identify with things that make them feel secure, or in some cases superior. Apple has created this by maintaining a cohesive “fan-base” around their products and technologies. I pointed this out in my post on Steve Jobs… but how many company CEO’s launch their products to the world? How many do it 2-3 times per year? How many CEO’s command standing-room-only attendance at every event announcing these new products?

The answer is easy… One company. One CEO.

The really compelling thing is how many of these concepts, these secrets, translate directly to just about any creative enterprise, and how concrete an example and reminder this is for all of us. I especially take to heart Secret 5, about pleasing people with good taste. I take this to mean choose your customers, the audience for what you do, and choose them very carefully. Say no to the business that does not move your company forward that you are not passionate about doing. It is better to restructure your company around a solid vision, and around the customers you want to serve than to compromise. This helps you to break the commodification cycle that currently plagues so many professional services creative companies.

I had the opportunity to participate in a design charette yesterday put on by Steve Orfield and Wes Chapman at Orfield Laboratories. The charette is part of their Open Plan Working Group, which seeks to address issues of building performance, user experience, and innovation in workplace design. Steve Orfield has been working, through effective and substantive research, for over 30 years to support investigations into workplace quality, worker health, and challenging accepted norms of office design, organization, and function. Human factors is a huge driver of Orfield’s work, and the belief that the concept of “Architectural Dynamics (AD)” can change the world.

Organizations like Herman Miller and Lutron support his efforts, and sponsor the OPWG. Both were present at the charette yesterday. Specifically, this event was to explore opportunities to improve a building environment by the creative application of Architectural Dynamics. AD refers to environments that are controlled and influenced over time based on knowledge and inputs from occupant preferences and actual occupant behavior. AD seeks to effect change in these environments through such things as bio-mimicry, cuing, stimulation, calming, and other forms of occupant reinforcement. The goal is to change the workplace from a non-preferred and involuntary environment into a preferred and voluntary environment. Specific areas of influence are lighting/daylighting and view, thermal comfort, and sound addition and attenuation. Lofty goals, to be sure, but Steve and his group are far down the path of effecting real change.

The charette began with occupant research presented that challenges suppositions and assertions we all have about the places in which we work. A great example of this research was measurements of occupant valuations in regards to daylighting and view. Having an outside view is shown to greatly outweigh valuations of natural daylight. That was surprising.

The design charette involved looking closely at an existing structure with significant design liabilities, and how the individual design teams might mitigate the building limitations by creatively applying AD concepts. The results were very, very cool. While there was quite a bit of similarity between the teams, there was also great difference… especially with regards to how far each team was able or willing to push the concepts. Ultimately, there was tremendous alignment on enhancing audience experience, both from a macro (building-wide) and micro (individual) perspective. There was much discussion on how much control should be given to individuals, and how to manage this control to maintain energy efficiency and minimize negatively affecting other individuals in close proximity. I came away with a much enhanced understanding both of the impact of design decisions in the workplace, and how to design to more effectively enhance the occupant experience. We want the environments we create to enhance health and well being, and to align appropriately to an individuals work style preferences. Yes, this has dramatic affects on productivity, but first and foremost it supports more healthy work environments. Increased productivity is a nice result from this goal.

All of this seeks to challenge and change the reliance on the 1950’s metaphor of workplace design. This is a metaphor that needs to be cracked open as the places in which we spend upwards of 8 hours a day, five+ days a week are not designed to support us in our work or in our interactions. They are created out of economic decisions based on minimizing expense and gaining as much space efficiency as possible. They are created out of building practices that have stood largely unchallenged by research and health assessments. We have a responsibility as designers to hold ourselves to research based standards of performance in the environments that we create, to ensure that our designs are adding health and NOT detracting. To paraphrase Steve Orfield, we should look to the Hippocratic oath for inspiration and commit our work to “doing no harm.”

A colleague of mine has launched his blog at knowlesystem. His focus is honed and specific to the forces changing and shaping the world of architecture and design. Cool stuff. We have had an infinite number of incredible discussions and brainstorms on this topic, and this was suggested as a way to begin capturing this content, and involve others in the conversation. I highly suggest subscribing as there will be a proliferation of compelling content coming forthwith.

Congrats on the site, Stephen.

Another colleague introduced acmesiren a couple weeks ago, and I wanted to offer a more formal welcome and congrats to Nick as well. His blog is focused on finding and revealing what is new, cool and interesting in the world of experimental music. Also, very cool stuff. And a terrific resource.

Both blogs are featured in the schneiderism blogroll in the right column, which is naturally an incredibly high honor.

I came across this cartoon today at Hugh MacLeod’s blog, gapingvoid. It gave me pause. Partly because I think that Hugh makes a joke about something that is probably partly true, and partly because, in so many ways, the CEO of an innovative consumer electronics and technology company has become something of a rockstar. Full disclosure… I have Apple technology all over the place. At home. At work. In my car. I am writing this blog post on my MacBook Pro which is connected wirelessly to the internet via the Apple Airport, and I am streaming music from Apple iTunes on my computer wirelessly to speakers with Apple’s Airport Express. So, just so I’m very clear, I’m an adherent. Steve’s technology works really, really well for me.

That’s all fine and good, but the CEO of Sony is not a rockstar. The CEO of Intel is not a rockstar. We don’t even really know for sure who the CEO of Dell is anymore, and while you could argue that Bill Gates is a rockstar… I would have to respectfully disagree. Bill Gates is just rich.

I think that Steve’s rockstar quality is in part due to how well he has connected with the audiences for Apple’s products. Like a great band, he gives the people what they want and leaves us anxiously awaiting the next tour. The man is not glamorous, he’s not flashy and really, he’s not that memorable… other than when he presents. And that’s the other part. Steve Jobs has become a master at the unveiling and the presenting of the new offerings from Apple. So much so that these presentations are standing room only. What other CEO can pull that off?

People are constantly writing about how Steve Jobs (and his probably enormous support team) approaches these presentations. The use of multi-media, guest appearances, and the stringing of the audience along are masterful. His slides are elegant and very well done and have inspired people all over the world to improve their boardroom presentations. His slides are also incredibly simple, beautifully graphic and visual, and he navigates them with ease and confidence. The man is a smooth presenter. On stage, as a presenter and as the CEO of Apple, this non-flashy, non-glamorous, almost forgetful individual exudes style… and he does so in a completely conversational and genuine way. The multi-media is merely a backdrop and supportive of his message, and his visuals are in perfect alignment with what he is saying. Now, if you have seen more than a couple Apple Keynotes by Steve, you quickly understand that his presentations are built on solid and consistent organization. This is what creates the flow, what makes his presentations more about hearing a really great story. The fact that, up on stage, he also seems calm, at ease, and immensely approachable allows everybody to focus on exactly what he is saying, on the story he is telling. I think that Steve Jobs is perhaps the most at ease, human presenter I have ever seen. He makes it look so easy. He is a rockstar.

These keynotes always look so effortless and so easy. A lot of people just think that is who Steve Jobs is, and that doing these incredible presentations in front of millions of rapt fans is a totally natural thing for him. It’s not. The man is charismatic, but like a great band, he and his team practice and drill, they refine and hone, then practice more until everything is incredibly well tested, rehearsed, and choreographed. How could we not think he is a rockstar? With all of the effort put into these presentations he is, by default, a rockstar. Back in the 1970’s when Peter Frampton brought arena rock to the world, he made it look easy and effortless too. Steve Jobs is bigger than Frampton.

Finding the quote was inspired by stumbling on the photo above. The world governments must redouble their efforts to reanimate this man.

“It was the Law of the Sea, they said. Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top.”

Hunter S. Thompson (7/18/1937 - 2/20/2005)

I just read this article at Fast Company and, while a little simplistic, it does a nice job both describing how business needs to embrace design thinking, and the value of design in business. The author, Mark Dziersk, lists six tips to help business understand design and incorporate strategy along with the design approach to problem solving:

1. Design strategy is not an oxymoron: Creativity is the key to innovation, strategy is the mirror equivalent for business.

2. The world is upside down, embrace it: Embrace the death of the controlled business model.

3. Invent new training, train thyself: If you understand little about design or creativity, learn more.

4. Understand your DNA: At the core of every go-to-market effort is a strategy based around the DNA of the consumers’ experience.

5. Visualize strategy: Visually map your processes. Designers are visual people.

6. Stop using Powerpoint and start telling stories: Use creativity in your presentations and get it back in spades.

While the article is directed at a more traditional business audience, one that is maybe unsure about how to incorporate design into their strategic approach, there is something here for all of us. In fact, the article pulls together several thoughts that have been expressed here on schneiderism into one cohesive narrative. We all need to understand how our audiences have changed, and how we need to change in order to best communicate our value and engage them as they wish to be engaged. We all need to become massively better at telling stories and move away from reporting. The value for understanding is in the story, in the context within which a situation exists. Reporting delivers a snapshot, and business moves too quickly today to base decisions on snapshots.

Ultimately, what the article describes is a competitive necessity. Design brings a deeper understanding and more substantive connections to our audience, and these are the things that are supporting innovation in business and success in the most competitive of industries… think personal computing, music, automobiles, fashion, publishing… I can keep going. In each case, there are businesses that are still governed by a business model born out of another time, and those that are fast moving, adapting and innovating, constantly reinventing the business model for their industry. My money is on the latter for being around in ten years.

I have really enjoyed the Manifesto issue of ICON, and posted earlier the manifesto of Bruce Mau. It is interesting to read the results of a person’s efforts to catch something smart and concise for the benefit of us all. Admittedly, some of the manifestos are pretty weak. But some were pretty great. Joshua Prince-Ramus’ was pretty great.

Prince-Ramus is an architect and designer, and a partner in the recently formed architecture studio REX. He came out of OMA, the studio of the famous “starchitect” Rem Koolhaas, where he led various projects like that for the Seattle public library. My first exposure to the thinking of Prince-Ramus was via his presentation at TED in 2006 (absolutely worth watching). In that presentation he dropped more than a few bombs on the world of architecture. Nothing we didn’t know or acknowledge already, but powerful to hear spoken out loud. He described a “hyper-rational” approach to architecture, explaining how logic can act as the catalyst for extraordinary buildings and yield opportunities otherwise hidden by the bias of the designer. This hyper-rational approach is something paid lip service to by most design fields, but Prince-Ramus lays bare the the essential mechanics, and results, of this approach to solving design problems.

His manifesto in ICON is a summary of that TED presentation, and essentially forms the mission statement for his studio. Following are a few of my favorite excerpts:

“We design collaborations rather than dictate solutions. The media sells simple, catchy ideas; it reduces teams to individuals and their collaborative work to genius sketches. The proliferation of this false notion of “starchitecture” diminishes the real teamwork that drives celebrated architecture.”

Design is riddled with myths, and designers are perhaps the best at perpetuating those myths. The reality is that successful design solutions come directly from a thorough understanding of context, constraint and audience. Meaningful design is also most often the result of effective collaboration and the blending of perspectives. These perspectives, and the efforts of the team to develop a 360 degree understanding of the situation, are the foundation on which opportunities are built. Anything less is at best a stylistic bias.

“We embrace responsibility in order to implement vision. The implementation of good ideas demands as much, if not more, creativity than their conceptualisation. Increasingly reluctant to assume liability, architects have retreated from the accountability (and productivity) of Master Builders to the safety (and impotence) of stylists.”

We see this all of the time. Sometimes we are like gold miners. We strike a rich vein of ideas, or a successful approach, and then mine the hell out of it. We become identified by those results, it becomes our genre. Ultimately, this leads to commodification and the disregarding of the importance of context, constraint and audience. It is a one size fits all approach to design.

“We side with neither form nor function. REX believes that the struggle between form and function is superficial and unproductive. We proffer the term “performance” instead: a hybrid that doesn’t discriminate between use, organization and form. We free ourselves from the tired debate over whether architecture is an art or a tool. Art performs; tools perform.”

If you watch the TED presentation that Prince-Ramus gave last year, it is abundantly clear that REX is practicing what it preaches. The approach that resulted in the team’s solution for the Seattle public library is exposed for exactly what it was… total understanding of the context, constraints and diverse audiences for that project. It is also clear that from its inception, that project was about performance and the inextricable integration of form and function, of the aesthetic with the need for the solution to work.

“We love the banal. REX dares to be dumb (like a fox).”

Back in 1966 Ford entered one of the most grueling and competitive events in motorsports… the 24 Hours of Le Mans. They had no experience with this type of racing. None. Ford had previously been thwarted in an attempt to purchase Ferrari, a force in European motorsports at the time (they still are) and the company that had been dominating at Le Mans for years. Ford could not buy Ferrari, so Ford would beat Ferrari and knock them from their place on the winner’s podium.

To do this Ford organized an incredible team. They brought on the best engineers, technicians, pit crew, managers, and drivers. They set about creating a new car just for this race, and just to beat Ferrari, and they did so in record time. The Ford team came together quickly, had a clear mission, a stated purpose, and the support of the bigwigs back in Detroit. They created the Ford GT40, and not only did they beat Ferrari in 1966, but the Ford team ended the 24 hour endurance race with a 1-2-3 finish (as pictured above in a photo staged for the press). Ford dominated Le Mans for three years in a row, and then dropped out of the race. Point proven. They organized to win, and they won. Handily.

We have already discussed here the realities of the competitive environment we all operate in. We’ve also discussed the ways in which our clients are changing and becoming more like us, and less like people who really need us. Given these two facts, it would seem imperative that the emphasis should be on creating the winning team, not on the winning. This is about the way in which we get there, not just getting there. Teams that win do so because they are organized to win. Teams that are organized to win are unstoppable.

There is tremendous pressure to perform, to win, to not fail. This creates urgency, and a fair amount of anxiety. It is also incredibly short sighted. This is an excellent opportunity for a long term strategy, to focus on building the best team, and supporting that team in coming together. With clear goals, good direction, and support great teams can be unstoppable. Taking the time to create and support a winning team has real long term value. Making the mistake of focusing only on winning means having to start over each time.

Image from autoblog

I read an excellent, concise and thought provoking post by Seth Godin over the weekend and thought it important to share. It’s about the reality of work that aspires to be “good enough.” We’ve all been here either as participants or observers. Either way, we are complicit in managing downward performance expectations for projects. Definitely something to think about. Here is Seth’s post:

“Most marketing efforts are projects in response to problems. ‘We need a box for the product launch.’ ‘We need a press release for the tour the boss is doing.’ ‘We need an ad campaign for the Super Bowl.’

In response to projects, many organizations figure out the resources they’ve got and then work hard to do something good enough. On time, within budget. Meeting spec, after all, is your job.

You end up, if you’re talented, with something good enough.

Is that enough? Is good enough enough to win? To change the game? To reinvent your organization and your career? In a crowded market, when all the competition is good enough, not much happens.

Good enough is beyond reproach. It’s safe at the same time it represents quality. Good enough demonstrates effort and insight and ability. People rarely get fired for good enough, which is a shame.

If you redefined the objective to be, “makes some people uncomfortable, changes the entire competitive landscape and is truly remarkable in that many of the key people we reach feel compelled to talk about it,” what would happen?

First, it would require significant risk-taking. Which would include the risk of failure and the risk of getting fired (omg!). Can you and your team handle that? If not, might as well admit it and settle for good enough. But if you’re settling, don’t sit around wishing for results beyond what you’ve been getting.

Second, it would mean that every single time you set out to be remarkable, you’d have to raise the bar and start over. It’s exhausting.

Third, it means that the boss and the boss’s boss are unlikely to give you much cover. Are you okay with that?

I hope so. It’s worth it.”

For some reason this post reminds me of the 1992 David Mamet movie “Glengarry Glen Ross” and the line delivered by Alec Baldwin’s character (this is my best attempt to recall the lines)… something like “First place, you win a Cadillac. Second place you win a set of steak knives. Third place, you lose your job.”

“So long as architects self-marginalize by purposely excluding the business of development and its real burden of complexity and decision making from their education, from their business, architecture will remain a gentleman’s weekend culture, unwilling or unable to take on the heavy lifting and big problems, happy to polish fancy baubles for our urban entertainment.

The business model for architecture is singularly unsuccessful. One in a thousand architects can afford to enjoy the pleasures that they are capable of producing for others. Architects accept enormous risks without the commensurate rewards. It is time, in this new millennium, to get dirty, to take on more of the scope of urban projects, to contribute more to a sustainable future and to participate in more of the wealth architects create. The world would be a better place if more of what we built in our cities was determined by people educated and trained with culture, civic awareness, aesthetic sensitivity and historical knowledge. I look forward to the first school of architectural development!”

Bruce Mau - 50 Manifestos, ICON magazine

That, my dear friends, is going to leave a mark.

I was going through some old resources this evening and found this page of quotations related to design by Erik K. Antonsson, a professor at Caltech. Below are two of my favorites:

“If a major project is truly innovative, you cannot possibly know its exact cost and its exact schedule at the beginning. And if in fact you do know the exact cost and the exact schedule, chances are that the technology is obsolete.”
-Joseph G. Gavin, Jr., discussing the design of the lunar module that landed NASA astronauts on the moon.

“And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as the leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new.”
-Niccolò Machiavelli, “The Prince”

The first quote, by Joseph Gavin Jr., just nails it. It also covers well the ruts that teams fall into when they “think” they are being innovative, but really just operating on retread. The quote by Machiavelli kills me… I mean, how many times do we see this play out? I read The Prince back in high school. I think it is time to read that book again…

Machiavelli also said “Men ought either to be well treated or crushed… injury ought to be of such a kind that one does not fear revenge.” Right. Must remember to crush or injure people so badly so as to not fear retribution. Got it.

For so many industries, the competitive situation is perpetually morphing. There is more seemingly asymmetrical competition for the same customer, and that customer’s expectations are changing as they become more and better informed. Lately, I have been part of an ongoing discussion and effort to generate understanding on the way that the architecture industry has changed, and how to take advantage of this change. It seems strange to call a design enterprise like architecture an industry, but it is… and its history would seem to self-fulfill this type of description. Oddly, in some cases it seems that architecture functions more like manufacturing than like design, and that mindset is everywhere and unfortunately goes far in devaluing the work of architecture design. The opportunity for innovation in the process of architecture, in the ways we organize, problem solve and design for the built environment is huge, and only beginning to really be tapped.

There is no denying that the world of architecture has already begun to change rapidly, and on an international scale. It is actually humorous, and a little scary, to talk to architects who were practicing in the late 1980’s and ask them to contrast that to the present. I am sure this is not unique to architecture (reference my previous post on online publishing). In so many ways, this change is driven by a flattened competitive reality, one where small firms empowered by technology can leapfrog the decades of capabilities building invested by larger and more established firms. There are 5-10 person firms beating forty year old 100+ person firms for projects that in the past would require thirty person teams to complete, that only the large firms could have taken on. Small studio teams are able to accomplish incredible technical feats, and accomplish them quickly. This was rare if not impossible 10 years ago, and it is because technology had not caught up to the practice. Now, the obstacles to talented architects and designers starting their own firm are becoming more and more minor, and this is empowering as it allows them to eschew the politics and mind-numbing hierarchy of the legacy firms and get on with the creating and the making. They are fighting the commodification of architecture design by competing on the merits of their ideas, and the efficiencies with which they can deliver these ideas on behalf of their clients. Small is the new big, and all that phrase connotes.

These small studios are driven by innovation in their process, in the ways in which they leverage technology, and by the materials solutions they create in the name of both sustainability and cost effectiveness. At least, that is the hope. In some cases there is just a flooded competitive situation with an abundance of small firms and a shortage of work to support all of them, and the big ones too. There is something important here, though, and it warrants exploration by all in the field. There are opportunities for architecture firms to investigate the way in which they organize around their clients and their projects. Within this is the investigation into how process can change to meet new challenges and support innovation. The practice of architecture is damaged by every firm that looks at their work as production, and that fits the previously mentioned manufacturing analogy. There is a studio model, one that is cross-functional, multi-disciplinary, and with a flattened hierarchy that is gaining prominence and is being maximized by the successful smaller studio based firms. At the heart of this model is the drive to create value for the client, and to support design, and the reality that these are inextricably linked. That is a competitive differentiator.

What does all of this mean? It means that to stay in business a firm needs to deeply understand what it is to be competitive, what is the value to the client, and how to structure and organize itself around this. It means that the old methodologies need to be assessed, and potentially dispatched. It means that there is a powerful generation of empowered designers entering a capital intensive industry who are figuring out how to do things right, do them better, and are not afraid to take the risks to do so. Ultimately, it means that those controls that allowed so many firms to get where they are today may now be the obstacles to their success from this point forward, and that is a very difficult reality to acknowledge.

I had an experience lately that really made me think about what we do and how we approach our design work… once I got over being angry. My team had engaged a group to conduct some research on our behalf in support of an initiative that I lead. They interviewed us (as they should), asked lots of good questions (as they should), and then went away to do the work and report back with observations and a findings report. The goal here was to make recommendations based on a solid research foundation, supported by strong rationales. They spent three weeks digging in and crafting the report.

At the end of those three weeks we were presented with the results of their efforts… and left unbelievably wanting. What went wrong? When did they forget the goal of the project? Did they even understand what research actually is and entails? Needless to say, my team was disappointed and wondering why we had engaged this group. I detailed thoroughly what the issues were and regrouped with the team to discuss how to move forward. We’re back on track now, and things are coming together both quickly and in a way that is creating the needed value from this effort. But it begs a bigger question.

How did we get there? Where was the misunderstanding? How can research goals and efforts go so wrong?

Ultimately, why do so many research efforts fail and, more importantly, why do design teams so often sleepwalk through the research and discovery process? This project made this clear as it was not yet part of a larger effort. The research WAS the project, and evidence based design should look at this type of work with big eyes and anticipation. It’s what we do, we work to understand and create context for our recommendations and assertions (or as a best practice, are supposed to do).

I think one reason is that research is often done by an individual or team that is largely separate from the rest of the project conceptualization and design phase. They do their work and create a findings report or set of requirements which are presented to the larger project team who may or may not actually read the documents. This becomes the protocol and they begin to devalue their own efforts. It is hard to believe, but there is still a proliferation of designers who do not value the research and findings created at the inception of most projects. What is even more unbelievable is the reality that there are still designers who enter into project work with a design bias from the very beginning, and resist tempering that bias with the reality of the market research or competitive audit. This ends up costing the client, in many cases, as work needs to be re-investigated or brought back on strategy. The reality of my project is the group we hired put the wrong team together, they missed the point and treated this discreet research effort as they would the discovery phase of any other project, which is to say… poorly. My team was pretty explicit about how to proceed, but old habits die hard. I knew that the team we hired had the expertise and the talent to provide us with the value we required, they just missed the opportunity to organize around this requirement and instead went on autopilot. Getting reoriented was painful, but I now honestly feel we will have a better foundation for moving forward with the initiative as the missteps so clearly outlined what opportunities were missed and where the misunderstandings were. I’ll let you know where we net out as I get the new report TOMORROW. I am excited to see what they provide, but will admit to having a bit of anxiety about it.

I found this cartoon over the weekend over at gapingvoid, Hugh McLeod’s notoriously compelling blog. He only posted the cartoon, but it made me stop and think. We live and work in a time when we are inundated with change. Our customer’s are changing, our processes are changing, markets are changing… we operate in a very fluid environment. This is driven by both technology and our insatiable appetite for information, but it is also driven by a competitive environment that is smarter and faster, and by customers who have intense expectations. Those individuals who stay on the curve of change, who inform themselves, and who adapt are ensuring their value as participants in the collaborative nature of business. Look around you at work, you will see these people. You will also see those who choose to be complacent, who avoid change or attempt to inhibit it. Ten years from now who is going to be relevant? Who is going to be creating value for your enterprise? We are at a crucial point where people who resist the speed of business are going to be left behind simply because they have become useless. Look at all of the industries that have found themselves in this situation and are either gone or a mere shell of their former organization… and on their way to obsolescence. Look at other companies in your industry and I bet you can identify which one’s are creating the change, which are following that change, and which one’s are clueless. Where would you want to work?

Very cool article on BusinessWeek Online about the results of the relationship between the artist Richard Serra and the German steelworks tasked with helping him realize his work. Back in 1997 Serra’s European rep looked all over Europe for a steelworks that would partner with Serra to create his massive, beautiful, steel sculptures. Out of a dozen or so queries, only one responded with interest. It was Friedham Pickhan’s operation in north Germany’s steel country. He had no idea if his company could pull off what Serra wanted… but he had a newly purchased steel press that had capacity and thought it an interesting challenge. Thirty years previously Pickhan’s company was still making wagon wheels.

The cool part of the story is how the collaboration with Serra forced Pickhan to rethink his business, to innovate and accommodate the intense challenges of the work that Serra sought to realize. He rallied his company around the challenges of working with 30 foot long, 4 inch thick steel panels that take months to bend, and as a result created a myriad of new opportunities for what is both a lagging, and historically conservative industry. Working with Serra ultimately positioned Pickhan’s steelworks in a much different place, and fundamentally changed how the company actually viewed its own capabilities allowing it to pursue industrial work it would have never entertained as an option previously. Friedham Pickhan Steelworks is now considered a goto for large, complicated steel projects. They are now considered experts.

It has been almost 10 years since Serra and Pickhan initiated their relationship. Both are still very committed to working together and both will credit the other with their enhanced success. Definitely a testament to being open to new opportunity and ways of thinking.