schneiderism

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.

At some time or another most companies struggle. They face challenges related to a changed competitive environment, or they face the daunting task of re-engineering business processes. We’ve all been there, we’ve all seen it. Years of success seem to culminate in seemingly insurmountable threats to the organization’s very survival. These are decisive situations, and they require sound, considered leadership… but leadership not afraid to commit, to make decisions, and to act with an urgency that has at its core the future of the enterprise.

Such was the reality that Porsche found itself in a little less than 15 years ago. They were in serious trouble. Despite the storied history they had lost sight of their audience, of their relevance, and were watching worldwide sales numbers dip dangerously close to 10,000 vehicles (from a high of 53,000 in 1986). In 1992 an engineer named Wendelin Weideking was brought on at Porsche to head their materials and production group. He immediately traveled to Japan to survey the Japanese automotive industry, and what he saw both inspired and terrified him. He realized that Porsche could never survive with current processes and methodologies. He returned from Japan determined to pull the Porsche manufacturing mindset into modernity. He promised a 30% reduction in production costs and brought in a team of Japanese consultants from Toyota to dissect the Porsche process. He then cut the number of managers by 35% and fired 95% of the sales and marketing managers. He knew that change needed to start at the top, and that Porsche as a company needed to change its culture, its leadership and its vision. The traditional Porsche way was incorrect. That meant those who had managed Porsche into the present challenges had to get out of the way for new ways of thinking, of executing. I’ll let you read the full story through the link below, but suffice it to say that Porsche asked Weideking to take over as CEO in 1993 at the age of 39. He immediately went to work setting in motion a plan that not only turned Porsche around, but reclaimed their position as a high performance engineering company AND recast the company as the most profitable automotive manufacturer, per vehicle, in the world. A fascinating story.

original story via Cool Hunter