From the monthly archives: March 2011

From failure to open innovation

It is a challenge what Clay Maxwell (@bizinovationist on twitter) suggested! To comment, “Today’s Innovation Can Rise from Yesterday’s Failure”.

This article by Vijay Govindarajan co-authored with Jay F. Terwilliger and Mark H. Sebell comes in the wake of another already mentioned here where you can read that “Many times when we experience our ideas we tend to look exclusively to the results and do not consider the learning we do from successes and failures.”

What the authors referred suggest is that despite many efforts in innovation have failed opportunities are not dwindled over time. On the contrary the change that we are subject carries also new market opportunities, new desires and new skills.

To fail does not mean to throw out the whole investment! Fails can mean stopping at the right time!

The right moment to reflect on new business models, to reorganize the company, to reassess investments and turn them into launch pad for innovation in a new context and with resources available more meaningful and less costly.

What before was not viable today can be, and the ideas or concepts can be adjusted to new realities.

To learn from the failures it is necessary to understand them and the authors in the article mentioned above pointed out a model to review the failures of the past and remove the innovation strategy to implement.

“Understanding this framework provides enterprises with an opportunity to revisit past failures, compare them to today’s realities, and more quickly and efficiently leverage past “failed” concepts. HBR

It is at the intersection of corporate will, marketplace opportunities and the strategic competenices which emerge the new strategy of innovation that can pass through a framework in the new circumstances.

Change the times change the wills. The concepts that failed in the past are not useless.

Henry Chesbrough says: “With open innovation, we can create a new division of innovation labor, one that can support investment in innovation in the future.   If they open up their innovation process to utilize the work of others on the one hand, and share their own work with others on the other hand, innovation can thrive once more.   If they are able to do so, many more ideas will become available to them for consideration, and many more pathways for unused internal ideas will emerge to unlock their latent economic potential as they go to market.”

Companies now have new spaces for external alliances that can enable new markets that were unattainable before then which may mean new business models, i.e. an open business model to create value and to capture value within the alliances established.

The value creation strategies generate benefits that are shared by the partners of the alliance, while the value capture strategies determine how these collective benefits are divided between the partners.

To Henry Chesbrough ” A business model performs two important functions:  it creates value, and it captures a portion of that value.  It creates value by defining a series of activities from raw materials through to the final consumer that will yield a new product or service with value being added throughout the various activities.  The business model captures value by establishing a unique resource, asset, or position within that series of activities, where the firm enjoys a competitive advantage.”

Emerging pathways that open innovation brings when faced with the renewed willingness of the leaders of companies may be the revitalization of “old ideas or concepts” and the consequent use of the work already done.

But this, in my opinion, will only be possible if this will represent a new stance on the part of managers of enterprises:

-Willingness to understand the conditions under which the errors occurred. Accept mistakes as levers to innovate.

-Adaptation of passions to new realities. The environment of dreams can evolve.

-Creating new competencies given to the development of markets and new technologies. The change brings almost always resistance.

In organizations there can be two types of portfolios that matter for here and now, of failure and the alliances. Awareness (knowledge and understanding) of what were the initiatives that have failed and have knowledge of possible alliances can result in creating and capturing value.

To combine portfolio of failures with portfolio of alliances or partnerships can be a new way to grab new opportunities.


“The single biggest reason companies fail is they over invest in what is, as opposed to what might be.” — Gary Hamel

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:

Curiosity and color

“Leonardo’s powerful, insatiable, and extraordinary visual curiosity drove him to seek meaning in both the structure and pattern of the body as microcosm and the universe as macrocosm. For him, to draw was to understand.- Rachel Evans

Creativity requires focus our attention on something we never before focus a lot.

Concentrate on Rainbow!

What I read on twitter, “@redmamba: imagining having breakfast with @j4ngis & @Jabaldaia. It would be like swimming in a rainbow of creative fun”, was the origin of this article.

If we look at how things are done now and we are not only delight us with the wonders that surround us or we are not just complain of what we need and if we want to take the initiative and create something, then we drop our current patterns of thinking.

A seaside stroll or a ride by mountain can help.

Have you tried looking at the surrounding from the top of a mountain?

Probably will feel a huge desire to continue to explore the world and begin to establish connections from your thoughts, in a move that seems infinite.

The inspiration for alternatives ideas often happens at the periphery of things or of their representations and analogies.

Have you tried to grab one solution developed in a different field of your problem and apply it to that problem?

When we were children, at least some of us, were educated with some use of analogies in an attempt to develop our abilities to solve our problems, but these abilities were fading.

Creativity is not an innate characteristic of people; it is acquired and must accompany us throughout life. Imagination is more important than knowledge because it makes us dancing in the clouds and swim in the rainbow.

“In a 2008 survey of 5,000 child psychologists in 29 countries (including the U.K., Canada, France, America, Japan, etc.) the overwhelming majority agreed on five key points parents need to know:

1. Gifted children are created – not born.

2. How children learn and think is more important that what they learn and think.

3. When learning is fun, children learn more, and quicker.

4. Most children are never taught how to learn most effectively, so most merely memorize data for the short term.

5. Because young children have minds that are virtual sponges, they are most receptive to learning in the formative years (3-8) and it is during this age that they form their core root personality and form their thinking processes and patterns. Somewhere between ages 8-10 this programming stops and their minds “lock” so how they analyze and solve problems at age 8 is generally how they will do so at age 28 and the rest of their lives.”

But as the Rainbow arises in any age also imagination and creativity can and should be part of our daily lives. Swim in a rainbow of creativity must be our regular exercise, maintaining clear thinking and fun that is advised to children, young people and adults.

Creativity also needs these routines and doing exercise we maintain our ability to solve problems and improve our relationship with society.

We are not born creative geniuses but we can all participate in the festival of colors and try to find the pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow.

“Creative geniuses perceive essences, functions, and patterns that enable them to make abstract connections and conceptualize original ideas. We have been educated not to do this. Over time, we have cultivated the habit of putting the major emphasis on separating subjects into particulars and focusing on the particulars.

A rainbow seems to be an object made up of colored arcs. If you assumed that the rainbow was an object and walked toward it, it would not be found. Instead, you would find raindrops falling and sunlight. If you studied the raindrops and sunlight as separate events, you’d never understand the rainbow. However, if you study the interrelationship between light and raindrops, you will discover the essence of the rainbow, which is the blending of falling rain and light refracting off the rain. It’s a process, not an object.” – Michael Michalko


Unleash your imagination and dive into the Rainbow!

Why connections through several options care?


In our life we face problems of multiple dimensions that require differentiated levels solutions. Not everything around us requires interdisciplinary methodologies or very elaborate solutions.

But human experience cannot be conceived and understood exclusively through one discipline or reduced to a perspective.

It turns out that we have not learned anything with someone who sees problems in exactly the same way that we see and often at home or in organizations we are faced with problems whose solution requires the participation of various disciplines.

Our behavior is subject to multiple levels of influence and consequently to a variety of perspectives and the way how we build our cognitive map will influence our ability to solve problems, create value and build a vision.

Our world of solutions and value creation is not restricted to verifiable metrics; on the contrary it extends to infinity, up to a world of possibilities where you must include the solutions resulting from combinations, connections and contributions.

It is a world where there is place to the different feelings about things, and that gives rise to passions.

I am the reference framework for everything that happens in my life and so I construct my future through options that I create in an environment of complexity.

But if my action is generally boils down to choose what is proposed to me i I’m not building my future, I’m accepting exclusively the choices of others.

It is important that I identify the context in which I inserted, make connections and develop collaboration to create sustainable value.

The world we live in is a complex world where many of the solutions that are presented are not built based on our needs and therefore we need to create powers of adaptation.

“As individuals we relate to our complex, uncertain and foggy world not only through our senses, but also through ways of making sense of what our senses sense. These ‘ways of seeing’ can be thought of as ‘mental models’, and our minds are filled with them, whether we are aware of it or not. In today’s complex environment, the most successful thinkers can quickly and effectively abstract the best qualities of radically different ways of seeing from others and apply them to the situation at hand. In doing so, these thinkers develop an ‘adaptive lens’ on the bewildering phenomenon we call the world. – Mihnea Moldoveanu and Roger Martin

The numerous possibilities for solutions are developed in an environment of interdisciplinarity.

Explore the art of the possibilities is to achieve maximum breadth and depth of knowledge and skills.

The more diverse are our connections most comprehensive is our field of operation that makes our ability to explain very well little with as our ability to see and observe increase significantly.

When we highlight the connections between various disciplines we can explore creative forms of value and meaning, and to share our vision of the world.

A vision is a powerful framework for pursuing, our operations in any ecosystem, to the universe of possibilities.

Si Alhir (@SAlhir) on hisr blog fits very well the concept and vision of Umair Haque :

“A capitalism where companies, countries, and economies reach a higher apex of advantage — one where bigger purpose rouses untapped human potential of every employee, customer, and future customer, instead of deadening it.

One where fiercer passion makes innovation as natural as drawing breath, spontaneously combusting the spark of creativity instead of dousing its flame with lowest common denominators.

One where deeper meaning replaces the drab grind of repetition with challenging and compelling work that elevates the soul.

Where more authentic power flows from shared principles instead of (yawn) sweeter carrots and heftier sticks.

Where greater resourcefulness means being not the natural world’s conqueror, but its champion.

Where higher-quality value is created by doing stuff of greater worth. And ultimately where companies compete not just to change the rules, but to change the world.”

Create things of most value by establishing connections, understanding deeply the needs of people involve also a new way of thinking. Involves thinking about what we believe to be able to create a set of skills that will enable us to embrace the complexity without being dependent on the “wild” exploitation from who provides.

 “What is needed is a new set of skills, and a new development program for nurturing them. Specifically, we need to develop ways of building better ‘on-one’s-feet thinkers’, which we can only do by precisely articulating the kinds of thinking needed for business problems. These skills are varied, but they rest on an ability to think about thinking while thinking. That is, to think about what you are thinking about – about the complexity of the problem you are trying to solve, while at the same time, thinking through various solutions to the problem. Diaminds do this naturally, and because the skill is precisely articulable, it can be transferred.” – MM e RM

From the observation of connections in a given context we can see what information is relevant, deciding where it is important to reduce or cut, understand the causal relations of connections, and make the final selections.

The world is not only complex things, but they exist!


What do you think of this?

Open service design and Innovation

Almost all we experience products whose main accessory was an instruction manual and in some cases these fostered business training to be able to use these products fully.

Deliver products without a friendly service seems to be no more betting preferred companies. More than deliver products now we must think to deliver services well designed.

In my opinion, this means that there we begin to have a great concern addressed the needs of users or consumers, which is to be welcomed.

Today it is possible to combine the organizational skills with the real needs of clients to develop new solutions to their problems. However this raises challenges to organizational change for which it is important to be attentive to abandon the dominant thought in the twentieth century and make use of a process more open, interactive and collaborative.

There are four fundamental concepts suggested by Henry Chesbrough that will accelerate the movement of more open service innovation:

  1. “Think of your business as an open services business in order to create and sustain differentiation in a commodity trap world.
  2. Invite customers to co-create innovation to generate (new) experiences they will value and reward.
  3. Use Open Service Innovation to help you turn your business into a platform for others to build on.
  4. Transform your business model with Open Services Innovation to profit from building a platform business model so you can gain from others’ innovation activities as well.”


It seems to be true that many concepts of open innovation are easily applicable to the services and in my opinion many of the concepts of Design services can also be combined with open innovation.

Service Design is a useful structure to maintain the perspective of the world outside of the users or consumers as the main element in selecting and developing ideas for innovation.

The potential for innovation is not exclusively on internal focus on available technologies or capabilities of a company.

When we look at the services through the consumer or user journey we find significant interactions among themselves, as the service provider and its employees, its customers and other stakeholders, and we can see how they are involved in a process or a series of processes, or the value chain. These interactions can be imagined, built and implemented adding value to all parties involved.

“The practice of Service Design focuses on integrating the dynamic collection of service elements within a customer journey around a qualitative and integrated user experience. In order to be able to deliver this, distributed organizational resources need to be combined to create an optimal service offering. Similar to Open Innovation, the Service Design approach aligns the strategic decisions within a project with the broader business goals of the organization. “-Elsevier

Whether open innovation or service design is an interdisciplinary process that require specialists from various disciplines to work together throughout the project.

But it is important to note that it is not always easy or possible to do so, given the particular characteristics of some interventions.

“Open Innovation and Service Design as specialized fields of work do cross over, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Innovation is not always about service delivery to consumers. It can, for instance, also be about improving manufacturing processes or internal organizational models. In that case open Innovation would imply involving for instance professionals as lead users, rather than consumers. Service Design on the other hand is not always about innovation. It can, for instance, also be about incremental improvements to existing services. In that case the customer research would be focusing on current average usage of these services”. – Elsevier

I think there is however a very wide field of innovation to explore, whether it is in the processes in services or services derived products.


Give your contribution. Share your ideas or your readings!


Thank you!

A new mindset


Our faculty of reasoning, our thoughts and the acquisition and application of knowledge that we use can change and improve our intervention in society and in organizations.

Yesterday when I read an article by Helen Walters, I remembered that some time ago, I had written the following: “it is necessary to know what is still missing and for that it is necessary to know what we need. Every day will miss something. You must be available to more and more information. We must learn to learn! “

This was in fact what happened yesterday in an interesting conversation I had with a friend, a member of a company that I admire the way in which its employees live and conduct their work. The way people think and act. It is a small but great company that is worth knowing.

Helen Walters says in the article above that: ” You need to be prepared to rethink how you think about projects, about who gets involved and when, about no less than how you do things. The way that you approach innovation itself will probably need to change. This might seem like a massive undertaking, but if you’re after genuine disruption more than incremental improvement, these kinds of measures are the only way to get the results that you need.”

I think, even without a title of Design Thinking in his achievements a number of companies have a mindset that can facilitate the DT and the path to success.

Design Thinking is not a step-by-step system is more experimental it is a dance with spaces, it is intuitive and empathic.

Design Thinking is integrative thinking, when joined the ideas from different sources and do the synthesis.

In traditional thinking people believe they can see the “true reality” in any situation and that any view that opposes them is not reality. These people think that there cannot be a better model, because they are already in possession of “reality”.

A new mindset with more openness, curiosity and creativity give another vision of reality because:

The existing templates do not represent the “reality”, but are a construction and this construction is often made in elaborate prejudices in learning and acculturation.

When faced with opposing models integrative thinkers take the opportunity to search for the best models that ultimately are the ones that have not yet been seen.

Roger Martin says that “the conventional thinkers’ view of the world influences their view of their role as a ‘model chooser’.”

With this approach, the traditional thinkers consider that any contrary opinion must be crushed and seek to simplify the issues to avoid complexity, making their choices quickly and with a decision-making nature.

A new mindset brings a new posture and integrative thinkers, are models builders as a result of the way how they are in the world.

So convinced and convincing they claim for themselves that are able to build better models and at the same time they embrace the complexity with the energy of winners of challenges and not eliminate the time needed to be creative.

Teresa Amabile says that the constraints are good for creativity but the constraint of time is not always!

A new mentality it is not built with one click. It takes time and practice. We need space and the confrontation with new experiences and new challenges.

We must integrate interdisciplinary thinking which coincides, in my opinion, with the words from Helen Walters:

“Just as design thinking does not replace the need for design specialists, nor does it magically appear out of some black box. Design thinking isn’t fairy dust. It’s a tool to be used appropriately. It might help to illuminate an answer but it is not the answer in and of itself.

Instead, it turns up insights galore, and there is real value and skill to be had from synthesizing the messy, chaotic, confusing and often contradictory intellect of experts gathered from different fields to tackle a particularly thorny problem. That’s all part of design thinking. And designing an organizational structure in which this kind of cross-fertilization of ideas can take place effectively is tremendously challenging, particularly within large organizations where systems and departments have become entrenched over the years.”

Is this the new mindset that we need?


And what do we do when mentalities are raw crystals?


Should we learn to polish precious stones?

Observing the others to know me

“The ability to deep observation of behavior of people is the fuel for innovation” – Dennis Boyle

Who has this ability?

The ability of observation is a skill that must of course be someone resident and requires energy to overcome barriers and to the integration of the observer in an ecosystem to create empathy.

Perform a deep observation implies being creative and to infer hypotheses but above all implies to go through the paths of the behavior of persons which obliges us to have a good deposit of motivation.

To be creative means having competence to identify problems and generate ideas that lead to innovation.


To be creative means to be motivated to create regardless of the constraints that may arise.

There is a theory of motivation that proposes that the motivation is based on feelings of personal competence. According to this theory the motivation increases when a person performs a task successfully.

But we know that any organization is composed of individuals with different motivations and skills, and most successful companies know how to make individual skills available to the group.

The more effectively a business can operate within a framework of collaboration is to take advantage of individual successes and thrive as a whole, but not always seeking meaning to the existence of different answers faces adversities or obstacles is there.

Another approach shows us a differentiation between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The motivation to go to work is extrinsic because the activity will bring some reward at the end.

We are intrinsically motivated when we seek the commitment and well-being in the things we do and this leads us to creativity.

And what is my attitude towards the need to observe the behavior of others?

I can “go on the wave” and no intention of acting which translates into low or none observation or we can just meet external requests which makes us feel controlled and the result is also weak.

But if for example I’ll seek to observe the behavior of others and what moves me is the reward for work or because it is part of the routine and therefore is an obligation to comply with I only follow the path of facilitation and not deep observation.

When people identify themselves with the activities and these are seen as personally important, or even it can do part of themselves they begin to develop work observation with some depth.

However, if I observe the behavior of others only by satisfaction inherent in the fact that the results will be nearly of innovative solutions.

These are some of the conditions for a deep observation of behavior of people and I believe that not all who realize it go as deep as necessary because the power they have is not enough for a trip of this magnitude.

There is a subtle but important difference between people who seek to develop activities according to its strengths, which is natural, therefore, feel competent, and people who feel the enjoyment facing challenges and test new abilities.

If we seek only situations that make us feel competent, it is likely that age let us look bad, and it is unlikely that we are pleased with what we do.

The observation of behavior of people also helps to find our competence in new skills, and indeed, the motivation to develop more creative work and better adapted to the real needs of people.

At that time we don’t observe others, and we become to observe ourselves fundamental condition for our growth and adaptation to the new world.


Have you thought of this?

The emotions that we haven’t seen

Today I heard someone on TEDx Porto say, looking at the design of a label of a bottle, the following:

“It is what I had in mind, although I didn’t know!”

This expression has led me to the imaginary of the relationship between a producer of wines and their customers. If I understand correctly, the authors of the label designers had produced something not ordered but that fit perfectly in the producer’s desires not articulated.

This meant that the message that he intended to deliver to their clients was translated in that work. I imagine that these designers have, consciously or unconsciously, been attentive to facets of user experience described by Peter Morville (adaptation).

Products and systems shall be:

Useful – Within an organization people dedicated to innovation cannot restrict to the squared limited by hierarchy and must have the courage to ask whether the produce is useful and creativity to deliver things even more useful and innovative.

Usable – Ease of use remains vital to incorporate an optimal user experience when he experiences the product that has been delivered.

For example, Lindholm says: ” Most companies (including web startups), he said, are looking to “wow” with their products, when in reality what they should be looking for is an “’of course’ reaction from their users.” The usable translates into familiar.

Desirable – Donald Norman in his book “Emotional Design” proposes ” a framework for analyzing products in a holistic way to include their attractiveness, their behavior, and the image they present to the user — and of the owner. In this work on design, these different aspects of a product were identified with different levels of processing by people: visceral, behavioral, and reflective. These three levels translate into three different kinds of design. Visceral design refers primarily to that initial impact, to its appearance. Behavioral design is about look and feel — the total experience of using a product. And reflection is about ones thoughts afterwards, how it makes one feel, the image it portrays, the message it tells others about the owner’s taste.”

Discoverable – We strive to create localizable objects so that users find what they need.

Accessible – There should be a concern raised with the ease of access to the goods delivered.

Credible – The trust factor must be present whenever there is interaction with the product used.

Valuable – “Value cannot be reduced to a silver bullet.  It can’t be reduced to stock phrases we put in our collateral.  Defining, understanding, and delivering value cannot be reduced to a moment in time–it’s dynamic, it can evolve, it can build and decline.

Understanding these notions is transformative.  It changes the way we approach and engage our customers.  It makes it so much easier.  Our effectiveness and impact skyrocket.  It’s funny how things like this work, it’s always easier when we start with the customer?

– Are you starting with the customer?

– Do you seek to understand how your customer defines value?

– Do you help the customer understand what they value?

– Do you help the customer discover things they never thought possible?”-David Brock

Understand the user or consumer and try to overcome it is a desire that cannot dissipate with squares delimited by managers.

If the case reported in early may have been a happy coincidence, I think we can say that it is possible to create these coincidences giving the steps here pointed to!

Deliver value, but the real value, is a work of art! Don’t you think so?


Different foci on fear

It can not only will resistance to change but it can also be the fear of the unknown which blocks organizations to look to the future thinking on innovation.

Idris Mootee advises the mapping of whitespace in innovation as a tool to overcome the fears.

“White space is a process and tool that allows us to look at the landscape up and down the value chain with a new lens. It can help uncover opportunities that are not obvious ; it can identify new openings untouched by competitors, or it can be considered part of what was traditionally deemed a remote, different industry or outside the boundaries of the firm”.

We do not discover surprising opportunities only by serendipity. This discovery of unique opportunities can be the result of a creative work and research-oriented and consistent.

The process can be used to identify entirely new markets, or can be used to map an incremental innovation in products or services.

To fill this white space is important to know the interests and needs of customers, which are to understand how individuals think and discover their “cognitive maps”, that is, their hidden needs.

The analysis that is behind hidden needs is not simple. Asking questions can be ineffective and therefore we need new approaches designed in large part by anthropology and psychology, to find out opinions and beliefs of people.

When an organization perceives the need to find new paths of development and seek new spaces of action, look for a blank space without prejudices or prisons of schemas, the best way is to depart from a blank space and color it.

Idris Mottee points three foci for the mapping of a whitespace:

The externally-focused perspective “begins with mapping the market, products, or services in your markets and determining whether these are served, under-served or un-served. The goal is to find gaps in existing markets, products, or service lines that represent opportunities for your business”.

We do not look for just knowing the market positioning of the Organization but especially finding an approximation to unknown or hidden through a process centered on people. Non-articulated needs can represent a gap to fill.

Internally-focused perspective enables us to map the Organization’s capacity to deal with new opportunities or face threats from competitors. “This process is used to determine how efficiently and effectively you can react to opportunities and threats from  process, systems and structural perspectives”.

At this time some of the deepest fears possibly begin to emerge and walk towards sublimation. People tend to show competent even recognizing skill shortages in some areas.

The future focused “white space mapping process will put an emphasis on applied strategic foresights.  Usually there is a time horizon no less than 5 years and involving input from strategic foresight exercises”.

When talking about future or forward our point of departure can vary greatly, from an analytical profile to one of the dreamer and visionary.

For many analytical this mapping process can become difficult and even painful. Fears of embark on a journey not determined by past or exclusively by trend can (I imagine) to block the view of the future.

Basically the basis for this process is people, the knowledge we have and the ability to draw prospective conclusions of needs and desires of others. White space can provide fear for fill something without having certainty and can provide a block to intuition, but when well worked can result in expression of potential and a great business opportunity.

A white space can allow the passing of a mystery (for example, how people want to eat in the world today) – to heuristic (a restaurant in an environment of high traffic) for the algorithm (a process that can be replicated and deployed with speed).

Can fears be strong enough to prevent the discovery of new spaces?

Tagged with:

Recognize learning

Learn by doing or learn from mistakes is always an opportunity for personal and organizational growth.

Many times when we experience our ideas we tend to look exclusively to the results and do not consider the learning we do from successes and failures.

It is worth pointing out that innovation is not a result solely of a genial idea that followed a linear path to win consumers or users.

Vijay Govindarajan says:  Innovation = ƒ(Strategy + Creativity + Execution)

And because to reach a good end result is necessary to experiment new ideas and to do so successfully, there are three variables to consider:

Ideation Success = ƒ(Encourage + Fail + Combine)

Encourage constant low-cost experiments, have hope for failure because it will mean the organization is stretching, and Learn how to combine failed ideas to form exciting new ones is the “magic” formula according to Govindarajan.

Try and fail early translates into lower cost and in a continuous learning until the final result, but to do this it is necessary that the fear is not present, which means that the culture of the organization do not penalizes the fail.

In other words, without fear of non-recognition by the effort and encouraging and recognizing learning as a positive factor in performance, organizations leverage the effectiveness in implementation.

Experimentation not only allows you to check the validity of the idea as allows depart in a more solid way ideas that are not consequential, which populate the imaginary of people in the organization while giving way to a style of learning that organization.

“Bite off as little a piece as possible to generate proof – a small experiment instead of a big one.” Roger Martin

Think big start small is an expression already common that fits in the quote above. When we want to do experiments in early phases of implementation we should already be aware that previous were experienced, if not we increase unnecessary costs. This is a situation that occurs frequently in software projects and that drags headaches and very little learning.

Small successes are great rewards because they are fuel for the journey.

These successes often arise when combining ideas as a result of debates.

One of the most fun and fruitful steps of developing ideas is experimentation. Experimentation allows us to test our concept or our imagination fits with the desired reality.

All the details or components of our idea, are viewed and all connections are checked, reduced or enlarged to achieve our objective.

Experimentation leads to curiosity and encourages questions and hypotheses. This attitude of curiosity caused produces energy and launches the debate.

This debate is vital and needs diversified teams, i.e., interdisciplinary teams. When people around an idea have all or most of them, knowledge and practices in the same disciplines, the results are convergent and potentially limited. At some moment the divergence is crucial for creativity.

But at the core of the implementation process is prototyping, turning ideas into actual products and services which will then be tested, placed in interaction and refined.

Through prototypes, we seek to discover unforeseen implementation challenges and unintended consequences, in order to obtain more reliable results of long-term success. Prototyping can validate a component of an electronic device such as a detail on the interaction between a transmitter and a receiver.

After the completion of the process of prototyping and the final product or service be created, the team helps to create a communication strategy.

And all this way, being allowed, learning is done even with the flaws and contributes to consolidating the culture of the organization.

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:


No matter how small is a project it is part of a structure of an organization that normally assumes a culture dependent on the ecosystem where the culture develops.

Still reflecting on the GSJ11 in Lisbon and without appeal to the organizational culture we can say that the attitudes of the participants derived from a collective culture. And our collective culture is focused on champions, idols and stars. We are all, or we want to be “All stars”.

However we forget that all the called stars need help from others to shine in the sky. The culture of the star is the opposite of “collaborative culture.”

The stars need time to learn and train, need time to deal with image and time to maintain or increase their legion of fans.

The superheroes need people and 48 hours are enough to create meaning and well-being to a lot of people! That is what happened in those days. The time is people, i.e. the way people collaborate or not.

What is time?

The time is people, from the moment in which, with their creativity and inventiveness they created the technology and put at their service. But it is not always easy to have the notion that we need in every moment (long).

Sometimes we need to stop the time and have time to do nothing! we need time to reflect.

This is not an equilibrium specific demand in a Workshop, or another event, the demand for time to analyze the route that we follow and if it is collaboration or systematic confrontation!

The time is or are the people. We or they and them when we want to expose our most precious and elaborate content, but we couldn’t predict how are other people.

Is it their availability enough to hear or read what we write? Will clearly know listen but also want to be heard? What means the time for them?

Sometimes the time, this time for dialogue with groups more or less passive, is alike the sugar water to heat. You must take care not to deteriorate.


By analogy to a recipe!

Do a mix of concepts with examples or good practice and put in a room with an inspiring environment. We let the climate to develop to the full integration of the participants.

As soon as the environment becomes warm and allows some daydreams by participants, filter-if interventions with impurities and passed for another matter scheduled. (We should not leave residues of interventions or unfinished conversations).

Tidy up the concepts together with the samples so as to enable a discussion later. To prevent the adhesion of extemporaneous comments, by virtue of any reduction of the time, pointed out the next steps.

The environment must be monitored constantly, because the different phases of the exhibition, which are very near each other, can correspond to different uses.

When it reaches the desired point, must act quickly and question the group. We can add a few drops of naturally good disposition to motivate the participants.

But when the group begins to vibrate, becomes irreversible.

Our ideal point determines the note or with the help of small exhibitions, that evaluate the integration of knowledge and satisfaction of the members of the group.

Must serve in individual doses!

The time is people and there are hot, cold, dry weather and wet weather. The important thing is to feel our time!

Tagged with: