From the monthly archives: May 2011

Some of our beliefs

” I think of design thinking as combining the best of analytical thinking — that is, thinking based on declarative logic whose purpose is to declare a proposition to be true or false — and intuitive thinking, which is knowing without reasoning. Analytical thinking attempts to prove that something is indubitably true. Intuitive thinking is about imagining a future that cannot be proven in advance…

If you went and asked consumers who had never used cell phones, “How much will you use them and at what price,” the best answer you could hope for is, “I have no clue and why are you asking me?” Worse was if people said, “I would use them this much at such and such an amount.” How could they know?-  Roger Martin

– Roger Martin

Questions about human behavior are so complex that we often cannot do much more than make smart assumptions about why or when certain behavior will occur. In addition, because many of us bother much with explanations and descriptions of human behavior, we prefer that explanations or descriptions are consistent with what we believe.

But we can be wrong about some of our beliefs.

Now imagine that we are one among several people “with reason” about certain needs of the people, but they disagree on how to resolve this problem or is on the way to find a solution.

What makes this interesting is the fact that the discord brings several good reasons to support both sides.

It is in these and other circumstances that asking questions is so important.

Make important questions means recognizing the prejudices, distinguish facts from opinions, consider relevant aspects, seek alternative points or ask to be criticized.

When we have a discussion with other people, we are inclined to defend our point of view rather than trying to understand the other person’s position. As a result, we are not going to get any new information that will help us to reach a resolution creative.

Roger Martin recommends asking questions in order to gain a deeper understanding of mental models of others and ask assertive questions so involves a sincere search of other points of view and attempts to fill the gaps of understanding.

For example, we may use the data analysis (using visualization) to generate new questions and not only finding answers justifying our point of view.

Sometimes it is important to stop and sit to analyse. The power of analytical thinking gives us the ability to ask the right questions, while our natural attraction in design thinking by the assumptions or the “what if …?” often leaves no space for thinking about the meaning of the question.

Ask interesting and surgical questions to meet the needs of others, with the help of analysis and synthesis, naturally complementary parts of divergence and convergence.

Here are some good moments to ask questions:

When we seek through observation to meet the needs of the user to resolve ergonomic problems in a particular subject, ask questions can help us find the meaning of things and make them desirable.

When we co-create ask a question develops new ideas possibly richer than the first interesting ideas.

When we seek to identify a problem, ask questions leads to divergence and facilitates its definition when converge.

People were taught to understand users or consumers through a set of data and accept them as possible answers. Now we must teach people how to use the data to ask questions.

“Analysis of a situation can be approached in two different ways. Firstly, ‘questioning’ which involves breaking down the problem’s complexity into component patterns that form the whole Secondly, ‘evaluation’ which involves looking for patterns in the situation without acknowledging their role. Markus (1969) lists four basic sources of information available in a design decision-making situation: the designers’ own experience, others experience, existing research and new research. In the beginning of design projects requiring fresh creative thinking, the most important questions have to do with the definition of the problem. The way we state a problem can have a crucial impact on the way we attempt to solve it.” – Edward Prince

What do you think of this?

Status and mentality

My generation at some point of their lives thought and felt that many things were possible and some of us still think the same way, i.e. do not necessarily have to prove beforehand that works.

But many of us when they reach a plateau of achievement than was possible are accommodating themselves or failed deeper changes besides those caused in society in general. I refer for example to May 1968 and its consequences, the hippie’s movements or generally to the development of democracy.

But the way we work, the way we look at the nature seems that not much has changed. In this perspective we are being pulled by newer generations and they also live in a world of possibilities.

Digital is pulling the analog, though this (Baby Boomer) are still the commands in companies and with some stronger presence in some niches of society.

While the “status quo” worked ceaselessly to save the achievements of the Baby Boomer, younger generations try to reap what they call their right and that is the possibility of enjoying.

It begins to be a dominant word to me, when I speak of “convergence” as a way of bringing two kinds of different interests and motivations and possibly divergent.

What I give meaning or try to perform as a purpose is after all what is viewed by newer generations as something that must exist as a laborer.

Companies mainly run by older generations are beginning to feel the need to seek a balance between these two forces:

One force has the wisdom and experience in scenarios different of today and another has the scenarios of today asking for constant change.

The virtues of generation Y

Younger generations want to:

-A flexible working environment and working hours, enabling the reconciliation of work and life outside of work.

-Work in a team and a culture of collaboration.

-Always have up-to-date technology.

-Have thought forward, be responsive and to work in innovative companies.

-Streamlined business processes.

What these newer generations want is after all what many of us believe to be correct, but we still don’t know how to integrate in our way of life.

The non virtues of the Baby Boomer

-To collaborate can mean jeopardizing my status of a “knowledgeable person” and entail opening the silos of my wisdom.

-A flexible working environment may jeopardize my routines and my comfort and this means an additional effort so that I am not prepared.

-Have to be aware of the technological developments should not be a concern of mine. Why so many things?

-Thinking ahead means thinking in rest and be recognized for what I did, because now is not that I will give up what I have learned!

-Business simple are not secure. There’s always need for secrecy.

These virtues and non virtues are only caricatures of divergent points of view but that through effective communication in companies it possible to transform into added value for the human resources.

 

Please feel free to comment!

Based on  “Creating ‘Places of Possibility’

Constraints and freedom of choice

When we speak of mindset we are talking about a combination of attitudes, assumptions and beliefs that anyone carries with him and which determine his choices.

Depending on my mindset I can choose a life full of freedom to choose and encircle me of one or more televisions, computers and smart phones, replete with channels and applications and with that I sit on the couch and spend days to select the best options.

I have freedom of choice, because I can buy, chose a good sofa and have time available to me!

But if my mindset leads me to do more things, try produce fruits of a plant not indigenous in my garden, develop a different technique with watercolors or participate in the implementation of a service for homeless people, I’ll find constraints and creativity will jump to the ground.

 

So if we want that our life is more effective and inventive and of adaptation to the demands of today’s changes, my mindset has to be in the right place and that place is not on the couch (at least most of the time).

I have to do more than look at the problems that are shown on television or social media and find a sustained way of thinking and perceive the world and the challenges we face, assigning them values and looking for the constant improvement of the situation.

If persistent our desire, as creative people (we all are) to go hand in hand with new ideas and to walk towards new experiences or looking for interest with meaning, then our mentality is to be creative and innovative.

Some of us perhaps we’re still creative potential, each looking for the best seeds and imagining the ideal place to sow, others already with passion are seeing flourish their ideas and are part of the creation of fruit truly desirable, but we must remember, all the people started believing in small challenges such as launching a seed to the land.

 

Little by little, in everyday life, we can build, through experimentation with small things, a passion for wanting to do better things and with a purpose.

There is no software application with Gps to indicate the path to creativity and much less to make sustainable choices in our lives.

I may don’t want to get out of my comfort zone, following trends and use or consume what my heroes use and consume and not have to be subject to constraints.

But does that make me happier?

The offer of products and services, that we are today’s subject is so overwhelming that many of the things that we have quickly cease to have meaning, even some experiences.

If we left out of the box, square, or more importantly, if we left out of ourselves, we will see the world made of little things that represent small challenges that will be our small victories that can build a great passion:

Innovate to live happy and live with a purpose!

“Creative persons differ from one another in a variety of ways, but in one respect they are unanimous: They all love what they do. It is not the hope of achieving fame or making money that drives them; rather, it is the opportunity to do the work that they enjoy doing.”     – Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly

What do you think?

To wear the shoes of another person!

To have the desire for a good performance and achieve results requires an effort that I like to call initiative.

Often to achieve these results we need to be persistent in acquiring knowledge and ask questions, and yet more on experimentation.

So if we want to increase our initiative to be innovative we must have incentives to embrace failure, i.e. there must be around a favorable environment for the development of our intrinsic motivation.

A culture which punishes, by sub-optimal results related to the risk, is a culture that stifles initiative and innovation. On the contrary a culture of innovation in an organization where the initiative is recognized represents an environment that promotes the best answers to questions from the market by the exploration of opportunities and by the creation of new products and services.

The organizational culture and in particular the risk culture in an organization is not implemented by rule or directive, however she can develop quickly if properly supported by management.

But will be peaceful this transition?

The answer is to identify the main source of hesitation when it comes to making decisions of risk related to the work and from this fact, we must check, what are the factors that could make it more comfortable the risk weighting.

Make comfortable doesn’t mean solidify the comfort zones, on the contrary, means to facilitate the change of mentality of most employees of a company.

Often becomes difficult to describe the evolution of the culture of an organization and identification of sources of hesitation, but it is not surprising that fears failure lead to hesitation, and this is because either there is no support from leaders of the organization or there is the fear that the professional status might be jeopardized.

‘Initiative and innovation are often stifled by organizational segmentation, the absence of trust, and the unwillingness to take risks. When any of the three conditions exist, it is difficult for talented individuals to flourish and to contribute all that they are capable of. This is a lose-lose situation, as the individuals feel frustrated and unappreciated and the firm fails to obtain the full measure of each individual’s potential contribution.’ – John Wiley & Sons

Innovation is a culture, is not a department!

This means that in a culture of innovation, where experimentation is present, there is permission for the error and everyone participates in generating ideas and contributes to innovation.

If an organization jointly with the process of ideation that considers most appropriate to its activities, establish a internal facilitator  mechanism of collaboration between employees and with their partners, and learn with this mechanism, the organization is  promoting initiatives for the release of creative potential and innovation.

When leaders in organizations unleash this potential they support the development and effectiveness of the Organization, because they identified needs and establish its priorities.

But effective leadership is needed, what it means to have a new look at the role of collaborators in the development of the organization.

In some organizations, many employees spent most of his life running routine tasks in an isolated environment, and may not have the skills and talent required to prepare and submit a business case, as a result of his initiative. Leaders can help employees to build business cases for change, provide the necessary resources and stay involved in the implementation, using for example the white spaces mentioned in the preceding article.

If organizations build its growth and sustainability on the successes and the failures of the past through stories of these cases, they tend to find less resistance than with ideas not experienced or just verbalized.

To experiment, in addition to promote the abolition of fear also means budgeting funds for testing and making prototypes of innovative ideas and create the opening to the outside to the absorption of knowledge that is vital for the implementation of ideas.

Create space to people for the manifestation of creativity in a context can be a reality in any white space.

What do you think?

My business model

I’m afraid of white spaces but some have fear of the dark and we should not!

The kinds of visions that lead to business models worth exploring don’t start with value propositions or customer segments. They start with imagining an important pair of experiences. Peter Friedman

The good and bad ideas, good and bad experiences can be helpful to imagine a future happiness for many companies, but often the imagination is suddenly blocked by fears or by lack of knowledge.

I don’t know how to do and I prefer a tested model!

This lack of knowledge and this fear favors the adoption of business models “ready to eat”, and shift all the creativity and inspiration for the filling of these pre-established maps.

Generally, a successful company becomes very good over time when they grow their core and a company grows when protects resources, improve existing products and create new, expands markets, increases efficiency and improves processes.

And all this is to extract the maximum possible value of its nuclear activities.

Also generally a company continues to develop and improve critical business rules and metrics that ensure proper implementation, establish discipline and exercise control throughout the organization.

This means that explicitly or implicitly, companies operate under a business model.

We can say that a business model, in essence, is a representation of how a company creates and adds value both to the client as to the company.

Usually when this happens, companies also create its comfort zone and often fall prey to the structures and existing business models and fail to broaden their horizons, creating, and innovating.

Mark Johnson proposed the use of white spaces so that companies can travel to unknown lands and at the same time be able to work the inherent fears by getting out the comfort of the existing business model.

White space is the range of potential activities not defined or addressed by the company’s current business model, that is, the opportunities outside its core and beyond its adjacencies that require a different business model to exploit.

What matters is that it describes activities hat lie far outside a firm’s usual way of working and presents a series of unique and perplexing challenges to that organization. It’s an area where, relatively speaking assumptions are high and knowledge is low, the opposite of conditions in the company’s core space.” – Mark W. Johnson in       “Seizing The White Space”

However we know that the main reason why most businesses fail in the creation of new businesses is that they fear action which may provide different environments that are ambiguous.

I think that tolerance to ambiguity genuinely exists only if we design thinkers.

The ability to accept ambiguity during a process and accept it as an opportunity in which there is no right or wrong answer can lead to several concepts that can benefit each other in the final. Further, when the orientation of the project is made of the future backwards instead of projecting what is and what it will be for the future, allows us to fill the white space with possibilities for truly differentiating and innovative business.

Innovation is only possible when we challenge and question the norm and try to find the best possible answer to a problem is the purpose of a design thinker, that is, when you find an opportunity becomes more important than solving problems.

But we need a structure (Stanislavsky) to unlock our creativity-a disciplined process that can propel us towards new ideas and in the case of business, the better we can understand the structure of business models, better will be to create them.

Indeed, conceiving of a truly innovative new business model does not need to be a matter of imagination and serendipity, or luck. It can be an orderly process that uses structure to unlock creativity, rather than the other way around. In this chapter, Johnson shows how the four-box framework–customer value proposition (CVP), profit formula, key resources, and key processes–can help you systematically generate the right questions and assumptions; organize and categorize them in a constructive way; and implement, test, and learn about them in the right order to create a new business model.”

This is a proposal which, I believe, applies a company grew based on its nuclear powers and intends to embrace new opportunities as it can be applied in the construction of a new company.

In any case it is important that our State of mind is dominated by motivation of “promotion” instead of “prevention” motivations because it defines how we see the risk.

“Whenever we see our goals — whether they are organizational or personal — in terms of what we have to lose, we have what’s called a prevention focus. Prevention motivation is about obtaining security, avoiding mistakes, and fulfilling responsibilities. It’s about trying to hang on to what you’ve already got and keep things running smoothly, and it isn’t at all conducive to taking chances.

If, instead, we see our goals in terms of what we might gain, we have what’s called a promotion focus. Promotion motivation is about getting ahead, maximizing your potential, and reaping the rewards. It’s about never missing an opportunity for a win, even when doing so means taking a leap of faith.”- Heidi Grant Halvorson

The freedom allowed in white spaces favorite creativity to the detriment of the comparative analysis of best practice and enables the discovery of many levers for success.

 

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Imitation, invention and innovation

“We started human life as hunter-gatherers, where contact with others, kin and non-kin, was the center of human life, social and moral. Begin by holding hands and talking, face to face, recalling our shared evolutionary history, and the importance of human nature.”“-Marc Hauser.

Today when we talk about innovation we see that it is everywhere, but we talk mainly on technologies. However innovation is also in the services or in other areas such as sociology, economics and management and the arts.

From collectors we become innovative, that is, we find a language that gives meaning to the ideas and practices today called innovation, new ideas and their implementation by contrast with the past.

We leave a comfortable gathering activity of collect the production of nature to live a constant activity drilling straight challenge problems that arise. We started by inventing and now with innovation, rather than seek a differentiation of the invention will seek to add value creation.

From hunters we become actors of interactive relationship man/machine where the word sustainability should go hand in hand, such as people, with innovation.

IT and communication may raise problems, if we now take the advice of Marc Hauser and “hand in hand, talking, face to face”, and if we want a more sustainable performance and seek the welfare of people.

Many people embraced innovation as consumers or users without evolve from “collector” or “hunter”.

They are large groups of people who flood the stores in the releases of novelties, chasing almost without control the acquisition of a new well.

They are large groups of people, purchasing goods, not subsequently used and even unnecessary, one after another, as is the case with mobile phones or headphones.

To evolve we need:

-Facilitate the implementation and promoting the use of new technology in a sustainable manner.

-Assess and improve the technology for the use of persons focusing innovation on their needs.

-Develop and improve virtual environments to new forms of interaction, training and entertainment.

-Assess the impact of new technologies for people in their daily performance and well-being.

-Make people contribute for all types of technology based on problems of their social and organizational lives, with critical and creative solutions, i.e. promoting co-creation.

-Make people pursue a desired level and satisfactory control over their technology environment.

And if we find that this is a challenge too great for us, let us then remember what Tim Sanders wrote:

“Here’s a technique I use to rise for the challenges in life: Recollect a success experience from my past that is similar to the situation I’m faced with.  Right before I hit the stage or the conference room for the pitch or presentation, I load into my conscious mind a previous victory, including the fear, preparation, turnaround moment and a visual emblem of the win.  Then I tell myself, “you are as good today as you were then, and this situation is no more difficult.”  

The result is power, confidence and flow.  I attack situations that would otherwise require me to tread lightly until I got a few wins under my belt.  In some cases, my confidence is infectious, inspiring others on my team to rise up too.  I’ve never failed from tasting success. – Tim Sanders

 

Is this possible?

 

Tagged with:
 

Interdisciplinarity touched upon!

 

@umairh: Mediocrity asks “Is it profitable?”. First, try asking: “Is it worthwhile? Will it matter? Is it meaningfully better?”

Yesterday we conducted the first Service Design Drinks at Porto and I feel fortunate to have been part of this event!

Porto, the city where I was born and lived for many years, is so close, and never ceases to amaze me. Porto is color, are people, streets, the river and sea, and anything else that tells us that we are at home.

Yesterday a group of people, distinguished representatives of diversity, entrepreneurs, designers, students, economists, psychologist, from Porto among other cities but also different on age, talk about “service design” while enjoyed themselves with a specialty of the house or appreciated their drinks of choice for the moment.

We wanted people to talk about the theme, service design, without having necessarily to obtain a prescription for a special sauce.

The dynamics implemented was simple. We developed a set of questions based on the theme “Service Design”, which were written on post-it (large) and to the extent that our guests were entering they chose one of four available colors.

At one stage we ask each select one of the guests present so he or she answer the question that he or she had chosen. We repeat this operation several times causing people contact the largest possible number of guests.

This activity has nothing extraordinary, however what was surprised to note that at some point the enthusiasm with conversations was so great that we chose to leave freely run it.

It was installed curiosity! We win the bet!

People, who mostly do not know each other, were able to independently create various discussion panels which continued for four hours ale after they entered.

The interdisciplinarity, that we lived in that room, made possible the approach to the topic under various angles and the experiences of each were shared enthusiastically.

And now a curious note, maybe somehow expected and which could be summarized to widespread interest in knowing how to converge the language of “service design” and business!

There was one hand who defend that businesses did not open enough to develop work and who (entrepreneurs) seek to understand the potential of the “service design” and how to deal with it in the perspective of the company.

This attempt at mutual understanding took the first steps and is promising. So I leave here some of my reflections.

I think behind “service design” is there a service dominant logic and mindset called “design thinking”.

Design thinking makes sense when we talk about adding value to a product or service and this value is perceived by the user or consumer.

In organizations whether for-profit or not there is a balanced combination of powers which when implemented will cause a flow of value creation that will benefit everyone – Upstream the Organization, within the Organization and down-stream the organization.

When we talk about design thinking in businesses we see that there is a need for learning from both sides’ designers and business. Hence the concern existing schools, to the development of competencies, detected as weak or very weak.

These competencies refer to skills of interaction in interdisciplinary teams and with consumers or business people. 

According to Roger Martin, “the design competences and skills of business tend to converge.” To be successful in the future, business people must be more like designers, need to improve their ability to vision of the whole.

Or as Neumeier said  “we can’t decide between one and another, we have to draw the path forward.

The difference between these two ways of doing things is significant. The way to decide assumes that the alternatives already exist (case studies), but decide it will be difficult. Design view assumes new choices must be imagined (using the process design), but once imagined, decide it will be easy.

The truth is that success in the 21st century. XXI depends on finding the right mix of these two modes, but many of these business people fear failure, averse to unpredictability, and have a great concern for the status.

This was an experiment which I wanted to share!

Thanks to all who were present in “Service Design Drinks Porto”!

Tagged with:
 

Because it is useful, feasible and desirable!

Over the last few times I have done and read questions about innovation and many of these questions begin with phrases like: why is …? And if we…? How is…? How much…?

But only a few times, however, we refer explicitly – where?

Innovation has still as the predominant themes of discussion related to the products and it is these that give coverage to the major highlights in articles about creativity and innovation.

And this so even we know that two-thirds of transactions, deliveries or deliveries are services.

And a dimension as great as services, deserves a little more discussion, about the conditions in which innovation takes place.

Where can we innovate in services?

It is in the construction of new combinations of actors?

I think that people are the key actors in the creation and development of services and it is in the people that our creative capacity and troubleshooting should focus, on people and for people, building new combinations of actors who have an important role in proposal for services can provide better services and innovative services.

These combinations can result in major development projects co-creation and by this way we create value with more meaning.

Or is it also in the orchestration and development of touch-points to provide innovative services?

The touch-points are the points where the proposals of a service provider touch the needs of customers. Each time a person relates or interacts with a contact point, has an encounter with the service and this gives an experience and adds something to the person’s relationship with the service and the service provider.

Innovation in contact points can lead to simplification and clarification of procedures for the communication and consequent ease of integration in services offered.

Can it be in developing new proposals that are aligned with company strategy?

The holistic perspective with which services should be discussed new proposals allows us to align with the business strategy thereby innovation in services, a dimension more consistent between all stakeholders, internal and external to the company.

The alignment of the services offered with the company strategy are as practical or more holistic, prevents conflicts in implementation of the sequences we want in the proposed services.

Can we innovate to understand customer needs and how new services can satisfy them?

For a better understanding of the needs of the customers we need to innovate in search of these needs and not get only the information based on simple observations or reports that exist. The formation of interdisciplinary teams provides different perspectives that result from different angles of observation and analysis, increasing the range of points of relevance which integration into the proposed service.

The involvement of users in the articulation of needs promotes an approximation to reality and is not subject to the exclusive perception of observers.

Can we create customer experiences that surprised the customers themselves?

Innovate on the experiences of customers, it means adding something new and significant that provides a useful and accessible desirable experiences.

Who innovates?

A common understanding, team cohesion and overview!

For a company to innovate along all these strands is important that the team build a common understanding of points of contact and its members to clarify their role in building a holistic service.

It is also necessary that exists a team cohesion and mutual respect within team where different points of view emerge from different disciplines.

Therefore it is appropriate to recall the five critical elements to be taken into account in the cohesion of the team: barriers of different personality, cultural values, language barriers, organizational responsibilities and physical barriers.

Through analysis and mapping of these touch-points it is possible to obtain an overview of the various touch-points used during customer journey and identify critical points of contact and understand the limitations and possibilities of each touch-point that the company uses.

From this mapping, identifying who is responsible for the design, development and maintenance of each touch-point, becomes easier and thus having the end user in mind, when designing multiple points of contact, the service provider significantly increases its ability to determine where and when we want to inform, become involved or influence the behavior of users.

The services are not what remain after removing the products. The products are also part of a service.

 

These were moments of my reflection! Do you want to share yours?

Inspired by “AT-ONE touch-point cards – Simon Clatworthy”

Tagged with:
 

Situation, risk and reciprocity

The consequences of inter-personal relationships in the establishment and development of teams are aspects that cannot be minimized especially when we realize the relationship between trust, ideation and innovation.

Many teams have already tried the work as a project, mainly, with total dedication to the prerequisites, i.e. when these exist and are well established by the team. We talk about standards and procedures that must be followed to facilitate the achievement of objectives and satisfaction of what we believe to be the customers ‘ needs.

When teams in an organization are too absorbed in achieving efficiency on distributed tasks rarely exists room for creativity, mainly because almost never deadlines are met. Live working in constant postponements of submission shall be the normality and the most common phrase is “I don’t have time!”

This little nice scene we see in many organizations as they begin to grow in terms of structure is often linked to lack of confidence.

Those responsible for these small teams should know that when it searches for efficiency and facilitates the scheduling of a project it is put into question the effectiveness and the future. In other words the collaborators that usually fails and do not consider the failure as a learning opportunity, easily accommodating the new status quo and confidence in others appears to have no “raison d ‘ être”.

To trust in us and in others requires a success story where to fail is a step of evolution.

When we look at the nuances of a project we see that the project itself is innovation, even though this is incremental. Hence the question of inter-personal trust is of first importance, when we speak of the interaction of members of the team, in the process of innovation.

Focusing on people involved in the innovation project, (i.e. the members of the group and the leader), it deserves reflection the predictive capacity we have, on the impact of trust among group members, the trust of members in the group leader, and the trust of the leader in the group.

Trust is also a fundamental requirement in situations marked by risk.

If the success of the efforts of a team is subject to several uncertainties, as always happens with projects of innovation, trust in people and technologies applied effectively are important for the development of the project.

Establish trust in the company, with teams involved in innovative solutions, is essential and it is important to take into account four key factors:

“1. Risk: Trust by definition involves a certain amount of risk, i.e. the risk of being betrayed. People trusting someone else always are in a situation of vulnerability, which is specifically true for innovation projects, where for example large investments are at stake.

2. Reciprocity: If someone shows his/her trust to someone else, e.g. by being honest and open, this usually leads to acts of trust of the other one; trust builds up in a “tit-for-tat” way. It is thus important not only to be sensitive towards acts of trust when starting a cross-company innovation project, but also to carefully decide on how much trust to give.

3. Time: The establishment of trust, as already elaborated above, needs time for deciding on the trustworthiness of other actors involved. The quality of the trust basis in a project therefore usually rises (or declines) during the project’s process. Starting an innovation project is therefore especially difficult, as this always include some unfamiliar aspects (partners, technologies, etc.).

4. Situation: Someone’s level of trust always depends on the specific situation the trust is given (or not given) in. People might very well trust a friend in a private situation but not a business one.”- Liza Wohlfart …

And how trust works in the relationships of a team?

In principle, when a member trusts the other, this trust is reciprocal. It may happen that the leader trusts the team, but some team members cannot rely on the leader. This fact arises normally from past experiences that had not been successful. The ideation, development of ideas and its prototyping are only consistent in a climate of mutual trust.

“I never trust people’s assertions, I always judge of them by their actions.” -Ann Radcliffe

What do you think?

 Choose: shame or guilt?

I like to ask questions about what I know, but I also like to ask questions about what others know?

Why?

Because I’m curious!

There are many things that we would like to know but we don’t know, for shame!

In an organization there are always people less shy than the others. A little help for questions falls always well and does not stain the image of anyone. 

If we make a question that someone else can answer we increased his confidence in his ability to answer when asked by others. This may be a step to create openness to collaboration within an organization.

If we do the questions that are on the edge of their consciousness and knowledge, but to which the other person can still respond with some reflection and thought we create not only cooperation but also participation.

If we make a question that is beyond their ability to answer but opens a new field that it is possible we invite people to participate in discovery.

Asking questions is a balancing act that can be applied in an useful manner or potentially harmful to another person.

It is here that ask turns into art. Questions are an indispensable instrument in a process of communication and have extraordinary results when preceded by a good observation.

We affirm with regularity that asking questions is good, it is useful, frees our potential for creativity and all that is true. However questioning implies the involvement of someone else (who respond) and so we must do it with empathy.

We must pay attention to the person’s body language, including facial expressions, because it reveals many things that the words do not carry and which may be the answer. Body language allows us to know how the other person is involved.

The answer to the question can be the difference between commitment and a negative experience, often responsible for the lack of knowledge transfer.

When we discussed the problems related to creativity we hardly talk about two things often linked to exploration of ideas and experimentation. Those are the aspects linked to the absence of questions by shame and the absence of responses by guilt!

The emotional response to stimuli of shame is much stronger than those of guilt. She is stronger because it is easier to recognize the guilt than the fallibility.

Feel us guilty means something with which we feel well or not. Is the essence of a feeling, that is likely to be or not be “I don’t feel guilty,” has a relative weight when compared with “I’m embarrassed”.

Being is really being, and that carries weight for a long time in the team and organization.

Being ashamed we have no choice! We are indeed!

Feelings of shame and guilt are highly dependent on how we build it cognitively. First, we start by absorbing a set of norms, rules and objectives. Secondly, we identify ourselves with those situations. And, finally, we evaluate these norms and rules to determine the success or failure.

How many words have been spoken by presume guilt and others said with the ease of who blame the other for the failure.

Do you think that try to innovate has a price so high?