Rethinking options A good way that we can follow, when we are faced with a problem, is to examine the problem as a whole, observing and noting the complexities that exist and embracing the tension between opposing ideas to create new alternatives that arise from the advantage of having many possible solutions. Our ability to […]
A good way that we can follow, when we are faced with a problem, is to examine the problem as a whole, observing and noting the complexities that exist and embracing the tension between opposing ideas to create new alternatives that arise from the advantage of having many possible solutions.
Our ability to face constructively the tension of opposing models, allows us to generate alternative solutions, that is, rather than choose one model over another can generate a new one containing elements present in the others.
The end result is better than each of the parties that gave “life” to it.
We all know at what speed the information flows and how it can be updated constantly. This speed, when we take decisions implies of course, in many cases, moments of high tension and therefore leave things as they are is not a solution.
Most often these choices (make decisions) are enigmatic and provoke a challenge in the combination of uncertainties, ambiguities, complexity, risk and instability and call also the unique aspects of our experience.
Often when we make a decision, we think what will bring us greater benefits and eventually we are not attentive to possible undesirable consequences for other people. These consequences can be disastrous for them and eventually reflected in us or in our Organization, for example, may give rise to compensation for damages caused to third parties.
We are not alone and our attitude implies relations with other individuals, groups or organizations. So the best option is to work the problem as a whole. Give attention to the diversity of factors and understand the complexity of causal relationships couplings.
I think Roger Martin and Hilary Austen give us a valuable guideline for decision-making when we seek solutions to the problems facing us. We can proceed through four phases or steps:
What kind of information or variables that are relevant to making a choice?
When we seek answers to this question we need to have courage and do not treat the tension relieving factors that may be relevant. Facilitate too much the choice of important factors is not at all advisable.
What kind of relations we think that can exist between the various parts of our puzzle?
It is extremely useful to create a mental map of causality and establishing links between the different variables. When we establish the critical relationships we do stand out projections found on the first step.
Create a global mental model, based on the choices you made from the first two steps.
At this point we should decide where and when cut inside the issue, bearing in mind the wealth of connections between each component of the problem. This is bringing some parts of the problem to the surface and taking other behind.
What will be our decision, based on our reasoning?
After having identified the relevant variables, having built the causal map and terms established the sequence of actions, we are faced with the most difficult step, the resolution.
This step is difficult because many aspects were back, but as it is not possible to work with all the variables of the problem, the difficulty increases.
This challenge has to be seen as a tension to be creative and to be able to manage flexibly.
“Integrative thinkers, in an organization, build models, instead of choosing between two options. Its models include an analysis of numerous variables – customers, employees, competitors, resources, cost structures to developments in the sector, and regulation – and not just a subset of the options above. Their models capture the multi-faceted and complex, causal relationships among the variables multi-directional, key of any problem. Integrative thinkers consider the problem as a whole, rather than divide it and working parts.
Finally, creatively solve tensions without doing boring guy and transform challenges into opportunities.”- Roger Martin
I personally find extremely rich this approach.
What is your opinion?
Good ideas have the right moments for implementation To say that a single method can fit all kinds of projects is as dangerous as saying that if we have a good idea we must pass immediately to its implementation. Many experiments have hinted that a single method does not fit the many projects, hence be able […]
Good ideas have the right moments for implementation
To say that a single method can fit all kinds of projects is as dangerous as saying that if we have a good idea we must pass immediately to its implementation.
Many experiments have hinted that a single method does not fit the many projects, hence be able to conclude that a contingency-based approach is not just theory, but also applies to the reality of organizations.
We are often faced with the detection of complex problems for which someone jump suddenly miracle solutions but that carry a good deal of folly:
“But as the cows, other ruminants emit methane gas and sheep also contribute to global warming. It is estimated that 10% of emissions of greenhouse gases from Australia comes from the belching of eight million sheep in the country.
The solution proposed by Australians for this problem? Genetically modify the sheep.” – UAI Meio Ambiente
Maybe I’m wrong, but this way we are not going away!
The problem of sheep vs. global warming is a systemic and complex problem that cannot be seen with the use of solutions that do not come with undesirable consequences. It is a problem that lacks conscious approach.
Our tendency to resolve immediate problems without looking at the whole can bring the dangerous consequences not desirable innovation.
Innovation is an essential guidance for the success of many simple or complex projects and when we discuss the implementation of a project and its complexity we have necessarily to refer the interdisciplinary characteristics, the volume of information and its diversity, the number of individuals and organizations involved and the quality of existing or performed connections.
Thus, one can realize the importance of strong leadership in projects dependent on contingencies, that is, dependent on the circumstances of place and time.
I think that individuals with personality prone to task completion and the sense of achievement tend to practice more forward-looking leadership tasks, as could happen in the case of sheep through the proposed solution.
On the other hand, individuals who value the contacts with others tend to practice more focused leadership for relations and thus facilitate the approach to the most complex problems.
The most important aspect of leadership of projects with contingency nature, is to combine the style and the personality of the leader with the situation in which its performance will be better.
But why talk about contingency?
-Because there is a need to aggregate areas of an organization, interdisciplinary teams and elements of various natures. This happens on projects with large number of elements and a wider geographic distribution where the connection has to be constant.
-Because it refers to the effects that projects generate on the environment, ethics and behavior of the people involved.
-Because it refers to projects where predominate technological inaccuracies, of market and of information, the absence of convictions and instability.
-Because innovation means creativity and to be different.
-Because the context is a contingency and a single model does not serve all innovation projects.
-Because, a good idea is only really good if it regards the undesirable consequences that it can bring.
Do you want to comment?
Confirmation bias Twyla Tharp says, in “The Creative Habit”, that “before you can think outside the box you have to start with the box”. And it is by the box that we must begin when we think how innovation is conducted. In many companies, innovation is a Department with a hierarchy that makes decisions about the […]
Twyla Tharp says, in “The Creative Habit”, that “before you can think outside the box you have to start with the box”.
And it is by the box that we must begin when we think how innovation is conducted.
In many companies, innovation is a Department with a hierarchy that makes decisions about the value of ideas, often placed in the boxes of suggestions.
However the direction that these ideas are not always the most appropriate. Frequently we heard talk that once approved an initiative for innovation, the plan that should match was thrown through the window.
Innovation brings uncertainty and brings risk that often is associated with the fear and outline a plan may seem somewhat similar to a contest of diviners.
There are no certainties and so becomes convenient to downplay the importance of planning for awhile or otherwise establish projections based on super optimism.
Today, the world is global. WE no longer exports only the novelty and the contexts are of vital importance, so that planning must be done taking into account the new variables.
“There is no way to design a product for the American mass market and then simply adapt it for the Chinese or Indian mass market. Buyers in poor countries demand solutions on an entirely different price-performance curve. They demand new, high-tech solutions that deliver ultra-low costs and “good enough” quality…
They must innovate to solve the problems of the developing world — and then bring the innovations home.” –Vijay Govindarajan
Govindarajan and Chris Trimble go further when pointed out the three steps to planning an initiative for innovation and evaluation of its progress on “The Other Side of Innovation”:
-Formalize experimentation. The basic principles for learning experiences are familiar, but difficult to follow.
-Break chances. Everyone, even the simplest innovation initiatives are really experimental compounds. There are two or more uncertain conjectures.
-Look for the truth. Innumerable pressures on organizations pushing people to interpretations of the results that is comfortable and convenient rather than dispassionate and analytical. These pressures must be understood and overcome.
Learning through experimentation always brings us new knowledge and new ideas. To have experimentation as a habit, accelerates the choices and founded the hypotheses.
And because to put hypotheses is the best way to not get arrested the assumptions, the approach to different contexts, not only widens the spectrum of our possible actions as possible eliminates wrong incursions in the future.
All what is truth comes to the top and the comfortable interpretations can push to catastrophic results.
A good balance between analysis and intuition can bring the return hotter.
What do you think about this?
The acceptance of what is possible How many times, I wonder if an expression as “Design Thinking” can represent fear in the minds of people responsible by the companies. The general trend in managers to only follow the analytical precepts transmitted in schools and learning held inside of organizations, is one of the largest forms […]
The acceptance of what is possible
How many times, I wonder if an expression as “Design Thinking” can represent fear in the minds of people responsible by the companies.
The general trend in managers to only follow the analytical precepts transmitted in schools and learning held inside of organizations, is one of the largest forms of blocking the creativity that we face.
To ensure that the managers of companies give the step towards accepting the abductive reasoning, this is what “is possible”, as an integral part of how they make decisions, is a difficult achievement.
Overcome the fear of risk, without having to resort to the databases of results of the past or the fear of losing the “status quo” is an act of courage that makes the exception.
So, I think we need a new mindset, representative of openness to different disciplines and above all, and we need a strong will to embrace creativity to see the convergence of business and design thinking.
Design thinking is the common expression to designate an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving, which transports us to the true innovation.
It’s about practice, i.e. on how to approach the problems and about the use of tools and strategies that allow us to see the problem as a whole.
Design thinking as interdisciplinary approach is especially important to decide what to do in the first place and so that the power of intuitive creative processes can be leveraged to stimulate innovation, resolve any type of problem and develop new opportunities.
When confusing and challenging problems arise by complexity of contexts in the world of digital technology and global connectivity, that embraces diverse cultures and systems, that interdisciplinary approach facilitates the definition and understanding of the problems allowing an easy way to find solutions.
The problems of complex projects, such as systems or services, will be best addressed by a team of people from varied sources that in an attitude of collaboration leverages several intuitive processes more productively.
– Then how can we face up to the business?
Unlike analytical thinking, design thinking is a creative process based on building ideas from nothing. There are no trials or afraid to fail.
But in the business world, there are less correct notions such as that a rigorous quantitative analysis is the right path for a creative business strategy.
For example in a particular organization a tool like (Porter’s forces) considers five factors, the “forces” competitive need to be studied in order to develop an effective business strategy, but this will not inspire people with new ideas.
If we believe that creativity and innovation are indeed a competitive advantage we have to start doing a lot of questions that even seeming (only for others) “stupid” make hope visible.
There are so many people waiting outside and within organizations, of our ideas!
When a design thinker uses divergence to dig deep in the assumptions of a company or, when jumps the fence of the silos in the enterprise, he is promoting the field of possibilities. He does it with the help of metaphors and analogies or facilitating their visualization.
If there are things where design thinkers can be good is at work with constraints and emergency situations, very common in the business world.
But above all they know to use empathy with dedication, to observe and really pay attention to people, because this is usually the best way to check the depth of non-articulated needs and is the factor of differentiation that comes to create value in this convergence of business and design thinking.
According to Warren Berger (Glimmer: How Design Can Transform Your Life and Maybe Even the World) there are three ways to apply the Design thinking to our lives.
-The designers are good doing stupid questions – take a step back and re-evaluate everything.
The design thinker can begin to restructure the challenge in question, which can lead to think in new directions.
The basics of business, today as transformational, require a capacity to question and rethink what business we face and what are in fact the needs of consumers. What they expect?
-The designers put the problems on visual form – the designers know that when we see everything in front of us, the connections and patterns become more comprehensible.
The design thinkers create templates that constantly quickly and without polishing are a critical component of innovation. When we give shape to an idea, we make it real.
-The designers think laterally – force brains to go to the sides and examine the solutions that are out of the way. The trick is to avoid problems in a simple way to be open to the left. It is being away from rules based on experience.
It is not easy to achieve great successes, and to get there we must “think laterally”, looking for something very large, accepting ideas and influences and, above all, we must also be willing to try to connect ideas that may not appear to be linked. This is a way of thinking that can also be embraced by non designers.
Design thinkers know that innovation often involves an interactive process with indentations along the path, but knowing that small failures are actually useful because they show what works and what needs to be fixed.
The ability of design thinker to “don’t follow” is a quality indispensable in times of dynamic change and that is part of a new mindset, as is the case of design thinking.
According to Roger Martin to become Design thinkers we must develop the posture, the tools and experiences.
Posture is our perspective of the world and our role in it.
Tools are the models we use to organize our world and our thinking.
Experiences are what built and developed our skills and sensitivities.
The design thinking can inspire and inform business strategy, can help exploit growth opportunities, solve complex problems and achieve significant differentiation but it is not the cure for all the diseases.
His main instruments are the prototyping which facilitates the production of ideas quickly, and the storytelling that makes it easier to implement through compelling narratives and not merely the verbalization of concepts.
When we explore the main methods, successful strategies and techniques to incorporate design thinking into corporate culture, we can be changing behaviors and helping organizations to achieve new growth.
We must ask questions because even the flawed questions have an answer!
What do you think?
The negative impacts Today it is no surprise the huge number of products and services that are placed at our disposal and that will never be “well used” by purchasers or users. Probably many of these products or services would have greater applicability in people’s lives if fit in a context, i.e. when they are […]
The negative impacts
Today it is no surprise the huge number of products and services that are placed at our disposal and that will never be “well used” by purchasers or users.
Probably many of these products or services would have greater applicability in people’s lives if fit in a context, i.e. when they are offered to persons having in count the environment where people live.
Some of the ways to provide this context are the search focused on people and their needs, co-creating or extensibility of these products or services.
And because the extensibility, in my opinion already incorporates the other two, I’d like to try to realize the extent to which this approach can have negative impacts on innovation.
Is it possible that extensibility will be a chance to validate the innovation in the context?
We can say that the extensibility is the degree to which existing features can be used in new ways, thus creating new opportunities for the contribution of new content and for the co-creation of value to the organization that promoted such products or services.
The principle seems to be simple: there is a product or service that is delivered and then the user, without changing the base, builds on it their “unique” outcome according to their needs.
We can see this in software or in cars, in tourism projects or on product packaging in the supermarket.
These processes, however, often lack co-creation given the specificity of some products or services, but allow diversity and interdisciplinarity synonyms of wealth in the results.
What can happen, and can be surprising, is that extensibility may have a negative impact on the experience of the user or consumer.
Let us take as an example. To separate a service design (“complete”) or its implementation in two parts: the service and the application of specific plots.
If we want, that the application of specific plots, may fall under the “guardianship” of the user, in my point of view, we will find at least two distinct situations:
One, people are going to innovate by adjusting the creation on their real needs without having to consume or purchase irrelevance or redundancy.
This route, more constrained by requiring a set of skills is not widespread, can arise as refining or equipment for as many individuals and businesses need. It also allows for a real application to the context.
The other, with two variants:
1-People are not going to satisfy their needs and will follow the principle of pleasure, that is, the path of use and consumption not conscious of products and services.
2-They will not create by failing to articulate their needs or don’t feel comfortable to create new solutions to their problems.
This is the dark side of the Moon, that is, people don’t want extensibility while end-users but eventually accept this possibility in co-creating with other proponents of services or products.
This is the side of the Moon that requires a new mindset in business proposals:
“This kind of approach requires completely new capabilities. The successful strategists of the future will have a holistic, empathetic understanding of customers and be able to convert somewhat murky insights into a creative business model that they can prototype and revise in real time. To do all that, they’ll have to be good communicators, comfortable with ambiguity and ready to abandon the quest for certain, single-point answers.”-Roger Martin
Is it possible that the possibility of having a new service or a different product, or the possibility of applicability to a new type of context, through the extensibility, creates a negative impact on people?
Is it possible thatthe extensibility to which I refer can be applicable only to a limited number of situations?
Is it important the context?
Do you want to comment?
The bad is much stronger than good! Peter Sims the author ofLittle Bets: How Breakthrough Ideas Emerge from Small Discoveries made this question to Tim Ferriss: If you look at the biggest successes in the world, …, what do they have in common? The answer is: The bigger they are, the more small bets they […]
The bad is much stronger than good!
Peter Sims the author ofLittle Bets: How Breakthrough Ideas Emerge from Small Discoveries made this question to Tim Ferriss: If you look at the biggest successes in the world, …, what do they have in common?
The answer is: The bigger they are, the more small bets they make.
It all starts with a small bet and even when we fail we learned with this.
The story that Peter Sims talks about the emergence of Twitter as we see today, contains a wide variety of points of reflection and therefore I transcribe some of them:
“Then one night, Dorsey couldn’t sleep and sketched out an idea on a white board. The idea was to exchange short “status update” emails with friends using his RIM 850, a predecessor to the BlackBerry. The device had four lines of text good for short format messaging, but unfortunately his friends didn’t have RIM 850s.
So that experiment didn’t go anywhere either, but Dorsey got little bit smarter, a little bit better, and a little bit closer to a big idea.
…Of course, luck was an important factor, but Dorsey’s approach was brilliant. He focused like a laser on short messaging and made hundreds (if not thousands) of small, affordable bets in that area, most of which failed. But with each step he got slightly smarter, better, and closer until he ultimately achieved a remarkable feat.”
Among some of the lessons we can learn from this experience, excels the need not to lose an opportunity to work the idea, that is, the need not to postpone the development of the idea through experimentation and learning from failure.
Those small bets Dorsey did, even those which resulted in failure, provided learning and consequently a progress in the activity that has developed.
These small bets had eventually resulted in a greater involvement in its draft and greater excitement as they evolved.
Teresa Amabile speaks of this progress, perhaps more inserted in an organizational context, perhaps more complex, but this is however a matter of progress of an individual achievement.
Amabile says it is the “Progress principle: Of all the things that can boost emotions, motivation, and perceptions during a workday, the single most important is making progress in meaningful work. And the more frequently people experience that sense of progress, the more likely they are to be creatively productive in the long run. Whether they are trying to solve a major scientific mystery or simply produce a high-quality product or service, everyday progress—even a small win—can make all the difference in how they feel and perform”.
I think each of us already have had this experience of reward given by the progress that we obtain in performing tasks more or less prolonged or of difficult resolution. When we see, that we are already far from the point of departure or near the end, or the resolution of the problem we get more lively and more gave us to our purpose.
When we have the notion that we are progressing, we become more creative in solving problems or we work more positively and that can pass through the recognition of our capabilities that often surprises us.
In organizations, when supporting attitudes, often paternalistic, are “replaced” by the attitudes of facilitation of progress, that is, when we avoid the repeated situations of stress or we avoid the situations of unhappiness, creativity in people develops and may arise more creative ideas or more complex problems can be solved more easily.
However it is important to be aware that the negative effects on emotions can cause dismay and as the impact of bad things is much larger than that of the good things, the attention of the leaders of the organizations should focus on the prevention of such negative effects.
Facilitate the progress and prevent negative effects on emotions, perceptions and motivation is the way forward for a more creative and productive work life.
Teresa Amabile says: “This means it’s especially important for business owners and managers to reduce or eliminate forces that inhibit people’s ability to feel like they are getting somewhere on something that matters. Inhibitors can be very mundane – like a goal that isn’t sufficiently clear, or a person in the organization who hoards information – but they can be deadly.”
Small bets seem to lead us down the path of progress and follow this path looks mean more creativity, more motivation and more sense in the work we do.
Until what point is that we can follow the principle of progress in large environments where uncertainty prevails, as happens in some organizations?
How can we prevent the negative effects on project teams?
The principle of progress could be the most significant adoption by Governments of some countries in crisis. It was sufficient for this that transparently they show the progress they achieve!
What do you think of this?
The need to establish priorities When, in an organization, if we are working with new ideas, products or services, you must make choices. Except for very rare exceptions, organizations, for a good functioning must establish priorities while maintaining alignment with your strategy or else accept disruptive ideas and depart for new challenges. In any case […]
The need to establish priorities
When, in an organization, if we are working with new ideas, products or services, you must make choices. Except for very rare exceptions, organizations, for a good functioning must establish priorities while maintaining alignment with your strategy or else accept disruptive ideas and depart for new challenges.
In any case the Organization’s leadership should seek the teams with the best conditions for a competitive advantage.
Creativity in organizations is important because it allows them to achieve the best balance between resiliency (the ability to face the future) and the alignment (the ability to deal with the present).
Innovation is a competitive advantage and that’s why organizations should combine teams in order to be able to face the enormous variety of challenges.
Tom Kelley in “The Art of Innovation” proposes a look at the diversity of talents and personalities that exist in the Organization and advises a selection which, when combined, result in a “hot team”.
Celebrate the differences among team members.
Inside the organizations we can try to find some of these talents:
The Visionary – It is a person able to identify future possibilities (visions) and to recruit key elements to the project team.
The Troubleshooter – It is a person who, in such a way or another is able to identify the problems internally within the Organization and is able to handle all situations that may occur in the Organization of the project, while the project is being executed.
The Iconoclast – It is a person who does not buy all the ideas about teamwork or innovation.
The Pulse Taker – It is a person capable of functioning as a heart in a human being. The person has to be versatile in his way of thinking and is able to channel the “blood of the life of the project” the other people in the Organization of the project.
The Craftsman – It is a person who is able to build prototypes and leverage with them to make innovative projects.
The Technologist – It is a person who is dedicated to working with technology and is capable of dealing with complex tasks, discover and create a deeper meaning.
The Entrepreneur – It is a person who is capable of working with ideas, innovation, and prototypes and to communicate them to others.
The Cross-dresser – It is a person who studied or worked with a completely different discipline of working with today. These individuals make use of their skills to envision new solutions.
I think that although this book already has completed ten years of existence, the maturity has not withdrawn the energy that a reflection on these strokes can produce.
The differentiation that we found between the characteristics of the people allows us to develop an environment of collaboration and to realize that we need to recognize and reward the difference.
Diversity promotes creativity!
Do you want to comment?
The rationality and our environment Often organizations shut themselves in their walls with fear of contamination of ideas from overseas and recruit “more of the same” because they think that it preserves its organizational culture. It is not important the type of approach that we do to address the challenges inherent to organizational culture. If […]
The rationality and our environment
Often organizations shut themselves in their walls with fear of contamination of ideas from overseas and recruit “more of the same” because they think that it preserves its organizational culture.
It is not important the type of approach that we do to address the challenges inherent to organizational culture. If we turn to outside the Organization and meet the challenges we face the future with confidence.
If we have the tendency to better understand and use the understanding we have of ourselves to achieve our purposes (goals) and at the same time we have the ability to understand the intentions and desires of others, and consequently to relate well to society, I think we will be building the foundations of a sustainable project.
But there are times when the analytical and technical rationality are looking to overshadow creativity and innovation, when they need Sun.
Donald Schön says that there are limits to the technical rationality in a world where the policy is very present, and the social effects and the environment are intimately mixed with technical decisions.
So, if it were not for our ability to appeal, a repertoire of metaphors and images that allow different ways of preparation of a situation, we would be snapped on cold interpretations of the results of data analyses.
The use of analogies and visualization is clearly important for creative practice and for learning and organizations that claim to be learners often forget the need for an internal system that learning system interactions can be transformative.
These transformations are felt in internal potential in a way that the Organization itself do not become dependent on what the market wants to teach.
“Intuition is often referred to as a “feeling” rather than a conscious thought, because it often doesn’t make logical sense to the rational mind which operates in a cause effect manner. Intuition allows us to tap into circular information, a sense of the whole. To base business decisions on the rational mind only limits one’s awareness. One remains reliant on educated guesses, instead of tapping into infinite possibilities which only the mind operating from intuition can fathom.” – Marensia Lotter
The internal systems of learning that we see in most organizations are limited to knowledge management generated by the analytical information and don´t care with the need of creativity and challenge the impossible.
We are often confused by our own attachments to the results, by our fears and expectations, and this interferes with our ability to discern intuition of normal ramblings of our mind.
I would like to know your opinion!
Cultural diversity brings richness In August 2005 over one million people were evacuated around the metropolitan area of New Orleans as a result of “Hurricane Katrina” and the destruction of structures and infrastructure was enormous. After the storm came the calm and it was necessary to rethink the city! “The redesign of New Orleans is […]
Cultural diversity brings richness
In August 2005 over one million people were evacuated around the metropolitan area of New Orleans as a result of “Hurricane Katrina” and the destruction of structures and infrastructure was enormous.
After the storm came the calm and it was necessary to rethink the city!
“The redesign of New Orleans is not simply about creating more buildings, or housing, or social services. The physical being of the city is far less important than all of the many factors that make up a city. It is naive to approach the problems resulting from Hurricane Katrina from just any one angle. For that reason, a simple architectural approach to design is insensitive. The redesign must be looked at for the many reasons that have brought the city to its current predicament. Only then can responsible recommendations be made.
The many cultures that immigrated to New Orleans and thrived there are the reason the city is so unique. Each culture brought its own way of life with it, be it building, cooking, or dancing. Present day New Orleans pays homage to each country that has ruled the city, preserved in the historic architecture while shining through the hearts of the residents.”
I’ve always admired the diversity of populations and the wealth they create when they combine.
In fact I always saw the coexistence of different cultures in an environment conducive to development and well-being when it allows the preservation of values but it adds value to society. That is, when one creates something new but that appeal to the meaning that things have to each one of us.
In that small reporting described above about Katrina and New Orleans we can see that the city was building through the combination of different cultures what means that for its reconstruction is important to keep this cultural richness that not only reflected in the architecture of the buildings.
The desired result should be a consequence of an interdisciplinary approach that allowed the reconstruction of the “soul” of the city. This is possible when it searches for the connection between two seemingly unrelated topics.
Michael Michalko says: “When you make a connection between two unrelated topics, your imagination will skip to fill the gaps and form a whole, in order to make sense.”
Whether in the search for a solution to a city as a whole, or in in the search for a solution to a more specific problem, wich can pass through a product, service or process, the connections between different disciplines and/or different cultures bring us surprising results:
-The acceptance of possible different angles of observation or analysis of the problems significantly improves the definition of the problem and brings a greater number of possible alternatives.
-The search for solutions in interdisciplinary environments allows the creation of new knowledge and the consequent development of ideas, making the concepts clearer and therefore more understandable.
-Confrontation of obstacles presented in each discipline enables its elimination and increases the speed of implementation.
-The values that a solution, while changing displays can be absorbed more easily by different populations affected by the problem.
When problems have the size of the effects of Katrina, or any spill in oceans or coastlines, or of a prolonged drought, the level of interdisciplinarity required for its resolution tends to increase, that is, more knowledge disciplines are involved and the greater the need for combine them.
The problems do not summarize to the issues of buildings and other structures or consumer goods. It is necessary to preserve the qualities of a previously existing welfare and eventually correct deviations.
One of these disciplines is psychology that can help small and large environmental problems by facilitating a sense of hope and reducing anxiety.
The hope is a psychological commodity for building a sustainable future and that usually does not appear listed in the draft of a new home or on the applications of a smart phone.
Apparently the engineering and ethnography have nothing in common, but for many problems, a successful approach needs these two disciplines and many others.
There are gaps to be filled.
Do you want to comment?
The role of Human Resources managers Gary Hamel said that companies today face three major challenges: “- A company that can change as fast as change itself, a company where innovation is everyone’s job, and an organization that truly merits and deserves the best contributions that everyone can give every day.” It seems to be […]
The role of Human Resources managers
Gary Hamel said that companies today face three major challenges:
“- A company that can change as fast as change itself, a company where innovation is everyone’s job, and an organization that truly merits and deserves the best contributions that everyone can give every day.”
It seems to be no doubt that learning came to be for life and long gone are the days where qualification meant competence.
For years we learn methodologies in Organizational Behavior and Development and other admirable things about changing processes and behavior of people and groups, but we learn very little about the management of change.
Many questions are still unanswered, or at least without application in real life.
How can we make the change happen at the speed of change itself?
If an organization is, or tends to an environment where change is accompanied by the individual and by groups or project teams, transformations will give not only at the level of people as individuals but also at the level of their interactions.
An organization is a relatively complex system in comparison with the complexity of our nervous system, but complex enough to do that we pay attention to the set of elements linked together and forming a whole where the fundamentals are as a whole and not the sum of each of the individuals.
This uniqueness that organization presents is the result of the interactions and interdependencies of all individuals, whether they are seen at an individual group level, or at the broader level of organization.
These interdependencies are maximized by technologies available today, to converge to the common interest of all who engage in the activity of an organization, whether they are trainees, experts, clients or shareholders.
The technologies are a facilitator of opportunities for participation in the life of the organizations, since the Organization’s environment is welcoming the change. But for that all deserve this opportunity we must also recognize the need of the Organization to receive the best of all.
How can we make people participate actively and daily in change?
When an organization assumes not only as his mission (described and writing), but also as his purpose of action, that innovation is a part of all, the Organization begins to face a new challenge.
Managing change means to understand the diversity and face in each obstacle a chance to solve problems through creativity and innovation.
When it is said that innovation is a part of all it is said that Human Resources managers also have their role to play.
Human Resources managers cannot remain as recruiters of best resources. They must become builders of best teams and the best organizations and this makes sure throwing challenges to management and employees towards all participate actively in the change of mentality.
I think this is to make the company deserves the best contribution of all its employees.
A change in mindset, which passes by the release of the potential of each one and it is not confined to the operation of competences suggested at the time of the last evaluation.
It is a change that goes through creativity and experimentation as well as by the capacity of risk acceptance and the assumption of responsibility but which leads to a life of constant innovation.
It is the innovation that is the search for reconciliation of the needs of those who produce and those who consume it. Who produces, i.e. all employees of a company without exception, needs to identify with their work and to free the creative energy that has inside them. Who consumes or uses needs to solve problems or create prosperity for them and others around.
The innovation that is also the assignment of meaning to a life of work be it short or long duration, meaning that it will embed in the result of the work. The feeling that the energy spent will be part of the life of another person is comforting. The feeling of anyone who uses or consumes is shared when the work is praised and become visible.
Innovation is also the opening for some of the organizations to the appreciation of the work done as a way to extend the capabilities of the collaborators to the ecosystems to which the products and services are delivered.
“If you want the people you work with to do extraordinary things, you really have to understand what they value. I’m trying to get people to remain confident in their creative ability. In order for them to have that kind of creativity, you have to be very transparent. Understand them and involve them in the decisions being made. Even if the decision goes the wrong way, they still were there and saw how we decided to do this and so they’re behind it. The worst thing you can do to a creative person is have commands come down from the top so they don’t see their role and don’t see the trade offs. If they see the trade offs, they’ll get behind it and just use that as constraints for doing their job” – Tom kelly
I think this is possible! Do you?
TagsAnalyses and intuition Art and innovation Ask questions Assumptions and innovation Behavior and innovation Behavior change Business model Business models Collaboration and innovation Connections and creativity Create value Creativity and diversity Creativity and empathy Creativity and sustainability Critical thinking Designthinking Design thinking and business Diversity and creativity Diversity and Innovation Emotional experiences Empathy and innovation Evaluation of ideas Innovation and Human Resources Innovation and Management Innovation and networks Innovation and observation Innovation and possibilities Innovation and trust Innovation Culture Inovattion Institute for the Future Interception of ideas Intuitive thinking Making decisions Marty Neumeir Motivation and collaboration Open Innovation Services Passion and creativity Protoypes Resistance to change Rethinking options Simplicity and innovation Time and creativity values and innovation White space
- March 2018
- February 2018
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- February 2016
- March 2014
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011