From the monthly archives: December 2012

Facilitators of creative environments

For a long time, the time at which the speed of the change was relatively low, organizations have based their growth and success in structure and processes.

Clear hierarchy and discipline along with efficiency and scales were, and still are, some of the most beloved terms of leaders of organizations, especially those that display some dimension.

Even under these conditions the term Human Resources has never failed to be present, sometimes with a typically feature or with brushstrokes of humanism or reconciliation of interests between the personal or family life and work.

Today and for the future, businesses should consider focusing more on people, be they employees, networks or customers if they want to leverage the creativity as a starting point for innovation.

“Managing people and caring about people is where the value is, because that is where the creativity is, where the innovation is”
Steve Vamos

Creativity and innovation cannot be understood without knowledge, fundamental element to be able to differentiate the new from the old or the utile from the futile.

Without knowledge there is not a starting point to give the first steps in the paths of innovation.

To begin this way we have to be aware that we are at an impasse, we need to have a time to reflect and find out where we want to go, we have to have a moment of self-assessment and the moment when we went to action.

It is our capacity for reflection that calls for a special status for having a tranquil space and without fears that give rise to a time to be focused.

gallery_bubbles

Organizations need to lose the fear of creativity and create spaces and time to facilitate inspiration and combination of the fringes of knowledge.

Social networks and are of course facilitators of creative processes, but that does not mean that we are exempt of the right environment and of a direct contact with others.

We need to not be under a bombardment of other stimuli that are frequently distractions.

After all people still accept as natural the over-stimulation caused by new digital revolution, as with e-mail, phones or social networks, where the flags are a constant.

For that reason, leaders of organizations must encourage its employees to establish connections with a direction, to find the deeper meaning of the ideas as well as its purpose.

“Leaders today have to be obsessed and spending all their time really making sure that the atmosphere in their organization encourages people to do their best work.” – Steve Vamos

Today’s leaders must be concerned in constructing an environment of inspiration and creativity in their organizational structures, and to facilitate experimentation, because we know that to have a clear vision that our idea will come out to the street and will celebrate the success, we need to create a prototype and test it.

Today’s leaders must build the bridges between the kingdoms of reality and imagination, and this is done by combining the ability to think holistically, the ability to make connections and relationships and the ability to lead by influence.

So it seems true that organizations that combine this leadership with an environment conducive to creativity and innovation do not need to recruit the top talent in the market to win.

“The focus is not: find a person who is a genius? Instead, focus: how to build a company of geniuses?” – Scott Cook

This construction starts with the analysis of terrain and for a proper treatment to the drawing of the organization. It is often necessary to remove, as Mikael Ohlsson of Ikea says, a “corrupt culture” of some areas of R&D, difficult to observe when we are inside and that may take years to be corrected.

This culture does not allow nether favorable environments to the development of human potential, nor lead with intuitive intelligence or hope extended to all employees.

However once worked the foundations we can “create talents and develop geniuses”.

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

People first!

Stimulate ideas and explore the creative potential of each one of us is, increasingly, the way forward to promote innovation.

So, redesign the work environment is now a desire, a wish or a necessity regardless of the structure and size of the organizations involved in the business.

A few years ago, early forays to new environments to unleash creativity, was an area with games, a colorful and inviting armchairs to a stroll hand-in-hand with the imagination or even some simulations of artist with guitar and playback.

It’s good not to forget that the work is not limited to the physical space, also includes the virtual space.

Today if we want to develop a work environment that encourages creativity and that has as purpose to develop a culture of innovation is necessary to go beyond the novelty and colored materials.

To create or develop an environment of creativity weshould consider that:

-Permission to be creative in the workplace comes from the top and does not have to be claimed. Diversity, inclusion and openness to the outside world and the difference must be implied in the guidelines and values of the organizations.

-Trust, through the different perspectives, in work is necessary and essential for creativity.

To innovate it is essential that there is an environment of trust and responsibility where various activities take place without friction, conflict or fear.

van_gogh

Trust and risk are closely linked with fear.

Often this image of “difference”, which contains fun and “freedom to”, is blocked on permission to innovate. This means that the reconciliation of the various key points in the development of creativity and innovation is not easy especially when we talk about gender, cultural diversity or personality.

How many times, the lack of permission is based on the lack of integration of the difference?

The answer may be on an article by Eric Markowitz where he says:

“In essence, Swann found that diversity did indeed foster innovation—but only if that diversity was embraced by the group.”

And, I think that this diversity when it is embraced by the group is already the result of a series of events in the Organization and that showed by developing a culture where diversity is seen as a broad concept and not just a matter of disciplines of knowledge or gender equality issues or cultural origin.

But will, that traditional way of integrating the difference in organizations, be sustainable?

Seek to develop a culture that embraces cultures is the way desirable, because it causes people to feel desired and understood thus helping promote creativity.

When we combine or we facilitate the combination of different areas of knowledge or of cultures, the existing concepts in these areas give rise to an extraordinary number of new ideas.

Different people with different backgrounds and profiles leverage the ability to face challenges and embrace opportunities, because various motivations and ways to look and see are present.

A new environment which, as mentioned above, is not confined to physical space and that is characterized by the increased importance given to the election factors, which are the people.

This is why it is important to remember Dov Seidman:

“The prevailing approach to innovation, which countries and businesses need now more than ever, neglects a rich vein of untapped potential. We are focusing almost exclusively on the innovations themselves—the outcome of the creative process—while neglecting the human element in the equation. What would happen if rather than focusing on only one variable (the outcome) in the innovation equation, we addressed the human variable that we have always kept constant?”

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Different culture but with similar habits

Often, when we seek to transfer information, we do not look for a specific destination and instead we act in accordance with a predominant pattern among those who surround us, i.e. we released the data, and we hope that it fits somewhere in our system.

In terms of usefulness, this kind of behavior, very conformist, is not easily explained and it is often confused with imitation.

Our great fortune is that not everybody is like that!

Unlike other animal species, much of the variation among human groups is cultural: genetically similar people living in similar environments exhibit strikingly different patterns of behavior because they have different, culturally acquired beliefs and values.”

Shared behaviors in these conditions, similar to imitations, are often just one of many possible solutions to a given problem.

However, “Many behaviors widely shared are stylistic in its nature, with no apparent utility!”

To get an idea of the meaning of such behaviors we can verify that most cultural information contains a moral power and this means that there is a right way to think, speak or act.

Because this way people have a better opinion of those who use such standards, and a worse opinion of those who do not have and among these who are “evil” seen, are naturally creative people or people driving creativity.

When we address the predisposition to creativity and innovation we see that some leaders and managers tend to follow the path based on the prevention of errors and analytical processes which although often more painful it is more conformist.

herdcol

“If a CEO is predisposed by nature and personality in accordance with industry standards, no matter what they say about the creation of new opportunities or to search for new areas to compete, the way they operate and select strategic alternatives can deny the efforts of innovation of their own businesses. – Roy Luebke

The standardization of business environments and the consequent rejection of the liberation of creative potential can mean that violations of cultural practices (beliefs and values) are subject to penalties or punishments.

On the contrary in environments where creativity and innovation are the engines of culture, new ideas are rewarded and new business models are encouraged.

Workplace innovation can be “the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organization or wider society’ “

Although there is no place to penalties for violation of beliefs and values, there is a place to concern when we hurt the organizational culture creating some possible negative and predictable effects. For example:

-The processes of creativity and innovation can have negative results for those involved when it modifies its own work or the work environment and preserves the learning process and integration of new conditions in people. Different levels of excessive pressure can arise.

-The conflicts in teams without any relation or related to tasks appear with differences regarding personal taste and preferences and political disputes over the distribution of resources and the interpretation of the facts.

-Looking for the most problematic aspects of innovation and on the assumption that an innovation is successful in terms of profit, there may be a number of “side effects” likely to occur, for example, higher employee turnover due to the new conditions of work through organizational restructuring or the introduction of new technologies.

These effects are often considered damage because the reception was not well cared.

A final warning:

Leaders of organizations will know with certainty that there are conflicts, but for fear of his own failure in the prevention or resolution of these conflicts, they opt for conformism, giving up any information tending to confirm their intentions of continuity from the past that is, rejecting a culture of innovation.

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

People, models and results

Sometimes there are things that seem obvious and this could mean that things have explanation, but try to remove the obvious and add meaning in these things

To create a company that grows it takes basic ingredients and a careful combination of these elements. We are talking about ideas, people, processes and technology in a given context.

The result will be companies that have origins in different ideas from the majority, in people different from the usual and in advanced technology.

There is a new thought of business that does not copy the past.

We know that the traditional thinking of business generally follows a linear process through the sum of the parts of different types of knowledge and seeks to find a logical solution also called “pragmatic”.

This means that the traditional thinking considers that the truth or the meaning of an idea or proposition lies in its observable practical consequences and therefore, there seems to be no place to discover or to integrative thinking of other relevant aspects identified.

It is a path in the search for solutions or business creation that asks for something scientific or as Kay-Yut Chen said, if we want to start a business we should have a more methodical and analytical approach.

What rigorously scientific means is that we should prove a proposition to be true through either deductive or inductive logic before taking action on it.

New ideas come about not through strict deduction or induction but through what Peirce referred to as a ‘logical leap of the mind’ or ‘inference to the best explanation’ and gave it a name: abductive logic…

So to be truly future ready, we have to embrace the third fundamental form of logic: abductive logic or as I call it, the logic of what might be…”

it mi

And “what might be” is the way to deal with the pace of change in the business environment where to follow a linear thinking is not the solution nor is it possible.

This rate of change has a lever on the amount of information available and the characteristics of the associated stream. Large amounts of information from multiple search fields or disciplines of knowledge do not allow us to look at the recent past as a working basis.

For the creation of new business it takes an interdisciplinary approach to support the synthesis of multiple perspectives, but that keep looking for new ideas and continuous research. This approach must be supported in a team work of collaboration and rapid prototyping.

That way, to create new products and services we need a new logic (abductive) and “special” teams with motivations and unique purposes.

Learn to shape the ways of creativity and innovation can be a valid alternative to achieve success (temporary) in the unbridled business competitiveness.

Choose the best approaches to meet the needs and desires of the users and consumers can be a differentiating and winning way.

Simplicity seems to be the bet of the near future.

Solve problems and meet needs often results from an attitude of courage when we plan to make the complex into something simple. Through the simplification of “things” we can provide unforgettable moments for users/consumers that are actually creating value.

So how can we achieve that simplicity in new organizations or even in already established and complicated companies?

Here are just a few ways to get started in achieving minimum complexity:

1.     Find the right opportunities to simplify: Focus where you can get the most impact and create the most value.

2.     Use interdisciplinary teams to rethink and reframe: Get points of view from people who don’t live in your business or industry, perhaps those who have never seen your products or used your services.

3.     Put on the customer’s hat: Leverage design thinking techniques to empathize with your customer.

4.     Don’t mask complexity, be radical: Simplicity does not just equal esthetics. Your customers will see right through the veneer.

5.     Learn to Say “No” and “Why”: It’s always easy to grow the list of features, but with every addition, complexity increases. Question the value of every addition and its impact on the experience you are creating.”

Put a “why?” of things and systematically, as our willingness to increase functionality or add flourishes “beautiful” comes up, it’s a great break in the creation of excesses, complications, disorders and gripes.

“Simplicity is not the absence of clutter, that’s a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product.” – Jonathan Ive

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:
 

Move different people in different ways

When we talk about innovation, we can talk about ecosystems, processes and methodologies, but we have to talk about people and what moves them.

A dream, a wish or a desire can be a source of many of the innovations with which we are confronted, year after year.

When something impels us to further develop our idea without fear and with an immense power, some people call this something, passion.

When there is something that drives us, on a daily basis, to perform a specific set of tasks in companies where we collaborate, we call it motivation.

In business, this motivation results from the way how are combined the efforts of individuals, the leader of the working group and of the existing innovation climate.

Expectations that each element of a project lays in their work, part of the overall result, should be regularly reviewed and clarified to allow high levels of satisfaction and motivation.

What kind of work environment is able to meet the psychological needs of people, so that they become an integral part of a “process” of innovation?

Stefan Lindegaard in a recent article talks about “Intrapreneurship” and says:

“The managers more or less thought this was business development as usual – as they usually do with core projects – and they did not understand the dynamics of such new business development or innovation projects. Their biggest mistake was that they attached people without passion for the specific challenge to the idea – you need people who have their heart and skin in the game when it comes to developing innovation projects, especially if it has some kind of radical or breakthrough potential.”

In these circumstances, but also in other similar, it is necessary that companies, through their representatives linked directly to new projects, are mindful of the need to:

-Determine the existing utility in those new projects, both for the individual and for the company.

-Demonstrate an intrinsic benefit of the work, be it to learn or to develop a new competence providing personal fulfillment.

-Highlight in new projects the possibility of creation of new personal resources to employees who participate.

However these factors, should be seen in the light of the diversity that should characterize teams at innovation and that causes the energy sources (motivation) are possibly seen as different as different are the backgrounds and cultures of the members of these teams.

 

We can consider that there are four fundamental aspects in the implementation of an innovation process, namely the culture of the organization, the structure, skills and motivation.

When properly targeted these factors converge to the cohesion and the effectiveness of the teams within the organization.

Organizational culture is a frame of reference that should be internalized in the minds of all members of the Organization and that contains all the values and valid assumptions for its success. These values and assumptions help to perceive, to think and above all, to expect others to behave in the organization in accordance with those values.

The organizational structure is a result of many factors such as their own history, also present in their culture, the way of its growth, type of activity and type of customers and suppliers.

Given that the organizational structure can inhibit or stimulate creativity and innovation is important that leaders and managers value the most important aspects, namely, those that promote and stimulate innovation as communication, recognition and responsibility.

Develop the skills of employees that more suit the development of innovation processes is a task that cannot be seen without being in conjunction with the culture and structure of the organization. Skills are developed and feed with constant challenges which force the Organization to maintain an active and open communication.

Motivate is synonymous with performance and energy to collaboration. All employees of an organization like to feel that their work makes a difference. This difference creates value for the collaborator and for the Organization, so it is necessary that the Organization create space to its employees to grow and so they can feel a facilitator and motivator environment.

These four factors are important to consider when placed in this way, but we can also summarize them saying:

After all, and above all, it is people, most important than processes, systems or…

 

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Design Thinking, processes and people

I think we can say that a process of innovation can be the implementation of a new method of production or distribution or any procedure significantly improved.

This usually includes significant changes in techniques, equipment and tools of an organization.

Any innovation process should (?)define and describe the actions and the results of the application of specific methods and tools and the reasons that justify those methods and tools.

The innovation process, in the business context, is a structured action that is remarkably easy to implement. It begins with a problem and ends with profit. As such, it is the ideal business process.”

But a process of innovation depends crucially on interactions as a way of obtaining new knowledge.

It is through the diversity and multicultural experiences that people learn new concepts and are confronted with new ideas and are exposed to a series of behavioral and cognitive records for different situations and for different problems.

When people come into contact with new ideas (different), the more likely it is that emerge any new combinations of information.

The eexposure to several different cultural environments may lead people to have access to “unconventional” knowledge that before was not available.

When for example, people acquire and apply successfully incongruous ideas from other cultures, their psychological readiness to search for and identify ideas from various sources and use them as inputs in creative processes, increases, allowing the continuous exposure to a wide range of new ideas, new limits and new practices.

The confrontation with the multicultural diversity and the diversity of disciplines creates environments conducive to creativity and to find solutions that best fit in the delicate problems of business that we face.

Innovation, a critical factor in business competition, is a more complex concept than many realize. Far more than principles, rules and procedures, it is a process most effective when imbued with attitudes and ways of thinking that have evolved over generations within the community of those who routinely practice creative invention and synthesis. Significant among these are ways of thinking from the design fields appropriately referred to as “design thinking”.

In this sense design thinking fits into the innovation process and goes further by challenging the status quo because the design thinkers can solve the most difficult problems through integrative thinking in an environment of collaboration, using the logic of abduction, that is, the logic of what can be and not what should be or what it is.

Design Thinking is a set of assumptions that allows forms of collaboration in interdisciplinary teams with amazing results. It is characterized by movement and suppleness.

In the business world, organizations have different perspectives on the role of design thinking at least they react differently to their presence.

Design thinking is a way of thinking about doing something in a dimension that represents a new learning experience for everyone, especially for business people and these have much to reciprocate with their experience, a fact that cannot be ignored or minimized.

However many of these business people fear failure, have aversion to unpredictability and have a big concern with the status.

Although all those are two worlds where what is more important, are the people.

This is both a positive and a negative. One of the things that I most appreciate about design thinking is the holistic outlook on problems and systems inherent to the discipline. Whether using design thinking to rethink an entire organization or a hairbrush, the design{er/thinker} is always conscious of the many variables at play in a single experience or product. Design thinking is a profoundly human outlook on life; it is a conscious effort to place the human being at the center of our lives and experiences. And design thinking has been immensely helpful and successful in making businesses, products and services more empathetic and human-centered. The problem is that I, as a human being, am infinitely more complex than any objective system, be it an organization or service could ever be”

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:
 

A team is not a group of people

In another night (this week) of animated conversation between people connected to entrepreneurship and incubation environments and development of startups, arose some questions to ponder.

One of these questions was related to the desire to find the best way to help build teams around an alleged visionary or “owner of the idea”, but who feels alone to turn that idea on innovation, that is, create a business.

Join people with different skills does not mean creating a team, even though these skills are complementary and therefore tend to converge to a positive end result.

People are people and therefore cannot be just an “I” (specialists) in the building of a team. They have to be a “T” with transversal skills, communication, empathy, cooperation, etc.

To build a cohesive team, dynamic and effective, all the members must be able to respond in the same way to the three issues that are placed through the challenge that they eventually accepted:

1 – Where we want to go?

2 – How did we get there?

3-What is the desired result?

All elements of a working team, especially in a newly created company and that want to grow, must be aware of the enormous amount of interactions that are necessary to ensure that the “machine is oiled” and working synchronized.

Each person has his/her own ecosystem and is part, at the same time, of a team ecosystem with its own characteristics but different from the individual.

There is a place to receive and to give.

Who deals with the interactions of interactions in systems, that is, many combinations of simple interactions, know that these can lead to surprising emergent phenomena.

Although the interaction has different meanings in different disciplines, all point to systems that are related and interdependent.

Every action has a consequence.

For most of us, achieving good results in solving problems or needs, means that we need to increase the number of positive interactions that we have in our team.

To promote these actions we will need to create personal and team rituals that help us to interact more positively.

What is the strategy to follow?

Roger Martin says: “That’s actually a lot easier that it sounds. My preferred approach is to treat strategy- making as developing a set of answers to five interlinked questions. The questions — which cascade logically from the first to the last — are as follows:

  1. What are our broad aspirations for our organization & the concrete goals against which we can measure our progress?
  1. Across the potential field available to us, where will we choose to play and not play?
  1. In our chosen place to play, how will we choose to win against the competitors there?
  1. What capabilities are necessary to build and maintain to win in our chosen manner?
  1. What management systems are necessary to operate to build and maintain the key capabilities?”

As in any situation of inquiry requires a response to meet our strategy. But this just is not enough!

This is not a direct effect causes but interactions where the coherence of response is fundamental for the mutual reinforcement of each.

The place where we play can shape the way we play to win and it’s good to think and thinking again about what are our goals and how we play. We do not think in the field without considering what our aspirations are or how we play to get there. We went back and we refine some passes and the way how we master the moves.

A look to the games to any sports competition in the world and we observe the interactions performed by different teams.

The strategy is the type of interaction adapted to the aspirations of each team, whether they are in the most favorable field or with the appropriate players available for the game.

The visualization of the interactions facilitates the approach to the strategy and enables the refining of each cascade level. There are consequences everywhere, but there is only one route of choice.

With globalization the newly created companies are facing competition and diverse game locations.

All the attention is little!

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Creativity and information on new companies

Be a startup means managing lean resources because these are limited as regards the capital available and the time to perform (including testing). But these resources are even more lean on the amount of information available or on the tools to work on the existing data on the market, condition that may involve the relevance (or lack) of the delivery of products or services.

However being a startup is also manage unlimited resources at the level of imagination, of desire, of purpose and vision first and foremost.

“Vision is knowing who you are, where you’re going, and what will guide the journey.” – Ken Blanchard and Jesse Lyn Stoner

If to know ourselves we do not need large technologies and amount of information from the outside world, to know where we are going and what will guide us we will need data, tools and creativity to the work.

Technology is a relatively inexpensive resource that start-ups support without great effort, but incorporate data into its operations, as well as being important, can be expensive. It is important because the data is a resource for companies to continue to compete effectively and efficiently and can be costly if you don’t use “intelligent” filters and adapted to our way.

“The sculpture metaphor is particularly apt and captures much of the thinking that came out of our Conference.  I couldn’t have said it better myself: it really is about creativity and art!  Whether it’s about deciding what data to collect, what questions to ask of the data,  how it will be used, how to interpret it or how to communicate it, it really is a question of “moulding” it into a valuable, actionable resource.  It’s about taking rows of numbers and turning them into real-life insights into human emotions and preferences; it’s about inferring intentions from behaviors, trends, oddities, contradictions.  Without the touch of the sculptor, the data remains like cold, damp clay: inanimate, uninspired and of little value.”

This allusion to sculpture, in addition to help us light the way for what is our purpose, brings references to elements that can suggest two ways to be in business:

On the one hand, the allusion to the clay, which being plastic, malleable, adaptable and friend of creativity makes us think of the need to create scalable business models to adapt to constant changes of different contexts where we intend to act.

On the other hand, the allusion to water, though not explicit, carries the image of combination of elements essential for those features of the clay can be highlighted..

For example, the notion that the rocks can be formed by deposition of sediment by water, while at the same time, the rivers cause erosion of the rocks and carry their sediments to the sea in a continuous cycle, leads us to a feeling of almost unimaginable strength.

Similarly in a company the energy needed to bring the idea to fruition, i.e. up to the ultimate consignee, must be the result of a continuous and strong flow.

Moreover, water teaches us to overcome obstacles, inspires us in solving problems and carries emotions.

We can say that our emotions are created by our thoughts and when are seen as challenges are exciting, rich and experienced as opportunities and at the same time are extremely motivating. They also allow us to get the information and give it a special colored when we make decisions.

The new companies must consider how to work the torrents of data which arrives every day and try to be aware of the dangerous charms in approaches to metrics, because:

“The potential is there, but the plot gets lost when ownership is left in the hands of IT professionals.  Trust me, I have nothing against IT professionals!  They’re the ones who make it possible for us to get our hands on the data in the first place.  But in the same way that we don’t have newspaper printers create advertising campaigns, we need to bring data to those who can not only mould it, but also use it!  Data belongs in the decision-making process.”

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Inventions and innovations

More and more innovation should be treated as an outcome, which is, as “the resulting difference” and not as an output or “the thing” that we did.

Create an apps seems to be increasingly resembling innovation, at least by the frequency with which this happens and this creativity has been typically associated to entrepreneurship.

In recent times we have seen a huge growth of news about entrepreneurship and startups and there is in it something that seems too much digital.

Fortunately, once in a while, there is a force (here and there) that cries out for analog intervals, being the resort to pencils and paper to do sketches, drawings or prototypes, or appeals to gaps in internet or even a moment of inspiration with a natural water course.

What is certain is that, in a very graceful way, movements have arisen in support of entrepreneurship with enough intensity and where we can hear to say that fails fast and early is the way to create something new and with value.

“Only in entrepreneurial clusters is there a special word for failure like this: It’s called “experienced.” – Steve Blank

In fact, treat the innovation as an outcome that requires effort and ability to work the materials appropriate to the project that we undertake would be the right way.

There is however a kind of new behaviors that we need to learn when fails has no way to support any logic, i.e. fails Yes, but in the course of something meaningful and with focus on people.

Fail fast doesn’t mean work without a team or work without being equipped with appropriate skills to the development of the “geniuses”  ideas. Fail fast means to test our assumptions among users or consumers to avoid major disasters or investments lost unnecessarily.

In these times we may be facing the classic problem of creating incentives for the wrong things.

To avoid these losses so frequent in entrepreneurs of the digital age and that we want to be social, there is also the need for evaluation measures of the ideas, prototypes and even of products or services because above all what matters is not our wish but the wants and the needs of users or consumers.

Many entrepreneurs – especially in tech – think there is no benefit in talking to potential customers. That just misses the problem. You’re trying to understand how something you see (and they don’t) will change their life. You want to understand the before and after.  For example, what does the world look like before the computer and what does it look like after the computer? And that takes even more customer development expertise.”

But to measure what we are doing, get feedback (with numbers) of how is (rightly or wrongly) charted our path is not applying any AARRR.

We need some creativity to create solutions or alternatives to what isn’t well.

We know that the belief in metrics promotes a feeling that if we can’t quantify a thing; this thing somehow has no value.

Interestingly if we manage to express some numbers, we are on a happily scientific path and of high rigor if we add decimals to that number.

Metrics are one dimensional, human beings are not. . . . Prioritizing things that can be measured over these kinds of things has been very, very costly to business. We have, in the name of metrics, hollowed out our organizations, our organizational cultures and the employee-employer relationship. Assuming that we have got to be able to measure something to acknowledge its existence seems reckless to me and leads us down a very inauthentic and unproductive road.  It is a false constraint.  It is a false constraint supported by antiquated archetypes of the organization, of management, and the value creation process . . . and those that sell us metrics.  We need not to struggle for measurement of things that cannot be measured, but help our organizations better understand the intangibles that are so valuable today, and that we can still pay attention to and even prioritize things that cannot be directly measured.”

Most of the metrics used, which I have enjoyed, among entrepreneurs, are output metrics that measures normally tasks performed, services delivered, products purchased, etc.

But, how do we measure the result (quality) or the “the resulting difference”?

How do we measure, for example, what a patient believes it is important and what he would expect from a hospital service, in order to be satisfied?

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with: