Patrick
Keenan

Zappos, Hong-Kong, Texas, Knowledge Work, and Builders. What do they have in common?

Trying to do the right thing is not enough. Doing something well is not enough. Dank pink accompanied by the wonderful RSA graphic facilitator makes a point: knowledge work doesn’t work with traditional incentives. There’s no systematic reward system you can apply to increase the quality of ideas. For rote work you can pay people more for more widgets produced per hour. For knowledge work the more you pay people doesn’t matter, in fact it sometimes makes output worse. The lesson is pay people enough to forget about money. But again, this isn’t enough.

Knowledge work requires a sense of purpose about the task. However its framed, the person must be able to find the meaning in the mundane. I believe this meaning boils down to culture. Working on purpose meanings doing something you believe is right. You might not quite know WHY its right, but in that gut reaction is the essence of culture.

The recent financial crisis highlights a culture of entitlement: incentives, bonuses, and frankly, innovation. But missing from the complex knowledge work that anyone would have to commit brainpower toward, is a cultural purpose beyond money.

On the other hand, the endless emergency that is global poverty overcompensates. In the field lies a bunch of committed workers boot-strapping aid, and in the board rooms here in Geneva are a bunch of well meaning bureaucrats arguing about rights. The gap between donor and impact is huge, its unmeasured, and far from effective. This group has a purpose, but is not working with purpose.

An example of purpose can be found at Zappos(fastcompany), and gives me hope that a culture might scale:

Some board members had always viewed our company culture as a pet project — “Tony’s social experiments,” they called it. I disagreed. I believe that getting the culture right is the most important thing a company can do… We have close to 1,800 employees now, and I think we’re proof that a company doesn’t have to lose itself as it grows bigger — or even after it gets acquired.

Another well outlined contrast of these two worlds of accidents and purpose lies in thoughts by Umair Haque, The Builder’s Manifesto:

1. The boss drives group members; the leader coaches them. The Builder learns from them.
2. The boss depends upon authority; the leader on good will. The Builder depends on good.
3. The boss inspires fear; the leader inspires enthusiasm. The Builder is inspired — by changing the world.
4. The boss says “I”; the leader says “we”. The Builder says “all” — people, communities, and society.
5. The boss assigns the task, the leader sets the pace. The Builder sees the outcome.
6. The boss says, “Get there on time;” the leader gets there ahead of time. The Builder makes sure “getting there” matters.
7. The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown; the leader fixes the breakdown. The Builder prevents the breakdown.
8. The boss knows how; the leader shows how. The Builder shows why.
9. The boss makes work a drudgery; the leader makes work a game. The Builder organizes love, not work.
10. The boss says, “Go;” the leader says, “Let’s go.” The Builder says: “come.”

Too often rules get in the way of working on purpose. Builders in Haque’s sense are fraught with challenges in changing the ingrained perspective of leaders and bosses. Just listening to a TEDx talk by this funny and humble Texas architect has made me see the real question lies in the evolution of rules. Michael Reynolds has lots of solutions for getting green buildings past building codes, but it seems like the best one is “go where there are no building codes”.

So I’d like to point finally to the most difficult article I’ve read in a while. Its written clearly, but the ideas that lie within are so jarring that I’ve been mentally chewing on it like a piece of plastic left in your food.

In a sense, Britain inadvertently, through its actions in Hong Kong, did more to reduce world poverty than all the aid programs that we’ve undertaken in the last century”
Now this might not be so hard to swallow. Though Hong-Kong was essentially a place where drugs and prostitution ran rampant, it was also an economic powerhouse. Dropping the rules, and having a state apart from Britain allowed for innovation, and massive breaks from historic norms.

Romer takes Hong-Kong and other historic examples of how new states led to economic progress and advocates we do the same. Essentially, a developed country would set out a loose charter for a new state within a developing country’s boarders(likely somewhere in Africa). In this new state, business would feel secure and be incentivize to set up shop. People from the developing country could come in for jobs, and take out the money they made. The surprising thing is that the challenge is more from the potential pseudo-colonizer, rather than the potential pseudo-colony:

Despite the good arguments that Romer makes for his vision, the responsibilities entailed in Empire 2.0 are not popular. How would a rich government contend with the shantytowns that might spring up around the borders of a charter city? Would it deport the inhabitants, and be accused of human-rights abuses? Or tolerate them and allow its oasis to be overrun with people who don’t respect its city charter? And what would the foreign trustee do if its host tried to nullify the lease? Would it defend its development experiment with an expeditionary army, as Margaret Thatcher defended the Falklands?

The point though, is that people from developed nations are rapidly heading to places where they have no citizenship:

In fact, you could say Romer’s assertion—that voting with your feet can be a palatable alternative to casting a ballot—already has 214 million adherents, for that is the number of people who have chosen to leave their home countries and settle as migrants in places where they have no political vote.
Romer’s idea is really really difficult. There’s a gut reaction against forming new colonies before even seeing any details of impact. That’s your culture kicking in. We need ideas like this, if only to point out where our limits of rationale argument lie.

Zappos, Hong-Kong, Texas, Knowledge Work, and Builders. What do they have in common?

These are places, physical, legal, mental, places that allow for, and encourage new thinking. This new thinking inevitably changes the rest of society. Even wonder why Japan has such strange culture, or the Galapagos islands such strange animals? Isolation creates new cultures, and its only through these new culture that we progress. But we need a culture that’s not only different. We need a culture that is both driven by results, and working on purpose.

I’d like to write more. Not the first time I’ve said that, but its true. The problem is, I’m interested in so many things that writing in one place(this blog) has become difficult. Its that case of the past defining your future. This blog is meant as a place where those little things in my life go, because they don’t fit elsewhere. The truth is that its turned into a chore. Funny how those things work. First it starts as a random creation, then a hobby, then a chore. I’d like writing to be fun in a way, but the more I read, the more I realize people who write for fun aren’t worth reading. Likely they’ve just not spent enough time making what they write readable. And so we come back to this blog. I think in a sense, I am a writer. That’s what I feel compelled to do, on one condition:

That no one tell me what to write

I struggle with definitions, of words, of ideas. Recently I cam across a grand talk, one by Alan Webber. He argues that we’ve lost site of what our vision is, as a society. I’m going to take a leap and say even the world. The States is a focus in the talk, but the ideas apply elsewhere. The Semi-Genuine I think pervades all our lives. We fool ourselves into working for long periods of time. We make reasons to justify our savings, our spending, our convictions, and our doubts. Really, its this lack of a coherent vision that puts us in circumstances that we might not be all together satisfied with. But…

It’s that coherent vision that blinds us.

In his talk, Alan mentions a great quote. He attributes it to the person behind the European unification:

One cannot focus on the objective and oneself at the same time.

The lesson is extracted to the effect that there are people who want to do something and other who want to be something. You might have a coherent vision of something you want to do, say reform healthcare. Others might have a desire to be someone, say an important Politician. Webber, I believe, is saying that its much better to be in a situation where you are trying to do something. I buy that. Clearly you can’t work with people if all they care about is how they look, or are only looking to gain for themselves. The tricky part is that

The thing you want to do might be in the way of you realizing what you are

I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think we can become drastically different people. There is a place for radical change, and there is a place for accepting and working with yourself. I do agree with Webber’s more practical points of focusing on more social metrics for progress rather than GDP. My only concern is that this coherent vision seems like the end point. Rather, as a whole species, we need to continually refining that vision. In such a case, its not a vision so much as a process. I will end on some synonyms, since words is what I do…

be | verb

1. there was once a king: exist, have being, have existence; live, be alive, have life, breathe, draw breath, be extant.
2. the trial is tomorrow at half past one: occur, happen, take place, come about, arise, crop up, transpire, fall, materialize, ensue; literary come to pass, befall, betide.
3. the bed is over there: be situated, be located, be found, be present, be set, be positioned, be placed, be installed.

do | verb

1. she does most of the manual work: carry out, undertake, discharge, execute, perform, accomplish, achieve; bring about/off, engineer; informal pull off; formal effectuate.
2. they can do as they please: act, behave, conduct oneself, acquit oneself; formal comport oneself.
3. regular coffee will do: suffice, be adequate, be satisfactory, fill/fit the bill, serve one’s purpose, meet one’s needs.
4. the boys will do the dinner: prepare, make, get ready, see to, arrange, organize, be responsible for, be in charge of; informal fix.
5. the company is doing a new range of footwear | a portrait I am doing: make, create, produce, turn out, design, manufacture; paint, draw, sketch; informal knock off.
6. each room was done in a different color: decorate, furnish, ornament, deck out, trick out; informal do up.
7. the maid did her hair: style, arrange, adjust; brush, comb, wash, dry, cut; informal fix.
8. I am doing a show to raise money: put on, present, produce; perform in, act in, take part in, participate in.
9. you’ve done me a favor: grant, pay, render, give.
10. show me how to do these equations: work out, figure out, calculate; solve, resolve.
11. she’s doing archaeology: study, learn, take a course in.
12. what does he do? have as a job, have as a profession, be employed at, earn a living at.
13. he is doing well at college: get on/along, progress, fare, manage, cope; succeed, prosper.
14. he was doing 25 mph over the speed limit: drive at, travel at, move at.
15. the cyclists do 30 kilometers per day: travel (over), journey, cover, traverse, achieve, notch up, log; informal chalk up.

We’ve had a shift. With accessible micro-finance platforms such as Kiva, a surge in small donations such as the Obama campaign, a growth in micro-payments in the music industry most prominent in the iTunes store, and even light-weight physical payment systems such as square, small is the new big. I don’t have to mention the Next Billion, represented by the growing middle class in India and China, or the Bottom Billion, many now seen as viable business operators. I won’t talk about the power of the internet to bring a product to market and to *scale in comparatively miniscule timeframes. I might point to the growing concern in consumers that goods should be produced, sold, consumed, and re-purposed in an ethical & well designed manner. I have to accept that people continue to base 80% of their purchases on *emotional criteria. I will just say that this is the world in which we operate, and it is a new, and different, age of patronage.

My recent audiobook has been a challenging look at the ineptitude of the common man: *The Foundtainhead. I should say I’m not yet finished, so I might change my mind should there be a twist ending. For now I’ll keep my mind changed. The book highlights the failure of most people to recognize what is “good” from what is “contrived”. In fact it proposes that the property that makes man great is his ability to value one thing over another. When you look at something, and say “yes” to it, you own it, it becomes yours in your individual way. The author is an outward support of free market capitalism, I assume this is because of such a system’s hands-off nature on where individuals place their value(money). Though this may be the case in a pure market, where all are born with the same account balance, all given the same ability to assess potential purchases, it is not the case today. Again, this is not a problem, it simply “is”. But there is a point of optimistic difference.

In this new world where there is a striking financial imbalance from north to south, there is an equal and opposite force: the ability for individuals to find and support operations of value. In the fountainhead, as is true in the past, the major form of media is the newspaper. This newspaper acts as influencer of the common man, not intentionally warping people’s views, but rather giving the sad masses what they really want: gossip, scandal, and fluff. The internet changes this. It allows individuals to find, then support, what they see as valuable. This is why we want to see the business operator we’re funding for $25. It’s why we want to eliminate the middle man between us and our favourite bands. Why we look to local cafes that are interesting and human rather than a Starbucks. Why we see a demand for charities to be transparent, innovative, and efficient. Even why we see charities themselves should build up capacity not by handouts, but by stimulating small business growth. Its why we buy the organic apple juice for 10 more cents. All of this is because we can now find and spread what we value, and we can do this because of the web.

Kickstart is one example among many, but it is beautifully articulated. A creator can explain what they have, or will, create(a song, a book, an event). People can then contribute. Based on contribution, varying levels of rewards are given(a personal concert, a gold edition, a front row seat).

Just as a king values a jester, or wishes a large church instead of a painting, we are choosing who we’ll support. The point is that we are all patrons now, and there are plenty of artisans seeking to perform. The difference is that we are not patrons alone, we are micro-patrons, and our aggregate can support many more, and divergent, activities. In the fountainhead, the genius architect doesn’t need much. He continues architecture whether on a remote country house, or a resort people will never see. It is his commitment and resolve which creates beautiful work. He finishes his buildings for himself, and his clients “happen” to find value as well. For him there is one overriding purpose: to shape the world in the way he knows it should be. For him it took decades to meet the people who “get it”. If it were today he might find them much faster.

A purchase is not just filling a need. Its not voting with your dollar. Its not being a conscious consumer. A purchase, or lack thereof, is a contention of feel the world “should be”. From bath soap to bannisters, purchases will become the vehicle for patronage. Do you know who you’re patronizing?

I read a really great phrase in the copy of AD (my friend) sent me.

…and the rise of a posturban environment that I call the ‘Ambient Factory’.

For the past couple of weeks I’ve been working out of libraries, cafeterias, coffeshops, parks, and hallways. Part of the reason is it takes a while to get a connection in Geneva, but partly because I’m facinated with the future of work.

Industrial work required a factory, before that, farmin required land. Now we’re in an age where work can occur anywhere. Case in point, I’m writing this on my phone while waiting for a train to Zurich.

These public places are not ideal. Yesterday I got locked INTO the park and had to climb the wall with my bike. Park benches are really uncomfortable, plugs are few and far between, and tables are nowhere to be seen. Despite this, working in public has it’s benefits.

• It’s free. No only in the beer sense but also in the sense of mobility. I don’t feel bad about leaving a bench, I feel good. If I have a meeting uptown, I can be there the whole day.
• It’s beautiful. I don’t know who uses the parks in Geneva. Work ends at 7 and parks close at 7. Other than walking through them, weekdays for parks are wasted. There is something about a great surrounding that helps me work. At the old studio we had big pictures of plants, and diagrams of cool stuff. In a park I get the real thing, plus running water.
• It’s visible. I was going to say social, but when your doing work, your working, and often that requires isolation. But in public others can see you. This means it’s suggestive. The idea can catch on, or at least they’ll know you as the crazy business man on the bench.

Laptops, iPhone tethering, cloud computing, and commuincstion technologies have made working distributed easier than ever, but there are hardships. Some ideas to improve the public office.

Fold up furniture. It could br cardboard or metal rods. The key is to be able to carry it around and set up anywhere.

Solar panels. They have a backpack. The key would be to be able to run constant for an iPhone + MacBook. Maybe a little windmill would work, or a bike generator for exercise breaks.

A map. I want to know who else is working in public. It would be cool to group. There’s an unused stage in the park, maybe we could make a show of it.

I’ve been familiarizing myself with the idea of finished vs unfinished, especially because of the Unfinished Lecture series, and the whole body of thought around Unfinished Business. I’ve always questioned the notion of something finished, I don’t know that anything ever can be. At the same time, I get frustrated when nothing gets done, as artifacts always benefit process. I’d like to explore two words: Finish the verb and Finished the noun.

finish |ˈfini sh |

verb [ trans. ]

(usu. be finished) complete the manufacture or decoration of (a material, object, or place) by giving it an attractive surface appearance : the interior was finished with V-jointed American oak.

• complete the fattening of (livestock) before slaughter.
• dated prepare (a girl) for entry into fashionable society.

Certainly there is a preparatory nature to finishing something. Completed, prepared, precluding the destination: slaughter or fashionable society(not so different places I might add).

Either way, we could say this is the process(Pr) & conversation(Cn).

finish |ˈfini sh |

noun

1 [usu. in sing. ] an end or final part or stage of something : a bowl of raspberries was the perfect finish to the meal | I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.

• a point or place at which a race or competition ends : he surged into a winning lead 200 meters from the finish.

2 the manner in which the manufacture of an article is completed in detail : wide variation in specification and finish.

• the surface appearance of a manufactured material or object, or the material used to produce this : lightweight nylon with a shiny finish.
• the final taste impression of a wine or beer : the wine has a lemony tang on the finish.

Again, we see the differentiation between the before and after. A meal, and a raspberry finish. A film from start to finish. A wine, but a lemony finish. This is a very specific effect at the end of a process. For the cases of design, this is the artifact (Ar) which arises from the content of the conversation(Cn).

What’s more interesting is the notion of finishing with the knowledge of beginning again. There is also this finished used to finish interiors. A veneer coats the work making it more presentable for that destination. Or a lightweight nylon with a shiny finish. The material finish is not one of completeness but one of process. Of course an oak table is finished, this protects it from wear and give it an attractive appeal. This does not meant that the table is done, in fact, its at the beginning of its life-span of use. There will be many more times for it to get dinged up, and it will be finished many more times before it hits the junkyard.

This word it seems has two distinct meanings, very important to the way we see our finished designs.

1. Really finished. This is either a societal/human conception of when an intangible thing is complete (i.e. a girl for entry into fashionable society). Or, it is what happens before death, a preparation for slaughter. So, you’re never really finished until you fool yourself, or you pass away. This type of finished is expected in a waterfall process, it is reached by a number of milestones. It is a known destination before the process begins. It doesn’t account for anything before or after the plan. It ends as an Artifact(Ar).
2. Realistic finish. This is the good enough result of a process. Not good enough in the sense that you could do better, but have chosen to give up. Rather, good enough that others will understand, test, and certainly demonstrate that you’ll never be finished. This is the coat on the oak table. We know it will chip, but we’re more concerned with the meal and are happy to re-finish it in 5 years. This is closer to the agile / scrum process which I learned of from the master, Mr Kirk. This is the outcome(Oc).

We need both of these: 1. a psychological closure via artifact(Ar) , and 2. an actual result or outcome(Oc). The first helps us come to terms with the end of long, difficult, challenging process. The second allows others benefit from the results, and build on those results to make a larger impact(Im) outside this process itself.

As per usual, a new place presents many differences and many similarities, but it’s those small differences which are most profound. Here in Geneva, one of those small things I’ve noticed is is the abundance of public water fountains. Some of these  have a red plaque reading “pas potable”, but most have a blue plaque indicating “potable”. Now there’s water fountains in many cities, sometimes in the restrooms, sometimes in parks, but I want to identify why Geneva is different. Watch this video and note your thoughts.

Ambient. If you had your volume up, you’d have noticed that you can hear the fountain before you see it. This level of ambience is hard to achieve in a bustling city. Audio is just one way to design ambience into an experience, check infosthetics for more. Note that the designer could have made the water drip into a small drain, or fall upon a plate thereby muting the sound. It seems the trough of water below is an intentional arrangement to create sound. Not only sounds, but a pleasant sound, not some buzzer, but the natural sound trickling water.

Free. As in free software, this has a double meaning. Yes, the water doesn’t cost any money. But this water is also free as in rights. We have decided as a society that water is a basic need we should all have access to water. It is also illegal to refuse a human access to a toilet, and I’m sure there are other freedoms our societies have legislated. With that said, I’m not discounting the importance of free, freemium business models have some interesting points in this regard.

Healthy. I can’t imagine something more healthy than water. To make the healthy free and the unhealthy expensive is to incentivize healthy decisions. I can tell you, after spending $3 for a bottle of coke, water, or fanta, I was quite happy to have found this fountain secret. Maybe there is an argument to made that a healthy society costs less money, especially in a welfare state like Switzerland, so maybe this water is actually creating monetary wealth.

Accessible. These fountains are not stowed away in a forest, mountain, or restroom. They are literally on the street corners and in the middle of public squares. Something might be available but not accessible, which limits new people in finding it, and familiar people in remembering it.

Beautiful. Beauty is not an afterthought, and it is not purely aesthetic. We tend to assign beauty to those things that bring us pleasure or make us happy. These fountains are a beautiful thing both in presentation and concept. This beauty integrate them with the context of things. You can be proud of not only the water, but the object from which it comes. They serve the purpose of city decor as well as a basic human need.

Abundant. In this culture of energy efficient light bulbs, conscious toilet paper use, paper-towel composting, and closed tap toothbrushing, it’s important to remember what’s abundance. When I fill my bottle from this fountain I don’t feel as if I’m using something up, I feel I am participating, and welcomed. Springs pump water out no matter what you do. There is a giant lake in the middle of this city. Running water can be a good thing.

I was asked about the application of these lessons to something else, say communications. If water is a basic need, and there are ways to deliver it elegantly and effectively, what other basic needs can be met this way? I’ll do one for arguments sake, but would love to hear some more possibilities(Transit, News, Housing, Garbage, Crime).

The basic need of telecommunication

Though not yet, telecommunication is quickly becoming a basic freedom. The government would love for everyone to have an email, it would save them money. Email has allowed homeless folks a permanent location to receive job information. Twitter demonstrated the importance of a public messaging medium during Katrina. In the words of Grameen phone founder Iqbal Quadir, “connectivity is productivity” even for the world’s bottom billion. So how to we make communication elegant. Well an existing communication hub is a library. Let’s try it out:

Ambient. Could I hear a library? What would it sound like? What if it was a certain colour. There is a classic library architecture in the USA, could this be a feature for all libraries? What about a type of tree planted outside libraries? What if street numbers always started at a library?

Free. Clearly libraries are already free, and lending books is becoming a secondary function to providing access to the web. But what about wifi? Could I use the library without entering?

Healthy. What is the expensive competitor to the library which is unhealthy (tabloids, cnn, google)? Can the library be cheaper, i.e. free? How can the library create value for society (jobs, awareness, participation)?

Accessible. Libraries blend in. I know in Toronto they are often on the main streets which is a step in the right direction. Could they have an outside courtyard with power & wifi access? The hours are a big problem. How could the library, or information fountain, be open 24/7?

Beautiful. This is exterior and interior. Forget those fluorescence , scrap the grey carpet, be conscious of the ceiling, take a note from Joshua Prince-Ramus, or starbucks.

Abundant. There are so many abandoned spaces in every city, usually owned by the city. Why couldn’t these spaces be temporary libraries? There is little justification for a waiting line to use the net when computers are cheap and bandwidth is abundant. What if the entire external wall of the library was an information fountain?

How could you apply this criteria to issues like: Transit, News, Housing, Garbage, Crime? What criteria would you add? What are the barriers to implementation? What other examples can you think of?

Absolutely nothing.

I am as guilty as the next person of using buzzwords. I would even cite my interests as crowd-sourcing, open source, community animation, disruptive innovation, design thinking, social innovation, betterment, global society, economies of scale, gift economies, wikinomics, human capital, visualization, information design, concept development, visual thinking, user experience design, and emergence, among other things.

Buzzwords are attractive and addictive because they’re tribal, cliquey, and easy. They let people with shared understanding skip over long definitions and get right into conversation. They also make you look smart in some cases.

There are three basic audiences for a buzzword:

1. Those who are versed in the background, purpose, and use of the word
2. Those who don’t fully understand the word, but know when to use it
3. Those who are not familiar with the word

I would assert that in cases 2 and 3, the buzzword. We must remember that the purpose of words is to encapsulate a complex meaning into a simpler form, allowing us to speak on a more abstract level.

buzzword |ˈbəzˌwərd| (also buzz phrase)
noun informal
a technical word or phrase that has become fashionable, typically as a slogan.

Note technical, and remember that technos is an art, craft, or skill. The word for the first audience serves the purpose of industry jargon for those who are familiar and versed in its base.

fashion |ˈfa sh ən|
noun
1 a popular trend, esp. in styles of dress and ornament or manners of behavior : his hair is cut in the latest fashion.

A buzzword popularizes the useful word, making it accessible to a larger audience, but also dulling its meaning, eventually destroying its usefulness.

The two dangers of a buzzword are:

1. It allowed technical people to avoid explanation of technical concepts to people outside their background, containing, in many cases, important knowledge within a closed sphere of expertise.
2. It allows conversations to becoming increasingly abstract from experiential reality, destroying both the usefulness of the word along with the relevance of the conversation.

tradition |trəˈdi sh ən|
noun
1 the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way : every shade of color is fixed by tradition and governed by religious laws.
• a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way : Japan’s unique cultural traditions.

Words in essence are a tradition. Their consistency accounts for our ability to understand our ancestors from thousands of years ago. In some cases they interfere with our re-envisioning of the world, but without tradition we would have no reference point.

I am on this topic because I am a villainous abuser of the buzzword in its many forms. So truly, this post is a self-reflective and hopefully corrective strategy to help me speak with traditional rather than fashionable words.

If we can be innovative with our thoughts rather than our words, I believe those thoughts might spread further and be understood more deeply.

What was the overlap?

I’m still not sure. As LeRoy said, “What I’m confident of, is what it isn’t”. It wasn’t a typical conference, it wasn’t about making business connections, it wasn’t about expert speakers, and it wasn’t about clarity. I’d say, if the overlap was anything, it was in Dave’s words: foggy.

I came down to Monterrey from Toronto. Through a number of mishaps and misunderstandings, I ended up talking a roundabout route, bus to new york, subway to the airport, plane to San Francisco, plane to Monterrey, taxi to the resort, and a beautiful walk to my room.

On the way back, I looked down on the city only to see Asilomar, the place of the event, covered by fog. Apparently, the pressure system on the coast sucks the fog from the ocean a couple miles up on to the land. Other than reviving memories of startrek dream-scapes, and encouraging me to buy a sweater, this fog it appears is an eloquent metaphor for the overlap we experience.

For some time now I’ve been wondering what it is I do, and why its important. Of course, with the urge to pursue a masters at some point, I’m also looking at what exactly I might be satisfied mastering. My own personal overlap of passion would be the overlapping couples of business & anthropology with design & psychology. The attraction to the first couple is the understanding of society and culture through anthropology and its application and betterment through business. Second is a search for understanding the individual’s cognition and emotions and design as an application through experience and artifacts.

What’s pressing in my thoughts, and may have been sealed by overlap, is that I have lost faith in the primacy of design. I still have not figured out what (business + anthropology) x (design + psychology) equals, or even its the right question. But what I do know, is that people I respect, brilliant and kind people, are struggling just as much as I am, and somehow that makes it bearable.

As distinct as blue oceans appear from green earth, there are places like Asilomar Monterrey, where a fog shrouds the intricacies of these great bodies’ meeting. Much like that fog, a metal fog would certainly blind an outsider, or even an insider, from really understanding what it looks like in the overlap of the last 3 days.

In step with my meandering journey to Monterrey, this journey from where we stand to where we might understand, may look in hindsight ill-planned. But we must remember that the roads most clear were at one time fields, and the things we value most were at one time unclear, though shared, notions in the minds of warm but ambitious people.

Crowd sourcing, wikinomics, collaboration, design thinking, social innovation, open source, peer-to-peer, creative commons, community engagement, and stratgey.

Brighter yet?

There is something happening, and its not just words, but words get in the way sometimes. Not every business on the planet will be changed because of the web, but most will. Not only will the way the conduct their business will change, their business itself will change. All due to one inexorable force:

community |kəˈmyoōnitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 a group of people living together in one place, esp. one practicing common ownership : a community of nuns.

• all the people living in a particular area or place : local communities.
• a particular area or place considered together with its inhabitants : a rural community.
• ( the community) the people of a district or country considered collectively, esp. in the context of social values and responsibilities; society : preparing prisoners for life back in the community.
• [as adj. ] denoting a worker or resource designed to serve the people of a particular area : community health services.

2 [usu. with adj. ] a group of people having a religion, race, profession, or other particular characteristic in common : Rhode Island’s Japanese community | the scientific community.

• a body of nations or states unified by common interests : [in names ] the European Community | the African Economic Community.

3 a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals : the sense of community that organized religion can provide.

• [in sing. ] a similarity or identity : writers who shared a community of interests.
• joint ownership or liability : a commitment to the community of goods.

4 Ecology a group of interdependent organisms of different species growing or living together in a specified habitat : communities of insectivorous birds.

• a set of species found in the same habitat or ecosystem at the same time.

Notice that 3 of the 4 definitions refer to a locale, a place, an area, a nation, living together, a habitat, an ecosystem.

1. Consider that, this present, within the last hundred years, we can now see the earth, itself, as a place.
2. Consider that I can speak quicker to a person in China on skype than my father could chat with his neighbours only 40 years ago.
3. Consider the fact that actions in one hemisphere create brown snow in another, that our habitat is the same.
4. Consider in a day, I can be anywhere in the world.
5. Consider that I haven’t been able to make eye-contact with anyone but the security guard in my building since I arrived 6 months ago.

Now consider that 3 of 4 of those definitions are no longer valid.

Community exists, and it is growing. There is a shared interest in the betterment of our situation, and to those who would get in the way, your time is limited. Communities of people, who care, will be the defining factor of business. You can guarantee that a consumer who cares is worth 100 zombies, and you can bet that a consumer who helps produce is worth 1 000 caring consumers.

So how might you position your company to take advantage of this impending raging mob of communities. The answer is simple, you already are. Every business exists because people care. From hot-dogs to pacemakers, from key-cutters to garbage men, the only thing with a viable business model, is something with a passionate reality.

I’m going to let you know some preconditions that are essential to the success of any community. If you’re in business, you’re in business for a community, so you should know why that community exists. And if you don’t know your community, you’ll not be in business for long. So without further ado, what you need to get started.

Do something Important for goodness sake

And I don’t mean bottom line. Forget about your bottom line for a second. What are you doing that is IMPORTANT.

important |imˈpôrtnt|
adjective
of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being : important habitats for wildlife | it is important to avoid monosyllabic answers | [ sentence adverb ] the speech had passion and, more important, compassion.
• (of a person) having high rank or status.
• (of an artist or artistic work) significantly original and influential.

Notice influence, notice significance, notice profound, notice value.

If you want a community of people to hear what you’re saying buy a radio ad. If you want a community to see you, buy a billboard. However, if you want a community to work with you, and allow you to exist, pursue profound well-being.

Aspirin is profound for migraine sufferers. Paper is profound for origami experts. Local organic sustainable food is profound for foodies. You need to give these people the tools they need to invite others to share that fellowship.

Pay attention, the solution exists

Don’t be stupid. Your solution isn’t new. People have been working on your problems for millennia, and you haven’t solved it. Any problem that can be solved is a symptom. The idea of wicked problems, is just the truth about real problems.

Work with the community out there who have already started. They probably know you, who knows, they might like you. You need to find those people, enable them, and prove that, with others, you want to work toward profound well-being.

Be specific about what’s certain

Lifetimes are fixed, that’s why we have deadlines. At the beginning of a project be clear about the outcome. If you can make a book, make one. If you can design a tool design one. But be sure you have the expertise in house to guarantee a quality result.

Be hopeful about what’s possible

The baseline is the starting point. We’re not here to make books, tools, or buildings. We’re here to fundamentally shift the way we view life. You need optimism to engage people. Be clear that you don’t know what to expect, but that you expect something wonderful. Believe change is possible, and you’ll get to maybe.

Open your process

The real change in work is its possibility to be shared. Show your progress through a blog, upload ideas for critique, thank people who take the time to feedback. Learn something from the Drupal project. But fundamentally, there must be a change in the way you think about your audience. They do not exist to hear you, they exist to keep you on track. The best outcome you can offer, is something they can use to better share their passion.

Celebrate the artifact

Don’t let a success be had without a celebration. These steps along the road are what make us happy. Jordan B Peterson let me know that people find happiness from steps toward goals, not the goals themselves. Create beauty, and appreciate it with others.

Cherish the relationships

Artifacts get old and become less relevant. Relationships get old and grow more relevant. A community is nothing if not relationships. Relationships exist between people, ideas, organization, and most powerful, actions. Ensure there is a way to continue building relationships from a project, hundreds of years after completion. Athens was only 50 000 people, but the relationships were strong, and their influence exerts it self even today. Mark Federman has a great frame which considers 5 valence relationships.

See the forest from the trees

Though communities will be the force behind business, individuals are the force behind communities. Pay attention to the people who are hubs, gatekeepers, and pulse-takers, as  Karen Stephenson would say.

I just got back from my trip over the pond. One of the things I did, in addition to some really good work with Alan Smith on our future in open design process, was participate in Social Innovation Camp. It was a grand experience, and every city should have one, at least once a month. From their follow up post:

the weekend is also about demonstrating the power of putting different people in a room together and giving them some space to do their thing. We hope Social Innovation Camp shows that if you have a little faith in people, they can do amazing things for all sorts of different reasons – whether it’s to solve a problem; to do something that’s worth doing or because it’s simply really good fun.

Methods & Facilitation

Getting people together in the hopes of producing something of use is tricky to say the least. There is no process, or step-by-step guide. Floating from group to group, what was striking was that each group was applying different methods, highly dependant on the individuals in the group. The first group broke out into a discussion of current funding models, siting examples from the industry in the pursuit of what financial innovation had been left uncovered. Another group broke into teams to cover marketing branding, system development, and business, respectively. One group jumped straight into system design and wireframing, while another began with some doing icon design, and others figuring out source control. Handy was the paper given to each group which outlined the 5 points to keep in mind:

1. What is the social need you are addressing
2. How is your idea technically innovative
3. How will this idea be financially sustainable
4. How will you market this idea
5. What will you do next to make this happen

Though this is a wonderful way to outline a business pitch, in most groups this collection of pages wasn’t really addressed until half way into the project. Steps can help, but methods are closer to the truth. Methods allow for each team member to submit to the instructions at hand, while knowing the exercise will only last so long. Someone must remind a group of the methods at hand, this is the facilitator, a key role in any group, but especially in those of individuals who have never met.

Ego & Ownership

Another thing that struck me about social innovation camp, as apposed to the other camps I’ve been to, was the ownership of ideas. Each group had the option of working on one of seven ideas. What’s more, the idea owner was part of the group. In many cases a discussion would arise about how to achieve the purpose differently, the owner would either say “yes that’s what I was thinking” or “no, that’s not really my idea”. This strikes me as a complete opposition to innovation, as you know the result before you being the process. Of course, idea ownership leads to another issue: Ego. In such a small time, with unfamiliar people ego is simply not an option. Defining roles, facilitation, and methods all address the sneaky grasp of the ego argument. Small groups help big egos be contained and accountable. Competition helps egos work for the good of the idea, rather than the vision I have. Either way, ego is sometimes unavoidable, but the question is how to keep it in check. I’d say the idea owner should step out of the process.

Source Control & Collective Production

There are some basics to group production, one of which is the very technical source control. Source control allows multiple people to work on the same code base at the same time without writing over each other’s progress. You could certainly imagine a social source control, I like to call it paper. Throughout the process of group work, there are so many great ideas that come up and get lost in the air of conversation. This may be due to timid people, compelling conversationalists, or simply insufficient time to ask clarifying questions. I cannot emphasize how important it is to write ideas down on paper. Certainly there is room for a more digital solution, but until then, as my friend likes to say, we believe in the power of paper.

Competition on Approach vs Ideas

Seven groups, seven ideas, compete. Sense a problem? There is no room for variation on the same idea. If this is innovation, we understand diversity of approach is key. We need many groups working on the same idea so that the failure of most is not in vain. Seven groups, one idea would suffice. If not, then twenty-one groups, seven ideas would do. The best size working group is 3-5 people. The best size party is 8-16. The best size company is 35. The best size Organization is 150. These are classic numbers, used by the US military, international corporations, and the Roman empire, as Rob Paterson points out. There is no point in competing on ideas when dealing with innovation. Innovation is not about ideas. You might be incredibly innovative but just work in a short-sighted industry. Innovation is about multiple approaches to one idea, that’s something to compete on.

Hype & Prep

Most of the first day was getting to understand what the idea was. The next half of the day was dedicated to getting to know each other, a key stage in any collaborative process. Both of these things could potentially be handled pre-event. Preparation is key for mental engagement, and hype helps build emotional investment. Though a very un-camp-like approach, I would propose video bios on your team-mates and a passionate plea for help from the problem owner, pre-event.

Innovation vs Design vs Execution

design |dəˈzīn| verb [ trans. ] decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it : a number of architectural students were designing a factory | [as adj. with submodifier ] ( designed) specially designed buildings.
• (often be designed) do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind : [ trans. ] the tax changes were designed to stimulate economic growth.

innovate |ˈinəˌvāt| verb [ intrans. ] make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products : the company’s failure to diversify and innovate competitively.
• [ trans. ] introduce (something new, esp. a product) : innovating new products, developing existing ones.

execute |ˈeksiˌkyoōt| verb [ trans. ] 1 carry out or put into effect (a plan, order, or course of action) : the corporation executed a series of financial deals.
• produce (a work of art) : not only does she execute embroideries, she designs them, too.
• perform (an activity or maneuver requiring care or skill) : they had to execute their dance steps with the greatest precision.

The real question is do we want to plan, change, or produce? Most camps I have been to haven’t really done more than build consensus, but there are some good ones where a plan is made. Never have I been to a camp where a group actually affected change. Something Social Innovation Camp has been really good at pushing is technical production. Maybe the social innovation is the camp itself, or the ideas that people have before the camp. Maybe Technical Prototyping & Business Planning camp doesn’t sound as good. There’s much to be explored in these types of events, and surely there will be learnings along the way. Part of the challenge is that social innovation means so many different things to so many people. A friend of mine questions the notion of putting two words together, especially ones we hardly understand on their own. Let’s investigate.

social |ˈsō sh əl| adjective 1 [ attrib. ] of or relating to society or its organization : alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem | a traditional Japanese social structure.
• of or relating to rank and status in society : a recent analysis of social class in Britain | her mother is a lady of the highest social standing.
• needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities : we are social beings as well as individuals.
• relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure : Guy led a full social life. 2 Zoology (of a bird) gregarious; breeding or nesting in colonies.
• (of an insect) living together in organized communities, typically with different castes, as ants, bees, wasps, and termites do.
• (of a mammal) living together in groups, typically in a hierarchical system with complex communication.

Notice the dependance on many organisms interacting. Pleasure is mentioned, meeting is importanting, living in groups, complex communication, hierarchy, rank, social standing. Importantly, notice the lack of attention paid to the technical means of these phenomena.

technical |ˈteknikəl| adjective 1 of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques : technical terms | a test of an artist’s technical skill.
• (esp. of a book or article) requiring special knowledge to be understood : a technical report. 2 of, involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences : an important technical achievement. 3 resulting from mechanical failure : a technical fault. 4 according to a strict application or interpretation of the law or rules : the arrest was a technical violation of the treaty.

Notice the strict, specialized, craft, skilled nature of the technical. Tech actually comes from the greek tekhne, meaning art, skill, craft, method, or system. Nothing social, everything to do with individual creation. I believe technical innovation should not infringe on the budding understanding of social innovation. Many technical innovations have afforded us the understanding that social innovation is possible, but technical innovation, as dave said is a red herring. Though technology can provide us many more options, ff we get caught up in what we can do, we risk losing track of what is useful or helpful to do. By way of combination, social innovation is: making changes to established society or its organization, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

Affect then Scale

Scaling up comes after working out. In my opinion, the age of planning and change is over. We are entering the age of execution. The act of affecting can start with one person. If I could work on a weekend with the great bunch of people at SICamp, and help only one person become more helpful to society that would be wonderful. If there was an allure of scaling that help to a greater potential, that adds to the motivation. But I have a hunch that we must begin with one, then scale up. I highly doubt a wonderful and skills group of people can’t affect many people, but they should prove it by helping one. Plans are great for ongoing effort, change is the attractor, but its execution that tests our assumptions. Execution is where innovation is useful, or just different.