Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Innovation’ Category

You know the space is new when you don’t have the right words to describe the phenomenon.

When there are two opposite sequences of events and you think both are right, you know the space is new.

You know you’re thinking about new things when the harder you try to figure it out the less you know.

You know the space is outside your experience but within your knowledge when you know what to do but you don’t know why.

When you can see the concept in your head but can’t drag it to the whiteboard, you’re swimming in new soup.

When you come back from a walk with a solution to a problem you haven’t yet met, you’re circling new space.

And it’s the same when know what should be but it isn’t – circling new space.

When your old tricks are irrelevant, you’re digging in a new sandbox.

When you come up with a new trick but the audience doesn’t care – new space.

When you know how an experiment will turn out and it turns out you ran an irrational experiment – new space.

When everyone disagrees, the disagreement is a surrogate for the new space.

It’s vital to recognize when you’re swimming in a new space.  There is design freedom, new solutions to new problems, growth potential, learning, and excitement.  There’s acknowledgment that the old ways won’t cut it.  There’s permission to try.

And it’s vital to recognize when you’re squatting in an old space because there’s an acknowledgment that the old ways haven’t cut it.  And there’s permission to wander toward a new space.

Image credit — Tambaco The Jaguar

When things don’t go as planned, recognize the Universe doesn’t care about your plan.

When the going gets tough, the Universe is telling you something.  You just don’t know what it’s telling you.

When in doubt, do the next right thing.  That’s how the Universe rolls.

If you don’t like how it’s going, change your situation or change your expectations. Those are the two options sanctioned by the Universe.

If something bad happens, don’t take it personally. The Universe doesn’t know your name.

If you catch yourself taking your plan seriously, don’t. The Universe frowns on seriousness.

Don’t spend time creating a grand plan.  The Universe isn’t big on grand plans.

If your plan requires the tide to stay away, make a different one. The Universe never forgets to tell the tide to come in.

If you find yourself chasing the Idealized Future State, stop.  The Universe has disdain for the ideal.

If something good happens, don’t take it personally. The Universe doesn’t know your name.

When you don’t know the answer, that’s the Universe telling you you may be onto something.

When you have all the right answers, that’s the Universe telling you you’re not asking the right questions.

 

Image credit — Giuseppe Donatiello

If you have nothing to say, be the person that doesn’t say it.

If you’re not the right person to do it, you’re also the right person not to do it.  Why is it so difficult for to stop doing what no longer makes sense?

If it made sense to do it last time, it’s not necessarily the right thing to do this time, even if it was successful last time.  But if it was successful last time, it will be difficult to do something different this time.

If we always standardize on what we did last time, mustn’t this time always be the same as last time? And musn’t next time always be the same as this time?

If it’s new, it’s scary.  And if it’s scary, it’s bad.  And we don’t like to get in trouble for doing bad things. And that’s why it’s difficult to do new things.

Deming said to “Drive out fear.” But that’s scary.  What are the attributes of the people willing to face the fear and demonstrate that fear can be overcome?  At your company are they promoted? Do they stay? Do they leave?

Without someone overcoming their internal fear, there can be no change.

If a new thing is blocked from commercialization because it wasn’t invented here, why not reinvent it just as it is, declare ownership, and commercialize it?

If prevention is worth a pound of cure, why do people that put out forest fires get the credit while those that prevent them go unnoticed? Does that mean your career will benefit it you start small fires in private and put them out quickly for all to see?

If you always do what’s best for your career, that’s not good for your career.

When you do something that’s good for someone’s career but comes at the expense of yours, that’s good for your career.

Why not say nothing when nothing is the right thing to say?

Why not say no when no is the right thing to say?

Why not do something new even though it’s different than what was successful last time?

Why not demonstrate fearlessness and break the trail for others?

Why not be afraid and do it anyway?

Why not build on something developed by another team and give them credit?

Why not do what’s right instead of doing what’s right for your career?

Why not do something for others?  As it turns out, that’s the best thing to do for yourself.

Image credit — Steve Hammond

X: When will you be done with the project?

Me: This work has never been done before, so I don’t know.

 

X: But the Leadership Team just asked me when the project will be done. So, what should I say?

Me: Since nothing has changed since the last time you asked me, I still don’t know. Tell them I don’t know.

 

X: They won’t like that answer.

Me: They may not like the answer, but it’s the truth.  And I like telling the truth.

 

X: Well, what are the steps you’ll take to complete the project?

Me: All I can tell you is what we’re trying to learn right now.

 

X: So all you can tell me is the work you’re doing right now?

Me: Yes.

 

X: It seems like you don’t know what you’re doing.

Me: I know what we’re doing right now.

 

X: But you don’t know what’s next?

Me: How could I?  If this current experiment goes up in smoke, the next thing we’ll do is start a different project.  And if the experiment works, we’ll do the next right thing.

 

X: So the project could end tomorrow?

Me: That’s right.

 

X: Or it could go on for a long time?

Me: That’s right too.

 

X: Are you always like this?

Me: Yes, I am always truthful.

 

X: I don’t like your answers. Maybe we should find someone else to run the project.

Me: That’s up to you.  But if the new person tells you they know when the project will be done, they’re the wrong person to run the project.  Any date they give you will be a guess.  And I would not want to be the one to deliver a date like that to the Leadership Team.

 

X: We planned for the project to be done by the end of the year with incremental revenue starting in the first quarter of next year.

Me: Well, the project work is not bound by the revenue plan.  It’s the other way around.

 

X: So, you don’t care about the profitability of the company?

Me: Of course I care.  That’s why we chose this project – to provide novel customer value and sell more products.

 

X: So the project is intended to deliver new value to our customers?

Me: Yes, that’s how the project was justified.  We started with an important problem that, if solved, would make them more profitable.

 

X: So you’re not just playing around in the lab.

Me: No, we’re trying to solve a customer problem as fast as we can.  It only looks like we’re playing around.

 

X: If it works, would our company be more profitable?

Me: Absolutely.

 

X: Well, how can I help?

Me: Please meet with the Leadership Team and thank them for trusting us with this important project.  And tell them we’re working as fast as we can.

Image credit – Florida Fish and Wildlife

X:  Me:  format stolen from Simon Wardley (@swardley).  Thank you, Simon.

Product cost reduction is a good thing.

Too much focus on product cost reduction prevents product enhancements, blocks new customer value propositions, and stifles top-line growth.

Voice of the Customer (VOC) activities are good.

Because customers don’t know what’s possible, too much focus on VOC silences the Voice of the Technology (VOT), blocks new technologies, and prevents novel value propositions.  Just because customers aren’t asking for it doesn’t mean they won’t love it when you offer it to them.

Standard work is highly effective and highly productive.

When your whole company is focused on standard work, novelty is squelched, new ideas are scuttled, and new customer value never sees the light of day.

Best practices are highly effective and highly productive.

When your whole company defaults to best practices, novel projects are deselected, risk is radically reduced (which is super risky), people are afraid to try new things and use their judgment, new products are just like the old ones (no sizzle), and top-line growth is gifted to your competitors.

Consensus-based decision-making reduces bad decisions.

In domains of high uncertainty, consensus-based decision-making reduces projects to the lowest common denominator, outlaws the use of judgment and intuition, slows things to a crawl, and makes your most creative people leave the company.

Contrary to Mae West’s maxim, too much of a good thing isn’t always wonderful.

Image credit — Krassy Can Do It

If you give a person the tools, time, and training, you’ve empowered them.  They know what to do, they have supporting materials, and they have the permission to spend the time they need to get it done.

If you give a person the tools and the time but not the training, they will struggle to figure out the tools but they’ll likely get there in the end.  It won’t be all that efficient, but because you’ve given them the time they’ll be able to figure out the tools and get it done.

If you give a person the time but not the tools or the training, they’ll go on a random walk and make no progress.  Yes, you’ve given them the time, but you’ve given them no real support or guidance.  They’ll likely become tired and frustrated and you’ll have allocated their time yet made no progress.

If you give a person the tools and training but not the time, you’ve demoralized them.  They have new skills and new tools and want to use them, but they’re too busy doing their day job.  This is the opposite of empowerment.

If you’re not willing to give people the time to do new work, don’t bother providing new tools, and don’t bother training them.  Stay the course and accept things as they are.  Otherwise, you’ll disempower your best people.

But if you want to empower people, give them all three – tools, time, and training.

Image credit — Paul Balfe

When you demo something new, you make the technology real.  No longer can they say – that’s not possible.

When you demo something new, you help people see what it is and what it isn’t.  And that brings clarity.

When you demo something new, people take sides. And that says a lot about them.

When you demo something new, be prepared to demo it again. It takes time for people to internalize new concepts.

When someone asks you to repeat the demo so others can see it, it’s a sign there’s something interesting about the demo.  Repeat it.

When someone calls out fault with a minor element of the demo, they also reinforce the strength of the main elements.

When you demo something new and it works perfectly, you should have demo’d it sooner.

When the demo works perfectly, you’re not trying hard enough.

When you demo something new, there is no way to predict the action items spawned by the demo.  In fact, the reason to do the demo is to learn the next action items.

When you demo something new, make the demo short so the conversation can be long.

When you demo something new, shut your mouth and let the demo do the talking.

When you demo something new, keep track of the questions that arise.  Those questions will inform the next demo.

When you demo something new and it’s misunderstood, congratulations. You’ve helped the audience loosen their thinking.

If you want to change people’s thinking, do a demo.

Image credit – Ralf Steinberger

When new ideas come from the outside, they are dismissed out of hand.  The technical term for this behavior is Not Invented Here (NIH).  Because it was not invented by the party with official responsibility, that party stomps it into dust.  But NIH doesn’t stomp in public; it stomps in mysterious ways.

Wow!  That’s a great idea!  Then, mysteriously, no progress is made and it dies a slow death.

That’s cool! Then there’s a really good reason why it can’t be worked.

That’s interesting!  Then that morphs into the kiss of death.

We never thought of that.  But it won’t scale.

That’s novel!  But no one is asking for it.

That’s terribly exciting! We’ll study it into submission.

That’s incredibly different!  And likely too different.

When the company’s novel ideas die on the vine, they likely die at the hands of NIH. If you can’t understand why a novel idea never made it out of the lab, investigate the crime scene and you may find NIH’s fingerprints.  If customers liked the new idea yet it went nowhere, it could be NIH was behind the crime. If it makes sense, but it doesn’t make progress, NIH is the prime suspect.

If a team is not receptive to novel ideas from the outside, it’s because they consider their own ideas sufficiently good to meet their goals.  Things are going well and there’s no reason to adopt new ideas from the outside.  And buried in this description are the two ways to overcome NIH.

The fastest way to overcome NIH is to help a new idea transition from an idea conceived by someone outside the team to an idea created by someone inside the team.  Here’s how that goes.  The idea is first demonstrated by the external team in the form of a functional prototype.  This first step aims to help the internal team understand the new idea.  Then, the first waiting period is endured where nothing happens.  After the waiting period, a somewhat different functional prototype is created by the external team and shown to the internal team.  The objective is to help the internal team understand the new idea a little better.  Then, the second waiting period is endured where nothing happens.  Then, a third functional prototype is created and shown to the internal team.  This time, shortcomings are called out by the external team that can only be addressed by the internal team.  Then, the last waiting period is endured.  Then, after the third waiting period, the internal team addresses the shortcomings and makes the idea their own.  NIH is dead, and it’s off to the races.

The second fastest way to overcome NIH is to wait for the internal team to transition to a team that is receptive to new ideas initiated outside the team.  The only way for a team to make the transition is for them to realize that their internal ideas are insufficient to meet their objectives.  This can only come after their internal ideas are shown to be inadequate multiple times.  Only after exhausting all other possibilities, will a team consider ideas generated from outside the team.

When the external team recognizes the internal team is out of ideas, they demonstrate a functional prototype to the internal team.  And they do it in an “informational” way, meaning the prototype is investigatory in nature and not intended to become the seed of the internal team’s next generation platform.  And as it turns out, it’s only a strange coincidence that the functional prototype is precisely what the internal team needs to fuel the next-generation platform.  And the prototype is not fully wrung out.  And as it turns out, the parts that need to be wrung out are exactly what the external team knows how to do.  And when the internal team needs expertise from the external team to address the novel elements, as it turns out the external team conveniently has the time to help out.

Not Invented Here (NIH) is real.  And it’s a powerful force. And it can be overcome.  And when it is overcome, the results are spectacular.

Image credit — Becky Mastubara

Doing what you did last works well, right up until it doesn’t.

When you put 100% effort into doing what you did last time and get 80% of the output of last time, it’s time to do something different next time.

If it worked last time, but the environment or competition has changed, chances are it won’t work this time.

You can never step in the same river twice, and it’s the same with best practices.

Doing what you did last time is predictable until it isn’t.

The cost of trying the same thing too often is the opportunity cost of unlearned learning, which only comes from doing new things in new ways.

Our accounting systems don’t know how to capture the lost value due to unlearned learning, but your competition does.

Doing what you did last time may be efficient, but that doesn’t matter when it becomes ineffective.

Without new learning, you have a tired business model that will give you less year on year.

If you do what you did last time, you slowly learn what no longer works, but that’s all.

The best practice isn’t best when the context is different.

It’s not okay to do what you did last time all the time.

If you always do what you did last time, you don’t grow as a person.

If you do what you did last time, there are no upside surprises but there may be downside surprises.

Doing what you did last time is bad for your brain and your business.

How much of your work is repeating what you did last time? And how do you feel about that?

If you are tired of doing what you did last time, what are you going to do about it?

Might you sneak in some harmless novelty when no one is looking?

Might you conspire to try something new without raising the suspicion of the Standard Work Police?

Might you run a small experiment where the investment is small but the learning could be important?

Might you propose trying something new in a small way, highlighting the potential benefit and the safe-to-fail nature of the approach?

Might you propose small experiments run in parallel to increase the learning rate?

Might you identify an important problem that has never been solved and try to solve it?

Might you come up with a new solution that radically grows company profits?

Might you create a solution that obsoletes your company’s most profitable offering?

Might you bring your whole self to your work and see what happens?

Image credit – Marc Dalmulder

It’s difficult to describe what an innovative company looks like, and there’s no singular recipe or direction that is right for all companies.  Here are some From: To: pairings that I hope will help you in your migration toward innovation.  You’re heading in the right direction as your company generates Tos and fewer Froms.

 

From:  No one is asking for that technology.

To:       What does this new technology stand for?

 

From:  How will the company benefit?

To:       How will the customer benefit?

 

From:  What’s the smallest improvement that will make a difference?

To:       How can we make the most significant difference?

 

From:  When will you be done?

To:       What will you learn?

 

From:  This might not work.

To:       How might this work?

 

From:  Start, Start, Continue.

To:       Stop, Start, Continue.

 

From: We’ve tried that before and it didn’t work.

To:      What’s changed since last time?

 

From:  What does perfect look like?

To:       How is the work done today and which elements can we improve?

 

From:  Defend and Defend the core.

To:       Extend and Defend the core.

 

From:  Define the idealized future state.

To:       Start with the work.

 

From:  That won’t work!

To:       Hey, watch this!

If there’s a recurring problem, take the time to make sure the system hasn’t changed since last time and make sure the context and environment are still the same.  If everything is the same, and there are no people involved in the system, it’s a problem that resides in the clear domain.  Here’s a link from Dave Snowden who talks about the various domains.  In this video, Dave calls this domain the “simple” domain.  Solve it like you did last time.

If there’s a new problem, take the time to understand the elements of the system that surround the problem.  Define the elements and define how they interact, and define how they set the context and constraints for the problem.  And then, define the problem itself.  Define when it happens, what happens just before, and what happens after.  If there are no people involved, if the solution is not immediately evident, if it’s a purely mechanical, electromechanical, chemical, thermal, software, or hardware, it’s a problem in the complicated domain (see Dave’s video above) and you’ll be able to solve it with the right experts and enough time.

If you want to know the next evolution of the system, how it will develop and evolve, the situation is more speculative and there’s no singular answer. Still, the first step is the same – take the time to understand the elements of the system and how they interact.  Then, look back in time and learn the previous embodiments of the system and define its trajectory – how it evolved into its current state.  If there has been consistent improvement along a singular line of goodness, it’s likely the system will want to continue to evolve in that direction.  If the improvement has flattened, it’s likely the system will try to evolve along a different line of evolution.

I won’t go into the specifics of lines of evolution of technological systems, as it’s a big topic.  But if you want to know more, here’s a nice description of evolution along the line of adaptability by my teacher, Victor Fey – The best products know how to adapt.

If there are people involved with the system, it’s a complex system (see Dave’s video).  (There are complex systems that don’t involve people, but I find this a good way to talk about complex systems.) The first step is to define the system as it is, but because the interactions among the elements are not predictable, your only hope is to probe, sense, and respond by doing more of what works and less of what doesn’t.  Thanks to Dave Snowden for that language.

The first step is always to understand the system as it is.

“Space – Antennae Galaxies” by Trodel is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.