Archive for the ‘Innovation’ Category

Quoteworthy

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

Our friend Christian Wach, one of the founders of Spirit of Football, sent us this quote:

“Paying attention to the last ten years means we need to realize that nonproprietary, distributed production is not the poor relation of traditional proprietary, hierarchically organized production. This is no hippy lovefest. It is the business method on which IBM has staked billions of dollars; the method of cultural production that generates much of the information each of us uses every day. It is just as deserving of respect and the solicitude of policy makers as the more familiar methods pursued by the film studios and proprietary software companies. Losses due to sharing that failed because of artificially erected legal barriers are every bit as real as losses that come about because of illicit copying. Yet our attention goes entirely to the latter.”ChristianWach1A

Created in America

Monday, August 9th, 2010

In noting President Obama’s rallying cry for a program to support small businesses in America, the White House published the following in the President’s Facebook news feed:

A minority in the Senate is standing in the way of giving our small-businesspeople an up-or-down vote on the jobs bill. That’s a shame. We need to decide whether we’re willing to rise above the election-time games and come together—not just to pass a jobs bill that is going to help small businesses hire and grow but al…so to rebuild our economy around three simple words: “Made in America.”

While we wholeheartedly support a jobs bill that will help small businesses like ours, ‘Made in America’ is an Industrial Age idea that has very little resonance in the Networked World.  Nothing substantial can be built around anything as meaningless as that statement.  Here’s why…MickeyMouse&Abro1

The problem is that making stuff is not what America does any more, not exclusively to ‘Brand America’ anyway.  Stuff gets made all over the world.  What’s the most ‘American’ brand you can think of.  Disney?  Coca Cola?  Nike?  ‘Made All Over the World’ is the truth of these brands, and the same is true for any other brand vibrating on a network frequency.  The Budweiser Clydesdales are Belgians now.  Deal with it.  In light of these new truths, ‘Made In America’ becomes just another piece of empty political rhetoric, designed to dampen disagreement rather than to foster any large-scale agreement around a new economic narrative.

What we need is an idea that will generate new narratives, and new ideas about how to stimulate the economy.

One of our favorite American companies, ABRO Industries, based smack dab in the heartland of America, South Bend, Indiana, with 25 employees and projected 2010 sales exceeding  $150M, does over $40M of sales a year in Nigeria alone with products it manufactures in South America.  Most of ABRO’s products are made outside America, and yet most of the wealth it generates comes back to this country.  How?  It originates the business cycle and the brand.  It creates networks to market its products around the world.

“Made in” is no longer an differentiator for American business.  ‘Created in’ still is.

What makes American business unique, what we can count on every time, is Creativity.  The true American brew isn’t Budweiser,  it’s the idiosyncratic brew of cultures and personal histories that make the American narrative unique in the world.

What matters about Disney is not where it’s made.  After all, its primary product, happiness, can be conjured up anywhere in the world.  What’s unique and irreplaceable about the Disney brand is that it was created in America, born out of the imagination of a Scotch-Irish Socialist-Farming Depression-Era Cartoon-Making Hollywood-Bound Space-Racing Commie-Fearing Polo-Playing Chain-Smoking Family-Loving Chili-Eating Anti-Semitic Dandy From Kansas City Who Dreamed He Was a Mouse.

Making stuff means replicating it, and that means commoditizing.  Anybody can do that.  Originating stuff–growing Walt Disneys and Apples and Pixars and Lady Gagas and ABROS–that’s what America still does best.

The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Game

Friday, August 6th, 2010

FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST…

In tangling with a subject that’s loco, one runs the risk of going loco oneself. It’s probably why I’ve been struggling with this post, to the point of being driven crazy by it, for a week. Here we go, this time for sure, hoping that some semblance of sanity awaits you and me on the other side of the exercise.

The ‘Wall Street Game’ is destroying the economy. The end? Okay, on the chance that it’s not, that there’s still hope for dealing successfully with the godzillagram knocking on our door, let’s, just for the torture of it, keep going…

The game played by Goldman Sachs and all the predatory satellites in its system goes beyond crooked. It’s criminal. And worse than criminal, it is a crime that can’t be prosecuted. Here’s why: The game has been designed so that it cannot be played by human beings. It can only be played by programs. In milliseconds-long synapses of electrons that can be parsed only by machines, programs perpetrate crimes with no witnesses, no fingerprints, no conscience, no heart. The humanity, and along with it, the culpability, has been bred out of these programs. They are pure, unassailable, law-unto-themselves, math. Data for data’s sake. Programs designed to interact with other programs without any of the patience, tolerance or thought that will give a human being pause.

WebOfDebt1The originators of these programs are as guilty of their crimes as Smith & Wesson are of the next murder committed with one of their handguns, which is to say they cannot be held accountable. “That’s just the way the game is played,” say the originators. Exactly. This does not mean, however, that the way the game is played is any good, or helpful to the 95% of U.S. households that, together, control as much wealth as the top 1% do. What the programmers call ‘innocence,’ and ‘what no one could have anticipated,’ and ‘God’s work,’ is actually ignorance by design. What comes across as confidence is actually just a con. On Wall Street, nobody really knows anything. The machines are in control. So don’t bother asking.

Here is a good explanation by Ellen Brown of how the Wall Street game is rigged. Brown, author of Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, does an excellent job of unmasking the mechanics of the game that swings advantage toward the casin–errr–banks. She points a finger in particular at High Frequency Trading (HFT) software (I didn’t know its code originated with the Hollywood Stock Exchange of the dotcom era. Interesting.) that gives Wall Street’s traders the ability to make money in thousandths of a second with programmed trading.

I call this game ‘Global Owning without Local Consent.’ Go Loco, for short. It’s just that crazy.

Because it relentlessly seeks victims to separate from their money like hustlers of a quantum three-card monte game, Go Loco systematically destroys the potential of money to be productive. Money is too busy changing hands and getting hustled to be put to work any other way. In this game, money talks only to itself, like a patient in an asylum.

We see the outcomes of this insanity all around: Foreclosures on every block; constant and permanent erosion in the jobs market; crippling household and national debt; crumbling infrastructure; broke education systems; a dispirited class of permanently unemployed. The game saps entrepreneurship of its passion by punishing risk-taking. It smothers human creativity with machine rationality. Because it is based on consumption, it regards sustainability as an enemy. Because it is pure data, it has no resonance as a narrative. No soul. It is a cousin to the game played by people who sit under a mountain in Utah and fly drones that blow up villages halfway around the world. Hey, it’s all just a game, right? Yes, it is. A terrible, horrible, no good, very bad one.

At GameChangers, we define a game as consisting of Rules, Roles, Environment and Objective(s). Here’s a breakdown of the Go Loco game in terms of these four elements:

Terrible Rules:
The rules of a productive game are known by all its players. This is not the case with Go Loco. Far from it. Its rules are so opaque and complex that no one holds an entire playbook. Its most significant rules are programmed like a virus (with no known antidote) to infect every significant, or anomalous, movement of money across the networks that carry financial data. The rules do not determine or care where the money is going, any more than a rattlesnake cares where a mouse is taking a kernel of corn. They are designed only to sense movement like the snake senses the mouse, then, like the snake, strike with blinding speed. The rules are machine-enabled executions of that old business bromide, “Follow the money.” With the added instruction: “And when you catch the money in an unlit alley, jack it and get some.”

Horrible Environment: Viola Spolin, the godmother of modern improvisation, said, “Act on environment, and environment will act on you.” Because the environment for the Go Loco game is ‘inside machines,’ those who ‘act on’ the game naturally begin behaving like machines themselves. The tasteless offices in which they work, the sameness banality of their attire, their fear of creative disruption, and their relentless calculating for advantage, all reflect the electronic latticework across which these players crawl like spiders on crack. Because players’ insides have a machined sameness to them, extra emphasis is placed on surface labeling, on cosmetics and appearance. How you appear becomes much more important than how you actually are, because how you actually are is so…unremarkable. All you talk about is money. Give a man a billion dollars and try talking to him about anything but the billion dollars. It can’t be done.

No Good Roles: Wall Street’s game is to business what pornography is to sex. Don’t for a second believe it has anything to do with love, or with having a relationship. It’s all about volume, baby. It’s as real as reality TV. What do we have that we can sell? How many units can we move? When the autistic boy who senses the world at different frequencies than you and me puts his hands to a machine running a program playing the game, the voice he hears will be saying, “Faster, pussycat, kill, kill!” Is it pure coincidence that Lawrence Fishburne’s daughter sold herself to the Matrix? Or did she hear the voice, too, and simply obey its instructions?

Very Bad Objectives: In improvisation, a game’s objectives are win/win. All the players benefit from the communication, learning, and transformation that result from playing. The Go Loco game is, by contrast, win/lose. Bigtime.

A lot of people will tell you winning and losing is inherent in the nature of trading, someone wins and someone loses, and the objective is to win more than you lose, and that this dynamic drives markets. There are two problems with excusing the Go Loco game for this reason: 1) It ignores the power of collaboration, which is where most of the growth potential exists in the networked business environment; and 2) in this game, the winners win so much (when’s the last time you made $28,000 in milliseconds? For doing nothing?) and the losers lose so much, the game produces extreme cycles of bubble-and-burst, of richer-and-poorer, that only promise to get more extreme, because the more the Go Loco programs eat, the hungrier they get. It is a zero sum game they play, and they will play it until the sum of all accounts not controlled by the programs is zero.

Now what? The big problem we have now is that in one breath we can find agreement that the current game is rotten, in the next breath we will be arguing over what to do about it, and as long as we’re arguing, the rottenness persists. The way to break through this dilemma is to quit worrying about what the new game should be and focus on changing the old one. One way to begin changing the old game is by changing the conversations we have:

From being about money, to being about how money is put to work.
From consumption to sustainability.
From fast food (or fast anything) to local food (or local anything).
From destination to journey.
From connecting the dots to connecting.
From owning the story to sharing the story.
From programmed to human.

Make moves that programs cannot see, with a gait that describes the glorious, inchoate lurching of love! Trust your intuition! Express what’s in your heart instead of your head for a change. Howl with your dog! Prove that it is we, and our beautiful gift of a planet, and not the programs, who are truly alive! Change the game!

Peter Arvai’s Unexpected Prezi Scene

Monday, July 26th, 2010

SCENE:   Not long ago, I attended a presentation by Peter Arvai, the co-founder and CEO of Prezi, a Flash-based app we use as often as we can as an alternative to PowerPoint.  The presentation was attended by a mix of students, young professionals and educators, maybe 40 people in all.

Arvai1_CaptionArvai’s presenation rambled all over the place.  He seemed to have no one particular point he was driving at.  Frequently, he’d turn his back to the audience, look up at his Prezi projected on a large screen, scratch his head, and navigate around the Prezi until he found the next thing he wanted to talk about. Sometimes he got a little lost as to where in the Prezi he could find what he was looking for.

On top of the seeming incoherence of his story, Arvai, as a Scandanavian by upbringing, isn’t what you’d call an animated personality type.  His voice has a pleasant, sing-songy quality, like small waves lapping at a dock on a lake. His performance style doesn’t have that build-build-build-bada-bing! quality that TV packages into bites like Nabisco packages cookies.

Afterward, outside the room, I heard people panning the presentation.  “Boring.” “You’d think he’d have it more together.”  “I can’t believe that guy’s the CEO!”

The people who were disappointed were looking for a particular form or style from Arvai, and probably looking to be entertained for an hour by a showman, a pitchman, a visionary, a clown, or a pundit.  None of that materialized, so waaaah!  They were like children who didn’t get the toys they wanted for their birthdays.

These people, I think, missed the gift Arvai gave them:  He showed himself learning! It was one of the most interesting and disarming games I’ve ever seen a CEO play in a presentation.  To show the audience how one uses Prezi, he was willing to get himself lost in it.

In a totally unforced and improvisational way, Arvai showed how putting Prezi to best use means working with themes, chipping away and shaping them to a narrative, purposefully getting lost in the material so that you can find meaning in it, as if the information you put on the Prezi screen is a stone and your narrative is a sculpture.

I thought it was brilliant.  Another thing I liked about his presentation is that it was conversational, which was good for the relatively small room we were in.  Arvai showed that ‘always-on’ doesn’t have to mean always being the center of attention.  You can be ‘always on’ if you step onto the stage as if a conversation were taking place before you got there and you’re joining it.  That way of ‘always performing’ is more genuine and easier on the life of your batteries than if you have to crank up the voltage every time you step in front of a group of people to talk about your product.

Our friend Barbara Groth, CEO of the design company, Big Buddha Baba, put something on her Facebook profile earlier today that seems to applie to Arvai’s prezi:

“Whatever it is you’re seeking won’t come in the form you’re expecting.”
— Haruki Murakami

Sweet Spot

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

GolfBallTee1I used to play a lot of golf, and the game taught me a lot.  One bit of wisdom came my way one Sunday afternoon from a golfer named Jim Bishop, while he and I were playing the classic old Wilson Course at Griffith Park in Los Angeles.  He told me that one reason he plays golf is that it that offers a person the chance to experience perfection.  “Every now and then,” he said, “you make a perfect swing.”  As any golfer who took the game seriously would, I understood exactly what Bishop was talking about.

On occasions, something amazing happens in the game of golf, when you transcend the conscious boundaries of all your prior experiences with the game, let go of your expectations, and become a passenger on the boat of your own brilliance.  You experience the patient takeaway, the coiling in the hips, the shoulders in perfect orbit around the spine, your back leg buttressed like a telephone pole, until you are behind the ball and then, your entire being uncoils through the ball, not swinging at it as much as passing a wave of energy through it, and in immortal words of Carl Spackler, “Cinderella story. Outta nowhere.”  There it is.  You feel it for just an instant.  Perfection.

A golfer pays a price to get there, because most often golf is crap and collapse, frustration, bad behavior and the sudden and unexplainable disappearance of one’s powers.  In other words, it’s a lot like life, which why everyone should play golf at some point in their lives.  It teaches you a lot about how to persist in the face of adversity.

Like the game of golf, the work we do requires a lot of patience and, like golf, work is all about managing adverse events.  The professional golfer, Frank Beard, once said that he hit exactly the same good shots an amateur golfer hits, he just hit more of them.  The same is true with our work.  Success looks the same for everyone.  You make money.  You enjoy the interactions.  You go home happy.  It is the consistency of our game, and the ability to manage adversity, that distinguishes the real players from the weekenders.

It doesn’t matter how great a player you are, there are times when you just have to take an unplayable lie, stroke and penalty, or when you find yourself out of bounds and have to hike back to the tee and start all over, stroke and distance.

Then there are times when work comes together like the perfect swing.  When your biggest client calls to thank you for solving a couple of problems, your oldest client makes things new again, and your newest client signs the contract.  When a friend makes news for doing something cool and funny.  When you begin a journey that is going to take four years and promises no end of excitement.  When you get to study with one of your favorite teachers for two hours.  When you have tickets with friends for a great concert tonight.

This is one of those days for me, and I wish you all the same.  Because we all know that soon enough we’ll be hooking them deep into alligator country again, trying to locate our ball in places where, as Lee Trevino once said, “there’s things with no shoulders living in there” and be asking ourselves why in the hell we put ourselves through it.

We put ourselves through it because we are promised times when perfection smiles on us, and we experience the satisfaction of seeing ourselves and the games we play in a new light, when we are capable of doing, in the context of the game, what we had only dreamed about before.

The Power of Pull

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

This is not a review.

This is an appreciation.

PoP_CoverJohn Hagel III, John Seely Brown, and Lang Davison’s new book, The Power of PullHow Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion, describes the business environments most of us are living in these days:  fluid, complex, generative, with networks, not machines, as their framework.  The book itself reflects this.  Its structure mirrors the structure of a network.  Its concepts are expressed as a matrix.  This gives the Power of Pull depth and perspective that asks quite a bit of the reader.  I had to go through the book twice to even begin to grasp its concepts and their implications to business.

The reading expands as you’re reading, as if you could stop at almost any page in the book and use it as a lens to zoom in on some aspect of business in the 21st Century.  What will it be like?  How will it change us? How can we change it? Who will prosper? What will hold us back? What’s the relationship between chaos and control? Between core and edge? It’s a lot to ponder.  This is not some fluffy recipe for feeling good about the future.  This is an important assessment of the work to be done.

The Power of Pull labels this evolution ‘The Big Shift.’  Make no mistake, The Big Shift is a life-altering change of game.  It is the tornado to Oz.  It is the jump to hyperspace.  It is the event that turns everyday turtles into Ninjas.  Prepare to be transformed by what you read.

Here’s a small sampling of the many concepts expressed the book that can make the difference between survival and prosperity in the networked era of business.

Push vs. Pull. ‘Push’ business models are (the GameChangers term for it) ‘Industrial Age’ models.  They are machine-like, hierarchical, heavily scripted, and emphasize planning over preparation. As one manager told me recently, “We are supposed to plan for every contingency, but you can’t plan for every contingency.  It’s impossible.”  ‘Pull’ models, by contrast, are dynamic, nimble, and emphasize preparation over planning.  In the Pull model, plans are designed to evolve, and deviations from the norm are seen not as failures but as opportunities to learn and grow.

Stocks vs. Flows. Push models treat knowledge as a scarce commodity.  A stock.  A ‘Push’ manager says, “I know but I can’t tell you.”  Pull models treat knowledge as an abundant resource.  A flow.  A Pull manager says, “Here’s what I know that can help solve the problem.”

Fast Learning. Push models called for standardized institutional learning.  Everyone worked off the same playbook.  In the networked world, there’s no time to transfer knowledge from edge to core, have it interpreted, codified and re-distributed to the edge as institutional dogma.  By the time the core has reacted, the opportunity to put the knowledge to use has been lost.  Because they treat knowledge as abundant and not as a scarce commodity, Pull models are free to direct flows of knowledge not just to the core, but to wherever in the enterprise there is a problem to be solved.  This is a far more efficient way for a company to apply its knowledge than the old Push model.

Small Moves. As improvisers we learn that the little things can make the biggest difference to performance, because the little things that have the ability to expand into big things, and the audience loves this.  Big things, by contrast, can only get so big as to be unmanageable, or be broken down into manageable chunks.  The small moves have manageability built into them. Networks are designed to knit together small moves into significant phenomena.  When communication is significant, markets move.   And when markets move, money gets made.

Serendipity. (I neglected to include this in the original post, and it’s important.)  Serendipity is an unforeseen positive outcome.  Because networks contain infinite potential for serendipity, it is essential to take it into account in the Pull model, as Hagel III et al certainly do.  Improvisation can influence serendipity in two ways:  First, because unforeseen positive outcomes are what improvisers intend in every scene, it invites serendipity; second, it is a process for turning the unforeseen events into positive outcomes.   Push models automatically regard what is unforeseen as negative.  Pull models (and improvisers) greet what is unforeseen as an opportunity to make something positive happen.

What JSB, Hagel III and Davison describe in The Power of Pull is a kind of magnetism.  The cover of the book shows iron filings aligning along magnetic fields.  This is my one quibble, what I’d call a slight disconnect in their narrative:  If The Power of Pull is, in fact, meant to describe magnetism, then the concept of Push can’t be discounted or discredited quite so much as the authors seem to want.  Magnetism involves both Pull and Push, attraction and repulsion.  There is a relationship between the two.  Just because we are divorcing Push to marry Pull doesn’t mean we’ll never deal with Push again.  We had kids with Push.  We built some wealth together.  As the authors themselves point out in the book, without a core there can be no meaningful edge.  Push will never be entirely out of the picture.

There is a whole new language coming into existence to describe business in the networked world.  This language invokes new rules, like the 140 characters rule; and defines new ways of collaborating, like the crowdsourcing game.   The Power of Pull freshens the lexicon by describing how and why business is changing, must change, to prosper in the new realities made possible by networks.  If, as I believe, this is magnetism we’re talking about, the work of realizing the new realities will consist in equal parts of rejecting the negative, attracting the positive, and not messing with the in-betweens.   Push, Pull or Get Out of the Way!

The Game is the Frame

Sunday, June 13th, 2010

In a conversation with John Seely Brown and Erick B this past week at a party in Westwood hosted by the Deloitte Center for the Edge, we talked about creating value at the edges of networks, where the flow of information is fiercest.  (The new book, The Power of Pull, co-written by JSB with John Hagel and Lang Davison, explores this subject in depth.  My review to follow.)

JSB asked Erick and me how social networks (Erick’s area of expertise) and improvisation (mine) create value.

I asked rhetorically in return, “Why do pictures have frames?”

The conversation continued for a minute or so and then JSB repeated, “Why do pictures have frames? That’s a good subject for an article!”

So here it is, JSB.  An improviser’s answer to the question, “Why do pictures have frames?”  (Erick B?  You got anything?  Bring it!)

Frames impose discipline. How many times have we all heard the phrase, “Think outside the box”? Scary many.  Over the past ten years, it has succeeded “paradigm shift” as the #1 business cliché.  Worse than a cliché, it’s bullshit, because it implies that a good creative process is not subject to restrictions.  That it’s totally free. Random and unfettered.  A good process, in fact, begins with restrictions.

A sculptor chooses a rock.  The rock is a frame. The sculpture is already in the rock, and it’s the artist’s job to coax it out.  The rock tells the artist what tools to use.  How much time to allocate.  How much force to apply to the coaxing process.  The nature of the rock suggests where the sculpture will eventually live.  The artist can only create within the limitations of the rock, and yet, within those limitations, there is unlimited potential to bring something delightful to life.  The artist uses the frame of the rock to test his or her own limitations to make something of value.  Our limitations are not in the rocks we choose, but in ourselves.

For improvisers, the game is the frame.  The game liberates potential because players know that everything required for a great performance is already in the game, waiting to be discovered.  In terms of business, ‘framing games’  put the emphasis where it belongs, on human potential, and not on a particular system or platform.

ArtFrame1Frames create focus. The eye knows where to go.  The geometry of the frame introduces–to both the artist and the beholder–spatial and temporal relationships.  These relationships between the art and its environment, and between elements of design within the frame, give meaning to what’s inside the frame.   Likewise, the act of framing helps define relationships within networks; and between a network and the business environment.

Frames provide context. Unless the immense amount of communication coursing through a network is given context, it tends to be read as raw data by platform- and metrics-obsessed managers.  Data is not narrative.  Data is not theme.  Data without a framing game to give it context is meaningless, like water without a container.   All it does is evaporate.   The molecules are still there, but its usefulness vanishes into thin air.

Frames invite valuation. Let’s face it, business needs numbers.  The margins must be there.  How much is the time of a employee at the edge, in steady communication with players outside the company’s network,  worth?  Framing games make valuation possible.  (Not easy.  Possible.)

In The Power of Pull, JSB, Hagel and Davison describe ‘shaping strategies’ for networked organization, which are analogous to the framing games described above.

If this has whetted your appetite for the subject of ‘why pictures have frames,’ you can deepdive into this conversation between the renowned academics, David Bordwell and Henry Jenkins, part 3 of a series about framing transmedia narratives.

Perceptions Lie

Monday, May 10th, 2010

“Here is my secret. It is very simple: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”  – The Little Prince

We recently attended TEDxUSC, an event co-produced by our friend Elisa Wiefel Schreiber.  It was a day of uniformly brilliant presenters in fields like virtual reality, health care, music, and innovation and creativity in the fashion industry.

One of the more profound presentations belonged to Al Seckel, a cognitive neuroscientist and author of The Ultimate Book of Optical Illusions.  The presentation basically consisted of his thesis statement–”One cannot trust one’s perceptions, because perceptions are not reality”–followed by a series of illustrations and short film clips proving the thesis.

The context in which we receive information shapes the information.  The implications of this idea are far-reaching and deep, and touch on everything from politics to product design.

The more ubiquitous information gets to be, the more valuable our ability to contextualize information becomes.  More importantly, if one does not have the ability to think critically about context, to ’see the game,’ he or she will be setting themselves up for manipulation, and will be more likely to act on someone else’s manufactured perceptions than on reality.  And that is where trouble begins.  If you don’t see and act on your own reality, you will surely be subjected to someone else’s.

Look at this.  Then move 15 feet away and look at it again.  EinsteinMonroe2

Which line is longer?PonzoIllusion1

Does the horizontal bar in this drawing change color?HorizontalBarIllusion

(It does not.)HorizontalBarColor

Not Making It Up as we Go Along

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Some of my favorite GameChangers are working these days in New Orleans.  As we are going to see eventually with Detroit, artists cannot resist large blank canvases, storytellers chaos, designers dead space, or musicians dead air.  The seeds of innovation are best sowed on dormant ground.  This is where we find the opportunities for new growth, for the expansions of understanding and ability.

This slide was presented as part of a seminar in New Orleans attended and photographed by our friend, Ray Nichols:GodinSlide1

I love a lot of stuff coming out of New Orleans (current bad news about the oil disaster excepted), but I don’t love this slide.  Those of us who design improvisation for business spend too much time already dispelling misconceptions about what we do, and this is the single biggest misconception, that improvisation is “making it up as you go along” a.k.a. winging it, a.k.a. flying by the seat of one’s pants, a.k.a. spewing whatever comes to mind.

In fact, improvisation is specifically not ‘making it up as you go along.’  It is contrary to the idea of making it up as you go along.  It is, rather, a process for acting on one’s environment in a substantive and productive way to generate positive unforeseen outcomes.  One’s environment is not ‘made up’ as one goes along.   It is real, just as the reality of one’s scene partners is real.  They are not making stuff up.  They are dealing with reality, just like you are.   Deal with it.

There are, in fact, many other ways to “make it up”  besides “as you go along.”  There is making it up ahead of time and trying to get followers to go along.  There is making it up after the fact and hoping history goes along.  And there’s making it up in your head, and trying to get your heart to go along.   All of these are realities that must be addressed in any business narrative.

The quote by Godin suggests a divide between planning and spontaneity, between fact and fiction, when in fact business, and life itself, is a balancing act, a continuum, between the two.  Most actions in business are calculated to a fault, and rely too heavily on planning.  (Maybe that is the point of Godin’s quote.)  The purpose, however, of applying improvisation principles to business is not to say, “Forget your planning and your calculations, ignore your research and your institutional memory, because…hey,  we’re going to make this up as we go along.”  That would be disastrous on many levels.  What improvisation says is do your planning but emphasize preparation, because every plan changes, and it’s your ability to adapt to change that will determine your success.

Business improvisation liberates the unconscious mind, but does not disconnect from an awareness of history, environment or context.  It is informed by, but not totally beholden to the numbers, the data, and the rational mind.

The essential message of improvisation is this:  Don’t make it up.  Make it real.  Then act on that reality.

Are You a Narratologist or a Platformist?

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Untitled-1

Narratologists, as the name implies, obsess over narrative.  What makes a good story (and a story good)?  What are the emotional stakes?  What’s the relationship between characters?  Between text and subtext?  Who are the players?  What roles to they play, and do these roles reveal or conceal their true natures?  What motivates them?  What needs to they seek to fulfill?   How does narrative create dialogue between players and audience?  These are the questions keeping Narratologists awake at night, and earning their keep during the day.

Platformists obsess over apps. How solid is an app?  How does it scale?  What languages is it written in (and how many does it speak)?  Who uses it and why?  What is the feature set?  What is the ROI on the investment in an app?   What is the social component?  How compatible is it with other apps?   What’s the relationship between reliability and flexibility?  What differentiates it from its competitors?  If you can answer these questions for more than five apps, you’re probably a Platformist.

AppsShot1One can collaborate with the other, but one cannot be both.  Not at the same time anyway.  We all have to choose.  To help with your decision-making, here are a few things to consider:

Narratives are designed to make sense of the world by distilling information down to its essence.  Most apps and platforms are, by contrast, designed to make information available to as many people as quickly as possible.  One is a  a micro-brewed beer that evokes new sensations you want to share with friends.  The other is beer that evokes images of Clydesdales on television.  Take your pick.

Narrative is, by design, more unique, and therefore scarcer and ultimately more valuable than any platform or app.  As information gets commoditized across platforms–33.5 billion tweets about brands in 2009 (Forrester),  120 million videos hosted on YouTube with an average of 200,000 more added every day (Yahoo Answers), and 400+ million profiles on Facebook (Business Week)–a use of story as the Ultimate Organizing Principle grows more valuable all the time.  Would you rather wrestle with one meaningful narrative, or 33.5 billion mostly meaningless tweets?   Call it while it’s in the air.

Narrative consists of raw, unmediated interaction.  It happens human to human.  Face to face.  Platforms, on the other hand, invite mediated experiences.  The humans you’re really interacting with are the ones who designed the platform you’re using.  Narratologists focus first on the connections and conversations between people.   That’s life.  A Platformist’s foremost concern is the relationship between people and technology.  And while it’s a cleaner, less risky, and more predictable proposition, it’s also not life.  The choice is always ours to make.

Maybe what matters most over the long haul is that narratives are a lot more fun.  They generate energy and emotion, manifest purpose, offer possibilities.  They move people, and liberate them from the humdrum of daily life.  Platforms, from the days of Gutenberg’s first printing press, have always been and will always be persnickety, finicky, tricky, sticky.  They break down.  They spawn frustration and induce headeaches.  We find ourselves chained to them.  It’s the nature of the beast.  Would you rather entertain the possibility of having fun, or guarantee yourself a a certain amount of frustration?   Are you a ‘glass-is-half-full-drink-up’ kind of person, or a ‘this-glass-will-automatically-notify-me-via-SMS-when-its-fill-factor-is-above-50%’ kind of person?  You cannot be both.

Narratives define what platforms cannot.  Narratives lasts longer than platforms.   Mean more.   Engage more deeply.  Evolve more quickly.  Earn more money over time.

Choose.