Tom's blog

Stupid idea...or is it?

In this interview with Scott Berkun, Guy Kawasaki posed an interesting question about innovative ideas. He asked simply, "How do you know if you have a seemingly stupid idea according to the “experts” that will succeed or a stupid idea that is truly stupid?"

Berkun started his answer with "We can't know" and then qualified with a fairly lengthy statement. But I guess that's the real point, when do we ever really know which ideas are good one and which ideas are bad?

I suspect the trick is to develop every idea far enough that you can see the major potential and the major challenges and also to look at that idea with a combination of others that may well produce something really remarkable. At that point decisions can be made about the next steps (if any).

A little research shows that as innovators we have a very hit and miss track record of spotting that special idea. Rank Xerox for example were the first people to come up with the idea of a graphical user interface and a mouse for a computer, yet they didn't spot the potential for it commercially. DEC were a huge provider of Mainframe and Mini computers, yet they couldn't see the obvious potential for personal computers in the home. In fact, in 1977, Ken Olson said "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home". Here are some fun statistics, according to the US Census Bureau, 62% of US households have a personal computer. 18% have two or more. How silly does he feel now?

Is there any way to improve that track record? I believe so...and it seems like the folks over at Google are doing pretty well on that front. They do, however, spend huge amounts of money on R+D and they promote innovation internally and give their creative professionals the opportunity to develop their own ideas without question for 20% of their working week. Business Week wrote this Article about their creative process.

Guy Kawasaki was on the original development team for the Apple Macintosh and now owns his own venture capital firm. He writes an interesting blog called How to Change the World. Scott Burken was on the original development team for Microsofts Internet Explorer and has authored two books The Art of Project Management and The Myths of Innovation.

Technorati Tags: creativity, design, guy kawasaki, mac, pc, google, DEC, scott burken, software, software development

Deliberate defiance and the 15% rule

I came across this article which talks about how some organizations promote an environment of deliberate contempt and disobedience in the workplace. Specifically it talks about that fact that in creative workplaces senior managers frequently don't recognize good ideas and then kill them, along with any potential revenues they may bring.

A perfect example of this can be seen in 3M's development of Masking Tape. The engineer working on the product, despite being told repeatedly to stop working on it and let it go, didn't, and the product is something we all know and love today.

An interesting offshoot from this event within the 3M organization, is that now the creative folks can spend 15% of the working time on whatever project or idea they choose, without question. What a great idea this is, I wonder how many interesting products have come out of that organization because of that rule? Seems like an awesome idea to me.

I remember reading a book many years ago Slack, Tom DeMarco) which talks through all of the benefits of leaving some open time in the working schedules of your employees, creativity is better, productivity is better and overall the results seem to favor happier, less burned out employees (as well as a better bottom line).

I have personally experienced the gambit of environments, from the insanely creative and employee driven, to the stereotypical pressure cooker where the only acceptable results were nothing more and nothing less than was originally requested. I can attest to the Slack theory and have seen the sorts of results that can come as a result of that. If we have worked together in any of these places, you have probably experienced what would be described at 3M as deliberate defiance. In the right environment, this has worked really well for me. The trick is to create the right environment I guess.

So many thing's go into the creation of the right environment. Godin writes about the various drivers that are often found at the root of an organizations being. I fully believe that an organization with the wrong driver at heart, will never create the right environment for its employees or customers. This organization WILL miss out on the big success that might otherwise await it.

On a completely separate note, this time to the ultimate destroyer of great corporate ideas: Happy 20th Birthday to Microsoft's PowerPoint. See my previous post with some ideas on how to make this better.

Technorati Tags: 3m, creativity, design, getting things done, gtd, happiness, lifehacks, productivity, seth godin, slack, tom demarco

An interesting take on ignoring your task list

A friend of mine sent me this essay, Structure Procrastination (by Prof. John Perry) sparks and interesting thought train when it comes to productivity and Getting Things Done.

The essay draws and interesting comparison between Important vs. Urgent actions. Prof. Perry points out that it is possible to achieve what's really important by feeling comfortable with ignoring other more urgent tasking regardless of where it appears in your lens, until such time as you do, in fact, have to do something with it. He gives some good examples of the positive effects in his role as a teacher. I imagine that most of us find ourselves doing exactly the same thing from time to time.

This is backed up somewhat by Dr. Stephen Covey in the 7 Habits who often cites urgent vs important. He provides examples such as a, a ringing telephone, urgent because you have to pick it up and talk. But it may be a tele-marketer or important things, things that are truly fundamental to your primary purpose/goals, such as planning for your offspring's higher education.

I guess the most import thing about the mechanism in this case, is that everything is actually captured somewhere in terms that specify the end goal, regardless of priority, and then making the priority calls happens at the point of review.

I suppose that I like the idea, because I get to choose what is most important to me, despite outside opinion.

Technorati Tags: getting things done, gtd, life, lifehacks, productivity

Are you in the wrong job?

I happened to be browsing around the web this morning and came across this animation set to "Creep" by Radiohead. The creator of this piece writes that he was incredibly unhappy in his workplace and personal life when he made this. I watched it, I can see that.

A wise old man once told me (he was a professional recruiter by trade) that 80% of the professional workforce is in the wrong position today. I wonder if that really is the case, if it is, it really does say an awful lot about our own abilities to change our surroundings for the better. I have always been of the mind that our surrounds are an extension of our own attitudes and mindset. Have you ever heard someone say "he has an infectious sense of humor", "her confidence was reassuring"? If those are the sorts of comments that flow in your surroundings, I'll wager that you're happier there.

I recently read a book, The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell in which he describes the process of viral change. He cited the example of the New York subway system that was cleaned up in the 90's. This was completed by the authorities taking a much tougher line with toll jumpers, vandals and graffiti artists(?). The result of this cleanup effort was that the general public took much more interest in keeping the environment cleaner and reportedly felt safer using the subway.

I guess the real question is, for the 80% who are in the wrong jobs, if you were to bring the "positive / confident / witty / gtd" attitude with you to the environment, would you still be in the wrong job? In a large number of cases, I doubt it.

Technorati Tags: 43folders.com, business, collaboration, environment, getting things done, gtd, job, life, Lifestyle, offices, Politics

How to get to "Yes!"

This is a question faced by everyone. Everyone has some kind of agenda, things they need, things they want to do, places they want to go. At some point we are all faced with the need to garner someone else's support or approval to continue on that path.

If you were to read many of the articles or books on the topic, a large proportion of them would advocate using some manipulative method or other, car-salesman-like tactic to get your way. (There is a reason car salesmen have a poor showing in the popularity contests)

I was reading another book by a fellow called Jeff Gitomer who advocates an entirely different approach. He proposes that the best way to move things forward is to establish a worthwhile relationship with the people who need to be part of your plan, that they actually want to support things (or buy things) and that they prefer to do that from people they know and like. Dr. Steven Covey describes this as expanding your circle of influence. Seth Godin suggests that you should associate yourself with people who are more likely to say "Yes"!

Isn't this basic psycology? I enjoy being around people who agree with me, it's a lot less stressful. But you know what, only being around people who agree with me has lead to some of the biggest rat-holes that I have ever been down.

Technorati Tags: collaboration, jeff gitomer, life, manipulation, Marketing, seth godin, stephen covey, yes

Try this test

After writing about Imus and his apparent lens earlier today, I remembered that Malcolm Gladwell wrote about some interesting things in his book, Blink. One of the things that he mentions is the Implicit Association Test, which will test your natural racial bias.

You can try one here at Harvards Project Implicit. Be ready, you may not like what you find.

TC.