I saw Dan Pink Speak at IDEO recently. It was quite a good talk and clear he is enamored with both IDEO and the idea of design's potential as anyone in the business press. It was mostly taken from his book, I understand, so if the ideas are interesting I recommend you check it out. These notes are really notes, and were taken on my treo, however, so let me know if anything is particularly obtuse.
He begun with some good advice on speaking...
Good speech has
brevity
levity
repetition
then spoke on the fact that right brain thinking is increasingly important to competitive survivial, but that most left brain thinkers resist it. there for arguments for this shift had to be explained in a left-brain fashion. (if you dont' know it, right brain is considered verbal, synthetic, creative, left-brain analytical, mathmatical)
three ways to explain rise of right brain.
Abundance (arms race of design toilet brush. How to sell? features no longer matter) (demoncratized pursuit of meaning and joy. Fogel)
Asia (outsourcing - left brain work goes first)
Automation (john henry, kasparov, completecase.com, uslegalforms.com, yourdiagonosis.com- or indian cpa, turbo tax)
change
agricultural age to industrial age to info age to conceptual age
frombacks to left to right brain
Threee questions you must ask if you are in business today:
It's not just function but design
robert lutz... "I see us in the art business. Art, entertainment, and mobile sculpture, which, coincidentally, also happens to provide transportation."
roger martin.."Businesspeople don't just need to understand designers better -- they need to become designers."
bizweek... Mba applicants are mia.
Butterfly ballot is sputnik-- the thing that tells us we are in danger because we cannot desing, just like spunik told us we were in danger because we didn't know math and science. A president was elected with bad design.
For a business to suceed, you need
design symphony story play empathy meaning
www.danpink.com
BuzzMachine... by Jeff Jarvis is a wonderfully succinct post on the nature of journalism. He breaks it down to
and points out that until recently this couldn't really be done by a common individual, but that has changed, mostly aided by technology. I agree wiht all points but one: editing. I think a third party is still needed no matter what to really offer excellent news, to correct you, to make sure you are coherent, to help you spell. Editors are invisible miracles that make a good idea accessible to anyone, and we undervalue them. But I'd say that's what seperates blogging from journalism.
Saw Paul Saffo Thursday also, at Stanford. he's a wonderful, funny speaker. The way he talks about innovation was particularly enlightening-- he points out in the natural world innovation is called mutation, it's usually in response to extreme stressors, and is typically fatal.
He also talks about the unique nature of the silicon valley, particularly in its (tolerant-to-positive) attitude toward failure, and why that attitude is critical to innovation. Because the percentages are so poor on innovation succeeding, failure has to become a badge of honor or else no one will keep doing it. He points out in France bankruptcy is a shame that is spoke of in hush toed three generations later. In SV, if you haven't gone bankrupt, you aren't a player.
He also spoke quite eloquently on California being the land of dreams (using extensive historical precedent, starting with 15th century romantic novels about a amazon island named "California") and how critical dreaming was to our failure tolerance... it was far less mushy than it sounds.
Saffo also claims the reason so much innovation happens in the valley is because companies are badly managed, and gives the example of java and sun. The story goes, some engineers were working on java (with being assigned to it), and showed it to Scott Mcnealy who said, well, it's kinda interesting, but not useful, kill it. But the engineers kept working on it, and they showed it to him again later, and he said, well, it's interesting but we decided to kill it, so kill it. Then the engineers kept working on it off campus, they show it to him again, and he said "Hey that's great, I'm glad I backed it" Which is a bit of a joke, but his point about neglect and chaos being good mulch for innovation is a pretty insightful one, I think. Although the idea that (good management)=(controlling employees every activity) is a questionable premise, one he doesn't even fully subscribe to, since he spoke admiringly of David Kelly saying "hire well, hands off."
Saffo also talked a bit about how horrid many SV managers are: tyrants, managing by shouting not walking around, using the HR as a dating pool-- and nods to Steve Jobs, a genius but not a pleasant manager. But no connection of abuse and innovation is made. I'd like to see him explain how bad management beyond just neglect fuels innovation.
I attended Art of the Start conference yesterday, much of which was taken from the book you see here. It was a fun day, although I had to wonder what was motivating Garage to hold the conference. Certainly not money, the conference is peanuts compared to their usual money making exploits. I suspect maybe trying to reduce headaches from bad pitches... or perhaps it was one of their constant themes, pay back the world for your good fortune. Anyhow, good stuff, and the book is highly regarded!
My notes from the first session follow.