The Loneliest Detroiter
After a few days in the woods and reflecting with different folks (shoutout Nora) I've come to more clearly understand an important pre-requisite for making our city, Detroit, a more creative and prosperous place: long-term commitment from its people and institutions.
What I mean by this, roughly, is a commitment of people and institutions to stick around and work on difficult issues facing the city and individuals within it. This might mean committing to living in the region even if it means narrowing the choices one has for a career. For an institution, like a foundation, it may mean investing and setting up programs that won't start to see returns (social, financial, or otherwise) for two decades instead of two years. Perhaps it's doing something that is irrational, like backing an untested idea or entrepreneur who has a lot of unrealized potential, even though there are many naysayers.
In a way, long-term commitment is like unconditional love. You give it, without expecting anything in return and at the same time make a promise to work through issues even when things get hard. There are two major reasons why long-term commitment - of institutions and people - are important in Detroit: it helps you swing for the fences, and helps when building teams.
Long-term commitment opens up the possibility of tackling big, gnarly, systemic issues vexing Detroit like economic opportunity, government reform, public education, affordable housing or transportation. These sorts of systems are hugely important because they're connected to just about everything else that happens in Detroit. Without long-term commitment, it's very difficult to make headway on these issues because making progress takes a long time.
Moreover, these domains are really complex and have many moving, interconnected parts, making it very difficult to implement ad-hoc solutions. These are the sorts of issues you have to "throw the kitchen sink at", which is very hard to do unless people working the issues are willing to stick it out and see their efforts to success over a long time horizon. Long-term commitment allows problem solvers to make decisions that are unpopular or seemingly ineffective in the short-term but that will give huge benefits years later. Without long-term commitment, problem solvers run into a perverse incentive - trading short-term gain for long-term pain.
Think about President Kennedy commiting the country to go to the moon. Players in the space race were free to experiment and try things out with the Mercury and Gemini programs because they knew the country was committed to a moon landing down the road. Having the long-term commitment of the country behind them allowed NASA and the space industry to focus on "winning the war" instead of simply "winning battles."
Long-term commitment is also important because teams (with the mandate of solving gnarly, complex issues) don't build unless someone puts a stake in the ground and commits to the team. In a city, once people and institutions make long-term commitments, it helps other people and institutions have less fear to make a big commitment and therefore helps them to make big commitments themselves. It's a virtuous cycle. Once one person commits to doing something hard, and which will take a long time, other people start to do the same. This makes long-term commitment very important because none of the big, difficult problems in Detroit can be solved without an awesome, committed "team" of citizens and institutions.
What eats me is that I don't see many people or institutions making long-term commitments, save for a few of the corporations that are committed to keeping their headquarters in the city. Most people and institutions want to invest in sure things with a high potential of return. I don't think that's what we need. I think we need people and institutions who are in it for the long haul and are committed to figuring it out, so to speak, no matter how hard it is.
For the record, I'm not necessarily part of the solution. I'm only partially long-term committed to the city. My operating assumption is that I'm staying in Southeast Michigan for the long haul unless a wife takes me elsewhere. What's unfortunate is that my two-thirds-of-a-commitment is better than most. That's a problem.
So you see, the loneliest Detroiter is the one who has made a long-term commitment and has done it boldly. Because when he or she looks around at others, that bold, honorable Detroiter may find himself dancing alone.
Why I want to provide seed money for parties
In the past two weeks I released a post on this blog outlining an idea I had to help make our city a more friendly, innovative place: providing people seed money to host parties that get people talking about something. I made it previously, but I'm making one last push to raise some money to try this idea out:
I'm asking for you to give me $25 so I can give it to someone (probably someone else, that you hopefully don't know) to throw a party. In this post I'll provide you two looks into why. The first is my rationale for why I think this idea will work. The second is a story from my day which might provide some anecdotal or emotional appeal.
Appeal #1 - Why I think this will work
In my last post, I outlined a few constraints I had on these parties I want to help people throw. Here's why I put in these constraints:
- I'd give the host $50 in cash to use however they wanted, the host would be expected to spend $25 of their own (or more if they want) to get to the $75 threshold - By keeping the party small it brings more attention to the people rather than the party. And, hosts have to be invested...thus not giving them enough money to cover the whole cost of the party.
- Hosts would invite guests of their choosing:
- Each guest would be allowed to bring 0-2 friends - This keeps the party manageably sized, and by bringing friends it commits people to come...other people are depending on you to be there. Also, third degree connections (the friend of your friend's friend) is where networks really open up because you're not likely to know that person, but there's probably enough trust between you and that person because you have some ties but not a strong enough tie to make you scared to break things off if it's awkward. Third-degree connections also are where the number of contacts you have exponentially increase.
- At least one of the friends each guest brings can't already know the host - This is to promote new people meeting each other - This helps ensure diversity, but also ensures that the group isn't a bunch of strangers. This is ideal...there's enough trust for people to feel comfortable, but enough diversity to meet new people.
- Guests would be encouraged (but not expected) to bring something to contribute to the party - a dish to pass, decorations, beverages, etc. - Guests have to be invested. But, people also feel good when they exceed expectations...hence the soft request for contributions. Also by contributing, it's implicitly implied that you can participate in what's happening.
- Hosts would pick some small activity to help get a conversation going. - Something like helps convey a purpose for being there. The guests get a signal from the host that their presence matters and that their contribution / thoughts are wanted. A little structure gives people permission to participate and think about what they want to say / share beforehand. It's also not stifling when you have something simple to get conversation going.
- We'd share the experiences online - Open accessibility is good. tumblr's / blogs are easily shareable. Lots of people being able to learn from a few people is cheap and valuable. And, it makes it feel like something was produced.
So, if logic is your thing, this is why I created all these constraints for this concept.
Appeal #2 - Why I think this matters
RP and l went to a poetry reading at a friend's place today. It was a blast. It was pretty informal and there were less than 10 people there. A few people shared poems, a few didn't. Regardless, I heard ideas and learned things that I never have. I'm a better person for going. And, it was fun.
I also met some pretty cool people. I'll probably grab a drink with one of them because we have a common interest.
There's so much learning and so many positive outcomes when people meet each other and share something intimate, whether it's a conversation or a poem, a meal or an idea. Good things happen when people talk to each other and listen to each other. That's what I hope these parties that I'm trying to jumpstart do. My thing is...if we had more diverse groups of friends getting together, I feel like our city would be happier, more innovative, smarter, and more prosperous.
So, give me your money ($25) so I can throw parties...please! If you want to kick in some money, leave me a comment / facebook message / e-mail so I can get a hold of you. I'd like to collect disburse funds over Labor Day weekend.
The danger of "all in one place"
I generally view cliches with a heavy dollop of skepticism. The way I see it, if something is so easy to explain that you can use a canned line to do so, the person sharing the cliche probably hasn't thought deeply about the situation at hand. Because of its organizational roots, I'm especially critical of the cliche which presumptively values having things "all in one place" as good.
As it normally goes, at least when talking about organizations and management or creative spaces, people imply that having things - whether it be people, business process experts, information or materials - co-located...all in one place is what is needed, that having these things all in one place is obviously good and useful. Having things all in one place reduces transaction costs because the task of combining goods or services before consuming them becomes cheaper. This makes sense.
Except when it doesn't. For much of the 20th Century, perhaps it was desirable to have things all in one place. But now whether it's goods or ideas, it's a lot easier to instantly bring things together from disparate places in the moment you need them. Take Amazon for example, they can get you goods from around the world at a few days notice, maybe less than that. This makes it less necessary to have a superstore within 5-10 miles of where you live. Shipping things is cheap and fast, world-wide so it's not necessary to have things all in one place.
This is even more true for digital consumables, like information. It costs virtually nothing (pun intended) to scour for and synthesize information from across the net, as long as the information is connected. We don't need to have massive libraries or other repositories of concentrated information as long as that information is digitized, consistently formatted, and searchable. To spend effort putting information "all in one place" to just sit around is almost laughable because of how easy it is to bring information together within seconds.
The same thing goes for organizations. Organizations don't need to have all materials and expertise in-house, anymore. They can combine things and form teams around problems within hours if necessary, bringing disparate skill-sets and passionate people to a problem from around the globe. Fewer and fewer organizations need to be "one stop shops" or "all under one roof" to be successful. The same forces that have made it easy and cheap to bring goods and information together instantaneously apply to people, too.
More than merely pointing out that having things "all in one place" is inconsequential, I'd say an "all in one place" mentality is actually dangerous. Having things all in one place requires a lot of effort and a lot of internal structure. To make having something "all in one place" worth the effort you have to spread out the fixed costs of doing and make processes efficient when in operation. This often requires rigorous, inflexible processes which stifle creativity and promote the territorialization of people and resources. In other words, having things "all in one place" requires standardization, and standardization stifles creativity. That's a bad thing if you're trying to do something creative.
Now, throw my point of view out the window if the example in your mind doesn't require creativity. The rub is, there are fewer and fewer circumstance where that's actually the case, at least in the organizational world. Being efficient isn't always a useful objective anymore; the need to be creative often trumps efficiency.
So, I'd ask, before you make a statement implying that having things all in one place is unquestionably good, make sure that's actually what you mean, and that it is truly beneficial to have things all in one place.
As it normally goes, at least when talking about organizations and management or creative spaces, people imply that having things - whether it be people, business process experts, information or materials - co-located...all in one place is what is needed, that having these things all in one place is obviously good and useful. Having things all in one place reduces transaction costs because the task of combining goods or services before consuming them becomes cheaper. This makes sense.
Except when it doesn't. For much of the 20th Century, perhaps it was desirable to have things all in one place. But now whether it's goods or ideas, it's a lot easier to instantly bring things together from disparate places in the moment you need them. Take Amazon for example, they can get you goods from around the world at a few days notice, maybe less than that. This makes it less necessary to have a superstore within 5-10 miles of where you live. Shipping things is cheap and fast, world-wide so it's not necessary to have things all in one place.
This is even more true for digital consumables, like information. It costs virtually nothing (pun intended) to scour for and synthesize information from across the net, as long as the information is connected. We don't need to have massive libraries or other repositories of concentrated information as long as that information is digitized, consistently formatted, and searchable. To spend effort putting information "all in one place" to just sit around is almost laughable because of how easy it is to bring information together within seconds.
The same thing goes for organizations. Organizations don't need to have all materials and expertise in-house, anymore. They can combine things and form teams around problems within hours if necessary, bringing disparate skill-sets and passionate people to a problem from around the globe. Fewer and fewer organizations need to be "one stop shops" or "all under one roof" to be successful. The same forces that have made it easy and cheap to bring goods and information together instantaneously apply to people, too.
More than merely pointing out that having things "all in one place" is inconsequential, I'd say an "all in one place" mentality is actually dangerous. Having things all in one place requires a lot of effort and a lot of internal structure. To make having something "all in one place" worth the effort you have to spread out the fixed costs of doing and make processes efficient when in operation. This often requires rigorous, inflexible processes which stifle creativity and promote the territorialization of people and resources. In other words, having things "all in one place" requires standardization, and standardization stifles creativity. That's a bad thing if you're trying to do something creative.
Now, throw my point of view out the window if the example in your mind doesn't require creativity. The rub is, there are fewer and fewer circumstance where that's actually the case, at least in the organizational world. Being efficient isn't always a useful objective anymore; the need to be creative often trumps efficiency.
So, I'd ask, before you make a statement implying that having things all in one place is unquestionably good, make sure that's actually what you mean, and that it is truly beneficial to have things all in one place.
Fighting Gen Y Short-termism
There's a lot of pop-sci about Gen Y, some of which is probably true and some of which is probably hyperbole. Who really knows whether we Gen Yers are narcissists or not and whether we'll stay that way? Maybe we're exceptionally minded, maybe we're not, and maybe that'll change. Who knows.
Let's assume for a moment that Gen Y, generally speaking, tends to want efforts from their work to make an impact quickly. Let's assume that it's also true that Gen Y will change jobs more quickly, on average, than other generations have.
If that's the case, we Gen Yers are probably more likely to have a short-term frame of mind. After all, anyone who is going to change jobs rapidly probably doesn't want his/her effort to only result inincremental wins that are a small part of a much larger impact (that takes a long time to come to fruition). That person probably wants complete something, from start to finish, with results, in a short amount of time.
The danger is, there are lots of really important projects (like the popular Gen Y ambition to "fix" education) that take longer than a few years to start coming together, let alone complete. So, having a bias toward making an immediate, end-to-end, impact probably makes Gen Yers avoid doing things that generate returns only after a long time. Such Gen Yers would probably opt for doing something that they could see immediate results for and/or complete in short period of time.
So, I think we need to temper our Gen Y short-termism, even if it means focusing less on generating impact of our efforts very quickly. If we don't, we may never choose to work on the projects that are crucially important but require digging into for many years or across the lifetime of more than one generation.
Let's assume for a moment that Gen Y, generally speaking, tends to want efforts from their work to make an impact quickly. Let's assume that it's also true that Gen Y will change jobs more quickly, on average, than other generations have.
If that's the case, we Gen Yers are probably more likely to have a short-term frame of mind. After all, anyone who is going to change jobs rapidly probably doesn't want his/her effort to only result inincremental wins that are a small part of a much larger impact (that takes a long time to come to fruition). That person probably wants complete something, from start to finish, with results, in a short amount of time.
The danger is, there are lots of really important projects (like the popular Gen Y ambition to "fix" education) that take longer than a few years to start coming together, let alone complete. So, having a bias toward making an immediate, end-to-end, impact probably makes Gen Yers avoid doing things that generate returns only after a long time. Such Gen Yers would probably opt for doing something that they could see immediate results for and/or complete in short period of time.
So, I think we need to temper our Gen Y short-termism, even if it means focusing less on generating impact of our efforts very quickly. If we don't, we may never choose to work on the projects that are crucially important but require digging into for many years or across the lifetime of more than one generation.
A (fun) Detroit Experiment / Why 10 people should give me $25
What helps cities and organizations innovate and really thrive is when diverse groups of people get together and share ideas. I want to try something to help that happen cheaply and rapidly: jumpstart parties. Please help me.
I need 10 people at least (well 9, because I will kick in some money) to give me $25. If you're intrigued so far, please keep reading and let me try to convince you. Here's the idea:
The Context
Really cool things happen when diverse - not necessarily just in terms of race, class, and other social identities...diversity includes groups of people with different experiences, creeds, values, etc. - groups of people get together and exchange ideas. They way I figure it, if we had lots of diverse groups of people getting together and sharing ideas across the city it would lead to some great outcomes: people would probably find dates/mates, businesses might start, people might find jobs, people would make friends...lots of things.
After thinking about it, my favorite (and easiest) way of helping this happen is to throw parties. Not just any parties, parties that have a good mix of people and where there's something to jumpstart a conversation. All the formal events happening in the city are great, don't get me wrong, but I think there's something special and intimate about a smaller, informal gathering where the only expectation is to come, and share something. It's not particularly difficult or expensive either.
So I thought, why not help more parties of diverse people sharing ideas happen?
The Idea
The way I figure it, you can throw a good party for about $75, for about 8-15 people. I want to give people money to help get some parties going. There'd be a few simple conditions, though:
- I'd give the host $50 in cash to use however they wanted, the host would be expected to spend $25 of their own (or more if they want) to get to the $75 threshold
- Hosts would invite guests of their choosing:
- Each guest would be allowed to bring 0-2 friends
- At least one of the friends each guest brings can't already know the host - this is to promote new people meeting each other
- Guests would be encouraged (but not expected) to bring something to contribute to the party - a dish to pass, decorations, beverages, etc.
- Hosts would pick some small activity to help get a conversation going. It can be very structured or not so structured, here are a few examples that I've experienced:
- In addition to bringing a dish - bring a poem, and everyone takes turns sharing, a poetry potluck!
- Everyone reads an article of the host's choosing, and the host helps get a conversation started and then lets it go where it may
- The host gets several bottles of wine and everyone does a blind taste test where they rate the wines and guess the price. The host aggregates the data to see if people's preferences match the price of the wine
- All members of the party are posed a question / design challenge, they do some brainstorming exercises and conversation ensues
- We'd share the experiences online
- I'd setup a tumblr or some blog
- Each host would be expected to write a post talking about what happened and any interesting conversations or activities which ensued
- The host would be expected to get at least one guest to write about their experience, as well
- Any guest would have the opportunity to write a post if they wanted to (not just the one the host gets...and many posts would be great)
- Pictures / videos would be encouraged!
- Party Logistics
- I'd grant out money for at least five parties, but no less than five. If I don't get enough money I'm not going to move forward
- All parties would happen on one weekend (say, Sept. 20 - Sept. 22). That way the same people probably wouldn't be able to make the rounds at all the parties and more people would be involved
- To pick the hosts, I'd just try to pick a group of diverse people who probably didn't run in all the same circles. I'd take suggestions of people who are good at throwing parties, too (you could list those below)!
- The hosts would do all the work planning parties, but I'd help out with solving problems and all the hosts could help each other out if they need ideas (I'd setup an e-mail group)
I need help
This is what I need help with:
- Please give me your feedback! You can e-mail me (use the contact me box if you don't know my e-mail address / facebook etc.) or leave a comment on this post
- Give me money (any denomination)! If you'd be willing to kick in some dough, let me know! If we have a critical mass of people, I'll collect the money and make this happen. If you have other ideas, please let me know that too
- Spread the word! The more feedback the better!
Thanks to all the people who have already chimed in (I e-mailed some close friends about two weeks ago).
My commute, slash, transportation as an end-to-end experience
First a bit about my commute...
Every day this summer, I've had a choice on how to commute. I could walk/cycle, drive, or take the bus from New Center (where I live) to Capitol Park (where I spend my working hours). Here's the decision framework and I'll follow with some (hopefully) interesting observations about how we can think about transportation differently. The punchline - we're thinking about it immaturely.
Walking / Cycling: Walking is free, but it takes a long time. I have a decent amount to carry and sometimes the weather is bad. Cycling is good, but I don't have a nice bike and I don't really know how to take care of it. The bike shop is not open everyday and there's only one nearby. As a result, my bike has been sitting at Department of Alternatives for the past week, with a leaky rear tube. If it wasn't for my friend Mike Evans (check out his company, pishposh.tv, here), I would know nothing about bicycle care and would be really sunk.
Driving: Despite the fact my car isn't a desirable one, it's pretty easy to use it. Parking is $4, and I can go and come as I please. Traffic in Detroit isn't terrible, either. The 3.5 miles isn't a huge amount to spend on gasoline, either, and having a car comes in handy if I need to make any stops on the way home from work (e.g., if I need to buy groceries). It's annoying to need cash, though. Cars, in general, are expensive, however, and bad things happen when lots of people commute by car by themselves, like I do.
The Bus: It costs $3 and takes a lot more time, especially if you account for waiting times. That is made a little bit easier by using TextMyBus (which incidentally is also one of Mike's projects*). It's also crowded, but I think that's kind of exciting. Like when I drive, I need cash. And, I also need exact change ($1.50 per trip).
*Addition after publishing - Matt Hampel is another member of the TextMyBus Crew!
---
What this means for how we think about transportation and the "mobility industry"...
Taking all this into account, I usually drive. Here's the point, though. People are thinking about all of these transportation options solely as destination products/services (see this blog post for more about this concept), I think, but they shouldn't be anymore. We should be thinking about mobility as an end-to-end customer experience for unique customer segments.
The whole dialogue about transportation really doesn't think about connecting infrastructure and destination products/services into a cohesive product or service. And we wonder why people (who in Detroit have a lot of leeway in picking their transit...all three of my options are relatively easy to pursue) don't adopt transit solutions? We ought to treat them like customers who need options for a unique experience and the curation of a unique experience that fits them.
If we (meaning, institutions, governments, companies, and consumers) thought more about transportation as a customer experience, we'd probably talk more about raising the price of parking, or having an easier time buying a bus pass with a credit card. The only "customer experience" for transportation I think I've ever had in Detroit is Uber (a personal black car from the cloud you can call upon with a mobile app...it's great).
For a long time people thought about transportation as a destination product or service. People wanted cars, because they couldn't even conceive of transporting themselves any other way. People who weren't wealthy in New York probably treated the subway as a destination product/service because they had no other option. The point was to buy a vehicle or take public transit, making a customer experience was your own responsibility.
Now, vehicles themselves are more like a piece of infrastructure, because they're really replicable and the basic platform for building a car, subway, or train is well known (and falling in price). Automobiles and bicycles are commodities, which is why we're starting to see really niche vehicles (e.g., high performance cars, luxury cars) or differentiating products or services being put into cars (e.g., in-car electronics or personal assistant services).
What's next for transportation, briefly, is thinking about consumers (with unique personas) as wanting to have useful, end-to-end transportation experiences rather than thinking of them as automobile owners or bus riders looking simply to consume a destination product or service. Any person or organization that can start to play a "curator of a customer experience" role in the mobility space - whether it's a startup, an existing mobility/transportation company (like an automaker), or a public servant - will provide a lot of value (and probably make a lot of money, too).
Definitions: What archetype of business are you?
First and foremost, I'm borrowing most (maybe more than "most") of this idea from a conversation I had with a good friend, Christopher Gong. [Update: Chris said a lot of the content of our conversation came from John Hagel's HBR article on "Unbundling the Corporation" so both deserve the credit here!].
Anyway, I see any business initiative (whether it's a company wholly or an initiative within a company) as one of three fundamental archetypes: infrastructure provision, destination products/services, or curators of a customer experience. These are all rough delineations as some products/services may bleed into different categories, depending on their context (e.g., in some cases infrastructure might be a destination product/service and vice versa)
Here are the different categories:
Infrastructure Provision
These are products and services which allow other products and services - across industries and sectors - to be consumed more easily. These are the sorts of products and services that don't really have niche customer segments because they serve all sorts of other businesses serving customers, or, serve customers directly. For example, Amazon Web Services, Roads, Sheet Metal, and The App Store are all infrastructure because people can use these products/services like commodities and build other products, services, and experiences on top of them or using them. Infrastructure is used to consume or produce another product in a easier, better, or more efficient way.
Destination Products/Services
These are products and services which provide a distinct, specific value to a specific customer. It's probably a higher-margin offering which is not as readily transferrable across customer segments. These products/services use infrastructure, probably, to be created or used and are are a small part of a customer's overall experience doing some end-to-end activity. Markets for destination products/services are fragmented because offerings need to be highly customized to specific customer segments. These are something that a consumer actually consumes not something used to produce or consume another product, unlike infrastructure. The vast majority of products and services are this category, I think: heirloom tomatoes, tote bags, advanced pharmaceuticals, a restaurant, and Angry Birds.
Curators of Customer Experience
This group of products and services has recently emerged more prominently, I think. These are the services, people, and products which string together infrastructure and destination products/services to provide a seamless, delightful experience to a customer. They are the interfaces which combine products and services and think about how different things fit together. These could be everything from your tailor, or a retailer, to the designers who designed the MacBook Air I'm writing this post on. In a lot of cases, it's not a trivial exercise to package and weave stuff together...especially when there's an overwhelming amount of choice and it's unclear how different bundles of products and services provide the most value to a very unique customer. Examples here could be: a personal shopper, Amazon's recommendation service, a city planner, or match.com. There are a lot of digital examples here, but the curator need not be expressly digital. Also, people who are good at this could probably recommend other destination products, destination services, or infrastructure which is missing from a seamless customer experience (and that's powerful / interesting / cool).
---
Anyway, these are just some basic definitions to be used in the next post (and in the future). Here's something important, though. If you're a business you better know which of these you are, which of these you can be, and which of these is the most valuable to a customer. If you don't, you'll probably not sell your product or service very well.
For what it's worth, these archetypes probably apply to other sectors (not the private sector), I just thought about this in the context of profit-making businesses for simplicity's sake.
Anyway, I see any business initiative (whether it's a company wholly or an initiative within a company) as one of three fundamental archetypes: infrastructure provision, destination products/services, or curators of a customer experience. These are all rough delineations as some products/services may bleed into different categories, depending on their context (e.g., in some cases infrastructure might be a destination product/service and vice versa)
Here are the different categories:
Infrastructure Provision
These are products and services which allow other products and services - across industries and sectors - to be consumed more easily. These are the sorts of products and services that don't really have niche customer segments because they serve all sorts of other businesses serving customers, or, serve customers directly. For example, Amazon Web Services, Roads, Sheet Metal, and The App Store are all infrastructure because people can use these products/services like commodities and build other products, services, and experiences on top of them or using them. Infrastructure is used to consume or produce another product in a easier, better, or more efficient way.
Destination Products/Services
These are products and services which provide a distinct, specific value to a specific customer. It's probably a higher-margin offering which is not as readily transferrable across customer segments. These products/services use infrastructure, probably, to be created or used and are are a small part of a customer's overall experience doing some end-to-end activity. Markets for destination products/services are fragmented because offerings need to be highly customized to specific customer segments. These are something that a consumer actually consumes not something used to produce or consume another product, unlike infrastructure. The vast majority of products and services are this category, I think: heirloom tomatoes, tote bags, advanced pharmaceuticals, a restaurant, and Angry Birds.
Curators of Customer Experience
This group of products and services has recently emerged more prominently, I think. These are the services, people, and products which string together infrastructure and destination products/services to provide a seamless, delightful experience to a customer. They are the interfaces which combine products and services and think about how different things fit together. These could be everything from your tailor, or a retailer, to the designers who designed the MacBook Air I'm writing this post on. In a lot of cases, it's not a trivial exercise to package and weave stuff together...especially when there's an overwhelming amount of choice and it's unclear how different bundles of products and services provide the most value to a very unique customer. Examples here could be: a personal shopper, Amazon's recommendation service, a city planner, or match.com. There are a lot of digital examples here, but the curator need not be expressly digital. Also, people who are good at this could probably recommend other destination products, destination services, or infrastructure which is missing from a seamless customer experience (and that's powerful / interesting / cool).
---
Anyway, these are just some basic definitions to be used in the next post (and in the future). Here's something important, though. If you're a business you better know which of these you are, which of these you can be, and which of these is the most valuable to a customer. If you don't, you'll probably not sell your product or service very well.
For what it's worth, these archetypes probably apply to other sectors (not the private sector), I just thought about this in the context of profit-making businesses for simplicity's sake.
How and when does (de)regulation foster innovation?
Government regulation is a topic that's oft used as a political tool. Those in favor of regulation talk about how it protects consumers and those opposed talk about how regulation unnecessarily hinder business. Fair points.
Right now, innovation, growth, and job growth matter a lot. So I wonder, does regulation encourage or discourage innovation? Why?
As it turns out, a quick survey of research about the effects of regulation and deregulation suggests that the jury is still out. Rather, sometimes regulation and deregulation both encourage and discourage innovation depending on how it's conceived and how it's implemented.
So, this leaves an interesting research gap that inquiring minds (e.g., like those from regulators, policy makers, business leaders, workers, etc.) probably want to know about. It seems like anyone who investigated these questions in a rigorous way would probably do a lot of good. Here are some of the questions which seem to be relevant:
1. What principles should regulation / deregulation be written with to encourage, rather than discourage innovation?
2. How does said regulation / deregulation need to be implemented to encourage, rather than discourage innovation?
3. How can innovation be comprehensively measured (indicators and metrics)?
Some hypotheses of when innovation flourishes:
- When standards are applied evenly
- When standards are raised for an entire industry
- When barriers to entry are lowered
- When access to information for producers is not squelched
- When infrastructure is already adequate in the industry for all market players
- When consumers have transparency to behaviors once an industry is deregulated
- When regulators have necessary independence from industry lobbyists and consumer groups
- When regulatory agencies process claims quickly
Skills vs. Capabilities
As the world becomes more dynamic, capabilities matter more and more.
"We need people with more skills!" cried the HR Manager and her cadre of business representatives. Without the right skills, they said, "we can't deliver our products and services!"
Yes, of course. But maybe those that are looking for "skills" are pursuing the wrong goal.
I think there's a monumental difference between skills and capabilities. Skills are something that you get better at practicing over and over. It's a finite ability that can be used under a fixed set of constraints in a narrow set of environments. A skill is something you learn to do and go do it. You repeat it over and over and get better at it and do it the same way every time.
A capability is different, I'd say. A capability isn't a specific skill that fits in a given situation. It's an deep-rooted ability which can be applied in many contexts. It's something you train and have to learn to do in context. It's not an isolated skill, it's an ability that flows in and out as the environment demands it.
Take tennis for example. An open-stanced forehand groundstroke is a skill. It is only usable when the ball is on a specific side of your body and works better on certain court types and when a certain type of ball is hit to you. You practice it and you get better at it. As a result, you try to control the environment so that you can use that shot...so your skill is in a relevant context. Either that or you learn more skills so that you have more options to choose from as you control your environment.
Moving your feet to position correctly to the ball applies to any shot you take in a tennis match: a serve, a volley, a groundstroke, an approach shot, and overhead smash...anything. Moreover, it's an ability that applies to many different sports like basketball, football, soccer, or volleyball to name a few. It's something you train and focus on as part of other actions and motions. You learn the fundamentals and you get better at applying a capability in various circumstances. It's something you use differently as the environment changes. In fact, you use capabilities to adapt to a changing environment.
I'd venture to say that the organizational world is one we have less control over than previous generations and we'll probably continue to lose control of the environment around us. As this happens, capabilities will become more relevant than skills, because skills will become obselete. Some days your business will require an open-stanced forehand ground strokes and other days you won't even be competing on a tennis court, figuratively.
So that raises a question. Is your organization's HR department (or schools, or business leaders, more importantly) cultivating skills or cultivating capabilities? Do they even understand the difference?
—
This is my most visited post from people across the world. You can find more by visiting my blog landing page at www.neiltambe.com/blog.
Or stay in touch another way: If you’d like email updates from me once a week with new posts, please sign up to stay in touch, pick up the RSS feed, or catch me on twitter @neil_tambe.
Work Environment Redesign and Cities
From as far back as I can remember, I've loved studying organizations and institutions. Cities, in all their density, diversity, elbow-bumping, and grimy cosmopolitan-ness are one of my favorite examples of such things. Cities are super interesting (and fun).
While serving as a Research Fellow at Deloitte's Center for the Edge, we aimed to understand the heart of how to create organizations which accelerated talent development and performance improvement (here's a link to our paper, Work Environment Redesign: Accelerating Talent Development and Performance Improvement).
While we were researching the paper, I always wondered...would the design principles we developed apply to designing systems within cities? We were studying companies, but I figured it was possible since both cities and companies are forms of organization. Here's a go at applying the design principles we developed at the Center to New York City (a city that's touted as one of the worlds great cities, and one that I'm decently familiar with).
In the paper we outlined three goals that a "work environment" should have, and outlined three "design principles" within each of those goals. I've applied the same framework to New York City. See the paper itself if you want clearer definitions of what each design principle actually means. Also, if you have insights into specific examples from New York (or other cities), please share them!
While serving as a Research Fellow at Deloitte's Center for the Edge, we aimed to understand the heart of how to create organizations which accelerated talent development and performance improvement (here's a link to our paper, Work Environment Redesign: Accelerating Talent Development and Performance Improvement).
While we were researching the paper, I always wondered...would the design principles we developed apply to designing systems within cities? We were studying companies, but I figured it was possible since both cities and companies are forms of organization. Here's a go at applying the design principles we developed at the Center to New York City (a city that's touted as one of the worlds great cities, and one that I'm decently familiar with).
In the paper we outlined three goals that a "work environment" should have, and outlined three "design principles" within each of those goals. I've applied the same framework to New York City. See the paper itself if you want clearer definitions of what each design principle actually means. Also, if you have insights into specific examples from New York (or other cities), please share them!
Goals for Work Environment Redesign
Goal #1: Define high-impact challenges
- Meaningful challenges and impact - This design principle seems to typify New York. As Jay-Z says in Empire State of Mind about New York, "If I can make it here, I can make it anywhere," which demonstrates that one of the reasons to be a New Yorker is to achieve and aspire to the best in ones field whether it's finance, ballet, or food-trucking. It's perhaps not "meaningful" to pursue a challenge simply to best other people, but living in New York definitely stretches one's skills and abilities. What I'd be curious about is how city systems support this instead of just "the culture" of New Yorkers supporting it. At very least it seems like Mayors of New York set aspirational goals to encourage citizens to be excellent so New York can be the best city in the world.
- Rapid experimentation - New York seems to do this pretty well too, even if unintentionally. Think of the quick turnover of restaurants and public performance art that happens in the city. Restaurants are supported by permitting processes in a city and if those processes are onerous or slow it's a big hurdle to rapid experimentation. I imagine that New York is probably pretty good at doing all this quickly, given how fast restaurants open and close in New York. And, they probably rebuilt their processes for food trucks and pop-up restaurants (can anyone confirm this?). There's also a lot of tolerance and acceptability by New Yorkers (e.g., by police), it seems, to random people panhandling and performing on the street. This opportunity is probably one reason that artists in New York are able to refine and improve their skills quickly.
- Real-time feedback and reflection - New Yorkers are very candid...some would say they are rude. Whether or not this true you get feedback from New Yorkers all over the place when you're there because communication is frank. The city of New York also seems to solicit feedback about things to repair in the city through the use of apps these days which is pretty cool. Instead of the common belief that cities make people rude, maybe some cities with cultures of "rudeness" outgrow other cities because they're more likely to have feedback systems through direct, honest human communication.
Goal #2: Strengthen high-impact connections
- Challenge-specific teaming - I'm going to defer to the cloud on this one...are there organizations (government or otherwise) that form teams around specific challenges? Not being a New Yorker, it's really hard to know the dynamics of how ad-hoc teams form throughout the city and how city systems support this.
- Relevant connections - I think it's very intentional that New York City's taxi medallions are displayed prominently outside of taxi cabs. Also, restaurants all display their licenses prominently. Maybe it's not deliberate that critical service-providing institutions have to display their expertise prominently, but it's nicely incidental. On top of that, New York has made a big deal about opening its data which surely helps with making relevant connections.
- “Chance” encounters - New York is always having public events in different places like street fairs, public markets, etc. These sorts of broadly accessible events (read: cheap or free) and transportation to access them presumably helps "chance" encounters happen.
Goal #3: Amplify impact
- Adaptive environment - This is one of the things I like most about New York City. There are different kinds of development types in different parts of the city. Times Square is touristy and densely packed. Wall Street is very business like. Central Park is a wide open space in the middle of a bustling metropolis. Every neighborhood has different traits which can be used for different purposes by citizens. More than that, the City government allows the cityscape to evolve as needs change. Think of High Line park which was one a freight rail line platform and is now a (really fantastic) park.
- Smart capture and share - I can't really think of how this applies to cities except for maybe different people filling this role outside of city systems. Different people probably have curators for different parts of their lives like a personal shopper, a "shoe guy", or a real estate agent. This seems to fit more in a knowledge-driven environment so maybe that's why it's lacking when applying this design principles to New York. Detroit's D:hive attempts to be this sort of "air-traffic controller", I suppose.
- Mutual ownership - From a few things I've read, neighborhood groups have real power in New York and the administration of the city is allowed to flow down to Wards, in earnest. This probably gives New Yorkers a sense of "mutual ownership" and autonomy when conducting city affairs. Letting people make decisions in their own neighborhood isn't just lip service, from what I can tell.
A quick conclusion
Overall, it seems like the design principles in Work Environment Redesign seem to map to city systems and processes pretty well. What I'd be curious about if there are other true design principles which help accelerate the growth and prosperity of a city. "Diversity" is one that comes to mind, but I suppose in the paper cognitive diversity is assumed.
Measuring Organizations - Part I
In the organizational world today, measurement is en mode and rightly so. Measurement is very important because it proves or disproves whether a particular strategy or program is working. If you don't measure what you're doing, then how can the organization smartly make changes and get better?
I don't think I've wrote this out before, but the way I see it, there's a few kinds of measurements:
I don't think I've wrote this out before, but the way I see it, there's a few kinds of measurements:
- Operational Performance: These are measurements which try to assess whether the things that happen "behind the scenes" from the customer are being done well. These don't necessarily happen solely inside the four walls of the organization because the organization may be partnering behind the scenes with a partner or ecosystem to deliver value to the customer. These measurements determine whether you've got the right stuff going on under the hood
- Customer Value: These are measurements which represent what the customer feels (explicitly or implicitly) about the organization's product or service. There are two ways I can see to do this. One, you ask customers what they think and really listen to what they say. Two, you see how they vote with their feet, so to speak, when making trade-offs; you look at what they do. How much do they pay or otherwise sacrifice for your product or service? This could be in dollars, time, resources, behavior, it doesn't JUST have to be dollars
- Customer Impact: These are measurements which show whether your product or service is actually making your customer's life better. If you are trying to make your customer's life better by helping them be x, y, and, z...you ought to measure it
- Investor Value: These are measurements defining and determining whether investors are getting the return they desire. In some cases investors are actually customers or participating members of the organization (i.e., also subject to operational metrics). I'd rather call these folks the investors (rather than shareholders) because in lots of organization there are people who give more than just large amounts of capital who are otherwise "invested" in the returns the organization is trying to achieve (e.g., employees, volunteers, advocates). This category is an amalgamation of all the stakeholders in the organization who are putting something into it. They should also be getting something out of it
I'd be curious, do you think this covers the gamut of all categories of organizational measurement? Obviously lots of things fold in underneath these (I acknowledge that these categories aren't specific), but big-picture wise I'm curious about what you think or how you would revise this framework.
I'd like to add one nuance that I hadn't thought about until yesterday. There's a difference between a metric and an indicator:
Metrics are backward-looking. They assess whether ideas, strategies, and programs the organization put into place previously are working and are yielding results. The benefit is, you know whether what you did actually made a difference for your customers and investors. The downside is, metrics don't give insight into whether what you are trying to do will yield results. These sorts of measurements don't help you figure out if what you're doing along the way will get the results you want. In the game of basketball, this might be points or a win and loss record. Metrics are the proof in the pudding.
Indicators are forward-looking. They assess whether ideas, strategies, and programs the organization put into place will work. The benefit is, if your indicators are looking good you can have a reasonable expectation that you're on the right track. The downside is, indicators aren't proof of results. Having good indicators doesn't matter in the real world and you can never really know whether indicators are accurate until you validate them with testing and measuring metrics. Take basketball for example, having lots of assists is a good indicator that you'll win a game, but, it doesn't guarantee that you'll score more points than another team. Indicators are the tea leaves that tell you what the future might look like.
One final point, I really think this framework (well, this is more like the beginnings of a framework) can transcend the public, private, and social sector...the designer of the metrics just has to flex the concepts a bit. Moreover, some of these metrics and indicators should be short term and some should be long term.
So, putting these all together, metrics are a matrix along three dimensions: Category (e.g., Customer Value vs. Investor Value), Metric vs. Indicator, and short-term vs. long term. Having a robust build out of such a "metrics cube", with measurements at every three-axis intersection would be amazing.
I bring this up to broaden the conversation about measurement. There are lots of buzzwords thrown around when this topic is discussed, and I hope this provides a bit more rigor. Well, I hope it does. I don't really enjoy buzzwordy conversations about a topic that's super important to push the organizational world forward.
The PhD Topic List
Being the nerd that I am, I have a list in wherever I keep lists that's particularly nerdy. It's titled "PhD Topics." This is the list of long term research and/or entrepreneurship projects that I have at the ready in case I ever have the opportunity to swing for the fences on a cool topic.
Since I have a lot of time to do some thinking and research this summer, I figured I'd share them publicly. Please do steal them, riff on them, or otherwise lift them. All I'd ask is that if you end up pursuing something (though I'm not arrogant enough to think any of these is particularly great), please let me at least holler at you to talk about it and/or convince you to let me join you!
If you have any comments, I'd love to chat about them with you.
Okay, here's the list. I hope it's interesting...it's a window into the sorts of things I think about when nobody's watching:
Creating Effective Narratives
Narratives are hugely important in public life and are critical tools leaders use to convey meaning and facilitate collective action across large portions of the population. How are narratives created in public life? What makes a powerful and effective narrative? It would be interesting to study successful narratives created in public life (e.g., Manifest Destiny, The American Dream, The Space Race, Bush Doctrine) to see what could be learned and theorized about how leaders and the public can successfully seed and shape narratives to motivate collective action.
Applying Talent Strategies to Ecosystems
There are a lot of "talent" frameworks used by consultancies and HR business units on how to think about and develop talent. These frameworks, however, apply to a single organization and how that organizations manages and develops its talent. In public life, however, there seems to be an increasing need to think about "ecosystems" of talent are managed and developed to improve performance. These ecosystems could be municipalities, industries, regions, or even nation-states. How can we apply, adapt, or build talent frameworks to successfully develop and manage talent at the level of ecosystems? For example, if the State of Michigan, Automotive Industry, or United States of America wanted to develop a "talent strategy" for it's constituency, what might it look like? How cool would that be to figure out?
Reimagining Institutions (I) - Rethinking Forms of Government
This one is a really cool / simple, yet powerful thought exercise: if we were to start from scratch with creating a system of government, what would we build? Would it be democracy, or would it be something entirely new?
Reimagining Institutions (II) - Defining Government's Purpose and Scope
What sort of impact is government supposed to have in our lives? The Constitution, the governing document where you would expect to find such direction, is largely silent on the issue - the preamble sort of gets at this (e.g., "In order to form a more perfect union...") but the rest of the document is a framework, more than anything. So, what's the purpose of the US Government, why should it exist? Once we define a purpose for Government, how does that translate into a "scope" of programs and initiatives?
Why Organizations Exist
From the beginning of human history, why have we formed organizations? What are the major innovations in organizational formation (e.g., the social contract, limited liability corporation, currency / markets, 501c (3)s). Why have we needed organizations and how have they evolved? Looking into the future, how is what we need from organizations changing and what will we need organizations to do in the future?
Purpose-driven Organization
This merits its own post (this is one of my summer projects), but what does it look like if you put a clearly defined purpose at the center of why an organization exists, rather than putting shareholder value creation at the center of why an organization exists? How do you build, operate, and improve such organizations? There's so much to this one...it's basically articulating an alternative to hierarchical bureaucracy...which has ruled organizational life for several decades.
Leadership?
In purpose-driven organizations (see above), what does "leadership" look like? Is leadership the construct that's even needed to have high-performing organizations of this type? If not, what instead?
Teamership - http://www.michigandaily.com/content/making-teamership-important-leadership
How do you have high-performing teams, and how do you measure and predict whether teams will be successful?
Orienting Ecosystems
There's a new leadership discipline emerging as more and more organizations work collaboratively to deliver public value - ecosystem leadership. How does a group of disparate partners work together with constituencies to define a purpose and vision for an ecosystem and then create systems to manage and improve that ecosystem's performance. This is another summer project, stay tuned.
Measuring Impact
There are three types of measurement required for all organizations - internal operations metrics, customer feedback/value metrics, and customer impact metrics. How do you do all three effectively and leverage technology to go through the "metrics lifecycle" (defining impact, setting metrics, collecting data, organizing it, analyzing it, and sharing the results)?
Since I have a lot of time to do some thinking and research this summer, I figured I'd share them publicly. Please do steal them, riff on them, or otherwise lift them. All I'd ask is that if you end up pursuing something (though I'm not arrogant enough to think any of these is particularly great), please let me at least holler at you to talk about it and/or convince you to let me join you!
If you have any comments, I'd love to chat about them with you.
Okay, here's the list. I hope it's interesting...it's a window into the sorts of things I think about when nobody's watching:
Creating Effective Narratives
Narratives are hugely important in public life and are critical tools leaders use to convey meaning and facilitate collective action across large portions of the population. How are narratives created in public life? What makes a powerful and effective narrative? It would be interesting to study successful narratives created in public life (e.g., Manifest Destiny, The American Dream, The Space Race, Bush Doctrine) to see what could be learned and theorized about how leaders and the public can successfully seed and shape narratives to motivate collective action.
Applying Talent Strategies to Ecosystems
There are a lot of "talent" frameworks used by consultancies and HR business units on how to think about and develop talent. These frameworks, however, apply to a single organization and how that organizations manages and develops its talent. In public life, however, there seems to be an increasing need to think about "ecosystems" of talent are managed and developed to improve performance. These ecosystems could be municipalities, industries, regions, or even nation-states. How can we apply, adapt, or build talent frameworks to successfully develop and manage talent at the level of ecosystems? For example, if the State of Michigan, Automotive Industry, or United States of America wanted to develop a "talent strategy" for it's constituency, what might it look like? How cool would that be to figure out?
Reimagining Institutions (I) - Rethinking Forms of Government
This one is a really cool / simple, yet powerful thought exercise: if we were to start from scratch with creating a system of government, what would we build? Would it be democracy, or would it be something entirely new?
Reimagining Institutions (II) - Defining Government's Purpose and Scope
What sort of impact is government supposed to have in our lives? The Constitution, the governing document where you would expect to find such direction, is largely silent on the issue - the preamble sort of gets at this (e.g., "In order to form a more perfect union...") but the rest of the document is a framework, more than anything. So, what's the purpose of the US Government, why should it exist? Once we define a purpose for Government, how does that translate into a "scope" of programs and initiatives?
Why Organizations Exist
From the beginning of human history, why have we formed organizations? What are the major innovations in organizational formation (e.g., the social contract, limited liability corporation, currency / markets, 501c (3)s). Why have we needed organizations and how have they evolved? Looking into the future, how is what we need from organizations changing and what will we need organizations to do in the future?
Purpose-driven Organization
This merits its own post (this is one of my summer projects), but what does it look like if you put a clearly defined purpose at the center of why an organization exists, rather than putting shareholder value creation at the center of why an organization exists? How do you build, operate, and improve such organizations? There's so much to this one...it's basically articulating an alternative to hierarchical bureaucracy...which has ruled organizational life for several decades.
Leadership?
In purpose-driven organizations (see above), what does "leadership" look like? Is leadership the construct that's even needed to have high-performing organizations of this type? If not, what instead?
Teamership - http://www.michigandaily.com/content/making-teamership-important-leadership
How do you have high-performing teams, and how do you measure and predict whether teams will be successful?
Orienting Ecosystems
There's a new leadership discipline emerging as more and more organizations work collaboratively to deliver public value - ecosystem leadership. How does a group of disparate partners work together with constituencies to define a purpose and vision for an ecosystem and then create systems to manage and improve that ecosystem's performance. This is another summer project, stay tuned.
Measuring Impact
There are three types of measurement required for all organizations - internal operations metrics, customer feedback/value metrics, and customer impact metrics. How do you do all three effectively and leverage technology to go through the "metrics lifecycle" (defining impact, setting metrics, collecting data, organizing it, analyzing it, and sharing the results)?
Best Practices
The world we live in tells us to study what has worked in the past, and repeat it over and over. And over and over. We try to find the best ideas and transplant them to other circumstances.
This is efficient, but I think it can be dangerous, because being a "best" practice doesn't mean the practice is any good at all. It's very possible that the "best" practice could be the best out of a set of utterly awful practices.
So, it's very possible that I'm being overly cynical here, but let's take a step back to see what a world of best practices looks like (i.e., today's world). We have tons of income inequality, and our natural habitat possibly has irreversible damage which will cause perplexing and debilitating climate change. Trust in a decent amount of institutions is really, really low. Narratives are fear based and consumption-driven. Does this sound like a world where "best" practices have been applied? Would we want to replicate practices from the world we live in at all?
I see two ways out of this. One, we could start being a lot more critical about how we apply "best practices". Two, we could start combing for "right" practices in which we comprehensively understand the true costs and root causes of the problems we're trying to solve and we do the right thing - with original thinking - to make the situation better, learning from other's experiences only where applicable.
Both are important. I'm willing to bet you $20, though, that almost nobody is trying to find "right" practices.
I'm really skeptical of reports that rattle off "best practices." I often find that not much thinking goes into them. Best practices seem to sweep complexity under the rug and claim to be simple, while a right practice would embrace the complexity of a situation and recommend something simple to change the dynamics of the system.
That, however, would take actual thought.
This is efficient, but I think it can be dangerous, because being a "best" practice doesn't mean the practice is any good at all. It's very possible that the "best" practice could be the best out of a set of utterly awful practices.
So, it's very possible that I'm being overly cynical here, but let's take a step back to see what a world of best practices looks like (i.e., today's world). We have tons of income inequality, and our natural habitat possibly has irreversible damage which will cause perplexing and debilitating climate change. Trust in a decent amount of institutions is really, really low. Narratives are fear based and consumption-driven. Does this sound like a world where "best" practices have been applied? Would we want to replicate practices from the world we live in at all?
I see two ways out of this. One, we could start being a lot more critical about how we apply "best practices". Two, we could start combing for "right" practices in which we comprehensively understand the true costs and root causes of the problems we're trying to solve and we do the right thing - with original thinking - to make the situation better, learning from other's experiences only where applicable.
Both are important. I'm willing to bet you $20, though, that almost nobody is trying to find "right" practices.
I'm really skeptical of reports that rattle off "best practices." I often find that not much thinking goes into them. Best practices seem to sweep complexity under the rug and claim to be simple, while a right practice would embrace the complexity of a situation and recommend something simple to change the dynamics of the system.
That, however, would take actual thought.
Measuring Resistance to Institutional Change
A few weeks ago, I wrote up a post exploring whether or not traditional institutions are starting to lose power. The question I was struggling with was how the balance of power was (or wasn't) shifting between traditional, centralized institutions and non-traditional actors.
At the bar, Nick Andrew (what up doe) and I were arguing (more accurately: he was lawyering me / taking me to school) about whether this shift in power was or wasn't happening. As it turns out, that's probably not the most important point.
The more important point is that both sides - traditional and non-traditional actors - aren't rolling over and letting the other "win". Both types of institutional actors are trying to stake out a claim as the world changes. If the shift in power is happening, traditional actors are digging their heels in and are trying to hold onto their power as long as possible. If the shift isn't happening, non-traditional actors are certainly trying to flex as much muscle as they can to angle out their larger competitors.
So, this is all great and theoretical and nerdy, etc., but it has real consequences too. When two competing powers try to live on the same turf there's often conflict. And when the powers are powerful and the stakes are high, the conflict is big. What this means is...there's probably going to be some trouble starting. Big trouble.
What's worse, if institutions are resisting change it means they aren't changing. This is problematic, because we desperately need institutions to change.
---
Deloitte's Center for the Edge (full disclosure: I've spent time researching there so I'm not an unbiased observer) has an index called the Shift Index which measures the macro-level shifts that are occurring in the economy and society. They're measuring the way our world is changing.
What the Shift Index isn't measuring, at least in my opinion, is resistance to the change. After brooding on the conversation I've referenced and reflected on above, I think there's a lot of value that such a measure would bring. If you are an entrepreneur, you could determine which industries are ripe for disruption. If you're a policy maker, you could figure out where to spend your time trying to smooth out the transition. If you're a social sector change maker, you could use the index to determine which sub-groups have the most need for assistance.
A natural question to ask is, how one would even go about measuring resistance to colossal, macro-economic change? Well, I think there are a few categories of metrics that might be appropriate - rent-seeking behavior, risk-aversion, and existence of conflict. Here's how I'd describe each category:
Rent-seeking behavior: as I understand it, rent-seeking behavior is basically when a company tries to get a bigger share of existing wealth instead of trying to create new wealth. Some metrics might be:
At the bar, Nick Andrew (what up doe) and I were arguing (more accurately: he was lawyering me / taking me to school) about whether this shift in power was or wasn't happening. As it turns out, that's probably not the most important point.
The more important point is that both sides - traditional and non-traditional actors - aren't rolling over and letting the other "win". Both types of institutional actors are trying to stake out a claim as the world changes. If the shift in power is happening, traditional actors are digging their heels in and are trying to hold onto their power as long as possible. If the shift isn't happening, non-traditional actors are certainly trying to flex as much muscle as they can to angle out their larger competitors.
So, this is all great and theoretical and nerdy, etc., but it has real consequences too. When two competing powers try to live on the same turf there's often conflict. And when the powers are powerful and the stakes are high, the conflict is big. What this means is...there's probably going to be some trouble starting. Big trouble.
What's worse, if institutions are resisting change it means they aren't changing. This is problematic, because we desperately need institutions to change.
---
Deloitte's Center for the Edge (full disclosure: I've spent time researching there so I'm not an unbiased observer) has an index called the Shift Index which measures the macro-level shifts that are occurring in the economy and society. They're measuring the way our world is changing.
What the Shift Index isn't measuring, at least in my opinion, is resistance to the change. After brooding on the conversation I've referenced and reflected on above, I think there's a lot of value that such a measure would bring. If you are an entrepreneur, you could determine which industries are ripe for disruption. If you're a policy maker, you could figure out where to spend your time trying to smooth out the transition. If you're a social sector change maker, you could use the index to determine which sub-groups have the most need for assistance.
A natural question to ask is, how one would even go about measuring resistance to colossal, macro-economic change? Well, I think there are a few categories of metrics that might be appropriate - rent-seeking behavior, risk-aversion, and existence of conflict. Here's how I'd describe each category:
Rent-seeking behavior: as I understand it, rent-seeking behavior is basically when a company tries to get a bigger share of existing wealth instead of trying to create new wealth. Some metrics might be:
- Lobbying activity by industry
- Advertising and Marketing spend in proportion to innovation
- Trade grievances levied, by industry
- Amount of legislation that creates barriers to entry for new players
Risk-aversion: If institutions are taking less risk, it might mean they are trying to shield themselves from threats in their domain. That might be due to the institution trying to prevent itself from vulnerability - to me that's resistance. Some metrics might be:
- Industry consolidation
- Accumulation of cash on balance sheets
- Rates of new product development (lower numbers indicate risk aversion)
- Rates of acquisition of competitors
Conflict: If there is already conflict between institutions it means there is resistance to change. So why not measure it? Some metrics might be:
- Number of lawsuits raised in an industry
- Hostile takeovers in an industry
- Rates of antagonistic advertising
- Union strikes/protests/grievances
Anyway, here are some thoughts about measuring resistance to change. Why or why don't you find measuring resistance to change valuable? How would you measure resistance to institutional change?
"On Community"
A few months ago, I put together a working paper for an acquaintance at a Foundation (I was semi applying for a job, I guess). This working paper is a collection of ideas about communities, how we should conceptualize them, and how we can build them. I haven't really heard any chatter back from them, so I figured it'd be fine to share. It's by no means final (there are probably copy edits needed), but coherent enough to have a conversation about.
The draft is located here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132613580/On-Community
I'd love to hear your ideas and criticisms. In case you want something to orient you, these paragraphs explain the document:
The draft is located here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132613580/On-Community
I'd love to hear your ideas and criticisms. In case you want something to orient you, these paragraphs explain the document:
What is this document?
These notes are an attempt to create an integrated point of view about community and community engagement, specifically in Detroit. The views are my own (i.e., not representative of my company), but these ideas have certainly been informed and shaped by many other people, books, articles, in addition to my own experiences and experiments.
I’ve tried to leave out forays into tangential topics as much as possible, for brevity’s sake (though I suppose this memo is by no means “brief”).
That being said, please let me know if additional detail in any of the areas would be interesting or helpful.
Cheers.
Rethinking protests / institutional power in the next half century
Had a great, albeit brief, conversation at the bar last night and it was provocative*. We started talking about protests in the next century. The overarching question we discussed was, "Will protests occur in the next 40-60 years? How will the nature of protesting institutional actors change in the next half century?"
Here's a proposition:
Let's say institutions in the world, traditional ones, are losing power and centralized influence. Here's an example: State and Local Government. To deliver public value, cities and states aren't capable of "going it alone" nearly as much as they used to. They partner with not-for-profit organizations, private sector orgs, and ordinary citizens to enact their public mission. In a way, State and Local Governments aren't fully responsible for the services they provide because lots of organizations are working together to provide them and State and Local Governments don't have total control of the outcomes they intend to achieve.
This is one example, and there are more in the private sector.
During our conversation, we debated this point - are contemporary institutions really losing power and centralized influence? A counterpoint (I'm paraphrasing someone else's ideas - forgive me if it's not clear...It's me losing things in translation) to what I've said above is that corporations are consolidating power and becoming more monopolistic. If anything, old-school corporations are being replaced by newer ones but power is still concentrated within traditional institutions.
So that's one question to discuss - are traditional institutions losing power and centralized influence? Reasonable people could disagree on this.
Let's assume for a moment that the answer to that questions is, "yes." If so, what becomes of protesting? Here's the rub - if institutions are losing power and centralized influence, it becomes harder and harder to identify who is most responsible for a social injustice. When that's the case and you have a grievance, who do you take it to? If you want to protest, who's front-yard do you make a ruckus in?
So that's the second question - Assuming a world where centralized influence is corroding, who do you raise grievances to? How will protests change in the next half century?
*I'd like to shout out to NA, MN, and RP, we were all talking about this together. Any good ideas expressed above are probably theirs. :-)
---
So, I'll punt on the first question, because I happen to think the answer is "yes." But let me do more than raise a question - let me take a stab at thinking about it. I think protests become less common. I think that citizens will more likely work directly with institutions to shape them and change them. If there's no face-man to smear, my logic goes, why not find someone to work with and change it.
Or, you could create your own alternative. Instead of spending time and energy protesting, you could build something better. This is much more possible than before because it's easier to communicate and collaborate AND barriers to entry for lots of seemingly impenetrable institutions are falling.
In my (perhaps idealistic) view, we'll spend less time antagonizing and more time collaborating. I don't only think we will, I think we should. If protesting isn't going to work, at least in the way that it used to, we can't afford to just let social problems fester - we've gotta do something about them. The best part is, we can...in ways that we've never seen before in human history.
So here's a wacky idea (that I need to develop further) though...I've been sitting on it for awhile. Why don't we more readily accept that central institutions may not exist in the future, in the way that we think of them. This is problematic because we should have someone who is responsible for addressing grievances, probably government. Someone, or some group, has to be responsible.
So what if we did this. Let's jump on board with a collaborative mindset and built cross-sector teams focused around "missions" right from the get go. One institution - likely government - becomes the point guard on the team and everyone is transparently responsible for delivering the public value the group sets out to do in their mission. Instead of organizing government by functional area with ongoing responsibilities, why not make it more challenge-specific? That way you cut through red tape because the team has a clear focus, and you suddenly have a place to go with grievances. It's a win-win.
There's a cool paper/video that is in line with this idea, sort of, it's super legit if you're a management/gov nerd.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/US-federal-government/federal-focus/govlab/5a1516d4c2390310VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm
Here's a proposition:
Let's say institutions in the world, traditional ones, are losing power and centralized influence. Here's an example: State and Local Government. To deliver public value, cities and states aren't capable of "going it alone" nearly as much as they used to. They partner with not-for-profit organizations, private sector orgs, and ordinary citizens to enact their public mission. In a way, State and Local Governments aren't fully responsible for the services they provide because lots of organizations are working together to provide them and State and Local Governments don't have total control of the outcomes they intend to achieve.
This is one example, and there are more in the private sector.
During our conversation, we debated this point - are contemporary institutions really losing power and centralized influence? A counterpoint (I'm paraphrasing someone else's ideas - forgive me if it's not clear...It's me losing things in translation) to what I've said above is that corporations are consolidating power and becoming more monopolistic. If anything, old-school corporations are being replaced by newer ones but power is still concentrated within traditional institutions.
So that's one question to discuss - are traditional institutions losing power and centralized influence? Reasonable people could disagree on this.
Let's assume for a moment that the answer to that questions is, "yes." If so, what becomes of protesting? Here's the rub - if institutions are losing power and centralized influence, it becomes harder and harder to identify who is most responsible for a social injustice. When that's the case and you have a grievance, who do you take it to? If you want to protest, who's front-yard do you make a ruckus in?
So that's the second question - Assuming a world where centralized influence is corroding, who do you raise grievances to? How will protests change in the next half century?
*I'd like to shout out to NA, MN, and RP, we were all talking about this together. Any good ideas expressed above are probably theirs. :-)
---
So, I'll punt on the first question, because I happen to think the answer is "yes." But let me do more than raise a question - let me take a stab at thinking about it. I think protests become less common. I think that citizens will more likely work directly with institutions to shape them and change them. If there's no face-man to smear, my logic goes, why not find someone to work with and change it.
Or, you could create your own alternative. Instead of spending time and energy protesting, you could build something better. This is much more possible than before because it's easier to communicate and collaborate AND barriers to entry for lots of seemingly impenetrable institutions are falling.
In my (perhaps idealistic) view, we'll spend less time antagonizing and more time collaborating. I don't only think we will, I think we should. If protesting isn't going to work, at least in the way that it used to, we can't afford to just let social problems fester - we've gotta do something about them. The best part is, we can...in ways that we've never seen before in human history.
So here's a wacky idea (that I need to develop further) though...I've been sitting on it for awhile. Why don't we more readily accept that central institutions may not exist in the future, in the way that we think of them. This is problematic because we should have someone who is responsible for addressing grievances, probably government. Someone, or some group, has to be responsible.
So what if we did this. Let's jump on board with a collaborative mindset and built cross-sector teams focused around "missions" right from the get go. One institution - likely government - becomes the point guard on the team and everyone is transparently responsible for delivering the public value the group sets out to do in their mission. Instead of organizing government by functional area with ongoing responsibilities, why not make it more challenge-specific? That way you cut through red tape because the team has a clear focus, and you suddenly have a place to go with grievances. It's a win-win.
There's a cool paper/video that is in line with this idea, sort of, it's super legit if you're a management/gov nerd.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/US-federal-government/federal-focus/govlab/5a1516d4c2390310VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm
Getting real about the EM
If you're a Detroiter (unless you've been living under a rock) you surely heard that Kevyn Orr was named Detroit's Emergency Manager by Governor Snyder.
Let's be clear here. This is not a win. A win would've been sound municipal governance and never being in this mess in the first place. Deservedly, many critics chastise this decision because it's undemocratic (because it strips power from elected officials and transfers it to a non-elected one). It probably is undemocratic. For those who hold that point of view, this is probably the worst possible outcome. I'm not one that makes this argument, but I respect it as legitimate.
For those (like me) who readily distinguish between management concerns and civic ones - and agree with the appointment of an Emergency Manager - this shouldn't be thought of as a day to celebrate. The appointment of an EM is merely the best option amidst a smattering of horrible choices. It's not a good outcome, it's has and always will be a terrible outcome - an EM is what you appoint when you have no options left.
If you're actually excited and pleased that an Emergency Manager has been appointed in Detroit, I think you should reconsider your point of view. See past the rhetoric and power-grabbing and look at the big picture here. An Emergency Manager is not "great". At best, it's less terrible than everything else. At worst, it just sucks.
PS - I'm hoping this post breeds some pragmatic, rather than superficial, discussion about the EM.
Detroit, at this moment
This is a pretty simple idea, so I'll keep this one punchy.
Check it.
What's happening in Detroit is not revitalization, at least not the one we need. What we have now is plutocrats making big investments which are either irrational, huge aribtrage opportunities or both. Buying our way into resurgence is expensive and unsustainable.
Rather, we need true transformation - where we reimagine and retool our institutions to be better...to prevent us from getting into another mess in the first place. We need to rethink how we live, how we learn, how we run government, how we do business, how we teach, how we eat, how we move, etc. By doing that, we'll create an environment where citizens can thrive, hopefully, if we get it right and create systems that can adapt to a rapidly changing world.
This period where plutocrats reign is very necessary though. By making big investments, these folks are giving institutional reformers the time and space to do their work. It's absolutely essential, but it's not an endgame. The important part of all this is actually transforming institutions, not seeing the stabilization we're currently experiencing.
This point in history is merely the overture, we need to get our act together for when the curtain comes up and the real show starts.
If I'm wrong, tell me how. If I'm not, spread the word. If people don't understand this distinction and behave accordingly, we're probably headed for failure.
Chronicling Disruption
If you're a scholar of world history, I'd be curious if you agree with this interpretation of how things went down throughout modern civilization.
For whatever reason, I was thinking about how people and institutions derived their influence and power. It seems like it shook out like this, generally speaking. I suppose as well that I'm basing this off of what happened in Western Eurpoe
First, it seems like religious institutions held power and individuals derived power from being part of the church. Then, monarchs sort of rebelled and usurped power away from them with claims of nobility and military might. Then, there was massive political reform (e.g., Magna Carta) and those who controlled politics had power. Then, the industrial revolution happened and those who controlled industry had power. Then (today), it seems, that those who control information have power.
So, to quickly summarize, it seems like the progression of power centers went kind of like this (obviously, it's not this simple...I'm merely looking at the macro picture here).
Religious -> Royalty -> Political -> Economic -> Information (today)
Let's say for a second I'm at least in the right ballpark. One of the natural questions to ask is, what's next? What types of institutions will disrupt the 'information power center'?
Will it be social and those who are able to be trusted socially will have power? Will it be virtue and those who have a noble, moral sense of purpose will have power? Will institutions devolve in such a way that there will no longer be a locus of power whose prevailing influence controls society?
If I had to guess, I think it'd go like this:
Information -> Social -> Virtue. Why? Because I'm optimistic that virtue - and being good - is what really drives people, when you're able to cut away all the BS in life. If it's the case that it's the core of human motivation, it's probably also at the core of what makes individuals and institutions powerful.
Another relevant question is why did disruption happen this way? My guess is that different groups of people yearned for better prospects in life so the counter-culture with the edge to cause a disruption went after it and toppled the previous standard-bearer of power. They disrupted because they could, it seems.
Also notice that the lag time in shifting to new power centers seems to be compressing - power centers seem to be toppling faster and faster.