But this phrase has a dark side. First of all, reality is not exclusive to business thinking. Most things, with the exception of comic books or mythology, or the like, deal with the ‘real world.’ And even these have some morsel of truth. So to say something deals with the ‘real world’ more than something else is ridiculous. The most troubling feature of this phrase is that it is a marker for our tendency to dismiss something because we cannot see how it applies to our own experience. We want things to remain in the ‘real world’ by which we mean immediately applicable to our needs and desires.

The problem here lies in the fact that the requirement to keep things in ‘the real world’ is actually more than it seems. It is not simply an expression of a desire to keep things grounded. It is actually code for a wide range of assumptions, philosophical positions, and antagonisms. This means the ‘real world’ is a way to assert a particular perspective on the world we live in—and our experience of it—which denies the validity of other ways of looking at the world. As such, the position it stands for is essentially a tyrannical epistemology. Additionally, instead of being a non-theoretical perspective, the phrase ‘the real world’ is actually evidence of theorizing without acknowledging what one is doing. It is a self-defeating and horribly limiting position that does more damage than good.

The worst damage done is the casual dismissal of kinds of thinking, arguments, or knowledge. The phrase the ‘real world’ quietly assumes abstract, complex, or theoretical knowledge is suspect or somehow does not apply to our lives. Those who wield it in this way often do so in reaction to an argument they feel is too philosophical or abstract. In these circumstances its applicability is actually what is in question. Often the cause of this problem is actually a feature of not seeing the very real connections between the argument as stated and the immediate problem at hand. The use of the phrase ‘the real world,’ in these circumstances is actually part of a denial of the argument’s validity on the basis of its abstract presentation. Dismissing an abstract argument, which when done well is most certainly addressing things in the ‘real world,’ is a sure-fire way to end in failure. We cannot be afraid to theorize or to talk about reality at a higher level of complexity if we want to solve hugely complex problems.

This phrase shows up in agency work a lot—mostly because there is always a time crunch and because clients will always approach the consultant to solve a very particular problem. But it is also true that some clients present problems that can only be solved with more abstracted thinking. Occasionally they are dismayed at the abstractness of the answers and ask for ‘real world’ examples. This is natural and can usually be solved through repackaging the insights or deeper emersion in the details of the study. What comes out of these conversations are several important points that will help everyone avoid the problems I outlined above and begin to make peace with abstract or theoretical thinking in a business environment.

/1 See everything, all things, and ideas, as existing together and interconnected. See a piece of research as making a specific argument about a particular part of this whole. Then realize not all arguments are talking about experience or things as they are in the same way. Different arguments exist at different levels, or strata.

/2 Learn to see the connections between strata and the implications of one circumstance on another. This will help ‘connect the dots.’ This is essentially what ideas agencies do for a living.

/3 Delegate understanding and knowledge. Sometimes one is simply not ready to see how something fits together. When that happens one must be comfortable with allowing others to do the understanding and helping them act on it.

There is much more that can be said about the intellectual tyranny of a concept like the ‘real world,’ but that is better left for another time. Suffice it to say, avoiding the damaging assumptions embedded in an idea like ‘the real world’ is as easy as being comfortable dealing with problems at several levels of complexity at once. One does not need to avoid theory when it is as simple as practicing seeing how it applies to many circumstances, including the one at hand. Finally, when you are tempted to locate something in the ‘real world’ ask yourself what you really want. You might find you simply want to see the connections or have something rephrased. Don’t cut out the good ideas simply because the direct application isn’t immediately apparent. Don’t assume something is not worth the time just because it is expressed in abstraction.

However, we are now experiencing another evolution in Industrial Design as it appears to be reaching the end of an evolutionary plateau, with emerging industrial economies such as China and India set to take over  the way things get made (for better or worse).  It is important to note that Industrial manufacturing will continue to exist, yet it must evolve to keep up with emerging needs of society and the new rules of global responsibility.  In a similar way that Industrial processes in Europe became focussed on premium quality rather than mass-quantity, North American manufacturing will need to re-examine and re-evaluate where their strengths are and what long term potential exists based on examining holistic risks and opportunities.

Since the 1950′s manufacturing expertise in North America has been systematically reduced to ever more efficient assembly lines with ever increasing regulations and manufacturing processes with more emphasis devoted to marketing and advertising.  As a result of this, manufacturers have become increasingly more clever at reducing the number, complexity and cost of manufacturing.  However as we look forward to the next phase of evolution in our emerging world economy, the core Industrial Design skills and manufacturing expertise appears to be set for going open and experiential.

It is this technical know-how that is gradually being re-distributed throughout the Internet and it is allowing new micro-assembly methods for independents, proving a way to bypass traditional investment heavy processes and procedures.  This is proving to be most beneficial for the emerging economies and independents start-ups.  Fisker Automotive and Tesla Automotive are both companies who are touting their independent green credentials, and yet they using the same supplier base from larger OEMs to create their more sharply defined and powerful Premium Electric or Plug-in Hybrids vehciles. Most important to note however, is that these are still early days for these type of innovators.

Already there are other new (smaller scale) business models which are begining to pop up.  As with many innovations, it is not always the originator of an idea who benefits from an idea or technology first.  Sometimes the groundwork that has been laid down by previous business experiments and prototype models leads innovators to other business models with separate and an un-intended technologies and they are able to realize a novel new approach for use in a new type of product.  An interesting example at this end of the spectrum is BPG Motors; an small start-up company born from a highschool science project in which the technology of Segway’s personal transporter was reformatted to fit into a motorcycle style package.  After only a few short years, the company is now experimenting with a fold-up scooter prototype, the UNO III, which can transform itself to save space to be taken indoors and up an elevator.  None of this would have been possible if not for the accessibility of open-source know-how and shared technologies (such as the out-sourced rapid prototyping of aluminum parts).

Are brand names, badges or marques of a manufacturer more important than what the physical product is?  These are questions that I often think about.  I think automotive manufacturers also need to address these kinds question before taking their brands into the realm of experience design.  If a manufacturer of a brand cannot impart a more compelling story beyond what the end customer picks up from their  dealership, then perhaps it is time for an investigation  around what kinds of experiences, journeys and alternative narratives can be provided to consumers.

Industrial Design has often been criticized as one of the most destructive professions due to the resulting industrial waste,  shortened mid-cycle enhancements and associated pollutants with the entire socio-economic, industrial and commercial program.  There are several leading minds in  transportation design and automotive design experts who acknowledge that the only way to improve current and emerging issues related to transportation and mobility is in collaboration with non-automotive sectors.  More importantly there is now an industry awareness and emphasis on designing experiential brands, that take consumers beyond the realm of “yes or no type offerings” or other stand alone products, and instead focuses on delivering a participative experience.  This is the next evolution for Industrial Design as it requires a breadth of knowledge of both product, process and positioning.

So what does all this mean to brand-name manufacturers?    Manufactures can do much more for consumers, and  there are real needs that can be addressed right now beyond simply offering more products.  The short answers could be in developing alternatives to car ownership, and alleviating time wasted for commuters stuck in traffic.  There are many forms this could this take, most obviously transit buses and ride/share programs.  But how could an automotive brand use experiential marketing to provide a premium service?  Would there be anything from a brand to add to the experience beyond simply being an “outstanding, compelling or gotta-have-product”?   Imagine an autonomous limo that picks you and and delivers you your destination, that is piloted by Google, co-branded by Apple and offers passengers an engaging experiences designed by Universal Studios.  Or how about stopping off at Starbucks to recharge your electric hybrid while you enjoy your favorite cup of coffee?

The path forward is not yet clear, and there is still much deliberation about what vehicle architectures, electric infrastructure and vehicle servicing that will be needed in the future.  However, industry already knows about the more immediate and frustrating issues of traffic, pollution and insurance premiums.  If foresight indications are correct, then the R&D groups of large OEM’s need to begin re-evaluating what mobility means, and what role their brands will play in a service oriented economy.   Creative technology environments are generally reserved for work in manufacturing R&D silos, however I know from experience that they can be quite flexible in accommodating new types of design and engineering (see my earlier post here).  In order for OEM brands to gain access to the next evolution economy, the Researching-of and Designing-exercises for consumer experience based offerings, must be opened up beyond the silo of transportation designers.  What is needed now, is a new platform to engage policy makers, urban planners and non-automotive businesses with those in the Automotive Corporate world.

I get it. Deadlines, budgets, internal pressure and uncertainty don’t exactly create an encouraging environment in which to trust your crazy innovation partners. But, after taking clients through the process countless times, and coming out alive and better-armed with powerful insights on the other side, here are five things I’ve picked up from boardroom banter that might help.

1. Exploration isn’t validation

We have a series of approaches to tease out consumer attitudes, preferences, socio-cultural ties and opinions. Often, our clients want to use these opportunities to validate what they’re already doing, instead of looking at what else might be possible. If we jump to validation, we miss out on the purposely broad and open-ended nature of the exploration phase, and that means missing out on the things that have been overlooked or undefined.

2. Competitors aren’t good benchmarks

When we conduct global scanning to observe weak signals in comparative and competitive industries, we often get some pushback from our clients to stay in the industries they can most relate to, or worse yet, to focus on competitors. If your competitors are already doing it, it’s probably not enough to make you relevant. Instead, a push towards lateral thinking usually ends in our clients looking for insights in unlikely places – where their competitors never thought to.

3. Consumer insights first, tactics later

In a rush to get to the finish line, we often have to justify why it’s better to hold off on solving burning tactical and executional challenges until later in the process. It’s tough, but we force ourselves to trust the process and hold off on solving/designing until we finish the exploration phase. Getting the consumer insights right, without the loaded and leading questions, means that we’re eventually designing for the right outcomes.

4. If there is rigour, you won’t end up with meaningless data

Too often, we hear the tale of months of research that result in a pile of action-less data and deliverables. Rest assured that when there is a rigorous process that transforms insights into ingredients for a solid strategy, the fuzzy front-end can result in tangibles on route to your end goal.

5. We can translate

A lot of the initial discomfort comes from clients needing to sell the project and its findings internally. “This isn’t how we usually do things” is valid, but shouldn’t drive process decisions. It’s our job to help you tell the story. By identifying important points in the project where translation is needed, it is possible to take the work and translate it into a story  that is relevant and compelling within your organization.

As a parting note, I’ll leave you with something that I didn’t learn from work – this one comes from my old man. He’s always told me that the horrible discomfort you feel when you encounter something new usually precedes great learning – it’s simply the beginning of an ascent along the learning curve. So relax! A little trust can go a long way.

I have reached a point where I am (gasp!) considering making the Montreal Canadians, and not the Leafs, my favourite hockey team. I was born and raised a Leafs fan….so this move is serious business for me, and comes after prolonged deliberation. It is not just the performance of the Leafs– any team can have a bad season or two (and somebody has to be at the bottom of the league), but rather, it is my perception of value associated with the team, which is driving me away. I should also say that I am a ‘casual’ fan, so I welcome any errors in my logic below from those more knowledgeable than I.

In the economics of sport, it is generally in the best interest for any league to have a ‘balanced’ level of competition; that is, the outcome of any game is in question, and any team can be considered a contender for the ultimate goal of championship. This allows each team to promote itself as providing a high level of quality of play, and therefore, a high level of entertainment for consumers. In the case of the Leafs, they have not won the Stanley Cup in my lifetime (not since 1967!) and generally fail to come close. This essentially means that critical elements of the brand promise are simply not being met, nor have been met for a long time. We fans would like to think that our team is a contender- that our community of fans may have the opportunity to watch our team in the playoffs (or, even better, participate in a great street party once the championship has been won!). Sadly, it is been a long time since ‘consumers’ of the Leafs have been able to enjoy this pleasant daydream.

This performance is strangely coupled with a serious imbalance of supply and demand (the Leafs sell out every game), means that it is very difficult for non-seasons ticket holders to get seats. Certainly, one can engage in the ‘valuable’ services of a scalper, but this means taking a family of four to a game should run somewhere in the $500 range for rather poor seats…..and as such, the value of the experience is very much in question. When I think about the vast array of entertainment choices for a night out and the value associated for each, the Leafs are no longer an attractive option, especially if you are part of a large family.

Thinking about all of the factors in my relationship with the Leafs, and the performance of the team in the league, this has an impact on the satisfaction I have with the team in general. For most businesses, we would expect that solid product or service performance leads to satisfaction, and highly satisfied customers tend to be more loyal. Over time, this loyalty translates to more money spent on the organization as customers return for more of the same product or service again and again over a length of time, meaning that an investment in improving the customer experience can ultimately be very profitable. Therefore, it is very much within the interests of the Leafs to perform well, and keep me a happy purchaser of tickets and merchandise.

However, it is a question of both customer satisfaction, and more importantly, loyalty, which forces me to reassess my relationship with my favourite hockey brand. Normally, we would use a number of measures in our research to understand how a customer feels about a product or service experience; overall, I would consider my ‘satisfaction’ with the team is fairly high: I have a lot of history with the organization, and from what I can tell as a casual fan, it looks like the right kind of effort is being made by the individual players. However, the perception of value is quite low….as is my ‘likelihood to continue use’ (the idea of loyalty is very complex, and cannot be captured with just one measure).

To further complicate the matter, multiple studies in a number of industries have shown that customers in the middle range of satisfaction are just as likely to defect as those at the ‘highly dissatisfied’ extreme of the scale. This essentially means that the Leafs (and other service organizations) cannot rely on customers who are merely ‘satisfied’, but rather, needs to push consumers into the realm of ‘delight’ in order to shut the back door of defection. In the case of my relationship with the Leafs, I am pretty far from delighted.

Not sure if you heard, but there was a recent move by RIM (blackberry) founder Jim Balsillie to buy the Phoenix Coyotes and move them to Ontario- possibly Hamilton.  Ultimately, this move was stopped by the NHL, with the league taking the position that ‘the right channels were not followed’.

The issue which was not talked about is that the Leafs are the proverbial golden goose for the NHL – the most valuable team in the entire league. Team value, revenue, operating revenue are all significantly higher than a decade ago…while player costs remain flat. Plus, an average (pre-scalper) ticket price of $97 dollars in Toronto…..versus $55 and $67 for the second and third most valuable teams (New York Rangers and the Montreal Canadians respectively). The Leafs have raised ticket prices by 3.5% this year, and have the highest ticket price in the entire league. To me, this is the equivalent of a Honda Civic having the same price a Rolls Royce.

Hence, I wonder if the move of the Coyotes was really stopped to prevent the legions of dissatisfied/merely satisfied consumers in the GTA a choice of where to spend their hockey dollars, and preserve the artificially high revenue for this team, (revenue that appears to have no relationship with the actual performance of the organization). There are reasons why the league would do this; certainly to appease the voice of such a powerful stakeholder as the owners of the Leafs (primarily the Ontario Teacher’s Pension), but also, the league revenue-sharing program in place means that some of the substantial revenue of the Leafs is shared with teams that are operating in the red. I however, feel that the pain caused by the organization is now greater than the barriers to defection…..so away I go. Vive les Habitants!

The Charter for Compassion is a cooperative effort to restore not only compassionate thinking but more important, compassionate action to the center of religious, moral and political life. Compassion is the principled determination to put ourselves in the shoes of the other, and lies at the heart of all religious and ethical systems.  The notion of “informed empathy” is also at the core of Idea Couture’s innovation’s process.

One of the most urgent tasks of our generation is to build a global community where men and women of all races, nations and ideologies can live together in peace. In today’s world, everybody has become our neighbor, and the Golden Rule has become an urgent necessity.

The Charter for Compassion is not simply a statement of principle; it is above all a summons to creative, practical and sustained action to meet the political, moral, religious, social and cultural problems of our time.

The Charter for Compassion Text:

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there, and to honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the center of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensable to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

Those who have affirmed the Charter include the Dalai Lama, Sir Ken Robinson, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Paul Simon, Deepak Chopra, and over 9500 others since yesterday, including me.  To learn more, check out: The Charter for Compassion.

]]> http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/11/13/the-charter-for-compassion/feed/ 0 http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/11/12/us-interstate-map-meets-the-london-underground/ http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/11/12/us-interstate-map-meets-the-london-underground/#comments Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:31:38 +0000 John Lally http://ideacouture.com/blog/?p=3147 In an age where we have Google and Microsoft mapping technology available that allows us to see such voyeuristic details as the front door of a building or a bird’s eye view of a celebrity’s backyard, it’s sometimes refreshing to look at a road map with a different lens, one that only reveals the country’s main travel arteries in a simple, but very effective fashion.

Sydney-born, Portland (OR)-based designer, Cameron Booth has illustrated today’s US Interstate System in a mashed-up map style that’s comparable to the elegant design of H.C. Beck’s masterful London Underground diagram from the 1930s.  Suitable for framing.

Check out a full size of the map here:  Flickr.

With few dedicated bike lanes, sparse parking facilities and a passive aggressive car vs. bike culture relationship, it’s amazing that people in this city even cycle at all. But we do – and particularly at Idea Couture, we have strong group of dedicated cyclists. So – for all the devoted cyclists out there who have cursed when unable to find a decent parking spot for one’s 2-wheeler, this innovation from Japan will delight in its ingenuity – solving practical problems such as theft, space constraints and weather.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/nov/05/bicycles-japan-bike-tree

Kind of makes you look at the world a little differently.

Full article at Iconeye. Thanks to John Fairley for the find.

http://www.thewandcompany.com/

Care of @springwise (Original Post)

When was the last time we saw an innovation in the “fan” product category? This guy gives a quick demo.

I love love this product. http://www.dyson.com/fans/

The Dyson Air Multiplier™ fan works very differently to conventional fans. It uses Air Multiplier™ technology to draw in air and amplify it 15 times, producing an uninterrupted stream of smooth air. With no blades or grill, it’s safe, easy to clean and doesn’t cause unpleasant buffeting.