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.

Applied Design Thinking practices help manage risks and avoid critical failures.  But it’s not just about mitigating mistakes; it’s about managing and making the most out of them.  Instead of ‘fail early and fail often,’ why not fail strategically?

Greatness embraces mistakes: “I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.” 
- Michael Jordan

Strategic failure can be designed into an organization’s innovation apparatus. The U.S. DoD’s technology-unit DARPA for example accepts a 90% failure rate against its innovation investments, but the 10% of successful projects have proved to be world-changing technologies, in line with the agency’s mandate of staying on the leading edge globally. Error, when calculated and effectively analyzed—accelerates progress. It’s the rationale for rapid prototyping. Increase your odds with every try, while you learn what doesn’t work, and arrive at surprising outcomes. Says James Dyson of the eponymous appliance manufacturer and bagless vacuum fame: “It’s accident. Serendipity—but the serendipity that occurs through never giving up and through just going on and on and on, testing, searching new avenues—and going up many, many blind avenues!” Error in this case, isn’t failing (an end result); it’s part of the process of design-doing.

Part of organizing for innovation involves giving space for researchers and creatives to break frame—to diverge from predetermined strategies and follow the trajectory of their serendipitous ideas. Google famously provides its employees with Innovation Time-Off (ITO), which allows one day a week to explore whatever projects inspire their attention. The employee-driven apparatus accords the space to create but also to fail without too much fear or consequence. In it self, letting-people-do-whatever-they-want is not sound innovation strategy. There’s no mechanism to mitigate risk and the efforts lack determination. In spite of that, ITO has generated popular applications including Gmail, AdSense and Google News. When ITO initiatives do go unfavorably, Google capitalizes in retrospect—analyzing and harvesting from failed pursuits. Remember Wave—it was supposed to replace email? Well, if you can’t make a mistake you can’t make anything. When Google Wave failed to accumulate users, its successful collaboration and communication features were applied to Gmail and Google Docs. What failed as a disruptive innovation succeeded by providing iterative improvements to existing products.

"Enjoy failure and learn from it. You can never learn from success." - James Dyson

"If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything." - Marva Collins

Because error really is part of innovation, it’s essential that organizations design a system to harvest from the messy and serendipitous process. Fail hard, fail fast, fail cheap and—fail strategically, in such a way that salient knowledge can be taken away.  If your team really is inventive, there should be some value in what they make—even when it seems to fall flat. Harvesting from failure involves applying purpose to newness. Leveraging assets from error demands a system and culture where employees are unafraid to fail, but more importantly, comfortable reporting on failure.

Avoid making the same mistakes, accelerate progress, and follow the interesting surprises. As the Irish novelist and poet James Joyce put it: “A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.” Make your mistakes with purpose.

"The mistakes make the music." - Miles Davis

"A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery." - James Joyce

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.

Two weekends ago, I had the privilege of representing Idea Couture at the Compost Modern conference here in San Francisco. Organized by AIGA SF, “‘Compostmodern’ engages designers, sustainability professionals, artists and entrepreneurs to collaborate in realizing a more environmentally, culturally, and economically sustainable world.”

While you can read many recaps on the conference that have already been published (check out posts on Cnet, Dwell, and Core77, and moderator Alissa Walker‘s fantastic summary-in-a-poem), I’d like to take the conversation a step further. As a product designer turned MBA and now innovation strategist, I’d say I’m as much a realist as a idealist, and I strongly believe that one of the greatest challenges we face as designers is balancing inspiration with solid and thoughtful execution. In my day-to-day, I work with leaders and managers in large corporations who are not as far along the design-thinking and “good business” kool-aid as we as a community are. We have to ask ourselves some hard questions in order to, as Christopher Simmons said during the conference, earn a seat at the leadership table.

So after some reflection on the event, I’d like to share some of my thoughts and comments on the ideas presented (and not presented) at the conference:

Tackling Sustainability as a system: Beyond materials and packaging

The conference kicked off with Yves Behar showcasing much of his latest work, which yes, of course, was beautiful and clever. But my eyes and ears didn’t perk up until he showed his work with Puma, called “A Clever Little Bag“, an alternative to cardboard shoe packaging. It wasn’t the design that caught my interest though. It was the photos of a distribution center and his mention of the challenge of coordinating the design concept with Puma’s supply chain. I waited to hear more about how he navigated that very-real business challenge, but unfortunately, he breezed right by.

We need to hear more about those challenges in order to push our awareness as designers beyond materials and packaging. Yes, there is a lot of potential there for designers to reduce material use, and I applaud it all. But while we design thoughtful and less-wasteful packaging, we have to consider the entire supply chain and the constraints it presents – how the product is manufactured, loaded up in to freight, stored and moved around in distribution centers, presented in retail stores, and finally taken home by the consumer who then owns its end-of-life fate. And how is that information shared between numerous stakeholders and how does that dynamic affect adoption? It’s not as simple as designing an object – but imagine what impact we can have if we addressed all of this complexity as part of our design challenge? It was a missed opportunity for the entire audience to not hear the more implementation-heavy side of the Behar-Puma story.

As an aside, I’d like to point out that evolving into system sustainability designers (imagine that on a business card!) means we may have to give up some of our own thirst for recognition. We as designers love pointing to tangible evidence of our contributions – a designed object, a space, a poster, a website.  No awards are given out for thoughtfully changing a distribution strategy or tweaking a process in a factory to be more sustainable. But if we want to elevate our impact, we need to be willing to accept the (perceived) diffusion of our contribution. Are we ready for that?

Success Metrics for Healthy Work Cultures.

Given my involvement with the founding of Idea Couture’s San Francisco team, I was very excited to hear Janine James, president of The Moderns in New York City, talk about what she’s doing at her firm to build a healthy and thoughtful work culture. Beyond chemical-free cleaning products and healthy, catered lunches, she also supports “personal development” Fridays, where client work is put aside and the day is devoted to workshops, retreats, lectures, yoga, and other activities that stimulate both mind and body. I absolutely love this idea and the focus on fostering the creative development of employees as individuals. It’s just lovely.

However, these amazing work culture practices are more easy to implement when you own the company (and thus the company’s purse strings!). What if you don’t have that privilege – how might one make a strong case for fostering this type of work environment to upper management? Are there proof points that show the benefits of these practices in a language business leaders might better understand.? Concrete success metrics like increased productivity, reduction in employee turnover, lower energy costs, or, the most powerful, reduction in health care expenses, would have been nice to measure as a before-and-after. Put simply, what’s the business case for work culture investment and its potential ROI?

Yes, turning human good into impersonal numbers is no fun and not sexy at all. But it can be very compelling and powerful to the higher ups. We must remember that we operate in a world of skeptics, which means we have to be smart and thoughtful about the language we use to talk about meaningful change.

Supporting Others to Take it All the Way.

Two highlights for me were talks by Kate Daughdrill of Detroit Soup and Debera Johnson of the Pratt Design Incubator. Both were stories of supporting others to bring inspiration to reality – from Detroit Soup’s $5 dinners with proceeds going to the most-popular local art project to Pratt’s Design Incubator’s work in bringing the most promising student work to market with innovative new business models. Scott Thomas‘ story also speaks to this point – micro-donations from individual supporters  on Kickstarter.org allowed him to raise the money he needed to self-publish his Designing Obama book. So he benefited from the “micro-help” of others, and now we benefit from his work as a public.

Sometimes, it takes just a little something to ignite a wave of action, and we as designers can encourage that. Our opportunity isn’t just about what can we do, but what we can do to help others do what they want to do (you still with me?). By nature, we as designers are fantastic do-ers, so how can we be thoughtful and generous in how we might support others to become do-ers too?

Inspiration is Easy. Execution is Hard.

I loved Scott Thomas’ slides on what it actually took for him to get Designing Obama published. Countless revisions, numerous phone calls and emails, lots of small decisions, thank you notes, individually filling out paperwork and wrapping books for mailing,…as an audience, we laughed but we got it. Turning an idea into an actual, real-life thing, whatever it is, is really really hard, and takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears. I worry sometimes that we as designers get caught up in the elegance of our ideas and inspiration, and then denounce others that “just don’t get it”. Why wouldn’t someone love what we’re working on and take it upon themselves to make it reality?

Sometimes, if you want something done, you need to do it yourself, or assemble a team of people to really carry an inspiration forward. That means a lot of work, much of what you won’t be familiar with and much of what seems like petty menial labor (Scott Thomas had to fill out 400+ postal forms by hand to get his book to his supporters – how boring is that!). Are we ready to do that grunt work, fight the hard battles, and do the political maneuvering that has to be done in addition to the beautiful, inspiration-fulfilling work we designers love to do? The answer to that question is hopefully a resounding yes!

I truly and deeply believe in the potential that design can have in making this world a better and more sustainable place. But we must balance inspiration with hard work and execution. I left Compost Modern feeling inspired, yet more determined than ever to make things happen. So let’s do it.

There are 365 days in the year and our travel luggage spends most of that time buried away in the closet.  When luggage is not being used, it takes away valuable space, and adds to the frustration of clutter creating awkward surfaces that are difficult integrate with other items.

After 100 years in the travel luggage and all the changes that the industry has been through, it is ultimately the consumers who have changed most. With a decrease in leisure travel, and an expansion of alternative means to carrying luggage from the onset as a result of increased air travel restrictions, luggage manufactures have witnessed a near perfect storm.  Retailers in particular have felt the pinch of the great recession and some brands are facing severe economic uncertainties. Research indicates that changes in air travel behavior are here to stay, and while some luggage manufacturers are forecasting expansion into overseas market development in the hopes of luring customers similar to those found in North America, the luggage manufacturers will need to take a more serious look at where they are heading toward and what they are planning to do about their business in terms of strategy and innovation.

What hope is there for the North American luggage industry to survive into the next decade?  What else can this industry do with their manufacturing expertise and brand equity?  How can they to tap some new value streams for consumers? What are some other ways to reframe the context of luggage and how it gets used?  What are some alternative functions or features that could be used in the home and the urban environment?

The following explorations pertain to ideas and opinions expressed over innovation for travel luggage industry.  The directions, departures and themes illustrated here are meant to serve as a starting point around a discussion of innovation, and do necessarily reflect the actual brand names that have been referenced.

One direction could see the extension of luggage docking familiar to travellers brought into the home environment.  This habit formed “Loading and Unloading Zone” serves as a system that can be installed by the DIY homeowner.  Key features would be stowed away storage bins, vanity mirror/wall organizer and an innovative dust trap/deodorizer for the front hallway.

A step down from the built environment could be realized as a mobile cart with integrated lighting and storage systems.  The carry-on luggage would be stationed as temporary shelving unit capable of offering up usable space in a chaotic environment.  Ambient lighting on both floor and ceiling with combined use of mirror would open up even the narrowest of passageways.

Another extension of mobility, this idea focuses on individual docking of carry-on luggage and the interplay of visibility and usable space.  Additional features would include ambient ceiling light, air-scrubbing plants (such as Bamboo Palms) and aromatic fragrances through co-branded vendors.

In this last example, here is an exploration around a stationary unit, meant to be compatible with other electronics and entertainment style furniture.  Featuring a duality of faces through the use of a swivel base, this unit allows the user to display or conceal the luggage depending on scenario of use.  Other conveniences such as magazine rack, shoe organizer and lower cupboard space invite the user to display this station which is made from the same materials and construction as the luggage itself.

]]> http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2011/01/03/pack-the-bags-for-a-new-direction/feed/ 0 http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2010/12/20/the-kaos-pilot-dk-experience-pt2/ http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2010/12/20/the-kaos-pilot-dk-experience-pt2/#comments Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:38:12 +0000 Mathew Lincez http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/?p=4735 After visiting the Kaos Pilots in Aarhus Denmark it was time to have some KP’s cross the pond to visit us. IC is an organization that is always open to new learning relationships and creative exchanges that help to expand our knowledge base and enrich our culture. So after a series of brief interviews and a follow up review process we decided to invite two Kaos Pilots -> Nicky Grunfeld and Catherine Frederiksen from team 15 to our Toronto office for a 7week internship.

The general idea was to 1) have Nicky and Cat learn about and experience IC’s culture, methods and process by collaborating with members of IC’s team on two independent projects that followed our front-end innovation process, albeit in a condensed fashion due to time and resource constraints, 2) provide IC with an objective “outsider’s” perspective on the organizational structure and cultural mechanics here and now, 3) help us develop an initial prototype or model of how IC may want to approach and improve upon cultural exchanges and internships in the future. In the end both sides learnt a great deal from one another and were able to hammer out two great concept explorations that we hope to push further in the New Year.

The projects:

Cat’s project called Food + Friendships explores the rituals, relationships, and possible futures of fast food. More specifically how we could challenge existing fast-food paradigms and archetypes, how food and consumption experiences play an important role in developing and maintaining friendships; and how social technologies can enable for new community centered approaches to “franchise” concepts. The result (to be published soon) flips incumbent models on their head and provides a more sustainable and compelling community oriented perspective on how fast food may be approached in the future.

Nicky’s project called Once Upon a Time sought to question and explore identity, storytelling, and actualization in social media. More specifically, how the web, digital communication and social technologies are enabling for transmediated manifestations of ones persona and personal brand online. The project also explored the tensions existing between creating and updating one’s true on and offline self as an individual VS collective or co-creative effort. From this perspective – time was spent evaluating how existing social media platforms like Face Book actually limit our ability to engage in more meaningful and constructive conversations; and in response proposes a series of new feature based approaches to organizing, accessing, and co-creating one’s personal content as part of a larger idea of how storytelling and personal myth generation may occur in the future.

In addition to focusing on their own passion projects the Pilots also worked on a report that analyzed the organizational structure and culture at IC. They presented their findings in a video that highlighted how the physical space, roles, and relationships work (or not) to enable for multi-disciplinary collaboration and pointed out some great ways to improve the cultural mechanics inside IC which has been growing and expanding very quickly over the last year.

IC has always been a multicultural and multidisciplinary organization and it was great to have the KP’s visit, add to the mix, share their experience, and exchange with us. I love that IC is a place that enables and encourage this kind of exchange and is committed to supporting independent project based explorations and learning- outside of client work- as an important part of fostering a more creative and innovative organizational culture.  We learn, think, and do best together.

So I was noodling on what I love about this activity during my last forage a couple of weeks ago, and it occurred to me that there are some parallels behind the mushroom foraging experience and the values and skills we at Idea Couture instill our clients with to help them innovate their businesses. Here are some morsels of insight on what  mushroom foraging can teach us about strategic, design-inspired innovation:

1. Observation and insight is a trained and practiced skill. Do it often and consciously.

Can you spot the mushroom?

The most amazing thing about mushroom foraging is the transformation to one’s  observation skills. At the beginning of a forage, a beginner sees nothing – just leaves, stones, bushes, and so on. But as one encounters the first mushroom, then the next, and then the next, all of a sudden, the forest will burst open and all you will see are mushrooms, everywhere! Your eyes start to notice those small changes to the landscape that signal something is growing there, or it starts to detect patterns between things like a type of tree and the mushrooms associated with it — and all without you even being aware of it. The same goes for when you embark on your first customer ethnography, or you start exploring a new opportunity area. All of a sudden your consciousness will open itself to inputs coming from you from all angles and start detecting patterns and insight you never considered before.

A walk or hike through the forest will never be the same after your first mushroom forage. In fact, a walk through any green space will never been the same – I see mushrooms on home yards and in strange urban dirt patches all the time now. And the same goes the first time you embark on a deep dive into design thinking and strategy – you won’t look at your business in the same way again.

2. Learn from an expert, then embark on your own journey.

Mushroom foraging can be a dangerous activity, just as new innovation strategies can be risky for your business. So turn toward an expert in innovation to get you going. I turned to an esteemed mycologist for my first forage in the States, attended a couple of classes, and always carry his handy guidebook around to identify mushrooms I’m not sure of. Now, my confidence has increased and I can go out on my own, collecting and eating only the mushrooms I can 100% identify, leaving any in doubt off my kitchen table. And I check back with him from time to time too, taking classes to enhance my knowledge and continue practicing my skill.

I use the guidebook cautiously as well, relying on both the attributes listed for each mushroom type and my own experience. You should never use the guidebook as a blind checklist to decide if a mushroom is safe to eat, as there are subtleties in identification that typed text just can’t relay. The same goes for design thinking and strategy – don’t just blindly follow a 10-step process toward innovation. Rely on your experience, those of others, and intuition as well. Mix it up to allow your decisions to be as informed and rich as possible.

3. Allow yourself to change course. Keep your eyes open for new opportunities that may appear on the edges.

On our last forage, while most of us had our heads down, scourging the forest floor for mushrooms, someone noticed some beautiful huckleberry bushes growing along the trail. So we put our mushroom baskets down and starting collecting berries (with a good number going straight into

our mouths!) We ended up gathering enough of those tiny berries to make a pie AND a sauce for our lamb dinner in the evening. It was a good thing that someone had their eyes open for more than just mushrooms, or else we would have missed the huckleberries entirely. So don’t be too focused on your intended activity or problem area when you are exploring new innovation areas – be flexible and keep your eyes open for unexpected opportunities that may come your way.

4. Keep replenishing your knowledge bank. Don’t assume what works in one context will work in another.

An underappreciated lactarius deliciosus

I first started mushroom foraging when I lived in Catalonia, Spain, where this is a very common activity for locals out there and everyone knows which ones are safe and which ones aren’t since childhood. But when I moved to California and started noticing similar looking mushrooms in our forests, I didn’t dare to make the same assumptions on their safety. So I solicited the help of an expert to validate my previous knowledge. He didn’t just validate that my previous knowledge was valid in this new context, but he introduced me to new knowledge that was a complete 180 against what I originally learned. He showed me that a species considered highly toxic is actually edible if prepared correctly, which my friends back in Spain reacted to with shock when I shared that insight with them. So always challenge your assumptions, especially in new contexts. Be open to new knowledge, however counter-intuitive or contradictory to your previous assumption it is.

5. Make it social.

And finally, mushroom foraging wouldn’t be any fun without any one to share it with. I love taking friends out to mushroom hunt, where I can share what I know, see their transformation and have them challenge my assumptions and teach me new things. Other people point out new patterns I’ve never noticed before, or discover new species I haven’t seen, and just put a spin on the whole experience that makes the day all the more enjoyable.  And at the end of the hunt, when we combine all our baskets together, we share in our bounty together, with enough mushrooms to really enjoy them and cook them up together. Just like innovation is a collaborative process for diversity in thought and approach, with stages of divergence and convergence, mushroom foraging is the same, with moments to yourself and moments to share in a group.

So as you see, there are strong similarities between the experience of wild mushroom hunting and the journey of strategic innovation — from observation and insight to learning from experts to making it social. Of course, the case of the opposite exists too (mushroom identification is about absolute certainty to make sure you don’t wind up at the hospital, while strategic innovation is about uncertainty to take your company somewhere new). But at the end of the day, when you make that leap from forest to fork, or strategy to execution, you have the confidence that you’ve make your decision through a rigorous process that combines experience, intuition, and creativity.

I Recently had the pleasure of visiting the Kaos Pilots in Aarhus Denmark. The school focuses on developing change-agents and action oriented revolutionaries through pedagogic models like appreciated inquiry, action learning, and systems thinking. The school uniquely combines elements of business, design, and the humanities into a challenging and truly world-class educational experience that harnesses the positive energy, aspirations, and attitudes of its students, faculty staff, and guests in all the right ways. This place embodies a serious-play model for real.

Before my talk began, the group met for Monday morning coffee on the school’s terrace. It became very apparent how close the KP’s are to one another; how well they know each other – and the how these relationships add an invaluable layer to the overall educational experience. I believe a 3 month long project based “out-post” in Shanghai was largely to thank for this. (This year’s class is traveling to Bogota Columbia). I heard many great stories about this and other “out-post” experiences during my time there. Placing students in a foreign place and challenging them to live, work on, and deliver client projects all on there own is an integral component to the KP experience and the school’s legacy.

So why was I there in the first place? Oh ya, lucky for me, I was invited by my good friend Pete Sims to share some of my own personal and project based experiences from within the design research / foresight context, and to introduce a situational awareness and sense making tool we call the Table of Context with one of the KP teams. This tool / cognitive aid helps to plan and establish the scope of front-end research, organize findings for group learning and socialization, catalyze imaginative inquiry, and facilitate co-creative dialogues. We’ve used Tables of Context both internally and externally (i.e. with clients) on several occasions to map out existing and emerging opportunity spaces, communicate research findings, and to inspire critical dialogues based on the potential and meaning of signals and the contexts they create and or occupy.

I thought this was particularly relevant to a Kaos Pilots’ learning because being placed at the ambiguous front-end of an innovation project -or stuck in the middle of chaos- without a previously defined starting point, clear plan of inquiry, or “map” of the landscape / context is now commonplace and can be a frustrating, scary, and even overwhelming experience- for students, designers, and corporate executives alike. That said, the table of context is meant to help reduce some of this ambiguity and chaos, and focus one’s attention on building up an accessible knowledge base (as a tangible, visual and or interactive resource) that can be expanded upon and leveraged over time to help innovation teams develop a better informed awareness or literacy about a given subject, context, problem or opportunity space.

Ultimately my goal was to highlight how foresight and design research practices and some of the tools/methods employed, especially at the “fuzzy-front-end” of innovation. I also wanted to point out that this type of work requires a personal commitment to the development, practice, and maintenance of an an always-on curiosity and appetite for collecting, questioning, sorting through and sharing the salient and not so salient bits that one comes upon throughout their day. Even when you’re not at work – and especially when you’re not at the office.

Please stay tuned! There’s more on the KP + Denmark experience to follow.

Mobile Location Based Services: You’re tired and cranky after another distressingly long subway ride to an unfamiliar part of town. Your mobile senses this and recommends you take a break at a nearby coffee shop. The device points the way, checks the complex menu and suggests three items best suited to helping you relax and restore your physical-emotional balance.

Fashion/Apparel: You’ve purchased the latest Under Armour Sport Tactical Vest for the players on your team and linked them to the coaching staff’s integrated performance optimization system. The system monitors individual and collective bio-emotional and physiological stats while sending just-in-time haptic ‘coaching cues’ to players during practice.

Navigation & Browsing: You become eligible for a cable or Internet service upgrade and decide to have your provider install the latest integrated multi-touch bio-emotive program guide. You ‘surf’ like never before as the system recognizes and establishes a personal, empathetic connection between you and your preferred content.

Health & Gaming: You join a specialized yoga class called Meditation for Longevity and Gaming where you learn not only to identify and control your thoughts and emotions for personal health reasons but also to improve your mastery over new, multi-modal gaming consoles that demand the integrated use of body, spirit, and mind.

Tele-Intimacy: Your spouse moves abroad for several months on contract work and the separation puts a great deal of emotional stress on your relationship. You decide to purchase a tele-intimacy kit made by Philips that includes home-based applications designed to help the two of you connect and feel each other’s presence in…more ways than one.

To take advantage of this sense-rich paradigm early enough to prototype the kind of disruptive products and services that offer competitive advantage, brands and businesses need to understand the intersections between future technology and evolving humanity. That first requires a more robust, competitive R&D process. The research, design and development of multi-modal feelback systems and their successful incorporation in products and services will rely on multi-disciplinary teams drawing on very specific and specialized areas of knowledge, experience and expertise in and around the affective domain of ‘feel’.

Because the layering, combination, and re-combination of a wider spectrum of input/output modalities will create a host of new usability problems- one or more critical collaborative R&D areas will need to cultivate the space between Human Factors, Anthropology and Industrial Design. Standardization issues surrounding multi-touch input languages – where the function and meaning of finger gestures varies greatly from one device or platform to another or, equally important, from one group of users to another, will be solved only through research on product prototypes and users in action and in context. Otherwise, the social, cultural, cognitive, physical and performative are all potential glitches waiting to trip up organizations that fail to recognize, appreciate and design for human diversity. Like the pictures Wolf pulled yesterday on the big screen, those organizations will quickly become old news.

However, striking this balance in the modern world, and more importantly the emerging world must take on a different meaning.  As the old notions of luxury are challenged, they must make way for a new set of user dynamics and offer solutions to the people who live in the growing Megacities (cities with populations over 10 million).

In 2000, there were 18 megacities – conurbations such as Mumbai, Tokyo, New York City, and Mexico City had populations in excess of 10 million inhabitants. Greater Tokyo already has 35 million, which is greater than the entire population of Canada.  (source: Wikipedia)  2015 and beyond will also  see cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul, added to this list to name a few.

Transportation on the whole is beginning to splinter into many different value streams such as delivery-on-demand, hub-to-hub services and deliveries, international condo cruisers, executive coaches, virtual garages, post-materialistic neighborhood eco-cars, shared-public vehicles, super-budget-sub $3000, and also new derivatives of personal mobility leading to even more avenues.

As Mega-cities become the norm, consumer attitudes will shift further away from the traditional aspiration of commuter vehicle ownership.  The costs associated with owning, insuring, driving, navigating, re-fueling, re-charging and parking will begin to unravel the notion of investing in one single mode of transport.  In its place, we will see more services based types of transportation.  All it will take are a few entrepreneurs who can splice together on-demand services with real-time users who consumers who are looking for more than just a taxi.

We must search out new ways of mobility, in terms of prestige, convenience, adaptability, affordability, dependability, the “raison d’etre” …… and we must find them quickly.  For consumers, they must be offered some form of tangible incentive, be it joy from the sheer act of being mobile, entertainment, price or convenience.

In terms of Engineering and Design, there are studies currently taking place around the use of robotics in the transportation industry; GM EN-V is one example of a technology demonstrator, and is now on display now at the Shanghai World Expo. The EN-V operates on technology borrowed from Segway, and the entire vehicle is half the size of a Smart car, fully electronic, has a top speed of 25 mph, and is capable of making turns 360 degrees in-place.Another example is the T.25 concept from Gordon Murray (Designer of the famous supercar; McLaren F1), which demonstrates foresight for government regulations, and fuel economy mandates, which are expected by the year 2020.

Transportation technologies have the ability to facilitate change, but ultimately adoption of this will rely completely on the behavior of how humans move about.  Metropolitan cities are more fashion conscious, and urban dwellers are more interested spending money on others things rather than to automobiles.  These people have other desires for items; shoes, purses, headphones, jackets etc…  But human behavior is not an engineering subject and neither is fashion. Therefore, the future scenarios of personal mobility will be less about pure Engineering, more about Ethnography and Designing towards consumer tastes and their unique interests.

Soon, consumers will not care so much about who manufactured their product, but instead they will be more interested in what Designer, Stylist, Co-creator or Theme Artist customized their mobility.  As this scenario evolves it will begin to see an over-lapping of transport services that combines with fashion design, product design, and experience design.