innovation playground Idris Mootee

Random Thoughts: From Aviva Community Fund To Positive Social Change To Women Empowerment.

I was so excited that our Aviva Community Program is getting such good response even before the official launch. It is a very important project for both our client and IC because it is something we truly believe in. It is about 1/ Empowering change in our communities while building brand 2/ Prove that social media is not a hype and if you use it right it is the most powerful communication medium 3/ Authenticity is the key ingredient of marketing, this program is about action and not just words. Check out the program here It is truly where "Marketing Innovation" meets "Social Innovation".

The idea is Aviva Canada will be introducing a nation-wide pilot positive social change competition supported by see a large-scale $500,000 donation put towards the fulfillment of positive community changes in neighborhoods across Canada. So far our metrics are indicating that this will be a super hit for an insurance company successfully social media to drive awareness and action for positive social change and brand awareness. Quick stats to date (before official launch): Ideas created: 800+ (see map below), Registered Users: 60,000+ Site Votes: 160,000+ Comments: 6,400+ Not to mention the crazy Facebook links.  Kudos to the client and the IC team John, Paul, Caroline, Jeff, Jackie, Claire, Cheesan, Andrew, Patrick, Ryan (did I miss anyone?). Lot of hard work, big thinking and flawless execution. Thank you team!

I received some interesting positive feedbacks and discussion on an earlier post this week titled “A Simple Life Or Green Living Are Not The Solutions. They Distract Us From The Real Number One Problem”. I’ve received a dozen of emails and some great comments /discussions from the linkedin group "Design For Social Change" which I'd like to share here:

Manuel Toscano, Design Principal, Zago NY

“There are many problems and many systems that can benefit from more design thinking, more involvement and support from the design community, but I wound't argue that it should start from one place, or in one way. I say this even while agreeing with you that empowering women (everywhere) is proven to be the social investment that brings the most significant returns.”

Jeremy Faludi. Green Design Strategist, SF

"I agree that nowhere near enough attention is given to this issue. The key is that it's not just a social issue--it's an environmental issue. Empowering women in developing countries is the only effective (and the only humane and responsible) way to stop the population bomb. Easing population pressure helps solve all the other environmental problems we have (all forms of resource depletion, and all forms of pollution). The fact that it's also pivotal in fixing a lot of social and economic problems is icing on the cake. I agree, it should be a very high priority. (Note, though: why is it all three of us who've talked about this so far are men?)”

Kara Pecknold, Design Researcher at Emily Carr Institute, Van

“I'll jump in as one female voice in this discussion. I'm sure there are others who could add additional ideas. I concur, we're past "green living. After working with a group of women in Rwanda, I would suggest that empowerment is definitely needed. Actually finding out what these women regard as empowerment is something else altogether. The "developing world" is a broad title and each country faces its own political, social and cultural realities that can affect this empowering. But talking to the people we perceive as needing it might be a step in the right direction. They likely have some good ideas to contribute to this conversation. “

Maz Kessler, Creative Director, NY

“Hi all - such a huge area for discussion, but extremely glad to see it surfaced here. there's definitely momentum building around an increasing awareness (at last!) of the benefits of investing in women globally, and what this brings to communities, regions and nations. This rapidly emerging awareness (hesitate to call it a movement yet...) has recently been given mainstream visibility in high-income countries through e.g. Nick Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn's book 'half the sky'... through the 'girl effect', through the NGO Women to Women, and eve ensler's work in DRC etc……as designers we can bring our creativity to communications and advocacy in high-income countries, as well as into advocacy and design projects in low-income countries (anyway, immense and great topic and yes I'm also female)”.

Growing up in big cities and having lived and worked in Boston, London, Toronto, LA, HK, Milan, the women empowerment thing was never under my radar screen. I worked with some of the smartest and well educated women and it never came to my mind this is such a big issue in the developing worlds. I always thought we were making good progress. While a lot of progress has been made in the last 20 years improving women's health and education, women in the developing world are still at the periphery of the economy, marginalized in segregated low-paying jobs, or practically barred from education and work opportunities. The situations are different country to country but the problem is still very serious as a whole.

I am very interested in what innovation is needed to make the change. Social innovation that links to empowering women is what I am talking about. An example, in 1999, 35 women on the isolated island of Char Montaz in Bangladesh discovered they could make a huge difference in their community by going into business (none of them have MBAs no surprise). Taking a lot of criticism since they were breaking society's rules by working outside the home and that’s a big deal there. They later got funding from the World Bank and the UN Development Program, and assistance from a local non-governmental organization Prokaushali Sangsad Ltd.

They started to build battery-powered direct current lamps to replace kerosene lanterns widely used in local homes—a known source of indoor air pollution. And as they mastered lamp construction, they also learned about quality control, business development and marketing. Soon, their critics were their customers. Within two years, they were bringing low-cost light and clean power to over 1,200 households, shops, and boats, and 300 businesses. Shops stayed open longer, children spent more time on school work at home, and incomes increased by 30 percent. My point is, this is not just a moral or a human rights or a political issue, it's deep down also an economic issue as well as global climate change issue.

Hope everyone have a very scary weekend.

The Sustainability Challenge Is Complex. Is Ecolabeling The Answer Or Just Another Greenwashing Tool?

No one will disagree that today’s customer is empowered like never before. With social media and other connectivity, they care able to acquire more detailed information about brands, products and services in order to make smarter decisions; everything is a just a few clicks away. Any green-washing or eco-washing can last only for a few clicks. Customer can access new knowledge about the behavior of companies and can more readily question and challenge this behavior.

Many CSR initiatives are of limited success. It is pretty simple, for a retailer to have some green products available as a choice is worse than not having them. If they are doing what they supposed to do, there would be no reason for greenlabels in the first place. Because everything should be green. For a shoe company to offer 10 green SKUs over 3000 total designs, it is not acceptable at all. No surprises that many retailers struggle with green as consumers ask the question if it makes sense given what may be construed as a conflict of interest—what retailer wouldn’t want to label every product on its shelves with a green label to make it sell faster? I think what they should do is a big sign showing what percentage of products are becoming green and the index should move upwards until more than 90% of products are green to a reasonable level.

Taking a deeper look many retailers' eco programs may not be too effective—the Home Depot’s Eco-Options, Staples’ EcoEasy, and the Office Depot Green Depot. Is ecolabeling the answer? There is a much needed gap here as no one really knows what qualify as “green”. It is too complicated to just label a product’s degree of greenness. Some are pushing a bill which would empower the Federal Government to create a multi-attribute eco-label much in the spirit of the ecolabels generated by 25-plus other countries in the world.

Walmart is developing a universal rating system to help consumers determine which products are truly sustainable. The rating system would scrutinize a product's entire life-cycle by focusing on broad factors, rather than the usual marketing gibberish that extolls isolated virtues.

For the index, here are three examples. the most common one covers four main areas, including: 1/ energy and climate 2/material efficiency 3/ natural resources, and 4/ people and community.  Nike's sustainability group has developed a framework or index (see photo above) which they use for product design that includes 1/ environmentally preferred materials 2/ waste 3/ solvents, and 4/ innovation (see photo). At Idea Couture, we use a slightly different framework (see photo below) to evaluate product innovation which also included social and transport footprint as those are sometimes ignored. It is a little more effective as we take into consideration of the supply chain impact as well as the job creation or other social impact.

Ecolabelling is useful in a limited way but still a big step forward, at the end of the day the most potent sources of credibility and purchase influence comes from the voices of consumers amplified through social networks. Transparency is still a long way until we have full access to process classification, ingredient classification and disclosure, and access to the farmers growing whatever the raw material. In the end, the power may rest with the people and the Twitterverse.

China Needs A National Design Policy. But More So, Need Entrepreneurs That Think Big And Long-Term.

China's design industry experts are calling for greater government support in order to help the their manufacturers raise the competitiveness with design innovation. Zhu Tao, president of China Industrial Design Association, said the Chinese economy suffered heavily from the global economic crisis, with factory closures and layoffs. "Without our own design, we won't have our own brands. Without our own brands, we won't be independent in the world. Being an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) is no way out," he said. China does have a design policy. Not even the US has one.

I exchanged some views last week with Dori Tunstall about the challenges of getting government to develop an effective design policy. She is the organizer of the U.S. National Design Policy Initiative. Trained as an Anthropologist at Stanford with a doctorate degree, (she is actually a Design Anthropologist and she sees her job is to seeking to answer the question, "what does it mean to be human?"). Dori’s idea is that this design policy document of regulations is not something to "force upon" on designers. Rather this document serves as the blueprint for the participating design organizations to coordinate, channel, and prioritize their activities as we more deeply engage with government partners. It's the activities that are important. If the government never signs a "US Design Policy" bill, it is fine as long as the proposals are written into other legislation. The problem with regulations that effect designers today is that designers are not at the table.

I think every country needs one. US and China particularly so, it is about maintaining competitive advantages for industries. China is the world's largest producer of more than 200 product types from bicycles, batteries to shoes and TV sets. Today “Made In China” means cheap and low quality goods If Chinese companies seriously wanted to transform crisis into an opportunity, they need to focus more on 1/ learning from world class design firms 2/ develop advanced programs to train higher skilled designs 3/ close the gap of branding capability of Chinese firms from a managerial perspective.

Beijing is hosting the 2009 Icograda World Design Congress and the 1st Beijing Design Week, starting this week. The Chinese mainland will be hosting the Congress for the first time and the five-day event will consist of 12 exhibitions of creative designs, forums, lectures and design events. Attendants include British Design Council chief executive David Kester, Republic of Korea (ROK) Institute of Design Promotion president Kim Hyun-tae, renowned Hong Kong designer Freeman Lau, car designer Olivier Boulay, and Japanese designer Kohei Sugiura. China enjoyed the benefit of a large domestic consumer market; this allows Chinese brands an opportunity to become world-class brands.

It will take more than 10 years for China to develop design capability that are comparable to world standard, so they better start soon. The biggest barrier is still the “short-termism” mindset of Chinese entrepreneurs that needs to change first. While the quality B-schools in Asia are getting very up-to-date with support from top international schools, D-schools in Asia has a long way to go. No schools have successfully evolved from a traditional focus on aesthetics and products to embrace higher level design thinking. The best Asian schools provide students with good technical skills, but their graduates leave without the ability to work across disciplines or to use design strategically. UK and US D-schools are at a significant advantage and will take

A Simple Life Or Green Living Are Not The Solutions. They Distract Us From The Real Number One Problem.

I was hearing a group of designers here in Boston saying that the only way to solve our sustainability problems is to simplify our life and go back to creating less garbage. They went on to suggest that if the government decides to stop collecting garbage, and they end up piling up in our backyard or frontyard, we would then feel the problem and start living a simple life - a radical idea but a silly one that doesn’t work. Why don’t we go back to riding horses and we do that, we will have some serious horseshit problem to deal with.

A simple life has a different meaning and a different value for every person. For some, it means eliminating all but the essential, eschewing chaos for peace, and spending your time doing what’s important to you and not accumulating things. Not a bad idea but you can’t take it to the extreme. We love things and we love to own beautiful things. However, moving to simplicity isn’t always a simple process. It’s a journey, not a destination, and it can often be a journey of two steps forward, and one backward.

If you are feeling a sense of progress with your green habits including driving 20 minutes somewhere to buy organic good versus buying from across the street or only wear recycle cotton Ts not knowing the amount of water needed to recycle them. Even if you buy organically grown cotton, you have not considered the amount of land needed to grow them and the whole process is very long and very chemically intensive. It is just a false sense of sustainability.

Reading the essay in Orion by Derrick Jensen on the plane, he is aything that any “simple life” movement is just a political act, the radical environmentalist argues that focusing on our personal choices as a solve for eco-destruction is not just misguided, but also useless. He shows how agriculture and industry are responsible for the bulk of water and energy use as well as emission and waste. He is saying it is cool if you wan to live simple, but if you think you are making it is effective or if it distracts you from the larger environmental issues, that’s not good.

To become true steward of our planet, first stop using the “flawed” notion that humans inevitably harm the environment. We have the power to redesign our societies forward but not going backward. Technology can power us forward? Perhaps. The key question remains, with global population of 9.2b people by 2050, can we produce enough food to feed everyone? Don’t worry about the quality of air and water for now. With industrial production of nitrogen fertilizer and super-crop, there are not enough land as cropland grows by 8% and population 80% in the next three decades.

Every time I drive past downtown New York, Toronto or Chicago, the office buildings were all lit up for whatever reason. I cannot imagine how much energy they consume. There are no ones in those offices. Buildings play a major role in the environmentally unfriendly trends projecting energy consumption to increase by 37% and greenhouses gases by 36% over the next 20 years in North America alone. Adding all top 50 cities in the world we begin to see the magnitude of the issue. No one is doing anything. But does really matter?

We sometimes forget that the world's number ONE problem is population. There are too just many of us in this world. Overpopulation is the ONLY problem. Our planet cannot handle so many people. Current estimates put the planet's population at more than 7 billion, if we stay at 4-5 billion, we can easily manage all other problems. Our top 10 challenges are overconsumption, the need for more sustainable practices worldwide, the growing need for energy conservation, the need for humans to see themselves as part of the global ecosystem, overall carbon dioxide emissions, the need to develop ways to produce consumer products from renewable resources, and dwindling fresh water resources.

We need a global solution for population control fast. To make things fair universality is necessary but not sufficient. We must also address why the third world people think they need more children when they are surrounded by underfed and dying children. Having said that, children in the west use 30 times as much of the world's natural resources as a third world child. Think about it, if 20,000 people unfortunately died in an earthquake, the losses were made up before we see the news on CNN. There can be more than 100 extra people born while you leave a Facebook message on a friend’s wall. Something radical must be done to get the world to wake up and face this reality.

Does Intergrative Creavity Exist Today? Where Do They Exist? D-Schools Or B-Schools? And Is There A Place For A-School In Our Future?

Someone asked me who’s the design head in our company? I am not sure. My answer would be everyone. Everyone is a strategist and everyone is a designer (or design thinker) in our company. We long understood strategy doesn’t necessarily come from strategist, and design idea doesn’t necessarily come from designer. Design wants to change the world and often over thinking and under-doing. Strategy wants to change the world but stuck in an old paradigm of management. Strategy, management and design are not what it used to be.

“Strategy” is distancing itself from “Competition” and “Innovation” is distancing itself from “Invention”. Strategy now needs design and design needs strategy in order to have impact. Met John Maeda today and his idea of the difference between art and design is design should is being ”relevant” and art should is being “free” and design is “producable” and art is “imaginable”. Those are good observations.

Let’s come back to business strategy for a moment, if “strategy’ is “predictable” then innovation is “unknown”. Business schools are not very good in teaching people seeing, imagining, conceptualizing, and visualizing the future. Design schools are very good in training people to imagining and asking questions, but terrible in understand from a system view how the world works.

Strategy’s ultimate goal is to create power and exercise them to your benefit. Design’s ultimate goal is to come up with solutions to a predefined problem. Art’s goal is to ask questions and reflect on some of our paradoxes and express deeper concepts that sometimes words fail to do the job. If strategy is ultimately about effectively exercising power, the answers to these questions may convey a good deal about how we think strategically. There is ample ground to conclude that our ability simply to cope with—much less shape—a future of pronounced complexity, uncertainty, and turbulence will depend in large measure on the prevalence of strategic thinkers in our midst. Ideas and the ability to generate them seem increasingly likely, in fact, to be more important than capital and weapons.

The question is what type of thinkers do we need  that has the intellect to dissect the status quo, grasp the big picture, discern important relationships among events, understand causation and events, generate imaginative possibilities to inspire, and operate easily in the conceptual realm as well as understand execution and change. Integrative creativity simply does not exist today.

As Maeda puts it, "Right now, our nation sees left-brain thinking, focused on logic and reasoning, as critical to future economic development. You can see it in the emphasis on the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) subjects. What's missing from STEM is right brain thinking -- embodied by what I call the key "IDEA" (Intuition, Design, Emotion, Art). We need both both halves of the brain to work together and channel that brilliance through our hands and propagate ideas throughout our world." That's what we meant by the power of D-schools + b-schools.

Your Next Electric BMW May Not Come With Any Sound. Need To Pay For Separately Dowloadable "Autotone".

Many years ago people did not realize the power of the ringtone. Not only they can make money selling them but it is a powerful political tool. I think the Philippines was the first country in the world to use text messaging to topple a former president, they may soon be the first country to overturn a government with a ringtone. Imagine the power of the voice on poll tape and ringtone. What about the Obama ringtone?

The BBC World Service Trust understands the power of the ringtone to achieve development goals. When they were tasked with the tough task to make condoms more acceptable, and free from negative judgment, they came up with a wacky idea to get people talking about condoms -- a condom-themed ringtone. World Service Trust Condom Ringtone was the solution. They hope that this will stimulate conversation, which is desirable as - according to research - those who talk about sex and condoms are more likely to have safer behaviors

Or do you know about the mosquito ringtone for teenager that allows teenagers to receive text messages and phone calls in class without the teachers hearing them. In case you didn’t know, it’s a tone outside the audible range of hearing for most people over the age of 30. You probably don’t know this, the history of the mosquito ring tone dates back to 2005 when a British inventor by the name of Howard Stapleton came up with an ingenious idea to drive away teens through ultra high frequency sounds much like how a dog whistle would affect dogs. It was an idea to make the storefront very uncomfortable for the loitering teens while leaving the money spending adult customers unaffected.

So what’s next for ringtone? Here another innovation for the auto makers to make money. How about “autotones” for your car? If you live in New York City or Toronto you will often encounter bike messengers speeding pass you just a few inches away. The problem is you don’t know they are coming because there aren’t making any sound. When electric cars eventually get popular, the same problem will arise. Because they are so quiet, it can be dangerous if you are crossing the street and couldn’t hear them. Those hyrids need to figure out how to make the cars nosier.

Many have started working with sound engineers to design sound effects to simulate engine noises. The Fisker Karma, an $87,900 plug-in hybrid expected to be in the market soon, will emit a sound -- pumped out of power sub-woofers in the bumpers -- that the company founder, Henrik Fisker, describes as "a cross between a starship and a Formula One car. I believe at one point they will get creative and designing unique noises to differentiate their brands. There will be Mercedes, Porsche and BMW noises.

Buying an electric car in 2012 you will need to pick from the price list what “Vroomtone” or “autotone” package that you may want to include (for a price). Or you can buy a subscription package that you can have unlimited download of all “autotone” for your car for a year. Pick something for the locking of the cars, or another for engine noises or when the charge is ready etc. May be the automakers end up making more money from these “autotone” that the car itself.

Have a great weekend and off to Boston.

Creative Capitalism + Social Innovation = New Social Enterprises That Make Money And Change The World.

We need more (and more innovative) social enterprises and I really want to see a top tier MBA programs with specialization in Social Enterprises. Call it B-school needs S-school. There are so many problems out there and sometimes we feel we are almost giving up. Our capitalist system is not adjusting well to these shocks. It is almost pointless for these endless debates on how things got to this point and who is to blame. The point remains: We've got to change it—and change it fast – and change it for the better.

The last thing we want to replace these problems with a set of newer problems, I’ve seen in many case when smart people think they have a solution, but they are simply migrating the problems. There is hope. The good surprise is that business—the same institutions that bear a fair amount of the responsibility for the current situation—is also the most potent force for bringing change. No government alone can make that happen. Businesses are powerful, if we can align the forces. There are hundreds of social enterprises are doing exactly that.

Who invented the social enterprise? Or the better idea is how do we reinvent social enterprises so they can be good business and good citizens. Not good business and bad citizens or bad business good citizens. Peter Drucker argued that in this post-capitalist society (not sure I agree with that tern), managers must learn to negotiate a new environment with a different set of work rules and career expectations. Businesses exist to serve social purposes, they have to function in ways that make sense to the society in which they are situated – and in the case of multinational corporations, they often have to function in ways that make sense across more than one society, at a deep level.

Social enterprises can change the world for the much, much better. If social entrepreneurs can navigate around the challenges and become some of the most popular brands of the world. For now, they need to improve the odds and make sure that they can proof that it works. I am very convinced that the concept works, it is just exceptional challenges that needed to be overcome. Some realities. I don’t know the success rate of social enterprises. I don’t think it is higher or lower than the average business. Like any business, social enterprises fail—because businesses fail. But how come social enterprise didn’t scale—like many other businesses with successful business models?

The way I see it, it is not uncommon that traditional social enterprises did not attract the best and the brightest entrepreneurs, many are into the mission and not interested in the business. The other reason is there is a lack of appetite or aspiration for them to take it global or to a larger scale. And then there is the question of capital availability and time frame to achieve scale. Too many are forced to think survival, rather than innovation and growth. There needs to be series ambitions to make sure the social enterprises is leverage its mission and commitment to changing the world and transform our future. That’s a big mission. And it is not mutually exclusive to pursue the mission and not ignoring the competitive dynamics of the industry that you operate in. What’s the best example? Here is one.

Rubicon Programs is a $16mm social enterprise n SF focusing on helping with employment. It started initially as a drop-in center in Richmond, California, for very low-income people with severe disabilities. Their first social enterprises were very small programs that were seen more providing with some training than anything else. Today Rubicon has evolved into an organization that today serves low-income, homeless and mentally disabled people in the businesses, housing and services it provides. About one-third of the people currently served have a mental health disability, so its original focus is still a part, but not the largest part, of what Rubicon does. It is a one-stop shop for those trying to escape poverty. It not only helps clients find homes and jobs but also offers career, mental heath, and family counseling, as well as technological training and money-management programs.

Take Rubicom Bakery as an example, they produce a range of delicious cakes and tarts. The high-quality and handcrafted products are baked from "scratch" recipes and use only the best of ingredients including fresh-grated carrots, Maine blueberries, real butter and Dutch chocolate. We use absolutely no preservatives and our products include no transfats. The bakery also serves as a unique training center, preparing people for employment with Rubicon or other employers. Job training, counseling, and peer support provided in a dedicated baking workshop, classroom with audio-visual capacities, and a job search center with computer terminals help participants develop their work and life skills. Everything integrated, almost like the Cornell School of Hotel Management. There is even an online store too.

Social Enterprises Will Become The Next Big Global Brands. But Not All Socal Enterprises Are The Same.

Let me make a prediction, 10 of the top 100 most popular brands in 5 years time will be Social Enterprise Brands. What are they? They are a new form of organizations. We see more and more development of a mixed economy of companies coming together to further progress on social, economic & environmental well being. Expect to plenty of innovation where Social Technologies meet Social Enterprises.

What exactly is a social enterprise? A social enterprise is a BUSINESS with primarily social objectives whose profits are reinvested for that purpose in the business or the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders. But it doesn’t mean that they are not maximizing their effort to create competitive advantages to create economical value in additional to social value. There are many ways to do this but they should not just means non-profits business:

1. Create economic value in the form of profits and use 100% of that to benefit larger purposes. Often include community-based services such as community banking etc.
2. Create economic value by emphasizing double or triple bottom line and use that as a core element of the business model such as value based goods/services esp. fair trade etc. A business that, beyond the profit motive, has a social mission built into their business model or strategy.
3. Create economic value in the form transforming current business model to include social components in a meaningful way.
4. Create value in terms of jobs and some revenue to sustain operations by specifically targeting groups with challenges and to provide training and job opportunities (this employment model is closer to non-profit).

I don’t think Social Enterprises should compete based on lower cost (salaries or subsidized rent etc.). They cannot just rely on a lower cost structure and compete with for-profit businesses with a lower quality product/services, but instead they need to focus on creating innovative business model that allows them to compete just as any regular businesses.

They should not just exist to provide jobs, that’s a pure non-profit’s role, they should be creating value by developing human capital and skilled labor just as regular businesses. The model of many employment-based social enterprise is not 100% Social Enterprises. They provide employment opportunities and job training to its target populations or "clients," that are people with high barriers to employment such as disabled, homeless, at-risk youth, and ex-offenders.

Generally this model is predicated on the appropriateness of jobs it creates for its clients, regarding skills development, and consistency with clients' capabilities and limitations, as well as its commercial viability. This model is usually embedded: the social program is the business, its mission centers on creating employment opportunities for clients. I hope to see the more innovative Social Enterprises that can take this further by innovating more and be able to produce a decent return on capital deployed. It needs to move away from a traditional non-profit model to becoming a doubled-bottom line Social Ventures.

There should be a commitment to both investors and the capacity of individuals and communities to help themselves. Social Enterprises should empower communities and build social capital; you CANNOT take financial capital out of the equation. Not sure if you think this makes any sense to you.

Scott Griffith (CEO, Zipcar) was asked the question by Qn (A Yale School of Management publication) on as the CEO of a social enterprise, how does he make the call when his social goals and profit motive conflict? This is his response:

“Just by the nature of our business model, the social benefits are accruing as we grow. Most of our members don't own cars. As a result of that, every car we put on, we know through surveys, takes about 20 personal cars away, because people choose not to buy a car or they sell a car. “

“That 20-for-1 ratio also benefits household discretionary income. Through surveys we know that between $6,000 and $7,000 a year of transportation spending comes back into the household after they've spent on Zipcar. A clear social and economic benefit to the community that accrues as that happens. “

“As a lot of the economists will tell you, any time you start to pay for something per unit as opposed to a fixed cost, you get much smarter about how you spend your money. So as you transition car transportation from a fixed cost, being car ownership, to a variable or a unit cost, like Zipcar, people get a lot smarter about grouping their trips. And they just make the trade-off: Should I walk? Should I take public transit? Should I use the Zipcar? Their vehicle miles traveled get cut in half. The big purchasing driver, in our case, is economics. That's the steak, and the sizzle is the social good that comes with it, and the sense that they're doing something good for the environment and for the community as a result of their behavior shift toward Zipcar.”

All Nippon Latest Innovation - Pre-Boarding Toilet Monitors

Can design change the world? Or at least let’s try to change healthcare. Or shall we start with our education system?  There are plenty to change and no shortage of ideas. Do we need more new and cool products? Or we just need products that last? Or products that that are cheap to repair and not throwaways that are costing our environment? We will still be dealing with the problems case by the last 50 years of accelerated industrialization and electronics are the worst.

For me, I really wish I could redesign air travel experiences. It is so bad today. They are like flying prisons except they don’t give you the orange uniform (I like the old black and white ones than the orange one, not sure why they change it). Cost savings measures are making the experience ridiculous. Here is one good example. Japanese airline All Nippon Airways (below photo of myself flying All Nippon) has started asking passengers to make use of the toilet prior to boarding in a bid to reduce aircraft weight.

The airline has announced that “toilet monitors” would be located by the boarding gates in departure lounges to ask waiting passengers to relieve themselves before boarding the aircraft. The airline is under the belief that empty bladders will equate to lighter passengers, which will ultimately mean lighter aircraft and fuel savings. They started the policy this month (as an experiment) and hope to achieve a reduction of five-tons in carbon emissions over one month. The question for passengers is what if you don’t? I guess they can charge you for the weight you drop or if you are a Start Alliance gold, you will get an allowance for that. This is so crazy.

The best-loved engineering design projects of the century must be the Concord (1976-2003) and that’s a rare example of successful international collaboration. Its Anglo-French designers produced the world’s first supersonic commercial passenger aircraft which at its fastest flew from NY to London in less than 3 hours. How I wish if that was popularized and we can fly from New York to Shanghai in 6 hours.

Concord, exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. Routinely flying faster than twice the speed of sound with a take-off speed of 250 mph (400 kmph) and a cruising speed of 1,350 mph (2,160 kmph) at an altitude of up to 60,000 feet, twice the height of Mount Everest. At its fastest on 7 Feb 1996, Concorde flew from New York to London in just 2 hours, 52 minutes and 59 seconds. It takes me longer than that to get from mid-town to LaGuardia.

I travel almost every week and I just hate the idea of being cramped in an airplane. The design of airplane assumes people are cargo. Well actually they are designed like a bus, that’s why some are called Airbus. When most frequent travelers are for business, air-craft manufacturers and airlines need to rethink to make cabins double as mobile offices and provide email and Internet access. Since the 70s, Boeing's 747 (seating capacity of 524) has dominated the aircraft market. They are more comfortable that previous design. In the 90s Airbus began development of the double-decker A380, designed to give 50% more floor space than the next largest airliner (capacity increases to 800 passengers).  So how do we redesign the aircraft experience? To start with, we need think office, theater or even casinos or pub.

"Elegant" Is Often Reserved For Use In The High Design World. So What Does It Mean For Engineering, Interface Or Business Models? Can Business Learn From This Design Principle?

El·e·gant, an adjective and define or characterized by or exhibiting refined, tasteful beauty of manner, form, or style. Mark Jacob? Chanel? Jil Saunder? Hermes? All are elegant by design. What about Amazon Kindle? Apple iPhone? Or GE? Or P&G? Are they elegant? It is word reserved for the design world. That world likes to use words such as “elegant”, “simple” and “user friendly”, many designers understand how to subtract in creating simple and elegant design solutions. Human factors usually subtract more than add. Good designers take away complexity in objects or interfaces. Can business learn from this design  principle? Can a business strategy be “elegant”? Or can a particular management style be described as “elegant”?

Anything elegant is often simple; not everything simple is elegant. Everything simple is often user friendly, not everything simple is user friendly. Sometimes complexity us needed. Simplicity has different meanings. Good businesses need to be simple and easy to understand, and that’s the investment criteria for Warren Buffet. Business are getting too complex these days and most executives let alone the CEO knows all the moving pieces and have any idea of their risk exposure. And some rely on SAP to manage the enterprise and that’s unrealistic. 

There are many different kinds of simplicity, sometimes in form and sometimes in function or both. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for simplicity on the other side of complexity.” Elegance is “far side” simplicity that is emotionally engaging, profoundly intelligent, and artfully crafted to be two things at once: simple and powerful. Why elegance? Is it an elusive target? Does it only applicable to design?

Are there always simple answers to even the most wicked problems? Do we have to reduce complexity so we can understand it or do we need complex solutions to solve complex problems?  Scientists, engineers, mathematicians, system thinkers, economists research for theories hoping to explain highly complex phenomena in simple ways.

Business executives and strategists are dealing with more and more complex business models. I don’t think that a simpler solution is necessarily superior than a complex one. If you consider a particular business as a system, the business model corresponds pretty exactly to the function of that system. The business in operation is a combination of architecture, function and performance. As with many complex systems, it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between the three.

A business model includes the raw function of what we (economist) refer to as its "industry" (it's a bank or a retail chain or a newspaper, for example), but can also include particular ways of operating the raw function (a branchless bank or low-cost airline, a discount retailer or free online social network, for example). Thus the business model "function" can shade into "performance" when particular approaches to types of customer, levels of service and brand ethos are considered. The architectural side of the business model is how the core components are stack together and that impacts the function as well as the performance. It can be simple and elegant, and can be complex and elegant.

Elegant doesn’t have to simple.

Managing The Unkowable, Unforecastable And Unplannable - This Is Not What They Teach In Business Schools.

I don’t think anyone will disagree with me when I say that the future is unknowable and no one can accurately predict the future with any level of confidence. I remember when we were working to support the global launch of Lisa and had no idea whether it would take off or not. It was a long shot marketing that to corporate IT folks to convince them to switch to Apple then, many are still not convinced today.  Does it mean we should just give up managing the future? What about the future of Kindle? Their sales was pegged at US$1.2 billion and will become the iPod of ebooks, how likely will that happen?

For any innovative products or services, there are so many unknowns and any forecast seems to be impractical exercise. Strategic planning is often used to describe operational planning, real strategic planning is about planning for the future. Thinking about some planning exercise can effective forecast future sales of innovation new products without seeing what the competitive landscape will look like? To do strategic planning, let’s first admit that there is no way what the long-term future looks like and any vision that you have may not relevant at all.

So how do you manage the unknowable and unforecastable? But at the same time need to make many long-term decisions? This is the big paradox of organizations and management. We need to organize in a way to co-ordinate many parts of the organization to function and to create some stability in the day-to-day running of different units. The art is to co-exist between existing structure and processes with the flexibly (and sometimes instability) to adapt to changes. Some believe senior executives or the board should set the direction of the company and control all strategic directions and resource allocation. In fact, the better approach is to set the overall directions and then create favorable conditions and flexible architectures to support learning and innovation for middle management.

A friend of mine (a senior exec with a bank) uses the analogy that no matter how smart a person is or even the person doesn’t sleep, he or she can never out-think or out-innovate tens of thousand middle managers if each only spend 5 minutes a day thinking about new ideas to improve performance or new ways to serve customers better. How true?

It is far more important to expose senior and middle manages to new mental models, unarticulated customer needs and future industry scenarios that together forms new maps and develop perspectives, this way you can power up their collective imagination and stimulate creative dialogues.

I’ve seen so many flaws in so called “strategic plans” and many fail to demonstrate (let alone guarantee) the millions of dollars in new revenue of savings it promises. It is easy to wave the word "quality", “growth” or “innovation” casually like a magic wand to justify investments, without bothering to define what the possible futures are. I will write more on this the next few weeks on how to avoid the mistakes of “strategic planning”. All strategic planning being rooted in the assumptions that the past dictates the future, that’s merely a limit of the planner and not the plan.

Anyone who are familiar with strategy framework like the Balanced Scorecard/Strategy Map methodology from Kaplan and Norton knows the importance of Leading Indicators: Metrics that are forward focused rather than simply telling past performance. Leading Indicators sometimes disguised as "Weak Signals" and that's why it is more difficult to interpret.

I believe strategic innovation and strategic planning are two very different (not mutually exclusive) approaches that people mixed it up. Strategic innovation is a process to discover new value through new ideas while strategic planning process plan base on what happened and what to respond. Without something happen, planners cannot plan further. In most case, strategic planner assumes business as usual. It is hard to find business as usual today. And often they under estimate the magnitude of change and disruptions. Their job is not to read and interpret “weak signals”. That’s why innovation, strategy and operations and three different functions and require very different skill sets.

“Looking back, it is clearer to me now that these plans — for all their seemingly tight, logical connections between mission, belief, goals, actions, responsibilities, and evaluation — were like beautiful but badly leaking boats.”                           — Mike Schmoker

Happy 60th Anniversary China! When Are We Seeing A Parade Of Chinese Global Brands?

Happy Birthday China! China is celebrating its rise to a world power over 60 years of Communist rule today, showing the world their capabilities in its biggest-ever parade of state-of-the-art military hardware. It has come a long way and still has a long way to go. I attended a cocktail party this evening and talked to many China observers on what this means to the world. And for multi-nationals?

This week I’ve been busy working on developing our China footprint or more precisely Shanghai is our beachhead office. I am excited but at the same time well aware of the challenges operating in that environment. Everything you know can be wrong overnight. No experts can tell you what's your market is like today and how it is changing tomorrow.

China's rapid urbanization will further change the social architecture of the country and causing pains. According to some McKinsey research, in 2025-2030 one in five of the global city dwellers will be in Chinese cities. Based on current trends, China in 2025 will have 221 cities with more than one million people compared to Europe with 35. 25 of China's cities will have more than 5 million people China's cities in 2025 will generate about 95% of its GDP (versus 75% today) Of the 350 million people added to Chinese cities by 2025 (about the population of the USA) 240 million will be migrants

Asia’s emerging economies are already leading the way for a recovery, or was there a recession at all? It depends on how you look it at. Chinese societies are just taking a baby step to transform to a consumer society. As many US consumers are transforming out it (not sure if it possible at all). Are the largest global consumer companies ready for this momentous shift?

McKinsey’s advice is that even the most sophisticated multinationals must change significantly to realize Asia’s growth potential. The region is as diverse as it is vast. Its markets come in a bewildering assortment of sizes and development stages, and its customers hail from a multitude of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Their tastes and preferences evolve constantly. The speed and scale of change in Asian consumer markets can surprise even experienced executives. To meet the challenge, global companies will have to organize themselves regionally to coordinate strategy and use resources in the most efficient way while at the same time targeting the tastes of consumers on a very local level.

The structural changes required by China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the broader demands of economic globalization and the information revolution will generate significantly new levels and types of social and economic disruption. China has proven politically resilient, economically dynamic, and increasingly assertive in positioning itself for a leadership role in Asia. And becoming a global power.

For those Chinese brands, they are all gearing up to play the global game and most are not well prepared. China’s domestic market is becoming ever more crowded and a strong domestic market will power up Chinese brand for international expansion. There is an urgent call for Chinese companies to master new skills that traditionally reside with non-Chinese multinationals such as marketing, branding, talent development, customer service, M&A management etc. It is not an easy path.

Take Lenovo for example, they are facing challenges both domestically and internationally. Lenovo is losing ground to rivals and Yang is replacing Amelio as CEO. Liu Chuanzhi, the company founder who stepped aside after the IBM deal, will return as chairman. It is a big setback. Despite a $93 million profit in domestic sales, overall results were hit by the losses in overseas sales and admitted that Lenovo was a "weak competitor" in the US and Europe. Weak is not a strong enough word to describe their marketing, pricing as well as distribution strategies. They still need to go global. Liu said in a press release. "But at this important time we want to pay particular attention to our China business as it represents the foundation of our global business and growth strategy."

The first problem is there is simply a lack of real global strategy and I don’t mean just a product strategy. Lenovo’s second challenge is a flawed sales and marketing strategies. They overrated their brand power and there aren’t much outside China. Replace the Thinkpad logo too fast. Lenovo failed to understand that blurry branding and not giving enough thoughts to pricing strategy.

Going global is not so simple. It is even more complex today with the Internet making information transparent, geo-politics and diverging consumer tastes. The most common mistake is companies see globalization as taking a superior (usually by false assumption) business model, product platform, branding and quickly adapting to another country. Oh yes it is about scale and that alone is not strategic.

The right approach is to rethink your business model globally, not taking an existing business model and adapting it to China or India. First step is to identify key differences in customer needs (often opposite) and understand how to answer to those needs. Not stripping down of an existing product line and call it localization. The real strategic focus should not be on the tension between global scale economies and local considerations as it blinds companies to the very real opportunities. Instead, spend plenty of efforts to exploit the differences and in their rush to exploit the similarities across borders, multinationals have discounted the original global strategy: arbitrage, the strategy of difference and design your business around those differences.

As more and more companies like Lenovo are slowly emerging on the global stage, they should put more thoughts on what strategies are available (Chinese firms prefer to spend money on feng sui consultants and not strategy consultants) and what implications do they pose for their more-established competitors from developed markets? How are these companies building marketing talent (a big limitation), leveraging low costs, and market access in their home countries? How do they approach global market entry, organizational development, and mergers and acquisitions? What opportunities do such companies present to Western multinationals? A feng-sui man cannot really give you answers on those strategic questions.