Archive

Tag Archives: design

Corporate leadership – form follows function

June 1, 2009
Strategy design
Leave a Comment

In a curious experiment when I was in architecture school, we gave up titles in the leadership of the student government. Instead of the usual president, vice president, etc., we elected four at-large representatives that we arbitrarily called the “Henries.” Each Henry assumed some responsibility for certain aspects of getting things done, and made decisions in committee.I don’t think it had much continuity beyond the tenure of the initial gang of four.

More recently I’ve been part of an organization that, in transition from the founding father’s leadership and a past failure at a successful CEO transition, designated a 3-person executive management team. While there are some natural differentiators in the voice and leadership role that each plays, they consistently attempt to present themselves to the company as “the three amigos.”

Jena McGregor considers the issue of co-leadership in Business Week’s Management IQ blog this week, and considers the approach “littered with landmines.” In my own experience, it seems that good times yield tolerance for these experiments and diffusion of leadership, but that the crucible of declining fortunes yields either finger pointing and distintegration or the opportunity for an individual to step forward, take the reigns and responsibility, and establish hierarchy.

But in more traditional forms of executive leadership, things haven’t been rosy. Business in America has been experiencing some spectacular CEO failures over the past few months, and those stories offer cautions to boards about the free reign given to powerful and charismatic individuals. And today, with the GM bankruptcy filing, we see the impact of the failure of individual leadership, and its replacement by a committee, in the interim, and the eventual replacement of a passive board with a probably much more active and attentive one.

Is there a consistent “form follows function” in business governance and management?

2 initial solutions to 2 core problems in getting the right "attitude" in workspace design

April 14, 2009
Design strategy
1 Comment


*Illustration by Harry Campbell, from Wired

This article at Wired on the evolution of office space and many of the comments it received affirmed for me again that the workplace is shackled by policies and practices that continue to interfere with the growth and achievement of American organizations.

There are many reasons for this, but I think these two are dominant:

  • The workspace is planned and managed by a group of people who are measured by the cost of their operation to the organization.
  • Organizational hierarchies, exhibited in workspace footprints, perpetuate the desire for and the demand for personal space that has nothing to do with the work we do.

I remember the first time I acted as an agent, of sorts, for a facilities group. Designing a major corporate headquarters facility a couple of decades ago, we engaged in a discussion of concepts and approaches to the design of the staff workspaces. The “breakthrough” idea promoted by the client’s facilities leadership was “one size fits all.” With legacy information about the hassles and costs of moving staff in an increasingly dynamic business context, thy argued that all workstations should be the same size, enabling “box moves” whenever relocating staff, and therefore saving considerable dollars in the management of the physical workplace.

What is interesting in looking back on this is the realization that we were being uniquely thoughtful about the spaces and places where the technical work of the organization was being done, but designing the places where people did most of their work without consideration of the nature of that work. The organization, like almost any modern corporation, had a significant diversity of staff disciplines and roles. The space we planned for them were, however, homogenous and generalized, failing to account for differences between accounting and engineering, between design and project management, between concept development and purchasing.

In another aspect of current practice, it is difficult to recall organizations whose workplace planning standards do not have at least a dozen different space allocations and other considerations associated with title. While these standards have some consideration for the differences in work modes between different classifications of people, they make no differentiation for different disciplines in those classifications. So again, if I am of a rank in an organization my workstation is assigned without consideration of my role as a designer, accountant, manager, engineer, code writer, etc.

And, since space is associated with hierarchy, and space and place are the most visible manifestations of recognition in the workplace, then I tend to make advancement my objective and use the tools and techniques of advancement as my guide to the work that i do. In other words, the key mission and goals of the organization may be sacrificed to mediocre achievement as the employees of the organization work to individual goals before the good of customers and clients of the organization.

So the illustration and categorization that appeared in the Wired article is a reminder of the issues and considerations in modern office planning and design. The title, referencing how the form of the workplace “reflects changing attitudes toward work,” might more accurately be titled, “how work attitudes are shaped by the form of the office.” I think that where form is a given before the work of the organization is deeply understood, then the design of the workspace may have the implication of expressing the organization’s purpose and values incorrectly and diverting the attention of those who work there from the achievement of better things.

I offer a couple of suggestions on the way to better approaches to planning and design—

  1. There is now a very good body of research, information and evidence to empower in-house facilities managers to engage the C-suite in a discussion and exploration of the positive and direct impact that good workplace design can have on the performance of the organization and the people in the organization. This can then lead to the use of better planning tools, identification of better measurables in planning and implementation, the development of better programs and the achievement of design that motivates and support performance.
  2. Try aligning the formal lexicon of the workspace with the values lexicon of the organization. Inversely, if your objective is “innovation,” how does a space assignment to “vice president” make sense? Observe what effective people in the organization do, and generate space typologies around those activities. What for example, are the typologies that support “collaborating” or “socializing” or “focusing”? Develop some initial concepts based on observations and analysis, try them out in a pilot project, adjust them from what you learn. Then start measuring the growth of the organization.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Some of my delicious bookmarks this week

March 24, 2009
Strategy design
Leave a Comment

A few things I found interesting on the way to other things:

Facebook Statistics | FlowingData

Facebook recently surpassed MySpace as the most popular social network in the world. Let’s take a brief look at the current state of the growing social network.

Gary Hamel on Managing Generation Y – the Facebook Generation

The experience of growing up online will profoundly shape the workplace expectations of “Generation F” – the Facebook Generation. At a minimum, they’ll expect the social environment of work to reflect the social context of the Web, rather than as is currently the case, a mid-20th-century Weberian bureaucracy.

the selby – photos in your space.

featuring photographs, paintings and videos by todd selby of interesting people and their creative spaces

Design Revolutionaries: Should You Be the U.S. Secretary of Design?

Back in November, representatives from most of the major U.S. design organizations, from architecture to graphics to interiors met in D.C. to find a way for design to have a greater role in the incoming Obama administration. The resulting document named Redesigning America’s Future included an outline for an official U.S. National Design Policy.

Re:Vision Competition for Sustainable City Block

The latest from design competition leaders Urban Re:Vision, Re:Vision Dallas is a newly-launched design competition that’s not just an ideas contest, but a real urban project. The City of Dallas is asking for designers, architects, students, engineers and planners to look particularly at one city block in Dallas right across the street from the City Hall, envision the most sustainable city block ever, and draw up the plans. Winners will receive a cash prize and a chance to sell the idea to the developer, Central Dallas CDC, to eventually be built.

Employer Branding

Ask most people about “branding,” and they’ll usually start talking about products and services. But in recent years, companies have begun branding themselves as employers, too, betting that if they can convey to the world why their workplace is appealing and unique, they will have an easier time attracting good workers

World’s Cheapest Car: Boon or Bane?

Environmentalists, however, have decried the Nano and its low-cost imitators as an impending disaster.

Greener and Cheaper

The conventional wisdom is that a company’s costs rise as its environmental impact falls. Think again.

High time for a monumental rethink

In North America, the biggest challenge will come in reinventing a suburban landscape marred by boarded-up houses, old-style shopping malls and big-box retailers. The stars obsessed over one-off, showy works of architectural sculpture. A new generation is required to consider new questions: How to negotiate the future of the bloated suburban house in light of changing demographics and a desire for intimate communities?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

10 more ways to jump-start the auto business

March 23, 2009
Design strategy, Detroit, Strategy design
Leave a Comment

600-muscle

I have only done a very quick scan of the article, “25 Ways to Jump-Start the Auto Business,” in a recent Fast Company issue. But I am impressed by the fact that out of the 60 people in or close to the industry who were asked to contribute ideas only one, it seems, looked to the intersection between design/production and consumer/consumption.

Even though the experience of buying and selling cars has already changed radically in the Internet age, the lingering stench of going to the dealer remains and many experts see room for improvement. “We need to allow manufacturers to sell cars over the Internet,” says Jack Gillis, author of The Car Book. “Linking the purchase process to ‘just-in-time production’ will start to remove the tremendous inefficiencies in the distribution channel and increase their ability to estimate demand.” And it might also make buying a car, dare we say it, fun.

I have been critical, as many, about the American component of the industry, but I also believe that a key issue is that most people cannot break through paradigms about design and quality that are, in reality, a decade out of date. The financial crisis also obscures the fact that there are great products being generated that are getting the right kind of attention from a younger generation of potential buyers.
What’s missing is not so much a remake of the designs, not so much the quality, not so much the industry itself, but a lot about the interface between these companies and their customers.
Almost everywhere else in our world, people are paying close attention to the interface between production and purchase. There is a heightened focus on customer service, the retail experience, and brand protection.

If we look at what others are doing, we might get a few clues about what to do here, as well. Some of these might be-

1. Stop screaming-We are not motivated by the screaming ads placed by local dealership groups. This is such a predominant style of communication that it affects our perception of the quality of your products and of the entire industry.

2. I’m an American, but not that kind of American…why do you make us resist buying that truck we want for the work it will do for us?-It’s about utility, isn’t it; not about patriotism and living in the country and dominating everybody around us. And stop screaming.

3. Why do you think we do all of our research on the Internet instead of in your dealership?-You know the statistics. We avoid you like the plague and make all of our selection decisions before walking into the dealership, where, again, the only thing that matters is the deal. Isn’t there some value to you in making our relationship more robust, more complete, longer lasting, mutually interesting?

4. It looks like your web sites are intended to be a starting place for our relationship; you should design them to do that-We want simplicity, clarity, efficiency and speed. And a follow-up when you say that you will. And why not give is the same or better information we can get through 3rd party sources-We get specs, prices, availability from other sites, and you know we do, so why not offer it to us yourself? We might like you, and trust you, more.

5. We’re really interested in the product, can we suspend the deal for a few minutes?-Money matters a lot to all of us these days, but transforming your company and your industry means we should first be interested in wanting to know more about you and your products and services. But we can’t see through the deal clutter.

6. We am going to spend a much longer time with this vehicle-It looks as though everything from the economy to manufactured quality will mean that this vehicle is in our garage for a few years. How will you make us interested in what you have to offer over that time? How will you design the experience to make our extended relationship mutually valuable?

7. Redesign the sales process to become a respectful buying experience and an expression of an interest in a long-term relationship-Clean up your desk; this transaction is about us, not about you. Redesign the finance and insurance process; get rid of 75% of those forms most of which look like 25th generation Xeroxes. Get the sales manager to give you some authority to conclude the deal yourself. We’d like to walk out feeling pride in our purchase, whole after the transaction, and interested in coming back for the updates.

8. Think through the design of your store to promote the quality and value of your product-If your product is so great, of such quality, then become a member of the community. Plan your site to not be a blight. Give us a great experience driving by, and driving in. We might then leave your license plate frame on.

9. Really great brands connect the retail experience and the product experience-It seems you are trying to say, “Look! Look! Look at me!!!” Try designs that invite us to explore what you sell.

10. Partner with or influence others in the community who have something to do with the auto, too-We wonder what might happen if the makers and sellers of cars, realizing that the older sense of the car being part of the culture was valuable, would work together with the entire services chain to make ownership and use a delight. Start with gas stations, for example-why do these things have to be blindingly lighted, for example, so the only thing we see as we drive by is an under-canopy array of ugly bare light fixtures. It’s called light pollution and we believe it decreases the property values and security in my community. Think about your product in a broader cultural context.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

10 emerging considerations to shape the design of the next generation of automotive retailing

February 8, 2009
Design strategy, Detroit, Strategy design
Leave a Comment

autos_0906_32googlemobile06

I currently have the opportunity of working with one of the major automotive manufacturers to define the next generation of their retail dealerships. We have been anticipating their challenge for a while.

Not only is the automotive retail model a bit stale to begin with, but the emerging economic conditions have certainly changed everything in their domain. Whether by plan or by attrition, there certainly will be many fewer dealerships out there. The product portfolio of every manufacturer is getting smaller. Investment in events, advertising and marketing is shrinking, and even the major North American auto shows were much smaller in content and attendance this year.

Our charge is to accept that these symptoms are, in fact, the new fundamentals of the marketplace, and that the dealership of the future must have a significantly smaller footprint. This original mission, borne of current circumstance, pressure or opportunity, seems tactical compared to the potential richness that we see in the long turn of subject. I feel comfortable however that as the conversation continues we will all find a way to broaden our perspective and lengthen our view.

I am looking ahead like this because I am fascinated and interested in the tangential and circumstantial influences that appear even before my research begins.

A couple of examples that have appeared in random readings over the past couple of days—

  • “Plan B” is the expression that many of us have used to describe a fallback position when the primary goal becomes unattainable. In a nice exploration of the impact of the economy on these alternative dreams in the New York Times today, David Segal quotes a Miami real estate investor. “I got rid of everything luxurious,” he says. “I drive a Ford pickup truck. I used to drive a BMW 5 Series, and I was going to upgrade from there, to the 6 Series convertible.”
  • Ben Terrett, in his blog, Noisy Decent Graphics, admits to hating cars. But he is tuned to an awareness of how media might affect purchasing decisions. He’s announced a project, he calls “the long car purchase.” He describes his plan like this—“So under The Long Car Purchase I’m going to note down all the significant interactions I have with car advertising and branding over four years (or whatever) and then maybe we’ll see a picture build up of how that affects my purchase. Maybe we won’t. It’s an experiment.”
  • The google-izing of the industry seems to be a frequent evocation for exploration of new models for the business. Jeff Jarvis challenged the industry in an article in the new issue of Business Week. He offers the Goggle design process as a remedy for the disconnect between Detroit and drivers and suggests a radical redesign for the business. Rita McGrath took up the subject in her Harvard Business blog, but then her colleague, Bill Taylor, suggested she and Jarvis both ought to look elsewhere.

This is a very small but, I’d say, typical sample. They are mostly about the products themselves, but what implications might these random readings have on the design of the dealership and the retail business?

For the moment, I make the assumption that the current, emerging and enduring economic conditions generate these conditions—

  • Buying a car is going to take more time
  • Car manufacturers will bend to greater consideration of the customer (choice) than the car (production)
  • The retail business must become more pull than push

Here, then, are ten emerging considerations for a new business model, ten considerations that can shape a program for a new kind of dealership design.

  1. Build a new cache around products that did not have charm before. How can I arrive at this event in a Ford pickup and not lose the attention and associated credibility I did when I arrived in a BMW 6? Manufacturer’s ads, local dealer’s ads, and the dealer’s sales people all contribute to the success of brand transitions.
  2. Become a place of learning rather than a place of selling. The emerging electric and hybrid technologies are unfamiliar. There’s a lot of lore out there about sustainability, environmentalism, fuel consumption and emissions, cost of ownership, etc. The last place many people would think to look for credible information and instruction is the dealership. How does this transformation from creepiness to credibility take place?
  3. Make it a ceremony not a transaction. Delivery is a nominal process, mostly. It may have achieved its height in those fantasy Saturn commercials, where the hand-off of the keys was an emotional event. Ceremony and ritual imply shared values, time, community, culture and other factors not currently expressed in, say, the Toyotathon.
  4. Accommodate personalizing, resist packaging. Dealership economics as well as production efficiencies have meant that we’ve had to take what someone else imagined for us rather than what we wanted or needed. Each of the articles I cited above imply a significant devaluation of what you chose for me and a real value associated with what I can make for myself.
  5. Utility is the new luxury. Satisfaction of what I need and what I need to get done feels really rich right now. More than that is corrupt.
  6. Eliminate the lot. The car lot has never been a good experience, and ought to be abolished. It is a huge burden on the dealer’s business, is an environmental nightmare and community blight, and is irrelevant when time is on my side. I remember a phrase from sitting in a demo vehicle with my Dad when I was a kid—“We’ll build your car and it will be delivered in six weeks.” I want my next car from the factory and built for me, not from the lot. You, dealer, should be happy.
  7. Sell experiences not products, but experiences beyond the product. In the convention of asking what business are we really in, the car becomes defined as a vessel of navigation, entertainment, business, and socialization as well as carrying the associations (performance, sex, utility) that have defined brands for ages. Ignoring for a moment the threats associated with on-board technologies, the fact of the matter is that while moving from place to place, the car is place—living room, game room, office—and contains all of the experience associated with its extended functionality.
  8. Consider the implications of conditional ownership. As the world urbanizes, more will have the options that allow Ben Terrett to hate, or not have, a car. Hyundai, in these ugly times, even offers a conditional ownership model—lose your job and we’ll take back your car. ZipCar, and others, offer a model that looks like rentals, but feels different. Should conventional ownership stand outside of this model. Can I come in for an update to my technology, for example? Who will do this—the dealership or the technology brand?
  9. Consider the implications of a multi-point relationship. Remember those relatively silly secondary branded vehicles—the Eddie Bauer Edition? Remember the building expectations for “Intel Inside” for cars? As a car is embedded with utilities for navigation, communication, entertainment, safety, comfort and other user-defined attributes, realize that others may make or shape the brand image and the associated relationship experience.
  10. It’s not about you, it’s about the embedded brands. Jarvis complains about the radio and Tarrett seeks an audio satisfaction, while iPhone delivers communication, entertainment, socialization, connection, information and so very much more. The iPhone advertises content and utility—“need a cab in an unfamiliar city?”—not the iPhone itself. What are the experiential utilities in the cars you are selling?

I am sure we’ll return to these and other subjects as our conversation continues. In the meantime, what are you looking for?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Things to come back to

January 17, 2009
architecture, Design strategy
Leave a Comment

all750

Design Observer offers a list of 10 things that need to be redesigned. I be a lot of us have our own nominations. Yours? (I’ve also noticed that the top posts in anybody’s blogs are top 10′s, etc.)

And on that theme, as the Obama’s consider a new designer for their quarters in the White House, others have gone further. And then there’s this floor plan history. Oh, and while we’re in the neighborhood, what about that street they live on?

Stealing stuff.

Something to explore, a topic to come back to: What I learned in 2008

See you later.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Gorgeous to look at and lovely to touch

January 14, 2009
Detroit, Strategy design
Leave a Comment

6185wpvvyjl_bo2204203200_pisitb-sticker-arrow-clicktopright35-76_aa240_sh20_ou01_crop

Gary Hamel, in his “Management 2.0” blog in the Wall Street Journal, references “Detroit-itis” to describe the failures of industries other than autos to use design to transform their products and, as a result, their industries, as Apple did.

We have a sense that “Detroit,” as the representative term for the American automotive industry, has made significant but unrecognized advances in styling, in design, and in performance.

There may be many reasons why this is not yet acknowledged in Congress, in the press, and in consulting blogs, but there could also be a substantial reason in consumer perception. That is, shopping, buying, and owning an automobile in most cases still carries the stigma, if not the reality, of uncomfortable and unsatisfying experiences.

Apple’s key transformation from similar cultures in the computer industry was not only with their product design and performance, but also in the retail experience. Apple’s transformation includes an alignment of place with product in all of its aspects—the physical environment iterating the brand attributes, its people acting as consultants rather than salesmen, the Genius Bar elevating not only what is offered but also the status of the owner—and contributes to the perception of quality, the attribution of value to the brand, and the development of an enthusiast culture in the extension of the customer’s relationship.

And then there’s the App Store. An extraordinarily exuberant marketplace formed around the iPhone created by Apple and suppliers who provide customized mini-modules fitting the iPhone platform, but selectable and customizable by any user.

There are at least six businesses inside an auto dealership—new car sales, used car sales, service, parts and accessories, finance and insurance. Individually and collectively they provide rich opportunities to Apple-ise the experience.

But as the market and products shift from the familiar conventions of internal combustion, to electric, hybrid and hydrogen propulsion systems, and as the “skateboard” potential of emerging vehicle architecture allows greater customization, what we call a car and who we are as consumers becomes very different. As new vehicles with new embedded technologies emerge, these legacy businesses may be joined by opportunities to engage differently in the dealership environment—to offer training, personalization, maintenance and upgrades, and other consulting services. These new businesses will provide a context for transformational retail models. Rather than simply a setting for objects, the dealership can become a place for an extended and satisfying experience.

The Apple model provides a great example to explore for a shift in who a dealer is and what a dealership looks like. It offers an opportunity to use physical and experiential design to draw car buyers for, as Hamel call it, “the sheer, stupid joy of interacting with something that was gorgeous to look and lovely to touch,” and more.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Trying to find momentum

January 12, 2009
architecture, Design strategy, Strategy design, urban
Leave a Comment

evh98-wire

In the meantime…

I remember an early lecture in architecture school about America’s “kleenex” culture—the use-once-and-throw-away characteristic of our society. Here‘s the UN and its membership entry.

Continuing the discussion on what in design is more authentic as the economy changes—democratic ecology, intelligent design, longevity…and the burbs.

So, maybe about 30 years ago, I scribbled some graphic notes in my sketchbook representing sound levels in the city. I was interested in what might give a different topography to the city, and what considerations might generate a different kind of architecture. I was also interested to discover if activity levels correlated with financial speculation. That is, did the architectural topography of place (assumed to be financial) have any relationship with the social (my noise level/graphic equalizer map) topography. Fund to find other explorations.

And I can’t remember where this came from, but thanks for the delightful A History of Visual Communications.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Chair versus chair: Design and its value genetics

January 9, 2009
Design strategy, Strategy design
2 Comments

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

I am so pleased with the debate engaged (not necessarily initially) by Cannell and picked up by Moss (and so many others) about the origins of design and the economy’s impact on innovation.

Embedded in the discussion is a sense of authenticity, almost morality, associated with original explorations. In its advancement/resolution, I’d be very interested in a genetic chart—great designs, their origins, their briefs (given or authored), the money that was invested in the path to launch, the size of the particles of the market that supported them, and the relevance and authenticity of design measured by both economic (how many use and benefit from use) and non-economic factors (influence, impact, enrichment, enhancement, etc.), and their ultimate durability, sustainability and value.

We, of course, do not usually make a choice of approaches, but does the Moss patronage trump the Cannell ethic? Is the discipline of modernism a virtue in any economy or a mask for limited opportunity (and privileged position) in a down economy. Is Eames a recession product or a recovery product? Does the economic context provide Moss an opportunity to present process/maquette/model as special/unique/valuable, but the economy demand finish?mosscannell-sub-600

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,599 other followers