ANDERMATT CH At 2,961 m / 9,714 ft on a sunny day overlooking skiers trekking across the expanse of the Gotthard Pass, nothing seems insurmountable. I’m enjoying a quick alpine weekend in Andermatt before meetings in Zug/Zürich. 

Last week my colleagues kindly asked me to co-present with our Executive Director of Technology, Stuart George, at Method’s Design Meetup. The topic was organizational design where we revealed some of the “behind the scenes” play-by-play analysis of innovation units we’ve set-up and run in recent years. 

For me, it was an opportunity less to talk of past glories and more to trial a clinical and open discussion on the more human factors behind innovation. By clinical I mean treating each situation as unique because, in fact, each situation where innovation might happen is unique. Only those people, at that time, under those circumstances, might create that thing, in that way. 

Most innovation research and literature falls under the great man or the magic principles genres. Both are phantasies. Not because they are deceitful. Rather because they are trying to comfort themselves by believing something is repeatable and optimizable like an invoice processing system, a motor or a dairy milking parlour. Systems that eliminate uncertainty and unknowns. Yet innovation by definition must seek uncertainty and unknowns to expand the domain of what is known. 

What the documentation does tell us is that while the process does matter, it’s not the point. Following a process doesn’t guarantee you anything. Just as Roger Federer has to figure out how to hit that shot, at that time, against that opponent, under those court conditions, when he feels as he does that day, so to must a team aspiring to create new value for their customers and themselves based on their unique real-world situation.

I purposely didn’t say a team aspiring to innovate for innovation isn’t actually the point or destination. It’s a by-product. What the aforementioned documentation tells us is that what does strongly tend to increase the probability of developing something novel that gets to market is information elaboration and group reflexivity. 

Neither are processes, they are practices that are performed at both an individual and group level. Groups operate with distributed information and can make decisions only as good as the quality and breadth of information known to all. Most groups tend to keep this pool of shared information quite small. They may focus too much on actions or pragmatics starving time to allow new information to be shared. Alternatively, individuals may reject new information that is aired for a host of interpersonal reasons. 

The parallel practise to elaboration is group reflexivity. This is where based on the shared information the group individually and collectively reflects back on the understanding of the goals and tasks before them and what the new information means relative to it. They retest their own assumptions as individuals and as a group with an openness to revisiting assumptions. 

We call these parallel capabilities of elaborations and reflexivity practices because they don’t just happen once in a workgroup process project but happen along the entire journey. I’ve often seen teams be good at this when starting an initiative but fading as the novelty wears off or their resistance builds to getting too personally close or committed to the work. They hold back which is just as undermining of elaboration and reflexivity as the stereotypical Type A disruptor. 

Or they continue to retest unnecessarily validated founding assumptions which may signal a lack of commitment. Yes, assumptions should be continually reflected on but what assumptions are revisited change over time. Where a proposition was an early point of reflexivity the focus moves onto the features, the execution, the go-to market or support functions along with all the other things necessary to get an innovation to market. 

Curiously, at our meetup event, many of the well trained and experienced designers remarked privately they never were conscious of these two practices. However, in retrospect, they could see them in action when things just seemed to work. It’s quite liberating to know why. It makes anything seem surmountable.

Movements

It’s an INSEAD week in Fontainbleau, followed a week home in London before Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. March brings Salzburg and Girona with a possible New York Jaunt. Say hi for ☕️.

The following edition ⬇️of Dot Makes features Joe Macleod who champions giving endings as much attention as we do beginnings. An appropriately reflective contributor.

See you on the front lines of innovation,

- Brett

Dot Makers

Joe Macleod, ex-Nokia during the glory days and my close colleague at ustwo where he was Creative Director. These days he helps us think more about death and endings, topics most of us like to avoid. An extended interview can be found here.

What aren’t we talking about that we should be?

Endings. Groupthink about endless technology solutions has blinded us to consider longevity and responsibility at off-boarding of the consumer lifecycle.

What unexpected innovator do you admire?

Christine Fredrick, a home economist, author and, although the title wasn't available then, an interaction designer. She was credited with standardising the height of kitchen worktops in America, amongst other things. But the reason I think she was a pioneer was that she coined the phrase 'Progressive Obsolescence'.

What’s the hardest moment of your job?

Persuasion. Turning peoples world view upside down. Trying to persuade an established business culture that a good off-boarding experience for a customer is vital, profitable, and critical to the environment.

What does a break-through moment feel like to you?

After a conference talk or a training session, I can see the penny-drop in people’s minds about endings and off-boarding. After which I witness a fresh bright look in their eyes as they start to see the world upside down or at least the end from the beginning.

When it comes to digital innovation what do you wish we knew that we don't?

The consequences of having so few big players in the digital space and the emerging awareness of surveillance capitalism.