If any of you are in the business of creating – whether that’s a mobile app or a building – I’m sure you understand that the product or thing you’re working on will naturally evolve and change over time – probably in unexpected ways.
In fact, I usually take this as a positive sign. When I have my head in a project and I’m focused on solving problems, ideas will naturally start to flow. I start thinking of things that I never would have thought about at the outset. That’s why I generally think of creativity as a process, rather than as some divine gift.
But the challenge with all of this is that many of our existing business processes are not set up to deal with this kind of ambiguity. If anything we try and punish these sorts of deviations. If it wasn’t pre-meditated at the beginning of the project, we call it “scope creep” and charge extra for them as “change orders.” These two words equal death in construction.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the realities of running a business and the importance of managing scope and resources. It’s a balancing act. Without some structure, nothing would get done.
But the more that iterative lean methodologies and “design thinking” can be embedded into our processes, the more value creation I believe we will see.
My thinking is as follows: At least part of the reason that innovation comes from startups and new market entrants is that the founders aren’t usually sitting around talking about defined scope and laying out elaborate business plans. They’re focused on creatively solving problems and doing
If any of you are in the business of creating – whether that’s a mobile app or a building – I’m sure you understand that the product or thing you’re working on will naturally evolve and change over time – probably in unexpected ways.
In fact, I usually take this as a positive sign. When I have my head in a project and I’m focused on solving problems, ideas will naturally start to flow. I start thinking of things that I never would have thought about at the outset. That’s why I generally think of creativity as a process, rather than as some divine gift.
But the challenge with all of this is that many of our existing business processes are not set up to deal with this kind of ambiguity. If anything we try and punish these sorts of deviations. If it wasn’t pre-meditated at the beginning of the project, we call it “scope creep” and charge extra for them as “change orders.” These two words equal death in construction.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the realities of running a business and the importance of managing scope and resources. It’s a balancing act. Without some structure, nothing would get done.
But the more that iterative lean methodologies and “design thinking” can be embedded into our processes, the more value creation I believe we will see.
My thinking is as follows: At least part of the reason that innovation comes from startups and new market entrants is that the founders aren’t usually sitting around talking about defined scope and laying out elaborate business plans. They’re focused on creatively solving problems and doing
whatever
it takes to get there.
It’s also one of the reasons that conventional wisdom dictates that tech startups shouldn’t outsource development. It’s too core a competency and you can’t “move fast and break things” if you don’t have that in-house and you’re constantly worried about eye-popping invoices hitting your desk.
I have always seen lots of parallels between startups and architecture. In both of these worlds, the idea you start with is rarely what you end up with (at least that’s the case in architecture school). You research, learn, and iterate along the way and that leads you in new and unexpected ways.
And in my view, that’s often what the path to innovation looks like. Because if you define the entire path at the outset, how can you expect to go anywhere new? And if you’re not going anywhere new, how can you expect to outperform the market?
Last night Westbank went public with their first design for the southwest corner of Bloor and Bathurst in Toronto (the
whatever
it takes to get there.
It’s also one of the reasons that conventional wisdom dictates that tech startups shouldn’t outsource development. It’s too core a competency and you can’t “move fast and break things” if you don’t have that in-house and you’re constantly worried about eye-popping invoices hitting your desk.
I have always seen lots of parallels between startups and architecture. In both of these worlds, the idea you start with is rarely what you end up with (at least that’s the case in architecture school). You research, learn, and iterate along the way and that leads you in new and unexpected ways.
And in my view, that’s often what the path to innovation looks like. Because if you define the entire path at the outset, how can you expect to go anywhere new? And if you’re not going anywhere new, how can you expect to outperform the market?
Last night Westbank went public with their first design for the southwest corner of Bloor and Bathurst in Toronto (the
Honest Ed’s site
).
There’s no name for the project yet and they haven’t even submitted a development application to the city, but I can tell you that there was a lot of excitement in the room last night. Over 500 people showed up at the Park Hyatt. And I think it only partially had to do with the fact that they were offering up free grilled cheese sandwiches.
If you’d like to get a feel for last night’s open house, check out #BloorAndBathurst on Twitter. And if you’d like to learn more about the project, check out Alex Bozikovic’s piece in the Globe and Mail. It’s pretty exciting stuff. I’m not going to repeat all of the project details here because Alex has already eloquently done that. All of the developer’s information boards can also be found online, here.
What I instead want to talk about is Westbank’s community engagement process. In Toronto, it’s quite rare to see this level of public consultation pre-application. And that’s because the city only requires it once a development application has been formally made.
But I’m of the opinion that the status quo isn’t actually the optimal strategy for city building. In fact, I’ve argued before that public consultation is broken.
And the reason I think that is because the typical process doesn’t allow fora critical mass of community feedback, both early on and throughout the process (think lean startup methodologies). In-person public meetings are too much friction for a lot people and getting feedback only once an application has been submitted means that a lot of work has already been done, which is the opposite of lean.
Now, part of the reason that many developers don’t adopt this model is because of fear. There’s a belief that many communities just don’t like change, period. But is that really the public opinion? Or do we simply not have enough data and enough feedback loops built into the city building process?
Time will tell how this approach works out for Westbank, but I have a pretty good feeling that they’ll do just fine.
Image (Sketchup model + watercolor): Westbank via Globe and Mail
Honest Ed’s site
).
There’s no name for the project yet and they haven’t even submitted a development application to the city, but I can tell you that there was a lot of excitement in the room last night. Over 500 people showed up at the Park Hyatt. And I think it only partially had to do with the fact that they were offering up free grilled cheese sandwiches.
If you’d like to get a feel for last night’s open house, check out #BloorAndBathurst on Twitter. And if you’d like to learn more about the project, check out Alex Bozikovic’s piece in the Globe and Mail. It’s pretty exciting stuff. I’m not going to repeat all of the project details here because Alex has already eloquently done that. All of the developer’s information boards can also be found online, here.
What I instead want to talk about is Westbank’s community engagement process. In Toronto, it’s quite rare to see this level of public consultation pre-application. And that’s because the city only requires it once a development application has been formally made.
But I’m of the opinion that the status quo isn’t actually the optimal strategy for city building. In fact, I’ve argued before that public consultation is broken.
And the reason I think that is because the typical process doesn’t allow fora critical mass of community feedback, both early on and throughout the process (think lean startup methodologies). In-person public meetings are too much friction for a lot people and getting feedback only once an application has been submitted means that a lot of work has already been done, which is the opposite of lean.
Now, part of the reason that many developers don’t adopt this model is because of fear. There’s a belief that many communities just don’t like change, period. But is that really the public opinion? Or do we simply not have enough data and enough feedback loops built into the city building process?
Time will tell how this approach works out for Westbank, but I have a pretty good feeling that they’ll do just fine.
Image (Sketchup model + watercolor): Westbank via Globe and Mail
