Tag: create

• Guts and generosity

  Today’s Seth Godin post on innovation, guts, and generosity is Seth Godin at his best. One of the reasons why I like it is that I keep thinking that “innovative” has become too much of a buzzword. It’s similar to walking around and telling everybody you’re a cool person. If you have to explain it to everyone, then you’re probably not cool. At the same time, I also find his generosity angle to be a clever one. Here is Seth’s post in its entirety (short and sweet, as usual):

  Innovation is guts plus generosity
  
  Guts, because it might not work.

  And generosity, because guts without seeking to make things better is merely hustle.

  The innovator shows up with something she knows might not work (pause for a second, and contrast that with everyone else, who has been trained to show up with a proven, verified, approved, deniable answer that will get them an A on the test).

  If failure is not an option, then, most of the time, neither is success.

  It’s pretty common for someone to claim that they’re innovative when actually, all they are is popular, profitable or successful. Nothing wrong with that. But it’s not innovative.

  Allow generosity to take the lead and you’ll probably discover that it’s easier to find the guts.

  2019.08.13

• Forest

  I just backed the following project on Kickstarter:

  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/991195979/n-o-r-t-h-simple-timeless-and-refined-watches/widget/card.html?v=2

  It is a new watch line from two Montreal designers. The brand is called Forest Time Co. There’s so much creative talent in that city.

  I was immediately drawn to the focus on minimalism and on high quality materials. That’s a philosophy I can get behind. I plan to go for the black band with copper case.

  I know nothing about watch movements, but it’s a “Japanese Miyota.” I assume that’s pretty basic.

  I love finding interesting projects on Kickstarter. There’s something about backing a team and their new creation. We should all aspire to make and create more.

  At the time of writing this post, they’re about $1,000 shy of their funding goal of $24,000. I hope they reach it by this Sunday. I’m sure they will.

  2016.09.17

• Staying foolish

  I am still a young guy, but already I find people of my vintage starting to hate on some of the things that even younger people are into.

  I hear people say that they’re not into Snapchat because it’s for teenagers. What’s the point?

  I hear people say that they don’t get why anyone would want to rent an urban shoebox. It’s so small. Do you have to hang from the ceiling like a bat when you sleep?

  I hear people say that they don’t get how that new app will ever make money and turn into a business. It’s just a toy.

  It’s so easy to fall into this mentality, where you think that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. But it can be toxic.

  Because what is crazy and fringe today could very well become mainstream tomorrow. And the earlier you can recognize that shift, the easier it is to stay ahead of the curve in business and in life.

  I’m not suggesting that we all try and predict the future. Instead I am suggesting that we all try and remain as open as we can so we recognize the shifts earlier.

  I think there can be a natural tendency to close up over time – unless you deliberately fight it. We start to believe that there’s a certain way that things should be done. We get busy and don’t want to reinvent the wheel. I find myself falling into that trap sometimes and then I try and fight it. This must be why Steve Jobs told us to “stay foolish.”

  In an information and attention economy where the best new ideas win, it pays to keep an open mind.

  (This post was written on my phone which is why it’s void of links.)

  2016.09.01

• The change order (ruminations on innovation)

  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?

  2016.06.08