February 9, 2010

Enterprise microblogging (part 1): A love story

Motivated by presenting our story at VALA2010 on Thursday (so this is a preview teaser!) – this post forms Part 1 in a 3 part series on the implementation of enterprise microblogging within my workplace. Part 2 and 3 will (be a little more serious) and focus on the benefits of enterprise microblogging and lessons learned 12 months on. For now though…sit back, relax and enjoy this love story…

Warning: basic knowledge of Toy Story is required.

It was a day like any other when it started although it could be argued there was a certain nervous tension in the air. Set up in just a few minutes, on not much more than a whim, the Yammer ‘trial’ (formal word for whim) came into effect amongst a small team, Knowledge Networks, within CPA Australia. This team knew it was onto a good thing, the possibility for reducing ‘silo mentality’ amongst the myriad of business units and assisting with knowledge sharing and problem solving across a growing global organisation of approximately 450 employees across 17 offices.

But when you’re onto a good thing – you’re onto a good thing and god forbid you’re actually ready for the tsunami when it hits. It started as a secret love affair with just 3 users and grew to a manageable 38 in a few weeks. But the secrecy was unsustainable and people started shouting about it from the rooftops which lead to an explosion of 268 excited people in just 4 months. The ‘whim’ was over. Yammer became our favourite toy, our very own Woody. It was time to formally declare our love and through our intranet we invited all staff to participate, provided some basic ‘be nice’ guidelines and education. The love affair continued to soar as did the temperature over the summer of 2009.

But with all love stories there is a time when the honeymoon is over, as Winter closed in the temperature outside and in dropped and it began to feel like Woody in Toy Story after Buzz Lightyear came on the scene. Although in this case it wasn’t something shiny and new with pretend lasers and cool catch phrases…it was just normal work life that took over and Yammer was put back on the shelf (except for a few passionate players).

Then something happened…another cool kid came on the scene, and instead of Woody going to the garage sale he again became Andy’s toy of choice. Oddly enough (or perhaps not) the shiny new toy was the launch of our CPA Australia Twitter account. The spark was rekindled, Yammer taken off the shelves of many, dusted off and played with again. It was also introduced into our new employee induction program inspiring staff of new and old to wonder what all the fuss was about and play for the first time. People were asking questions (and getting answers!) and sharing everything from industry news to team wins to lunch reviews. And so our Twitter account and Yammer have become somewhat akin to Woody and Jessie – riding off in the sunset hand in hand.

So now 12 months on (or to be exact more like 15) everyone is still atwitter about Yammer. Apart from backroom gossip there has been no more formal declarations of Yammer love. Yammer has not moved in, we still have to visit and then go home again…it is somewhat of an open relationship. But the romance continues…

Read Part 2 & the on the edge of your seat conclusion in Part 3

5 Comments

Filed under enterprise 2.0, organisational learning, twitter, web 2.0

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 17, 2010

The list dilemma: to do, done, stop doing or none?

So a new year and a new decade has started. Seems to be a flurry of ‘list’ kind of activity…people desperately trying to document and make sense of the year that’s been like its a melting icecream, dripping onto the concrete soon to be evaporated forever. Other people are thoughtfully and considerately creating future goals, making lists of what needs to be done, resolving to do something…anything better while sipping on a pina colada relaxing in a hammock strung between coconut trees on the beach. Whether you’re frantically eating an icecream or sipping a pina colada its that time of year where you’re considering either the past or the future…with perhaps a grazing glance at the present.

But what of all these lists? What lists should we be keeping? What is their purpose? What actually sticks and is helpful? To do, done, stop doing, mistakes or none? These are just a few different lists I have passed, promptly indicated and cut off in the past few weeks.

The Classic: To Do List
We all know about To Do lists. It’s even been turned into a work life management system with a cult following by Dave Allen in Getting Things Done. The problem with To Do lists is that we often do them wrong – they’re most effective when it lists the next actionable task rather than ‘projects’. For example ‘Getting the car fixed’ is a project – the next actionable task is ‘Book an appointment with the mechanic’. I am a fan of To Do lists – it enables me to get all the bits and pieces floating around in my head and put them on paper so then I can focus on the actual task at hand.

From To Do to Ta Da: The Done List
The Done List is new on my radar but is certainly not a new idea. The purpose of the done list, as suggested by Joanne Spain, is to keep an ongoing growing list of the accomplishments you have achieved throughout the year. This is a great idea – I am an advocate for reflective practice and a Done List is an easy way to do this through capturing achievements and documenting completed work. You will be amazed at how quickly your portfolio grows!

For the Overloaded: The Stop Doing List
The stop doing list’s claim to fame is thanks to Jim Collins and his book Good to Great . He says:

A great piece of art is composed not just of what is in the final piece, but equally important, what is not. It is the discipline to discard what does not fit…

The premise is clear – what do you need to stop doing in order to free up time for the things that really matter? Habit, sentiment, posterity are often not reason enough to keep doing. This one seems to be becoming particularly popular within organisations since the global financial crisis.

The Odd but Effective: Mistakes List
I was intrigued by Jason Cohen’s recent post on the personal productivity checklist which is to commit to a ‘Week of Pain’ and keep a list of every single mistake you make for a week. Jason states:

The point is that you make mistakes all the time, and you make the same kind of mistakes over and over again

The purpose is then to use this evidence you have gathered to over time fix all the problems you have identified and improve your productivity and performance. Painful yes, and useful most likely but effect on personal morale? unsure, and it could potentially be putting too much emphasis on detail rather than the more important bigger picture (but it depends on what context you operate in!)

So which one?
These lists are often approached as ‘either’ ‘or’ options however each have quite different purposes, with varying time commitments and outcomes. The primary problem is that you could get so caught up in keeping lists that you never actually get anything done except for list management! So how to decide? These are my three tips:

1. Purpose: What do you want your list to do for you? There is no point in creating and making lists if all you do is create them and don’t use them.
2. What works for you?: If it is not something that is easy for you to think about, maintain and integrate into your work/life patterns it is not the right list/s. Try again.
3. Find the right tool: Once you know what lists you want to keep and why find the right tools to help you with your list management. For me – I keep a notebook, old school pen and paper style, there are plenty of iPhone apps and web tools available too.

So in between eating ice cream or sipping pina coladas what lists do you keep? What do they do for you?

4 Comments

Filed under planning, reflective practice, self management

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

December 22, 2009

Overcoming the backlash of the backchannel

Many of us would remember the recent story of Danah Boyd who had a humiliating experience at the New York Web2.0 expo in late November. This resulted from the criticism and harsh comments displayed via the live Twitter stream at the event. So whilst the audience were watching this story unfold, Danah had no idea what was going on as the Twitter projection was behind her. You can read about her experience here. Since this incident I have heard of a number of speakers who are refusing to speak at events with live Twitter streams projected or even more extreme refusing to speak publicly at all.

Reading about Danah’s experience I noticed the resulting ‘humiliation’ was really caused by a number of events which culminated in the harsh Twitter stream. Danah’s experience was not pretty but we must remember it is an exception.

I have recently be part of a number of conferences organised by my workplace and been party to some of the ‘insider’ workings. In addition, I have had the opportunity to speak myself at a number of events over the past couple of years. From these experiences I was struck that the primary issue in Danah’s case was not the Twitter backchannel (it was just the manifestation of the result) and that the incident could have been mitigated and perhaps avoided altogether. The issue is one of responsibility – from the event management perspective and the presenter’s perspective.

For event organisers

1. Communicate, communicate, communicate
Event organisers need to communicate extensively with presenters. From the outset presenters should be provided with a speaker pack of information to ensure they have a sound understanding of the event and the audience. As the event nears, organisers need to communicate more frequently in regard to the venue setup, available technology, and expectations of the presenter on the day they speak. A contact person both prior to and at the event is also critical. By providing a positive (and easy) experience for the presenter you will assist in ensuring they are comfortable and prepared – which will ultimately result in the delivery of a better session.

2. Create the stage for the speakers
Make sure the environment allows presenters to perform at their best. At Web2.0 expo, there were three venue issues that contributed to Danah’s unpleasant experience:
* the Twitter projection was located behind the speaker – if there is to be a live Twitter projection ensure the speaker is able to see it also. They may not be able to follow but through the stream movement will get a sense of twitter participation.
* the venue lighting – Danah was unable to see the audience which caused issues in regard to her not being able to read visual cues from people and isolated her on stage. Ensure adequate lighting so the presenter can engage with the audience.
* appropriate equipment – ensure the speaker has access to the right equipment to allow them to perform at their best. If the podium is not angled ensure there is a document stand nearby for paper notes, if speakers are required to use venue laptops ensure there is one available prior to allow the speaker to play if it is an unfamiliar piece of equipment.

All of this resulted in the speaker being ‘disconnected’ from the audience and contributed to causing the incident.

For presenters

1. Understand and know your audience
In my (brief) experience, many speakers often present the same (or very similar) content with minimal adjustments regardless of event or audience. As a speaker it is your responsibility to ensure you understand the event you are presenting at. Familiarise yourself with the program to see how your content fits in and most importantly ensure you have an understanding of the audience you are delivering to (this is obviously a shared responsibility between the speaker and event organiser).

2. Turn up early on the day
At the events I recently attended, the requirement of the presenter was to arrive a minimum of 20 minutes prior to their presentation. 20 minutes is not enough. I appreciate it is not always possible but speakers should ideally arrive at least 2 hours prior to their presentation. This is important for two reasons:
*to have sufficient time to become familiar with the venue including the space you will be presenting in and the available technologies;
*to attend another session and/or break to gauge the energy at the event and its’ participants.

The exception to this is of course if the speaker is delivering the first presentation of the day or the whole event however the speaker is still responsible for ensuring adequate familiarisation.

3. Be flexible
As a presenter it is your responsibility to be aware of, engage with and respond to your audience. If you are midway through delivering your session and you have a sense it is not working or there is unrest in the room – acknowledge it (at least to yourself) and do something about it. You should be professional enough to be flexible in your approach and be able to adapt to your situation in order to deliver the best results for your audience.

To sum up: Be prepared!

Perhaps if all of these things had occurred at Web2.0 expo Danah’s experience may have been quite different. But more than that, we can all learn from the experience and ensure we mitigate the risk of it occurring again. So speakers out there who do not want to put themselves back in the public forum, I encourage you to get back on the horse as you have significant control to not befall a similar fate – Twitter backchannel or not.

9 Comments

Filed under twitter, web 2.0

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

November 3, 2009

Micropatronage Part 2: the value, ethics and courage circle or…the follow up

inner angels and demons by jimmyxh. Source: Flickr.

My previous post Micropatronage: values, ethics and courage or would you pay for my postgraduate degree created a number of conversations for me both on and offline. Firstly thanks to all those that have contributed to this and a special thanks to Joanne, Marigo and Mick for their thoughtful comments which you can read here.

The micropatronage issue is a contentious one and seems to divide people or completely confuse them. I am one of those completely confused souls. I feel as if I am one of those characters in an animation with the angel and demon on each shoulder debating whether I should eat the chocolate cake or not. I don’t wish to reduce this to good or bad or even chocolate cake for that matter but as similarly to Mick’s comment, I can make justifications for both sides but when it comes to that moment of decision I can’t go through with asking others to contribute to something for primarily my personal gain. Sponsorship or a grant or a scholarship are much more comfortable.

Let’s face it – I should be here trying to convince the world of my cause – but I am not. In some ways for me the issue is need versus want. I want to do further study, in fact I really really want to do further study – but do I need it? No. I already have a post grad qualification (and in fact many have said skip it and do a PhD which is government funded – but I digress).

I definitely agree with Joanne that World 2.0 is much more than about financial value. It is awesome that we live in an economy of abundance and we can help each other out but there are many more who don’t live in the same abundance as we do and I feel more compelled to give to someone in genuine need. Not to mention refer others to give to that need also rather than my own.

There are other issues that arise for me once the micropatronage call is out as well – for example what if I don’t reach the amount I require to proceed by the given date? Do I give the money back? Do I give it away to a charitable cause? Do I just change the end date? More ethical questions.

But I think all my ideas partly come from my childhood upbringing. I have worked since I was 15 years old and have always been paid for my work in whatever organisation I worked for and from this I have what I have – nothing more, nothing less. If I were to open my own business I would flail at attempting to put a financial value on my services per hour. Increasingly there is a fine balance between what you charge for and what you give away freely as well, new business models in which micropatronage plays a role in some. It challenges me greatly. In this World 2.0 where full time, ongoing, 9.00 – 5.00 work is diminishing there is a role for micropatronage, I see it, I even understand it but I cannot reconcile myself to it where it involves me seeking contributions.

And so I have circled the three issues of value, ethics and courage again – I am no closer to a definitive answer but am grateful for the diverse perspectives and challenging conversation.

3 Comments

Filed under value

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 27, 2009

Micropatronage: value, ethics, and courage or would you pay for my postgraduate degree?

Australia Dollars by InfoMofo. Source: Flickr.

Micropatronage is where individuals directly support the work of others through voluntary monetary contributions. It is in essence crowdsourcing funds, gathering small amounts from a large group of people rather than relying on sponsorship from a few. The individual makes a judgement of value on a service, product or event and then contributes finances according to the value and/ or benefit they attach to it – which may be dependent upon experience, quality, social or professional value, or even simply what is affordable at that moment.

My first experience with the concept of micropatronage was approximately 5 years ago at the restaurant Lentil as Anything in Melbourne. In this restaurant the customer decides what they want to pay for the food and drinks they’ve consumed. The customer then puts their donation anonymously into a box at the counter. I have been to Lentil as Anything a number of times over the years and more often than not patrons are generous and often pay above the perceived worth – primarily due to the social good and community values the restaurant promotes.

Another very recent example of micropatronage was Trampoline held last weekend where post event people were asked to donate to assist in covering costs for the event (and incidentally received more than they required and donated the rest to continue other socially minded projects).

A different example is Joanne Spain who has started a personal micropatronage campaign on her website to raise funds for an iPhone (with validated reasoning!). After just one day Joanne has raised 12% of the funds she requires.

The examples of Trampoline and Joanne’s iPhone are open to all to contribute, not just to participating or personally invested people but to all those who believe in the cause, regardless of personal benefit.

The world of finance and payment systems is obviously changing – where people are courageous enough to ask for support via voluntary monetary contributions and where individuals and/or the community determine value and perceived worth by what they pull out of their wallet (or more appropriately what they transfer online!).

These ideas appeal to the good in all of us – it is mutually beneficial. We get something out of it, either a tangible or intangible return on investment but in addition we also get the added value of warm fuzzies that we have done something socially good.

I have to admit these concepts have been on my mind in the last week or so as I have been conflicted with wanting to return to university to study a Masters in Design (Communication Design) at Swinburne University. The cost of the degree is $22 000 which makes feasibility an issue as my current HECS debt already resembles the most part of a house deposit! In brainstorming potential finance opportunities I worked out that if all of my Twitter followers (including spam bots!) donated $35 the cost of my degree would be covered. Per semester it sounds even nicer, just $5.50 per follower.

This brings me to the real issues and questions of micropatronage in this kind of circumstance:

1. Value: Why would people give money to me?
2. Ethics: How could I ask people to donate money to me rather than a more community focused, social and charitable cause?
3. Courage: Do I have the courage to ask?

I had lunch with Joanne Spain yesterday and discussed these ideas with her. Her responses were thought provoking and insightful.

Value: why would anyone give me money?
Joanne argued that she would be happy to pay a small sum of money in return for a ‘personal subscription to me’ and also as support for the value she has found in my content (ie tweets and blog) to date. Another friend said that they would also be happy to invest, saying if they got to benefit from my experience and learnings whilst studying – in whatever form that may be – it would be a worthy investment. And so the concept shifts – it does not become giving money to me but a transaction in which you contribute according to the value you put on my content. If you like what I share and write then it is in your interest to support my journey in learning as your investment will no doubt be returned with considerable (albeit intangible) interest. The question becomes what value would you put on having a ‘subscription to me’?

Ethics: Me or a charity?
This is the really hard justification for me. For example current worthy causes on Twitter I saw yesterday: Movember, supporting Andrew Blanda in his Sydney to the Gong Bike Ride for MS and supporting Inspire Foundation by buying The Perfect Gift for a Man book by Gavin Heaton and Mark Pollard. All are very worthy of support.

How could I ask for financial support when there are worthy causes like these? After all I am a middle class DINK with a good job, mortgage and great people around me. That does not seem like a charitable cause – but is it worthy of investment instead? Joanne and I discussed how much time you naturally give away to others sharing knowledge, giving advice, helping in everyday circumstances. As well, the community value and social good may not be immediate but the future intention to give back is there. And so the investment is to support past and future practices. This returns to the notion of investment over charity or donation and your perception of return on investment for a subscription to me.

Courage: Will I ask?
The idea that micropatronage is more about investment makes me feel more comfortable with the idea that if someone provides some financial support to my education they will benefit from my learning experience. From supporting me they can get some return through observing and participating in my journey via social avenues (both on and offline).

The idea that my education would be for the collective rather than just personal good also sits well. It would increase the motivation for studying being accountable to a group of people rather than just myself.

So from a value prospect and from an ethical viewpoint (keeping charity and investment very separate) the idea of micropatronage for my degree seems sound. But courage? I do not have the courage to ask. I cannot reconcile myself with competing against much worthier causes out there.

Applications for the degree close in February so I have three months to consider options. And so I ask you:
What do you think of micropatronage?
What are you willing to contribute to?
What do you think of crowdsourcing contributions for my further study?

7 Comments

Filed under value

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 31, 2009

What comes first – great leaders or great followers?

Sharing by furiousgeorge81. Source: Flickr.

Sharing by furiousgeorge81. Source: Flickr.

Jye Smith‘s post Great Leaders, Great Followers on his blog A Digital Perspective
 echoed many of the sentiments I feel about leadership and ‘followership’ – and what indeed does come first great leaders or great followers (or as Jye calls them supporters)? Can you have one without the other?

Inspired in part by 10 ways to be a great follower (which is a fantastic post) Jye states

Maybe the qualities of great leaders and great supporters aren’t so different?
By providing a platform of understanding and embrace, you’re doing a large part of what you can to be led, and likewise, a large part of what you can to lead.

To be a great leader you also need to be a great follower. This goes beyond the management and leadership debate and instead recognises the value and importance of leadership across all levels, both horizontally and vertically, within an organisation.

Follower is an uncomfortable term but implies greater participation than simply supporter. Support can be inactive, where as following implies action and participation. For example I think we all support the efforts of charities such as World Vision, but how many of us donate and/ or become invested and follow the charities activities?

A great follower:

  • Self manages well
  • Is committed: both to the organisation and to the purpose which brought the leader and follower together
  • Works with others to reach organisational goals – without needing star billing
  • Builds their capability and focuses their efforts for maximum impact and
  • Is courageous, honest and credible.

From these, you can see that the attributes of a follower are shared with that of a leader and as such through building effective followership skills, leadership capabilities are also fostered.

A follower plays an active contributing role whereas a leader leads other individuals in the collaborative effort – however both have shared responsibility for outcomes (differing from accountability which generally falls to the leader rather than the whole team).

Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett Packard describes this as ‘leadership as a team sport’ – and is based on the concept of shared leadership. This moves beyond organisational hierarchies and creates leaders at all levels throughout the organisation – recognising that succes relies upon individuals, teams, and departments working in collaboration both vertically and horizontally across the organisation. In shared leadership the roles of leader and follower are not mutually exclusive or static roles – nor is one afforded more status or importance than the other. Staff members should be able to flexibly move in and out of leader and follower roles as required. The relationship between the two roles is symbiotic being in one or the other role depends on the situation or organisational need.

Shared leadership requires courage at the top of an organisation to relinquish control and flatten heirarchies to allow all organisational leaders (not just managers) to make decisions as appropriate. For me, the strength of a great leader recognises the potential in others and works to bring that to the fore.  A great leader enables a great follower.

Like the old adage – behind every great man stands a great woman…behind every great leader stands a great follower.  Committed, engaged and capable followers, enable great leaders.

So what does come first – a great leader or a great follower?

5 Comments

Filed under leadership, organisational culture

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 1, 2009

The shift toward innovation, culture and design thinking

Innovation in Corporate America by Ross Mayfield via Flickr

Reflecting on the business morning of Design Capital, part of the State of Design Festival, three weeks on three key themes continue to recur in my mind.
• Innovation
• Organisational culture
• Design thinking

Roy Green, University of Technology Sydney Business School, commenced the morning stating:

For knowledge and innovation, the global financial crisis changes nothing. The real challenge is to link short term recovery to long term competitive advantage.

Green discussed that even within the crisis, those countries who have invested the most in knowledge still have budget surplus – for example Sweden. This is due to the recognition at a high level that innovation drives productivity growth, competitiveness and social inclusion.

Green presented many figures throughout his session including data on product innovation by companies; organisational collaboration in innovation activities; and research and development budgets – in all three areas Australia is lagging behind much of the developed world. What does this mean? To me, it says Australians, both as individuals and companies, are primarily forward thinkers but not so forward in action.

To overcome this Green concluded that organisations must:
1. Invest more in innovation
2. Invest in capabilities and skills for innovation
3. Invest in the management of innovation.

This is needed as innovation is becoming increasingly ‘organisational’, introducing new business models, technology absorption and systems integration. It is becoming ‘non-linear’ with multiple sources of knowledge and creativity, and increasingly driven by collaboration and networks rather than silos. It seems that currently organisations want to ‘do’ innovation without understanding or investing in the appropriate structures, requirements or development required to ensure long term organisational agility.

Peter Williams, CEO of Deloitte Digital, followed demonstrating the change in business models which results in innovation and rapid responsiveness to market (and ultimately success), made available through the social web.

He demonstrated what is possible if organisations are flexible and agile enough within this environment, however most organisations are still governed by structures that do not enable the flow of creativity or innovation required and do not understand the paradigm shift to a social world and the implications this has for business.

Williams stated ‘Corporate culture is an issue: openness, self organisation, and self governance are alien to this environment’.

Innovation will continue to be contrained in organisations where questions such as these prevail: Who owns it? Who’s in control? What are the deliverables? How much will we make? What will happen if someone says something wrong/ bad?

Williams reiterated Clay Shirky’s ‘Failure for free’ concept discussing the core importance of learning by doing in the current environment. With low costs and speed to market, business cases are not required, just launch.

Williams introduced the notion of social innovation and porous design being critical – how can you get people to innovate for you? He introduced a number of success examples of this:
iPhone: the mass numbers of applications being developed daily by the audience
Threadless: you design the t-shirt, population votes on favourites, whichever is most popular is printed
Innocentive: innovation challenges solved by a global community of experts

In Williams words ‘start somewhere, do, reflect and go again’. Oliver Freeman, host of Design Capital summed up Pete Williams presentation as ‘we need to give ourselves up to the anarchic state. In this environment quantity = quality and the diamonds will filter through’.

Moving toward providing capability and the appropriate structure and environment within an organisation for innovation, Joseph Correnza, Principal from Arup Australia presented partly on their workplace design culture. He discussed ‘innovation is the responsibility of each person in the organisation, not a particular team’. Their design culture involves integrated thinking and a holistic approach which is key to the company’s identity and the basis of their differentiation. Their philosophy and culture is built upon:
• knowledge+experience: including knowledge sharing, participating reviews and critiques, networks and forums, professional and technical training.
• creativity+invention: supports original thought, encourages exploration, search for inspiration, communicating ideas, engage in dialogue and passion, allow incubation and maturation.
• holistic+mulitdimensional: discovering cause and effect, encapsulating multiple perspective, developing an appreciation of drivers, working within a cross disciplinary environment, considering the community and society, composition and harmony

In particular it was emphasised the importance of developing confidence within people to explore their own ideas.

Correnza also discussed design thinking as an influence toward Arup’s culture, as the process which leads to the outcome involving:
• Problem definition and translation
• Option creation and exploration
• Selection and refinement
• Execution and delivery
The design thinking process mirrors closely the concepts within Correnza’s Designers Toolkit presented, being made up of: exploration, testing, optomising, collaborating, delivering and immersing. The language may differ but the principles remain aligned.

Previously Green had discussed design thinking as being key for the workplace of the future, which is agile, engaged and collaborative – and which in turns enables innovation. Williams supported this, presenting the importance of design thinking in business models as it provides the opportunity to identify talent, allows openness in process and participation, and the occasion to introduce porous design and incentives to get involved.

So what do I take away from all of this?
The concepts of innovation, organisational culture and design thinking are somewhat intertwined and interdependent for business agility and success. I want to say this will be important in the future, however the paradigm shift is already occurring, people are increasingly social and collaborative, there is greater expectations on response times and engagement. Organisations need to reevaluate and move from primarily process based, closed heirarchical systems and allow creative thinking and innovation, increase nimbleness and time to market, and change their cultural approach to structures and work practices or find themselves falling off the cliff as the new social paradigm fully takes off. It is apparent to me that collaboration and innovation are high on our priorities list within Australian organisations but in actuality appropriate investment, both monetary and personnel, are not being invested to encourage and support this.

More
Williams summed up his core themes on the Deloitte Digital Blog.
View Neil Shewan from Tank Studio’s response to Design Capital.

1 Comment

Filed under design thinking, innovation, organisational culture

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,