Polymath / hybrid thinkers = required to facilitate product friction, translate between the two, synthesize and make the awesome

http://farisyakob.typepad.com/blog/2009/04/spri…

Polymath / hybrid thinkers = required to facilitate product friction, translate between the two, synthesize and make the awesome

http://farisyakob.typepad.com/blog/2009/04/springfest-or-renaissance-planners.html

Interesting posts from Minnesota communications bloggers for the week ending 12/20/09. Culled from the Minnesota Social Media Bloggers FriendFeed room.
……

I was, though, trying to focus specifically on “productive friction” as a step further from “recombinant culture” – it's not just about combining things that belong to different domains of expertise (strategy and technology) but to draw solutions precisely from their differences.

This is the distinction I was trying to make between innovation and implementation – implementation works when you know the solution in advance. You innovate when you have no idea what the solution is.

And innovation involves bringing together incompatible and diverse points of view (recombination), and this process is not smooth and harmonious (friction).

You make a good point, it is definitely true that progress or innovation often come from friction but I think Creative Destruction is really only a pragmatic strategy if you are willing to discard whatever is left behind and commit fully to the new thing. Within the context of an already functioning agency/company, that's a difficult strategy to take.

We have direct experience of this. At one point we thought about trying to create a model like Zeus Jones within Fallon. We realised it was impossible because it would immediately jeopardize the existing relationships and contracts that paid for 90% of the people there. In order to fully commit., we'd have been forced to walk away from old revenue models and try to create brand new contracts with existing clients. The only way for us to do what we wanted to do was to free ourselves from having to align with the past.

On Schumpeter, I do think there's an interesting line of thinking to be pursued around whether the absolutism that underlies Creative Destruction is as relevant today in our postmodern society. Postmodern technique which is what underlies recombinant culture is all about explicitly rejecting sharp divisions between things and I think that a more modern way to think about innovation is through remixing and recombining fragments from the past to create something brand new.

Thanks for the comment, good stuff to think about.

In organizational theory, recombination is not enough to address complex problems. Instead, it is a productive friction between multiple perspectives that secures continued adaptation in the face of complexity.

More often than not, these days we start client’s challenges without really knowing in advance what the solution will be. We also don’t know which solution will succeed. This is because we are not addressing a specific, neatly formulated problem – we are addressing the whole complex brand’s environment.

Innovation involves bringing together incompatible and diverse points of view, and this process is not harmonious. Every time there’s a successful recombination (think Twitter, for example: it’s a combination between people’s tendency to lifestream and a txt-like technology), it is only because the technology and strategy worked from the starting point of their differences. The Twitter team didn’t know what they will come up with, simply because they didn’t in advance formulate the problem as “let’s make Twitter.”

If they did, then the question of innovation would be the one of mere implementation – which is what people who are savvy in both strategy and technology, like Noah, do: they are capable of implementing their ideas. But, these days, we need hell lot more than just implementation.

So, rather than altering your production staff or replacing your strategic resources, it’s better to let them keep their differences and make them interact as much as possible. In the resulting productive friction, there hide solutions for complex problems.

p.s. Schumpeter did say that innovation is recombination. But, he also said that innovation is deeply disruptive of the things that we, as strategists or as technologists, take for granted in our work. This means that the more disagreements and disruptions we can create in our organizations, the better off we will be.

I was, though, trying to focus specifically on “productive friction” as a step further from “recombinant culture” – it’s not just about combining things that belong to different domains of expertise (strategy and technology) but to draw solutions precisely from their differences.

This is the distinction I was trying to make between innovation and implementation – implementation works when you know the solution in advance. You innovate when you have no idea what the solution is.

And innovation involves bringing together incompatible and diverse points of view (recombination), and this process is not smooth and harmonious (friction).

You make a good point, it is definitely true that progress or innovation often come from friction but I think Creative Destruction is really only a pragmatic strategy if you are willing to discard whatever is left behind and commit fully to the new thing. Within the context of an already functioning agency/company, that’s a difficult strategy to take.

We have direct experience of this. At one point we thought about trying to create a model like Zeus Jones within Fallon. We realised it was impossible because it would immediately jeopardize the existing relationships and contracts that paid for 90% of the people there. In order to fully commit., we’d have been forced to walk away from old revenue models and try to create brand new contracts with existing clients. The only way for us to do what we wanted to do was to free ourselves from having to align with the past.

On Schumpeter, I do think there’s an interesting line of thinking to be pursued around whether the absolutism that underlies Creative Destruction is as relevant today in our postmodern society. Postmodern technique which is what underlies recombinant culture is all about explicitly rejecting sharp divisions between things and I think that a more modern way to think about innovation is through remixing and recombining fragments from the past to create something brand new.

Thanks for the comment, good stuff to think about.

In organizational theory, recombination is not enough to address complex problems. Instead, it is a productive friction between multiple perspectives that secures continued adaptation in the face of complexity.

More often than not, these days we start client’s challenges without really knowing in advance what the solution will be. We also don’t know which solution will succeed. This is because we are not addressing a specific, neatly formulated problem – we are addressing the whole complex brand’s environment.

Innovation involves bringing together incompatible and diverse points of view, and this process is not harmonious. Every time there’s a successful recombination (think Twitter, for example: it’s a combination between people’s tendency to lifestream and a txt-like technology), it is only because the technology and strategy worked from the starting point of their differences. The Twitter team didn’t know what they will come up with, simply because they didn’t in advance formulate the problem as “let’s make Twitter.”

If they did, then the question of innovation would be the one of mere implementation – which is what people who are savvy in both strategy and technology, like Noah, do: they are capable of implementing their ideas. But, these days, we need hell lot more than just implementation.

So, rather than altering your production staff or replacing your strategic resources, it’s better to let them keep their differences and make them interact as much as possible. In the resulting productive friction, there hide solutions for complex problems.

p.s. Schumpeter did say that innovation is recombination. But, he also said that innovation is deeply disruptive of the things that we, as strategists or as technologists, take for granted in our work. This means that the more disagreements and disruptions we can create in our organizations, the better off we will be.

“It seems to me that the right approach is to think as you act, to learn while you practice…”

And also to bowling.
But not to buying fine art.

“It seems to me that the right approach is to think as you act, to learn while you practice…”

And also to bowling.
But not to buying fine art.