Will touching sound and feeling sight get us there?

The Disruptive Organization

I have been a little irritated with the ‘virtual meeting’ lately. Video chats, collaborate sessions, conference calls, google hangout… I really feel like something is missing. Of course, these technologies make the virtual meeting more dynamic by adding visual components, video animation or a chat box for an additional layer of commentary or exploration. But it never really feels like ‘real life’, does it? We are living in an exciting age of robotics, Artificial Intelligence and virtual-sensory worlds, so why do our virtual interactions still seem to fall short of a ‘real life’ experience? This week, I’m taking a look at companies that are disrupting the virtual-sensory experience market and shaping the future of digital interaction.

Before we jump into the companies and their technologies, lets explore what makes an organization as a whole disruptive. Rummler and Brache boil organizational success and effectiveness down to three key areas: aligned goals, organizational design and management of performance. For organizations to be successful, all three must be aligned and have an effective relationship to one another with clear communication. What are some common goals that disruptive companies have? For virtual tech companies, it feels like many of them have a goal to bring a rich experience to consumers that is sought after but not yet available. Another goal is in reaching consumers. Many disruptors will ask who are the “non-consumers”? What people are currently being excluded from the market and how can our product or service reach them in simpler, easier or unique ways? In his article exploring corporate innovation, Scott Anthony comments on how Southwest has disrupted the airline industry by successfully reaching and captivating non-consumers. In the sensory tech world, we are all non-consumers and its the companies job to know what we need next.

So who are the most disruptive companies in the virtual-sensory tech world right now? Ive compiled as short list of companies that are making Virtual or Sensory Reality, an actual reality. Let me know what you think.

1. Low hanging fruit… Google Glass. The ‘first’ consumer-wearable, mobile, personalized, virtual experience, available to the general public. An arguably disruptive device from one of the worlds most famously disruptive companies, Google. How is this different from our current computer screen experience? Well, other than wearing it physically, you are able to integrate the digital world into your field of vision and feel like its a part of your visual experience. While there is nothing like it on the market today, I have to ask, is it truly a unique digital experience or just another take on virtual design? There is tremendous potential to expand the product to include other interactive features that engage the sense of smell, sound and feeling.  But, I feel like its not quite there yet and still does much of what our other digital devices currently do. Disruption scale says: Incremental Disruption.
2. BoomRoom - Much like projection mapping for visuals, this is an audio projector that can assign sounds & songs to objects in the room so you can literally ‘touch’ sound. Sounds can be programmed into objects and activated through physical movements. “A music track, for instance, could be assigned to an object in the room such as a vase. To play the track you simply pick up the vessel and "pour out" a track in mid air.” Because the sound is projected locally, you could be the only one that actually hears the sound or song. They have also created virtual mixing spaces where instruments exist in mid-air so you can do your own sound mixing kinetically. The article explores the potential for the visually impaired, targeted marketing strategies and I’m dreaming up an elaborate futuristic music performance in my head. I’d say making it possible to touch sound, a previously unseen sense, is a very disruptive capability. Disruption scale says: Super-Duper Disruption.  
3. Oculus Rift - Consumer ready Virtual reality headset. The company itself has a very focused strategy and target market in the gaming industry. They have made a huge splash by making an affordable, well made, high quality virtual headset for the gaming industry. But if you do some research, the company has made some big leaps into other markets as well. Most recently, a spanish company called, Be Another Lab developed a neuroscientific device to be used with Oculus Rift in order to create the experience of swapping bodies with someone.  Their goal is to “explore the concepts of empathy through technology, science and art.”  And then there is Kiiroo - They are a social media platform that is working to bring intimate physical touch to the digital world. They are hoping to partner with Oculus Rift to provide an integrated virtual reality experience along with their unique product offerings. Kiiroo is also hoping to partner with Second Life in order to take the whole platform into an elevated fantastical universe. So, outside of the gaming market, I’d say this little birdy can fly. There are serious implications that a device like this can have for our virtual-sensory experience. I believe the company has made significant investments into the technology, making it accessible beyond the gaming market without cannibalizing or sacrificing quality. Disruption Scale says: Uber- Disruptive.

One notable distinction here before we bring this post to an end- most of these companies are just starting out. They are essentially creating their own marketplace, much like Nexflix or Apple did in the past. As we move forward, it will be interesting to see how they evolve their organizational goals and try to maintain an alignment internally with their design and management. An effective market disruptor doesn’t just have an idea or product that is unique, its in how they move into markets as an organized entity that will aid their imminent success or failure. I think it will also be interesting to see who they make obsolete in creating their own markets, maybe eventually we won’t need our iphones anymore. All the concepts around strategy that we’ve been exploring this week come into play as the market and the company develops over time- do they have transient advantages built into their internal strategy? Are they integrating a scientific process into their operations and development? I would argue that due to the innovative nature of their products, these companies have a high level of creativity when it comes to getting things done. They have an advantage over other disruptors in that they are creating something entirely new and that type of disruption demands innovation at all levels of the organization. Thus is the excitement and intrigue of the tech startup.

What’s your take? Were my disruption scale ratings justified? Know of a disruptive sensory product out there? Please share! 

What makes you a disruptive person?

Introducing... The Scale of Disruption

In my previous post I explored the transformational power of disruptive behavior. In continuing the conversation, we need to look at the greater concept of innovation and how disruption is rooted in this idea. Maxwell Wessel explores the various types of innovation in his most recent HBR article: he talks about Continuous, Reverse, Sustaining, Disruptive and Platform innovation and how each type can affect a business on different levels.  A business can innovate as a cohesive market force, leaders can disrupt societal norms like we explored in the concept of liminality or consumers can drive technological advancements through a sustained demand for innovative products. Im less concerned with the ways in which 'innovators' simply capture the value that others create and make a viable business. Im more concerned with the disruptors that create fundamentally different products, processes, services or operations which uproot our mental models and influence a generation of new ideas. Its this kind of disruptive innovation that I will be most focused on during my second quarter blog. In order to classify things appropriately, Ill be using the following innovation scale:

1. Uber-Disruptive - "a major innovation is one that is so successful that soon after its introduction few people can even remember what life was like before the innovation was introduced" -Rick Miller, President Olin College of Engineering. 
2. Super-duper Disruption - An innovation that impacts a market significantly and creates a "new or fundamentally different product or service that disrupts existing markets and displaces formerly dominate technologies." (Wagner, p.10)
3. Incremental Disruption - "significantly improving existing products, processes or services"  (Wagner, p.9)
4. Copy-Cat Disruption - Businesses that successfully commoditize the innovative ideas, processes, products or services of others. 
5. Pig-lips Disruption - really not a form of innovation at all, more like putting lipstick on a pig. 

Where does disruptive behavior play out?

Now that we have a renewed sense of our topic, I want to focus on where and how disruptive behavior plays out in a business setting. My hope is that it will help us to better understand the difference between business-as-usual scenarios from truly disruptive-business formats. In their book, The White Space, Rummler & Brache lay out three interdependent areas in a systems model of an organization; the job/performer level, the process level and the organizational level. Their book examines opportunities for performance improvement and adaptation within each specific area and across all three. I'm going to use their structure as a foundation for exploring disruptive behaviors and effective innovation strategies within each arena.  

1. The Person- or Job/performance - the human dimension, people are "the vehicles through which processes function." (Rummler, p.21)
2. The Process - 'How work gets done', cross-functional work processes
3. The Organization - Strategy, organizational structure

The Person: What makes you disruptive? 

Do you consider yourself creative? Would you consider yourself 'exceptional' at any of the following? I know we've done a lot of asset mapping lately, but I encourage you to respond below and claim what your good at. 

1. Critical thinking and problem solving
2. Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
3. Agility and adaptability
4. Initiative and entrepreneurship
5. Integrative & interdisciplinary thinking
6. Empathy
7. Curiosity and imagination
8. Perseverance
9. Willingness to experiment, take calculated risks and tolerate failure
10. Optimism and enthusiasm

These are some of the essential qualities of innovators that Tony Wagner explores in this book, Creating Innovators.  An individual is a powerful source for disruptive behaviors, talents and ideas.  I love this list of characteristics because its precisely the ammunition you need when tromping through a liminal space. A person with an effective combination of the above qualities is able to think and feel effectively in challenging or new situations leading them to truly original ideas. When put into a 'liminal' place where normal limits of thought, self-understanding and behavior are relaxed, an innovator is sure to flourish instead of feeling panic. In a professional context, an individual with these qualities could potentially innovative strategies, products and processes for a thriving and disruptive business.  

Rate the 'Disruptor'!!!

An example of a sought after innovative professional is Dan Schulman, the group president of enterprise growth at American Express. A former CEO of virgin mobile and Priceline, he has a strong background in the tech industry and was brought to American Express in order to "imagine what a new future of financial services might look like." (linked article). The article describes the process by which he transitioned american express from an "exclusive" to an "inclusive" brand by teaming with Walmart to develop a financial product called Bluebird. His team essentially functions as a 'start up' within the American express company, which means they have a lot of organizational interplay. Their software platform seems to be disrupting the normal 'credit card' capabilities by allowing people to deposit or save their money in completely different ways and spend rewards points through different formats. They have over 1 million bluebird accounts and 85% of those account customers are new to AMEX. 

Disruption scale says: Incremental Disruption.  American Express has made some clear investments in new software, market segmentation, strategic partnering and developed a distinctive product with Bluebird. Undoubtably this process has taken some innovative energy on behalf of Dan, his team and the executive team at Amex. They have clearly had to collaborate to develop this product, both internally between departments and externally with stakeholders. However, it seems to be more of an improvement of an existing technology, relationships and marketing strategies rather than a true advancement. The Bluebird project aside, its clear that Dan is an innovative person and that through his creative vision, he has lead the charge for a product that is unique in its marketplace. He seems to be good at 'leveraging' positions to create new projects. However, like Bluebird, I don't think Dan is working above the level of Incremental Disruption. His work is helpful, effective and profitable but not fundamentally different. 

Disagree? Is there something fundamental that Im missing with Dan? Aside from his work with AMEX, Is there evidence that Dan has the qualities of a Super-duper disruptor? Ill let you be the judge.

Da Da Disruption!

Disruption: “A disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process.” Whether it be a single act, a business strategy or an epoch; disruptions are all round us. I think of Rosa Parks sitting on that bus, a single act of disruption that influenced a movement. It wasn't that her action was particularly extreme (like killing someone) but that it seemed to capture the emotions of so many others. The emotional validation that was offered in this simple act seems to be a key factor to its disruptive potency.

• So what happens leading up to a disruptive behavior?
• What qualifies as a disruptive? What makes it effective?
• What potential for change lies in the aftermath of a disruptive act?
• How are businesses living, breathing and acting within disruptive places?
• Are there actors doing this specifically in relation to sustainability?

For the next quarter, I plan to look at the current state of disruption in our modern business world today. I want to investigate companies and individuals leading the charge both in the past, present and future. I would like to examine their unique interactions with consumers and citizens and how exactly they are changing business for good or bad. I'm curious to see how companies act disruptively themselves but I also want to observe how they interact to the mounting human emotion behind disruptive acts like that of Rosa Parks.

What peaked my interest in all this disruption? Well, for quite some time I’ve been obsessed with this anthropologist, Victor Turner, and his social change theories concerning Rituals and Rites of Passage. His work has now been applied beyond anthropology into various fields concerning social structure and change. He is most famous for the ‘social drama’, a sequence of social events that he believed to play out universally in all human cultures. There are four stages: Breach, Crisis, Redressive Action and Reintegration. The disruptive part (aka the fun part) comes after the crisis event, when no one knows what’s what anymore and they enter a ‘liminal’ space. 

Liminality is a curious place to ‘be’ because its essentially a transitional or transformative place. Everyday assumptions, institutions, boundaries, hierarchies and social norms have the ability to dissolve and open up a new space for social creation. However, like the airport or a waiting room, one cannot stay there forever. We eventually reintegrate with evolved agreements or end up further reinforcing old social structures.

All this got me thinking about intentional liminality and ways to actually create an open space for evolving ideas. It seems that liminal states are a part of the process for effective disruption. In order to transform a behavior, eventually we have to relax our previous thoughts and habits.  There are some businesses like Apple, that have continually changed the rules of the game, creating a space for new behaviors to thrive. Their disruptive strategies have proven effective as we can see with the widespread adoption of their products and services.  

I look forward to exploring the disruptive world with you all in Quarter two. Please feel free to post ANY materials and share your thoughts & feelings below. Thanks!

First quarter is over...

First quarter was an intense time. Aside from managing all the increased content, there were some technical and logistical learning curves I had to overcome. Attending class online, collaborating with team members online and working within our web based classroom was a major adjustment from attending class physically. Once I got into the swing of things, it became easier to focus on absorbing the content and delivering on assignments. However, integrating my schedule with school was not an easy task. It was challenging to manage my time between school, work and personal while still feeling like a balanced human. I learned a lot about what is expected of me during school and how to best manage a life balance. I feel like second quarter will be much easier to strike this balance without the addition of a technical learning curve.

Course material

I really enjoyed learning about the history of economics. Learning about the origins of the industrial revolution helped me to situate our current capitalist mentality and further understand modern economic theories. As anyone can tell from my blog posts, I’m fascinated by what we associate with value and how our relationship with value has evolved throughout history. What I find most striking - what has remained constant in our relationship to value creation rather than what has changed. I enjoyed observing the common human behaviors behind our collective historical actions. Rational actors are expected to ‘want to belong’ or ‘feel loved’ or at least be perceived as such. I feel like these are some of the most powerful motivations behind our actions throughout history and will continue into the future.

Our exploration of business models was another interesting part of our course material this quarter. I was able to see value in some of the more traditional business models as well as the alternative models. Examining different ownership models is a good example of our work this quarter. Looking at shareholder, private and stakeholder models allowed me to further examine how business structures can affect decision making, effectiveness and overall happiness of employees. I look forward to learning more specifics about business modeling and how different structures can yield varying results depending on the goals and culture at play.  

BGI culture of learning

Its clear to me that BGI values holistic business practices, integrated systems approach, strong presentation skills and a solid foundation of business basics like accounting. This past quarter has taught me a lot of these skills and opened the door for further understanding. I particularly enjoyed the ‘flipped classroom’ approach which allowed for enhanced discussion and further development of ideas instead of simply lecturing. Working in teams was also a valuable experience for me. I felt like it was the epitome of the ‘integrated’ approach to learning. Not only were we expected to produce several products as a team, like our presentation and white paper, but we also had to develop team agreements through our team log. I learned through direct application the effectiveness of intentionally building team dynamics and upholding shared agreements in order to be the most effective team we can be.

Overall I learned a lot, both professionally and personally. I learned to really value the power of observation. So much of our modern economics has abandoned this undervalued skill while fields like science have thrived by utilizing it. I found that by observing my team mates, professors and fellow classmates, I gain insight into their human experience. When one can further understand the perspectives of others, they are truly participating in their community. I look forward to developing my observational skills further in quarter two as well as refining the skills I have established in quarter one.

Competitive advantage: Doing it differently

We have been doing things differently since the dawn of man, thats what makes us exceptional here on earth. In the last three months of school, we have learned about how things have been done in the past and are done today. We have also been exploring how we might do things in the future. I took a moment to explore some different areas of business through three different lenses; ownership, consumers and values. All three are essential to the success of any business. In asking how we can be more effective in business, we may also find larger implications for the whole of humanity.  

Ownership lense

Who owns this company? Who has the decision making power? Who has the highest utility? Throughout history, the answer to these questions have varied in their response. Today, we see ownership models diversifying from privately owned companies with a few percentage owners to publicly traded companies with thousands of shareholders to co-operatives with hundreds of co-owning stakeholders. How do we assess the ownership model that is right for our company & adjacent market?  I believe that we are going to be increasingly challenged through this ownership lense. If founders want to be as effective and prevalent as possible in their market, they need to consider the buy-in not only from their consumers but their labor force. Sustaining market presence, facilitating effective growth, maintaining a healthy moral and encouraging innovation simultaneously within a firm can be highly dependent on having an engaged, empowered and knowledgeable labor force. If employees feel they have a stake in something real, I believe it can further cultivate a positive working environment and enhance the overall value of the firm.

Consumer lense

What else do people do other than consume things? We produce things of course! Services, smiles, objects, ‘living things’, food, etc. For many years now, we have played out our human associative capabilities to draw connections between feelings and objects. It’s no secret that when I buy that ‘electronic command 1,000 drawer organizer’ I automatically feel more organized regardless if those drawers ever see any action. The issue that keeps plaguing me (and perhaps others) is that in the end I’m not really organized, the feeling of organization is fleeting. It comes down to me actually doing something real with my behavior to feel truly fulfilled. How can anyone truly fill this gap for themselves and have a sense of solid wholeness?

Value lense

The value you create is the glue that brings a well owned company together with its loyal ‘consumer’.  The value of something can be weighed in many ways as we have seen throughout the semester. Many firms calculate the value of something in monetary terms, others account for value in reputation or experience. If we want ‘the firm’ to make a real contribution to society, we must look at value and what constitutes their contribution. Are you willing to take less money in order to love your job? What creates that value for you if its not money directly? How can we account for values that cannot be monetized?  

In the event production world we see a lot of value creation and alternative means of exchange. I’ve seen folks jump at the opportunity to work with someone brilliant, learn from them and soak up some wisdom instead of taking a higher paying job. I’ve also seen people get paid in non-monetary ways like through an exchange of services, knowledge or employment opportunities.

Rethinking how we structure ownership and subsequent buy-in, deciding what’s most important- having things versus having relationships, and adding value to what was once valueless are all behaviors we’ve displayed for centuries and will continue to do. My hope is that we explore the deeper possibilities latent in these human behaviors and create something of true inalienable value.   

The sculpted masterpiece inside the rough chunk of marble

The Macro perspective

If you were to walk into a forest and ask, who is in charge here? Who would respond and what would they say?

“I am!” exclaims the mushroom.

“Noooohoh, its me!!” says the owl.

“Good luck breathing without us!” says the tree

Personification aside, there doesn’t seem to be an internal debate about what exactly or how much each part of the whole is contributing within the forest. Every actor within the system does what they do best like decompose things, hunting and eating things or turning carbon dioxide into oxygen. As each actor is contributing their unique skills, they also seem to understand a unifying purpose that informs each action. Their common purpose may be something simple like ‘maintaining a balance in the system’. If every action I take originates from this simple purpose, a self-organization can give way within each individual actor. Balance is struck as each self-organizing system interacts with one another while fulfilling the same purpose.

Humans do this as well, primarily through unspoken social agreements. Everyone knows adults shouldn’t throw tantrums in restaurants but how do we know? Is it written somewhere or is it against the law? Not explicitly, and yet we have the innate tendency to live according to a common understanding. While our social agreements have given way to a certain level of order, I believe we can achieve more with this innate ability.  Can we define or reveal our purpose in a deeper way?

As we dive into an increasingly global economy, I believe our greatest challenge, as a whole human system, will be to uncover a meaningful purpose with which everyone can work from.

The Micro perspective

Lets say that “maintaining the global system balance” is where all human behavior originates and a common purpose has been established. Where do we go from here? I believe that the tools we have for measurement and execution, especially in business, are insufficient if we are to fulfill our purpose.

At the end of the day, all business is driven by money or capital. Marjorie Kelly says we need to make a “shift from capital-ism”, the belief that maximizing capital matters more than anything else. I’m not sure that this is the most effective shift we can make, I see a greater value in re-defining what we mean by ‘capital’. I feel that the true issue lies in how we account and value components both ‘outside’ and ‘within’ the system. Externalities are not a new concept to economists but truly accounting for their value is an exciting emerging science.  

Enter Ecosystem Services. David Holzman’s exploration of accounting for natures benefits did an excellent job of explaining some of todays top ecosystem accountants. This is an amazing opportunity for us to value the goods that have been inherently free of charge for so long. Its happening today on a varying scale of complexity. Vietnam for example, invested $1.1 million in mangrove plantings to protect their coastline instead of an annual $7.3 million expense in maintaining man made dykes. Ecosystem services are valued by how much human welfare they can provide and human welfare is directly dependent on the balance within the ecosystem. If this truth was accurately reflected in our capital exchanges, we would be living in a very different world. There is the issue of integrating such an expansive definition of capital, which brings us to the issue of measurement.

“That which can be measured can be monitored”

How are we to value something like fertile soil? by how many crops are yielded from it? by how much life is flourishing with it? by how it protects against erosion? Its hard to quantify things that have such a complex utility but its easy to feel that there is value in something like fertile soil.

Enter Intuitive thinking and the teachings of Roger Martin in the Rotman Design Challenge. He talks about analytical versus intuitive thinking. This is where things get really challenging. Governing between analytical facts and deductive reasoning versus intuitive choices and abductive logic is incredibly difficult. These are not things that have a crystal clear, definitively drawn definition. It becomes an issue of social agreement once again, the unwritten and unspoken yet clearly understood rules that dictate our everyday lives. This inherently brings us back to the macro perspective and our greater motivational purpose of balance.

And round and round we go.

Self-Evident Truths

Chris Martenson lays out three distinct phases of truth: 

1. Ridicule.

2. Violent Opposition.

3. Accepted as being self-evident. 

Truth: We are all fucked. 

In what phase would you place this truth?  

I would claim it to be self-evident, especially after re-visiting the study of economics. 

The name of this blog is a pie-lovers take on the English proverb, "You can't have your cake and eat it too". Literally meaning that one cannot both possess a cake AND eat it, for by choosing to eat the cake they will forgo possessing it.  The metaphoric sense of the proverb has troubled me since learning more about our economic system. I believe the intention is that there are things in life that simply cannot co-exist when choices are made with respect to those things. Our modern way of life has found some ingenious and deceiving ways around this 'fact'. A good example of this would be our monetary system.

When one puts their money in the bank for saving you could say that they chose to have pie. The banking institution that 'keeps' their money is in the business of having that same pie and offering it to others with their choice of having or eating that same pie. It seems that our modern monetary system has found a way to forgo its opportunity costs by being able to take advantage of some previously separate decisions; saving, spending & loaning. In this sense, we are most certainly having our pie and eating it too.

There may be some additional reasons why this truth is self-evident but I don't care to write much more about it here. What struck me more was my undying devotion to live a different truth. I want to learn everything I can in life, I want to be present and seize each moment. I want to contribute to things that are positive and self-sustaining. No matter how ineffectual my life may be, I cant shake the fact that I care. I care deeply about leading a meaningful life, considering others and challenging the universe to be better. Despite the fact that we are heading in a dark direction, I cannot turn my curiosity off. My heart, body and soul are forever hungry for an elevated sense of self, a deep truth pushing my spirit into each and every moment. My truth demands that I accept the futility of my life and enjoy creating the meaningful moments of it too*.

*that's how I have my pie and eat it too.