Sam Ladner is writing a book to connect business people and social science professionals so they both can have a better perspective on ethnography applied in the private sector.
I just read her free sample and it looks pretty good. Well, actually it still a draft do it doesn’t really LOOK good in the design meaning of the word, but the content is pretty good.
Firstly I think the market urges for a material like this, at least in Brazil we have a lot of professionals from the business world looking for some consistent sources on how to apply “this ethnography thing” in their business. I know, we have a lot of articles from companies like Intel and Microsoft talking about it, but one never knows how much of it is true and how much was modified to look good in the eyes of the media. I also think it can be really useful for people coming from social sciences background to the corporate world.
I am maybe generalizing to much, but social sciences guys are usually left wing while business administration guys are as far as one can get on the right wing, right? At least this is how I feel about it. So in the end there is this very different cultural / world view background in both fields. For me it kind of holds them back from really join forces and produce together (you know… business men think these anthro-people are a bunch of commies and social scientists think that business guys are soulless people with $ $ marks in their eyes all the time). So we really need someone who speaks both languages to get them together.
Back to the book.
It is interesting how she talks about giving “colors” to the text with details and how she manages to do it pretty well with examples from projects. I think that in the final version she could use some design references Harvard Business Review articles. A good executive summary in the beginning of each chapter and a wrap up in the end of it as well. I also like the way HBR keep practical examples in boxes helping you to focus your attention.
Early in the morning we presented our 3D models for design processes (It was really funny, I’ll publish as soon as I get some pictures).
After that Tom talked about how to deal with workshops. Basically reinforcing the idea that today design is no more the black box with briefing coming from one side and genius ideas coming out of the other. More and more clients want to be part of the process, involving different stakeholders and developing collective solutions is more crucial than ever.
Tom showed pretty neat references on how to deal with workshops, like been aware of the space and how to better use it, knowing your participants’ backgrounds so you can adjust the tone of your voice / vocabulary and using templates / sheets so participants can synthesize / note down and you can document it more easily.
I am used to most of this because of a couple of projects I worked with at INSITUM (many workshops and creative sessions with users), but I really liked the way he presented. In fact the other days during this week I could see it applied and felt how it works.
The one thing we did a lot at insitum and he did not talked about is to rehearse workshop / sessions, at least crucial parts that can be more complex, hard to understand or execute and that could became a bottle neck for the whole activity. Maybe it is because Tom is so experienced and have facilitated so many workshops that he just don’t need this rehearse.
So if you are new to this “facilitation” thing I would strongly recommend you to test your workshop / creative sessions with a couple of friends or colleagues to see if they get the tasks easily, how long does it take to do it, if you need something else or can leave some useless part behind.
And don’t thank me for this lesson, thank Yoel Lenti.
Now we have a project for next weeks, lets see how it goes.
Today was the day to talk about Brand, Services and Ethics.
Firstly we had some historical perspective on branding and how it has changed since late 1800’s thought out 1900’s and how it is seen now.
Talking about branding? Talking about Coca-Cola.
They are HUGE and have passed though lots of changes over the years (you know, in the beginning it was some sort of remedy…), for decades they were as American as bald eagles, stars and bubble gum, but, you know, US is not the most friendly reference nowadays, maybe for this and many other reasons now Coke are more about making the world a happier place.
Maybe not by coincidence Tatil, which was present with 2016 Olympics identity in many parts of the presentation, have done some very interesting projects with Coletivo Coca-Cola in Brazil (this one is in Portuguese, sorry) you can check more about it here (this one in EN).
Basically the brand is helping disadvantaged communities providing education focused on helping these kids to become more employable, which is obviously perceived as an engaging attitude with a very positive feedback in the media and in society as a whole.
Tom Inns presented a framework with 3 branding structures: Monolithic, Endorsed and Branded.
Monolithic would be defined by:
The single business identity
For companies that want to promote a special idea about
Very often operating across many business activities
Because every product and service has the same name
everything supports everything else
Staff are very clear about what the company stands for
Companies have a high visibility and a clear positioning
The very British example for this? Virgin! they surely have a special way to do stuff (apparently any stuff actually). I really feel attracted by the way they present themselves.
I think another great example is RedBull. They managed to create such a brand value based on performance, energy and youngness that it is easily shaped in different offers, from the energy drink to the media industry passing by an F1 TEAM! Come on, these guys are great.
The funny thing for me is that even without competing directly in many markets, I think as brands they are quite similar. I mean… Both have this special way to approach other areas by been very young, fresh and energetic.
Caring on there is the Endorsed brand defined by:
A multi-business identity
A large number of companies have grown by acquisition
They want to retain the goodwill of the brands that they
But they want to superimpose their own management
style and attitudes
They want to impress certain audiences with their size
and strength, among these audiences they want to
emphasise uniformity and consistency
They frequently operate in different countries where
their reputation’s vary
I think it is valid for most of these brands behind other brands.
Good illustration of this is Procter & Gamble, offering from Mr Clean and Hair & Shoulders to Pringles (actually recently sold, but you got the idea).
Unilever is also a big umbrella of valuable brands. For me the most interesting is the paradox between some of their brands, specially Dove and Axe. Dove defends that all women are beautiful in their own way in this very modern-pos-feminism way, while Axe is all about using this product to became the ultimate bimbos womanizer. An Unilever promote both ideas. How awesome?
No. Those models ARE NOT that perfect early in the morning. Hail Photoshop.
Really? Check YouTube for more pearls like this.
And the third, the Brand based identity
Usually in pharmaceuticals, food, drink and other fast
moving consumer goods (fmcg)
Do not present their corporate face to the consumer
Based on the fact that consumerism is based on simple
Brands have a life cycle of their own … independent of
Brands from the same company might compete in the
same market place
Brands should be free to develop their own identities
The umbrella is there but far behind the stage, and usually one have no clue about the ownership. A great example is LVMH, owning lot of luxury brands in several different categories (fashion, drinks, jewelry and so on). Diageo is almost the same thing but focused on beverage only. Have you ever tried something from Diageo? No? Probably yes since they own Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff, Ciroc and even Guinness.
In the afternoon we talked more about service design and ethics, that Tom approached from a social / environmental perspective.
There is a lot of material out there about service design… I just define it as the design of things that are not things, which means processes, systems and other intangible offers.
Tom showed a little video to demonstrate it, but I like this one better:
About the ethics part… it is interesting how most of young people already have this eco/social concerns embed in their way of work. I think nowadays been environmentally and socially concerned is a commodity. Really, there is no space for you out there without this!
Today we talked a lot about process and the way we do things. Fisttly I liked because we were not talking about methods or how to fill up our tool boxes, but how to visualize the process a project usually pass through in such way that one can replicate it to other projects.
I think for me was a good reflection on my experiences and how I use to think / work.
Besides the fact that they were never my teachers in a formal way Kleber Puchaski (DesignIt BR) and Luis Arnal‘s (INSITUM)references came together in my mind today to visualize the process I believe I usually follow as a design researcher / innovation consultant.
Kleber describes design process in 3 bigger stages:
Discover – When we learn “what is going on”. As a more ethnographic designer I tend to learn from users, consumers, clients… “people” if I may.
Connect – When you take these pieces of information and make interesting connections to create new things. In my case I use the word Ideate because it sounds better to the way I end up doing things. Usually I start to generate ideas very early in the process, it doesn’t mean that I will fall in love with them in the first sight and never let it go, it is just my way to analyse and make sense of the collected data, sometimes re-analyzing the ideas to see what else they mean.
Construct – Turn these ideas into visually interesting concepts or even prototypes. I prefer to call it build because… well, for no especial reason, maybe because the word is smaller.
Arnal’s influence comes with these waves representation. As he believes (or at least presented in his paper during the master at IIT) I also think that projects just cant be really described by defined stages. Yes, things kinda hap[pen one after the other and stages depend on results of some previous work, but the thing is that they are not as sharp and defined as process are usually described, with boxes for example.
For me the real word is more like waves, were the horizontal axis describe time and the vertical axis the amount of work / efforts / resources were applied.
If you take this idea along with the most common payment system for consultancy and any other “knowledge labor”, worked hours, it makes even more sense.
So for me the ideal flow in a project would be something like this image:
I always try to spend a lot of time leaning about people and what they do. Even before leaning about “applied ethnography / applied anthropology” I use to work like this, sometimes my design professors though I spend too much time research and not doing things… C’est la vie.
I also like to bring more references than just what the fieldwork has to offer. Theories, TED Talks, literally ANYTHING that can help to generate ideas considering the challenge.
At the deliverable phase I am more useful shaping ideas roughly than going into details. But that’s why I feel such a victim of team work, I always need someone more detail-oriented than me to help building the finest deliverable.
In the afternoon we talked a lot about prototyping. For me this is really great and underestimated by most people. As IDEO’s Richard Eisermann say “If a picture paints a thousand words, a prototype is worth a thousand pictures”. And it is totally true. However they are not talking about pretty clay models that look like the real products, they call prototype anything that can be used to test an idea. And early the better, as soon as you can have an impression and feedback (ANY impression and feedback) about the idea, more likely to make a better you are of making an assertive decision.
I have to say that I am taking profit of this module in a meta-way. I don’t want to sound like a yes-man or apple polish but I really like the way Tom is leading the sessions.
Points that I like and plan to copy:
One piece at a time – present block of information that closes on itself but keep connected to the bigger scenario.
Practical activities in the end of each block – helps to keep the information by practicing something related to the content.
Promote discussion – even when the group is silent (and I cant shout up).
Sheets – Using templates to exercises make it faster and keep everyone in the same track (but sometimes I like to get myself a little lost).
I must say I don’t know much about British design, I think by tradition Brazil is much more influenced by German schools (yes, that one).
(Insight about design culture from the 90’s in the end)
Part of the exercise of the week is to write design definitions (we did one yesterday and I have to make another today). I was thinking about a discussion I saw at the PhD Design mailing group and maybe a good way to go with this would be try to define design as a noun (what is this) and as a verb “to design”, or “what designers do”.
The history recap was to talk about what he called Design 1.0 and Design 2.0. It reminds me of Luis Arnal (former boss from Insitum) who used the term “Innovation 2.0. I think they both are talking about the same thing.
While the last version of design / innovation were pretty much running in one direction, many times based on ideas and inspiration from one person, a big boss in the organization, the 2.0 versions are more complex, network based and hard to track. Just like the “internet 2.0”, the name given to the more democratic internet with user generated content (yep. Blogs).
I think the relation is not just by chance. It is way easier to access information today than ever, therefore, to create new knowledge. It is also possible to do so by getting together with other people and exchange ideas almost without limits.
These things have blurred the limits between designers and non designers (or innovators and non-innovators). And when everybody can design / innovate, nobody owns “design” or “innovation” anymore. For me the version 2.0 of both things is basically the open source version where virtually anyone can design and innovate.
I had an insight when Tom was talking about the 90’s. In that decade many successful products changed collective behaviors to individual ones. Starting with the walkman, then diskman, and been really relevant with mobile phones. What once were shared, now is individual.
I am not very sure it is a consequence of the products, or if the products success is actually a consequence of the cultural stage, but I have this impression that people became much more self-centered and even selfish after that. Today’s iZombies that cant have a proper conversation without checking their phones every 3 minutes can be an evolution of that. I don’t know… Just guessing here… What do you think?
The whole talking reminds me of another tree with an well-known fruit…
It is quite interesting technique to break the ice and get people from different backgrounds knowing and working together really quickly. I am totally using it someday.
This module reminds of how most of the time the design community seems to be blind to what the business world needs. Which is very interesting since design, by most definitions, is intrinsically connected to business in many ways.
Very often I hear colleagues complaining that managers “don’t get it”, but the truth is that designers (and I include myself in here) does not understand the business environment they are in, or the minds that drive the company they (we) work for. And this is very dangerous.
Since 2007 I have done a little bit of homework trying to get what happens on “business people” minds. Guys like Peter Drucker, Jack Welch and Ricardo Semler has so many things to teach and many of their books / articles are very reader-friendly, written in a very accessible language, I think.
Drucker talks a lot about innovation and if you know what design does it is actually about design, one of his most famous quotes is:
“Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs.”
If you are a little bit open to what design is you can see how it relates and even increase the power of these two things.
Here is an idea to my designer friends:
Take a time of e design thinking world, try to understand the basis of business world, it will help a LOT next time you need to present a result / concept / idea to the top management at your client / employer.
My initial tips would be:
Peter Drucker – Post-Capitalist Society – Almost 20 years and still very good. It is nice to how he much he forecasted now that we know how things ended – like about China and Brazil been such big players nowadays.
Jack Welch – Winning – He kind of analyse his work at General Electric and have many interesting insights for anyone who wants to step into the corporate world. Really useful stuff! (Thanks to my uncle Hilgo who gave me as a gift in 2010).
In the afternoon we analysed four cases from Harvard Business Review:
Alessy – Talking about how Italian designers and manufacturers join forces to produce innovative products with high profit margins – such as the famous squeezer.
General Electric – About how they shifted: from a company that exported and poorly adapted products from US to many other countries to a more inclusive model capable of develop more local and efficient solutions.
P&G – On how Procter & Gamble engaged suppliers, Universities, Laboratories and many other players though networks being able to search for ready-made solutions – instead of building them from scratch at their labs – and also using these networks to monitor opportunities worldwide.
Nintendo – A classic: how Nintendo moved from the high competitive same old gaming war (faster processors / better graphics) to focus on non-gamers with the Nintendo Wii.
Way more innovative than Kinect…
Personally, I like the Nintendo way of think in the sense of the blue ocean.