Showing posts with label work environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label work environment. Show all posts

thunderbirds are go

Stewart: ‘We were going to decorate the room ourselves but we couldn’t be bothered.’

7th February

The room is almost square. White. With an alcove for filing drawers and two stacking boxes that don’t stack. They stand lopsided, empty.

Two tables are pushed together to make one and stand against the wall where the window is. The window goes from floor to ceiling, with a white blind pulled half way down. On the opposite wall is a large white screen showing the contents of Stewart’s laptop screen.

In the far corner is a white spiral staircase going heavenward. Coats hang from the staircase. To begin with the team can retreat in ones and twos up the staircase
to a another meeting room but, later, this is reappropriated by the agency.

There is just about room to walk round the tables when people are sitting down without asking them to pull their chairs in. On the tables are six laptops (occasionally more), later on most with a separate mouse and full-size keyboard in front of them and, later on still, most propped up on silver laptop stands. A tangle of cables and leads run over the tables and down through round holes to socket extension on the floor. Morning and evening consist of the ritual plugging and unplugging of these leads and accessories and some scrambling on the floor.

Each team member has a separate locking drawer in which they can leave their valuables and (if necessary) their laptop. Later this system fails when Ludwig locks his drawer without realising that Tom’s laptop is in it and leaves for a long weekend in Berlin. It fails again when Steven loses his key and has to force the drawer. Some unhappiness ensues on each occasion.

At the same end of the room as the door the webcam offers a soundless, always-on vision of the room and its contents. On my computer at home, where I check the webcam periodically to see if a fight or other act of unexpected intimacy has erupted, the picture updates approximately twice a second with the result that the team members move with the same supermarionated rhythm as the cast of
Thunderbirds.

By mid-February the room has assumed a
slightly different configuration and will more or less stay this way until the end. The tables are now pushed into the centre of the room, so people can sit on all four sides of the oblong that they create. The blind tends to be up and, as summer approaches, the window is usually open. The screen has been raised and there are now two whiteboards on the wall, which are occasionally covered in idea clouds, target dates and to-do lists. On February 26th it had a list showing everyone’s mobile phone number. Intuitively, that didn’t seem like the easiest way to communicate the information. On reflection, it probably was.

The door to the room slams shut whenever someone enters or leaves the office. The room shudders slightly and everyone is jolted. By the time of my last visit in July the team are perfecting a device invented by Joanna. It involves folding a piece of cardboard and inserting it into the gap between the door frame and the hinged side of the door, which serves to slow down the speed with which the door closes and reduce the slam to a gentle pffftt.

Wall decorations are almost non-existent. One or two pieces of fruit and a packet of biscuits occasionally decorate the centre of the table. There is no other concession to homeliness.

The drone of central London traffic (average daytime traffic speed 6.1 mph/9.76 kph), punctuated by the wail of regular post-war-on-terror-and-current-war-on-gun-crime sirens, intrudes, as does the squeal and hiss of air brakes. Otherwise the outside world is largely excluded.

----------------------------------


As Richard Ogle and Suw Charman-Anderson, in particular, have observed, this kind of insulation isn’t obviously the best way to foster innovation:

If you don’t experience the problem you are solving, you are unlikely to
solve it in an innovative way. Locking six people up in a room for six months
with £100,000 isn’t giving them much of an opportunity to experience problems.
And again:
…cognitive scientists, researchers in artificial intelligence, psychologists,
and philosophers have begun to talk about how the mind extends out into the
world. This revolutionary expansion of the traditional concept of mind directly
challenges our belief in the individual mind’s internal self-sufficiency.

We are coming to understand that in making sense of the world, acting
intelligently, and solving problems creatively, we do not rely solely on our
mind’s internal resources. Instead, we constantly have recourse to a vast array
of culturally and socially embodied idea-spaces that populate the extended mind.
These spaces – manifested in forms as various as myths, business models,
scientific paradigms, social conventions, practices, institutions, and even
computer chips – are rich with embedded intelligence that we have progressively
offloaded into our physical, social, and cultural environment for the sake of
simplifying the burden on our own minds of rendering the world intelligible.
Sometimes the space of ideas thinks for us. We live in a smart world.
-----------------------------------

That said, there’s the small question of those six eyes on the world provided by the team’s propped-up laptops. We tend to forget, even though we chant the truism as a mantra, that the Internet has changed the way we see the world. Six people checking the blogs of some of the cleverest minds on the planet, inviting the bright ideas of many more, reading and researching as they go, saving and sharing their discoveries via Delicious and, eventually and inevitably, having lunch with their would-be clients and users are less insulated in many ways than any human beings at any time in history.

Incidentally, they also had the fine minds of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO (who had lent them their office) along the corridor. In February the team had watched the new
BBC2 idents (designed by the agency and launched that month) and Steven had told me that there were plenty of people in the agency who could be very useful to them. Though they used Clare Hutchinson, one of the agency’s account planners, to facilitate an early brainstorming session, they didn’t otherwise draw on this resource.



The World Wide Web is an idea-space par excellence, though it’s perhaps less effective as a mind-space. Most of the team members felt they thought more widely and creatively when they were out of the office and an ideas session in Regent’s Park was often quoted as a particular instantiation of that. Mike said in March, ‘We need to do something that gets people into a different place. I mean out of the office; where we can be creative.’ At the same time Steven said ‘Yes, everyone agrees that this room is pretty dingy. We’re going to try and get out into the park more once the weather’s better.’ But, once the weather got better, there was never really time. So they didn’t.

Moving around does seem like a good idea. And/or working in a balmier climate, where you can be outside more. There’s even some science behind this now. Nicholas Humphrey
asserts that, ‘sensations are not things that happen to us, they are things we do’. So sensation ‘is on the production side of the brain rather than the reception side’. Clearly, having good ideas also occurs on the ‘production side’. If this means anything, and it may not, it means that our thinking is more likely to be closely involved with what we are sensing than one might at first imagine. In which case, we perhaps need to be aware of environmental changes that lead to us sensing differently – or ‘doing’ different sensations – so that we can encourage ourselves to do different thoughts.

Worried by their feeling stuck, partly because they were constantly together in the same room, Javier (who observes that, ‘when stuck, teams go into intellectualising mode’) had invited two of them to go away and come up with ideas for how the team should work for the next four months – practical ideas about where to work, how and when. ‘Can I suggest you actually propose a solution, not just present ideas to talk about?’, Javier had said. So Tom and Ludwig had
come back with a:

‘Fresh Air Straw Man’:

Beliefs:
- we need to put some air into the team so we won’t kill each other at some point
- our work will become more modular after we have taken a decision which idea to implement
- we can work in smaller teams and don’t need to be in one room all the time
- we need only two days a week during which we all have to be in the office (decision days)
- we can use webcams and voice to stay in contact
- we need a tool and a process to allow for efficient planning

Intentions:
- create a planning system which allows the team to work efficiently without having to be in the same room
- in other words: make sure that team “explodes” when it doesn’t need to be together

Promises:
- have no more than 4 people in the office, except on “decision days”
- don’t work from own home all three non-decision days
- try to work in other team members’ home spaces
- try not to be offline for more than half an hour
- try to work in more inspirational places

Actions:
- clear this with group
- purchase head sets and web cams for all of us
- identify spaces to work in (Starbucks, museums, homes, parks with wifi coverage, etc…)
- find a good online planning tool
- get smaller desks and re-arrange the room
- organise trip to Berlin

They’d discussed it. But hadn’t reached any agreement. Their internal blog said just that: ‘We disagreed on how to work.’

Dilemmas:

Stay in or go out?

Stay together or move apart?

Prioritise intellect or prioritise context/ecology?

Zoom in or zoom out?

If the answer is always ‘both’, how do you decide when to do which?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits:

Webcam stills: Midas Oracle

BBC2 Ident: Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO and Red Bee Media, hosted on tvradiobits.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

interviews with horses


Kathy Sierra (who crossed swords for a while with Chris Locke, the co-author of the magnificent Cluetrain Manifesto, of which more later) talks a great deal about innovation. Here's a piece from a blog of hers:
'Professionals' in any field come in two flavors: Knowledge Sharers and
Knowledge Hoarders. The hoarders believe in the value of their 'Intellectual
Property'(IP). The products of their mind must be carefully guarded lest anyone
steal their precious ideas. But let's face it - if our only 'strategic
advantage' is our ideas, we're probably screwed. Or as CDBaby's Derek Sivers put
it in
this post:
'It's so funny when I hear people being so protective of ideas. (People who want
me to sign an NDA to tell me the simplest idea.) To me, ideas are worth nothing
unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions.'

Yes, there are some crucial exceptions, but for most of us, It's our
implementation, not our idea that matters. Even those who create something
revolutionary are still synthesising... still drawing on the work of others, and
making a creative leap. But even a big-ass gravel-hauling leap is still a leap,
not a physics-violating idea that shimmered into the universe from nothin' but
air.

It's how we apply those ideas.
How creative we are.
How useful we are.
How brave we are.
How technically skilled we are.
How we anticipate what our users will love.
How we learn from the ideas and work of others.
And from our (my co-authors and myself) perspective, it's not about
our ideas, it's about what the ideas can do for our users.
Even if we are the only ones to have a specific new and protectable 'idea' (unlikely), the moment we reveal it, everyone else will have it too. The barrier to entry today
is way too low to use 'intellectual property' as a main advantage. And all too
often, we think we have a unique idea only to find that others are-independently-doing the same things.

In spite of the very public fight she had with Chris Locke, Kathy talks much the same language as him. They speak of changing the way corporations do business, of interconnectivity, of the way that the Internet can unlock creative thinking and liberate people to think wildly. And a great deal more. Chris started the ball rolling by interviewing a horse at length and ended his very first post on what might have been just about the Internet's first blog, with the immortal opt-out box:

[ ] From time to time we offer to share our list of subscribers with
door-to-door aromatherapy salespersons and ritual ax-murderers. If you would
prefer that your data not be used in this way, please check the box.

Back to the point. Knowledge Sharers and Knowledge Hoarders.


Project Red Stripe walked this tightrope nervously.

They started very openly, blogging everything. Their website described what they were doing, how they were recruiting team members, where their offices were. (Indeed, Joanna observed early on that the blog was too close to an introspective diary rather than being one that highlighted issues and ideas. Curious this, when she was probably the member of the team most likely to introspect publicly.) Their webcam was always on.

Then they got the ideas in.

They got a little cagey.

Acknowledged lots of the ideas.

Got involved in some rather public wrangling about whether a six-month subscription to The Economist was a suitable reward for someone who gave them a multi-million-moolah (please can someone invent a universal term for currency for occasions like this when it doesn't matter what currency you're talking about, except the Zimbabwean dollar) business idea.

Received a shot across the bows from people who are paid to worry about customer perceptions at Economist Tower.

Realised that they couldn't be too public if they were going to develop their idea far enough to be able to surprise and delight the GMC.

Were told that they shouldn't have gone quiet.

Went public again about Lughenjo, but cautiously so as not to upset the NGOs they were talking to.
Went quiet for the switch to HiSpace.

Then announced the switch just as they were closing Project Red Stripe.

The way I've described it sounds harsh. But look at it from the other end of the telescope. The Economist is a big brand. The magazine doesn't interview imaginary horses and has opt-out boxes that don't mention axe murderers. Red Stripe had to pay attention to these things. Getting closed down or massively alienating the Chief Executive or their readers wouldn't have helped them get a result. They could have spent more time on internal PR to make their ca
se, but that wasn't their job.

Perhaps Project Red Stripe needed its own PR department. Perhaps they should have hired someone. But they'd still have had to agree an approach, brief the PR daily, have more meetings. Cul de sac? Another reason for stopping the blog was that it simply took too much time. I watched Ludwig, turned sideways from the desk, writing his blog of 13th March for the entire afternoon. It was, in essence, a defence of the terms and conditions attached to their request for ideas and a response to some of the criticism they'd received from Slashdot. It needed writing. But it didn't need writing.

On the subject of PR, and if you're not in the business, check out the emerging idea of Open PR, which, in the stress it places on the trustworthiness of employees and the need for honesty in business, could be the brainchild of Christopher Locke and Cluetrain but is actually an emergent property of Web 2.0 and Wikinomics.

At the other end of the telescope, Red Stripe was adapting and adapting fast. The team were open when they could be, closed when they had to be. At times they were just reacting (although that's been a bad word in business for a long time, it's what we all need to do to stay alive). What Linnaeus called Meteorici
adjust their opening and closing times to suit the weather conditions. Seems as good a model as any for an innovation team - or maybe I just couldn't resist an opportunity to quote the proceedings of the Athanasius Kircher Society.

Dilemmas:

Be completely open on principle? Be secretive sometimes? Be secretive on principle? Wait till an idea is 'well-enough' formed that it won't get shot down. Invite discussion and analysis from the outset?

If you're going to be very public, delegate the PR job to one of the team? Share it out? Hire someone?



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credits:
Flower clock: Athanasius Kircher Society
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



corporate plants


Joanna: 'Stew...'
Stewart (whose grip on other languages was tentative and whose favourite foreign phrase was the mysterious 'schappa la dente'): 'Comment allez-vous?'
Joanna: 'J'ai un question.'
Stewart: 'Steady.'

I notice how some team members use headphones to insulate themselves from the noise of group interactions (and, thereby, exclude themselves from those exchanges). The laptop screen captures the attention; absorbs it. The headphones wrap music - or silence - densely around. Another blanket. The stress ball occupies the hands and much of the available tactile sensation. The occasional barminess of an unsilenced mobile ringtone intrudes. Nobody tuts.



On the central desktop (the real one, not the virtual one) no telephones sing. A grey, three-footed BT device balances on top of two oranges in a silver-coloured wire bowl. Its large central pad reveals it to be a loudspeaker-enabled conference phone and not part of a dubious gift exchange between the crew of the Starship Enterprise and the governing council of Planet Nebulon.

There are, of course, no tissues on the central desktop. There is a row of small green corporate plants in a stained old plant tray behind the door on a safe. The plastic box of Lego survives from the early team-building session. There are two small fire extinguishers and a copy of what the UK Health and Safety Executive deems you should know about current workplace legislation.

Dilemmas:

A problem familiar to anyone who's ever worked in an open plan office. Putting several people round a big desk promotes communication and interaction. Often work requires focus and absorption. Communication becomes disruption. We either walk on eggshells or wrap ourselves up, like a hooter in a muffler.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits:
Wordle: www.wordle.net
Plant:
Hajime Nakano

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------