Radio

At work a lot of people keep talking about "innovation process". Of course I can be wrong (I usually am), but the way I look at things "innovation process" is an oxymoron.  Process, in the business world, is what you put in place to have predictable results. You have manufacturing processes, development processes, testing processes... It seems obvious to me that if you're after innovation, predictability somehow shouldn't be part of the picture. You can use processes to help structure the exploration, I'll give you that, but I personally see that as a dangerous thing, and here's why: a lot of people (far too many in here) confuse the meanings of two words, "process" and "results". It's not a direct translation, but there's a firm believe that a process is all you need to get results, and if you follow the process well you'll get your results. Now, while this can be true in, say, manufacturing, I don't think it...

Living in the States as a foreigner gives the opportunity for some interesting observations: it fascinates me to see how different certain behaviors, approaches and reactions are. Today I want to mention formulas. Americans live by formulas. For the outsider it’s mind blowing to notice how this applies to virtually anything, from complex work issues to interpersonal relationships. Formulas have a great strength: they simplify and frame a problem, making it easier to deal with it, sometimes removing the need to understand the problem entirely. At the same time, for the very reason that creates their strength (simplify), they remove or disregard parts of the situation. In an world where everybody, or most players (including the problem) play by the rules, this approach works pretty well. And the US, in many ways, are that world. The only danger is that the little bits left out by the simplification could pile up into a big issue, therefore although the process runs smoothly, and all ...