Some stayed on to keep building a powerhouse of design and innovation. In some ways 2002 seems very very far behind. In most ways it feels like yesterday. Feel the inTENsity of our gratitude in 2012

We love y’all – Happy NEW Year!!!

Talk to technology and business people and they will tell you that innovation is a tool. Therefore researching a need and then developing a solution to address it is called innovation. Then why call it innovation, why not keep calling it R&D? Are we simply using the word because it sounds nicer?

1. Does anybody know what Innovation really means? I believe it is a way of thinking that embraces ‘all’ dimensions of a situation and tries to find the best interconnections. It (innovation) is simultaneously the way of thinking AND the process AND the domain AND the tools AND the methods coming together to CREATE a solution (change) FOR a situation (context) AT a certain point in time.
   My problem is with trying to define innovation so that it fits into some existing pattern. Therefore one way of understanding Innovation is to change the way we think. Edward de Bono’s book “Why so Stupid?” talks about how the human race never really learnt to think. So it is not so much a question of ‘thoughts’ but more a question of ‘thinking’ that can qualify to be an ingredient for innovation.
2. Why do we continue to use Innovation interchangeably with invention, R&D, creativity and a few others? I often hear people say, “This or that is a great innovation”. I have a problem with understanding why an abstract term is being connoted as a ‘thing’. I suggest we go back to our Wren & Martins to study English grammar all over again. I don’t have a problem with invention since it is a tangible output, part of whose process of development may have been      innovative. But an Innovation?!
3. Was Gandhi innovative? He didn’t ‘invent’ any products, unless we’d like to credit him with the charkha (spinning wheel). He did not try to incrementally solve problems that came his way. He had a purpose (objective), an unflinching belief to back that purpose (conviction), thought about consequences of his actions (impact), and then chose to do      something in a way that had never occurred to anybody else (disruption). Not his followers, not his fellow politicians, not the British Raj. His innovative ways ’surprised’ everybody, even himself! He did not research his ideas and ideologies (sometimes we keep doing this on end), he did not develop complicated plans for executing his ideas – he just thought differently. One man moved the powers that were, single-handedly (well, not really, but he did crank up the polity though) out of India.

So if we want to be sure about success in innovation, we must … there we go again. There is no sure way when it comes to Innovation. Let’s accept it!

In an interview with John Edson, President of Lunar Design, I was asked a question about whether innovation can be taught. In my view to teach innovation is easy. I think everybody can understand innovation intellectually but it becomes a different matter when that understanding has to be applied to a real situation. If all we needed was a set of rules, the legal profession would be the most innovative of all. Value through innovation requires a framework that allows for exploration, randomness and chaos. It also requires for individuals and groups to be comfortable trying out things without traditional business pressures.

Coming back to the global financial meltdown, there is an urgent need to find a way out. We need innovation and a different approach. If the financial whiz kids believed that building additional layers to hide the real problems was being innovative, the results are there for the world to see. My friend and innovation guru, Tom Koulopoulos succinctly observed,

“… the collective brainpower of the world’s economists, a handful of Nobel prize winners and the smartest of the smartest financial minds did little to keep us out of harm’s way. In fact they drove us into the midst of the storm. What’s clear now is that the danger of where we are and where we are going has much less to do with what we have learned about the past and so much more to do with what we don’t know about the future.”

He goes on to elucidate how the world came to this.

“…the smart folks who made a living covering their tracks by wrapping a small mess in an ever bigger more complex mess, and who convinced themselves and everyone else that complexity equalled value got very, very, very good at doing just that. The financial instruments that were being sold were simply impossible to understand. Wall Street had Nobel Physicists writing formulas to make the world appear not only utterly complex but through that complexity to convince us that there was some unknown law of the universe at play guaranteeing that they had the insight inaccessible to us simple minded mortals”.

See what happens when you try to give the colour of innovation to speculative profiteering. We need real innovation and we need it now!

I put it together in 2004 for an internal Global HR initiative of Continental AG. Comments welcome.

Joel Delman, Los Angeles design director for Product Development Technologies(PDT) points out

Having already gained the lion’s share of  manufacturing work, countries like China and India are now focusing on building  their capabilities in the innovation and design phases of product development.  While some may dismiss the seriousness of this trend, we’d be naive to believe  that the United States has a monopoly on a creative workforce.

(read Cost vs. Quality: The Dangers of Outsourcing Design Overseas)

But what if we could partner instead of confronting each other? Might also help to water down Joel’s concerns about

[...] the potential for the United States to give up yet another  area for competitive advantage that, as a nation, is so critical to our  economic well-being. U.S. design and development firms have decades of experience in gaining insight into the needs of users and opportunities unmet in the marketplace. There’s much to be said for the  proven methodologies of research and design strategy practiced by creative  professionals here.

Partnering is about trust and transparency. Second, there must be identified complementarity (synergy if you may) for a partnership to sustain. Third, the equation has to provide for shared risk and shared reward.

Partnerships are like marriages. They need long-term, reciprocal commitments and a willingness to stick together to make things work. You don’t up and leave home one day just because your spouse didn’t cook your breakfast to your taste. The mindset needed for marriage is different from ‘shopping around’ for a better deal.

Say for example you need to design a product or a software solution. The outsourcing model would have you collect all requirements and put them together in the form of a Design Brief – what the IT guys call a Requirements Book. Next you would design the ‘product’, specify it and then look around for resources, internal as well as external, that could create prototypes for you to test. At that stage you would have to break up the work into tasks, some of which could be outsourced to a company that had the skills available. One of the most popular outsourcing tasks is CAD, basically drafting, where factories of bodies do the detailed drawings of your design. The drafting shop simply takes the design sketches, estimates the time required and puts a bunch of people on the job. These people do not need to understand anything about the product – they simply have to create the drawings.

In a partnership, while you were going about doing your part in your geography, your partner would be doing all the things that needed to go on simultaneously, including design sketches and drawings. Later on, when your partner’s market needed a similar product, he would be able to take the lead and ensure that local contexts are addressed.

I’ve always had a fascination for ‘framing’ birds and animals in motion. It’s tricky and if you get it right, far more dramatic than the real thing. Composition you can correct, lighting too to an extent … colours, Viva la Photoshopping! Timing however is a different matter and so is focus.

I got lucky on this occasion! Love the challenge of shooting birds in flight. Had to trash several photos of birds with clipped wings … literally. )

Godmen were around those days too, (their business model hasn’t changed) snaring people into their spiritual concoctions and exploiting India’s superstitious side. GUI was a term almost nobody had heard then. We in India still speak out the letters, not ‘gooey’ like the rest of the world does. Read it, like it, hate it, keep it, share it. Here goes …

…

India, at the end of History …

… is mystical and hi-tech.  Impoverished and affluent. A billion-strong society in a pulsating state of chaotic equilibrium. Cows and cars share city streets.  Superstitions abound and Godmen flourish.  We will show our palms to people who promise a peek at our destiny, or say they can chant away a terminal disease. We have much to learn, but the world can learn a great deal from us … 

To begin with, our developing Indian economy is burdened with the wealth of a myriad cultures and customs, without the means or the will to adapt them into contemporary contexts.  Tradition is adhered to in some instances, while in others entirely discarded in favor of foreign sensibilities. Today’s Indian psyche is but a potluck of priorities. We’ll compete in computer software tenders, yet throw our garbage into a neighbor’s backyard.  We’ll use a large chunk of our national resource to be a player in the arms race, but won’t invest in the design of a non-leak faucet.  We’ll welcome foreign qualification and disregard our own resident intelligences: Mother Teresa comes to alleviate sufferings of our poor, Sir Edwin Lutyens comes to plan our Capital city and Suzuki Motor Company comes to re-form our automobile industry.

Let’s understand then, that, to accomplish such an integration needs integrity. That customs coerce customisation.  That today fosters tomorrow.  Let’s look beyond our problem-solving (?) Godmen. All traditional pursuits have left room enough for variation — art allows individual interpretation.  Architecture allows re-arrangement of elements; and literature, hand-made paper, cane furniture, block printing, all encourage the user to invest emotions.  These are the elemental ingredients that design has to work into mass customisation.  In our need to browse through tomorrow today, a rich future lies in rediscovering the heritage we so easily write off.  I suggest, not only that design is a multi-cultural exchange of ideas but that “unselfish selfishness” should define our creativity. Through a futuristic retrovision that is assertively indifferent to the Godmen of our societies.

For centuries,Indiahas helped shape world thinking.  Concepts like “shunya” (Zero), “satyagraha” (Non-cooperative non-violence), “karma” (Motivation sans motive), and individuals such as Gautama Buddha, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Ravishankar, Zubin Mehta have stamped enduring impressions on the world’s cultures.  The alluring, hand-woven carpets of Kashmir, the exquisite pottery of Khurja and the scintillating silk sari of Kanchipuram, all demonstrate a prolific unity inIndia’s art, craft, technique and ability.

I am continually spurred-on by the possibilities that might emerge if we combine these portions of our native ethnic character with new global technologies.  If only we could liberate ourselves from the bondages of history — the world would have a chance to partake of our heritage. To aim to use design in a way that addresses ethnic sensibilities and provides the highest-possible degree of psychological well-being.  For example, we must move towards evolving a visual language for cross-cultural communication that pushes graphic-user-interface design toward a more reflective multi-cultural screen concept. If interfacing is to be seamless, we should take our cues from the accepted learning habits of the peoples of specific cultures  — and I am convinced that this can only be achieved in India through a concerted return to our native cultures.

Finally, consider the postal system, a highly standardized agency.  But who’s the user in the postal chain?  Historically, the answer has been the writer (and maybe the recipient), but such a method of addressing envelopes is selfish and ridiculous.  Until the letter reaches its destination, the “primary information” is the country or city — not the addressee.  Since we read from top to bottom (and left to right), the hierarchy should be:

USA, CA 94089
Sunnyvale
Chesapeake Terrace # 1327
frogdesign inc.
Mr/s. So & so.

Nothing could be more symbolic of the kind of “inversion thinking” that’s necessary for us to move past the apocryphal end of History, and into the uncharted prospects of the new millennium.  Indian society, even as it throws up issues and contradictions across classes, can be a potent contributor to this world direction.  I believe the occasion merits bringing together a forum of thinkers from across borders, sensibilities and disciplines — a global “think-bank” that can deposit, withdraw, negotiate and nurture ideas to yield a richer, more diverse and holistic designworld.

© Sunil Malhotra 1996.

————–

Also read Rage of a yoga teacher – an excellent piece by Chanakya in today’s Hindustan Times.

Read Seema Goswami’s Turning back the Clock (HT Brunch June 12, 2011)

His Holiness Dalai Lama’s keynote was topical and inspiring. He covered topics of compassion, Indian culture and its influence, education, environment, with equal ease.

Attended a panel discussion this morning at Teenmurti House, Jawaharlal Nehru’s residence, on “Nonviolence and Spiritual Values for a secular India”. This gathering was organised to mark the centenary of India’s former President, the late Shri. R Venkataraman.

Pictures of the Master — one of the greatest beings to walk the planet. Humility personified. His presence cleanses.

Reportage: 3rd April, 2011

1. DNA –  Tibetan Plateau degradation
2. Economic Times – India can lead the world
3. Indian Express – Preserve ethos of non-violence

Excerpts:
1/ We have unforeseen number of software tools and technologies available to support these flows. Still it is primarily not about the tools and processes. Most of all it is about an attitude – an attitude of the individuals forming a team, working group, or an organization.

2/ “Systems Intelligence (SI) involves the ability to use the human sensibilities of systems and reasoning about systems in order to adaptively carry out productive actions within and with respect to systems.”

These are not bad times. It’s just that the race for mindless material acquisition took over the Western world that chose greed over need; spending over saving; self over society; independence over interdependence. The consequences are here for the world to see. The rest of the world has been going about our lives — business as usual — while all America has been doing is screaming or waiting for something good to ‘happen’.

I echo the sentiments of Jennifer Hill in her comment — “There is no more frontier to exploit so now we must learn to adapt and cooperate with the planet and one another. Sort of a new internal frontier – one of position as citizen of the world – we need compassionate and connected, not distanced and transactional.”
The American economic model focused on opportunity and individual enterprise, which may have been a good thing to begin with; anything in excess has the power to destroy. It became dangerous when it became fashionable for ‘individual’ wealth to come at the cost of the larger society — world society. Instead of ‘bringing together the people’, it took them farther apart. ‘Skills and knowledge needed to ensure growth, social development and a just and sustainable world’ are now strewn over every continent. Time to reboot the old models.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost