Business Design: A Misnomer

eight-ball

I just came from IDEO’s Tim Brown’s blog, Design Thinking, post on “A Curriculum for Business Design” and I can see his want to emphasize the need for design, but he misses the point.

I think the word “design” is becoming too much of a “to a hammer, every problem is a nail” conundrum. Every problem is not a design problem.  Business is very diverse.  What I would like to see is the following curriculum:

Business Science Inductive (Problems and Visions)
Business Science Deductive (Entrepreneurship and Leadership)
Business Design (Climates and Trends)
Business Engineering (Location and Movement)
Business Skill (Innovation and Professionalism)
Business Training (Imitation and Apprenticeship)
Business Education (Memorization and Theory)
Business Networking (Fraternity and Sorority)
Business Products (Culturing and Manufacturing)
Business Services (Sharing and Caring)
Business Marketing (Branding and Pricing)
Business Transactions (Closing and Accounting)

Design plays a part in solving every problem, but not every part of a problem is a design problem.

Let’s instill the diversity of business with design as part of the solution, not the only solution.

Oh, and if you call a problem an “issue”, that is another misnomer.  Problems are scientific and can be solved.  Issues are political and can never be solved.

Evolution: We Are All The Fittest

phyla

When you look at the above phylogenetic chart you can see how the species are differentiated.  However, there is another thing you should recognize.  There is both an evolutionary tree and a chain of being.  Left wing scientists tirelessly try to deny the chain of being, right wing scientists relentlessly try to deny the evolutionary tree.  Every phylia that is alive today is alive because it is fit to be alive today.  We are all the latest innovation at the end of our branch of the single evolutionary tree we all belong to.  A bacterium is just as evolved as you are.  It has taken just as many billions of years for it to be fit to survive in today’s environment as you.  However, humans are the most evolved beings.  And evolution is continuing, we are not the end product, just the current version.  Our offspring, irregardless of species are better adapted than we are to deal with whatever the environment throws at us.  Our children are not our descendants they are our ascendants.

The biggest mistake the Chinese ever made was to worship their ancestors.  This destroyed the creativity of the Chinese people.  We, the entire world must worship our children and apologize to our children for the mistakes we make.  We must not burn our money to provide for our ancestors in heaven.  We must invest our money into the future of our children.  We must not hold elaborate funerals, we must celebrate every birth.  Not our place in death in the past, but the place of our children in the future must be our goal and our heaven.

As Desiderata says, “You are a child of the Universe.  No less than the stars and the trees, you have a right to be here.”

Our responsibility is to recognize everyone and everything else has a right to be here, too.

Happy Mother’s Day.

My Inc.: Organization without the Organization

charles-leadbeater

Organization without the Organization.  Charles Leadbeater discusses how collaboration works in the Web 2.0 world.  Click on the image to watch the still very relevant 2005 TED.com video.

I see what Charles says as a harbinger of what is to come.  Closed source is not the answer.  Open source cannot feed us.  The middle ground: My Inc., personal corporation, is the key.

Link:

Dimension: Nikon Universcale

Nikon has developed what I consider the best representation of base ten exponential representation I have ever seen.

Universcale allows you to navigate a two dimensional Base 10 landscape linearly.

I see the possibility here to develop a visual model to linearly navigate any pair of exponential scales.

I can also see the possibility to develop a visual model to tabularly navigate any pair of exponential scales.

Truly a brilliant innovation that deserves to be extended to its fullest potential.

I highly recommend a visit.

Link:

25 Bubbles: Information Technology

big_bubbles_blossom

1. Service Oriented Architecture will create more problems than it will solve

2. Relational databases have reached the end of their innovative value

3. Object oriented programming is based on a fictional ontology

4. Unified Modeling Language is incapable of abstracting systems

5. Current enterprise architectures are conceptually naive

6. The world wide web is 80 percent data slum surrounding 20 percent data excess

7. The majority of communication on the internet has no goal or purpose

8. Business uses information technology to demonstrate due diligence and then ignores it

9. Merging scientific databases is useless because they have no consistent metrics

10. The central processing unit is an inefficient and ineffective brute force antique

11. Data has never been accurately and precisely represented, understood or stored

12. We do not understand the information technology of genetics

13. We do not understand the information technology of chemistry

14. We do not understand the information technology of physics

15. Information technology is simply a popular metaphor not the reality of the universe

16. Computerized climatological models have no predictive capability at all; our understanding of climate change is hindsight

17. Weather prediction is based on satellite images not computer modeling

18. Computer scientists have no idea what consciousness is nor does anyone else

19. Business models and data models are like oil and water
20. Silicon Valley and every corporation affiliated with it will not save the world

21. Science does not have its rightful place in information technology

22. Little information technology involves design, most of it is craft

23. Calling a programmer an engineer does not make a programmer an engineer

24. Calling a programmer a designer does not make a programmer a designer

25. There is hope, but the people who got us here definitely will not get us there

Scott Berkun: The Myths of Innovation

innovation

(image credit: steuben.com)

One of my regular practices is to reread books that I consider of high quality.  The Myths of Innovation by Scott Berkun was a great first read and now as I am working out my methodology and framework for my company, I decided to give it another go.

Scott’s book is great because, as someone attempting to innovate, I need the myths dispelled.  Innovation’s success depends upon your environment and persistence more than anything and Scott confirms that again and again with examples that dig deeper than the psuedo history of popular culture.

I highly recommend Scott’s book.

Universe: Interrogative Spaces

iconuniverse14

In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts.  What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework.  My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.

The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace.  Each ellipse I call a “vortice”.  The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices.  The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives,  but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces?   A good example is speed or velocity.  Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:

v = r / t

Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.

If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:

a = r / t’ * t”

Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock.  You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces.  .

Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets.  The first row are the complete Space vortice sets.  The second row are the first Space vortice subsets.  The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.

I do not believe that anything is constant.  Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology.  Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique.  We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.