Hey Corporate America, Please Pass The Mashed Potatoes!!!

Pattern #11

The Shared Table

The shared table is the core metaphor for how work is done. The table convenes the team.

Read more...

Every corporation in the Fortune 500 has been undertaking some form of “digital transformation” for the past decade. It could be that 10% of them may even have some clear idea of what that means. (Sadly, we’re probably being generous.) Perhaps they are still trying to get ecommerce right (!); maybe they are trying to mobile-enable their workforce…again; undoubtedly, they continue to grapple with their digital marketing funnel and the complexities of an ever-elusive social media strategy. Truthfully, it isn’t easy—marrying legacy business processes to contemporary consumer behavior can be a real riddle, and one that requires some serious corporate soul-searching. When it comes to employee productivity, however, there is an easy breakthrough that shockingly few companies have adopted: true virtual document collaboration. Colloquially, this is known as Google Docs. 

Unlike other workplace productivity suites (ahem, Microsoft), Google Docs is designed from the ground up as a place of true collaboration, a virtual space where co-workers can jointly author presentations, build documents side-by-side, examine and adjust spreadsheet variables in multiple cells simultaneously. “Version control” becomes a concept that is no longer relevant. “Backing up” is no longer necessary. Email attachments are moot. All in all, it’s a prime example of a pattern of work that we call “the shared table.” Only now, instead of “please pass the mashed potatoes,” it’s “can you make some edits on slides 10–20, while I work on the intro?” It is so powerful, so transformative and so easy. So what is holding these companies back? It’s no exaggeration to say they are stuck in the productivity dark ages. (And please don’t point to poor approximations like Microsoft 365 or shared document repositories like Box as viable alternatives. They simply aren’t.)

Most corporate gatekeepers (many of them Microsoft certified) will point to security concerns as the main hurdle, but based on what evidence? The current preponderance of ransomware attacks that are shutting down entire cities are born of security flaws in Microsoft software. Nevertheless, loosening Microsoft’s contractual grip on large enterprises has been no small challenge for Google; a challenge that is as much about brand perception as product security. And speaking of digital transformation, Microsoft seems incapable of getting out of its own way to launch a document collaboration solution that actually works. 

In the end, however, it is a matter of adopting new behavior: being willing to sit at the shared table, to expose the messiness of the creative process, to accept a new level of input from your colleagues, to author as a team and not just as an individual. These are the real cultural requirements of digital transformation—and remain far too rare in the jungle of legacy corporate behaviors.

Now, excuse me while I share this doc with my co-author to see if he can make it better.


IBM Design Lab

Pattern #10

Dynamic Space

Workspace design reflects culture. It also shapes it. The design of most workspaces is fixed. Static space reinforces a fixed mindset. Dynamic space adapts to support new ways of working.

Read more...

IBM_design_lab.jpg

Breakthrough transformation is rare in business. Abundant systemic problems usually stand in the way: business units at war with one another; IT organizations that wield governance as whip and chain; creative agencies that create redundant and conflicting strategies in a drive to out-do one another. IBM Design Lab, which opened in April 2012 in midtown Manhattan, achieved several breakthroughs at once. The lab brought IBM’s marketing and IT departments together into a shared undertaking, building trust and understanding. Small, empowered teams were fashioned from outside agencies and IBM talent and coached on agile methods as a common language of work. Dynamic, creative and charged with energy, some of the most powerful learnings came from the physical space itself.

Like the teams who worked there, the lab had to bootstrap itself into existence. Just weeks before its opening came news that the furniture would not arrive in time. The team built their own from plywood sheets and table legs from a nearby Home Depot. It set the tone for what followed. The lab was in a constant state of flux. There was little that was fixed to the floor. The teams rearranged the foam boards and space dividers as the work changed. It was their space— a powerful prop for the culture of resourcefulness, creativity and learning we wanted to nurture.

At a moment when IBM and its clients were struggling to assert leadership, the lab seemed to light a path forward. IBM’s CEO was a frequent visitor. Hundreds of clients came for tours. IBM’s consulting division bottled and sold the lab, and built its own, lab-like approach to client engagements. A network of IBM Studios—physical facilities inspired by what the lab had pioneered—opened up around the world. IBM’s entire marketing organization of 5,000 people declared their commitment to agile methods. Across marketing, product and engineering teams, the company increasingly requires physical co-location.

The lab itself only lasted two years. We opened a second, bigger and far more expensive facility in the East Village. It was serviceable enough. But it failed to capture the bootstrapped magic of the original. The lab’s pioneers moved on, many of them profoundly changed by the extraordinary and intense experience they had shared. And the ideas on which the lab was built—small and empowered teams, agile methods, and the deep integration of creativity and technology—continue to grow more powerful and urgent.