Casa mia, casa mia
Per piccina che tu sia
Tu mi sembri una Badia,
Casa mia, casa mia, casa mia.
Traditional text set in 1908 by
Giacomo Puccini (1858-1924)
(My home, my home
However small you are
To me you seem a palace,
My home, my home, my home.)
One part of collaboration (not the only one) is trusting your co-conspirators. A classic puzzle that explores this is a game called the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Imagine that you and a partner have been caught committing a crime. There's not enough evidence to convict either of you of a major offense, so if you both stick to your alibis, you will both get a light sentence (say, six months). If you rat out your partner, and he says nothing, you will go free, and he will get ten years; vice versa if he rats you out. (If you rat each other out, you both go to jail for five years). It's possible to work together in this situation (by not betraying your partner), but it's more likely that you won't collaborate. It looks like a better deal for you to betray your partner, no matter what he does, because you will get less jail time.
That's an interesting game, and a good thing to remember if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law. There's a slightly more complicated version, however, that's more relevant to life on the outside: the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD). The original game is a one-off: you and your partner play a single round, making a single choice to cheat or not. In the iterated version, you play over and over again, which gives you the chance to punish or reward your partner's past behavior. You have a chance of establishing a relationship and consequences. So what do you do now, cheat or play fair?
In his 1984 book, The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod described one winning answer to that question. Axelrod launched a contest in which people entered computer programs that played IPD against each other. Each program played the part of a single prisoner in the dilemma. Mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport submitted a program with four lines of code that won the contest. He called it Tit-for-Tat, and its strategy was this: start out playing fair, and then do whatever your partner did last time.
Axelrod described Tit-for-Tat's success as follows:
The flaw in this winning strategy is the danger of the retaliatory spiral. This is the stuff of wars and feuds. The solution is to inject a bit of random kindness into the mix. This is enough to prevent the death-trap.
Another set of 'rules' for negotiation and collaboration underscore this tough fairness. In collaboration, one works on a project and the relationship with fellow collaborators. In the best collaboration scenarios, one places a high value on both the relationship and the project. When one values the project more than the relationship, one becomes domineering and argumentative. When one values the relationship more than the project, one tends to over-accommodate the other's wishes. When one values neither the project nor the relationship, resignation and apathy result.
Collaboration = high value relationship + high value project
Domination = low value relationship + high value project
Accommodation = high value relationship + low value project
Resignation = low value relationship + low value project
Does this help explain past experiences you have had in collaboration and negotiation? Can you see patterns in your own or other's behavior? How can you work with someone you dislike or disagree with? Should we bother? What is the value in negotiation and collaboration?
Thomas Edison's Lab in Edison, NJ
"...Thomas Edison, had the right idea: "Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility and utility is success," he told his associates in perhaps his most important invention -- the commercial laboratory. "We can't be like those German professors who spend their whole lives studying the fuzz on a bee," he said. Generating ideas is important, but it's pointless unless there is a repeatable process in place to turn inspiration into financial performance."
A.G. Lafley and Ram Charan. The Game Changer: How Every Leader Can Drive Everyday Innovation
How will your useful and unique product/process/system be used by individuals, corporations, municipalities, markets, countries and the world? Your idea may make lots of money for a company (apple ipod), create an ecological nightmare (plastic grocery bags), or solve a public health problem (lifestraw).
What are your dreams (or fears) about innovation? How do you see your ideas changing the way things are done and what is possible? Do you feel that economics and market forces are the final determinants of innovative good? Over what time span do we measure the benefits and consequences of innovation? Who should be held responsible for anticipating and mitigating possible side effects and long-term effects? How do you define and measure your bottom line?
Process surrounds us. In the natural world we see the results of consistent action on the earth. Process can supply a structure against which the artist can push further and build higher, or can create a standard, brand-worthy product. Process supplies consistency of product, sequence or discipline. Process is powerful and when tapped can have an enormous impact.
Grand Canyon
This is a result of the forces of erosion and uplift applied over the course of 6-17 million years.
Krispy Kreme
The factory store assembly line creates consistent, branded doughnuts. Part of the allure of a Krispy Kreme shop is the revelation of process.
Jackson Pollock
Pollock (1912-1956) also had a process. This he developed on his own through trial and error and refinement. This process allowed him to create an astonishing body of work in a short period of time.
How do you define process? Is it a discipline, a ritual, a safety belt? Is it a limitation or an amplifier? Is it about consistency or freedom or something else entirely?
Is process something you can borrow from others? Is a tailor-made process necessary? Is there one true ideal process to be used for all tasks, or does the process change to meet the problem to be solved?
Does having an intentional and recognized process make you a better designer? How and why (or not)?
Image via inhabitat.
Isn't this impressive? This structure is called Ziggurat, the latest design of the Dubai-based environmental design firm Timelinks. The structure, visually stunning in its design and scale, is also supposedly "capable of running completely off the grid by utilizing steam, wind, other natural resources and a super efficient public transportation system that runs both horizontally and vertically". This is certainly a project that we should pay particular attention to, for its technology may some day change the way we live here at home. (Take a moment to read a little bit on it and see another great image.)
Now, what does it remind you of?
Maybe?
Pyramid of the Moon @ Teotihuacan, Mexico. Image by Alberto Rigau.
Or possibly?
Pyramids @ Giza, Egypt. Image via Thinking About Innovation.
It is no surprise that designers of today would gather inspiration from great masterpieces of the past. Throughout design history there has been a tendency to appropriate, or make some else's ideas your own through reinterpretation.
What do you think of this? Why is it important for designers to always create original ideas? Why not? Do you think that using this strategy of appropriation is pertinent within today's contemporary design scene?