‘The future… doesn’t arrive all at once.’
—Sid Mead, futurist, visionary, creator of Bladerunner

Booting up a PC

When we first boot up a PC, we take a step back in time.

The very first instructions that a PC executes when powered up are, in computing terms, ancient history. Called the Instruction Set, they were etched into the modern PC’s chip by its distant ancestor decades ago, like hieroglyphics on a pyramid chamber wall. And like hieroglyphics, they are understood by the very few.

The next step a PC takes is to invoke its Microcode. Microcode is fascinating. When a PC first flips on, it is phenomenally stupid. It has no memory, no instructions to execute and isn’t even aware of what devices it is connected to.

It’s a little like the film Memento. The computer wakes with no memory and a few arcane instructions written onto its hand. These very few instructions tell it how to follow more instructions, and so on until the computer gradually becomes less stupid. It all starts with these microscopically small lines of code invoking the 1978 Instruction Set.

The majority of the Microcode is written by the designers and engineers of the chip. So the PC starts to run code from a chip designed a few years ago, but running an instruction set from a time where Jimmy Carter is one year in, the Berlin wall is yet to come down, no-one has heard of the internet, and MC Hammer is 10 years away from being famous.

Forward to the BIOS

So the modern Microcode tells the PC to load the BIOS. Suddenly we leap forward in time to 2005, in the case of my home PC, to when the BIOS was written.

Invoking the BIOS is a little like putting the PC into a coma state.
The basic things like breathing and heart rate get started but that is all. In other words, there’s power on in the basement but nothing on in the control room. The BIOS also tells the PC where its arms and legs are (or where its keyboard and screen are), and how much memory it has and so on.

Back to DOS

Then the BIOS tells the PC to load DOS. Now we really jump back. Suddenly it’s 1982, I am 12 and Spandau Ballet’s ‘True’ is top of the charts.

Actually DOS was written way back in the seventies and changed very little after about 1995. It’s a quick simple language that allows the PC to load a modern operating system like Windows 7. Hence its original name ‘QDOS’ which stood for ‘Quick and Dirty Operating System.’ That lasted until Bill Gates acquired it for Microsoft, and changed the letter ‘D’ to mean ‘Disk,’ presumably for commercial reasons.

So DOS loads, sets a few environment variables, loads whatever version of Windows, and we’re transported to somewhere in the aughties. It’s taken us 45 seconds to come 30 years. But it’s not over yet.

Forward to Windows

Windows 7 is itself a mishmash of inherited components, device drivers and other stuff. Some parts of it are very modern. Other parts are years old.

For example, if you’re unlucky enough to use Explorer 6 as your browser, you’re basically using a badly restored antique which has been nailed to another badly restored antique. Explorer 6 is a kludge of old browser code, tacked-on components and obsolete modules. Firefox, Chrome and the new Explorers were all rewritten from the ground up, but still have to navigate an internet that was designed decades ago.

Back to the internet

No matter which browser you use, you are using a system running on TCP/IP which was designed in the early 70‘s and perfected in 1983, accessing a modern webpage which contains a markup language first designed in 1990, plus CSS first introduced in 1994, and javascript (1994).

It’s a veritable UN-building’s-worth of mismatching languages, out of date protocols, and well-meaning inefficiency.

Why?

So it begs the question, how on earth could our most advanced technology actually be such a shockingly complex, inefficient system?

The answer lies in how new technology arrives.

People often think new technology replaces the old. In reality it rarely does. To Sid Mead’s point, the problem is that it arrives, but not all at once.

New technology has– to some extent– to be compatible with the past. So rather than replace it, it often lays over the old system and encapsulates it. In doing this, it has a firm foundation but it also means it inherits some of the characteristics of the old technology.

It’s exactly the same process with trees. Every year a ‘new’ tree encapsulates the old tree like an overcoat, yet it relies on the old tree to support this new layer. Every knot, branch and imperfection is reproduced by each successive layer.

This process of encapsulation is prevalent everywhere in technology. The question of what encapsulates what is absolutely essential to the growth and/or failure of a technology.

When a technology is encapsulated by another, it stops or slows in development. The technology dies or becomes fossilized. We move on. This is because the ‘new technology’ layer requires that nothing changes in the old layer, in case it stops functioning.

When Windows 3.0 arrived it wasn’t really a new operating system. It was basically still using DOS commands, but had a cosmetic layer of graphics over the top. Windows was pulling the levers, but the work was still being done by DOS behind the curtain.

But the moment this happened, DOS became fossilized. DOS couldn’t change significantly because it had become encapsulated in Windows. Windows developed, DOS remained still. We moved on.

Nowadays the players have changed but the game is the same. There is a belief that the browser and cloud will encapsulate desktop software as in Chromebooks. There is also a belief that social media will be encapsulated into search, as +1 recently showed. Perhaps paid media will be encapsulated by social media. I don’t have the answers. But the overall dynamics of the marketplace are clear.

Life is a layer

This process of reiterative encapsulation is so pervading, it can even describe our life and place in the universe. The fact that 98% of our DNA seems to have no function, seems to point to a similar process going on in human development.

Just like the inner older rings in a tree, we are the product of our latest layer of DNA technology, but the old stuff still remains. The term ‘Junk DNA’ is a little misleading because in the same way the old layers of tree are vitally important to the current tree, this ‘Junk’ has made us what we are. It’s not Junk. Perhaps they are just old layers of code.

So, here’s the point: life is a layer. All life on earth can be seen as a string of encapsulations. Elements were encapsulated into compounds, and those compounds became encapsulated into more complex compounds, then proteins became encapsulated into DNA, DNA into cells, cells became encapsulated into multicellular life and these life forms began a highly accelerated form of adaptive encapsulation called evolution.

Given the scale of all these events, it’s difficult to state conclusively that humans are the last stage of this.

It is clear that something is going on here. It’s tempting to think we are slowly arranging ourselves into something more complex, wonderful and greater than our sum. But it is equally difficult to imagine that we would be able to see it, in the same way that an individual cell cannot comprehend it is part of a Jellyfish.

But, if one could view the world with different eyes, say eyes that respond to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. You would see biological life in all its exotic complexity – but you would also see a huge, highly complex global brain of electrical connections spanning the earth like silk filaments, encapsulating the thoughts and activities of the creatures that live in it.

The observer might well conclude that this Being, and not the Human Being, is the real life on Earth.

Over the last few years I dedicated my ‘extra’ time to understanding and cultivating the theory, articles and case studies surrounding propagation planning. I shared everything I learned on my Blog. By sharing, others contributed and the ideas got better.

Sharing and generosity are very important in the advertising industry today. They make all of us better. As they say, “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

Edward Boches, who is in the process of formalizing propagation planning at Mullen, wrote a great post this week asking a provocative question, “Do you give content away because you want credit?” For me, I give content away to become a member of the club. A club of strategic planning minds that contribute everyday to a greater collective. This club is made up of so many people that I couldn’t possibly name them all here… but you know who you are.

So I was thrilled when Mark Lewis and the Planning-Ness conference asked if Mike Monello (Co-Founder at Campfire) and I would share our thoughts on propagation planning. I hope that you can take something away from this deck and inspire your creative and social media teams to develop work that gets spread.

(Best viewed by clicking MENU and FULL SCREEN)

This bunch of charts comes from a BBH session at a recent conference organized by The Bellwether Group in New York. The subject of the day was ‘Creativity and content creation in a digital age”. So something of a wide canvas….

My start point was the realization of how intimidated I felt speaking on the topic – and the further realization that this intimidation stemmed not just from personal neurosis or the breadth/complexity of the subject (although all that applied), but that I was also intimidated because there’s already so much great comment and advice in this area available. It’s one of the interesting by-products of an age of such extraordinary pace of change that we’re all frantically trying to keep learning, keep up to date, keep pace – and as a result there’s a whole slew of people working to satisfy that desire with tips and advice. Every day brings a deluge of advice and input on digital marketing/comms/business-building.

My observation is that although so much of this advice and comment is truly fantastic, the flip-side is that within all the rush and deluge we are sometimes accepting and sharing – at speed and at face-value – assertions that maybe should bear closer examination and qualification. Perhaps all these assertions we read in the latest expert tweet or in the headline of that skimmed article are all broadly right – but maybe not in all circumstances, not right for all brands, not right in every dimension. Perhaps there’s a slightly more precise story to tell (see our recent post on a similar theme examining participation).

So that’s where this presentation came from. And why it’s called ‘Yes. But…’ I note a number widely accepted truths about creative best practice in a digital age – and, without disagreeing with any of them, suggest that they might benefit from a little qualification. My contention is that – for example – escalating consumer control of brands is of course a real phenomenon, but it doesn’t absolve brand owners of deep responsibility for brand leadership and, yes, still a degree of brand control. Or that ’360 degree marketing’ is a good clarion call, until you start wondering if it really is right that the most powerful communication solutions really do always have to be deployable in every single channel, with every weapon available in our communication arsenal.

Any comment or argument is greatly appreciated.

For some reason, the dominant conversation around media’s ongoing evolution concerns its fragmentation. Yes. Ok, it’s fragmented. What isn’t discussed enough is that the critical impact of said fragmentation is directly tied to brand behavior, not the difficulty of reaching and engaging audiences. How a brand behaves is now intrinsically linked to media environments. In fact, separating the content from the channel is becoming an impossible (and irrelevant) task. Think about music. Is music the same as it’s always been, just now distributed in “digital form”? Anyone following the evolution of music knows that music has fundamentally changed as a result of digital distribution. Not just the music industry; music itself. The impact of how it’s consumed (isolated from the context of an album, in varied interpretations and in environments not dedicated to “listening”) has literally changed what artists create. We’re just beginning to see the same thing with literature as a result of e-books. The content is impacted by the channel.  It’s why Twittering isn’t “micro-blogging.” It’s Twittering. The content is different because of the channel.

As a result, we’ve been spending a lot of time at BBH New York recently rethinking the role of media across the organization. Specifically, we’ve been formalizing processes and deliverables enhancing its function as a fully embedded creative & strategic discipline. Media at BBH consists of the overlapping practices of Media Planning/Buying, Engagement Planning and Media Design*.  This happens because the role of media as an expertise is exceptionally broad.

In fact, we view media as much as an input as an output. The following four roles of media require a specific mix of skills we try to develop, and create accountability around.  We’ve illustrated each by work we didn’t create, but have tremendous respect for as an agency.

1) Media as creative context

There are times an environment is clearly relevant for a brand. The example du jour is Facebook, so let’s use it. Your brand has an established promise or idea platform. The issue is how to relevantly manifest that idea within Facebook. After all, Facebook is an exceptionally human and responsive environment and there’s a chasm to cross for most brands that have one-way missions or are inherently asocial. It’s a gap of context. Now that brands have to play in others’ backyards more often than ever, it seems necessary to have an expertise in-house dedicated to telling them what’s appropriate. This is generally “solved” via something like a social media expert. I think those roles are critically important (we have them here), but the ability to translate ideas into context is a very specific—and I would argue critical—skill. It’s not just about “getting” the environment. It’s about being able to fill the blank slate of opportunity it provides. This is a creative skill rooted in media sensibility, which is likely why it’s rarely nurtured and developed at agencies. Recently, two critical social media features were announced that didn’t get nearly enough attention: the evolution of the Like button to a 2-way conversation, and the ability for non-Twitter users to receive tweets via SMS. It’s important to understand who’s accountable for ideas that capitalize on these huge opportunities.

Let’s take a look at a beautiful example of this role of media outside of social: Uniqlo’s Lucky Switch effort. The program allowed people to click on an embedded widget to change all advertising on a blog page into “lucky tickets,” eligible for Uniqlo products like tote bags. This is an idea that takes an environment that’s really valuable (non e-commerce digital properties) and self-creates an opportunity for relevant, highly valuable messaging. Simple, brilliant and the type of work we admire in its forward media thinking.

2) Media as building blocks

“Engagement Planning” is a term that gets used in a lot of different ways. We’ve always seen it as how a particular idea is assembled via experiences. As those experiences take place via media more and more often, it’s helpful to start thinking of media as the building blocks for ideas. This is a distinct skill from channel planning, which can be done in absence of an idea. Engagement Planning here is about deconstructing ideas into their relevant pieces and architecting how they combine to form a whole.

As it relates to digital media, this regularly involves intelligent and creative application of the 1:9:90 rule (or as we call it “the YouTube rule”). If 1% of the audience drives the experience, 9% participates, and 90% just consumes, wouldn’t a brand want to understand each stratum of people, and how the experience could fit them appropriately? In fact, they should likely put specific thought into engaging the valuable 1% and 9%, respectively. That’s happening more and more lately (insert the daily Old Spice kudos here), which is a great sign that we’re starting to think of media more intelligently (i.e., creatively) as an industry. It’s the engineering of creativity that we’ve made “media people” accountable for. It quickly gets us past the archaic belief of “media neutral” and into what our friend Gareth Kay at GS&P would call “media positive.”

3) Media as a consumer lens

One of the most basic, yet often neglected, media skills is the ability to use media culture as a lens for consumer insights. Agencies and clients spend incredible amounts of money on quantitative and qualitative research in search of game-changing insights. Yet they fail to capitalize on one of the largest, most important sources of consumer data: media culture.

One of my (everyone’s?) favorite pieces of work last year was Burger King’s Whopper Sacrifice. The work is a brilliant example of learning a consumer truth (at any given time people are Facebook friends with people they don’t want to be) by participating in a medium, then clearly delivering value in a way inherent to the environment.  In fact, CP+B regularly strikes a relevant cultural chord, I think because of their innate ability to use media as a lens (and some might say a crystal ball on a good day).

I’ve always felt it was easier to have a fundamental understanding of a specific audience spending 5 hours inside the media culture of an audience (their entertainment content, their responses, their blogs, their comments, etc) than poring over the response data of formal research. It doesn’t replace any existing tools, but it certainly adds to the list—at no cost. So, shouldn’t agencies purposefully hone the skills that allow them to glean insights from such a treasure trove? These insights can lead to fundamental changes in the brand promise, or simply allow us to ride a wave of emerging opportunity.

4) Media as creative R&D

Most marketers still approach their marketing with a masterpiece mentality, building toward a big reveal in the form an expensive media “launch.” Certainly that approach is still relevant in many scenarios, but it represents a traditional media mentality incongruous to how dynamic the modern media landscape is.

What if marketers instead borrowed from LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman’s mentality that, “if you’re not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late”? Wouldn’t we want to place lots of strategic bets with a plan in place to nurture those that are meeting success criteria, while calculatedly retiring those that aren’t? Masterpieces would still exist, but they’d be built over time, rather than revealed like an art piece.

This is a rare ability, requiring a balance of scenario planning & creativity. Brands that do it well don’t advertise it (no one is talking about Old Spice’s Odor Blocker effort because they intelligently invested resources on what was working and away from what wasn’t), but it’s a specific skill to be able to construct a constantly evolving, rolling “launch.” It’s a beta approach to execution that requires an intimate knowledge of media environments coupled with the creativity to see their potential. Finding the right level of tactical development for each environment within the framework of the overall plan is a skill that can only be developed over time with various types of real-world experience.

Most agencies will simply look at such a diverse role of media as a philosophy, but it’s skills and processes that ensure your brands are living the philosophy. Leveraging media this way requires a calculated investment in the subjective, grey area of strategic and creative talent development. At BBH New York, we’ve begun formalizing various activities to accomplish the following:

• Ensure the media expertise is never organized or managed as a “department”
• Make media talent explicitly accountable for tactical creative outputs
• Formalize media culture’s input into the creative briefing process
• Task the same individuals with distinctly different roles by project
• Assume media expertise is a prerequisite for any agency discipline

Regardless of these adjustments to processes and responsibilities, one simple fact determines success: the ability to find talent capable of using media so diversely. Luckily, junior talent in our industry is naturally brimming with this ability.

The tough part is finding those who haven’t had it squeezed out of them by our collective agency processes and structures.

—

* Media design is a concept co-developed by a number of people, but specific credit must be given to Apple’s Scott Witt & Leo Burnett’s PJ MacGregor

This week is Internet Week in New York.

On Tuesday, Boulder Digital Works (I’m lucky enough to be on the Advisory Board there) hosted an evening at the Art Director’s Club called ‘Evolve!’ at which they launched their neat new website (created by Modernista!) – take a look at: http://bdw.colorado.edu/, it’s very cool. There were a number of short presentations from some BDW board members, including Scott Witt (just recently moved to a new role as Creative Director at Apple), Shane Steele (just recently moved to be be VP Global B2B Marketing at Yahoo!) & Scott Prindle, Technical Director at CPB in Boulder. I tagged along and got my ten minute slot.

I thought I’d use it to highlight why we need places like Boulder Digital Works in the first place. In short, to produce a new breed of hybrid creative; what we call ‘T-shaped people’ – awesome in (at least) one area, plus highly collaborative and at least literate in many other things. So blending both the right skills and the right attitude. Far too often the latter – an appetite for all things open and collaborative, a readiness to leave ego at the door  - is sacrificed at the expense (frequently, the *great* expense) of simply importing people with new skills.

In addition to sketching out why these hybrid people are so important in creating new forms of creative product, I briefly touch upon the importance of the agency implementing the right kind of ’operating system’ (the processes, values and culture within a company) if the fancy new ’software’ is going to run smoothly. If the operating system is outdated, even the most impressive software is redundant. I show, in one slide, an overview of how BBH in New York is approaching the re-engineering of it’s OS.

Would love to know what you think, and what your experiences are of finding, working with, managing and retaining T-shaped people. The future surely belongs to them.

For best viewing view on slideshare (this link takes you right there), where you can see embedded film & speaker notes; I have added the latter into the first comment there.

In a recent BBH Labs post (Wind Tunnel Marketing, The Sequel: On the Need for Divergent Insight) that talked about the need for divergent thinking and stimulus in approaching problem solving (& creative ideation), Chaz Wigley, the Chairman of BBH in Asia Pacific, mentioned how the CIA‘s (I’ve always wanted to link to the CIA) Problem Definition Checklist provoked precisely this kind of approach; rounded, many-faceted, flexible.

These questions are known as “context-free questions” and are designed “to encourage agents to look at a challenge from many different angles. Using Phoenix is like holding your challenge in your hand. You can turn it, look at it from underneath, see it from one view, hold it up to another position, imagine solutions, and really be in control of it” (see the excellent, if chewy, paper on Exploring Exploratory Testing, for more here).

We now have from Chaz not only the list of questions the CIA use to define problems, but also (thanks to Iqbal Mohammed) the follow-up list they use to develop the plan. Which seems kind of important too.

My personal favourite question in the problem definition list is the somewhat open-ended: ‘what isn’t the problem?’.

Enjoy.

–

THE PROBLEM

Why is it necessary to solve the problem?
What benefits will you receive by solving the problem?
What is the unknown?
What is it you don’t yet understand?
What is the information you have?
What isn’t the problem?
Is the information sufficient? Or is it insufficient? Or redundant? Or contradictory?
Should you draw a diagram of the problem? A figure?
Where are the boundaries of the problem?
Can you separate the various parts of the problem? Can you write them down? What are the relationships of the parts of the problem? What are the constants of the problem?
Have you seen this problem before?
Have you seen this problem in a slightly different form? Do you know a related problem?
Try to think of a familiar problem having the same or a similar unknown
Suppose you find a problem related to yours that has already been solved. Can you use it? Can you use its method?
Can you restate your problem? How many different ways can you restate it? More general? More specific? Can the rules be changed?
What are the best, worst and most probable cases you can imagine?

THE PLAN

Can you solve the whole problem? Part of the problem?
What would you like the resolution to be? Can you picture it?
How much of the unknown can you determine?
Can you derive something useful from the information you have?
Have you used all the information?
Have you taken into account all essential notions in the problem?
Can you separate the steps in the problem-solving process? Can you determine the correctness of each step?
What creative thinking techniques can you use to generate ideas? How many different techniques?
Can you see the result? How many different kinds of results can you see?
How many different ways have you tried to solve the problem?
What have others done?
Can you intuit the solution? Can you check the result?
What should be done? How should it be done?
Where should it be done?
When should it be done?
Who should do it?
What do you need to do at this time?
Who will be responsible for what?
Can you use this problem to solve some other problem?
What is the unique set of qualities that makes this problem what it is and none other?
What milestones can best mark your progress?
How will you know when you are successful?

(Dieter Rams, 1980 speech to Braun supervisory board, from his Design Museum profile)

There can’t be many more legendary & respected designers around today than Dieter Rams. For over 50 years Rams has been one of the most influential industrial designers around, producing elegant, stripped-down and flawlessly balanced everyday objects in such enduring forms that one is hard-pressed to identify a design of his that hasn’t stood the test of time.

Electric shaver, 1970; Control ET44 calculator, 1978; LE1 loudspeaker, 1960. All Braun.

In fact, if you own an iPod, iPhone, or iMac you almost certainly owe thanks to Dieter Rams for some of the look, feel and simplicity of these products. His influence is explicit in the work of Jonathan Ive at Apple, most literally, perhaps, in the design of the calculator on the iPhone, but in fact across almost the entire range of Apple products.

The influence of Rams on Jonathan Ive at Apple is profound (image: Jesus Diaz)

(For more, including Q&A with Rams, click below)

For more on the strong influence of Rams’ work on Ives design thinking at Apple take a quick look at this, or see the excellent piece by Jesus Diaz in Gizmodo in January 2008):

Today, the only products of Rams’ that are still produced are his furniture: the 606 Universal Shelving System and the truly magic 620 Chair Programme, both from Vitsoe (they are available from vitsoe.com).

One of the most frequently cited pieces of Rams’ thinking are his ‘Ten Principles of Good Design“, originally published in his 1995 book, “Weniger, aber besser” (“Less, but better”).

Through these ten principles Dieter Rams defines what he means by “good design”. The most frequently cited summary list is below but for the fuller and more illuminating version head to the Vitsoe site.

Good design is innovative.
Good design makes a product useful.
Good design is aesthetic.
Good design helps us to understand a product.
Good design is unobtrusive.
Good design is honest.
Good design is durable.
Good design is consequent to the last detail.
Good design is concerned with the environment.
Good design is as little design as possible.
Back to purity, back to simplicity.

(Here is Rams, talking in more detail about his philosophy, in an interview produced for the V&A’s ‘Cold War Modern’ exhibition in 2008).

We’ve been long-time fans of Rams’, his work, his ‘take no prisoners’ attitude towards innovation, and indeed, customers of his products (my Vitsoe 606 shelving system is currently stored in 10 bomb-proof boxes in a friend’s basement back in London; BBH London uses 606 in a number of places around the agency).

We’ve been thinking about what we can borrow from Rams’ approach in order to make our innovation efforts more radical, and more successful, more quickly, and finally managed to catch up with Rams in Tokyo last month, where we put some questions his way. In response came some typically forthright and uncompromising replies, most notably around the subject of crowdsourcing design (which, of course, is an area of interest for us in Labs) . . .

BBH Labs: The design process has changed out of all recognition in the last 20 years, thanks primarily to technology. Are we net better off, or worse off?

Rams: Technology is, of course, very important but so too are new materials. I see no change in the design process because it is always important that new technologies, new materials and new manufacturing processes are included within it.  It is even more important today that industrial designers should be trained more as design engineers. The computer helps the speed of the design process but you must still make sketches by hand.  After all, design is a thinking process that starts in the head and with sketches.  Thinking cannot be done by a computer. (Note: Rams, famously, does not own a computer).

BBH Labs: Your philosophy “Less, but better” / “Weniger, aber besser” is looking smarter and smarter with time. Do you think that will be manifested in the years ahead? What excites you about the future and what worries you?

Rams: I certainly hope that it will be manifested.  My worry is that the world is becoming more chaotic every day.  My excitement is that more people paying attention to ‘Less but better’ could help solve our growing problems.

BBH Labs: Is there an alternate design philosophy to your own that you appreciate or value? For example, is there any room for ‘maximalism’, layers, multiplicity, intricacy, confusion? Are there designers or artists you admire who occupy a very different space to you?

Rams: I have a strong dislike for those who make a monument to themselves.  I admire Ettore Sottsass and his Memphis movement but he told me that he never intended the items to be produced.

BBH Labs: There is lots of discussion in the design community at the moment about the promise (or evils – delete as appropriate) of crowdsourcing (see businesses such as Crowdspring). Many are excited about the democratization of design, proposing quality will always win through and crowdsourcing simply increases the chances of excellence whilst reducing costs. Others are dismayed about the erosion of both the principles and margins of the design profession. Where do you stand on using the ‘creativity of the crowd’?

Rams: Under no circumstances. No way.

BBH Labs: Thinking specifically about the interactive space what kind of work is catching your eye?

Rams: I am not working in this field so I cannot give a meaningful answer.

BBH Labs: Finally, who are the ‘ones to watch’? Who will extend your legacy?

Rams: I hate to give names.  But I am astonished that my design ethos and my 10 Commandments are being picked up by other designers.  I am hopeful that my ethos will be continued.

So there we go. Hardcore stuff. Uncompromising.

Rams was recently in Tokyo for the opening of his exhibition at the Fuchu Art Museum (the wonderful catalogue is available at the Cooper Hewitt online store, and the exhibition moves to London’s Design Museum in November 09). Whilst in Tokyo he met Jun Takahashi of Under Cover who was presenting a fashion collection at Pitti Uomo that was an homage to Dieter Rams.  The collection is called ‘Less but better’.  When Mark Adams, the MD of Vitsoe, asked Takahashi why he was paying homage to Rams he answered, “The world urgently needs reduction.  And the master of reduction is Dieter Rams.”

There’s a purity and almost obsessive drive to Rams that marks him out as a maverick and a pioneer. While he was happy (and successful) designing for the masses, he remains unswervingly focused on his own quest for good design. And for doing things his way.

We take three major lessons from Rams’ story that we believe are relevant to our own modest innovation efforts.

1. Question absolutely everything, especially the ‘most obvious’.

2. Strive to understand people, at every level.

3. Embrace technology, but do so with pragmatism not hype.

****

For more on Rams, his background, inspirations and legacy see the excellent profile of him on the Design Museum’s site.

Many thanks to Mark Adams at Vitsoe for arranging the interview with Dieter.

In eager anticipation of the new Terminator film, I’ve done a little poking around into what’s happening in the world of robots.

The main action in this area is clearly in Asia. And while Korea pushes ahead with plans to build robot parks, even going so far as to introduce legislation for a robot code of ethics to “Prevent Android Abuse and Protect Humans,” it’s the Japanese who appear to be in the quickest sprint to building a creepy robo-future.

Due to strict immigration laws and a quickly aging population (its expected that 1/3 of its citizenry will be over 60 by 2050) the country is racing to realize a day when robots can provide care for their elderly, clean homes and provide administrative office tasks. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is actively involved in supporting the development of intelligent robots and hopes to introduce many of the models in development into the marketplace by 2015.

Here’s a cross-sample of what’s in store…

PARO
According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Paro is the “World’s most therapeutic robot.” It uses an array of sensors to respond to audible, visual, and tactile stimulation. Each Paro attains a unique personality of sorts due to its ability to be trained to execute (or refrain from) specific actions. Pet Paro and he knows he is being rewarded for good behaviour, smack him and he will do his best not to repeat that behaviour. (For full post click below)

Click here to view the embedded video.

RI-MAN
Ri-Man is designed to care for the elderly. He is capable of lifting and carrying humans and can also see, hear and smell.

HRP-4C
Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology recently unveiled a 95 pound robotic fashion model designed for the catwalk. The not-so-stylishly named HRP-4C, with a initial $200,000 price tag and a “ordinary” figure that isnt “tall enough” according to fashion insiders, appears not quite ready for prime-time.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So whats the problem?

Its true, they do seem cute. That said, below is my list of “Top 10 Technology Goes Awry, Worst Case Scenario Ensues” films.

Maximum Overdrive (Emilio Estevez! Stephen King! Killer appliances!)
I, Robot
Wargames
Metropolis
The Stepford Wives
Alien
The Matrix
The Terminator
2001 Space Oddysey
Blade Runner

A free LEGO Bobba Fett keychain to anyone that can help me add the next name to the list.

I’ve been talking to Glenn Griffin (SMU-Dallas) and Deborah Morrison (U. Oregon) about this theme. These guys are professors who teach aspiring creatives and study creativity. Their latest project is a book that will showcase drawings of the creative process by some of the ad industry’s best, including BBH New York’s very own ECD Kevin Roddy (see his drawing, below), Alex Bogusky, David Baldwin, David Kennedy, Nancy Rice, Luke Sullivan and many others.

The drawings reveal so much about each individual’s pathway to ideas and constitute a unique archive of the brain power that fuels the business. Just skimming through the early submissions from some fairly legendary creatives I was struck by both just how different they were from each other (some drawn, some cartoon, many mixing images and copy), but also how simple they were.

The book, tentatively titled Pure Process, is set for publication in Summer 2010 by How Books. Glenn and Deborah are still looking for last-minute submissions from anyone who wants to play.

Interested? You can contact them direct at pureprocess.thebook@pureprocess.org