#foresight
The real event has, at first, taken place in a certain sense ex nihilo, unforeseeably; only afterward does one comprehend its possibility. This is the temporal paradox, the inverted time, which characterizes the event as such. Such an event knows no foreseeability, since for this it would have to have been regarded as possible, and if this foresight had succeeded, it would not have taken place.
–Baudrillard, “The Event”
So many AU’s, so little time
Feel free to ask about any of them here!
Here in this simple drawing I illustrated the principle of this issue I call “The Car Dilemma”. It’s not so much about the car or cars, but it’s about ideas and how we learn to accept them, because even if they are great they might not be ready to be used or properly explained. Yet.
The car above (Fig.1) represents the futuristic design we will see in the ahead probably ten or twenty years from now. But then again, it can be anything else than a car; while the bottom one (Fig.2) represents a much more familiar shape we already know.
So, from these two design what do we get? Ideas, concepts, products, come in two shapes: things we don’t know and things we already know. It can be displayed as something which is undiscovered facing what is already discovered. These two are part of our conscious mind which catalogs familiar shapes from those we are yet to understand.
We perfectly know Fig.2 and its familiar shape and content, yet we observe Fig.1 as an exotic pet we admire but unsure what to do with it. Just like for any creation we initially tend to take a much more original route and come out with avant-garde ideas, just like Fig.1. However, we progress through the thinking process of exposing such creation to the public and things come to a change.
Even if the car above is what we need to go ahead with, the one below is the most common chosen by us for fear of the unknown. It’s already accepted form and we think it might work for us. This dilemma shows how the reasoning system works among society: we abandon our potential thinking for new and bold ideas, so we can live in a comfortable and collective comfort zone.
It’s always a challenge to define the business model of the future. What will come next might be predictable within a certain amount of degrees, looking back to previous trends and then creating the forecast. That’s how we study the weather and tell how hot or cold tomorrow will be.
However, one thing for sure is how we can structure such model and create successful systems. We can start by rationalizing (and admitting) that in the workforce across all levels, we have creative and conservative individuals that are very good in their field, and are best when placed within their own environment because that’s the climate they will come out with great ideas or make important decisions.
If you are afraid of change you run the high and probable risk of remaining behind in innovation with all the consequences that come. You will face situations that have the power to take your business away or to come so close that it will weaken the knees out of you.
Innovation is the driving force of those business practices that understand the need to adapt, to develop new tools for the present and future, but most importantly to acknowledge the current situation that something might be wrong and needs to be fixed.
Look back at the first years of the 21st century and the expectation people had at the end of 1999: nobody had a clue what the year 2000 would come with. Many were deep worried about Y2K and computer malfunctions coming with the end of the world. It was rubbish from the beginning and worked to pull marketing products like antivirus, useless software, and to sell extra survival equipment.
Yet there was a small group of three people in California who was working night and day to revolve the new millennium. Chad Hurley,Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim built and published Youtube over the hard labor of their creative mindset. They maximized their credit cards in the process to pay for hardware and hosting services, they risked everything believing their hands held the future. They were right and shaped the way we interact and acquire new knowledge via a streaming platform which is now our favorite medium.
What drove their product to success was a creative process that disrupted the status quo of the late 20th century business model. It wasn’t trading or speculative hedge fund that started Youtube; it was the desire of creating something from nothing and developing in something that today means everything: content through data sharing on many platforms.
How much do creative people matter in a business system? Everything. They have the mindset of imagination to start processes from little or nothing, growing and expanding a simple idea into a change in the world: Steve Jobs, Shawn Fanning, J. K. Rowling, are just some of the names that comes off the top of my head. They brought pure and simple innovation across many fields changing the way we go through our daily routine.
Spot the creative individual…
Here we can see the developing pattern of entrepreneurship that has creative people starting business because they can envision leaps ahead. They understand the complexity of the idea and how it will evolve in the medium-long term, including important details that can be accessorized and later become the continuation of the vision. And those who did not bet on creative people found out the hard way too late at a greater cost.
On the other hand the behavior of conservative people fits best the classic system of running the business, because their focus glides through a mindset of analytical decisions and efficiency. That’s why those who are under this profile seek their career development in Wall Street or similar work environments, where precise blocks move in a specific pattern to build the outcome.
IBM understood the need of change and above all the thirst for innovation, so they have been hiring designers to sharpen up their tools instead of stacking up with accountants or software engineers. IBM needed creativity to rise above the status quo in their field. They understood that innovation doesn’t come from individuals who have been sharing the same manger with those who create algorithms or win math competitions, but it comes from those who see well beyond the curb not with binoculars but wit a set of kaleidoscopes.