Innovation Boot Camp

Robin Bergart and I recently started a little social experiment called Innovation Boot Camp. Our library is currently undergoing a shift in its service model (from liaison librarians to functional teams). As part of this process, the library has revisited some of its core values, which has sparked many interesting conversations among the staff on the nature of libraries and educational professionals. We’ve been looking at what we’ve done in the past, what we do now, and what we expect to do in the future.

Robin and I were particularly interested in our library’s commitment to innovation. We claim it as a core value, but can we really say were “innovative”? What does innovation look like in an academic service environment? Are people inherently innovative or creative? Can people learn to be more innovative if they’re given the right environment or processes? We decided to test some of these ideas and see what we might learn about innovation in the process.

We created a 12-week program based loosely on Tom Kelley’s Ten Faces of Innovation. We managed to draft six other recruits to join us as we study one of the faces each week. At this point we’re only about three weeks in, but so far things are running extremely well. The recruits are active, engaged and curious about the process of innovation as much as we are.

We’ve established a blog to share (some of) our experiences with our library and the broader library community. If you’re interested in the program, follow along at:

http://innovationbootcamp.wordpress.com/

I hope you enjoy it as much as we have!

Intersections

A few weeks ago I read Frans Johansson’s The Medici Effect: What Elephants & Epidemics Can Teach Us About Innovation. I stumbled upon this book in the public library when I was actually looking for something else (thank you Dewey Decimals!). At the time, I was intrigued by the subtitle, but now I can’t remember much about elephants or epidemics from the book. What I do remember is his concept of intersections.

For Johansson, intersections describe the places where different fields meet. For him:

“Fields consist of concepts such as knowledge and practices. Changing a tire can be called a concept. So can the item tire, in and of itself. These two concepts are both included in a field called mechanics. In order to understand a field, one has to understand at least some of its concepts. The more concepts one understands within a field, the more expertise one has built within the field.” (p.16)

When you work in a field, you’re likely to generate ideas and processes that stay within the field (he calls these directional ideas). But if you strive to find the intersections you’ll generate ideas and processes that go in entirely new directions (intersectional ideas–obviously!).

Johannson goes on to say that the opportunities for intersectional ideas are increasing because of three forces:

• The movement of people (travel, refugees, etc.)
• The convergence of science (interdisciplinary knowledge creation)
• The leap of computation (increasing capabilities of technology)

While these three forces are intriguing (and I’ll buy his arguments), I think there are everyday opportunities to step into the intersection (safely of course!). For example, I work in a library that employs a number of learning and educational professionals – and it’s no secret that we approach our work differently. Instead of letting these differences cause friction, we should figure out a way to operate in the intersection.

The more intersections we have the more vibrant and creative our spaces will be. We may not have the patronage of a wealthy Medici family, but there is no reason we can’t encourage (and support) an explosion of ideas on our campuses.

Oligarchy and Anarchy

I just finished reading Siva Vaidhyanathan’s book The Anarchist in the Library. The book is about five years old now, but he has some interesting points to make about technology, government and culture. In the introduction, he talks about the two primary ideologies that affect our information age: anarchy and oligarchy. In Vaidhyanathan’s words:

“Anarchy is a governing system that eschews authority. Oligarchy governs from, through, and for authorities. These ideologies feed off each other dialectically.” (p.xi)

In other words, oligarchy creates panic about the perceived threat of anarchy and anarchy justifies itself by reacting against the “abuses” of oligarchy.

At first, I wondered what these concepts had to do with information and technology, but after finishing the book and revisiting the introduction, the connections make more sense. Vaidhyanathan doesn’t really take a side in this debate; instead, he focuses on challenging both camps. He investigates the claims of oligarchy that have led to “moral panics” (e.g. we should worry because the Internet is overrun with pornography and other undesirable material), but he also challenges the aims of anarchy (e.g. that free distribution of information and anonymous behaviour will lead to a better future).

In the end, Vaidhyanathan simply urges us to be cautious: we should not jump hastily to top-down legislation and control, nor should we embrace an “anything-goes” mentality. Instead, we should rely on debate and discussion–however clumsy–to inform our progress.

I think this is a good read for anyone who is interested in the politics of information–or as Vaidhyanathan calls it, “the information arms race.” Some of the examples are dated but the arguments hold true; in fact, recent acts by governments and cybercriminals only further entrench these two ideologies. Perhaps we’ll find a third way eventually.

Design Thinking Tripod

I’ve been increasingly interested in the idea that constraints are actually essential to good innovative design. Maybe initially that seems counter-intuitive, but the more I read about innovation and creative thinking, the more I realize that better ideas come when your options are actually limited. I guess, we have to force ourselves to think even more creatively when we’re boxed into a corner with limited resources.

Tim Brown, author of Change by Design, suggests that constraints stem from three overlapping design ideas. I’ll call them a “tripod” because a “trinity” seems too religious. He says that ideas have to be evaluated according to their

feasibility (what is functionally possible within the forseeable future); viability (what is likely to become part of a sustainable business model); and desirability (what makes sense to people and for people). (p. 18)

The goal is to resolve each of these constraints and bring them into perfect balance in the redesigned product, service or experience. What would education look like if we were able to hit the sweet spot more often?