I just saw an add for “Kone” a new dustbuster that is designed to sit out as designer furniture - a good idea that needs to take another step.  I like that they have made it look more inviting - something that could sit on my counter or table without being an eyesore.  The problem is that it still just another piece of clutter.  It is either taking up more table space or more counter space.  Could they could combine it with another product?  Could the dustbuster double as a reading or night light on an end table?  How about a knife holder for the kitchen?  Maybe as a clock for the guest bedroom or bathroom?  I know that most “combo” products are actually less than the sum of the parts, but if there is not much expected of either product, then maybe it could work?

is it just me, or when guys and gals talk about “cleaning” they are talking about two very different things?  When I talk about “cleaning” I really mean “making my apartment less dirty than it was an hour ago.”  When my fiancee talks “cleaning” she means “i want to be able to serve dinner off that 2 inches of floor between the toilet and the back wall.”

When she cleans, she has separate contraptions and cloths and cleaners for every surface in each room.  I have windex or lysol spray and a roll of paper towels…ok, and a swiffer.  She can’t go 2 days without cleaning something, if not everything.  I can go weeks (months) without cleaning anything, and have never cleaned everything, except the one time that she led the charge.

Don’t get me wrong - I have come a long way from my undergrad years where “cleaning” was one guy throwing away crushed solo cups, another removing the empty keg from the front window, and a third pushing dirty water across the floor with a mop whose sponge was one stray nail from completely dislodging.  That being said, I have not graduated yet to being “clean.”  I really don’t need more or different cleaning products.  I just need one wipe that can “clean” everything. 

Our conversation about Sutton’s “no asshole rule” was important for me because it causes me to examine situations where effective business practices (which I define as those practices that lead to financial success) and ethical business clash. I hope that at Notre Dame we define the “best” business practices as those that maximize effectiveness and ethics.

My ethics are deeply rooted in my understanding of the Christian faith. A cornerstone of my beliefs – Christ’s admonition to love each other – causes me to assert that it is never ethical to be an a-hole, in other words it is never acceptable or right to treat another person with cruelty, meanness, disrespect, condescension, insults, abuse, or the like. Assertiveness, properly used, is fine and even encouraged, but no a-holeness.

After class, someone made a comment that I found very provocative and, for a while, one that made me rethink whether it was really never acceptable to be an a-hole. (I love it when someone challenges my thinking this way! BTW, they did it in a very respectful manner.) They said that, in the case of professional sports, aggressiveness and even violence on the field can be very important determinants of winning. And, assuming that is true, being an a-hole coach might be the best way to create aggression and violence among players. This comment really got me thinking.

There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that a-hole coaches can be winners, but there is also evidence that “nice” coaches (e.g., Lovie Smith, Dick Vermeil) can be winners too. I don’t know these coaches (a-holes or not) well enough to speak with confidence, but what I hear and read about them suggests both approaches can be effective over the short run. I do not know of any really good studies into which approach is best over the long run, so I’ll have to rely on anecdotal evidence here too. Again, I think the evidence suggests both approaches can work long-term too.

Assume for a minute that it is true that the a-hole approach is, indeed, the best strategy for winning. Before crowning it the best approach, period, I would want to consider the consequences of this approach beyond its effects on the field. Externalities (which economists define as “an effect from one activity which has consequences for another activity but is not reflected in market prices”) would be one class of consequences. After class, when I was working-out, I saw a report on ESPN that suggests that increased violence in the NFL may be causing long-term health problems for players. The costs, both financial and non-financial (e.g., loss of quality-of-life) of these health problems to players & their families can be quite high. There may also be costs to fans, for example in the form of higher ticket prices to cover health care to injured former players or the premature retirement of a high-quality player, and to other stakeholders as well. Another report I read recently suggested that the increased aggressiveness and violence in the NFL and other professional sports was a contributing factor to the off-field problems players seem to be getting into more regularly. So, even if the a-hole approach is the best strategy for winning, other consequences may make it the less-preferred approach.

In the end, this discussion leads to what I think is a very important question: what do we chose when effectiveness and ethics clash? That’s a question I think each of us should give deep thought to. I hope that at ND we say the ethics – which the University defines in terms of its Christian values – is always the most important factor. I think there are plenty of universities, businesses, and people that would argue the reverse, that effectiveness matters most, so I would like ND to be one persuasive voice advocating for ethics as the paramount concern. I have to admit, I’m not convinced that we really do enough to advocate this position, but that is a different issue.

My current thinking – which, although it is rooted in science, is always incomplete and always shaped by my values, ideals, and beliefs – is that the ethical approach to business is the most effective approach over the long run. In other words, I believe the ethical approach is also the most effective approach over the long-run. Over the short run it will probably cost more and it is also probably the most challenging or the hardest approach to adopt.

So, this is why I still believe that there is never a good or acceptable reason for being an a-hole, even in professional sports. I welcome and encourage your comments!

“…anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor”

Although the dictionary definition is simple, this word takes on a different meaning for everyone.  I believe that legacy is a double-edged sword.  Does legacy help or hinder our ability to spot gaps today?  Does legacy help or hinder our ability to design transcendent products/services for the future?  Is legacy the cause or effect of great innovation/design? 

Would you remain in line at a quick-serve restaurant such as McDonald’s if the wait was one hour? Most likely not. Consider Chipotle. At it’s pre-grand opening in Mishawaka on Thursday, many people happily waited in line for an hour or more for a free burrito and pop. A couple classmates and I were some of those people. Beyond the fact that the food was free on this day, have you ever thought about how Chipotle develops raving fans? What makes this place glow…is it the food, the experience, the location?

In my opinion, Chipotle really excels in designing the customer experience. It begins with the building–each location has unique architecture, combining different industrial-looking design pieces–some forms that are functional and others that are seemingly frivolous. Note the metal tower structure at the entrance of the Mishawaka store…it doesn’t serve much practical purpose. The metal garbage cans inside, however, have a purpose. When a designer was building the first Chipotle location, he had limited space for the garbage cans and built an angled ‘backboard’ for the garbage can. Now, this is standard in all locations, and you can toss your garbage by “banking” it into the trash.

The food preparation draws the customer into the experience, unlike at Subway, Quiznos, Taco Bell or Baja Fresh. It’s crazy fast, customized, expedient and fun. The menu is simple. The cups educate customers on the fresh ingredients and how Chipotle sources its beans, its avocados or meats. The language is humorous, quirky and frank.

The environment is lively and upbeat, but not overpowering with music. And, unwrapping the foil of your burrito brick is the ultimate part of the Chipotle experience, and of course, tasting the spicy flavor explosion.

What other restaurants seem to draw the consumer into the dining experience? How do they create “raving fans”?

I caught a bit of this show on tv Sunday night that was talking about the way that design can be altered to meet the specific needs of the user.  The host was talking about the interior home design of a certain blind customer when he said,

“Just because a person can’t see doesn’t mean design doesn’t matter. It just means the design must be more specific.” 

This resonated with me for two reasons. The first was because it was so much in line with what we talk about so often in class: fitting the product to the user. Seems obvious enough. Second, I thought of my father-in-law who happens to be blind. So, I started thinking about all the products that are particularly difficult for him to use. Often products are jazzed up to incorporate more of our sensory perceptions. In this context I wonder if some products could be better designed for all of us if we imagined ways to make them work that would require fewer senses, rather than more. Perhaps this process of imagining usage from a different persective would help us to think of aspects of design that we otherwise take for granted.

Just thinking… 

I tend to relate our classroom discussions to music.  Do you believe that Jimi Hendrix (Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, 1992) only had one Billboard Top 40 hit?  Which singers/bands would you classify as conceptualists?

I came across the following article about iPOD’s and thought people would find it interesting as it relates to innovation.   http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2424969&page=1

In class, we talked about the company’s life-cycle and how innovation should occur during the up-slope on the bell curve.  I thought I’d post this given Apple’s success in branding the iPod.  Perhaps it’s time for them to mix things up a bit.  

Much of what Da Vinci did was copied off of nature or existing technology, but in a completely different context. Sort of like the new crazy glue band-aid (which I thought we classified as an exploiter technology this morning). . .  Da Vinci created completely new machines by pulling apart exist technology to see how the different parts worked, then reassembling these in new ways.

Were ideas that Da Vinci copied from nature evidence of exploring or exploiting? For example, he studied birds to build a flying machine. His finals plans were tested a few years ago and found to out-fly the Wright brother’s plane. Clearly, this was a pretty major jump in Da Vinci’s time. It seems that Da Vinci was more of an Exploiter, “Like other Renaissance artist-engineers, Leonardo looked to the classical world for inspiration. He would then go beyond classical models and devise his own solutions,”  but he created some pretty amazing stuff, so I am curious what others think?

Here is some more info on the project.

Pick you own team. If you need help finding a team, let me know and I will help.

Project overview
The general gap that I want you to focus on is the challenge the movie theaters face now that the movies are being released on DVD and pay-per-view movies at the same time they are released to the theater. In the past, theaters had a major advantage: if you want to see a new movie, you have to see it in the theater. Movies were released on DVD and pay-per-view months after their run in theater. Combine this new approach with the popularity of home theaters, and suddenly owners of movie theaters have a major threat to their livelihoods.

Your task

Your task is to address this challenge. Act as if you have been hire by a theater owner — assume that this is an owner of several theaters or local manager/franchise of several theaters that are a part of a major theater company (e.g. AMC, Cinemark). Your task is to develop an innovative way for the theater owner to respond to this threat.

I want you to work through the discern, observe, & ideate stages for sure and I would like you to spend at least some time on the evaluate (prototype, experiment) stage too. I would like you to figure out how to do a good prototype of at least one of your ideas. At a minimum, you should describe how you would prototype several of your ideas.

You will need to DISCERN (decide) what specific issues you want to address – i.e., decide how you want to narrow that general gap that I have established for you. You will need to OBSERVE (collect relevant information, gather insights into the relevant users’ experiences, both the current theater experience and the opportunities to create a new experience that you want to help the theater owners create) and then IDEATE (innovate and design) ideas for the theater owners about how to create a new and exciting user experience that will draw consumers into their theaters.

The final product/outcome of the project

The deliverable is your set of innovative ideas for the theater owner and some info about what you did at each stage of the innovation process.