12:01 28 June 2007 Image(3322)
The Daily Telegraph today published an article about the amount of technology that the Europeans have created for the iPhone.
Rich Gold, once a research leader at Xerox PARC, once stated
12:01 28 June 2007 Image(3322)
The Daily Telegraph today published an article about the amount of technology that the Europeans have created for the iPhone.
Rich Gold, once a research leader at Xerox PARC, once stated
Yesterday I posted a diagram of the barriers to, needs for and exemplars of an excellent innovation activity. I have based this diagram on surveys I have been involved in over the period 1999-2003 and ones I have found on the web since then. So why the duck? This morning I saw the latest whitepaper from Future Think which showed that, on a scale of 0-20, the total innovation capability score (self-assessed by 248 executives) is 8.3~ nearer to a duck (0) than 20. When we look at the reasons they are not much different from my diagram.
So why are we struggling to move onward and upward with a stream of exciting innovative offers that excite our existing customers and attract new ones?
One reason is, as I have said recently "innovation means change" and change is daunting. My post Innovative ways to change touches the apparent complexity of change within the organisation and intimates that we have plenty to address as we set out on a journey of change. Here we will look at innovation activities.
At the end of another post The last judgement~ innovation isn't easy is a diagram showing the top seven barriers to successful innovation and the sort of comments I hear from people who are hitting that barrier
1) Lack of ideas or access to potential products/services
"We are being told to innovate or die! Yet there is never any time to have, let alone write down, ideas or even to listen to other people's ideas! And anyway they are never very useful as they don't seem to fit the bill.""
2) Lack of commercialisation process
"We just get on with what needs to be done next. We are always up against it and never have time to have a fancy methodology"
3) Lack of entrepreneurial skills
"I just do as I am told; there is no prize for trying to be different here; I save that for the local youth club fundraising do's."
4) Lack of clear strategic direction
"In spite of a growth acceleration strategy we seem to kill any projects that promise to deliver it."
5) Lack of methods to manage and mitigate risk
"We sit down and discuss how difficult it will be and pick an easier route which means that stuff we offer tends to be more predictable for our bosses to approve."
6) Poor visibility of success or failure indicators
" I am never sure if we are doing the right things as we don't get much feedback. I just get reassigned to another project that is struggling and get on with it."
7) Limited spare capacity and resources to reassign
"Look we can't do the projects we already have without you coming up with bright ideas for some more. Lets get what we have to do done shall we?"
If you ask these same people what would make life better for them you get a list of needs with 4 needs getting a disproportionate number of votes. These priority needs are
1. Better processes for innovation work.
2. Better measurement of what is going on.
3. Stronger link between innovation and strategy.
4. Better handling of risk and more risk-taking.
If we distill out the essence of organisations regarded as innovative we find the top Exemplars are
1/ They have a disciplined design process
2/ They have a true team approach
3/ There is a clearly communicated and understandable strategic direction
4/ They have a bundle of Insights about there present and future customers and users.
From my perspective this other clear winning behaviours are centred on mastering the interactions between
[Social] Networking Management
Organisational Process and Culture
And that duck... well the ripples before it reminded me of one of the Foresights we need to understand are the cultural megatrends that ripple down and eventually become microtrends that determine how well we innovate for our consumers. This diagram is a redraw of Nokia's Mega to Micro trends illustration.
‘Much organisational change is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.’ is a variation on a quotation doing the rounds since the 1970's. Couple this with Lewin's Change Theory and we end up with the conclusion that change can be perceived as pretty scary stuff.
The beauty of rearranging deckchairs is that we don't really have to change that which makes life easy for us. We can give the impression of change but not really have to learn to do things differently. It's the same as substituting activity for action.
Picture uploaded on by Bob Jagendorf. Used with thanks under CC. (Is that a cloud or an iceberg in the distance?)
Edgar Schein fleshed out Lewin's basic model which has 3 process stages:
So why don't we get on with it and change. One of the problems is that we easily perceive change as a threat to our comfortable way of doing things, rather than the fun of doing things differently and seeing what impact it has.
One reason is that it takes a great deal of effort and it looks pretty scary when we look at it in the round.. Schein's development of Lewin's change theory looks like this
So over a few blogs we will deconstruct this into bite size pieces.
I don't find this hard to believe: Today's Guardian runs a story about an inventor in residence at the British Library called From the Garden Shed to the British Library: the nutty professor takes over. The last paragraphs make sobering reading:
"As Sheahan gets up to return to his inventing - he is busy with a child-resistant, easy-to-open plastic container - he has one last piece of advice: don't start in the UK.
"The only area I've had problems with is the UK. Larger companies are run by financial people. They don't want to take the risk. I can tell quite often by just meeting them that they may want the technology but don't want to pay for it. I don't want to say this but with my experience, I'm not even interested in exhibiting here."
At that he walks off. Back to the office and not, he insists, the garden shed."
And then there is Seth Godin's Reasons and Excuses
"Most organizations need a good reason to do something new.
All they need is a flimsy excuse to not do something for the first time.
And they often need a lawsuit to stop doing something they're used to."
So why is it different here? I suspect he answer is not that simple but emerges from an organisation's attitude to external ideas, its innovation processes and its understanding of its own industry.
Andrew Hargadon has spent time looking at How Breakthroughs Happen: the Surprising Truth About How Companies innovate. In the Forward Kathleen Eisenhardt writes "While How Breakthroughs Happen is replete with insights, from my vantage point two observations are crucial. The first is the idea that innovation is the result of synthesising or "bridging" ideas from different domains.
As Andrew observes, Henry Ford and colleagues created the assembly line from an unlikely blend of observations from Singer sewing machines, meatpacking, and Campbell Soup. [Other examles are noted] These and other extraordinary innovations are the result of simultaneously thinking in multiple boxes, not the oft-prescribed 'thinking outside the box.' In short extraordinary innovations are often the result of recombinant invention.
Picture uploaded by cyancey . Used with thanks under CC.
The concept of bridging reveals a couple of counterintuitive points:
1. Whilst it might be appealing to focus on the future, breakthrough innovation depends on exploiting the past........ Innovations that rely on the past are pragmatic. They save their developers time and money, even as they lower risk. In contrast, innovative attempts that focus on developing fundementally new vivions from entirely novel knowledge very often fail. This path is too slow, too challenging, and too risky.
2. The organising structure can dominate individual creativity. Most of us buy into the myth that breakthrough innovation is the product of individual creative genius. ....successful innovators are not really more gifted or creative than the rest of us. Rather they simply better exploit the networked structure of ideas within unique organisational frameworks.
The other crucial observation is that breakthrough innovations depend on 'building' communities. Of course, the substance of innovation has to be there. But the ideas that go on to become breakthrough innovations rely on fundemantally rearranging established networks of suppliers, buyers, and complementors into new networks or ecosystems. Otherwise hoped-for innovations will never develop. The initial innovation is the starting line of the race, not the finish.
Picture uploaded by Zepfanman.com. Used with thanks under CC.
This observation underscores yet another counterintuitive point:
3. Innovation is as much social as it is technical. Resistance must be met, and alliances forged, because people often cannot understand innovations, or cannot see how they would be benefit if the innovations were adopted. Breakthrough innovations must often be cloaked with references to existing activity.
and a final counterintuitive insight:
4. Although myth portrays Edison as a lone creative genius, he actually worked in a collective."
Picture of personnel in Menlo Park Lab, 1880. Source.
I think of the successful return of the Apollo 13 mission as an extreme example of pragmatic innovation!
Thirty-seven years ago, the spacecraft ferrying Apollo 13’s three astronauts, Jim Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert, to the moon was crippled by an oxygen tank that overheated and exploded. On the ground, a group of engineers encouraged by Flight Director Gene Kranz’s now legendary call, “Failure is not option,” conceived a way to safely return the astronauts home by retrofitting the craft using plastic bags, cardboard, and duct tape. The story would go on to become a thing of legends, one of NASA’s proudest moments—and even a Hollywood movie, which shows their innovative activity very well.
Two years ago the Engineers involved were honoured for their efforts.....
None of this directly answers the question of why we in the UK are resistant to inventive solutions but if we look at complaints from development teams we often hear how difficult it is to find a home for any idea that doesn't fit neatly with the ongoing activity. It is therefore essential to adopt ways of working that allow ideas to enter, come through and be nurtured until their value can be demonstrated.
In a nutshell, ideas must be allowed to break through barriers and present themselves to decision makers. But barriers to innovation take many forms as shown on the diagram below. Also shown are the needs for innovation and exemplars of successful companies that are declared to be innovative.
In all the buzz about innovation versus 6s; we seem to overlook two truths:
1. Quality has two dimensions:
manufacturing and supply quality which delivers an offer into the "hands" of the consumer, and ensures it works time after time, living up to the expectations built by marketing and communication.
experience quality that delivers something that changes the life of the consumer and helps them fit into their niche in society.
2. Different ways of doing "things" that means that the life of the innovator and the implementors also changes.... innovation no less.
This means our cross-functional, cross-organisational teams need to change in innovative ways. So why is it difficult to do both?
If we don't do both we get articles written about us like this one in the Guardian newspaper which includes a section on xBox reliability as Microsoft battles against the seemingly unstoppable rise of the Nintendo Wii
"For Microsoft, though, the longevity of the Xbox 360 is attracting questions about reliability and the possibility of a price drop. Microsoft isn't happy talking about the reliability issue, also known as the "red ring of death" (What is the real failure rate of the Xbox 360, May 31)."
Nintendo have operated in Design Pyramid and Design Space to change the product in ways that enables a different unknowable ( in the development phase) consumer experience, which is incredibly difficult to respond to in the short term as it is about out innovating not incrementing your way to success. The way Nintendo's team designed the Wii is described starting here.
The Times writes about the iPhone:
The company added that the entire top surface of the iPhone has been upgraded from plastic to optical-quality glass “to achieve a superior level of scratch resistance and optical clarity”.
The move follows reports that the iPhone's glossy casing scratched too easily ( note: it was also iPod feedback) and that its touch-screen technology is fiddly to use. Some reports have suggested that as many as one in five iPhones could be returned because of faults.
The speculation seemed to mirror consumer complaints over the original iPod Nano, a miniature version of the hugely popular digital music player. After facing a storm of criticism from disgruntled Nano owners, Apple completely remodelled the product last year to give it a durable aluminium shell."
So Apple is scrambling to cross-fertilise from other products and to react to the really "difficult" negatives that there is buzz about... there can be negative feedback that is also not consumer motivating... in other words solving the problem does not change the sales of your offer as it deserves comment but not "punishment". So battery life and "defacing the icon" are seen to be real problems. But rather than bluster as Apple did over one or two iPod problems, they have changed their approach. With an incredibly efficient supply chain getting 6s behaviour and performance So innovation seems to feature both in the organisations delivering the product/service that enables the consumer experience; and in the consumer's response to the offer of a different experience. i.e. the vector of change operates in, at least, 3 dimensions and so we should look at each project we undertake at personal, group, organisational, industry level to see what axes of the vector are affected and should therefore be managed ( I'll blog about this shortly).
Reminds me of the lyrics of Bob Dylan's "For the times they are a-changin"
The challenge is of course confronted by Ghandi who said
"Be the change that you want to see in the world."
Which turns out to be easy to say and pretty hard to do. Why? What is the model of change we need to embrace in order to be that change.
Lewin developed a change theory based on 3 "Unfreezing-Changing-Refreezing" processes which address the challenges that I have been describing here, and I will return to Lewin in another post shortly.
This post by Audrey Carr, found via All this ChittahChittah, prompted me to overlay what may represent her thoughts on design research onto my Design for Consumer/competitiveness diagram described in "Quality or quantity". One of the keys to doing the right research seems to be working out roughly where you are on the design journey; whether you are confirming the validity of your idea or its viability. The answer will drive the type of research to be done. Early on in the project questions like "How unique is this new product or service?" are more important than "How likely are you to purchase this new product or service?" so different techniques will be deployed. I have also added Going to the Gemba; observing the consumer in their environment to discover intriguing habits that may become insights at the start of the product/service creative journey.
So my diagram (which is thinking in progress) looks like this
I have added a feedback loop from trends to insights to convey the need to do some initial exploratory work to set off the process.
Several blogs, etc. have converged and got me thinking....
I was reading the Daily Telegraph over a scone this morning and a piece by Sir John Rose, chief executive of Rolls-Royce, caught my attention (and extracted below). He wrote
"Three years ago Rolls-Royce decided that we had to do something to try to address the declining level of interest in science in our schools and universities. That was the genesis of the Rolls-Royce Science Prize. Since then around 600 schools have participated.
Over the past 10 years, the number of A-level physics students has fallen from about 37,000 to 29,000 and maths students from 65,000 to 51,000. By contrast, in China and India there has been an explosion of interest in the sciences and they produce between them more than half a million engineering graduates a year, at least 20 times the number coming out of UK universities.
We have to take steps to correct this because in this new century science and scientists will be at the heart of most of the challenges the world now faces. Take just three trends: urbanisation, life expectancy and the threat to the environment. By 2030, a further 1.7bn people will be living in towns and cities. China alone expects to "urbanise" 400-500m people over the next decade. That is almost the equivalent of building Western Europe in less than 25 years.
Science will also provide the key to maintaining the UK's prosperity in today's harshly competitive, globalised economy. Our future economic performance as a nation depends crucially on our ability to move up the value-added chain and to compete on ideas that are incorporated into products and services.
The writing of scientific papers is not in itself a wealth-creating business. It is worth repeating Ivor Tiefenbrun's view: "It is not possible to sustain world-class education or research without world-class manufacturing. Manufacturing funds, originates, supports or facilitates around three quarters of all research.""
I also read "All is not well with the UK design industry" which starts:
“The creative industries account for more than seven per cent of the UK economy. But many are now struggling in the face of unprecedented overseas competition. The contribution made by the UK design sector has halved since 2000, with the number of larger agencies falling by one third.”
There is more supporting data in the blog and points to a NESTA text on Creating Entrepreneurship
"The ambition is to ensure that those entering the creative industries do so with the skills to sustain and grow their businesses"
As part of my leadership role I was tasked with making a difference on how we delivered packaging solutions to the business. This meant that all my team were engaged in M>W>D activities, as well as creating packaging. This took us into product-based change projects, involving the internal team as well as design technology suppliers, packaging convertors, design houses, rapid prototypers and many universities academic departments and units. Each member of my team looked after one or two projects and orchestrated the improvement activity. As every organisation was culturally different we needed so thinking tools that would help in this task.
Professor Rob Goffee's Double-S cultural model proved to be useful for understanding who we were dealing with. The Double-S model is described here and here. This is a version annotated for innovation triggers
I attended one of prof. Goffee's presentations and he described his four quadrants in interesting ways, quoting a company that illustrated the culture
Picture by Est Bleu2007 . Used with thanks under CC.
Like Unilever: Drink a little, talk a lot.
Picture by maveric2003 . Used with thanks under CC.
Hewlett Packard and Johnson and Johnson: Live the vision.
Picture Uploaded by compujeramey . used with thanks under CC.
Typified by Mars: "We all worked together and suddenly he'd gone!"
University: Herding cats. 60 great professors who would rather not talk to each other.
So to quote someone else "It's not easy!" to build and orchestrate the networks of organisations and players (talent) to make things happen.
The Creativity Exchange has highlighted a working paper that highlights the challenges facing European innovation activities vs. the US. From my experiences in organisations with large regional or global activities and/or markets, it takes a loose orchestrating approach to make things work. We need to recognise difference as a driver for superb creativity. It is how we find the players, build a common, motivating vision together and operate in concert to create possible solutions, make them tangible and convert into winning experiences enabled by our products and services.
The challenge is that even in small organisations, say 12 people upwards, we see that these sorts of behaviour become visible and often it is these small organisations that have to energise partners to do incredible things for them in order to deliver!
So having waffled on, but feeling I have set the scene, I will reflect on this and return to the challenges shortly!
Picture uploaded by RBerteig. Used with thanks under CC.
I really like my Palm Vx PDA... it was my 3rd attempt at finding a pocket device that was useful to me- at an emotional level as well as functional. Technology Review May/June 2007 print edition has a photoessay "Objects of Desire: Famous industrial designers talk about iconic pieces of technology.
Described in the May/June 2007 print edition one of the Objects is the 1999, Palm V
"If I had to pick one product as the best of the last 20 years, it would be the Palm V," says Duarte [Matias Duarte, vice president of experience design at L.A. mobile-communications firm Helio]. "It has the three essential attributes of design: substance, style, and simplicity. It set the essential feature set for a PDA. Its metallic case had no exposed screws or fasteners. The hardware and software set were part of one experience. Its leather cover and metallic body really made it a fashionable accessory item you could create an emotional relationship with. Before the Palm V, you were happy if you could get a device with the right feature set. If it was always easy to use, you were ecstatic. Style was unusual. Once an object reaches technological maturity, it becomes about an aesthetic feature set. In the consumer electronics industry, we're constantly riding that wave."
My attempt No. (1) was exemplified by the Psion 3c
165x85x22 mm, weighing 10 oz. it more or less fitted in my jacket pocket... well I carried it everywhere, in the same manner that I carried my Time Manager.
134x205x25 mm, weight 14 oz. Lovely tactile feel in (Royal) Navy leather; can toss it from hand to hand on the move... fun. As Lotus Notes was introduced into the organisation we worked with a Notes apps supplier and TMI International to bring in a software version.. where we could fill our leather folder with Key Area, Tasks, Actions, etc. and make them visible to our colleagues through a Notes Server... it worked ok for 4-5 of us in close proximity but failed to stick across a network (pre-WWW and almost pre-internet).
We tried the Psion next but not until the 3c version. We synchronised it with the first of the laptops we were experimenting with so we could have basic names and addresses on both and a txt files transferred from Psion to PC. We were using All-in-One as an email system and Lotus apps. This helped at a personal level but few people wanted the (relatively small amount of) hastle.
We looked at the first Palm weighing in at 5.7 oz, 120x80x18 mm
but as we couldn't play with one we decided to go for the Psion V.
100x73x27mm 7.8 0z.
As our corporate IT system was stressed to the limit as we lurched through from local to regional infrastucture it became difficult to get the synchronisation software to work and I guess I was the only owner of one!
Then the Palm V (designed by IDEO) arrived and I got one.......
Wow! The software to sync the pda was simple to install and when I put the wee beastie into the docking station I pressed one button and it got on with it.. and as we, by this time, had moved to Outlook the address book was always in step. At home I sync'd with the Palm addressbook app for the PC, so that was an added bonus.
I met a professor at a conference... he pulled out his Palm and said "snap!". I showed him an app. I had downloaded for monthly, weekly and Daily appointments and to-do's; he showed the predictive text app and we swapped via infra-red and went on our separate ways!
Other people saw the style, watched my quick demo and rushed off to get their own!
We had a winner, good looks, good functionality, did what it did well.
So the Palm was so much easier to use and sync with the PC and was much better on aesthetics and so the Psion disappeared. A few years later the pda generation seemed to fade as mobile phones vied for attention. I still like my Palm Vx and I also like my Nokia..... but I connected my Nokia to my Laptop many years ago, so do I need the pda?
In 2004 the V&A Museum published David Redhead's book "Electric Dreams- Designing for the Digital Age". He devotes one chapter to the Rise and Fall of the PDA, which makes interesting reading.
So half way through 2007 I look at p 95 and read that "Irene McWilliam, Professor of Computer Related Design at the Royal College of Art, is one commentator who believes the PDA is on the verge of obsolescence. She argues that the device is now caught in a deadly pincer movement between ever-more compact personal computers and ever-more versatile mobile phones.
So, with my Palm V battery dead and my personal organiser cover needing recharging with blank paper and the iPhone about to launch I think " Simplicity, connectedness, intuitive, aesthetics, convergence, systems experiences, desire, stories "...... Oh and have a told you the story about the Palm V case for my Palm? I received it at the CRAVE conference in San Francisco.
A year later at a conference on Inclusive Design at the Helen Hamlyn Centre at the RCA in London Bruce Nussbaum was on stage and waved his "Craved" Palm as an example of a great product... I waved my Palm from the audience and he called out "Were you there? Lets talk after" and that's how I got to meet him. I also met Michael Schrage at CRAVE but that's another story.
Being innovative is not rocket science although sometimes it feels like that!
The Economist Leader for 9th June, 2007 discusses what other companies might learn from California's master of innovation. They highlight 4 key lessons:
1. Innovation can come from without as well as from within.
2. Design products around the needs of the user not the demands of the technology.
3. Listening to customers is generally a good idea but is not the whole story.
4. Fail wisely.
In my own words I interpret these lessons as...
Orchestrate people (key talent) within and without the organisation, avoiding NIH by embracing ideas wherever they come from.
Integrate technologies to deliver a coherent user experience that puts the customer at the heart of everything we think and do; but be prepared to lead the customer to a new experience (unarticulated needs) rather than just respond to their expressed (articulated) needs.
Don't worry about being first to market; concentrate on being first to deliver a "sexy" customer experience (as in Ridderstrale and Nordstrom's "Fit and Sexy").
Regard new products as experiments from which we learn rather than pass or fail launches. In their book Karaoke Capitalism Ridderstrale and Nordstrom's hypothesis is that
"being the fittest means being the most cost-competitive and efficient business in your markets.
Being sexy is all about having the appeal that creates demand for your product so the heart rules the head in the minds of the consumers."
They say that
"In a world of economic Darwinism, survival is a question of being fit or sexy – competing on models and moods. Fitness boils down to using market imperfections to your advantage. Masters of mood exploit the imperfections of man by seducing or sedating consumer. Excellent companies re-invent innovation and re-energize the corporation."
So being able to deliver a product that promises and enables a seductive experience is more likely to build a powerful competitive advantage over other less sexy alternatives... for a while anyway! Then fitness might be the way to keep ahead of the competition in appealing to the customer.
Steven Levy's book "The Perfect Thing" talks of how Apple have constantly looked for new ways to deliver the ultimate music experience (which has been changing over time) more effectively (sexy) and more efficiently (Fit) over time, making their own offers obsolete in the process. The result has been a stream of best-selling iPods, the visible face of a system that includes iTunes, iTunes Music Store and mould breaking agreements with the music industry.
Don't forget though that
"Innovation' isn't what innovators do....it's what customers and clients adopt."
- Michael Schrage
What great innovators like Apple do is to discover an motivating insight about the consumer (customer, user) and to come up with an idea of how to turn the insight into a great experience for that person. It is unlikely that an incremental idea will prove sufficient; more likely it will be a creative leap or act that presents a substantial, radical concept to decision makers... in the words of Dietrich Kuchemann, head of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, UK, between 1966-71
I posted about the importance of knowing which sort of project we are doing as it will affect the way we manage it. The Design Diamond facilitates the sort of project the team thinks it is doing and is actually doing Each type of project- fog, quest, movie, painting by numbers- is best managed in a different style and getting the style wrong can limit the horizon for the solution or, even worse, cause the project to go off the rails.
A fog project is often one of societal proportions, like sustainable enterprise. How do we address the issue of sustaining our business in today's environment, earning our place in the local society and addressing global warming too. We would probably want to involve all the local businesses in the discussion so that we could all figure it out together. There would be a series of meetings where people air the thoughts and opinions, do a workshop session and then go back to their organisation to discuss how these ideas might pan out in their particular business. In the UK landfill for waste is an issue (no more holes to fill) so an emergent issue might be how do we on the industrial/business park reduce or elimate landfill waste. A seminar on lean production is organised and afterwards everyone goes off to identify sources of waste and why it is generated. It turns out a lot of packaging waste is generated because we all order or stationary and like consumables individually. One person offers to look at how we could have a standardised list of the top items and all order from one supplier on the web and it will get delivered in bulk with minimal packaging to a central point on the park. So a quest has emerged from the fog. Once the website odering system is up and running other organisations see how it can be used to do similar jobs on other items in their business and a set of Making a Movie projects comes about. Painting by number projects come from a second and third organisation saying; I'll have that too, can you put that on our network. Soon some special skills in IT implementation emerge and the consortium of local organisations see how they could pool resources into a common resource (quest) and so on... an idealised set of events but in fact I have seen analogous things really happen. As to knowing what sort of project we are tackling... the diagram below shows the result of asking a newly formed team waht sort of project they were involved in. The team was a multifunctional and multi-organisational one. The team members attended a two-day workshop to launch the project. Individual team players were asked near the beginning and at the end of the workshop "What sort of project are we engaged in?".
The red dots are their votes at the start and green represent their views at the end of the workshop. The project was about providing a better office for collaborative design projects. At the beginning 'better' meant newer, better laid out facilities like the one we already had; at the end 'better' meant a stimulating environment for teams to create new more substantial things. The perception of the project had grown from more or less a Painting by numbers excercise in office sizing (we have the formula, just plug in the numbers) to a more creative approach asking how could we provide a facility that helped us change the nature of our projects supporting a more adventurous approach with more robust growth outcomes? A quest with some foggy feelings.