MEREDITH Strategy + Design

We design the places and spaces where people come together to do great work

Filtering by Tag: google

Did Marissa Mayer start a trend of moving CRE from the CFO to the CEO?

So, with people in the office and either unmotivated or having to jump the hurdles of inappropriate design, or "connected" at home but unconnected to purpose and meaningful interaction, many organizations began to lag or fail.

Read More

An autoupdating workspace?

A couple of influences this week evoked once again my great interest in how to conceive of a workplace that is continuously updated and enriched by the actions and adaptations of its users. There were, of course, the many reflections on the culture that Steve Jobs developed at Apple. I found interest in a video we’ve referenced before with this specific observation about the Apple design culture – Every time you present the user with a non-essential decision to make, you have failed as a designer.

It is easy to appreciate the meaning of this in the experience of Apple’s products, and in its retail environments. In architecture in other places, it conjures up Mies van der Rohe, Tadao Ando, Louis Kahn, and others. The work of each is beautiful in its sparseness, in its precision, in its critical attributes, in its reduction. It is also easy to imagine how these environments would be seen as disappointments to those who were not their direct commissioners.

The notion that google's Chrome was developed as a blank platform with an “autoupdater” that progressively enriched the platform is a great inspirational concept, too. An app gets progressively more valuable as the experience of thousands or millions informs its designers, providing the insights for its progressive development and enrichment.

Buildings learn, it seems, but rarely cumulatively. And in between the experience of the users of a building and its learning potential is an authoritarian structure charged with control and armed with the limiting tools of standards. Its role is unidirectional by intention, but even when embracing an interest in more progressive approaches it is under-resourced to effectively and accurately receive and respond to information coming from the direction of the occupier/user. The user is, of course, also under-resourced, without tools or opportunities to experiment or implement what they perceive to be better approaches to environments that might help them do their jobs better.

Designers are unintentional disappointments, as well. That is, the desire for recognition from peers, and for appreciation from users, frequently generates fully-loaded designs perceived as rich environments for their purpose but stripping the user of opportunity for authorship.

Is it possible, in then, to develop a workplace infrastructure in which the initial commission can be the minimally awesome product, and in which the users have resources and authority to make progressive adaptations based on a commitment to purpose and a goal of performance and the insights from ongoing experience?

What do you think?

Jim Meredith

Much more important is just making a connection and being accessible

In this rather remarkable article about Google's 8-Point Plan to help managers improve are insights that make me wonder why corporate leadership perpetuates traditional and conventional workplace planning and design. With the analysis of data from an extraordinary 10,000 observations about managers, Google derived "rules" and guidelines for management training and development. Rising to the top over many conventional assumptions abut management were core principles about relationships between bosses and staff. For example, in examining why people leave an organization, Google discovered that managers have a much greater influence on employee performance and engagement than any other factor.

"Google's Rules" do not directly provide criteria for planning and design. Their implications however can serve as a guide to planning wherever similar principles of management apply.

What kind of office environment do you believe best serves to support, nurture, encourage and facilitate –

  • Providing specific, constructive feedback, which seems dependent on observation and timeliness of response
  • Having regular one-on-ones, which seems to want informal, spontaneous, contextual opportunity
  • Giving freedom but being available for advice, which seems to challenge the core concept of management planning – the door
  • Getting to know your employees as people seem to argue for the social rather than the formal workplace
  • Focusing on removing the roadblocks to achievement, which seems to argue for openness and accessibility
  • Supporting communicating in both directions, which seems to support concepts of openness, accessibility, visibility, reduced trappings of hierarchy, and informality
  • Helping with career development, which also seems to ask for visibility and spontaneity
  • Rolling up your sleeves and conducting work side by side with the team, an extraordinary insight, seems to suggest a leveling of workplace accommodation

I liked best the observation of Laszlo Bock, Google's chief people person, who said that one of the most important factors in the success of managers and teams is "just making that connection and being accessible."

Look around your office. If you share a belief in these principles, how do you see them experienced in your workplace? What specific components of your workplace inhibit these principles and actions? What specific components of your workplace support these principles and actions?

Most importantly, what aspects of your workplace support the principle and practice of just making a connection and being accessible?

10 emerging considerations to shape the design of the next generation of automotive retailing

autos_0906_32googlemobile06 I currently have the opportunity of working with one of the major automotive manufacturers to define the next generation of their retail dealerships. We have been anticipating their challenge for a while.

Not only is the automotive retail model a bit stale to begin with, but the emerging economic conditions have certainly changed everything in their domain. Whether by plan or by attrition, there certainly will be many fewer dealerships out there. The product portfolio of every manufacturer is getting smaller. Investment in events, advertising and marketing is shrinking, and even the major North American auto shows were much smaller in content and attendance this year.

Our charge is to accept that these symptoms are, in fact, the new fundamentals of the marketplace, and that the dealership of the future must have a significantly smaller footprint. This original mission, borne of current circumstance, pressure or opportunity, seems tactical compared to the potential richness that we see in the long turn of subject. I feel comfortable however that as the conversation continues we will all find a way to broaden our perspective and lengthen our view.

I am looking ahead like this because I am fascinated and interested in the tangential and circumstantial influences that appear even before my research begins.

A couple of examples that have appeared in random readings over the past couple of days—

  • “Plan B” is the expression that many of us have used to describe a fallback position when the primary goal becomes unattainable. In a nice exploration of the impact of the economy on these alternative dreams in the New York Times today, David Segal quotes a Miami real estate investor. “I got rid of everything luxurious,” he says. “I drive a Ford pickup truck. I used to drive a BMW 5 Series, and I was going to upgrade from there, to the 6 Series convertible.”
  • Ben Terrett, in his blog, Noisy Decent Graphics, admits to hating cars. But he is tuned to an awareness of how media might affect purchasing decisions. He’s announced a project, he calls “the long car purchase.” He describes his plan like this—“So under The Long Car Purchase I'm going to note down all the significant interactions I have with car advertising and branding over four years (or whatever) and then maybe we'll see a picture build up of how that affects my purchase. Maybe we won't. It's an experiment.”
  • The google-izing of the industry seems to be a frequent evocation for exploration of new models for the business. Jeff Jarvis challenged the industry in an article in the new issue of Business Week. He offers the Goggle design process as a remedy for the disconnect between Detroit and drivers and suggests a radical redesign for the business. Rita McGrath took up the subject in her Harvard Business blog, but then her colleague, Bill Taylor, suggested she and Jarvis both ought to look elsewhere.

This is a very small but, I’d say, typical sample. They are mostly about the products themselves, but what implications might these random readings have on the design of the dealership and the retail business?

For the moment, I make the assumption that the current, emerging and enduring economic conditions generate these conditions—

  • Buying a car is going to take more time
  • Car manufacturers will bend to greater consideration of the customer (choice) than the car (production)
  • The retail business must become more pull than push

Here, then, are ten emerging considerations for a new business model, ten considerations that can shape a program for a new kind of dealership design.

  1. Build a new cache around products that did not have charm before. How can I arrive at this event in a Ford pickup and not lose the attention and associated credibility I did when I arrived in a BMW 6? Manufacturer’s ads, local dealer’s ads, and the dealer’s sales people all contribute to the success of brand transitions.
  2. Become a place of learning rather than a place of selling. The emerging electric and hybrid technologies are unfamiliar. There’s a lot of lore out there about sustainability, environmentalism, fuel consumption and emissions, cost of ownership, etc. The last place many people would think to look for credible information and instruction is the dealership. How does this transformation from creepiness to credibility take place?
  3. Make it a ceremony not a transaction. Delivery is a nominal process, mostly. It may have achieved its height in those fantasy Saturn commercials, where the hand-off of the keys was an emotional event. Ceremony and ritual imply shared values, time, community, culture and other factors not currently expressed in, say, the Toyotathon.
  4. Accommodate personalizing, resist packaging. Dealership economics as well as production efficiencies have meant that we’ve had to take what someone else imagined for us rather than what we wanted or needed. Each of the articles I cited above imply a significant devaluation of what you chose for me and a real value associated with what I can make for myself.
  5. Utility is the new luxury. Satisfaction of what I need and what I need to get done feels really rich right now. More than that is corrupt.
  6. Eliminate the lot. The car lot has never been a good experience, and ought to be abolished. It is a huge burden on the dealer’s business, is an environmental nightmare and community blight, and is irrelevant when time is on my side. I remember a phrase from sitting in a demo vehicle with my Dad when I was a kid—“We’ll build your car and it will be delivered in six weeks.” I want my next car from the factory and built for me, not from the lot. You, dealer, should be happy.
  7. Sell experiences not products, but experiences beyond the product. In the convention of asking what business are we really in, the car becomes defined as a vessel of navigation, entertainment, business, and socialization as well as carrying the associations (performance, sex, utility) that have defined brands for ages. Ignoring for a moment the threats associated with on-board technologies, the fact of the matter is that while moving from place to place, the car is place—living room, game room, office—and contains all of the experience associated with its extended functionality.
  8. Consider the implications of conditional ownership. As the world urbanizes, more will have the options that allow Ben Terrett to hate, or not have, a car. Hyundai, in these ugly times, even offers a conditional ownership model—lose your job and we’ll take back your car. ZipCar, and others, offer a model that looks like rentals, but feels different. Should conventional ownership stand outside of this model. Can I come in for an update to my technology, for example? Who will do this—the dealership or the technology brand?
  9. Consider the implications of a multi-point relationship. Remember those relatively silly secondary branded vehicles—the Eddie Bauer Edition? Remember the building expectations for “Intel Inside” for cars? As a car is embedded with utilities for navigation, communication, entertainment, safety, comfort and other user-defined attributes, realize that others may make or shape the brand image and the associated relationship experience.
  10. It’s not about you, it’s about the embedded brands. Jarvis complains about the radio and Tarrett seeks an audio satisfaction, while iPhone delivers communication, entertainment, socialization, connection, information and so very much more. The iPhone advertises content and utility—“need a cab in an unfamiliar city?”—not the iPhone itself. What are the experiential utilities in the cars you are selling?

I am sure we’ll return to these and other subjects as our conversation continues. In the meantime, what are you looking for?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine