Thanks to everyone who came to see the presentation at Web Directions South yesterday, and sorry we weren’t able to have a bit more discussion at the end of the session — some great questions and ideas came up that I would have liked to explore further.  I’ve posted the presentation to Slideshare:

Or you can download a PDF of the presentation, along with notes (PDF 14.4 MB), including pointers to the various sites and articles I mentioned in the presentation.

As I hope is obvious from our work and the posts on this site, we’re very passionate about engaging people in the process of design, so we were  delighted to be able to contribute a small something to the participatory design community as a sponsor of the Participatory Design Conference for 2010, being held in Sydney (in part co-ordinated by our friend and colleague @pennyhagen).

The “prototype” programme is now up, and it’s looking like it’s going to be a great set of sessions.  And the industry day seems like a great opportunity for those of us in the design field to connect with the academic world of participatory design.  I know that I’ve certainly benefited tremendously from the academic literature on the topic (esp. during the preparation of my recent paper), so am looking forward to more cross-pollination of ideas at the conference…

I caught this video from Worrell Design (via @metarand) last week and I wanted to post it here because I think it is a great overview of the value of user research and collaborative design, with a specific focus on health care.

A lot of what’s covered in the video applies in a multitude of sectors and circumstances. While some of the video hints at some great technology ideas, these are only made possible by understanding the social aspects of the provision of health care — that is the relationship between practitioner and patient, and the other challenges, motivations, needs and wants that revolve around managing health.

I also think it highlights the challenges that many organisations and sectors face as the people formerly known as “consumers” are wresting back control using social and personal technologies, becoming active participants in the process.

In any case, well worth a watch…

I’m very excited to be joining an inspiring line-up at Web Directions South in a few weeks’ time, presenting on the topic of Creating platforms for social innovation:

People are redefining the relationship they have with the organisations they interact with, empowered by social technologies.  They are seeking:

• Human-ness: as organisations have grown in size and become more and more depersonalised, people are wanting more human interactions and personal response;
• Trust: from greenwashing to the GFC, the market’s trust has been eroded — people are looking for organisations to say what they mean and mean what they say;
• Co-creation: people are taking a more active role in developing the products and services that they use.  And if they don’t find what they’re looking for, they will often create it themselves;
• Responsibility: people want to engage with organisations that are genuinely addressing the complex issues of sustainability and wellbeing.

Building a brand, service or product offering that resonates in this new “economy of meaning” requires a rethinking of an organisation’s relationship to the “market” — their customers, stakeholders and the environment.

In this presentation we will examine how innovative organisations are using social technologies and design methods to create multi-dimensional value — both for the organisational and community — and will explore the themes that underpin the examples with a view to applying them in your context.

Regular readers will note that the session is focused on a number of themes that I’ve been exploring here lately, so I’m really looking forward to connecting with other folks at the conference around these concepts.

I’ve been having some further thoughts relating to my previous post on value creation, platforms and trust, and the terms “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” value keep coming to mind.

Intrinsic value = “belonging to a thing by its very nature”

The way I’ve been thinking about the concept of “intrinsic value” is the underlying value a business/organisation provides, just by existing.  It’s the value, taken from the community/customer/environmental perspective, that is generated by the business simply existing.  It is the business’ core purpose — the reason that employees will be passionate about coming to work, and customers will be passionate about spreading the word.

In the case of Airbnb, the business exists to support people sharing their spare space.  This provides community value, whether you are a buyer or seller – it enables the community to do things it wouldn’t otherwise be able to do — i.e. afford to travel longer, generate financial return for disused space.  It also has environmental (and one could argue economic) value because it maximally utilises resources.

Similarly, GoGet creates a more convenient mode of transport at a lower cost to the customer.  It also reduces demand for resources (space for parking, one car shared among many people) and places the returns for efficiency back to the company, so they are incentivised to improve efficiency of vehicles etc.

Extrinsic value = “being outside a thing; outward or external”

What I conceive “extrinsic value” to mean is the economic value the business derives from its activity — i.e. financial return to the business.  This is the reward to the company/organisation for providing the intrinsic value that is its core purpose.

A strong intrinsic value proposition makes it much easier to generate these type of returns, as well as providing the broader social and environmental returns that might also be possible.

This is a shift in business thinking from extracting value from the market, to how to creating value for and with the market, and a refocusing on intrinsic value proposition —core purpose — to achieve deeper returns.

These terms might mean different things to different people (I know it means something very different in financial markets, for example), so I wonder if using this language makes sense?  But in any case, I hope it’s an useful take on focusing on core purpose to achieve business outcomes.

I came across this post [article no longer available] link see on Airbnb via the Collaborative Consumption email newsletter. This quote in particular struck me:

Airbnb should be a modern day case study for a new kind of 21st Century business–a company that creates immensely more value than it extracts from customers. They are adding value to their users’ lives in multiple dimensions all at the same time.

Business models like Airbnb’s are based on value that is co-created with customers. Airbnb creates “immensely more value” by providing the enabling platform for value to be generated, and is rewarded for its contribution to the community.

Michael’s post goes on to discuss the importance of a clear purpose as the foundation stone to build an organisation culture capable of disruptive innovation. I would go further to suggest that for a business like Airbnb, where there traditional models of value-exchange are blurred, that purpose needs to look beyond the financial bottom line – “adding value to their users’ lives in multiple dimensions” is a great way to express that sentiment.

In addition to a clear purpose, there is also a need for trust, a point that Peter Merholtz picks up in this recent post.

Netflix, Nordstrom, Southwest, Zappos, USAA — these are all companies renowned for great customer experience. And they provide remarkable latitude to both customers and employees, a latitude that suggests trust.

As Peter notes, such trust extends beyond employees, it also requires trust in customers — including not punishing the majority of your customers to avoid problems with the minority (Zappos’ liberal return policy, for example). Airbnb is, of course, also a great example of this kind of trust (as are ventures like Kiva and Zopa).

To my mind, these concepts — Purpose, Trust, Co-created value, Platform — represent keystones for socially innovative business.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking (but clearly not a lot of blog writing!) about the idea of social innovation in a business context.  This ties into some previous thoughts I’ve posted about values and sustainability as a lens for innovation.

Two articles that I’ve come across recently expand on this concept.  The first is from Tim Draimin and focuses on shifting from Corporate Social Responsibility to Corporate Social Innovation.

In the article Tim references Michael Porter’s thoughts:

Michael Porter suggests that CSR has evolved.  He speaks about a concept he calls “shared value” or “corporate policies and practices that enhance the competitiveness of the company while simultaneously advancing economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates.”

The thinking goes that while traditional CSR programs are often viewed as an adjunct to the core business, something that happens “to the side”, the idea of CSI is that the benefit comes from the core business itself.  (While I do have reservations about the Corporate Social Innovation moniker, I do think the concept has merit.)

This is akin to what Adam Werbach outlines in his book Strategy for Sustainability when he talks about North Star goals and aligning sustainability goals with core business activity.  To my mind this also very much aligns with the concept of “betterness models” as put forward by Umair Haque.

I was reminded of this article (which I read quite a few weeks ago now) when I came across Dan Gray’s post on delivering short-term “quick wins” for sustainability within the context of a longer-term sustainability agenda.

In his post he says:

The authenticity of your commitment stems from the materiality of your actions – i.e. beyond the thin veneer of charitable giving, cause-related marketing etc., that commitment should be self-evident in the very products and services you provide, and the manner in which you conduct your daily business.

And goes on to quote Jonathon Porritt:

In an ideal world, all actions taken by a company to enhance its own commercial success should simultaneously generate benefits for society, over and above those that come directly through the use of that company’s products and services.

There are, of course, a number of cultural drivers that make consideration along these lines important for businesses moving forward, and I think they tie into the shift we’re also seeing in relation to social technologies (social networks etc.).  A quick summary of my current thinking is that people are seeking:

• Human connection: as organisations have grown in size and become more and more depersonalised, people are wanting more human interactions and personal response.
• Authenticity and transparency: from greenwashing to the GFC, the market’s trust has been eroded.  People are looking for organisations to say what they mean and mean what they say.
• Co-creation and collaboration: people are taking a more active role in developing the products and services that they use.  And if they don’t find what they’re looking for, they will often create it themselves.
• Environmental and social responsibility: global warming, looming limits to natural resource consumption, pollution and waste; respect for human dignity with fair wages and conditions — people want to support organisations that take these issues seriously, not just as something “to the side”.

Building a business (or service/product/brand) that resonates in this new “economy of meaning” requires a rethinking of an organisation’s role in more than “market” or financial terms.  But also, I think, a re-evaluation of an organisation’s relationship with customers/constituents, stakeholders, and the environment.

And I believe that it is in this rethinking that significant opportunities for innovation can be found.

Just a quick note to mentioned I’ve posted the slides from my presentation today at the Enviro 2010 conference over at Slideshare. I’ve uploaded with associated notes as a document to provide a bit more context for each slide.

In the presentation I mention Clay Shirky’s concept of the “cognitive surplus” – for those that are interested, he provides a great introduction to this concept in his recent TED talk (embedded below for quick reference):

Next Wednesday is the opening of the Enviro 2010 conference at the Melbourne Exhibition and Conference Centre.

I’m presenting there Thursday in the 4:00pm – 5:30pm session, on the topic of Social Design for Sustainability. In the presentation I’ll be looking at online social networks, the underlying trends that they represent, the importance of these networks in moving towards sustainability, and how “social design” (design thinking) provides a great toolset for organisations wanting to benefit through engagement within the context of these trends.

It’s been an interesting process pulling together the presentation, which ties together a number of the threads I’ve explored previously here in the blog, so I’m looking forward to seeing how it all goes on Thursday.

It’s also perhaps serendipitous that the conference coincides with the State of Design festival which has the theme of “Change by Design”. Hopefully my contribution to the Enviro 2010 conference will provide a nice tie-in between the two events.

Dan Pink, animated by the RSA, on what motivates us. Turns out meaning is better than money, and perhaps more surprisingly, that more money may actually result in worse performance.

Via the Nudge blog.