Regret Quotient Meeting Length
Obviously, not all meetings should be two hours max. I mean someone is trying to solve Middle East Peace, but I was in a meeting where, after a certain time, I just felt there’s no reason this meeting should be THIS long. I think every person has this quotient (at different lengths) ticking in their heads. Keep the info utility front-loaded, you know!
Ripped from an email to a client:
“That said, I can reflect on something a design mentor, Ed Gold, said (He’s was honored for a AIGA medial some time ago, when I was involved with the local chapter) … Design is the one profession where, when you are doing it well, the goal is to achieve your highest heights by doing something even more different. Most other professions: like doctors, lawyers, etc., are about honing the expertise into doing the same thing very well.”
“It is sad that so many creations today are just like the rest. It is why Porsche must remain independent. Without independence, without the freedom to try new ideas, the world will not move ahead, but live in fear of its own potential. … Committees lead to creations that have no soul, no identity. This is why no Porsche will ever be created by a committee, but a handful of people inside these walls who know what a Porsche is.”
— Dr. F. Porsche
I was in a meeting where a CEO lamented that getting things through her board is difficult—can’t remember the exact characterization. Suffice to say, allowing a board to be a board is a tricky thing. Clearly there are times when a board helps vet an organization’s process, but there are other times when in the process of creation a board is best poised to allow the process to happen in the hands of the creators. A book I read called The Visionary’s Handbook suggests that even in the big company, certain divisions should be treated as if they were very small, giving entrepreneurial power to this force of creation. This type of independence is rare, even in the automotive world.
Unless you’re Porsche.
And with that I thought back to one of my most cherished quotations from what has become somewhat of a design hero for me, the patron of Porsche. I don’t know when exactly this was said, but one things for sure, anytime through the end of World War II, the amalgamation of car companies was rampant. This process saw the end of many storied brands. But for some there was the time to double down and work to come up with that next big thing.
The 356 was one such number. A roadster prelude to my favorite car, the 911, this car had the simplicity of design and a sheer level of enjoyment to see. And if driving a Karmann Ghia is half the experience—probably half the engine—then it must have really been something.
In April, I wrote an article inspired by my frustration that my Apple iOS calendar and my Google Calendar don’t work together. These are two mainstream technologies which, to a large extent, try to pretend the other doesn’t exist. Case in point: Apple’s attempt to build its own map, which has been reported has not been working out swimmingly.
The NYT has published an article which lays bare the patent minefield, in-fighting, lawsuits and the total warfare going on between may of the top technology companies and the shockwaves it creates throughout the industry. The articles balance, defending patent-holders, while acknowledging the frustration of others seeking a foothold in the patent landscape should be noted.
While there’s no one that can/should be blamed, does such a landscape cast a pall over the ability for competing technologies to just “get along”?