So, the pain point of this class for many was the aspect of working in groups. I feel that for some, more guidance and monitoring of the working dynamics would have improved things. I realize we're all supposed to be adults and work out our differences between us, but there are varying degrees of maturity and stages of personal development in our class, and some people don't have those skills or life experience. I saw these issues in almost every team, with different manifestations.

Not addressing these dynamics in a more direct way as they occur seems on the one hand to be a missed opportunity to help people learn how to function better in teams - but I can also see how the indirect approach of allowing people the space to experience these frictions and respond to them in their own way might also be just as valid. I guess I'm just not sure.

I personally had a great group, with 2 people I have worked well with in the past, but with one person who I found to be a difficult personality. Along the way, in key moments, I feel this person dragged down the inertia of the creative forces we were trying to harness and build a compelling business idea with. At times this person completely lost their cool and I didn't know if they were going to slash my tires later. In a professional environment this person's behavior would have warranted a trip to HR, but in grad school I felt I had to grin and bear it. Ultimately, I engaged the help of the teachers to lead us out of the mire, and things were much better for it. But I wonder, if there was more hands-on communication about the working dynamics of each group, would things have had to get to that point?

All in all, a truly amazing class. Thanks for everything!

If you want to survive in the world, you've got to play by the rules of business, even if what you do is strictly creative. Sometimes it takes awhile to reconcile this fact with our desire to explore, create, and express.

But here we come to what will be my primary take-away. Before this point, I had always thought business wasn't that interesting–and I'll be honest, it kind of outright offended me. I associated it with the types of humorless people in organizations who are just too normal to innovate, or just plain boring, or worse, just basically robots with MBAs. People who I'd never associate with, because I think on a deeper subconscious level, I'm either conflicted or unresolved with the idea of my own personal success (somewhat true at times), or because I have always viewed business types as self-serving and profit minded at the expense of other values that are sorely lacking in our society. But of course, this is completely narrow-minded and untrue.

My mind being opened is due in part to the fact that this class was taught by two very creative and dynamic individuals who, in this student's perspective, represent the best CCA has to offer in the way of mediating academic learning through the channels of real-world considerations and scenarios. These two teachers were able to really grab our attention with fun exercises and work that was challenging and rewarding. The class represents real world business situations, taken head-on via the lens of design and creativity. So far it seems to approximate the closest what being a designer in 'the real world' is like. I think I've used 'the real world' in this entry several times but I guess it's a theme that shouldn't be ignored!

What I learned is that business is, in many respects, The King/Queen of Creative. The way you run yours can have the greatest impact on the world and real people's lives, and that's more important then making something beautiful or even unique. What I learned is that this world is always changing and adapting and finding new ways to meet human needs, and it isn't always giant corporations polluting the ozone and getting away with it. It doesn't even have to create a profit. It can be small. Or big, but innovative and ethical. I'm not quite sure where I fit in at this point, but I feel that I will, sooner then I once thought. This class has given me the tools and vocabulary to start that journey.

Kate Koeppel, who is one of the geniuses behind Local Picnic. We found our concepts had a great deal in common, with each company focusing on different market segments - Kate's cusomers are weekenders in the park, ours are busy people in the financial district. We felt we'd make a great partnership and be able to cross-promote each other's businesses without feeling threatened, since neither one of us did exactly what the other does in the same way and to the same folks. We felt we could distribute coupons in each other's products, or share information. We both want to support healthy eating.

I also met with Samin Soheili, who was a leader in the Chicken Drink franchise. We felt it might be possible to use Chicken Drink as an ingredient in one of the food items at Organic Express, although I was somewhat concerned about her description of the taste being somewhat bitter and unpleasant. If there were a way to effectively market the dish and it's intrinsic health benefits, in a similar manner that Jamba Juice is able to offer 'boosts' which are ultimately masked by the fruit flavors of their smoothies, we might have something, but jury's still out on whether Chicken Drink could be an effective ingredient or if it's even marketable to our crowd.

After Samin, I spoke with Grace Li, of T.Oats, a company specializing in granola, but also a 'brick & mortar' restaurant - we mutually felt that we were actually competing too closely for the same customers, although we might possibly carry their granola in a breakfast dish were it to really take off.

Last, I spoke with Nikki Knox, who has possibly the strangest idea I've ever heard in this class, the golf ball which releases chemicals once it deteriorates into the natural environment, which help neutralize toxins and pollution. Having zero idea how we could optimize either of our businesses with each other's concept, I used the time to critique her idea... mostly focusing on the fact that I didn't feel that Environmentalists and Golfers were really the same people.

Out of all of these, I felt Kate would be the best partner for Organic Express, because we had the most in common without being in direct competition, and our goals and values seemed to be the most aligned.

Stay Tuned...

It seems like every time you turn around, more and more businesses are cropping up–especially online–that allow consumers an infinite number of choices to customize their purchase. In a similar vein to Rickshaw, the print publishing industry is getting a boost with products like Burb and Lulu, which allow users to design and print their own hard or softcover books, and even sell them in their online shops. Etsy, a website dedicated to craft artists starting their own small businesses, is similarly opening up new niche markets for everything from sustainably made dog beds to custom made to oerder alpaka hats. In general, there are examples of this in seemingly every space, and more cropping up every day.

The operational innovation that I admire the most these days is the ability for anyone anywhere to create anything and put it out there to find an audience. Artists, content producers, poets, writers, musicians, comedians, designers, and many other types of idea-and-thing makers are all being empowered to start sharing their work and finding their tribes of supporters and customers. New business models are cropping up which are taking the place of the old means of gatekeeping, which shut out innovation and diversity in favor of limiting choice and increasing profits for the few businesses who could survive in a given space–usually by squeezing the life out of the people doing the work! Nowadays it's all about talent, and if you've got it, it seems likely that you will find success more quickly and without as much a chance of it being exploited.

This new model seems to be catching to almost every sphere of life in the western world, with the internet, reality t.v., and film industries creating more niche content and even a whole new flavor of fame, called 'famey-ness', used to describe an internet celebrity. There is now even an internet famous class at Parson's School of Design. http://internetfamo.us/class/

In other words, Up With People! I love the time we're living in. Operational innovations galore, may it make us all richer and more fulfilled!

Now there is no place to hide, because I, ladies and gentlemen, am a Freak.

Up to this point, I've reaped the benefits of appearing like I knew what I was doing. Here's where I will try to put the truth into words and be forced–finally–into observing what a confusing mess my life and goals really are. I'm actually not a freak, but I am what personality experts call a Synthesist.

What this means is that I have been going in many different directions all at once, for as far back as I care to remember. Some might say, throwing a bunch of dookie at the wall to see what will stick. Also, I have done quite well with this. But just to be clear, it's not a strategy per se, as much as a mental illness. I may be a little too close to the subject to be the best judge, but this whole business of asking someone like me to codify a personal mission statement seems just a bit on the cruel side.

Creative types often find it difficult to define their mission because ultimately what drives them is the ability to play with pure ideas, unencumbered by the goal or outcome. They want to make cool things that stimulate other cool things. It's a bit like a scientist who just wants to keep experimenting and allow the inquiry to lead the way. This form of play has encouraged me to get into many different forms of creative expression, and I think I am still on the path of learning about what it all means, or how–or if–to put it all together.

I have a decent career as a Creative Director. I have enjoyed it and I feel that I will probably remain on that path. But when I think about my mission statement, my career doesn't play into it so much.

I have a lot of missions, and some of them are at odds with one another. They intersect, sure. Most of them are distinctly separate things which inform one another. If you told me I had one year to live, I'd want to make another album of songs, and then I'd probably spend the rest of my time with my family. I love making art and music, and I would love to have a career doing that somehow. But in the meantime, I will keep being all over the place, trying to make a living in this profession, and trying to be a true artist in the margins between responsbility and life.

Big, critical angry boss.
I have actually been this person myself, so perhaps it's apropos to begin here. The critical angry boss is smart about what will work and what won't, due to lots of life experience and some bumps on the head. Deep down inside is afraid of taking any chances, either because there isn't any room for mistakes, or resources are scarce, and so must drive towards a solution, often at the expense of innovation. This type of boss has a lot of pressure coming down from above which you might not see, but you will definitely feel. This type of boss can be great to have if they're on your side and you think (and communicate) in a similar language. They can tend to be prescriptive in their communication and not know how to best set up problems for creative types to solve in their own ways, instead opting to 'simplify' and provide what amounts to a recipe for their exact vision. This boss likes to sketch out their ideas and show you exactly what they mean, doing half of the creative job for you, and rendering you a mere pixel pusher (they don't know Photoshop, but are really amazing with PowerPoint).

Hyper-intellectual quiet boss.
This type of boss is a brilliant person who excelled in their function as an individual contributor, perhaps inventing a new product or process, or in some way distinguishing themselves in their role; at some point they are given the keys to an entire team to drive–after which they summarily disappear into their office, rarely to be seen or heard from again. The problem with this type of boss is that they have no social maturity or ability to understand team dynamics (they tend to be loners) and may ultimately still continue to behave as an individual contributor, albeit now with more authority and leverage. This type of manager will expect you to work highly independently, and may only provide feedback and direction on the occasion that it is given from higher up the chain. The hyper intellectual boss can come from a highly technical background whose expertise involves something extremely valuable to the company which is in some way related to the work you do, but in an extremely abstract and/or vague way. This type of boss will, over time, attempt to get better at team leadership, creative brainstorming, and other forms of management, but it will always seem like a giant act of desperacy. Ultimately this type of boss will eventually realize they are in the wrong role, and move back to the thing they are best at.

The Cool Boss.
I've had one boss who was so freakin' cool, I wished he was my dad. I still consider him a good friend. He managed the entire creative group at a television channel I worked at as a web guy back in the early 00's. Working for his team was an amazing experience, because he somehow knew how to get the best out of the ragtag crew of designers who were so diverse, and in many ways difficult, to communicate with. He gave us all enough rope to hang ourselves, and just before things got ugly, would know how to orchestrate the right solution, one that everyone had contributed towards, and one that was always the best symbiosis of the best - the truest - parts. I could write a book about working with this team, because I stayed at this company for 7 years.

I've had plenty of other bosses over the years, but this high level categorical representation gives me pause to know how lucky I am to have learned from some great managers, and even some who weren't so great - at how to encourage and promote creativity in corporate environments.

What strikes me the most isn't Cameron's passion to help people–this quality seems to be on the rise, especially in the design world, where people are more empowered to solve these types of human problems with innovative new ideas. The coolest thing about Cameron's approach is that he uses Open Source methodologies to attack the problem, by using the internet to procure design solutions, but also distribute them to localities, who take these ideas and implement them. This allows more to be accomplished with less; but more to the point, it allows local communities to participate at a highly functional level in managing their own destinies.

Thanks to the internet, Open Source is changing the world in some amazing ways. Due to the recent emergence of this new working philosophy, talented and passionate peers from around the world can collaborate simultaneously and solve big problems, which previously only companies and governments would ever have a chance to address-and in case you haven't noticed–they mostly don't.

The other thing I noticed is the distinction between architecture which is the product of an architect's "vision", who's aim is to produce a "gem", and Cameron's designs, which are produced with the community's benefit at the center of the idea–an almost inverse to how architecture is usually done. What I noticed is, this stuff looks cool despite the fact that aesthetic considerations aren't really the point. Through the process of making things that work on a basic human level, these approaches are also amazing to look at.

Inspired by Paul Hawken's "The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability," Ray Anderson completely retrofitted his carpet company in order to lead the way for big business and industry to take a hard look at reversing the decline of environmental impact caused by their businesses. Sustainability. A relatively new concept, but one which ancient people's have understood and practiced for centuries. "Take nothing, do no harm." It's an idea which is coming into fashion as even businesses like Wal-Mart have acknowledged the need (and even profitibiltiy) of going Green.

One of the most confronting ideas that Ray Anderson puts out there, at least to me, is the notion that "theft is a crime". Well, we all know that if you walk out of the 7-11 without paying for your Slurpee, you're doing something wrong, but the truly sad fact of the matter is, many of us don't have the same moral code about later dumping that empty container out the window on our way to the beach. At least not until fairly recent history in this country.

I'm reminded of a recent episode of the show "Mad Men," (the episode is called "The Golden Violin" in case you want to look it up on Hulu). The scene itself isn't very important to the episode, but one of the great things about this show are the finer details in between the larger themes. The scene is this: Don Draper takes his family on a picnic in the park, and it's a beautiful and calm moment. After they are done, Don chucks his empty beer can onto the grass. Betty, his wife, cleans off the picnic blanket by shaking all of the trash onto the ground. They all return to the car and drive away. It's both shocking and funny in a surreal kind of way. But it's also an unexpected commentary about the mess we've made due to our ignorance and laziness.

Big business has been operating like Don Draper for as long as Capitalism has existed; possibly longer. To say that theft is a crime, and to suggest that CEOs of large companies should be arrested and thrown in jail is a long overdue paradigm shift in attitude and belief. As people become more aware of climate change, and many of the other issues under that larger umbrella, companies are becoming increasingly aware that even though they might have been able to buy off the government, they can't fool consumers as they begin to factor these concerns into their purchasing decisions.

Another interesting concept is the idea of affluence itself. The old model has us polluting the environment more as we become more affluent, as a matter of course. Additionally, as technology becomes more advanced, this compounds the levels of destruction. Here is his chart:

The new model, on the right, has technology dividing, or cutting the amount of waste now that we are looking for ways to innovate and build sustainable businesses. Affluence no longer clogs the system with waste, it just means that people are happy. I'm no mathematician, but this is how I interpreted the diagram.

Personally, I am interested in expanding the notion of how we are all connected even further to include the resources themselves. Companies that make billions extracting fossil fuels from the earth, for instance, are in effect taking something which belongs to all the people of the world, not just Exxon. We all have a stake. "But Sean, isn't that SOCIALISM?" Maybe, maybe not. Could be it's time to get rid of these loaded words we use to tune out fairness and common sense, and start focusing on a new bottom line–the preservation of all our futures.

It's time to take these profits from the robber barons and use them to uplift the human race!