Comments

Absolutely positively ON THE MONEY Tom!

To insist on focus at the beginning of a project (especially a "creative" project) ususally means the people involved have little experience, little self-confidence, meager support from the heirarchy (another version of missing self-confidence) or they don't believe in the importance or criticality of the project.

People do not realize how much discipline it takes to muck around the way you do and then place the samples in the Tom Peters Petre Dish of your mind and experience and then deal with the REAL outcomes of the experiment/exploration of the organization/department/workgroup/product/whatever.

Despite wishful thinking to the contrary, your kind of dig deep and learn what needs to be learned and THEN focus is where the power of progress lives. That's where learning is. That's where kick-ass wonderful stuff gets done.

Focus is as focus does and most of the time "focus" is the worst kind of delay tactic or cop out.

Keep preaching Tom. We all need the reminding.

BT

funeralwords.blogs.com
www.hathawayfunerals.com

Posted by BT Hathaway at August 8, 2005 11:48 AM

I agree that it's always a good idea to get a feel for something by letting your mind absorb impressions freely, but once you have the inspiration the rest is all hard work. And if you don't put that work in, then what started out as a neat idea will still be a neat idea but it won't be as exceptional as it could be if you had put in the effort to develop and refine it and that requires plenty of focus.

Wasn't it Edison who said that what distinguished him from the majority was not "genius" but simply his ability to concentrate for longer than other people could.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 8, 2005 12:13 PM

I think that Cool Projects are all about making mistakes. the more the mistakes -- the easier the focus.. the quicker churn on ideas !! Its only when one throws themselves into a "pit", will they learn to burrow themselves out.. Yeah its scary, the start stops most people.
They say "Every journey has a first step"
I say " Every project needs a leap first"

Posted by /pd at August 8, 2005 1:05 PM

Good points. However, unfortunately, most people in business have finite time and resources (One of the questions I ask entrepreneur clients is "Do you have the time and money to afford to thrash around first?") I'm all for creativity and personally thrash around a lot when starting a project (tons of data, lots of scribbling and pie in the sky thinking). But, not everybody is Tom Peters... The downside is folks using "creativity" as an excuse to NEVER get focused (while the clock is ticking in the market opportunity , on the credit line, etc.)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at August 8, 2005 1:37 PM

Tom

Thought you were supposed to be on holiday!

Posted by BB at August 8, 2005 2:08 PM

Personally, I feel that the only thing that should be focused on is the objective. Without a well defined objective, any approach, focused or not, will miss the mark. Even then, we will only surpass exectations if we allow for flexibility in definition and approach! Sometimes "missing the mark" is the best thing that can happen! Tom...you go boy! By the way, I though you were on holidays??!! Shouldn't you be Thai Chi"ing" on a beach somewhere???

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 8, 2005 2:10 PM

The "focus" thingie stares at me most explicitly in my design work. Especially corporate identities. What works for me best is letting loose initially and coming up with ideas. Once I hit the saturation level, I push myself some more and squeeze out some more ideas. Once that is done, then I sit down to "focus" the ideas/shapes/designs to what would be most relevant to the client and her/his business.

If I started the focusing in the initial stages, I'd have a very limited view/perspective and would come up with less than 25% of the "loose process" ideas. I've tried it, so I know it. And then it's tougher to wipe the slate clean and start all over.

I suppose that with experience, our brains tend to do the focus almost automatically. For example if I have a client who needs a logo for his software business where they develop mobile apps, the premise for the design will already be ingrained in my head - "software", "technology", "hi-tech", "phone", "mobile" etc. It a challenge to get rid of those assumptions. So instead of focusing, I need to actually get rid of the auto-focus.

Posted by Naina Redhu at August 8, 2005 2:30 PM

To my mind it doesn't matter if you are focussed or unfoccussed as long as two criteria are met:

1) It is deliberate - i.e. you have made a concious decision one way or another

2) everybody in the room understands what you are doing and is trying to do the same thing.

No where near enough time or effort is put into meta-thinking (i.e. thinking about how you are going to approach the thinking! - especially in a group environment)

Posted by PaulH at August 8, 2005 2:32 PM

Tom, I couldn't agree more about being flexible when it comes to setting goals and objectives, especially long-term ones.

Here's something I read about long-range planning that might be interesting:

"Consider a cross-country car trip. Your objective is to spend a relaxing vacation somewhere. Your long-range plan is to drive to San Francisco from New York in five days. Your short-term plan is to get to Akron on the first day. But it turns out there is heavy construction work in eastern Pennsylvania, so you swing south and hook up with the Pennsylvania Turnpike. You drive for a while but hear on the radio that there's a flooding a few miles ahead. So you take a detour onto Interstate 70 and end up in Columbus instead of Akron.

As you drive along, you keep running into obstacles and taking detours. But you still make pretty good progress, and on day four you're racing along Interstate 40 in Arizona when you hear the news: There has been another earthquake in San Francisco. So you take the turnoff for Highway 93 and head for Las Vegas instead. You check into a hotel with a big swimming pool and tennis courts and a golf course, and you spend five relaxing days there.

In short, your long-range plan fell through - but at least you've met your objective ... A company that relies on any sort of long-term economic or political prognostication makes itself vulnerable to the unexpected. Better to be prepared and flexible enough to spin on a dime and confront the new conditions instead of dying with the old."

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 8, 2005 2:33 PM

What if you focus focus focus focus . . . and then when you're pretty far along, you realize you were focusing on the wrong thing?

I agree that we need to keep the timeline on our minds, otherwise quicker, more nimble competitors will beat our pants off. At the same time, I feel more comfortable having an objective, then having lots of wiggle room to meet that objective. If you focus, there's little wiggle room.

Posted by Ron at August 8, 2005 5:31 PM

This isn't a criticism, just an observation. I don't find that people actually think very clearly. They use ideas that they have collected from a wide variety of sources, but have not learned how to use those ideas. It takes time to let an idea sink into your mental processes. The gap between idea and application is tremendous, and can only be bridged with time. If I have a talk to given, I am like you are Tom, I have a purpose in mind. A destination, a goal, and I spend all my time up to the moment I need to put pen to paper ruminating on it. It usually isn't something brand new, but some newly constructed out of what I already know. What I use to "focus" on the end result is the question, "What is the impact I want to have?" By that I mean, what change do I want to take place. And by that, I mean, what one action do I want my audience to take as a result of my presentation. When I distill all my rambling thoughts down to this, I know what I'm suppose to say, and can say it passionately because I know what I've prepared is just for them. Hardly anything is better than that.

Posted by Ed Brenegar at August 8, 2005 6:24 PM

Mr.Peter has got the ticket!

I wonder how can one be focused all the time?I agree with first outlay/design; then shoot as many times as you wish or can. Is the difference between shooting and meeting the mark and shooting blind.

BB, good post! ;-) it just made me laugh a lot. I don't know whether he is on holidays or not, I think he is "passionate about his work" and, isn't it a surprise having him posting these days?...

Posted by omara at August 8, 2005 7:28 PM

And Mr Peters, you are always focused on the goal! You achieve what the client asked for, one way or another. Although you use a method other than the 'normal' way. Ed said it right that most people do not think clearly. Luckily thinking is a learned skill though most people are not taught, or take the time to learn it properly and settle for whatever they were given. Usually by someone else who didn’t learn how…

Regardless of your method, I'm fairly sure you follow the exact same method to develop a solution for the client. That process is your way of doing things, and when compared, it may seem to go against more popular and documented 'wisdom'.

A simple question, what would be the result if you did it by "focusing on the goal" (whatever that really means to you) compared to doing it the way that is most natural for you? Your answer to that will point out so the strengths and weaknesses in both methods. Though when all is said and done, as long as the method works for you and your clients, it doesn't matter.

How many of your readers have been working hard on a project only to have the best ideas 'arrive' while getting coffee, driving home, or having dinner? This is another example of what you are describing. You have the goal in mind, know that you'll get to the goal, but it's not until you are able to 'let go' of what you think the solution is, does the real solution often arrive. Chucking the speech 20 minutes before going on stage is another perfect example of this. Luckily for us, this too can be trained so it's no longer seemingly random.

Enjoy,
Michael.

Posted by Michael Vanderdonk at August 8, 2005 8:39 PM

Tom,

Ur so damn RITE! "Begin by "focusing" on the "goal" and not on your life! "

As Andrew Carnegie once said "If you want to be happy, set a goal that commands your thoughts, liberates your energy, and inspires your hopes".....so true..rite?

I believe once you know your life purpose, determine your vision, and clarify what your true needs and desires are, you have to convert them into specific, measurable goals & objectives and then ACT on them with certainiy that U WILL ACHIEVE THEM (thats focus!)

I also believe in what Jack Canfield calls "Creating a BREAKTHROUGH Goal"....which means any GOAL that would represent a quantum leap for you and your career.

I'd also like to conclude by posting one of my favo quotes by Lou Holtz (The only coach in NCAA history to ever lead 6 different college teams to postseason bowl games, and a man who also won a national championship and COACH OF THE YEAR honors)..it goes like this...."If you are bored with LIFE, if you dont get up every morning with a burning desire to do things --> YOU DONT HAVE ENOUGH GOALS!

Posted by K.Sriram (from India) at August 8, 2005 11:33 PM

I like to approach a project with a healthy dose of MBWA. I like to put the sponsor's thoughts to the back of my mind, go talk to the people & the customers, visit any relevant operations and get a feel for things first. Then I ask myself: "What do I think are the good and the bad points here? What would I be aiming to do if I was the CEO? What great problems / ideas have the people flagged up during my wanderings? How do we get them involved?" More often than not, you end up talking to the sponsor to redefine the original goal. Mind you, that sometimes means you ask him to address some more fundamental issues than he originally wanted, but it makes for a more meaningful project.

Posted by Mark JF at August 9, 2005 5:25 AM

I agree that in many cases it is not wise to start by focusing.

Working as a consultant as I am, I many times find it annoying that you too early start the focusing/implementation phase of a project.

A little bit more unfocus, a little bit more defining the problem, usually saves a lot of time later.

Posted by Klas K. at August 9, 2005 5:36 AM

Tom,

You might be interested in examining the results of research projects in neurosciences.

Usually, the right hemisphere of the human brain tends to work more on the "parallel" / "unfocused" mode, handling data inputs in parallel and making unusual / creative associations. It is the intuitive side. The left hemisphere works in a sequential / objective-driven mode. It tends to handle queues of data. So, it would make sense to use the right brain as long as the scope of our work is unclear and likely to change and to move to the sequential way of doing once things are a bit firmer.

Of course, the concept of right / left hemisphere is an oversimplification, blah, blah, blah... But the purpose here is to suggest a field in which you may wish to look.

Another interesting reference:
Gut Strategy
by Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel, Antonio R. Damasio , Science, Vol. 275, February 28, 1997 pp. 1293-5), Copyright © 1997. American Association for the Advancement of Science

Thanks for this interesting observation you sahred with the world.

Take care,

alex

Posted by alex at August 9, 2005 6:49 AM

.
FOCUS is not always a negative word. Depends on the context. What Tom might have seen in the manuscript he's reviewing is focus being used to mean thinking or planning.

I see focus as just plain "Paying Attention." That is, being fully present, and that is part of my own creative process. This includes being aware of your own thoughts and your own intentions (read = goals), as well as being aware of what other people are saying.
.

Posted by Jeff Pasquale at August 9, 2005 7:12 AM

Alex - are you saying that creative people are the only ones in their right minds? :-D

Posted by Ron at August 9, 2005 9:39 AM

viagra for free

I think we're missing something here. I'd recommend that one "Focus on issues and use creativity in solving these issues".

Thus I believe one needs to focus early on in the project! Take any corporation, that you want to advise. With your experience you could pick holes in almost any process, activity, strategy ... that they come up with. But you isolate 2 or 3 issues that matter the most to the client and use your creativity to come up with solutions - effectively "focusing your creativity"

I believe a lot of the posts above treat the "solution" aspect of helping a client and leave out the "problem or hypothesis formulation" part.
.

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at August 9, 2005 9:52 AM

Like Nietzsche said, one must have chaos to give birth to a dancing star. Write-on, Tom...and we assume you're posting from solitude.

Posted by Steve Chandler at August 9, 2005 11:13 AM

Ron, I like that post and the sense of humor; it is one of the aspects we need more today.

Going a little further re. this topic about brains: the right hemisphere is the one associated with all the femenin things and also the one that is always working 24/7, it is also the creative one, yes. For better understanding and ilustration of this why not having a look at some of Dali's pictures? most of them are dedicated to exploring this part of our minds. Beware he was a little obsessed with some weird things and I am not particularly keen on him.

These days that marketing is colaborating with neuroscience for increasing sales, I'd like to point out that the human brain is still one of the biggest misteries on Earth. Even knowing today a lot more than in past decades, the especialists in neurology, biology and psychology, admit there is a long long way to go they actually don't even asure we will get to know every part. So, let's see what the marketers come with! :-)

viagra alternatives in india

buy viagra generic online Jeff, focusing to me is always positive, it depends on the moment and on what you are focusing in, indeed.

Arun, I agree "focussing your creativity" is the best part, I can think of the image of an artist in the middle of a creative process (ie. J. Pollock) Have you ever seen anybody more immerse and absort in the work that is carrying out? In fact, both sides of the brain, ideally, interact. But to make a good work by focusing and creating, prior to it is letting our senses, our external world information feeders, gather the data we are going to need afterwards, isn't it?.

Posted by Omara at August 9, 2005 12:06 PM

So this is the opposite of "Begin with the ends in mind?"

I'm 42 and still trying to figure out what I want to do, the irony is that once you figure it out, then get there, it is no longer enticing or satisfying.

Maybe the lesson is that its the process, not necessarily the results that matter. When one continually looks at, or adjusts, the process then they often adjust the objectives to meet that new process defined goal.

Posted by Steve at August 9, 2005 12:14 PM

Steve, I don't see why giving the process the importance that is has got should be in conflict with having the goal firmly settled in our mind; both things complement each other.

Posted by Omara at August 9, 2005 2:14 PM

Steve, here's a quote you might enjoy:

"Only a man who has himself gone in search of truth
knows how deceptive is the blaze of evidence with
which a proposition may suddenly dazzle his eyes.
The light soon fails, and the hunt is on again."

- Bertrand de Jouvenel

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 9, 2005 4:22 PM

Noel, I like the quote. Thanks. The "hunt" is what often times drives us, not the kill. In fact the kill is usually anticlimatic. Borrowing from Tom's post I'm trying to convey that the hunt is the creative part. Omara, yes I agree the two, the hunt and the kill, can complement each other. We can always stay focused on the end objective-the kill, but how we get their may take many different paths-the hunt. This is getting too philosophical for my pea-brained self. I also apologize for relying so much on the hunter analogy (I don't even hunt or desire to do so).

Posted by Steve at August 10, 2005 8:03 AM

I alway recall something an old boss used to say. “There is never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it again”. He meant this as a bad thing.

Avoiding the deep dive and not getting a feel for the possibilities is a big mistake. I spend a lot of time working on what I call ‘collaboration architectures’ – thinking about how people work together on large projects. I try never to stop thinking about possibilities. This isn’t to say my approach is unstable or I keep going back on decisions. It means I’m constantly trying to think of possibilities which break what I’ve already decided or what I already believe.

Two things have to be occurring before I’m happy that a project is managed. Firstly, there needs to be a channel for evaluating ideas and issues and concerns (call it a ‘free press’). Secondly, those issues can be processed through existing systems already in place. If that is occurring then the project is ‘managed’. If at that point there is a creative idea that really does ‘change everything’ than it’s likely to be a real insight and worthy of much discussion and possibly a change in direction.

Posted by Matthew De George at August 10, 2005 7:35 PM

The point made that it is a longstanding issue speaks volumes. That is how it is done. The focus comes from not focusing; Rather you hold on loosley and walk around it for hours days weeks months and decades sometimes, and you act in small ways to test the ideas and then sit back and watch and then interject again. At some point it all seems to make sense and then you pound on it, and it seems as if it only took moments or that it even happened in a flash. That is the nature of exploration and innovation. The problem with the shuttle is that they have been thinking in the same ways (The Goal) and have not walked away. I think the walking away from the shuttle is just what is needed to find new solutions new ideas not driven from the goal but a compleatly new innovation that just may be found on the street in the form of bubble gum on some scientists shoe.

Posted by Gary Fox at August 12, 2005 8:21 PM

Wonderful comments to a great observation! (most in favor of Tom's initial statement)
It makes me think of the cliche: "Think globally, but act locally." The global thinking exposes the possibilities to scrutiny, and the local acting focuses the effort needed to achieve the goal.

Posted by Jerry at August 16, 2005 3:28 PM

Tom's approach seems to be healthy one: it is exploring situation, exploring context, making all the freestyle sketches appropriate at the early creativity phase. More exact design decisions should wait for their time further, once they are to be based on something, on findings, on enlightments.

Still, further travelling forth - back from exact to abstract also makes sense. And it is up to each particular individual or group to feel their rhythm - many particular things are involved in the overall creativity, human beings are proud to be capable to expose.

Greetings from Klaipeda, Lithuania -
here Tom & Co are being read, too ;-)

Posted by edis tamosauskas at August 23, 2005 11:25 AM