Year: 2019

It’s been proven again and again that there is no correlation between creativity and intelligence. That doesn’t exist. Intelligence is no indicator of creativity.

And there’s absolutely no physiological evidence indicating that a highly creative person has a different brain structure than somebody who isn’t. We’ve all got the same stuff.

What does matter is being exposed to lots of stuff, to lots of ideas.

You’ll be more creative the more ideas you’re exposed to and you’ll be less creative depending on how few ideas you’re exposed to.

And we see this in everyday life.

When people ask us, how do I do something and you give them an answer. And they say, “Wow that’s amazing.” But it’s not amazing at all. It’s just that you’ve done it before. Or you know someone who has. Or you’ve seen it done.

So the more things you know about the more creative you’re going to be.

The most creative people in the world are simply people who are surrounded by other people who know a lot of stuff. And know lots of different stuff from lots of different areas.

So there can be no substitute in any business for widely exposing people good ideas. Even bad ideas. Just expose people to stuff.

The scope of a project is usually approached from a two-dimensional viewpoint – in and out, within and beyond, what will be done and we will not.

And is often closely followed by a shallow caveat that says something along the lines of – ‘Anything that is not explicitly stated as in scope is considered out of scope.’

But for this statement to hold water, the potential for everything must be explicitly considered.

Things like:

Brands, divisions, roles, processes, functions, applications, integrations, activities, deliverables, migrations, and the list goes on…

Business, system and project are good lenses to look through when defining scope.

One should only ever dive into the deep.

Feedback from the audience gave you 7.5 out of 10.

How does that feel?

75% isn’t bad. You influenced 3 out of 4 people in the room. That’s the majority.

But 100% is better, if not the best. Perfect score, right?

We’re conditioned to aim for 10/10 and sometimes that’s what’s needed, but perhaps 2.5/10 was a better target.

What if more ends up resulting by influencing that other person in the room?

Sometimes we might want the numbers when we don’t need the numbers.

When you think about the word ‘process’, what comes to mind?

The sequence of accomplishing something? Who does what and when for the why (purpose)?

It is about that, but its also about much more too. If you look closely you’ll see:

• Boundaries and scope
• Structures and hierarchies
• Responsibilities and job descriptions
• Data and information
• Constraints and guidance
• Handoffs and interfaces

When a process doesn’t flow it’s symptomatic to blame the person. When you use a lens that looks deeper you find the root cause.