MEDICI EFFECT BOOK
Teresa's early enthusiasm for the book gave me the inspiration I needed to get it off the . name I have given this phenomenon, the Medici Effect, comes from a. Compre o livro The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Any book that has this effect on anyone is far more than a good read. The Medici Effect book. Read reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Why do so many world-changing insights come from people with lit.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|ePub File Size:||25.52 MB|
|PDF File Size:||8.83 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Cultures is a book written by Swedish-American entrepreneur Frans. cittadelmonte.info: The Medici Effect: What Elephants and Epidemics Can Teach Us About Innovation Author interviews, book reviews, editors' picks, and more. In , I published The Medici Effect (Harvard Business Press), which has since become a foundational book on innovation. The follow-up, The Click Moment.
Frans Johansson knows a little something about how the power of creative thinking can create change. Nowhere is the intersection more powerful than in the realm of social change. There are countless examples of how this works in the social innovation realm, but Johansson points out a few particularly powerful examples, including the Burqini , a bathing suit developed in Australia for Muslim women, and the architects who have used lessons from how termites construct mounds in the African Savannah to build an energy-efficient shopping center and office block in Zimbabwe. In general, biomimicry is one of the most prominent examples of disciplines colliding to do good. That ultra-efficient solar panel? And that energy-efficient skyscraper? In the future, it might be covered in cooling lichen.
Knowing how to connect and combine disparate concepts and creative people from different fields will lead to next step thinking. In other words, to solve complex challenges, the key has to fit the lock.
We must become adept at looking for intersections and mixing people together; creating multidisciplinary and diverse teams that can discuss, argue, and imagine together.
Find Your Way There. The many stories and examples in the book illustrate how famous discoveries and breakthrough thinking came not out of just pure dumb luck but through the active observation and connection of elements around the innovators. His message is clear — we need to look at the world and the situations we are in more intently and more inclusively. If you seek, you shall find. Johansson points out how both Thomas Edison and Charles Darwin kept journals and portfolios where they kept notes on observations and articles they found of interest, and they would regularly review and reconsider those ideas with a fresh pair of eyes.
Johansson explains how the main obstacle to being more creative is the brain itself which automatically and subconsciously takes short cuts on seeing new information, bringing forth previous associations between facts and events.
This reflex action causes us to make assumptions, inhibits us from thinking broadly, and makes us cling to previous knowledge. This is the brain trying to be efficient, not searching for new connections. Additionally, since uncertainty lies at the heart of these new intersections, dealing with uncertainty challenges the very thinking we are used to. If we understand and acknowledge this and get used to a more flexible way of thinking, we will know how to work creatively and find new solutions at these intersections.
Johansson provides many techniques that can be employed to manage and challenge your thinking from leading creativity experts and real world business leaders. The actionable task and major technique outlined is to actively open up your thinking by, first, choosing to acknowledge that there is always another way to view things and that there are multiple ways of approaching a problem.
Next step is to then immerse yourself in different discussions by connecting with and learning from knowledgeable people from different fields, positions, experiences, cultures. Bottom line, The Medici Effect is an important and valuable book that both teaches us about the very nature of innovation itself and, practically, how to challenge and open up our thinking to catapult us into a Renaissance of innovation.
To complete your subscription, please click the link in the email we just sent you, and we'll be sending you weekly goodies - direct to your inbox. Sign up for top business book summaries, delivered to your inbox every Tuesday for free.
Impress your colleagues with your book smarts in no time. Johansson attempts to constru It was mandatory for me to read this book for a class and a mandatory read is never as good as a read by choice but I was sorely disappointed by this book.
Johansson attempts to construct an air-tight paradigm. He then tries to translate this paradigm into action, which is commendable. The problem with this book is a deeply-rooted conceptual problem that I did not fully recognize until I read my second book. He was raised in Sweden but currently lives in New York City. He is an author, motivational speaker and entrepreneur. He is the leader of The Medici Group, a consulting firm that operates according to the principles Johansson describes in the book.
The study of innovation, much like the act of innovation itself, cannot be contained. It cannot be categorized, labeled and put neatly away into a small volume to be shelved for later use. Johansson makes the mistake of structuring his book too strictly. He gives names to concepts that are too fluid to name and structure to concepts that are too fluid to structure. Though his interesting anecdotes and some of his principles still ring true, this mistake devalues much of his personal analysis for me.
Steven Johnson, for one, is an environmental science enthusiast and it translates into his theories about innovation. I cannot say the same about Frans Johansson. His theories on innovation are seemingly based on the assumption that innovation can be pinned down, cataloged, described and packaged for our consumption. It comes across as quite unnatural as you read the book and I immediately picked up on his attempt at branding his theory.
The final part of his book consists of him trying to translate theory into action but he is only partially successful. Intersectional Ideas are cross-disciplinary in nature. All other ideas, generated by the way we are used to thinking within one discipline, are called Directional Ideas. The next chapter completes part one in this book and it celebrates the rise in intersections promulgated by technological development in recent years.
Here Johansson uses amusing examples, such as music artist Sharkira and computer animation company Pixar, to prove this point. This chapter also sets the tone for the remaining two parts of the book. It is replete with interesting, anecdotal information that Johansson uses to sustain his theories. The Medici Effect is barely mentioned because it is unnecessary. Johansson is sure to give all of these things proper names which he capitalized all throughout the book, as if he has discovered a new species that he has the right to name.
In reality, these are catch-phrases that help him market his ideas. I cannot fault him for that professionally, it is quite clever, but it is disappointing to a reader who is expecting an interpretation of innovation from an environmental scientist.
I expected the book, and the theories it contains, the take on a much more natural, uncontrolled character. Part two is made up of chapters three through eight. I expected Johansson to use this part of the book to deepen his theory, to really let them take root in my mind.
The Medici Effect - Wikipedia
But to my surprise but not to my dismay , his words in these chapters leaned more towards action than anything else. Chapter three explains the need for innovators to break down barriers between disciplines. Since my husband is a chef and I am admittedly a bit of a foodie, I loved this parallel.
In the next chapter, Johansson goes on to advise his readers how to break down Associative Barriers. These are the artificial barriers we have placed in our brain that mirror the barriers between fields in reality. Though still interesting, some of the examples he uses in this chapter are a little weak. There was one exceptional example, however, that of the RSA cipher. Johansson is trying to describe how reversing our assumptions about things can lead us to innovative solutions to problems we may be having.
Experts were trying to find a way to secure Internet transactions. It was assumed that the initiator of the transaction would lock his information using special encoding and only he could distribute the information needed to break the code. This way, only authorized users could have access to his secure information.
The problem was finding a way to securely transmit the information that would break the code. Using their current model, they would need another lock and another key code, and this could go on forever, never truly securing the information.
At this point, experts reversed their assumptions that the transaction initiator would hold the locked information and that the authorized users would gain the keys to it. Thus, RSA ciphers were born. The solution called for the initiator to hand out locked information i. The reversal was simple but it because the foundation for all future Internet transactions. The subsequent three chapters are disappointing in that they all pretty much deal with the same thing: The anecdotes that Johansson presents in these chapters are the most interesting and they really bolster his theory about The Intersection.
My only complaint is that there were three chapters of it when one longer one would suffice. To me, it was a continuation of his tendency to over-structure everything. The last chapter in part two is, to me, the closest that Johansson comes to turning his theories into action. This is interesting consider that this is what part three is supposed to do. Part three consists of five chapters that are, according to Johansson, about putting The Medici Effect into action, making it work for you.
To me, part three read more like any old business advice column, drawing little from the theories he laid out in part one. He also advises readers to leave their professional networks behind. This is perhaps not one of the most common pieces of professional advice but I have heard it before. Perhaps the lease effective networks are, but my idea of an effective network is one that spans fields, which is exactly what Johansson advocates. However, amidst his fairly ineffectual part three, Johansson hid a gem.
He believes they are holding us back from generating innovative ideas. He lists a few risk-related traps that humans tend to fall into and he attempts to persuade his reader to abandon these destructive attitudes about risk. This chapter may not have told us anything more that any expert on risk is able to tell us but it was sure interesting.
It is also placed in the perfect spot in the book, at the end. The Medici Effect was a quick and enjoyable read and I gleaned some insight into innovation that I did not have before. A quick read, pretty accessible. I've seen a lot of the content before in other work.
It gave me lots to think about for sure, especially since I feel like I've been "intersectional" my whole life I've worked in commercial fishing, public libraries, fast food, a yarn shop, a live music night club, a hospital, and now doing healthcare IT and I have lived in four countries.
May 10, Yiwen rated it it was ok Shelves: Read the first chapter and you will get the gist of the whole book. I appreciate the author's effort to put together all those inspirational stories. However topics like this usually don't age very well. View 1 comment. This book opened my eyes to innovation through the intersection of ideas and concepts from outside my specific area of expertise. Understanding that true innovation does not come from what is already known, but from what cannot be known, was something that really made an impact on me.
After reading this book, I was compelled to begin looking at the perceived challenges in my own business through from a different perspective. I jumped into other industries and areas that I previously did not thin This book opened my eyes to innovation through the intersection of ideas and concepts from outside my specific area of expertise.
I jumped into other industries and areas that I previously did not think would be relevant. The more I focused on looking for and appreciating the challenges and solutions of other industries, the easier it was for me to find innovation in my own world.
Jan 08, Claudia added it. The concept of intersection of ideas is the main teaching of this book. It is full of very illustrative and interesting cases. To warp thing up, I found myself enjoying this book much more than what I was expecting. Mar 26, Susan Reed rated it really liked it Shelves: Excellent book. Great stories to back up new theory on creativity. Too bad the author limits himself to work and business ideas instead of a life philosophy.
The Medici Effect: What Elephants and Epidemics Can Teach Us about Innovation
Aug 10, Ash rated it it was amazing. This book is about Peter's Cafe. It is a must read - incredibly enlightening and inspiring. Peter's Cafe is a nexus point in the world, one of the most extreme I have ever seen.
There is another place just like Peter's Cafe, but it is not in the Azores. It is in our minds. It is a place where different cultures, domains, and disciplines stream together toward a single point. They connect, allowing for established concepts to clash and combine, ultimately forming a multitude of new, groundb This book is about Peter's Cafe.
They connect, allowing for established concepts to clash and combine, ultimately forming a multitude of new, groundbreaking rules. This place, where the different fields meet, is what I call the Intersection. And the explosion of remarkable innovations that you find there is what I call the Medici Effect. Ideas, or memes, compete, in a real sense, for space in our minds. Some memes persist and transform, others die out; the process is similar to that of genetic evolution.
This explosion of remarkable ideas is what happened in Florence during the Renaissance, and it suggests something very important. If we can just reach an intersection of disciplines or cultures, we will have a greater chance of innovating, simply because there are so many unusual ideas to go around. New discoveries, world-changing discoveries, will come from the intersections of disciplines, not from within them.
Most major advancements involve multiple disciplines. It is rarer and rarer to see single-author papers. And ofthen the multiple authors are from different disciplines. The answer is that Samuelsson has low associative barries.
He has an ability to easily connect different concepts across fields.
Specifically, he has an ability to find winning combinations of foods from Sweden and the rest of the world. We can all break down our associative barriers like that.
In fact, if we wish to find the Intersection, it is a requirement. Researchers have long suspected that these associative barries are responsible for inhibiting creativity.
Experiments have been conducted to examine the difference between high and low associative barries. One of the first conclusions made by one of the earliest creativity researchers, J.
Guilford, is that creative minds tend to make unusual associations because they engage in so-called divergent thinking Guilford's conclusion was that a person with low associative barriers is more likely to think broadly when responding to a word such as "foot" and is therefore able to come up with more unusual ideas.
The mere fact that an individual is different from most people around him promotes more open and divergent, perhaps even rebellious, thinking in that person. Such a person is more prone to question traditions, rules, and boundaries - and to search for answers where others may not think to.
But [Maeder] clearly sees [education] as potentially limiting creativity. Why is that? Through school, mentors, and organizational cultures, education tends to focus on what a particular field has seen as valid. If, for instance, you wish to be a great medical doctor, there are rules that must be mastered. A good education will teach you those rules. You learn what past experts and thinkers concluded and use their experiences to build your own expertise. They tend to be the types that educate themselves intesely, and they often have a broad learning experience, having excelled in one field and learned another.
It would follow, then, that learning a new field, whether one is young or old, can help break down associative barries. Paul Maeder's second characteristic for success at the Intersection was self-education. By learning fields and disciplines on our own we have a greater chance of approaching them from a different perspective. In fact, formal education often looks like an inverted U when correlated with one's success as a creator.
That is, formal education first increases the probability of attaining creative success, but after an optimum point it actually lowers the odds. The point occurs a bit earlier for artistic careers and a bit later for scientific paths - Didn't ME Coe draw something like this once?
Move on every years? Darwin concluded, "I consider that all that I have learned of any value to be self-taught.
It's fine. Others are like that too, and will understand if you say this quote. If your goal [as a company] is to keep execution at a premium and to innovate in small, directional steps, specialization is the right path. However, if you wish to develop fresh, groundbreaking ideas, highly varied experiences are critical. That's not a Renaissance man, that's a man with a hobby. A Renaissance man is someone who can see trends and patterns and integrate what he knows.
To me the modern Renaissance man is curious, interested in different things. You have to be willing to 'waste time' on things that are not directly relevant to your work because you are curious. But then you are able to, sometimes unconsciously, integrate them back into your work. At this point we have experts in just about every business. We have people who can talk about consumer products and high-tech in their sleep.
We have to. That's the easy part. But we don't let somebody just do that for their entire career, all the time. That was why I said we make people switch areas and fields. It is fundamental at Bain, a core resason for our success. You become better at your area of expertise when you actually take a chance and do something else. They have to control their own fate. By making sure that we gain exposure to different fields during our career, we set ourselves up for more random concept combinations.
Your memories of that book are only gonna fade, and you've never been able to find it. You even asked a librarian, but they couldn't think of it either It was about a boy who encountered a sandstorm and was taken to a completely alternate reality, planet Taken away from his family, and dropped into a new culture.
Almost like Ender's Game. There is little doubt that diverse teams, like the one at Bletchely Park, have a greater chance of coming up with unique ideas. I don't mean diversity only in terms of disciplines, but also in terms of culture, ethnicity, geography, age, and gender.
Diversity in teams allows different viewpoints, approaches, and frames of mind to emerge. Diversity is also a proven way to increase the randomness of concept combinations. It is often said that one of the reasons for the United States' unparalleled innovation rate is its very diverse population. People who have experienced the innovative power of diverse teams tend to do everything they can to encourage them. Michael Michalko, whom I mentioned in the last chapter, describes another way of going intersection hunting, something he calls "taking a thought walk.
The funny thing is that we often take a "batch" approach to certain tasks in life. When we boil potatoes, we peel and then cook all of them at the same time.
We don't peel and cook them one by one because that obviously would be a complete waste of time and energy. But we often develop ideas this way.
If we get an idea that seems promising, we tend to delve deeper into the idea until it either works or it doesn't. If it isn't successful, we start over with another good idea. But this is not the best way to use our time or creative energy. In order to maximize the power of the Intersection, we should generate many ideas before evaluating any one of them. One of the best ways to brainstorm privately is to place the target for the number of ideas that you wish to generate before you start considering whether they are any good.
Probably the best insurance against prejudging ideas is to write them down or diagram them when they occur to you. This will allow you to return to the idea at frequent intervals. Keep building it up. It will pay dividends later. You will not regret it.
Since quantity of ideas leads to quality of ideas, we should pursue many ideas. This, however, leads to the inescapable paradox that in order to be successful at the Intersection, we must have many failures.
The solution to this paradox that in order to be successful at the Intersection, we must have many failures. The solution to this paradox is to incorporate failures into our overall execution plan.
In other words, we have to execute past our failures. The more ideas you execute, the greater the chance of realizing something truly groundbreaking. But not every one of your ideas will work out. Innovative people, then, experience more failures than their less creative counterparts because they pursue more ideas.
It is thus very difficult - indeed, this book argues practically impossible - to realize ideas at the Intersection by flawlessly executing well-defined actional planes. We are, in fact, conditioned to approach any new challenge with questions such as: What is our goal and how will we get there? The major difference between a directional idea and an intersectional one is that we know where we are going with the former An intersectional idea can go in any number of directions.
And it squashes or removes ideas that are not. This inherent characteristic creates a difficult paradox for anyone pursuing an intersection idea: If we wish to succeed at the intersection of fields, we have to break away from the very networks that made us successful. Both people and firms in a value network will have set up processes and procedures that essentially kill of attempts to break out of it.
New ideas that do not correspond to the values of the network have a way of getting eliminated. This is why we must break out of these networks if we want to enter the Intersection with the highest chance of success. They thought I was certifiably insane. You must take risks. All creativity lies in the unknown, not in the known.
- ADOBE AFTER EFFECTS CS5 TUTORIALS PDF
- EFFECTIVE JAVA PDF
- PRIMARY CARE MEDICINE GOROLL PDF
- LONG CASES IN CLINICAL MEDICINE BY ABM ABDULLAH PDF
- HERBAL MEDICINE BOOKS PDF
- DAVIDSONS PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE 22ST EDITION PDF
- PDF S ON MY PHONE
- THE WAIT EBOOK
- ANDROID PDF FAILURE
- SPEAK ENGLISH LIKE AN AMERICAN (BOOK + AUDIO)
- OF COURSE I LOVE YOU PDF FILE
- WHY CANT I PDF FILES ON MY KINDLE FIRE