Lexus LF-LC

Hands down, the crown jewel concept car of the Chicago Autoshow (at least for me) was the electric, cherry-red Lexus LF-LC hybrid coupe. My head is still trying to come to grips with what I was looking at — which left me wanting to know more about this vehicle. I was not the only one wowed by the presence of this vehicle. On the second day I went back to the Autoshow, I had to two fellow designers that practically got vertigo viewing this vehicle. The clean, swooping fighter jet-styled body really changes shape as you view it from different angles. The sweeping curves engage the viewer to walk around the vehicle to see where those curve features are tied into the shapes on the other side of the vehicle. The trapezoidal-pinched front-end was styled after the F22 Raptor in afterburner mode. There are plenty of hungry air intakes for and aft to feed the powerplant, tame airflow, and cool brake rotors. The lights on this vehicle are feature ‘L’ shaped daytime runners with dot matrix fog and rear signals. The triple light saber bundle looking head lamps are part of an air intake and were uncovered on this prototype. The rear taillights looked like hot toaster elements that tunneled infinitely inward with the mirror-on-mirror repeating effect. The cockpit featured multi-layered analog and LCD large readouts with a plethora of in-steering controls. You simply have to see this vehicle to believe what you’re looking at. I only wish I could hear the roar of the Advanced Lexus Hybrid Drive engine.

Click the thumbnails below to check out the Lexus LF-LC:

Cadillac Ciel

Another standout concept was the Cadillac Ciel (French for “sky”) convertible concept which exudes over-the-top luxury and elegance true to brand name. The car has a squared-off, old woody, boat-shaped, Cabernet Red body which is just over 4 feet high at the windshield. The convertible sported huge 22” rims and concept Bridgestone Potenza tires that reflect the rear shape of the trunk in the tire tread. The luxury interior has Italian Olive wood accents carved from a single tree with supple leather seats and a built-in humidor. The hybrid convertible interior even hosts aromatherapy climate control and has pull-out cashmere blankets for the rear passengers. The one-off vehicle is powered by a hybrid twin-turbocharged 3.6L that uses lithium ion technology and will have a combined 425hp output. The only thing Grandpa needs here puffing down the highway is a hot tub and sauna.

Click the thumbnails below to check out the Cadillac Ciel:

Chevy Code 130R

The Chevy Code 130R concept was a welcome addition to the compact four-seat coupe class. The stout design was very clean and simple with a hot metallic red paint job and 20” matte gold anodized rims. The side view evoked a BMW 325 profile with a Camaro-like front-end. The vehicle will boast a 1.4L Ecotech Turbocharged 4 cylinder 6 speed that shuts the engine off at stops and gets an estimated 40mpg. If slated for production, the Code 130R will be priced in the low 20’s.

Click the thumbnail below to check out the Chevy TRU 140S:

KIA TRACK’STER

KIA’s line of production vehicles really looked slick and cohesive, which made the concept vehicles shine even more. The KIA TRACK’STER was a snappy fresh take on the compact rally car. The overhead linear-striped lighting of the exhibit really showed off the styling of body curves, not unlike the zebra striping that all of us design geeks use to analyze 3D surfaces. The TRACK’STER has a smooth low-slung roof line that integrates into a back spoiler with a one-piece windshield and side windows, giving it a fast forward look. The hot rim and ground effects accents make this car look ready to rip some dirt roads. The front-end has a wide open grill, hungry for air with some overkill fog lamps. The rear has cool, integrated exhaust ports, and the rear signals are hidden under the tinted black hatch glass to give it a very minimalistic look. The powertrain will be a 2.0L Turbocharged 4 cylinder pushing out 250hp to the electronic all-wheel drive.

Click the thumbnail below to check out the KIA TRACK’STER:

Toyota NS4

Toyota had two concepts this year with the NS4 hybrid sporting a low-slung roof and cabin-forward design. The front trapezoid-shaped grill has a floating lower spoiler and plenty of grill for air intake. The car was finished in a beautiful hot metallic plum paint and has low profile LED day runners and slim head lamps, reminding me of Iron Man 2. The roomy interior has Tron-like LED accent dash and accents throughout. The 4 swan doors opened at a slight upward angle allowing easier access. The NS4 will be powered by Toyota’s next gen Hybrid Synergy Drive promising more mileage out of those precious drops of petrol.

Click the thumbnail below to check out the Toyota NS4:

Toyota FCV-R

Toyota’s other hybrid concept was the FCV-R which flaunted a very vibrant sky-blue, pearlescent metallic finish. This car looked nice and sleek from a rear perspective, but when it turned to face me, I was mildly taken aback. The front of this car just really didn’t appear like it integrated into the rest of the body and looked like just an addition. Again, the front incorporated the trapezoidal trend, but the overkill LED runners in the air scoops looked more like they were bug catchers. This car was very awkward-looking, and in my opinion, it was the least impressive in the concept show.

Click the thumbnail below to check out the Toyota FCV-R:

KIA GT

The KIA GT really caught my surprised eyes with a ramped-up, cool exotic sports concept that you would not have expected them to design. I was really impressed with the smooth design, reminiscent of the Porsche and Jaguar coupes. I got back to the studio and examined my pictures and had to do a double-take, thinking this car was a Jaguar or Lotus until I saw the KIA emblem on the hood. During my second visit to the Autoshow, I had to show my designer friends, but they had unfortunately pulled the GT out and shipped it to Canada for a show. The GT has front-to-back gold trim roof accents that really show off the low profile sweeps and 4 suicide doors. Another trend in the Autoshow was bulky side view mirrors being replaced by small, low-profile side camera mounts, which the GT boasts. The front-end shows a wild head lamp that incorporates the front air intake that wraps back onto itself to cool down those hot rotors and tires. I was puzzled on how KIA managed to make this front-end part, but it sure did look hot. The large rims have matte black, carbon fiber, propeller-like cooling flaps that integrated well with the ground effects runners. The tires will be powered by a rear-wheel drive 3.3L V6 with 390hp to keep your head back in the seat. I would really like to see this car go into production so I can take it for a test drive.

Click the thumbnail below to check out the KIA GT:

Volvo YOU

Volvo came out with a fresh new concept in the Volvo YOU, although the name maybe not so fresh. The You has beautiful smooth lines and a front-end that is definitely a departure from the squared-off lines of its early models. The hood has a unique raised plateau feature with a crisp line and a hint of a center crown. The headlights are very minimal making them appear a bit out of place with the grill reminding me of the robot Gort in ‘The Day the Earth Stood still.’ The sedan concept also has suicide doors like the Cadillac Ciel and KIA GT. The spacious interior has auto fold-down shift lever and floating seats that are mounted to a middle beam. The back-end has a smooth fast-back coupe look and has unique translucent conducting rear signals. The You will be powered by a 4 cylinder front-wheel drive with Flywheel KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) that is linked to the rear axle.

Click the thumbnail below to check out the Volvo YOU:

Chevy Sonic Zspec

Last but surely not least, we have another Chevy concept in the Sonic Zspec. This matte white, compact rally car was full of sharp aggressive details and looked ready to rip off the floor. The low-extended roof line reminds me of a stretched out CRX. This sporty little car has a mean front look and has red pinstripe front and rear lights which tie into the red pinstripes on the polished black powdercoated rims. The line will be aimed at the customized aftermarket add-ons that the consumer will be offered in three different packages. With the blacked out windows, we are unsure of interior design; and at the time of this article, the powerplant was still TBD.

Click the thumbnail below to check out the Chevy Sonic Zspec:

Until next time, “May the Road Rise with You”.

Article Written By: Joel Koster, Maya, Alias, Rhino, and Adobe Instructor at Design Engine

One of those bikes is the Aprilia RSV4 Factory APRC SE. It has all those features as well as a quick shifter installed at the factory.

The other bike is the MV Agusta, which has all of those features along with throttle-by-wire. Surprisingly, Honda and Suzuki have decided not to join the traction control era. However, they did upgrade their 1000cc machines.

Suzuki has upgraded their brakes, suspension, and engine. Honda has upgraded the front suspension to big piston Showa forks, which is something Kawasaki started 3 years ago. Honda also added new instrumentation, wheels, and an optional ABS system.

Erik Buell had his Superbike machine, the 1190RS, on display. This bike looks great and only weighs 398lbs (wet weight). Erik Buell’s innovations are evident on this motorcycle, including a single brake disc up front, that is mounted to the rim of the wheel instead of the traditional dual rotor hub-mounted setup.

The fuel reservoir is incorporated into the frame, which helps reduce weight and lower the center of gravity. Another cool feature, rarely seen on production bikes, are the air ducts on the front wheel that help direct air over the brake caliper to keep it cool. Erik Buell is planning on racing in the AMA Pro National Guard American Superbike class. This class requires all motorcycles to be production motorcycles. This means that the 1190RS will be sold, but only a limited quantity of 100 bikes will be available.

Here are some other observations we had:

• We got a chance to hear Kevin Schwantz speak. If you ever get an opportunity to see Kevin speak, do it! He spoke about his motorcycle classes, where he teaches people to go fast, safely. He spoke about his first time riding on a track, racing in Europe and how he advises the major manufacturers.
• We noticed Cory West’s Vesrah #57 at the show. Some other race bikes that we saw at the show were Ben Spies’ MotoGP Yamaha M1, Josh Hayes Yamaha R1, and Ben Young’s GP Tech Moto3 250.
• We noticed a new powder coat paint on the CRF250 Motocross bike for 2012.
• There was a showing of Electric motorcycles ZERO and surprisingly, no Russian URAL bikes this year. Vintage looking motorcycle manufacturer, Royal Enfield Motorcycles, was not present this year.
• The KTM 1190 RC8 race spec track bike was on hand at the show. We have seen this V-Twin down at the Jennings GP race Track. A massive truck pulled up to the track last spring and they let anyone ride it. More orange, please!
• At Design-Engine, we have a couple Yamaha Zuma scooters for out of state students to enjoy. We couldn’t help but get a photo of the 2012 Zuma. A suggestion for Yamaha Zuma Industrial Designers… more surface area for stickers!
• Can-Am booth you can’t help but see the Bombardier 3-wheel Roadster Spyder Trike.
• We noticed the Korean Motorcycle Manufacturer Hyosung at the Motorcycle show again this year. We’ve yet to see one of those bikes on the Race track.

Click To View Images:

Article Written By: Andy Bunda and Bart Brejcha

Click To View Images:

The business practice of brainstorming has been around with us so long that it seems like unadorned common sense: If you want a rash of new ideas, you get a group of people in a room, have them shout things out, and make sure not to criticize, because that sort of self-censoring is sure to kill the flow of new thoughts.

It wasn’t always so: This entire process was invented by Alex Osborn, one of the founders of BBDO, in the 1940′s. It was motivated by Osborn’s own theory of creativity. He thought, quite reasonably, that creativity was both brittle and fickle: In the presence of criticism, it simply couldn’t wring itself free from our own minds. We could only call our muses if judgments didn’t drag us down. Osborn claimed that this very brainstorming process was the secret to BBDO’s durable creativity, allowing his ad guys to produce as many as 87 ideas in 90 minutes–a veritable avalanche. “The brainstorm had turned his employees into imagination machines,” writes Jonah Lehrer in a long, excellent article in The New Yorker. But as Lehrer argues, the only problem with all this is that brainstorming is total bullshit.

You’re More Creative Working Alone

As an opening salvo, Lehrer lays out a devastating experiment, conducted in the 1950s, which found that when test subjects tried to solve a complex puzzle, they actually came up with twice as many ideas working alone as they did when working in a group. Numerous studies have since verified that finding: Putting people into big groups doesn’t actually increase the flow of ideas. Group dynamics themselves – rather than overt criticism – work to stifle each person’s potential.

Lehrer doesn’t quite explain why that happens. But in a nice coincidence, Susan Cain tackles that very problem in her upcoming book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. As she explains in The New York Times, groups don’t encourage creativity because of the social pressure they bring to bear:

People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure. The Emory University neuroscientist Gregory Berns found that when we take a stance different from the group’s, we activate the amygdala, a small organ in the brain associated with the fear of rejection. Professor Berns calls this “the pain of independence.”

Criticism Improves the Brainstorming Process

Those findings all probably make sense to anyone who has sat in a brainstorming session and wondered why Debbie from accounting suddenly became the world’s most vocal expert on car design. (Here, I’m referencing a real-life experience I got sitting in on a brainstorming session for a major car company.) But Lehrer goes on to point out that other studies have shown that the presence of criticism actually increases the flow of ideas. One experiment compared two groups: One which brainstormed with a mandate not to criticize, and another which had the license to debate each others ideas. The second group had 20% more ideas–and even after the session ended, the people in the second group had far more additional ideas than those in the first.

(Groups don’t encourage creativity because of the social pressure they bring to bear.)

Why is that? Lehrer doesn’t really say, and neither do his sources. But this idea makes sense. The problem with traditional brainstorming is the assumption that good ideas can spring up unbidden. In real life, the process is more interesting than that. Usually, inventions often begin when an inventor spots a problem. Good ideas usually don’t hang by themselves, unattached. They come about as solutions. Thus, allowing criticism into a room full of people trying to brainstorm allows them to refine and redefine a problem. Adding more and more complex problems to the mix doesn’t stifle creativity – it actually gives the mind more to work with, simply by demanding that we find better and better answers.

Creativity Is About Happenstance, Not Planning

Lehrer then goes searching for better models of the creative process, and finds a couple. One comes in the form of a professor who was able to study how the relationships within a group affect the quality of their work. Brian Uzzi, a sociologist at Northwestern, found that on Broadway the worst-performing productions were the work of two groups: Those that had worked together too much, and those that had worked together too little. Too much familiarity bred groupthink. Too little meant that they didn’t have enough chemistry to challenge each other. The most productive groups were those with a baseline of familiarity but just enough fresh blood to make things interesting.

But there’s a serendipity involved that you can’t fake: Studies have shown that the most successful groups of scientists also work in extremely close physical proximity. Just being around another creative person is vital to the process, because so many ideas happen as a result of water-cooler chatter and passing contact. The best support comes by anecdote: Building 20, a famous hothouse of ideas on the MIT campus. It worked because its design was so crappy and haphazard. It was nothing more than a sheetrock box, but in its maze of corridors and cramped offices, scientists of all stripes often found themselves happening upon conversations with others from wildly different fields. It’s no accident that so many breakthroughs came from that building, including radar, microwaves, the first video games, and Chomskyan linguistics.

Increasingly, companies such as Vitra are designing workspaces designed to blend intense solitude, shown above, and relaxed, freewheeling sociability.

Can We Rework the Brainstorming Paradigm?

I laid out all of these details from Lehrer’s article because each of these findings suggest that the brainstorming process might not be totally hopeless after all. We know that breakthrough insight likely requires intense, individual reflection. We also know that criticism unlocks creativity. And finally, we know that creativity can be fostered by a certain type of physical space.

Solutions only flow when the problem becomes interesting enough to demand new ideas.

Each of these findings, taken together, is cause for optimism. For one, the brainstorming might work better if it focused not on finding solutions, but rather identifying problems. What if, during a brainstorming session, people weren’t asked to simply throw out ideas, but rather problems as well. Granted, you’ve still got the annoying problem of groupthink. But the fact is that people are usually better at finding fault than they are at finding answers. Properly harnessed, that could be a good thing. Let’s say, for example, you’re trying to invent a new computer UI. It’s much more productive to find what drives people nuts and the features that keep them from doing what they want to do than it is to find out what sort of computer they’d like to have in some idealized fantasy world. Solving such a complex problem as UI design demands a certain subtlety and depth of thought. But those solutions only begin flowing when the problem becomes interesting enough to demand new ideas. My point is that by reframing what we expect to gain from some technique such as brainstorming, we might make it far more useful.

Finally, the fact that office design can so dramatically affect the work we produce means that designers have the wherewithal to affect a company’s core mission. Designers really can make a company smarter, if they embrace the chaotic reality of creativity, rather than trying to create spaces where every last function and possibility has its place. In other words, there might be room for a new design paradigm that embraces both limitations and flexibility. You can create offices where accidental encounters are encouraged. And you can create offices where nothing is ever fixed. The smartest office isn’t perfect, and it isn’t permanent.

Article Written By: Cliff Kuang

Over the next year-and-a-half, DARPA plans to prove out LS3′s technology and get it ready to support warfighters in the field. Its main battlefield role will be little more than that of a robotic pack mule, carrying hundreds of pounds of gear so that dismounted Marines and soldiers won’t have to. These days, a lot of that weight is batteries, and here LS3 provides a two-fer: Not only can it carry troops’ various batteries and battery powered handheld devices, but it also serves as a mobile power source that can recharge them on the move.

The idea here is to create an animal analog – something that can haul lots of gear over rough terrain and interact with personnel naturally, in a way that is intuitive to the soldiers and Marines around it. In addition to its “eyes”, DARPA wants to give it auditory sensors that can respond to simple voice commands like “come” or “stay”. And ongoing tests aim to refine the vision system so it can distinguish between humans and learn to track specific individuals.

At the end of the 18-month proving period, LS3 will embed with Marines conducting field exercises to see how it gets along in real maneuvers. Here’s hoping those Marines don’t require the element of surprise. As you can see below, LS3 can see and move better than ever, but it is still very, very loud.

Article Written By: Clay Dillow

To do this, your eyes would need to see far beyond our limited capacity to see colors deeper than red. You would have to see the always available radiation emitted in what is categorized as the far-infrared. Infrared radiation is more familiar as “heat,” which you can feel but cannot see it with the unaided eye. Far-infrared refers to a band of radiation that can pass through not only smoke but through the atmosphere itself.

Now, imagine once more that you are on a space-platform above the Earth and when you look down at the night-time unlit sphere of Earth you can define the magnificent continents and oceans of our planet.

Do such eyes exist? Yes, right here in Lexington in the BAE Systems group located at 2 Forbes Road.

On a recent afternoon, Peter W. Norton, technical director for survivability and targeting solutions at BAE Systems, sat down to discuss revolutionizing night vision.

Prompted by his master’s thesis advisor, who was aware of the breakthrough detector activities at the facility, Norton joined the company in 1985, straight out of Tufts University. At that time the facility was owned by the Honeywell Corporation, the company that initially sponsored the far-infrared detector research.

Norton’s technical leadership was invaluable both in optimizing the flagship, extremely high-performance mercury-cadmium-telluride (MCT) detector arrays that operate at very low temperature and the newer breakthrough microbolometer detector arrays that operate at room temperature. If the term “arrays” seems unfamiliar, modern TV screens consist of arrays of devices such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to produce the television images.

Development of the microbolometer detector was driven by technical issues inherent in MCT material that requires operating temperatures hundreds of degrees below 0 degrees Fahrenheit. With cooling comes bulky size and high cost. The operating temperature is really cold. A tennis ball at that temperature dropped to the floor would explode into a hundred pieces.

However, as Norton is quick to point out, the MCT detectors have been a highly successful product. In fact, where cooling can be efficiently provided the versatile detectors fulfill a diverse range of commercial, industrial and military applications. Most importantly, they can be tuned to sense different regions of the infrared by varying the percentage of mercury in the compound. The result is a full line of BAE-manufactured MCT detector arrays for use in the guidance systems of Maverick air-to-air missiles, NASA space-born applications and night vision sensors for the United States Army.

The compound mercury-cadmium-telluride may also seem a bit mysterious, but mercury, cadmium, and tellurium are integral to our daily life. A tiny amount of mercury is found in every compact fluorescent bulb, cadmium is a key component in nickel-cadmium batteries and tellurium is used to make the ubiquitous rewritable optical discs.

In contrast, the microbolometer uses the material vanadium-oxide. This material is widely used in the manufacture of sulfuric acid. However, its ability to produce large changes in resistance as a result of very small changes in temperature makes it an ideal material for far-infrared microbolometers.

As the years passed, Norton moved the MCT product line to more efficient and more cost effective manufacturing processes through the use of advanced device design. All the while he maintained his desire to greatly expand far-infrared applications through the design of a hand-held far-infrared camera that operates at room temperature using a battery for power.

The problem to be solved concerned the development of high performance microbolometers coupled to tiny, low-power electronic read-out chips.

Norton’s patience was rewarded as semiconductor technology eventually provided the necessary chips called a readout-integrated-circuit (ROIC). An ROIC can be custom designed to the required length of two-thousands of an inch. That is about the diameter of a human hair. In this design, the tiny vanadium oxide detectors are electrically connected to the ROICs to create an extraordinary far-infrared array.

At this writing, over one-hundred thousand microbolometer-based cameras are in use throughout the world. What does the future hold? Norton envisions a far-infrared camera the size of a cell phone.

Now, that’s what I call a revolution.

Article Written By: Jay J. Schlickman

UPDATE:

To see the event’s photos: click HERE.

WHEN:

February 10, 2012 from 6:00-9:00 PM

WHERE:

1812 W. Hubbard Street
Chicago, IL 60622
Map it!

TEAMS Design is hosting a party in honor of the Chicago Auto Show. Meet and mingle with IDSA members and automotive design enthusiasts from across the country at this event co-sponsored by IDSA.

They’ll have:

• A short presentation about the new Dodge Dart presented by the designers (cool renderings are guaranteed!)
• PS3 Gran Turismo 5 Viper vs Vette duel on two huge HD screens
• Wacom Cintiq sketching in the mid-space (where we do the Iron Sketch events)
• The studio space will be open too
• And of course, plenty of food and beverages

Click To View Images:

Communicate Professionalism

Be Professional in all your communications. I’m South Korean and work in Chinese and English. When I’m working I want to understand you meaning so be precise, concise, and thorough in all your communications. You don’t need to write like a prune, but when I read a LONG email with a lot of “you-know”s I can’t help but tap my foot and wonder if you’re taking it seriously. It demonstrates your professionalism. With experienced designers, communications are amiable but short and to the point, so my advice, to look sharp, communicate professionalism.

Be Detail-oriented

Detail, Detail, D-E-T-A-I-L. I love it and so should you. Detail demonstrates effort and that you care about the project. You’d think it goes without saying but… eh, mer, no. I notice a lot of effort that goes into the overallaesthetics isn’t put into Spec Sheets, BOM, and communications. I remember a part of the recent Steve Job book detailed how much effort & time he put into every detail, like the apple product ’roundy’ edge. That’s the kind of detail-oriented product design that needs to be specially noted so we can prioritize that in development. I’m not a designer, I collaborate processes to bring sketches to real-live products. If I get a sketch or CAD that leave a lot of room for interpretation, that’s what you’ll get in the end – my interpretation. So get nitty-gritty. It will save on time, sample costs, and most importantly gets us collaborating, not talking past each-other.

Be Proactive / On-top of it

Be a problem solver, engaged participant, or at the least, respond quickly to requests for feedback even if it’s a simple “got it, will send feedback tomorrow”. We’re all busy people but one thing that makes certain designers stand out to me is just general responsiveness. Especially when working remotely, this kind of character is well received. One designer I worked with had a great idea for his design. I loved it and we decided to make a prototype. But there were some design issues that required research and collaboration. That’s when things started to break down and a good relationship went bad. The designer had a great concept but when he let communications lag before responding, was difficult to get on the phone, and generally didn’t make time until several days would go by. My advice, never let anyone wait for your feedback. Send it or tell them when it’s coming. It makes a world of difference.

About the Author: Holly Kim is a Product Development Project Manager at Groopti, a New York based website for making and selling user-generated furniture. Connect with Holly via Email or Twitter

Read the original article HERE.

What is Creativity?

Most of us don’t understand creativity, but all of us appreciate it. Marketers spend all their energy seeking creative solutions to the challenge of building enduring and successful brands. Creating innovative products and brands people can’t get enough of is an elusive reality for many businesses-yet innovation happens everyday all over the world.

Knowing that innovation is happening everywhere, and not wanting to be left behind, most enterprises want to be really good at innovation if they are to create competitive advantage in the marketplace. This is where the organizational discipline of “design thinking” comes in play. It’s a trendy term that implies a higher value method for delivering creativity and innovation. It’s jargon.

Innovation is Radical not Incremental

Radical innovation is what happens when something unexpected shows up, and it just happens to be something people where waiting for – just not asking for – like Facebook, the Swiffer, and an iPad. Every one of these innovations was not based on user needs. Radical innovation is not about function and form, but about meaning – never driven by users.

So what then is the basis for creativity within the innovation process? The answer is simple – a creative mind with the passionate desire to pursue an un-proven and perhaps un-needed idea at just the right time.

Most enterprises aren’t set up for investing and pursuing un-proven and un-needed ideas. They’re organized around risk-averse quantifiable disciplines to make profit and return value to the owners of capital invested. Managing process requires linear thinking creativity does not.

Creativity Requires the Right Dirt

Like life, creativity within organizations requires the presence of specific elements and in precise quantities. We all want more creativity. For creativity (and innovation) to thrive in organizations, the dirt has to be right. If it’s not right, then innovations coming out of the enterprise will most likely be incremental - one feature or benefit better than what the other guys are doing at a cheaper price. Flat-screen TVs come quickly to mind.

In our me-too cluttered marketplace, incremental innovation is not enough to drive much change in behavior or demand. Nor will it propose new meanings and context that’s highly valued by the marketplace. Building the ecosystems within organizations that spawn greater creativity and innovation is not something every organization will be good at. That’s why so many business leaders and consultancies embraced the idea of design thinking. It’s a way of making creativity within organizations a linear process. Business leaders love linear process and efficiency.

Jargon may make designers sound smarter, but it doesn’t enhance their creativity. Nor will it provide market leading innovation.

More Creativity within Organizations Requires the Dirt be Comprised of:

• An engaged and passionate leadership with a big vision of change
• The vision and purpose is shared amongst all stakeholders
• A healthy shared acceptance of risk playing out on the edges of what’s possible
• Talented and highly skilled people who share the vision and pursuit as their own
• Money
• Time

Take any of these essential elements away, or have them not be in the proper quantities and you can call the innovation process anything you like, but it doesn’t make creativity a force alive within your organization.

All People are Creative

Creativity is the unique expression of our most basic human nature. Everything that ever was, is now, or will ever be, is at first, a formless idea swirling in the goo of creativity inside someone’s head. There is no special club one has to be a member of to express their innate creativity. Both right and left brains are welcome and necessary.

What’s awesome about creativity is it’s such an inclusive thing. Everyone likes creativity because everyone believes they’re creative. And the good news is they’re right!

The behaviors necessary for people to be creative don’t require special knowledge – just empathy and awareness of human needs and being sensitive to the people and culture you’re immersed in.

From that experience, people will creatively develop the specific knowledge and wisdom to frame up the problem and develop the organic ability to create and enact the right solutions. I suppose you could call that design thinking if it makes you feel better. Call it whatever you want. At the end of the day, the desired element is creativity.

Not all Organizations are Creative

There are plenty of creative people designing away inside business organizations that are not driven by creativity or innovative. Every organization can’t be Apple even though they possess all the components that make Apple-type companies possible. This is what makes organizational creativity so elusive. Consequently academia (those that teach but cannot do) tries to provide the doers with fancy terms and quantifiable thinking models to make creativity and problem solving something more predictable and dependable. Seemingly, the more organizations try to mandate creativity as a core competency, the less creative and innovative they are. It’s a bit like dancing with your shoe laces tied together.

Creativity is a phenomenon not a process. Design is process, engineering is a process, and marketing is a process. CEOs who value a culture of strict process usually lead enterprises devoid of the creativity that drives radical innovations that change the world for all us.

Creativity doesn’t require terminology to help people be more creative or organizations more innovative.

Visionary CEO Elon Musk had the foresight to deliver a high end 109.000 dollar price point roadster over the past few years which at once shattered many myths about both the aesthetics and performance capabilities of electric cars. Boasting a 0 to 60 MPH acceleration of less then 4 seconds and a 245 mile range the roadster has set a yet to be challenged standard in the industry. While on the surface the vehicle might sometimes be derided plaything for the uber rich and especially the Hollywood set the decision to bring to market a high end electric sports car has already branded a certain prestige and status which has served the firm well in terms of attraction and desirability. Mr. Musk has also had the bravado to articulate a vision of a post-internal combustion era for automobiles decades in the future and must be credited for being the only one offering a highway drivable all electric vehicle years before
Nissan and Chevy entered the ring in 2011.

The initial manufacturing run of Tesla Roadsters (about 2600) has will end as of early 2012 and the companies full efforts will be focused on the manufacture of the Model S four door sedan which will be available by summer of 2012. Although it may well be argued now that Tesla now will have a vehicle which is affordable by the upper middle class in addition to the top 1 percent the availability of a mass produced all electric vehicle by a company that only came into existence in 2003 is a feat in itself. It can also realistically be argued that Tesla may well be directly be responsible for the accelerated adoption of lithium ion battery technology as an industry standard for electric vehicles and may have indirectly have been reason for the majors to have more aggressively pursued the production of there own electric vehicle offerings. Recent partnerships with the likes of Toyota and Daimler have enhanced their credibility as both a supplier of proprietary technologies and a leader in both power train and battery development.

The electric motor is inherently more efficient then internal combustion engines and by virtue of having less moving parts has a lower breakdown rate and a lower maintenance cost. The key stumbling blocks remain range limitations (which Lithium Ion batteries have done much to diminish) and and the still sparse availability of charging stations. The gradual proliferation of 240 volt and very recently 480 volt charging stations have the potential to be a game changer in the coming years. Although not yet readily available and requiring special power lines the installation the 480 volt chargers would allow for a full charge in less then half and hour. One point of note that might be questionable has been Tesla’s non-involvement when several other manufacturers of electric cars agreed on a standardized approach to charging in October of 2011. (It should be noted that adapters do exist)

The upcoming Model S will be offered in four different incarnations based on various range capabilities, 160 miles, 230 miles and 300 miles respectively in addition the high performance model. A modest 5000 cars are planned to roll out the second half of 2012 with the intention of ratcheting up to 20,000 by 2013. The body frame and structure of the Model S will be 98% aluminum (one wonders whether Magnesium was an option?) in contrast to the primarily carbon fiber Roadster. The B-pillars between the front and rear doors as well the bumper system make use of a high strength steel so this more traditional metal comes into play when ensuring and enhancing safety becomes an issue, Whereas the carbon fiber Roadster body bore some similarities and shared some parts with the Lotus Elise. The Model S represents an entire ground up design with an entirely new platform architecture. One key aspect of this is the battery pack in the actual floor which in turn adds to the stability and safety of the vehicle. The gearbox and motor are fitted into rear suspensions sub-framed as with the Roadster the batteries and motor have a liquid cooling system which in turn maintains a temperature that allows the battery pack to operate at peak efficiency. Most notable about the interior is the centerpiece touch screen which in addition to navigation and GPS will allow for the inclusion of additional applications. One is intrigued by the cross-fertilization of designers and engineers which often has included people with non-automotive and the net result of a disruptive, if not revolutionary, technology.

Some weeks back it was announced that the 2012 production run has been sold out (cars are reserved through a down payment program), and it has been articulated by Mr. Musk that the company expects profitability by 2013. Tesla is headquartered in Palo Alto, California and will manufacture the Model S at a 350,000 sq. ft facility in Fremont, California. Of note to those among our readers who are engineers and designers is the fact that Tesla’s ramp-up will require a doubling of the size of their 1400 strong workforce over the course of 2012, and as a result, it currently has hundreds of jobs listed on there website. Head of human resources, Arnmon Geshuri, who previously worked for Google from 2004 through 2009 during that companies biggest growth phase, has articulated a doubling of the Tesla workforce both in 2012 and 2013. In addition to looking for the creme de la creme of vehicle technicians, electrical, and designer engineers, the company is very much on the lookout for those who think outside the box who can bring creative thinking to their work environments. This often means pulling from outside the auto industry to fill its ranks.

We can well assume that simple availability of a car with a 300 mile range will in and of itself be a game changer which can dispel issues such as range anxiety and expect this to be be part of a longer term trend for greater ranges among electric vehicles in general coming years. We can also expect an incremental tweaking of Lithium Ion battery technology which will more then likely improve performance over coming years simultaneous to economies of scale reducing the cost of Lithium Ion battery packs. Even the most guarded and conservative estimates expect an over 50% reduction in cost by the end of this decade with more optimistic projections anticipating up to 75%. This could well mean we could be down to anywhere from 200 to 400 dollars per KWH by 2020. The DOE has even more optimistic projections of 125 dollars per KWH by 2020. This may well involve a yet unrealized breakthrough technology.

If it can indeed live up to it’s stated performance and specs we can conclude that the much anticipated Tesla Model S may well represent the gold standard in terms of the best available mass produced electric car in 2012 and look forward to its delivery this summer. Kudos to Elon Musk, Franz Von Holhausen and Peter Rawlinson for accelerating the future into the present.

Click To View Images:

Article Written By: David J Mazovick