Structure Vs Texture

Meeting, workshops, research..lot of thinking and no writing makes me a restless man..

Here\'s something I\'ve been thinking about for past few days. Looking at planners and planning. Following are some observations and opinions on the way planners/planning work(s)..

Most of the planners that I have seen so far broadly fall in one of the following two categories:

1.The Structure Group:
The first and the larger group comprise the ‘method people’. This set is very logical, sometimes insanely driven by the process flow; they go by the different thinking and planning templates that they have been exposed to.
One usually hears them starting every project with phrases like
“let’s define the problem first”
“what research data do we have?”
“what is happening in the category?”
“are their any case studies available?” etc.

Closer examination of this approach reveals a distinct mindset - a kind of objective and dispassionate mindset. This planner type looks at most of the marketing and communication situations from a stranger’s standpoint. They always distance their personal experiences and instincts from the problem or task at hand. They believe that almost every problem can be approached best, scientifically. They are like the old wise men – who are dispassionate and thoroughly objective – sometimes detached from everyone and everything around. This is perhaps the classic adult behaviour.

Well this kind of adults are not the only ones who become planners there’s another group here’s what I’ve observed about them..

2.The Texture Gang:
This gang is smaller but is growing. Many of these planners have come from diverse backgrounds – beyond marketing management or advertising. They are more instinctive, intuitive and sometimes plain ‘biased’ towards a certain way of thinking.
Here’s what you hear them saying as they embark on a communication or branding task –
“what do you think about it personally ?,
“I feel that..”
“I have seen that..”
“you know, we need to make this candy a lot less sweeter than this.”
“come let’s brainstorm some ideas on this first..”

This mindset is almost opposite of what we saw with the structure guys. As an approach this is more personal and opinion driven.
The second group almost behaves like an opinionated young child in its approach to things. These people bring their strong likes and dislikes to the table and do not hesitate in questioning almost every existing paradigm.
Having said that it does not mean that this group is not thinking about the problem, it is just that this second kind of people believe that there is meaning in what they already know and that they should tap into the diverse personal experience as a starting point. And in many ways they value this more than any research – existing or potential.
Some of these planners are matured and look at a problem objectively. They take diverse opinions onboard as they move along their ‘intuitive path to problem solving’. But at the end of it all, this group is predominantly more ‘intuition’ oriented than ‘process’ oriented.

While two very distinct approached exist none of the two approaches is better or worse than the other – both of them are extremes in their own way. Also, as my ex-boss used to say – there does not exist any one formula; always ‘horses for races’. Thus needless to say, that it would not be precise to assume that a fixed pattern can be followed in addressing any marketing or communication problem.

This brings me to the relevance of the many marketing and branding templates that have been ‘set in stone’. I wonder if they were developed to:
1.Ensure that ‘personalities’ or ‘people’ do not take over the ‘process’?
or
2.Make everyone talk the same language?
or
3.Assumes that people working on different problems in different parts of the world can be made to think alike?
or
4.Assumes that the ‘doer’ is less important than ‘what needs to be done’ and ‘the way it needs to be done’

After all in a world of discontinuous change how long can we afford to be linear and predictable in our problem solution methodologies?
In times when human potential is almost redefining its boundaries every new day, how can we afford to chain the flight of intuition and ingenuity to prehistoric processes?

I believe its time we questioned many of our set ways of thinking and processes that we developed in times that had little semblance to the world we are living in today.

Here’s how it works best for me, I try to have the problem definition as the background to some totally disruptive questions, ideas, insights or observations. One of my friends and ex-colleague put it very well “define the problem in as many ways as possible and define the problem as ‘creatively’ as you can.” As we get the initial momentum to work we could add body to our thoughts our arguments and hypotheses by establishing cross-linkages with past research or category experiences or even commission new research. Many of the planning and management tools could come in very handy when we try and steer such a process.