Page 1

your focus on innovation, collaboration and change > 002 > november 2012 > jeffrey baumgartner > jon foster-pedley > andy radka > gideon rosenblatt > david simoes-brown > lisa gansky > more‌ read online > download and keep > subscribe to web viewer > get more content >

innovative onions > november 2012 > the editor >


Thinking out loud

It’s Halloween and I’m sitting here having to type this with one hand as I watch the blood run freely from a nasty wound on my left arm, which is reminding me about the link between Halloween, creativity and innovation. Has anyone noticed how schools have been lambasted in recent years for sucking the creativity out of children? Well, parents are now doing the same thing and, when Halloween comes round, the kids are setting aside their own inherent creativity and opting to buy their costumes rather than making them as we did in the “good old days” when I was a boy. And it’s not just the youngsters. Trot along to any Halloween party for grown ups and the scene is the same; everyone has gone out and spent small fortunes on shop-bought monster costumes instead of using some imagination, a pile of old clothes, some left over curtain material, a few yards of ribbon and some old paint and make-up. What would take us hours to do, now takes us a few seconds and we don’t even have to take our jeans and t-shirts off. All we do is pull our cheap costumes over the top of our day clothes and we’re ready to trick or treat.

Is it any wonder that we can’t apply our minds to innovative thinking on a regular and commercial basis if, once a year, we struggle to make ourselves an outfit that will wow others into giving us an apple and a couple of nuts? I never thought I’d see the day when Halloween became a sign that our ability to move the human race forward through creativity, imagination, innovation and the ability to sew a few rags together was seriously threatened. I have a great deal more to say on this topic but, for now, I have to get out of this stupid Zorro outfit and have this large Z-shaped wound attended to.

David Drysdale Editor

innovative onions > november 2012 > contents >




Issue number 002 > November 2012 > 02 theesteem Editor Thinking out loud > 04 Gonion, a man of ideas > 05 A simple anti-conventional thinking exercise by Jeffrey Baumgartner > 09 Re-creating ourselves by Jon FosterPedley > 13 Do you know the answer? > 14 Heating up the leader’s piano by Andy Radka > 16 Why so many social change organizations struggle by Gideon Rosenblatt > 19 What motivates humans tolove/belonging collaborate by David Simoes-Brown > 21 In my neighbourhood by Lisa Gansky >



Š 2012 Innovat ive Onions

innovative onions > september 2012 > gonion >



Š 2012 Innovat ive Onions

innovative onions > november 2012 > jeffrey baumgartner > creativity >


A simple anticonventional thinking (ACT) exercise By Jeffrey Baumgartner

innovative onions > november 2012 > jeffrey baumgartner > creativity >


You are probably familiar with the classic creative thinking exercises of listing as many uses as you possibly can for a brick, a box or a similar commonplace object. It is good for practicing creative thinking and is often used in tests to measure creativity, with quantity and diversity of uses indicating the level of creativity. This exercise, of course, is based on brainstorming: having a problem and trying to devise as many solutions as you possibly can.

The anticonventional exercise An alternative approach pushes you toward anticonventional thinking (ACT). Imagine an empty shoe box and lid. Rather than try and come up with lots of uses for the box, make a list of openended questions (in other words, questions which require more than a yes or no answer) about the box. Non-open-ended questions are acceptable only if they are the precursor to an open-ended question, for example, “Is the shoe box happy?” followed by “Why or why not?” Aim for about 25 questions. Do not be boring with

your questions. You want to understand this shoe box, you want to know its deepest emotions. You want to know what drives it, what kind of history it has and its intimate secrets. As you do this, think about the possible answers. These will inspire new questions. For instance, if you are in America and the shoe box was made in Vietnam, you might ask how it feels about being in America and how it copes with the language difference. Finally, I want you to come up with five really outrageous and crazy things you could do with the box you now know so well. No boring ideas. Please do not even think

about them. If something boring, like “put shoes in it” comes to mind, reject the idea immediately. Unless an idea is crazy, it is not worth consideration. Only crazy ideas are welcome. Moreover, you must limit yourself to five ideas. So, if an idea is not really outrageous, think about how you can make it more outrageous. Otherwise reject it and move on. We don’t have time for ordinary, conventional ideas here! As you do this, think about what you have learned about the box while asking questions. Think about what the box might like to be doing. Move the box around in your mind. In your mind’s eye, take it to

innovative onions > november 2012 > jeffrey baumgartner > creativity >


different places you know and think about the box in those places. By now, you should have five very creative ideas. Not more, not less. How creative are your ideas? What do you think of your ideas? What about the approach? Why it was anticonventional thinking This exercise had a couple of fundamental differences to the usual exercise – and this reflects the ACT approach. Firstly, you focused your mental energy, not on ideas but on asking questions and understanding the core issue – the box – in depth. If you are an artist, writer

or exceptionally creative person, you probably realise that you already do something like this when looking for ideas. But most people do not think about the problem, they focus their creative energy on the ideas. Ironically, that’s why their ideas tend to be less creative! Creativity is not so much about the ideas as about how you perceive the issue at hand. Secondly, rather than ask for as many ideas as possible, I allowed you only five ideas. And I made it very clear that I did not want conventional, boring ideas. Why was this? Most people’s minds,

when tasked with solving problems, busily reject or censor ideas that are too outrageous. The traditional instruction of writing down as many ideas as possible does not change the way the mind works in this respect. It will still reject outrageous ideas. So, the assumption behind ACT is that we can trick the mind to do the opposite of what it usually does by giving it instructions to reject conventional ideas in favour of unconventional ideas. In other words, we trick the mind into thinking anticonventionally. Application in daily life If you want to try and apply ACT to simple problems,

innovative onions > november 2012 > jeffrey baumgartner > creativity >


challenges and goals, follow the example above. When faced with a challenge, ask lots and lots of questions in order to understand it better. Visualise it. Visually move it around in your head. Then look for a single creative solution, rejecting any conventional ideas that come to mind as you do so. Once you have a creative solution, test it in your mind. Think about how you would apply it. If you continue to like it, build upon it. Make it more outrageous. Once you have done that, ask yourself: what steps must I take to make the idea happen. If you cannot make it happen, reject it and start again.

Jeffrey Baumgartner Author of The way of the Innovation Master Editor asks, “Is this box blue because it’s sad and what has made it sad?” Gonion asks, “What 27 things will it take to cheer this box up?”

innovative onions > november 2012 > jon foster-pedley > creativity >


Re-creating ourselves By Jon Foster-Pedley

innovative onions > november 2012 > jon foster-pedley > creativity >


I believe we are all born creative. The question is: how can we remain creative as we grow up? And how can we recapture it once we feel we have lost it?

As we pass through a repressive education system we can count ourselves lucky if we emerge with much confidence in our own creativity, an intact imagination or a lively sense of questioning and experimentation. And all too often, creativity becomes a special case; a magic attribute of the “creatives” rather than being owned as a fundamental capability at the core of each of our identities.

seems to strike some people as at best irrelevant … and at worst positively disruptive.” Making life worthwhile Creativity, to me, involves acts of imagination that add value. In the world we are in and the world to come, we’ll need to make sense, together, of social and technological complexities and challenges we can barely imagine, and come up with new answers and new ways of making life worthwhile, safe and inspiring. This is true of business, of government, of medicine, of science, of politics, of community, of family and of ourselves individually.

Part of the problem is that the idea of creativity itself has been put into a box. Ken Robinson, in ‘Mind the Gap’, puts it like this: “Creativity has become hopelessly stereotyped. First, creativity is associated with particular types of activities, mainly the arts. For that reason, it is thought to be marginal But who and what are the to academic and economic success. creatives? Creativity is not locked into the creative industries. In Second, only certain sorts of fact, according to research done people are thought to be creative. by London School of Business As a result, it’s often thought that and Creative London, only about creativity can’t be taught. Third, a third of creatives (and by this I creativity is thought to involve mean those engaged in the arts, free and spontaneous behaviour. design, music, multimedia etc.) In that respect, it’s sometimes work in the creative industries thought to be the opposite of are rooted in those skills. The discipline and high standards. On others work in the rest of industry all counts, promoting creativity and government. In addition,

we talk now of a rising creative class independent of the creative industries. This “Creative Class” – which makes up 30% of the US workforce – has enjoyed job growth at three times the national average and also enjoys higher incomes. Richard Florida, author of three leading books on the topic, defines the core of the Creative Class as people whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology and/or new creative content. “In addition,” he says, “all members of the Creative Class – whether they are artists or engineers, musicians or computer scientists, writers or entrepreneurs – share a common creative ethos that values creativity, individuality, difference and merit.” We all know we need discipline, coordination and intellect. With these in place, add initiative and you have a new level of competitiveness. Add creativity and then passion, and you are operating at a new level of ability. The first three you can probably buy, the last three you can’t. They are voluntary, and emerge from the conditions and encouragement you set up for them.

innovative onions > november 2012 > jon foster-pedley > creativity >


Creative transformations So, how do we re-learn creativity? My own practice in education, together with a raft of research, shows that it is remarkable how quickly, under the right conditions, we can “re-create” ourselves. I have found that in a bruised South Africa, learners often lack confidence in themselves as thinkers and creators. But, with appropriate encouragement and method, the intellectual and creative transformations are nothing short of astounding. Skills we can learn to reclaim our creativity and practice include questioning, suspending judgement, keen observation, reflection and sense-making, experimentation and working with “fast forward failure”. When we practice open-minded, open-hearted questioning we allow ourselves to see beyond the everyday assumptions we hold. By suspending judgment we allow ourselves to accept the new. By observing well we gather more information to fuel our minds. By reflecting we allow our minds to

change and see new patterns and possibilities. By experimenting courageously we test and learn quickly. “Fast forward failure” is simply trial-and- error supported by an acute focus on learning and risk management, achieved by capturing mistakes early while they are small, correcting them and moving forwards. Ambition and optimism are not easy in tough times, but survival and success demands it. You first The first important step to building a more original and dynamic business, organisation, family, city or country is learning how to effectively become more innovative in one’s own work, life and strategies. Your first innovation needs to be on yourself.

Jon Foster-Pedley Co-founder and owner of Huddlemind; Owner and CEO of Foster-Pedley Learning; Professor of creativity, strategy and innovation at the Polytechnic of Namibia; Senior lecturer in strategy, innovation and learning at the Graduate School of Business UCT Gonion: If I innovate on myself anymore I won’t be me anymore. Even when I tried disruptive innovation, it set me back ten years. I quit.

innovative onions > innovation | collaboration | change >


innovative onions > november 2012 > collaboration >


Do you know the answer? Students, with all the gadgets they have at their disposal, seem to be getting mixed messages and finding themselves in trouble because of collaboration. There is obviously a split between industry and academic points of view and students are despairing at where the line in the sand, if any, is actually drawn. Students are suggesting that working together on a test is collaboration but their professors are calling it cheating. One thing is certain – it can’t be both. In one University, Harvard, more than a hundred students are being investigated and may be suspended or have their diplomas taken away. This was seemingly the result of a professor discovering that test results from different candidates showed the same answers.

So which of these would you hire? The Collaborators? The Cheats? The Harvard Professor? None of the above?

Gonion: I’ll take the cheats because the collaborators managed to get framed and the professor has too much time on his hands and can’t use it very creatively.

innovative onions > november 2012 > andy radka > leadership >


Heating up the leader’s piano by Andy Radka

innovative onions > november 2012 > andy radka > leadership >


Are the simple acts of seeing the light or feeling the heat enough to bring about a change in people’s behaviour? It appears to be pretty sensible and relatively straightforward so it must be worth considering. You can convince people of the need to change by persuasion, coaching, development, influencing and leading. They may then ‘see’ the need and make the change. If not, performance management and measurement could apply some ‘heat’ to help facilitate change. Or is it all about a flexible combination of the Eureka moment of seeing the light, reinforced by the application of intensive heat for good measure by a leadership that can’t afford to take any chances? And speaking of leadership, why do most of us use the noun instead of the verb Leading? If Leadership is about anything it’s surely about Leading. It’s also about behaviour and it must surely be easier to recognise and understand the concept of leadership when we see it in the context of a verb; when we actually see what it looks like in action. Whether leading from the front and guiding people or from behind and supporting people, surely people expect you to be taking a fair amount of responsibility and, consequently, some responsible action (not just moving about a bit). I have to admit that choosing someone to support Leadership Learning in your organisation could be decision you may not wish to make, which is why I have included the piano as part of my story title.

Imagine you have been left a piano in the will of a long lost Aunt. This prompts you to think about learning to play the instrument since you had always been interested but never had the opportunity. You advertise for a tutor and there are two applicants. One has studied and played for years and has practised his tutoring skills successfully with a number of learners. The other candidate has never played the piano but has read many books on the subject and has watched the highest rated training videos closely. He also knows all the latest theories about how to tutor and how to play piano. Which one do you choose? Now, what about your choice when selecting someone to support Leadership Learning in your organisation? Difficult, isn’t it? Or is it? Answers by email please to…

Andy Radka Creative Partners Editor: The one with all the experience Gonion: the one who can play the theme to The Sting

innovative onions > november 2012 > gideon rosenblatt > change >


Why So Many Social Change Organizations Struggle By Gideon Rosenblatt

Social change is different today than it was in the 1960s, in large part because of a professionalized “social change sector.”  We now have institutions dedicated to solving just about any societal challenge you could possibly imagine. We just can’t get enough of these nonprofit organizations. We’ve already got a million of them in the United States alone, and thousands more file for their charitable status each year. Why so many? Well, there are a lot of issues that need attention, and for each issue, there are different solutions. To protect wild salmon, for example, one organization might work to dissuade consumers from buying farm-raised

salmon, while another might work to remove dams on salmon-bearing rivers. Multiply this diversity of issues and solutions by all the different locations in which they might exist, and you end up with a lot of different missions, and a lot of non-profits struggling to makes ends meet fulfilling them. This superabundance of non-profit missions isn’t a problem itself. A diverse, localized social change sector should actually be good for society, and it could be more viable for the organizations themselves were it not for a set of assumptions many of them use to run themselves. This article tackles one of those assumptions.

innovative onions > november 2012 > gideon rosenblatt > change >


The Niche Audience Problem One of the most basic, most fundamentally wrong, assumptions many non-profit organizations make is that lots of people should care a lot about their mission. It’s just not true, and that’s because people have finite attention. Like it or not, issues do compete with one another for our attention. The more niche the issue is, the less likely it is to attract attention from a lot of people, and that’s even more true when the issue is sliced up into different locations and solutions. There are people who care about removing dams in the Pacific Northwest to protect wild salmon, but there just aren’t that many who care enough to become dedicated financial supporters. This gets to the heart of the problem. It’s hard to build big audiences around niche missions. And yet, big audiences are what you need to build the kinds of individual donor bases that nonprofits are told are essential to their long-term viability. This leads to two types of problem. On the one hand, we have hundreds of thousands of small non-profits allocating scarce organizational resources to marketing, outreach and development in the hope of building viable individual donor programs. Yet because these organizations work on solutions and issues that

are simply too narrow to draw large audiences, the vast majority are simply lucky to muddle along, cash-strapped and competing for attention with other hard-working organizations in their community. On the other hand, there are some organizations that are able to break through and grab the kind of attention that’s needed to build a thriving individual donor base. These organizations invest heavily in marketing, communications, outreach and fundraising. In most cases, their success depends on a core group of major donors, as well as board members who are willing to use their social capital and good standing in a community to attract other donors. These personal connections are the key to success with individual donor fundraising. But organizations don’t get there without substantial investments in building the kind of polish these community leaders require in order to put their name behind an organization. Niche missions are a problem only because the non-profit community is so deeply wedded to individual donor fundraising and the larger audiences they require. There are organizations that are better suited for developing individual donor programs; organizations that define their mission more by audience than by specific solutions to particular issues. For most

organizations working on niche missions, however, building a diverse donor base works against the naturally more limited appeal of their mission. The point is, that investing in marketing and outreach to artificially increase the attention that a niche issue would normally attract is a bit like the consumer marketing that big brands do to artificially stimulate additional demand for products. In a way, non-profits are now doing the same thing, and it’s not just causing them to compete unsustainably with one another for attention and donors, it’s also wasting huge amounts of precious resources that might otherwise go towards catalyzing real social change. Paying the Right Amount of Attention Here’s another way of thinking about the problem. Most of us use laundry detergent. It matters to us a bit, but not all that much. It’s just one of several thousand things in our lives that matter but not enough to think about too much. As a result, most of us don’t make a habit of reading about laundry detergent on a regular basis. So, here’s a bit more heresy. Non-profit missions are like detergent, or toothpaste, in this regard. We care about them, but most of us just can’t afford to think about them that much. As a result, most of us don’t really need to read that monthly email newsletter on removing dams to restore wild

innovative onions > november 2012 > gideon rosenblatt > change >


salmon, even if the staff working on that mission might think otherwise. That’s not quite fair, you might say, saving the whales, stopping climate change, and preventing predatory lending in communities of color – surely these things matter more than toothpaste? Yes, of course they do – at least at one level. But the problem is that there are just so many of these issues competing for our attention that our poor human brains simply can’t keep track of them all. We might be able to pay a little bit of attention to many of these missions, but we certainly can’t focus in-depth on all of them.  People have finite attention. The commercial sector has a very functional solution to this problem of limited attention: the marketplace. When we go to a supermarket, we find a wide selection of things that we care about a little bit. The store aggregates all these things for us so that we can easily and efficiently pay just the right amount of attention to them. Laundry detergent, toothpaste, mayonaise and AAA batteries, all in one, convenient decision-making process. The retailer plays an important role as a kind of attention intermediary between us and the companies that make the products we care about. There are, of course, a few product companies

whose offerings are so attention-worthy they’re able to build their own retail stores: Apple and Nike are two examples. For the most part though, it’s more efficient for product companies to rely on intermediaries to reach customers, and the point I’m making here is that this isn’t just about distribution efficiencies, it’s also about helping people to more effectively manage their attention to products, and I believe that the social change sector faces some of these same problems. I’m not advocating some kind of non-profit superstore. Social change is much more complex than that. You can’t just throw an issue into your shopping cart, swipe your card and solve the problem, but there may be a role for a kind of attention intermediary for the social change sector, and that, not coincidentally, these organizations are the ones that are best positioned to build individual donor programs.

Gideon Rosenblatt Gonion: : I liked the idea of smashing down dams from the safety of my local supermarket, or did I miss the point?

innovative onions > november 2012 > david simoes-brown > collaboration >





transcendence esteem

self-actualisation love/belonging aesthetic








What motivates humans to collaborate? By David Simoes-Brown

innovative onions > november 2012 > david simoes-brown > collaboration >


Do we ever really know what made us successful?

I’ve always been used to seeing Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs as a five layer pyramid with ‘self actualisation’ at the top. There’s a lot in his 1943 theory that is relevant to why people would want to collaborate on a deep human motivational level. The need to belong and be accepted in the third level and the desire for the respect of others on the fourth level are two examples of why we are social in business as well as in life. My nagging doubt about the model was that the apex of human motivation is shown to be selfish, concerned with fulfilling one’s own potential to the utmost. Sure, winning is satisfying at the level of Esteem. Yes, fulfilling your personal potential, perhaps in your job or career, is Self Actualising.  But what next?  Maslow said that needs must be satisfied in the given order. Aims and drive always shift up to the next needs level. So I was delighted to discover that Maslov, in his original writing, draws an interesting distinction here by saying, “I have recently found it more and more useful to differentiate between two kinds of self-actualizing people; those who were clearly healthy, but with little or no experiences of transcendence, and those in whom transcendent experience was important and even central…” These transcendence needs are defined by going beyond what you can become and embrace helping others to achieve self actualisation. This opens up the possibility of human motivation to collaborate at the highest level. Maslov notes that, “The transcenders are far more apt to be innovators, discoverers of the new, than are the

healthy self-actualizers… Transcendent experiences and illuminations bring clearer vision … of what ought to be, what actually could be… and therefore of what might be brought to pass.” Viktor Frankl later used Selftranscendence to create his own version of Maslow’s Hierarchy to show this. So it’s no surprise that in open innovation we often come across people with a highly developed sense of what we call business empathy. They easily recognise the benefits of collaboration on a rational level but are also motivated by helping people and enjoy it on an emotional level.   Sustainable partnerships are built on a passionate and compassionate commitment to helping people identify, pursue and reach their own personal, unique potential.  We’re witnessing the development of a ‘post-competitive business’ behaviour in this regard and it’s very exciting.

David Simoes-Brown Co-founder and Strategy Partner, 100% Open Gonion: Who is Victor?

innovative onions > november 2012 > lisa gansky > innovation >


In September 2012, the California State Assembly passed new legislation that would assure legal status for small-scale cottage industries that sell baked goods and other “nonpotentially hazardous” food items produced in home kitchens. We’re talking homemade cookies and brownies, jams, jellies, fruit pies, mixed nuts, flavored vinegars and other yummy stuff that’s already legal in more than thirty other states that already have similar legislation in place.

In my neighbourhood by Lisa Gansky

Freshly signed by the governor, the California Homemade Food Act clears the way for home cooks in the world’s eighth largest economy to make and sell a wide range of products without the need to invest in commercial kitchen space or comply with the zoning and regulatory measures that govern larger producers and producers of meat and dairy products specifically omitted from this law. The stated goal of the legislation is to stimulate micro-enterprise development at the neighborhood level, and “to connect food to local communities, small businesses and environmental sustainability” while protecting consumers from artisan foods that contain potentially hazardous ingredients primarily oils, meat and dairy.

Economic benefits Elected officials are beginning to grasp the potential economic benefits of products and business practices that Share Economy leaders have been promoting for years. The Sustainable Economies Law Center provides regular updates on Cottage Food laws and other policies supporting microentrepreneurship and addressing the grey area that sharing based services and current community needs have on our existing policies. Proponents of the legislation claim that existing zoning and food safety rules place an unnecessary burden on entry-level food industry entrepreneurs. To circumvent these barriers, forward-thinking foodies in one of the nation’s most food-obsessed states have established shared, communitybased, commercial kitchens and

innovative onions > november 2012 > lisa gansky > innovation >


culinary incubators where smallscale producers can get a foothold in properly zoned and inspected workspaces; for example:

In the Kitchen Another community kitchen and culinary education center in the small town of Nevada City, California.

La Cocina A San Francisco nonprofit established in 2005 to cultivate low-income food entrepreneurs as they formalize and grow their businesses by providing affordable commercial kitchen space, industry-specific technical assistance and access to market  and capital opportunities. Three Stone Hearth A worker-owned cooperative that operates a community food production facility and teaching kitchen in Berkeley.

The Share Economy has also supported small-scale food producers by enabling alternative forms of capital investment. Commercial loans are out of reach for most cottage food businesses, but crowdfunding platforms like Three Revolutions, Lucky Ant, Indiegogo, SmallKnot, Kickstarter and, in the UK, Spacehive, have all enabled neighborhood culinary entrepreneurs by allowing them to by-pass the banking system and seek direct funding from individual supporters. The California Homemade Food Act allows these types of grassroots culinary initiatives to divert some of their attention away from grappling with an old economic regulatory environment and focus more on putting people to work, strengthening communities and putting good, local food on the table. Who can argue with that?

Lisa Gansky Chief Instigator, Mesh Editor: This is something that can be extended across lots of sectors but, in many, changes in the law, aren’t needed, just a handful of like-minded people. Gonion: Maybe lawyers could do it, or Government departments. I know, bad ideas!

innovative onions > innovation | collaboration | change >


about anything whatsoever ow kn u yo Do ration or change? innovation, collabo either rience of innovation, pe ex y an ve ha u yo Do re? tal, unsurpassed failu to or s es cc su al ob gl at and in an interesting, upbe e rit w u yo n Ca ptional)? informative way (o letters of impressive looking g rin st a ve ha u yo Do nal just ice to know but optio (n e m na ur yo r te af the same)? free e and preferably riskm so le ho w a ve ha u Do yo sense of humour? ould get in st one of these, you sh ju d ke tic ve u’ yo If or just touch with editor@ n or te stuff for publicatio ria op pr ap e m so in send at it. re we can have a look he w to k lin a e id ov pr


innovative onions > november 2012 > colophon >


Nothing in the innovative onions (io) magazine or website may be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publishers. io accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the views and opinions expressed by any of our magazine or website contributors.

Editor David Drysdale Art direction & design Richard Gregory Online production and development Andrew Larkin Marketing & events Andy Parker Advertising & Sponsorship

All material, including text, artwork, graphics and photography submitted to io are sent at the owner’s risk and no liability for loss or damage is accepted by io or its agents. There is no charge for subscribing to io magazine or for accessing certain levels of the web site. We reserve the right to make charges for specific publications and areas of the website. io magazine is published by Innovative Onions Limited Innovative Onions Limited is registered in England, registered number 7297068. The io website is updated regularly and always available. Copyright © 2010-2012 Innovative Onions Limited. All rights reserved. Bristol & West House, Post Office Road, Bournemouth BH1 1BL

your focus on innovation, collaboration and change > 001 > september 2012 > the regeneration issue > mitch ditkoff > langdon morris > michael dalton > stephen shapiro > michelle jones > introducing gonion > more… read online > download and keep > subscribe to web viewer > get more content >

Innovative Onions issue no 02  

your focus on innovation, collaboration and change > 002 > november 2012 > jeffrey baumgartner > jon foster-pedley > andy radka > gideon ros...